UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 7 November 2025

Reforming Election Nomination Process – Explained

November 7, 2025

Nomination Process Latest News

Frequent disqualifications of candidates on procedural grounds have reignited calls for reforming India’s election nomination process to make it more transparent, fair, and citizen-friendly.

Introduction

India’s electoral process, the cornerstone of the world’s largest democracy, begins long before votes are cast.
Yet, one of its most undemocratic aspects lies in the nomination scrutiny stage, where candidates can be disqualified on minor procedural grounds.
From missing signatures to delayed certificates, technicalities often override democratic principles.
The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, which governs this process, has accumulated layers of procedural rigidity, granting excessive discretion to Returning Officers (ROs).
Experts now argue that this system needs urgent reform to uphold the spirit of free and fair elections.

The Legal Framework Governing Nominations

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, along with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, lays down the framework for candidate nominations.
- Section 33 - Specifies eligibility and procedure for filing nominations.
- Section 34 - Mandates security deposits by candidates.
- Section 36 - Grants the Returning Officer power to scrutinise nominations and reject them for “defects of a substantial character.”
However, the term “substantial character” is undefined, giving ROs sweeping authority.
Furthermore, Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars judicial review during the election process, meaning any challenge can only be raised after the polls, when the harm is already done.
This combination of discretionary power and delayed remedy has made the nomination stage a potential chokepoint for political exclusion, often weaponised against opposition candidates.

Procedural Technicalities and Arbitrary Rejections

Examples across India reveal how technicalities are misused to eliminate candidates even before campaigning begins:
- In Bihar, an RJD candidate was disqualified for leaving a few fields blank in the nomination form.
- In Surat (2024), opposition candidates were rejected after proposers allegedly denied their signatures, leading to an unopposed win for the ruling party.
- In Varanasi (2019), ex-BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav’s nomination was rejected for failing to obtain a certificate within a day.
- In Birbhum, a former IPS officer’s form was invalidated due to a delayed “no-dues” certificate.
Such rejections are legally valid under the current framework but morally corrosive to democracy. They expose how bureaucratic discretion can effectively curtail voter choice.

The Growing Burden of Compliance

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Resurgence India v. Election Commission (2013), which mandated detailed affidavits on assets and criminal records, increased procedural complexity.
Ironically, this created a paradox: false declarations don’t invalidate nominations, but incomplete ones do.
Thus, a candidate who omits a minor detail in good faith can be rejected, while one who lies outright can remain on the ballot.
Common procedural traps include:
- The Oath Trap: Candidates must take the oath after filing but before scrutiny, too early or too late renders it invalid.
- The Treasury Trap: Deposits must be made via treasury challans, often disqualifying candidates who pay via incorrect modes or outside the 3 PM filing window.
- The Notarisation Trap: Missing notarization of affidavits leads to automatic rejection.
- The Certificate Trap: Delay in “no-dues” or clearance certificates from government offices can eliminate a candidacy entirely.
These conditions reward bureaucratic precision over democratic participation, turning the process into a test of procedural compliance rather than popular legitimacy.

Learning from Global Best Practices

In contrast, other democracies treat election officials as facilitators, not gatekeepers.
- United Kingdom: ROs help candidates correct minor errors before deadlines.
- Canada: Provides a 48-hour window for corrections post-scrutiny.
- Germany: Mandates written notice of deficiencies and opportunities for remedy.
- Australia: Encourages early submission to allow corrections and appeals.
These systems recognise that elections should promote participation, not exclusion.

Way Forward

Experts suggest several structural reforms to make the nomination process more democratic and accountable:
Codify Clear Classification of Defects:
- Technical Errors (missing signatures, blank columns, typos) should not justify rejection.
- Authenticity Issues (disputed signatures, false documents) should require verification.
- Statutory Disqualifications (age, dual citizenship, corruption convictions) should lead to outright disqualification.
Guarantee a Correction Window:
- ROs should issue a written notice detailing the defect, citing the legal provision violated, and allow 48 hours for rectification.
Mandate Reasoned Orders:
- Every rejection must include the specific grounds, evidence considered, and justification for why the defect is “substantial.”
Digital-by-Default System:
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) could develop a unified digital portal integrating voter rolls, affidavit submissions, proposer verification, and deposits.
- A public dashboard could display the nomination status, ensuring transparency and minimising human discretion.

Source: TH

Nomination Process FAQs

Q1: What governs India’s election nomination process?

Ans: The Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, govern the nomination and scrutiny procedures.

Q2: Why are nominations often rejected?

Ans: Nominations are rejected for minor procedural errors such as missing signatures, blank fields, or delayed certificates.

Q3: What reforms are being proposed?

Ans: Experts suggest clear defect classifications, a 48-hour correction window, reasoned rejection orders, and digital submissions.

Q4: How do other countries handle nomination scrutiny?

Ans: Nations like the U.K. and Canada allow candidates to correct errors before final rejection, ensuring broader participation.

Q5: What role should the Election Commission play?

Ans: The EC should act as a facilitator ensuring fairness, transparency, and inclusivity in the nomination process.

Rationalising Penal Provisions under Van Adhiniyam 1980

November 7, 2025

Van Adhiniyam 1980 Latest News

The Union Environment Ministry’s Forest Advisory Committee (FAC)—the body responsible for evaluating proposals for diversion of forest land—has given certain recommendations.
The FAC has recommended uniformity and rationalisation in the penal provisions applied under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (formerly Forest Conservation Act, 1980).
This step aims to ensure consistency, fairness, and proportionality in penal actions related to forest land violations.

Understanding the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980

The Act mandates prior approval of the Central Government before using forest land for non-forest purposes, including -
- De-reservation of forests
- Non-forest use or leasing of forest land
- Clear felling of trees
Violation occurs when these activities are undertaken without prior approval.

Penal Compensatory Afforestation (CA) - Concept and Evolution

Definition:
- Penal CA involves restoration or afforestation activities ordered in addition to the legally mandated CA for non-forestry uses such as infrastructure or industrial projects.
- It acts as a punitive restoration measure to offset ecological loss due to unauthorized forest land use.
Earlier practice:
- Penal CA was earlier imposed equivalent to twice the violated forest area, especially when no other monetary penalties existed.
- However, after the introduction of monetary penalties and penal Net Present Value (NPV) guidelines, the practice became inconsistent and case-specific.

Introduction of Penal Net Present Value (NPV)

Concept:
- NPV quantifies the economic worth of environmental services provided by forest ecosystems.
- Under the Van Adhiniyam Rules 2023, penal NPV (up to five times the standard NPV) can be levied for violations.
- This system emerged from Supreme Court directions (2017) that aimed to strengthen environmental accountability.
Need for rationalisation:
- The FAC noted overlapping provisions of penal CA and penal NPV, leading to inconsistent enforcement.
- It therefore recommended rationalising both measures to ensure uniformity and proportionality across cases.

FAC Recommendations

Uniform penal structure:
- Charge penal compensatory afforestation equivalent to the violated forest land area (1:1 ratio).
- Ensure alignment between penal CA and penal NPV mechanisms.
Detailed violation reporting: States must submit detailed reports to the regional offices or ministry headquarters, including the nature of violation, officials responsible for approval or negligence, and action taken under the Act.
Committee formation: A dedicated committee of regional officers and FAC members was constituted to -
- Examine past violations
- Recommend uniform penalty structures
- Submit a consolidated report
Integration with 2023 Amendments: The recommendations are in sync with the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, which introduced streamlined and consolidated guidelines for forest diversion and penal actions.

Way Forward

Codify uniform penalty guidelines to eliminate ambiguity and ensure proportional punishment.
Integrate digital monitoring and reporting systems to track forest land violations in real time.
Enhance inter-agency coordination between the FAC, regional offices, and state forest departments.
Capacity building of enforcement officials to ensure accurate assessment of violations and penalty computation.

Conclusion

The FAC’s recommendations signify a shift towards transparent, consistent, and scientifically grounded enforcement under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.
By rationalising penal compensatory afforestation and NPV provisions, India seeks to balance developmental needs with ecological integrity, ensuring that forest conservation remains central to environmental governance.

Source: IE

Van Adhiniyam 1980 FAQs

Q1: What is the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980?

Ans: The Act regulates diversion of forest land for non-forest use and is violated when activities like clear felling occur without prior Central Government approval.

Q2: What is penal Compensatory Afforestation (CA)?

Ans: Penal CA refers to additional restoration or afforestation measures imposed over and above standard compensatory afforestation to offset ecological loss from unauthorized forest land use.

Q3: What is Penal Net Present Value (NPV)?

Ans: Penal NPV quantifies the environmental value of forests and allows levying up to five times standard NPV for violations.

Q4: Why did the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) recommend rationalisation of penal provisions?

Ans: To ensure uniformity, proportionality, and consistency between penal CA and penal NPV.

Q5: What are the key recommendations of the FAC to strengthen enforcement under the Forest Conservation framework?

Ans: Uniform penal structure (1:1 penal CA), detailed violation reporting by states, committee-led review, and integration of recommendations with the 2023 amendment.

CAG to Audit Major Railway Projects, Green Initiatives and E-Procurement

November 7, 2025

CAG Latest News

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) will audit four key Indian Railways programmes — including suburban train services, the e-procurement platform, and multimodal transport and logistics initiatives — with reports to be presented during the Monsoon Session of Parliament in 2026.
In a parallel move, the CAG has approved the creation of two centralised audit cadres within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department — the Central Revenue Audit (CRA) Cadre and the Central Expenditure Audit (CEA) Cadre — to strengthen expertise and enhance audit quality. The new cadres will become operational from January 1, 2026.

Comptroller and Auditor General of India

CAG of India is the supreme audit authority of the country, responsible for ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of public funds.
The CAG audits receipts and expenditure of the Central and State Governments, public sector undertakings (PSUs), and autonomous bodies, presenting reports to the President or Governor, which are then laid before Parliament or State Legislatures.
The CAG is often called the “Guardian of the Public Purse.”

Constitutional Provision

The CAG’s office is established under Article 148 of the Constitution of India.
Articles 149–151 outline the duties, powers, and reporting responsibilities of the CAG.

Functions and Powers

Audits all receipts and expenditure of the Union and States.
Examines financial propriety, efficiency, and performance in government operations.
Audits government-owned corporations, autonomous bodies, and projects funded by public money.
Submits reports to Parliament and State Legislatures through the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Notable Works Across the Globe

The CAG of India is a member of international audit bodies such as:
- INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions)
- ASOSAI (Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions)
UN Board of Auditors, where India has audited key UN entities like:
- World Health Organization (WHO)
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
- UNESCO
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- United Nations Headquarters (New York)

CAG to Audit Key Railway Programmes Ahead of 2026 Parliament Session

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) will audit four major Indian Railways programmes —
- Suburban train services,
- E-procurement platform,
- Multi-Modal Transport and Logistics Initiatives, and
- Sustainable Rail Transport (ESG and Green Energy).
The reports will be presented in the Monsoon Session of Parliament in 2026.

Focus on Multi-Modal Transport and Logistics Initiatives

The audit will focus on “First Mile–Last Mile” connectivity, Origin-Destination (O-D) pairs, and integration with logistics hubs.
This review gains importance under the National Rail Plan (NRP) 2030, which aims to make Indian Railways “future-ready”.
- The NRP 2030 aims to develop a “future-ready” railway system by creating capacity ahead of demand to meet growth up to 2050.
- Its primary goal is to increase the Railways’ freight modal share to 45% through improved operational capacity, infrastructure expansion, and commercial policy reforms.
The Railway Audit Wing will conduct the audit in FY 2025–26, covering the Eastern and Western Dedicated Freight Corridors and the Golden Quadrilateral network.
The Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Mumbai has been engaged as a knowledge partner for the audit.

IT Audit of Railways’ E-Procurement System

The CAG will conduct an information technology audit of the Indian Railways E-Procurement System, which manages all procurement activities across the railway network.
The objective is to assess efficiency, transparency, and data security in the digital procurement process.

Audit on Sustainable Rail Transport and Green Energy

Another key focus will be an audit on “Sustainable Rail Transport: ESGs and Green Energy” to evaluate Indian Railways’ progress toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2030.
This aligns with India’s climate commitments and global sustainability goals, aiming to assess Railways’ role in promoting environment-friendly transport.

Broader Objective

Through these audits, the CAG aims to provide data-backed insights to help Indian Railways improve operational efficiency, sustainability, and accountability, while ensuring alignment with the country’s infrastructure and climate goals.

CAG to Form Two Specialised Cadres for Centralised Audit Oversight

CAD has approved the creation of two new specialised audit cadres within the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA&AD) — the Central Revenue Audit (CRA) and Central Expenditure Audit (CEA) cadres.
Effective January 1, 2026, the reform aims to centralise and professionalise audit operations, enhancing the quality and efficiency of audits of Central Government finances.
Currently, audits of Central receipts and expenditure are conducted by multiple dispersed state offices, causing fragmentation.
The new system will consolidate over 4,000 audit professionals under central control, enabling better manpower management, reduced dependence on redeployments, and stronger audit coherence nationwide.

Source: IE | TH | ToI

CAG FAQs

Q1: What key Indian Railways projects will the CAG audit?

Ans: The CAG will audit suburban services, e-procurement, multi-modal logistics, and sustainable rail transport, focusing on efficiency, transparency, and environmental goals.

Q2: When will the audit reports be presented?

Ans: The audit reports are scheduled to be presented during the Monsoon Session of Parliament in 2026.

Q3: What is the focus of the multi-modal logistics audit?

Ans: It will assess “First Mile–Last Mile” connectivity, freight corridors, and logistics hubs under the National Rail Plan (NRP) 2030 for boosting freight share.

Q4: What institutional reforms has the CAG introduced?

Ans: Two new cadres — Central Revenue Audit (CRA) and Central Expenditure Audit (CEA) — will enhance audit expertise and centralise operations from January 1, 2026.

Q5: What is the goal of the sustainable rail transport audit?

Ans: To evaluate Indian Railways’ progress toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, aligning with national and global sustainability targets.

8th Pay Commission Needs Better Inflation Measurement for Realistic Pay Revision

November 7, 2025

8th Pay Commission Latest News

At first glance, the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC)—whose terms of reference were approved on October 28—and the Statistics Ministry’s proposal to revise housing inflation in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) may appear unrelated.
However, the two are closely linked. The CPC’s recommendations on pay and pensions significantly influence government expenditure and consumer demand, while CPI inflation determines the dearness allowance (DA) component of government salaries and pensions.
If housing inflation continues to be measured under outdated parameters, it could misrepresent actual inflation trends, leading to distorted pay adjustments.
The MoSPI’s proposed changes aim to update the inflation calculation method, preventing potential over- or under-estimation of inflation once the 8th CPC’s recommendations take effect.

Flaws in Measuring Housing Inflation in India

Housing carries a 10.07% weight in India’s Consumer Price Index (CPI).
To compute this, the Statistics Ministry (MoSPI) surveys 13,000+ houses across 300 towns, including a significant share of government and PSU accommodation.

The Core Problem: Use of HRA as a Proxy for Rent

For government-provided homes, MoSPI uses the House Rent Allowance (HRA) foregone—along with a small licence fee—as a substitute for rent to measure housing inflation.
However, HRA doesn’t reflect market rent; it depends on the occupant’s position and pay grade, not on demand-supply dynamics.
If a senior employee vacates a surveyed house and a junior employee replaces them, the HRA component falls, showing an artificial dip in inflation, even though actual housing conditions remain unchanged.

Pay Revisions Distort the Inflation Trend

Whenever government salaries are revised, such as under the upcoming 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC), HRA values rise automatically, inflating the housing component of CPI — irrespective of real market trends.
A similar distortion occurred eight years ago after a previous Pay Commission revision, confusing both investors and policymakers about the true inflation trajectory.

Why Reform Is Needed

This outdated method causes artificial spikes or drops in housing inflation, undermining the accuracy of CPI and complicating monetary policy decisions.
Revising the approach to reflect real rental values is crucial to ensure credible inflation measurement before the 8th CPC recommendations take effect.

How the 7th Pay Commission Distorted India’s Inflation Data

When the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations took effect in July 2017, they included a 105.6% hike in House Rent Allowance (HRA) for Central government employees.
This administrative change triggered a sharp, artificial surge in housing inflation — from 4.7% in June 2017 to 8.45% in June 2018 — pushing headline CPI inflation up to 4.92%, despite no real increase in housing costs.
- Recognising the distortion, RBI policymakers chose to disregard the inflated data.
- Housing inflation only stabilised by mid-2019, dropping below 5% and later staying around 3–4%, though this understated reality.
In contrast, RBI’s House Price Index showed 6% growth, and MagicBricks’ Rental Index reported 20% quarterly rent increases.
This revealed a growing gap between official data and real market trends — a key reason the 8th CPC now needs a more accurate inflation measure.

MoSPI Proposes Overhaul of Housing Inflation Measurement

To address distortions in housing inflation, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) has proposed major revisions to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) methodology, effective February next year.
Key changes include:
- Excluding government and employer-provided housing from the CPI sample to remove HRA-linked distortions.
- Collecting rent data monthly instead of once every six months for more real-time accuracy.
- Including rural housing inflation in the CPI for the first time.
Economists note that with the 8th CPC due to submit its report in the next 18 months, these updates are timely and crucial.
While housing inflation may appear higher initially, the new approach will make it more representative of actual rental trends and improve the credibility of inflation data.

Source: IE | IT

8th Pay Commission FAQs

Q1: Why is inflation measurement crucial for the 8th Pay Commission?

Ans: Pay and pension hikes are linked to inflation; flawed CPI calculations can lead to distorted pay adjustments and inaccurate economic policymaking.

Q2: What was the issue with housing inflation calculation?

Ans: MoSPI used HRA foregone for government housing as a rent proxy, which depends on employees’ ranks, not market conditions, leading to misleading inflation data.

Q3: How did the 7th Pay Commission distort inflation trends?

Ans: A 105.6% HRA hike in 2017 inflated housing inflation from 4.7% to 8.45%, doubling CPI readings without actual rent increases.

Q4: What reforms has MoSPI proposed?

Ans: Exclude government housing from CPI, collect rent data monthly, and include rural housing inflation to make the index more realistic.

Q5: Why do these reforms matter now?

Ans: With the 8th CPC due in 18 months, updated CPI methods will ensure pay revisions reflect true inflation and ground-level rental trends.