Current Edge Daily Brief 28th October 2025

Quote of the Day

“The true republic: Men, their rights, and nothing more; Women, their rights, and nothing less.” – SUSAN B ANTHONY

What the Others Say

“We urge the interim government to use its full force, which it appears to have, to ensure a proper election process leading to a fair and participatory election on time. This is the most important national priority at the moment.” – THE DAILY STAR, BANGLADESH

Table of Contents

THE BIG PICTURE

  • IE Explained: What sets nationwide SIR apart from Bihar’s controversial roll revision (Damini Nath , Ritika Chopra)
  • IE Explained: Row over PM-SHRI in Kerala: What is the school education scheme, why some states have opposed it (Abhinaya Harigovind)
  • TH Editorial: A start for North-South carbon market cooperation (Shashank Pandey)

The Big Picture

IE Explained: What sets nationwide SIR apart from Bihar’s controversial roll revision

Syllabus: Pre/Mains – Polity/Governance

Why in News?

EC launches 2nd phase of nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls (Oct 28, 2025) → major procedural + policy shift from Bihar’s controversial SIR (June 2024).

1️⃣ Core Objective & Tone Shift

  • Bihar SIR → citizenship verification focus → anxiety, exclusion fears
  • Nationwide SIR → inclusion-centric, voter continuity focus
  • Citizenship = eligibility criterion ✔ but not verification test

  • Aim → clean, updated rolls ✦ no mass deletions or document-driven exclusion

2️⃣ Enumeration Phase (Approach Recast)

  • Bihar → electors (post-2003) had to show citizenship/age proof → large-scale document hunt
  • Now → only basic info (address, family link) needed → no docs at enumeration
  • Enumerators trace electors via old rolls of self/parents/relatives → emphasis on continuity
  • Purpose → identify missing voters, ensure none dropped mistakenly

3️⃣ Enumeration Form Changes

  • 2 new columns → link to last SIR roll (self/family)
  • Earlier introduced late in Bihar after backlash → now built-in from start
  • Enables automatic tracing of voter lineage across revisions → simplifies eligibility confirmation

4️⃣ Cross-State Roll Linkage ✦ New Feature

  • BLOs get access to all states’ last intensive revision rolls
  • Bihar BLOs → limited to state 2003 roll
  • Migrants (e.g., WB 2002 → TN 2025) can retain registration using old state link
  • Acknowledges mobility of workforce, urban migration patterns

5️⃣ Document Submission Policy

  • Docs required only if voter absent from any state’s last SIR roll
  • Earlier → all post-2003 Bihar voters had to submit one of 11 docs
  • Now → smaller, targeted group receives notice during claims-objections phase
  • Fairer scrutiny → avoid blanket demand for citizenship proof

6️⃣ Citizenship Verification Recalibrated

  • Bihar EC claim → right to verify citizenship directly
  • New approach → citizenship remains base criterion, not active test
  • Language softened to prevent exclusion of genuine electors
  • Aadhaar retained as 12th acceptable doc (added after SC ruling)

7️⃣ Inclusion of New Voters (18+)

  • Earlier (Bihar) → new electors added only later (claims-objections)
  • Now → can submit Form 6 + SIR declaration during enumeration → faster inclusion
  • Reduces lag for first-time voters → better youth participation

8️⃣ Political & Administrative Process Improvements

  • Bihar → poor coordination, sudden notice → confusion & protests
  • Nationwide SIR → pre-launch meetings with CEOs & political parties → transparency ↑
  • Parties briefed on process → stakeholder buy-in ensured
  • EC aims to rebuild trust after Bihar criticism

Wider Context & Significance

  • First large-scale nationwide SIR since 2003–04 revisions
  • Timing → before major Assembly polls (e.g., TN, WB, UP upcoming 2026–27)
  • Aligns with EC’s goal of 100% roll accuracy, minimal duplication
  • Reflects course correction post-public backlash in Bihar.

Test Your Knowledge 01

Q. Which of the following actions by the Election Commission would fall within its constitutional and statutory mandate under Articles 324–329 and the Representation of the People Acts?

  1. Revising electoral rolls through nationwide SIR.
  2. Requiring proof of citizenship as an eligibility condition for voter registration.
  3. Declaring Aadhaar as mandatory for inclusion in electoral rolls.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, and 3

Hint: EC can verify eligibility (citizenship, age, residence) but cannot make Aadhaar mandatory (violates SC orders, Aadhaar Act s.7 restrictions).

IE Explained: Row over PM-SHRI in Kerala: What is the school education scheme, why some states have opposed it

Syllabus: Pre/Mains – Polity/Governance

Why in News?

→ Kerala govt signed MoU with Centre to implement PM-SHRI scheme after long resistance; sparked intra-LDF & Opposition row.

A file picture of Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan and PM Modi. The Opposition has slammed the LDF government’s decision to sign the MoU, alleging a “link” between the CPI(M) and the BJP. (Photo: ANI)

PM-SHRI Scheme – Overview

  • Full formPM Schools for Rising India
  • Launched → 2022; aligned with NEP 2020 vision
  • Coverage → 14,500 schools (existing govt schools)
  • Purpose → Model “exemplar” schools → showcase NEP practices
  • Funding → Centre–State ratio 60:40
  • Selection so far → 13,070 schools (incl. 1,533 KVs + NVs)

Key Features & Implementation

  • Pedagogy → Art-/toy-based learning, experiential methods
  • Skills focus → Vocational edu + skill labs in each school
  • Foundational learning → FLN (basic literacy & numeracy) ensured
  • Infra → Labs, ICT, accessibility, zero-dropout target
  • Assessment → Competency-based, not rote-learning
  • FrameworkSchool Quality Assessment Framework → performance-linked funding
  • Curriculum → NCF or State Curriculum (based on NEP)

Political & Federal Dimensions

  • Implementing states → Most incl. Karnataka, Telangana, HP, Punjab, Delhi
  • Non-implementing → Tamil Nadu, West Bengal (oppose NEP branding + central prefix “PM”)
  • Kerala’s stance shift → Initially refused (NEP clause) → now signed MoU citing fund crunch
  • Internal dissent → CPI (LDF ally) opposed lack of consultation
  • Opposition charge → Congress alleges CPI(M)–BJP “deal”

Linkage with Samagra Shiksha Funds

  • Samagra Shiksha → Core school funding scheme (RTE, uniforms, textbooks, inclusive edu)
  • Funding tie-up → Centre linked fund release to PM-SHRI adoption
  • Kerala impact → No central funds for FY 2024–25 & 2025–26; partial in 2023–24 (~₹1,150 cr)
  • Result → State used own share → pending scholarships, uniforms, grants
  • Reason for MoU → Need for revival of withheld funds

Core Issue – NEP Implementation Clause

  • MoU condition → State to adopt NEP “in entirety”
  • Kerala’s clarification → Will adopt only state-acceptable parts; retain control over curriculum/textbooks
  • Broader debate → Centre–State friction over federal control in education + ideological opposition to NEP

Conclusion

→ Kerala’s U-turn on PM-SHRI stems from fiscal necessity amid Centre’s fund freeze; reignites debate on NEP federalism & political optics.

Test Your Knowledge 02

Q. With reference to the PM Schools for Rising India (PM-SHRI) Scheme, consider the following statements:

  1. It aims to develop new model schools across the country under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
  2. Only centrally managed schools like Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya Vidyalayas are eligible for selection.
  3. The funding pattern of the scheme between Centre and States (Normal) is in the ratio of 60:40.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Hint: PM-SHRI upgrades existing schools (not new ones); includes both Central & State govt schools; funding 60:40 (90:10 for NE & UTs).

TH Editorial: A start for North-South carbon market cooperation

Syllabus: Pre/Mains – Environment

Why in News?

→ EU–India New Strategic Agenda (Sept 2025) links Indian Carbon Market (ICM) with EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) — a potential first for North–South carbon market cooperation.

India–EU Carbon Linkage: Concept & Significance

  • CBAM ↔ ICM → carbon price paid in India deducted from CBAM at EU border
  • Aim → avoid “double penalty” on exporters, reward early decarbonisation
  • Potential → model for Global South–North carbon market integration

Challenges in Indian Carbon Market (ICM)

  • Weak architecture → ICM under Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) still evolving, project-based offsets ≠ absolute emission caps
  • Institutional gap → no EU-style independent regulators / emission registries → ↓ credibility, ↓ environmental integrity
  • Price disparity → EU ETS: €60–80/t; India: €5–10/t → EU may deduct minimal carbon cost
  • Double burden risk → exporters face both ICM compliance + full CBAM levy → industry pushback likely
  • Structural redesign needed → shift to compliance-grade market, strong penalties, transparent verification

Political–Legal Contradictions

  • WTO stance → India earlier opposed CBAM as unilateral & protectionist → linkage = policy contradiction
  • Sovereignty issue → CBAM gives EU leverage to judge India’s carbon adequacy
  • Trade tensions → partial deductions may trigger disputes / WTO cases
  • Domestic volatility → policy rollback under industrial pressure → exporters exposed to full CBAM levy

Way Forward: Cooperation over Conflict

  • Market strengthening → India: enforce caps, ↑ carbon price, build robust verification
  • EU role → technical assistance, phased recognition of Indian credits
  • Negotiated price floor / sectoral contracts → align ICM–CBAM expectations
  • Trust-building → transparent MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) + clear dispute protocols

Test Your Knowledge 03

Q. India’s opposition to the CBAM at international fora is primarily based on which of the following arguments?

(a) It violates the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).
(b) It mandates developing countries to adopt EU-style emission caps.
(c) It offers subsidies only to EU exporters, creating a trade distortion.
(d) It allows carbon-intensive goods to enter developing markets unchecked.

Hint: India argues CBAM is unilateral, protectionist, and inconsistent with CBDR — developed–developing differentiation under UNFCCC.