🕸️BPSC WEB🕸️

Ecological Equity: Need for Differentiated Federalism Context: Forest-rich Himalayan, Northeastern and Western Ghats States conserve forests and watersheds for the entire country, but simultaneously bear higher conservation costs, disaster risks and restrictions on industrial development. Problem: Uniform environmental rules impose unequal burdens--> forest-rich States sacrifice land, industries, jobs and revenue while ecological benefits such as carbon sinks, biodiversity and water security accrue nationally. Constitutional case: Article 14 allows different treatment for unequal situations, while Article 38(2) mandates reduction of regional inequalities; Article 21 further links environmental justice with the right to life. Governance gap: Existing mechanisms such as CAMPA and forest-rights framework recognise conservation responsibilities but inadequately compensate States/communities for maintaining ecosystem services. Way Forward: Develop “ecological federalism” through need-based fiscal transfers, differentiated regulations, region-specific forest policies and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). Mains takeaway: Ecological equality means not identical treatment, but equitable sharing of the costs and benefits of conservation.

Census 2027 -16th Census of India; first Census after 2011 and first-ever digital Census, with self-enumeration option. -Conducted under Census Act, 1948; Census is a Union subject (Entry 69, Union List) and conducted by Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India, MHA. -Comprehensive caste enumeration for first time since 1931; post-Independence Census recorded caste only for SCs/STs. -Population Enumeration: 40 questions; caste included as Question No. 10 — “SC/ST/Caste”. -New fields include caste beyond SC/ST, nationality as declared, spouse/parents’ particulars, digital literacy, education stream, permanent residential address and COVID-19 vaccination place. -Digital/documentary details sought: Aadhaar number, Voter ID, passport, driving-licence availability, mobile number and total number of bank accounts. -Demographic core continues to cover age, religion, mother tongue, migration, work and fertility. -Census 2027 has two phases House Listing & Housing Census followed by Population Enumeration. -Reference date: 1 March 2027 for most of India; 1 October 2026 for Ladakh and snow-bound non-synchronous areas of J&K, Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand. In these snow-bound areas, Population Enumeration: 1–30 September 2026; elsewhere February 2027. -Section 8, Census Act, 1948 empowers Census officers to ask prescribed questions from persons residing within their assigned local areas. #CA2026

MMDR (Amendment) Bill, 2026 Context: Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, amending the MMDR Act, 1957, mainly to regulate States’ taxation of mineral rights and mineral-bearing land. What has changed? -New Section 9D: States cannot independently impose a tax, cess or other levy on mineral rights/mineral-bearing land; such levies must conform to conditions/restrictions prescribed by the Centre. -Mineral-bearing land is brought explicitly within the Union’s regulatory framework under the MMDR Act. -Past dues: Levies already collected before commencement are retained, but amounts not collected/recovered before commencement become invalid, affecting retrospective claims. Why are mineral-rich States fearing revenue loss? The controversy follows the 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, which held that royalty is not a tax and recognised States’ legislative competence to tax mineral rights. The 2026 amendment effectively constrains the fiscal space opened by that judgment. -Jharkhand: Its Mineral Bearing Land Cess was expected to yield roughly Rs. 11,000 crore annually, hence the State argues that restrictions could significantly reduce its own-source revenue. -Odisha: The State fears losing both prospective mineral-tax revenue and large retrospective dues, with political estimates putting outstanding claims above Rs. 1 trillion.

Antrix–Devas case (2026): A US appeals court upheld a $562.5-million arbitral award against Antrix, holding that foreign sovereign immunity does not bar enforcement of an arbitration award in the US. #CA2026