Menu

Economy

labours protests

All-India trade-union call for one-day strike against new Labour Codes

0

On 9 July 2025 about 25 crore workers will down tools to protest the Centre’s four new Labour Codes—an event that spotlights the constitutional right to organise, the limits on striking, and older labour statutes that UPSC often turns into static questions.

Why are trade-unions striking on 9 July 2025?

  • Who & how big? Ten central trade unions (INTUC, AITUC, CITU, HMS, etc.)—but not the RSS-linked BMS—have called a 24-hour nationwide strike; organisers expect 25 crore participants across banking, coal, transport and postal services.

  • Core grievance: they want the Centre to scrap the Four Labour Codes 2019-20, restore the Indian Labour Conference, and halt privatisation of CPSEs.

  • Immediate trigger: states are framing draft rules to operationalise the Codes even though many sections are yet to be notified by the Union government.

This backdrop lets exam-setters pull out static themes: constitutionality of strikes, content of the new Codes, legacy laws like the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) and the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), and India’s non-ratification of key ILO conventions.

Fundamental right to form associations — Art. 19(1)(c) vs. Art. 33

Art. 19(1)(c) guarantees all citizens freedom “to form associations or unions” (includes trade-unions). But the right to strike is not part of this freedom. In All India Bank Employees Assn. v. NIT (1962) the Supreme Court held that achieving union objectives—e.g. striking—can be regulated by ordinary law.

Art. 33 lets Parliament restrict any fundamental right in its application to the armed forces, police, intelligence services, etc., to ensure discipline. Recent judgments continue to uphold such curbs.

Take-away: questions may ask you to weigh the “freedom to associate” against national-security exemptions under Art. 33.

The Four Labour Codes (consolidating 29 laws)

   
Code on Wages, 2019 – merges Payment of Wages, Minimum Wages, Bonus & Equal Remuneration Acts; introduces a national floor wage and uniform “wage” definition.  
Industrial Relations Code, 2020 – combines IDA 1947, Trade-Unions Act 1926 & Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946; ≥300-worker factories need no prior govt nod for layoffs; 14-day strike notice now extends to all industries.  
Social Security Code, 2020 – fuses 9 laws (EPF, ESI, Maternity Benefit, etc.); extends cover to gig/platform workers via a proposed social-security fund.  
OSH & Working Conditions Code, 2020 – rolls 13 Acts (Factories, Mines, Contract Labour …) into one; single licence & database, plus explicit night-shift permission for women.  

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 & ESMA 1968

  • IDA Sections 22-24 spell out when a strike is legal: 14-days’ prior notice in public-utility services; no strike during conciliation/adjudication; and no violence.

  • A strike that breaches these tests is “illegal”; workers forfeit wages and may face fines or jail (up to one month).

  • ESMA 1968 empowers the Union/States to ban strikes in notified essential services and punish violators with up to one-year imprisonment.

ILO Conventions 87 & 98

labour protest tab 11

Tests for legality of strikes (what courts look at)

  1. Procedural compliance with IDA §§ 22-24 (notice, timing, pendency).

  2. Purpose: must relate to an industrial dispute; political/general strikes lack statutory shield.

  3. Conduct: no violence, intimidation or sabotage—else courts may deem it misconduct even if otherwise legal.

  4. Public-interest balancing: in T.K. Rangarajan v. State of TN (2003) SC said government servants have no fundamental right to strike.

“Bonded labour” & Art. 23

  • Art. 23(1) bans traffic in human beings, begar and other forms of forced or bonded labour.

  • The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 criminalises any agreement tying a debtor to work under coercion.

  • In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) the SC held that payment below minimum wage is itself “forced labour” under Art. 23—linking wage disputes directly to constitutional rights.

Final takeaway for revision

  1. Memorise article–section linkages: Art. 19(1)(c), Art. 23, Art. 33; IDA §§ 22-24; ESMA key sections.

  2. Quote at least one landmark case for each theme.

  3. Integrate current strike numbers (date, unions, 25 crore workers) as live examples in mains answers on labour reforms.

  4. Watch for follow-up: if the strike pushes states to delay Labour-Code rules, that itself can become next year’s current-cum-static question.

ChatGPT Image Jul 1, 2025, 08_54_57 AM

IIP growth dips; bank credit slows; GST turns 8

0

Table of Content:

Industrial output and bank lending softened in May 2025 even as the eight-year-old GST regime entered a “refinement” phase—an ideal cue to revise the static pillars that underpin India’s growth, monetary policy and fiscal federalism.

IIP growth dips to a nine-month low

  • Data point – All-India Index of Industrial Production (IIP) rose just 1.2 % y-o-y in May 2025, down from 2.6 % in April, the weakest print since Aug 2024.

  • Why – Early monsoon hit mining output; lower electricity demand dragged the utilities sub-index while manufacturing remained anaemic.

  • So what – A slackening IIP often precedes soft GST revenues and can persuade the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to remain growth-supportive.

Bank credit growth slows

  • Data point – Non-food bank credit expanded 9.8 % y-o-y as on 30 May 2025, far below 16.2 % a year earlier.

  • Drivers – Cooling retail/vehicle loans, NBFC off-take and a high statistical base; RBI liquidity operations such as variable-rate reverse-repo auctions hint at caution.

  • Impact – Sluggish credit can further dampen IIP and GST collections, reinforcing the current macro narrative.

GST turns eight

  • Achievements – Average monthly collections jumped from ₹ 89,885 crore in FY18 to ₹ 2.01 lakh crore in May 2025; e-invoicing & e-way bills deepened compliance.

  • Reform wishlist – PwC & industry bodies want a three-rate structure and phased inclusion of petroleum products, while the government has tightened GSTR-3B return rules from 1 July 2025.

  • Exam link – Any GST reform debate must cite Articles 246A/269A/279A and the rate-setting role of the GST Council.

Index of Industrial Production (IIP)

gsttab1

Monetary Policy Framework & amended RBI Act 1934

  • Monetary Policy Framework Agreement (20 Feb 2015) enshrined flexible inflation-targeting—headline CPI at 4 % ± 2 pp.

  • Chapter IIIF (Sections 45Z-45ZO) of the RBI Act, 1934 gives statutory backing; Section 45ZB constitutes the 6-member MPC with “one-vote-one-member” and Governor’s casting vote.

  • Policy instruments

    • Repo rate – operating target voted by MPC; reverse-repo & Standing Deposit Facility form the corridor.

    • Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) – Section 42(1) empowers RBI to mandate banks’ reserve ratio; tinkering CRR influences liquidity but lies outside MPC’s vote.

GST constitutional architecture

  • 101ᵗʰ Constitutional Amendment Act 2016 inserted three pivotal Articles:

    • Art 246A – Concurrent power of Centre & States to levy GST except on petroleum and alcohol.

    • Art 269A – Apportionment of Integrated GST (IGST) on inter-State trade.

    • Art 279A – Creates the GST Council (Union FM + MOS + State FMs); decisions need 75 % weighted vote, embodying “co-operative federalism”.

Compensation Cess Act 2017 & the “sin-tax” cluster

gsttab2

Finance Commission vs GST Council – the federal balance

gsttab3

Quick revision tips

  1. Pair the dynamic with the static – e.g., link the May 2025 IIP slump to questions on base-year revision.

  2. Use articles as anecdotes – cite the eight-year GST milestone when writing about Article 279A’s success.

  3. Flash-cards – keep one-liners for each Article (246A, 269A, 279A) and Section 45ZB.

  4. Diagram practice – draw a flowchart showing how “sin-tax” revenues travel from consumer → GST-Cess → Compensation Fund → States.

99999999-20250625-001

₹20,787-crore Shaktipeeth Expressway and farmer resistance — land acquisition, faith tourism, federal finances

0

The proposed ₹20,787-crore, 802 km Nagpur–Goa “Shaktipeeth Expressway” aims to stitch together twelve districts and a string of famous goddess temples (Shakti peeths) in Maharashtra, shrinking the road trip from about 18 hours to eight. The cabinet has just cleared a massive land-acquisition package, backed by a ₹12,000-crore HUDCO loan, but thousands of farmers have announced highway blockades, alleging hurried notices and low transparency. To understand the friction — and why such religious-corridor projects keep returning to the headlines — we need four static pillars of UPSC polity-economy syllabus: (1) the 2013 Land-Acquisition law, (2) PPP delivery models & Viability-Gap Funding, (3) 15th Finance Commission rules that cap state debt, and (4) the idea of “faith tourism” as a cultural-economy lever. Each is unpacked below in plain language.

What exactly is the Shaktipeeth Expressway and why the protests?

shaktipeethtab1

Why the flash-point?

Landowners argue that acquisition notices arrived before the legally mandated Social Impact Assessment and public hearing were exhausted — rights granted under the 2013 Act (see next section). They also fear a repeat of Samruddhi Mahamarg’s relocation disputes, hence the upsurge in dharnas and court petitions.

The Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR)

  1. Four-fold rural, two-fold urban compensation over market value, to counter undervaluation in sale deeds

  2. Consent clause: 80 % of affected families must sign when land is acquired for a private project; 70 % if it is a Public-Private Partnership

  3. Social Impact Assessment (SIA): a gram-sabha-level survey that maps livelihoods and must be published on a public portal; acquisition lapses if not completed in five years.

  4. Resettlement Package: one-time allowance, employment or annuity, housing sites, plus a mandatory “rehabilitation committee”.

  5. Return of unused land: if the stated public purpose is not fulfilled in five years the land reverts to original owners or state land bank.

  6. Transparency tools: detailed notice periods, mandatory web disclosure, and bar on acquiring multi-crop irrigated land except in “absolute demonstrable last resort”

Implication for Shaktipeeth: 7,500 ha means the SIA, consent canvassing, and “multi-crop” safeguards all come into play; any shortcut invites litigation — exactly what farmer groups are signalling.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) tool-kit

shaktipeethtab2

Viability-Gap Funding (VGF)

When even HAM numbers don’t add up — say, sparse traffic but high social value — the Centre can grant up to 30 % of project cost (and in social sectors up to 40 %) as an upfront capital grant; states may add another 30 %. The scheme runs till FY 2024-25 with a ₹8,100-crore corpus.

Relevance: If toll forecasts on the Nagpur–Sindhudurg segment look weak, MSRDC could bundle VGF to sweeten bids, while keeping fares affordable for pilgrims.

15th Finance Commission guard-rails on state borrowing

  • Borrowing cap: 4 % of GSDP (FY 22), 3.5 % (FY 23) and 3 % (FY 24-26) for each state. Unused headroom can be carried forward within the award period.

  • Extra 0.5 % of GSDP allowed if a state meets power-sector reform milestones.

  • Why it matters: Maharashtra’s ₹12,000-crore HUDCO loan plus any VGF share still counts toward its debt stock; to stay within the glide-path, the state may need to phase draw-downs or package the project so that the private concessionaire shoulders later-stage costs.

Faith tourism & cultural-heritage corridors (GS-I linkages)

  1. Definition: Leveraging pilgrimage routes and mythological circuits (Char Dham, Ramayan, Shaktipeeth) to spur rural infrastructure, hospitality jobs and handicraft sales.

  2. Policy backing: Swadesh Darshan 2.0 now funds destination master-plans that prioritise local entrepreneurship, environmental carrying capacity and digital visitor-management

  3. Economic rationale for Shaktipeeth Expressway

    • Clustering effect: One super-corridor lets tourists cover Mahur → Tuljapur → Kolhapur → Pandharpur → Konkan temples in a single circuit, boosting average spend per trip.

    • Off-season traffic: Beyond pilgrims, the access-controlled road promises agro-logistics gains for Vidarbha and Konkan, diversifying revenue.

    • Cultural preservation: Project DPR must include signage in Marathi/Konkani, craft haats, and wayside amenities — now a funding criterion under Swadesh Darshan.

  4. UPSC angle: Link GS-I (culture), GS-III (infrastructure), and ethics (development vs. displacement). A balanced answer can cite both economic multipliers and RFCTLARR safeguards.

Key take-aways for quick revision

  1. Shaktipeeth Expressway = 802 km, ₹20,787-crore land package, HUDCO loan, farmer consent controversy.

  2. RFCTLARR, 2013 enforces SIA, high compensation and 80 % consent for PPP land — core to the protest narrative.

  3. PPP models: know the risk-allocation ladder — EPC < HAM < BOT.

  4. VGF: up-front grant that rescues socially desirable but financially weak projects.

  5. 15th FC borrowing limits dictate how states stagger mega-infra loans.

  6. Faith-tourism corridors tie infrastructure to cultural economics — an emerging UPSC theme.

99999999-20250612-001

From Tariffs to Trade-Offs: India & the U.S. Edge Toward a Mini-Deal

0

India and the United States are using a limited “early-harvest” package to unlock quick tariff cuts and market-access wins while they negotiate a full free-trade agreement. Under WTO rules such interim deals must still respect Article XXIV disciplines (eventually liberalising “substantially all trade”) and cannot raise new barriers; they also have to be notified and reviewed. The mini-deal is therefore being chiselled around four static pillars every UPSC candidate should know: (1) what the WTO says about early-harvest agreements, (2) the difference between tariff and non-tariff barriers that the two sides are haggling over, (3) the seldom-invoked Balance-of-Payments safeguard in Article XII GATT, and (4) how India’s Foreign Trade Policy 2023 sets the domestic ground rules for any concessions. The sections below unpack each handle in detail and link them back to the India–U.S. corridor.

WTO rules on “early-harvest” agreements

What is an early-harvest?

Informal term for a partial set of commitments that partners implement before the rest of their free-trade agreement (FTA) is ready. WTO jurisprudence treats such packages as interim agreements under Article XXIV:5(c) GATT (goods) or Article V GATS (services). They must:

  • Be notified to the WTO Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).
  • Contain a plan & schedule showing how the parties will reach a full FTA covering “substantially all the trade” within a “reasonable length of time” (normally 10 years, exceptionally 12).
  • Not raise new barriers against outsiders while the interim phase is in force.

How has “early harvest” been used?

Deal: ASEAN–China (2004)
Coverage unlocked early: Zero duties on 573 “early-harvest” farm products
Full FTA deadline: Completed 2010
WTO notification: Notified as goods RTA #C-38

Deal: India–Thailand (2004)
Coverage unlocked early: 82 tariff lines liberalised at once
Full FTA deadline: Still under negotiation
WTO notification: Notified as interim RTA #C-39

Deal: Doha Round idea (Trade-Facilitation text)
Coverage unlocked early: Developed countries proposed TF text as an early harvest; South-Centre warned of burden on developing members
Full FTA deadline: Doha Round collapsed
WTO notification: N/A

Why does it matter for the India-U.S. mini-deal?

New Delhi and Washington are packaging “early wins”—auto-parts tariff cuts and a small set of SPS concessions—in time for a July 2025 deadline.

Because it will be notified as an interim Article XXIV deal, the two sides must spell out how they will widen coverage to meet the substantially-all-trade test—an issue likely to appear in mains “critically examine” questions.

Tariff vs Non-tariff barriers (NTBs)

Feature: Form
Tariff barriers: Customs duties, specific or ad-valorem
Non-tariff barriers: Quotas, licensing, SPS/TBT standards, local-content rules

Feature: Revenue
Tariff barriers: Generates tax income for the importing state
Non-tariff barriers: Usually no revenue, raises compliance costs

Feature: WTO Discipline
Tariff barriers: Bound in each member’s Schedule under Article II of GATT
Non-tariff barriers: Governed by separate agreements (SPS, TBT, Import Licensing)

Current India-U.S. flash-points

Tariff barriers:
  • U.S. Section 232 steel/aluminium duties (25%, 10%) — India wants removal
  • India’s 150% duty on U.S. premium nuts — Washington wants reduction
Non-tariff barriers:
  • India’s dairy SPS regime (cow-genetic purity and hormone-free certification)
  • U.S. facility-registration requirements for Indian seafood exports

Balance-of-Payments safeguard – Article XII GATT

Clause: Art XII:1
Practical meaning: Permits temporary import restrictions “in order to safeguard the external financial position and the balance-of-payments”

Clause: Proportionality
Practical meaning: Measures must not exceed what is necessary; quotas are preferred over surcharges

Clause: IMF role
Practical meaning: Contracting party must consult the IMF; WTO must accept IMF findings on reserve adequacy (Article XV)

Clause: Transparency
Practical meaning: Member must notify, publish, and progressively relax restrictions as balance-of-payments improves

When used?

India itself invoked Art XII during the 1991 BoP crisis to maintain cash-margin restrictions on imports—classic prelim fodder.

Why relevant now? 

If a future India-U.S. tariff reduction narrows India’s customs revenue, policymakers might debate BoP safeguards; UPSC can draw a static MCQ on who administers such consultations (Ans: WTO + IMF).

India’s Foreign Trade Policy 2023 – domestic backdrop

Pillar (FTP 2023): Ease of doing business
Key provisions: End-to-end paperless authorisations, lower fees, automated risk management
UPSC angle: Improves utilisation of concessions under early-harvest deal

Pillar (FTP 2023): Merchanting trade & e-commerce
Key provisions: Allows merchanting of restricted goods; raises e-commerce courier cap to ₹10 lakh
UPSC angle: Helps SMEs ride tariff preferences—good mains case study

Pillar (FTP 2023): Towns of Export Excellence & District hubs
Key provisions: Grass-roots export promotion, capacity-building of status holders
UPSC angle: Links to GS-II “cooperative federalism” and GS-III employment.