Hindu Editorial Analysis Today – UPSC Daily Current Affairs

Model Answer

India's food security policy has produced remarkable progress. The share of households unable to afford the ICMR-NIN recommended diet fell from about 52% in 2011-12 to about 25% in 2023-24. Yet crores of households still cannot afford an adequate healthy diet, and India now faces a distinctive challenge — the "double burden of malnutrition" — where undernutrition (29.3% child stunting, 19% wasting) coexists with rising diabetes (101 million adults) and other non-communicable diseases.

The draft National Food Security (Amendment) Bill 2026 responds to one dimension of this challenge by linking Antyodaya Anna Yojana entitlements to household size — a move from fixed 35 kg per household to 7 kg per person, capped at 35 kg. This creates a fairer per-person entitlement for smaller AAY households but requires careful safeguards. Tamil Nadu illustrates the concern: 84.5% of its AAY households have fewer than five members. Retaining the existing 35 kg as a minimum with an explicit no-loss guarantee is essential.

However, entitlement reform alone is insufficient. The PDS predominantly supplies refined cereals, and ICMR-INDIAB 2024 evidence shows that even switching to whole-wheat or millets does not reduce diabetes risk unless the total carbohydrate share is reduced. Dietary diversification — adding pulses, millets, oilseeds and other protein-rich foods through complementary programmes like PDS, Anganwadi services and PM POSHAN — is now essential for genuine nutrition security. This must be separately financed and progressively implemented.

The 5.50 lakh electronic PDS shops and near-universal ONORC coverage provide infrastructure that can also facilitate primary healthcare access, linking adults to 1.86 lakh Ayushman Arogya Mandirs for NCD screening — provided participation is voluntary, confidential and unrelated to ration eligibility. India's next food security reform must protect people from hunger while also enabling them to obtain healthier, more diverse diets with dignity.

Model Answer

India's E20 ethanol blending programme represents an ambitious policy attempt to substitute crude oil imports with domestically produced ethanol, thereby saving foreign exchange, supporting agriculture and reducing India's energy import dependence. The government reports foreign exchange savings of around ₹2 lakh crore and substitution of about 32 million tonnes of crude oil imports. India has built distillery capacity of 18-20 billion litres from 500 distilleries and reached the 10% blending milestone in 2022, scaling up to 20% within three years.

However, the rapid rollout has raised legitimate concerns. Vehicles manufactured after April 2023 under Bharat Stage 6 Phase 2 are factory-engineered for E20 with ethanol-resistant elastomers, fluorinated fuel lines and recalibrated engine control units — but these represent only about 23% (70 million) of India's active petrol fleet. The remaining 77% (~240 million two-wheelers and cars) were built for E5 or E10 — and ethanol's solvent properties, its hygroscopic nature (absorbing atmospheric moisture) and its low lubricity can damage older rubber components, corrode tanks and clog filters. Consumer surveys report 66% of pre-2023 owners experiencing mileage losses above 10%.

A comparison with Brazil is instructive. Brazil's transition to high ethanol blending happened over several decades with parallel vehicle modifications, taking public opinion into confidence. India's compressed three-year jump from 10% to 20% created legitimate anxiety despite the technical evidence supporting E20 for newer vehicles.

Food security concerns are also real. Maize contributes 45% of ethanol feedstock, with FCI rice contributing 22% and sugarcane juice 16%. A monsoon failure or foodgrain shortage could create difficult trade-offs between fuel and food. Direct ethanol imports remain banned but the U.S. corn lobby is pressing for corn import liberalisation. Cost transparency also matters — OMCs procure ethanol at ₹70 per litre, comparable to base petrol production costs, making the "cost saving" claim difficult to verify independently.

India needs a phased, transparent rollout that provides clear support and E5/E10 options for legacy vehicles, invests in second-generation (agricultural residue-based) ethanol to reduce food-fuel conflict and publishes independent studies on E20's effects. Energy transition must be genuinely sustainable — not merely accelerated for policy targets.

Model Answer

The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Andhra Pradesh vs Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju (2026) provides critical clarification of one of the most significant changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 187(2) of BNSS enlarges the window during which police custody may be sought by the investigating agency — from being confined to the first 15 days of remand under the old CrPC to being available in parts throughout the first 40 or 60 days of detention.

The rationale for this legislative change is investigative — fresh facts, discoveries or leads often emerge only after the initial 15-day window. Under the old CrPC, the investigating agency was forced to seek police custody within the first 15 days or lose that option altogether. The BNSS window allows police custody to be granted in parts, in aggregate not exceeding 15 days, at any time during the first 40 days (for ordinary offences) or 60 days (for serious offences).

The Supreme Court's Suda Suresh judgment preserves the constitutional balance in three critical ways. First, it firmly reiterates the 15-day aggregate cap on police custody, preventing any interpretation that could permit longer police custody. Second, it clarifies that the magistrate may alter custody nature (from judicial to police custody or vice versa) only during the initial 15 days — not the entire 40/60-day window. Third, on the important issue of advocate presence, the Court held that Section 38 BNSS provides for the accused's right to meet advocate during interrogation but NOT throughout interrogation. The Court modified the lower court's condition to allow the lawyer's presence only within the site of interrogation where the advocate can see the accused, and held that audio-visual recording of the actual interrogation and discovery proceedings will satisfy the requirement.

The case itself involved custodial death — a stark reminder of the human cost when custody powers are misused. Article 21's protection of personal liberty and Article 22's protection against arbitrary arrest require that police custody remain a narrowly circumscribed exception. The Suda Suresh ruling strikes the right balance — giving investigators flexibility to pursue fresh leads that emerge later, while preserving the aggregate cap and audio-visual accountability that protect the accused. The way forward requires strict enforcement of the 15-day cap, reasoned custody orders that justify extensions with specific fresh facts, and robust implementation of audio-visual recording of all interrogations and discovery proceedings.