The Case for a National Urbanisation Policy (NUP)

National Urbanisation Policy

National Urbanisation Policy (NUP) Latest News

  • India's 2027 Census, being conducted after a 16-year gap, will continue to classify settlements as urban based on statutory notification.
  • The three census-town criteria are population of at least 5,000, density of at least 400 persons per sq km, and at least 75% of male workers engaged in non-agricultural activities.
  • While this preserves comparability with previous Census years, it fails to capture India’s evolving urban realities. 
  • Economic activity, infrastructure and population growth increasingly extend beyond municipal boundaries, creating a need for a comprehensive National Urbanisation Policy (NUP).

Understanding India’s Urbanisation

  • Uneven and expanding urban landscape:
    • In 2011, India had 377 million urban residents across approximately 8,000 cities and towns. Since then, States have notified another 1,000 statutory towns.
    • The UN estimates that 44% of Indians live in urban areas, with the urban population projected to exceed 720 million by 2050.
    • Around 94% of urban settlements are small towns, while nearly 60% of the urban population lives in Class I cities.
    • Class I cities encompass vastly different urban realities, from megacities such as Mumbai and Delhi to smaller cities such as Mangaluru and Amravati.
    • Peri-urban areas are growing at approximately 4.15% annually, compared to 2.9% within established administrative boundaries.
  • Emerging policy recognition:
    • The Economic Survey 2026 highlighted that India is more urban in functional terms than conventional definitions suggest, citing satellite-based estimates that placed the country at 63% urban in 2015.
    • Recent fiscal initiatives also reflect this shift, for example,
      • Union Budget 2026: Allocated ₹5,000 crore each to City Economic Regions (CERs), focusing on wider economic geographies rather than isolated cities.
      • 16th Finance Commission: Increased the share of local grants earmarked for ULBs to 45% and introduced a ₹10,000-crore urbanisation premium to incentivise States.
    • However, these initiatives lack a coherent framework for recognising transitioning settlements, coordinating regional planning and aligning fiscal incentives.

Limitations of the Rural-Urban Binary

  • Governance gaps:
    • Article 243Q(2) leaves the notification of an area as urban to State discretion, without standard criteria or mandatory disclosure of the reasoning behind decisions.
    • Consequently, urbanisation is treated as a binary rather than a continuum, creating governance gaps.
    • Article 243W makes the devolution of municipal functions permissive rather than mandatory. Therefore, urban notification does not automatically transfer all 18 functions listed in the Twelfth Schedule.
  • Peri-urban governance deficit:
    • The Bhiwandi region near Mumbai, comprising 60 villages and nine census towns, illustrates this challenge. 
    • Despite 91.8% of employment being non-agricultural, much of the region remains under rural governance.
    • Panchayats are responsible for land use, waste management, water and air quality without adequate technical capacity or an appropriate urban mandate.
  • Weak spatial planning:
    • Approximately 52% of statutory towns and 76% of census towns lack master plans.
    • Nine States have not updated their planning legislation since the 74th Constitutional Amendment, 1992.
    • The model planning law used by many States dates to 1985 and fails to address the rural–urban continuum, climate adaptation and contemporary land acquisition requirements.
    • Thus, unplanned urban expansion undermines infrastructure development, environmental sustainability and service delivery.

Why India Needs a NUP

  • It would establish shared principles to align existing institutions without imposing a one-size-fits-all blueprint or creating a parallel delivery system.
  • Grounded in the principle of subsidiarity, it would enable the Centre to coordinate across government tiers, channel resources and strengthen local capacities while allowing States and local governments to respond to local conditions.
  • WRI India's report (Equitable, Productive, Low-carbon and Resilient System of Cities in India), proposes seven systemic transformations.

Seven Systemic Transformations

  • Standardise urban classification:
    • Settlement status should be reviewed at fixed intervals against uniform criteria rather than only during the Census.
    • Satellite imagery and geospatial data can track built-up expansion and economic activity, enabling timely recognition of urbanising settlements.
  • Modernise spatial and regional planning:
    • Spatial planning must precede infrastructure, housing, climate adaptation and financial reforms.
    • Metropolitan Planning Committees (Article 243ZE) and District Planning Committees (Article 243ZD) provide existing constitutional foundations for coordination.
    • However, regional planning must extend beyond million-plus cities, where much of India's urban growth is occurring. 
    • Peri-urban zoning should become mandatory in rapidly urbanising regions.
  • Reform urban finance:
    • India's municipal revenue is approximately 1% of GDP, compared with 7.4% in Brazil and 6% in South Africa. Property tax contributes only 0.15% of GDP.
    • Key reforms include -
      • Strengthening own-source revenue, particularly property taxation.
      • Providing predictable, formula-based fiscal transfers.
      • Improving project preparation and implementation capacity.
      • Expanding access to blended finance and innovative financing instruments.
    • These measures can reduce dependence on fragmented, scheme-specific funding.
  • Establish a coordination architecture:
    • A National Urbanisation Council could integrate existing institutions, including the Inter-State Council, the Central Council of Local Government and NITI Aayog.
    • It would provide a platform for coordinated decision-making across States, regions and government tiers.
  • Align sectoral reforms with functional geographies:
    • Administrative boundaries rarely correspond to the actual geography of urban challenges.
    • For instance, 65% of Delhi's PM2.5 originates outside the city. Municipal-level air pollution strategies therefore remain inadequate.
    • Reforms should be organised around functional units such as airsheds, river basins and city regions, with institutions empowered to operate at these scales.
  • Align urban politics with reform incentives:
    • Untied grants should reach municipalities directly through transparent, published formulas.
    • Financial incentives should encourage reforms while maintaining accountability for performance and service delivery.
  • Promote knowledge exchange and innovation:
    • Cities require institutional support, technical expertise and opportunities to share successful practices.
    • Knowledge networks and local innovation can help municipalities adopt context-specific solutions and meet performance benchmarks.

Conclusion

  • India's urban future cannot be governed through an outdated rural–urban binary. 
  • A NUP can create a coherent framework for equitable, productive, low-carbon and resilient urbanisation, ensuring that governance, finance and planning evolve alongside the changing geography of economic activity and population growth.

Source: TH

National Urbanisation Policy (NUP) FAQs

Q1: Why does India need a National Urbanisation Policy (NUP)?

Ans: To establish a coherent framework for urban classification, regional planning, fiscal devolution, etc.

Q2: What are the limitations of India’s existing rural–urban classification?

Ans: It relies on rigid Census criteria and State discretion, failing to recognise functional urbanisation.

Q3: How can spatial planning improve urban governance in India?

Ans: By integrating land use, infrastructure, housing and climate adaptation across municipal and peri-urban boundaries.

Q4: What are the major challenges of urban financing in India?

Ans: Low municipal revenue, weak property taxation, unpredictable transfers and limited project preparation capacity.

Q5: How can functional geographies improve urban governance?

Ans: Planning around airsheds, river basins and city regions enables coordinated solutions.

Death Penalty in India – Judicial Safeguards & Due Process

Death Penalty in India

Death Penalty in India Latest News

  • Recent Supreme Court decisions have reinforced procedural safeguards in death penalty cases, particularly the requirement to assess the possibility of reformation and provide meaningful opportunities for the accused to present mitigating circumstances during sentencing.

Constitutional and Legal Framework of the Death Penalty

  • The death penalty is the highest form of criminal punishment in India. Although constitutionally permissible, its imposition is subject to strict judicial safeguards and procedural requirements.
  • The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment while establishing that it should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances.
  • The legislative framework for sentencing also provides that courts must record special reasons for imposing a death sentence. This requirement was earlier contained in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and is now reflected in Section 393(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
  • The constitutional framework is particularly influenced by:
    • Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and protection against arbitrary state action.
    • Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, requiring any deprivation of life to follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure.

The Bachan Singh Judgment and the 'Rarest of Rare' Principle

  • In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, a Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty but laid down guidelines to regulate judicial discretion.
  • The judgment established that:
    • Life imprisonment must remain the rule, while the death penalty should be an exception.
    • Courts must record special reasons before imposing capital punishment.
  • Both the circumstances of the crime and those of the accused must be considered.
  • Death should be imposed only when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

Individualised Sentencing and Reformation

  • Individualised sentencing requires courts to consider the personal, social, psychological and structural circumstances of the accused before determining punishment.
  • The objective is to assess the individual's moral culpability and whether the possibility of reformation has genuinely been eliminated.
  • Importantly, the State bears the burden of establishing through evidence that there is no reasonable possibility of the accused being reformed.
  • This approach ensures that the death penalty is not imposed solely because of the gravity or brutality of the crime.

Judicial Developments and the Erosion of Safeguards

  • Subsequent judgments initially weakened the individualised sentencing framework established in Bachan Singh.
  • Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
    • The judgment shifted the focus towards the nature and circumstances of the crime. As subsequently recognised in Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013), this approach risked reversing the original inquiry by effectively asking whether there were reasons to impose life imprisonment rather than whether special reasons existed to impose death.
  • Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1995)
    • In Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, a two-judge Bench held that the nature and gravity of the offence, rather than the circumstances of the accused, were decisive in determining punishment.
    • The Supreme Court subsequently held that this approach was contrary to the binding principles established in Bachan Singh.
    • Two individuals, Ravji and Surja Ram, were executed in 1996 and 1997 respectively under this erroneous principle.
  • Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
    • The Supreme Court held that Ravji had been decided in ignorance of Bachan Singh. It also noted that the erroneous principle had been followed in several other cases resulting in death sentences.
    • The judgment clarified that life imprisonment could be considered unquestionably foreclosed only when the objective of reformation was unachievable.

Reformation as a Central Principle of Sentencing

  • The importance of reformation was subsequently reinforced through judicial decisions and the 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India (2015).
  • However, sentencing practices at the trial-court level continued to reveal serious procedural shortcomings.
  • A nationwide study of 306 death sentences imposed between 2018 and 2020 found that:
    • 36.1% of death sentences were pronounced on the same day as conviction.
    • Another 18.4% were pronounced on the following day.
    • In most cases, the defence neither presented arguments nor submitted evidence relating to mitigating circumstances.
  • In 2025, trial courts sentenced 128 individuals to death.
  • These findings highlighted the gap between constitutional principles and their implementation during sentencing proceedings.

Reliability of Criminal Investigations and the Risk of Judicial Error

  • The concerns surrounding capital punishment extend beyond sentencing procedures to the reliability of criminal investigations and prosecutions.
  • Over the preceding decade, nearly one-third of death sentences considered by the High Courts and Supreme Court had ultimately resulted in acquittals.
  • In 2025 alone, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 10 of the 19 death penalty cases it decided, repeatedly identifying serious flaws in investigations and prosecutions.
  • In Dupare, the Court acknowledged concerns regarding confessions obtained without transparency and forensic evidence of questionable reliability.
  • These findings are particularly significant because the death penalty is irreversible. A criminal justice system vulnerable to investigative and prosecutorial errors must maintain rigorous safeguards before imposing capital punishment.

Source: TH

Death Penalty in India FAQs

Q1: What was the significance of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)?

Ans: The judgment upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty while establishing that it should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

Q2: What is individualised sentencing?

Ans: Individualised sentencing requires courts to consider the personal, social, psychological and other relevant circumstances of the accused, including the possibility of reformation, before determining punishment.

Q3: What did Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) establish?

Ans: The judgment prescribed practical guidelines requiring mental health evaluations, custody conduct reports and probation officer reports to support a comprehensive sentencing assessment.

Q4: How does Article 21 apply to death penalty cases?

Ans: Article 21 requires that deprivation of life follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure. The Supreme Court has recognised meaningful sentencing hearings as an essential constitutional safeguard.

Q5: What was the significance of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025)?

Ans: The judgment held that a sentencing hearing compliant with the Manoj guidelines is required under Articles 14 and 21, and that a death sentence imposed without such a hearing is unconstitutional.

Protected Area Permit in Nagaland: Tourism vs. Security Debate

Protected Area Permit in Nagaland

Protected Area Permit in Nagaland Latest News

  • Ahead of its flagship Hornbill Festival (to be held in Kohima, December 1-10, 2026), the Nagaland government has urged the Centre to completely withdraw the Protected Area Permit (PAP) scheme from the state. 
  • The festival draws over one lakh visitors annually, including international tourists — and Nagaland argues the PAP regime hinders investment, economic growth, and tourist flow to this major cultural event.

What Is the Protected Area Permit (PAP) Regime?

  • Issued by the Government of India, the PAP authorises foreigners to visit states along India’s international borders in areas designated as protected or restricted.
  • Legal basis: Originally imposed under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958.
  • Coverage: Spans most northeastern states, including Nagaland.

Timeline of Changes

  • 2011: PAP was relaxed for Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland specifically to boost tourism.
  • December 2024: The Centre reimposed PAP in these states, citing security reasons.
  • Since then, the Nagaland government has consistently demanded its complete withdrawal.

Nagaland’s Core Arguments Against PAP

  • CM Neiphiu Rio wrote to the Union Home Ministry in September 2026, arguing: 
    • At a time when states are being encouraged to compete for investments, build international partnerships, promote tourism and contribute to India’s global outreach, such restrictions place Nagaland at a distinct disadvantage.
    • A regulation designed for a very different historical and security environment should not obstruct the developmental aspirations of what he called a peaceful state.
    • The continued PAP regime creates “avoidable frustration and a sense of alienation,” especially among youth.
  • Deputy CM Y Patton (also Home and Border Affairs Minister) confirmed the state is seeking complete withdrawal to ease tourism, particularly during Hornbill Festival: 
    • “Nagaland is a very small and peaceful state. There is no law and order issue over here. The PAP must be removed.”
    • He noted discussions with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who assured a review — but no concrete decision has emerged yet.

The Practical Problems with PAP: Expert View

  • Experts highlighted the bureaucratic burden PAP imposes:
    • The convoluted application process has caused a drastic fall in international visitors.
      • On one hand we are encouraging tourism in Nagaland, and on the other, when people from outside try to visit they are required to get the PAP mandatorily.
    • Key Structural Flaw: PAP processing currently happens after visa issuance, rather than “at the source itself” when the visa is granted — leading to tourists wasting valuable travel days waiting for permits after landing in India.
      • Experts argued that since a visa is already issued after thorough verification, this alone should suffice for Nagaland, given it is “a part of India itself.”

Why the 2025 Partial Relaxation Wasn’t Enough

  • Ahead of the 2025 Hornbill Festival, the Centre had relaxed PAP restrictions following repeated requests from Nagaland.
  • However, CM Rio explained why this limited relaxation had little practical benefit: 
    • “Such a limited relaxation had little practical benefit for international tourism. Foreign visitors plan their journeys, purchase tickets, arrange accommodation and finalise itineraries weeks and months in advance.”
    • A relaxation announced only around the Festival dates cannot provide the certainty required for international travel planning — effectively defeating its intended purpose.
    • This underscores Nagaland’s demand for a permanent, not seasonal, policy change.

Conclusion

  • Nagaland’s demand for complete PAP withdrawal captures a broader tension in India’s Northeast policy — balancing legacy security frameworks, rooted in a different geopolitical era, against the economic aspirations of states now actively courting tourism and investment. 
  • With the Hornbill Festival serving as both a cultural showcase and a significant economic opportunity, the state’s leadership argues that bureaucratic permit hurdles undermine India’s own goals of global outreach and regional development. 
  • As the Centre continues reviewing the matter without a concrete resolution, the coming festival season may once again test whether security considerations and tourism-driven growth can be reconciled through lasting policy reform, rather than temporary, festival-timed relaxations.

Source: IE

Protected Area Permit in Nagaland FAQ

Q1: What is the Protected Area Permit (PAP) regime?

Ans: The Protected Area Permit in Nagaland regulates foreign visitors to designated border areas under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958.

Q2: Why does Nagaland want the PAP regime withdrawn?

Ans: Nagaland argues that the Protected Area Permit in Nagaland discourages international tourists, restricts investment and creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for visitors.

Q3: When was the PAP regime reimposed in Nagaland?

Ans: The Centre reimposed the Protected Area Permit in Nagaland in December 2024, citing security considerations, after relaxing restrictions in 2011.

Q4: Why was the 2025 relaxation of PAP restrictions considered inadequate?

Ans: The Protected Area Permit in Nagaland was relaxed only around festival dates, leaving international visitors insufficient time to plan travel and accommodation.

Q5: How does the PAP application process affect international tourism?

Ans: The Protected Area Permit in Nagaland is processed after visa issuance, forcing some tourists to wait in India and potentially lose valuable travel days.

Cyber Hygiene in India: Growing Digital Security Risks and Solutions

Cyber Hygiene in India

Cyber Hygiene in India Latest News

  • COVID-19’s effects still linger in the physical world. In a similar way, a “digital pathogen” has spread across cyberspace. This pathogen is poor cyber hygiene. It has touched almost every sector, even authentication agencies. 
  • The term “cyber hygiene” is often called the first line of defence against cybercrime. It has gained attention after serious security scares hit financial institutions and public bodies. 
  • India’s digital economy is expanding fast. Because of this, cyber hygiene is no longer just an optional practice. It has become a critical pillar of economic stability.

What Is Cyber Hygiene?

  • Coined by Internet pioneer Vinton Cerf in 2000, during his testimony before the US Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.
  • Refers to routine practices that keep digital systems, devices, and data secure.
  • Operates on a principle similar to public health: prevention is invariably cheaper than the cure.
  • Neglecting basic cyber hygiene can be as costly as ignoring an epidemic — the damage extends beyond money lost to disrupted businesses, compromised identities, regulatory liabilities, and eroded public trust.

The Rising Cost of Data Breaches

  • Globally, the average cost of a data breach declined 9% YoY to $4.44 million (IBM 2025 report).
  • In India, however, costs are rising: 
    • IBM 2026 report (August 2026): Average breach cost in India reached ₹25.5 crore, up 15.9% YoY.
    • Average breach compromised 39,500 records, up from 38,200 the previous year.
    • Financial services sector faced an even steeper average cost: ₹40.9 crore per breach.
  • These IBM figures capture the total organisational cost, including detection, investigation, recovery, business disruption, and reputational damage.

No Sector Is Immune

  • Recent incidents highlight the breadth of exposure: reported/suspected data exposures at State Bank of India and HDFC Bank (banking sector); issues at the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) (government body); and the eMudhra incident (digital-certification company).
  • Why This Matters: Banks hold financial/identity data; sovereign bodies manage sensitive public records; certification bodies underpin digital trust itself. A vulnerability in any one of these can have far-reaching consequences — security must extend across the entire technology supply chain.
  • The eMudhra incident specifically showed the danger wasn’t just data theft, but the potential undermining of the trust mechanisms that secure online communications — underlining why digital-certification infrastructure needs rigorous testing and verification.

India’s Mounting Cyber-Fraud Losses

  • As per the Union Home Ministry’s Parliament reply, financial cyber-fraud losses have surged dramatically:
    • 2021: ₹551 crore
    • 2022: ₹2,290 crore
    • 2023: ₹7,465 crore
    • 2024: ₹22,848 crore
    • 2025: ₹22,495 crore (a marginal dip)
  • RBI Data (FY2023-24): Banks reported 36,075 fraud cases involving ₹13,930 crore; of these, 29,082 cases related to cards/internet banking, accounting for ₹1,457 crore. 

Why Digital Growth Amplifies Risk

  • India’s Integrated Financial Ecosystem — UPI, mobile banking, internet banking, digital lending — creates a complex, interconnected architecture where a vulnerability at one point can have consequences far beyond it.
  • Scale Indicator: As per NPCI data, UPI processed ~186 billion transactions in 2024-25 — underscoring the massive scale of India’s digital payments infrastructure, and correspondingly, the scale of potential exposure.

Building Cyber Resilience: A Multi-Level Approach

  • Individual Level:
    • Use unique, strong passwords/password managers.
    • Enable multi-factor authentication.
    • Install software updates promptly.
    • Avoid clicking suspicious links.
  • Corporate Level:
    • Embed security into operations via timely patching, encryption, secure software.
    • Conduct phishing simulations, independent penetration testing, and regular incident-response exercises.
  • Sovereign/regulatory Level:
    • RBI has issued cybersecurity and IT-governance requirements for regulated entities.
    • CERT-In coordinates responses to cybersecurity incidents nationally.

Conclusion

  • As India accelerates toward a digitally empowered economy, the data makes clear that cyber hygiene can no longer be treated as a peripheral compliance checkbox — it must become embedded institutional culture. 
  • With breach costs in India rising even as global averages decline, and fraud losses having grown more than 40-fold between 2021 and 2024, the stakes extend far beyond individual financial loss to the broader credibility of India’s digital finance ecosystem. 
  • Since absolute security remains unattainable in practice, the realistic goal — across individuals, corporations, and regulators alike — must be minimising risk, detecting threats early, containing damage swiftly, and recovering fast, ensuring that the pace of India’s digital transactions is matched by the integrity of the systems and institutions underpinning them.

Source: TH

Cyber Hygiene in India FAQs

Q1: What is cyber hygiene?

Ans: Cyber hygiene in India refers to routine practices that protect digital systems, devices and data from cyber threats, fraud and unauthorised access.

Q2: Why is cyber hygiene important for India’s digital economy?

Ans: Cyber hygiene in India is essential because interconnected digital payments and financial services can amplify vulnerabilities, disrupt businesses and erode public trust.

Q3: What is the average cost of a data breach in India?

Ans: The IBM 2026 report cited in the article places the average data breach cost in India at ₹25.5 crore, up 15.9% year-on-year.

Q4: Which sectors are vulnerable to poor cyber hygiene?

Ans: Cyber hygiene in India matters across banking, government and digital-certification services, as vulnerabilities can expose sensitive information and undermine online trust.

Q5: How can individuals improve cyber hygiene?

Ans: Individuals can strengthen cyber hygiene in India by using unique passwords, enabling multi-factor authentication, installing software updates and avoiding suspicious links.

Enquire Now