Context:

• PM Modi has called for tackling obesity and the 2025 Economic Survey recommends imposing a ‘health tax’ on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to reduce consumption.
• India faces a growing obesity crisis. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHA)-5, one in four adults is obese and one in four adults is diabetic or pre-diabetic.

Issues in Food Labelling and Advertising

• Regulatory challenges:
  • The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has failed to implement strong food labelling and advertising regulations since 2017.
  • Current regulations are ambiguous, subjective, and industry-friendly. No front-of-pack warning labels exist despite growing health risks.
• The flawed Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system:
  • Proposed in September 2022 by FSSAI, modeled after Australia’s failed ‘health star’ system, it assigns 1 to 5 stars to packaged foods based on nutritional content.
• Criticism:
  • Misleading consumers by creating a false ‘health halo’ around unhealthy foods.
  • To support the rating system, the FSSAI cited a study from IIM Ahmedabad, which it never critically examined.
  • Food industry representatives dominated key stakeholder meetings and members of the scientific panel were sidelined.
  • The FSSAI ignored its own 2021 draft regulations indicating ‘traffic light’ colour-coded and mandatory warning labels and instead bowed down to industry lobbying.
  • Example of misclassification:
    • Soft drinks with high sugar content may get 2 stars instead of a warning label.
    • Cornflakes (high in sugar and sodium) get 3 stars, misleading consumers.
• Ineffective advertising regulations:
  • India has four laws regulating advertising of HFSS (High Fat, Salt, Sugar) foods, but none are effective.
  • Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Defines misleading advertisements but does not mandate nutritional disclosure.
  • National Multisectoral Action Plan (2017): Recommended stricter HFSS advertising rules, but no action was taken.
  • Loophole: Advertisements do not disclose sugar/salt/fat content, allowing brands to target children.

Global Best Practices and Recommendations:

• Chile’s ‘High In’ Warning Labels: Reduced UPF consumption by 24%.
• World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend clear front-of-pack warning labels.

The Way Forward:

• Implement front-of-pack warning labels: Scrap the INR system and replace it with mandatory ‘High in Sugar/Salt/Fat’ warnings.
• Define and regulate UPFs and HFSS foods: Establish clear sugar/salt/fat limits based on WHO and Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN)
• Strengthen advertising regulations: Amend existing laws or introduce a comprehensive advertising ban on HFSS/UPFs. Harmonize regulations across multiple laws for consistency.
• Public awareness campaigns: Launch a national campaign in multiple languages to educate people on the health risks of UPFs.

Conclusion:

• Obesity in India is a policy failure, not a public failure.
• Weak and subjective labelling and advertising laws have let junk food giants enjoy the freedom to make profits at the expense of public health.
• The Economic Survey provides a roadmap, but urgent regulatory action is needed.
• PM Modi’s vision of a healthy India requires decisive steps, not industry-influenced policies.

Q1. What are the key recommendations of the 2025 Economic Survey to tackle obesity in India?

Ans. It recommends imposing a ‘health tax’ on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), implementing front-of-pack warning labels, and strengthening advertising regulations.

Q2. Why is the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system criticized, and what alternative approach is suggested?

Ans. The INR system misleads consumers by assigning health stars to unhealthy foods, whereas the recommended approach is to adopt mandatory ‘high in’ warning labels based on WHO or ICMR-NIN guidelines.

Q3. How do existing food advertising regulations in India fail to curb misleading promotions of HFSS (High Fat, Salt, Sugar) foods?

Ans. Existing laws, including the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, do not mandate nutritional disclosures in advertisements.

Q4. What lessons can India learn from global best practices in regulating ultra-processed foods?

Ans. India can adopt Chile’s ‘High In’ warning labels, which reduced UPF consumption by 24%.

Q5. What policy measures are needed to effectively regulate HFSS foods and UPFs in India?

Ans. India needs to scrap the INR system, set clear nutritional thresholds, enforce advertising restrictions, and launch public awareness campaigns. 

Source:TH

Context

• The Draft University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2025, has sparked widespread debate.
• The primary concerns revolve around two key aspects: the method of appointing Vice-Chancellors (V-Cs) and the broadening of the qualifications required for this esteemed academic position.
• These concerns need to be analysed in light of India’s evolving federal structure and the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.

The Most Debated Aspect of the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025: Reducing the Role of the State Executive in V-C Appointments

• The appointment of V-Cs in Indian universities has long been a contentious issue, primarily due to the involvement of state governments in the selection process.
• Historically, state legislatures and executives have played a significant role in these appointments, often using them as an extension of political influence over higher education.
• However, a series of Supreme Court judgments have sought to reduce the role of the state executive, ensuring that the selection process remains independent, merit-based, and free from undue political interference.
• The Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, reflect these judicial rulings by proposing a search-cum-selection committee structure that significantly limits state intervention.

New Selection Structure Under the 2025 Regulations

• The Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, propose that the search-cum-selection committee should be composed of highly qualified individuals with substantial academic leadership experience.
• The recommended composition includes:
  • A nominee of the Chancellor of the university (often the Governor in state universities).
  • A nominee of the executive body of the university (e.g., the Senate or Board of Governors).
  • A nominee of the UGC.
• Notably absent from this list are representatives from the state executive, a clear departure from previous practices where state governments could appoint their nominees to these committees.
• The intention behind this restructuring is to ensure academic independence, preventing politically motivated appointments that could compromise the quality and integrity of higher education institutions.

Judicial Precedents

• Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs The State of Gujarat (2019): The Court held that any influence exerted by the state executive in the appointment of V-Cs is unconstitutional, as it compromises the autonomy of higher education institutions.
• Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee case (2022): This case further established that the state government should not have discretionary power in V-C selection, reinforcing the idea that academic leadership should be insulated from political interference.
• Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (2022): The Court invalidated an appointment where the selection process was found to be influenced by the state government, setting a precedent that such appointments should be purely merit-based.
• Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth vs The Chancellor, Kannur University (2023): The judgment in this case reaffirmed that the presence of state executive members in the search-cum-selection committee renders the appointment process ab initio void (invalid from the beginning), irrespective of the appointee’s qualifications.

State Government’s Perspective and Concerns

• Financial and Administrative Responsibility
  • Most state universities rely heavily on funding from state governments for their operation, infrastructure development, and faculty salaries.
  • Given their financial stake, state governments argue that they should have a role in selecting leadership that aligns with regional education priorities.
• Regional and Policy Priorities
  • Unlike central universities, which cater to a national audience, state universities are deeply integrated into their local communities.
  • They play a critical role in state-driven research, workforce development, and social advancement.
  • State governments worry that if they lose control over V-C appointments, universities may become disconnected from regional developmental goals.
• Balance Between Autonomy and Accountability
  • State governments believe that while universities should have autonomy in academic matters, they must also remain accountable to public policy goals.
  • This accountability, they argue, is best maintained through some level of state involvement in leadership selection.

Possible Solutions to Address the Concerns of Both Judiciary and State Governments

• Consensus-Based Nomination from University Executives
  • One way to ensure state participation without violating judicial precedents is to allow the university’s executive body (e.g., Senate, Board of Governors) to nominate a search committee member. This nominee could be:
    • A former eminent academic who has previously served as a V-C or held a similar leadership role.
    • Someone informally approved by the state executive but not a direct government official or political appointee.
  • This approach would maintain academic neutrality while still allowing state interests to be considered in the selection process.
• Limited State Representation in Selection Committees
  • An alternative approach would be for the UGC to allow one nominee from the state government on the search-cum-selection committee, in addition to the representative from the university executive.
  • However, to ensure fairness, this nominee should:
    • Be a former V-C or an equivalent academic leader rather than a government bureaucrat or political figure.
    • Meet the same standards of independence required of members of commissions such as the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

The Way Forward: Avoiding a Confrontational Approach

• A complete exclusion of state governments from the V-C selection process could lead to political and legal conflicts.
• States might resist implementing the new regulations, leading to prolonged disputes that could hinder university governance.
• Instead of creating a collision course between the judiciary and state governments, it is essential to find a cooperative approach that respects both judicial mandates and state interests.

Conclusion

• The Draft UGC Regulations, 2025, mark a significant shift in the governance of higher education, reinforcing the principle of independent and merit-based Vice-Chancellor appointments.
• While the Supreme Court has established clear legal precedents against state executive involvement, state governments have legitimate concerns regarding their role in shaping higher education institutions that they fund and manage.
• The challenge lies in striking a balance, ensuring that universities remain free from political interference while also recognizing the state’s stake in higher education.

Q1. Why has the role of the state executive in Vice-Chancellor appointments been reduced?
Ans. The Supreme Court has ruled that state governments should not influence Vice-Chancellor appointments to ensure academic autonomy and impartiality.

Q2. What does the Draft UGC Regulations, 2025 propose regarding state executive involvement?
Ans. The draft regulations limit state executive involvement by excluding them from the search-cum-selection committee, which will now be composed of qualified academic leaders.

Q3. What concerns do state governments have regarding their reduced role in V-C appointments?
Ans. State governments argue that they should have a say in V-C appointments due to their financial support and involvement in regional development and educational priorities.

Q4. How can state interests still be included in the V-C selection process?
Ans. State interests could be included by allowing a consensus-based nominee from the university’s executive or permitting one representative from the state government on the selection committee.

Q5. Why is broadening the qualifications for Vice-Chancellors important?
Ans. Broadening qualifications helps attract leaders with diverse experience in public policy, industry, and international affairs, fostering innovation and adapting universities to the evolving education landscape. 

Source:The Hindu

Context

• The recent decision by India and the United States to negotiate a multi-sector Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by the fall of 2025 marks a significant development in global trade relations.
• While such agreements primarily focus on economic benefits, it is essential to analyse them through the lens of international trade law, particularly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations.
• Therefore, it is crucial to examine the legal implications of the proposed BTA, the distinction between BTAs and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), and the necessity for compliance with WTO principles.

Understanding Free Trade Agreements under WTO Law

• The WTO operates on the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle, which mandates equal treatment for all trading partners.
• FTAs, however, provide an exception to this principle, allowing participating nations to grant each other preferential trade benefits.
• According to Article XXIV.8(b) of the GATT, FTAs must eliminate tariffs and trade barriers on ‘substantially all the trade’ between the participating countries.
• Though the term is not precisely defined, it generally implies a high percentage of trade coverage.
• Since the proposed India-U.S. BTA is not labelled as an FTA, its scope remains unclear.
• If it does not eliminate tariffs on a broad range of goods and services, it risks violating WTO law unless justified under specific provisions.
• Thus, the negotiation process must ensure that the agreement either qualifies as an FTA or complies with WTO exceptions.

Legal Considerations for the India-US BTA

• Compliance with the MFN Principle
  • One of the most significant legal hurdles for the India-U.S. BTA is ensuring that it does not violate the MFN principle, which is a cornerstone of the WTO’s multilateral trade system.
  • The MFN principle, enshrined in Article I of the GATT, requires that all WTO members treat each other equally in terms of trade policies.
  • In practical terms, this means that any preferential treatment granted to one country must also be extended to all other WTO members.
  • In the context of the BTA, if India and the U.S. agree to reduce tariffs on a limited set of products, this reduction may constitute preferential treatment.
  • However, for the agreement to comply with WTO rules, this preferential treatment cannot be limited to only these two countries; rather, the benefits must be extended to all other WTO members as well.
  • If India and the U.S. decide to reduce tariffs only for each other’s products, without offering similar reductions or access to other WTO members, it would violate the MFN
• Structure of the BTA: Is it an FTA or Something Else?
  • As the India-U.S. BTA is not explicitly labelled as a FTA in the Joint Leaders Statement, it is crucial to understand the legal distinction between a BTA and an FTA in WTO law.
  • An FTA, under Article XXIV of the GATT, allows countries to reduce or eliminate tariffs and trade barriers within the agreement’s scope, but such agreements must adhere to the rule that they eliminate trade barriers on substantially all the trade between the parties.
  • The phrase ‘substantially all the trade’ is not defined in the agreement, but generally, it implies a significant portion of trade, often considered to mean around 90% or more of the total trade between the members of the FTA.
  • If the India-U.S. BTA does not aim to cover ‘substantially all trade’ between the two countries, it would fail to meet the requirements of an FTA and could run afoul of WTO rules.
• Interim Agreements: Article XXIV’s Flexibility
  • To navigate the challenge of non-compliance with the MFN principle, India and the U.S. may consider structuring the BTA as an interim agreement.
  • Under Article XXIV.5 of the GATT, countries can enter into an interim agreement that facilitates the creation of an FTA.
  • This provision allows nations to reduce tariffs and trade barriers in phases, with the goal of eventually forming a full-fledged FTA within a reasonable timeframe, generally not exceeding 10 years.
  • An interim agreement would allow India and the U.S. to engage in tariff reductions and other trade liberalization measures while working toward a more comprehensive FTA.
• Potential WTO Violations and Political Considerations
  • If India and the U.S. enter into a BTA that reduces tariffs on a limited number of goods or provides preferential access only to each other’s markets, it could violate the WTO’s rules against discrimination.
  • This situation would lead to significant legal challenges, especially if other countries feel that they are being excluded from these benefits.
  • The challenge for India lies in navigating the delicate balance of achieving a mutually beneficial agreement with the U.S. without undermining its commitments to the WTO and its stance on multilateral trade.
  • Moreover, India faces political pressure to ensure that any such agreement does not lead to the weakening of its trade policy or compromise its position in the global trading system.

The Way Ahead

• The Need for Compliance with WTO Principles
  • Historically, the U.S. has taken an aggressive approach to trade policy.
  • U.S. President Donald Trump’s concept of ‘reciprocal tariffs’ sought to impose higher tariffs on imports from countries that had higher tariffs on American goods.
  • This approach directly conflicts with WTO principles such as MFN and Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT), which allow developing nations to maintain lower tariff commitments in recognition of their economic constraints.
  • Moreover, reciprocal tariffs could breach the U.S.’s bound tariff rate obligations, which cap the maximum tariffs it can impose under WTO commitments.
  • For India, the proposed BTA represents a test of its commitment to a rules-based international trading system.
  • As a nation that has traditionally championed WTO principles, India must ensure that its trade agreements comply with multilateral rules and do not set a precedent for arbitrary bilateral deals that undermine WTO norms.
• Need to Remain Vigilant
  • India must remain vigilant against any attempts to dilute core WTO principles such as MFN and S&DT.
  • As a key player in global trade, India’s approach to this agreement will reflect its commitment to a fair and transparent trading system.
  • Therefore, strategic and legally compliant negotiations are imperative to ensure that the BTA strengthens, rather than undermines, the global trade framework.

Conclusion

• The India-U.S. BTA negotiations present both opportunities and challenges.
• While the agreement could enhance economic ties and promote trade, it must be structured carefully to align with WTO regulations.
• If the BTA is intended as a precursor to a full-fledged FTA, it should be designed as a legally sound interim agreement.
• However, if it simply aims to lower tariffs on selective products without broader commitments, it risks violating WTO laws unless appropriate justifications are made.

Q1. What is the key legal principle that the India-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) must comply with?
Ans. The India-U.S. BTA must comply with the WTO's Most Favored Nation (MFN) principle, which mandates equal treatment for all trading partners.

Q2. What requirement must an agreement meet to qualify as a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) under WTO law?
Ans. An FTA must eliminate substantially all the trade barriers between the member countries, typically covering a high percentage of trade.

Q3. What is an "interim agreement" under WTO law, and how could it apply to the India-U.S. BTA?
Ans. An interim agreement allows countries to reduce trade barriers gradually, with a clear plan to form an FTA within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 10 years.

Q4. Why might the India-U.S. BTA not qualify under the WTO's enabling clause?
Ans. The enabling clause is meant to benefit developing countries, but the India-U.S. BTA likely favors the U.S., making it inconsistent with the clause's intent.

Q5. What potential legal issue could arise if the India-U.S. BTA offers preferential treatment only to each other’s products?
Ans. Offering preferential treatment without extending similar benefits to other countries could violate the WTO’s MFN principle, leading to legal challenges. 

Source:The Hindu