Current affairs 25 April 2026 covering polity environment and wildlife topics

Relevance: GS Paper III – Environment | Biodiversity | Wildlife Conservation | Andhra Pradesh Current Affairs

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

  • Papikonda National Park, Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, NTCA, Godavari River, Eastern Ghats, Tiger Dispersal, Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Schedule I Species, Project Tiger, Core Area, Buffer Area

For Mains:

  • Tiger Corridors, Human-Wildlife Conflict, Landscape Conservation, Protected Area Management, Inter-State Wildlife Movement

Why in News?

An adult male tiger named “Explorer,” which dispersed from Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra, has again entered East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh after crossing the Godavari River.

The tiger travelled across Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, covering more than 650 km in 53 days. It was tranquilised near Kurmapuram village on February 6, 2026 and released into Papikonda National Park on February 14 following directions of the National Tiger Conservation Authority.

Since release, it has crossed the Godavari River twice and returned to East Godavari. Forest officials confirmed that it has not attacked any human during its entire movement.

Key Facts :

Point

Fact

Origin of tiger

Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra

Release site

Papikonda National Park, Andhra Pradesh

Tranquilised at

Kurmapuram village, East Godavari

Repeated movement area

Korukonda mandal near Munagala village

Distance travelled

More than 650 km

States covered

Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh

River crossed

Godavari River

Preferred habitat in summer

Streams and water bodies

Human attack reported

No

Special field fact

Tranquilisation avoided inside water bodies

Papikonda National Park

  • It is located in the East Godavari and West Godavari districts of Andhra Pradesh.
  • It spreads over an area of 86 square kilometres.
  • It lies in the Papikondalu hill range of the Eastern Ghats.
  • It is situated along both the left and right banks of the Godavari River.
  • It is known for its distinct river gorge landscape formed by the Godavari flowing through forested hills.
  • It was declared a Reserved Forest in 1882.
  • It was later notified as a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1978.
  • It was upgraded to a National Park in 2008.
  • It is dominated by tropical moist deciduous forests.
  • It supports important fauna such as tiger, gaur, and mouse deer.
  • It forms part of the Godavari riverine ecosystem within the Eastern Ghats.
  • It has been in recent news due to tiger movement and release under guidelines of the National Tiger Conservation Authority.

Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve

  • Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve is located in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra and is one of India’s oldest tiger reserves.
  • It is named after Tadoba Lake and the Andhari River. It is famous for high tiger density, dry deciduous forests, and strong corridor connectivity.

Major Big Cats of India

Species

Scientific Name

IUCN Status

Key Habitat in India

Bengal Tiger

Panthera tigris tigris

Endangered

Central India, Sundarbans, Western Ghats, Northeast

Asiatic Lion

Panthera leo persica

Endangered

Gir region, Gujarat

Indian Leopard

Panthera pardus fusca

Vulnerable

Across India

Snow Leopard

Panthera uncia

Vulnerable

Himalayas—Ladakh, Himachal, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Arunachal

Clouded Leopard

Neofelis nebulosa

Vulnerable

Northeast India

Godavari River

  • It originates from Trimbakeshwar in Maharashtra and flows eastward into the Bay of Bengal, forming a large delta in Andhra Pradesh.
  • It flows through Maharashtra, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh, creating an inter-state river basin.
  • In Andhra Pradesh, it passes through the Papikondalu (Eastern Ghats) region and the Papikonda National Park landscape.
  • It forms a riverine forest corridor in the Papikondalu region, with continuous forest cover along both banks.
  • It has been observed that a tiger has crossed the river multiple times, indicating that wide rivers do not always act as absolute barriers.
  • The tiger movement has been recorded along water bodies and forest patches, especially during summer conditions.
  • The riverine stretch has facilitated long-distance dispersal of the tiger across Maharashtra–Telangana–Chhattisgarh–Andhra Pradesh.

 Key recall: Godavari (Trimbakeshwar origin) flows through 4 states, forms a delta in Andhra Pradesh, and acts as a riverine corridor enabling interstate tiger movement in the Papikondalu region.

Tiger Conservation Framework

  • Tiger receives the highest legal protection in India.
  • Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, tiger is listed under Schedule I, which provides maximum legal protection.
  • Project Tiger was launched in 1973 for ensuring viable tiger populations through habitat protection and scientific management.
  • Tiger reserves follow a two-zone model:
  • Core Area – strictly protected zone with minimal human interference
  • Buffer Area – regulated-use zone around the core for coexistence with local communities

CARE MCQ

Q. Consider the following statements:

  1. Papikonda is a Tiger Reserve in Andhra Pradesh.
  2. Tiger is listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
  3. Godavari is the longest river of Peninsular India.

Which of the above are correct?

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

Ans: (a)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is incorrect because Papikonda is a National Park, not a Tiger Reserve. Statements 2 and 3 are correct.

Q.Consider the following statements:

  1. Pulicat Lake is a brackish water lagoon.
  2. Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve is shared by Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
  3. Sri Venkateswara National Park is located in the Western Ghats.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

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

Ans. (a)

Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct : Pulicat Lake is a coastal lagoon with a mix of seawater and freshwater, hence classified as brackish. It is also an important habitat for migratory birds, especially flamingos.
Statement 2 is correct: Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve extends across both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and is one of the largest tiger reserves in India.
Statement 3 is incorrect : Sri Venkateswara National Park is located in the Eastern Ghats (Tirumala hills), not in the Western Ghats.

Q.Consider the following statements regarding the Godavari River:

  1. It flows through a gorge-like landscape in the Papikondalu hills of the Eastern Ghats.
  2. Its lower course in Andhra Pradesh is associated with mangrove ecosystems.
  3. It is the second longest river in India.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

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

Ans. (d)

Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: the Godavari flows through the Papikondalu hills forming a gorge-like landscape in the Eastern Ghats.
Statement 2 is correct: its delta region in Andhra Pradesh supports mangrove ecosystems such as those in Coringa.
Statement 3 is correct: the Godavari is the second longest river in India after the Ganga.

APPSC Mains Question

Q.Inter-state tiger dispersal highlights the importance of landscape-level conservation beyond protected area boundaries. Discuss with reference to Andhra Pradesh. [250 WORDS]

FAQs

Q.Is Papikonda a Tiger Reserve?
Ans: No, it is a National Park.

Q.From where did the tiger originate?
Ans: From Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra.

Q.Why do male tigers move long distances?
Ans:For territory, prey and breeding opportunities.

Q.Why is Godavari important here?
Ans:It acts as both a barrier and an ecological corridor.

Q.Why was tranquilisation difficult?
Ans:Because the tiger stayed inside water bodies during daytime.

Relevance: GS Paper II – Polity | Parliament | Anti-Defection Law | Constitutional Provisions

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

  • Anti-Defection Law, Tenth Schedule, 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, Rajya Sabha Chairman, Merger Provision, Disqualification Petition, Kihoto Hollohan Case, Voluntarily Giving Up Membership, Party Whip

For Mains:

  • party discipline, legislative stability, judicial review, constitutional morality, political defections, parliamentary ethics, Speaker’s discretion, democratic accountability, federal politics, institutional neutrality

Why in News?

party discipline, legislative stability, judicial review, constitutional morality, political defections, parliamentary ethics, Speaker’s discretion, democratic accountability, federal politics, institutional neutrality

What Happened in the Rajya Sabha

  • The seven MPs publicly announced that they were merging with the BJP and claimed protection under the merger provision of the Anti-Defection Law.
  • Under the Tenth Schedule, if at least two-thirds of the members of a legislature party agree to merge with another political party, they are protected from disqualification.
  • Since seven out of ten MPs satisfy the two-thirds requirement, legal experts suggest that the Rajya Sabha Chairman may accept the merger claim, similar to the precedent seen in the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) Rajya Sabha case.
  • However, opposition parties may file a disqualification petition challenging the legitimacy of the merger and questioning whether it reflects a genuine party merger or only individual defections.
  • Until the Chairman gives a final decision, the defecting MPs technically remain AAP members.

Anti-Defection Law: Constitutional Basis

  • The Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
  • Its primary aim is to prevent political defections motivated by personal gain and to ensure stability in governments.
  • The law applies to both Parliament and State Legislatures.
    It was further strengthened by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which removed the provision of “split” (1/3rd members) and retained only the “merger” provision.

Grounds for Disqualification

  • A Member of Parliament or State Legislature can be disqualified under the Anti-Defection Law on several grounds.
  • If an elected member voluntarily gives up membership of the political party on whose ticket they were elected, they can be disqualified. This does not require formal resignation; even conduct indicating disloyalty may be enough.
  • If a member votes or abstains from voting against the party whip without prior permission and the action is not condoned by the party within 15 days, disqualification can follow.
  • An independent member who joins any political party after election is also disqualified.
  • A nominated member can join a political party only within six months of taking their seat. After that, joining a party leads to disqualification.

Merger Exception under the Tenth Schedule

  • The most important exception under the Anti-Defection Law is the merger provision.
  • If not less than two-thirds of the members of a legislature party agree to merge with another political party, they are protected from disqualification.
  • This provision was retained after the 91st Amendment, while the earlier “split” exception for one-third members was removed.
  • In this case, seven out of ten AAP Rajya Sabha MPs constitute exactly two-thirds, which gives them a legal basis to claim merger protection.
  • However, the controversy lies in determining whether this is a genuine political merger of the party or merely a strategic defection of MPs.
  • This interpretation becomes crucial for the Chairman’s decision.

Supreme Court’s Stance

  1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)
    • Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review on limited grounds.
  2. Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994)
    • Defection can be inferred from conduct; resignation is not necessary.
  3. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Assembly (2020)
    • Speaker should decide cases within 3 months.
    • Suggested creation of an independent tribunal.
  4. Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025)
    • Supreme Court called for reforms to ensure timely and impartial decisions.
    • Re-examined the role of the Speaker.

Powers and Functions of Rajya Sabha Chairman

Area

Power / Function

Key Prelims Fact

Constitutional Position

Ex-officio Chairman

Vice-President acts as Chairman (Art. 64, 89)

Presiding Function

Conducts proceedings

Maintains order, decides speaking order

Discipline

Maintains decorum

Can suspend members for disorderly conduct

Rules Interpretation

Final authority on procedure

Decisions on rules are binding

Points of Order

Decides points raised by members

Ensures proceedings follow rules

Voting Power

Casting vote only

No vote in first instance; votes only in tie

Adjournment Power

Adjourns/suspends House

In case of disorder or lack of quorum

Committee Role

Nominates members

Important in committee functioning

Administrative Role

Controls Secretariat

Supervises Rajya Sabha Secretariat

Anti-Defection

Decides disqualification

Acts under Tenth Schedule

Judicial Review

Decisions reviewable

Subject to court review

Money Bill Role

No final authority

Speaker of Lok Sabha decides Money Bill

Removal

Cannot be removed by RS alone

Removed as Vice-President by Parliament

 

Way Forward

The Anti-Defection Law should be reformed to balance party discipline with democratic debate. The law should be limited mainly to votes affecting government stability such as no-confidence motions, money bills, and confidence votes, rather than every legislative issue.

The power to decide disqualification should be shifted from the Speaker or Chairman to an independent tribunal or the Election Commission to improve neutrality. A strict constitutional time limit should be introduced for deciding disqualification petitions.

The merger provision should also be reviewed carefully so that it protects genuine political restructuring rather than encouraging strategic defections

Conclusion

The defection of seven AAP Rajya Sabha MPs to the BJP is not merely a party issue; it is a major constitutional test for the Anti-Defection Law.

The case highlights the continuing tension between political strategy and constitutional ethics. Whether the Chairman treats this as a legitimate merger or an unlawful defection will shape the future interpretation of the Tenth Schedule.

Ultimately, the strength of parliamentary democracy depends not only on legal provisions but also on the political morality of those who operate within them.

CARE MCQ

Q. Consider the following statements regarding disqualification of a Member of Parliament on grounds of defection:

  1. A member can be disqualified if he or she votes against the party whip in the House without prior permission, even when the party is part of a ruling coalition.
  2. The Speaker of the House decides questions of disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law, and such decisions are completely immune from judicial review.
  3. The Anti-Defection Law applies to both elected and nominated members of Parliament.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

Ans: (c) 1 and 3 only

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct:Under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, a member may be disqualified if he votes or abstains from voting contrary to the direction issued by his political party, commonly known as the party whip, without obtaining prior permission. This rule applies irrespective of whether the party is in government, opposition, or part of a coalition. Therefore, even in a coalition government, defying the party whip can lead to disqualification.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the authority to decide questions of disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law. However, their decision is not beyond challenge. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review, especially on grounds of mala fide action, violation of constitutional provisions, or procedural irregularity. Therefore, the statement is incorrect.

Statement 3 is correct: The Anti-Defection Law applies to both elected and nominated members of Parliament. A nominated member can also be disqualified if he joins a political party after six months from the date of taking his seat in the House. Thus, the law covers both categories of members. Hence, this statement is correct.

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the Anti-Defection Law in India:

  1. A member of a political party is disqualified from being a member of the House if he voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party.
  2. A political party may merge with another party without attracting disqualification if not less than two-thirds of its legislators agree to the merger.
  3. The decision on disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law is taken by the President of India on the advice of the Election Commission.
  4. A legislator is not disqualified if his original political party merges with another party but he and some other members choose not to join the merged party and function as a separate group.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 4 only
(c) 1, 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 4 only

Ans: (d) 1, 2 and 4 only

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: One of the main grounds of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is when a member voluntarily gives up the membership of his political party. This does not require a formal resignation; even conduct indicating abandonment of party loyalty may be treated as voluntarily giving up membership. Therefore, this statement is correct.

Statement 2 is correct: The law provides an exception in case of a merger of political parties. If at least two-thirds of the legislators of a legislative party agree to merge with another party, such members are protected from disqualification. This provision replaced the earlier split exception, which was removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment. Hence, this statement is correct.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The decision on disqualification is not taken by the President. It is decided by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in the case of Parliament, and by the Speaker/Chairman in State Legislatures. The President and Election Commission are involved in disqualification under other provisions like office of profit, but not under the Anti-Defection Law. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.

Statement 4 is correct: When a merger takes place, legislators who choose not to join the merged party and prefer to continue as a separate group are also protected from disqualification. The law recognizes both those who accept the merger and those who refuse it, provided the merger satisfies the two-thirds requirement. Hence, this statement is correct.

Q. Which of the following Supreme Court cases is related to the judicial review of the Speaker’s decision on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule?

(a) Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others
(b) Golaknath vs State of Punjab
(c) Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala
(d) Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain

Answer: (a) Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others

Explanation:
The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) while ruling that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review. This ensured that the Speaker’s powers are not absolute and can be challenged in courts on grounds such as mala fides or violation of constitutional mandates.

Q. Regarding the Anti-Defection Law in India, which of the following statements is correct?

(a) It applies only to the members of the Lok Sabha.
(b) It is mentioned under Article 102 of the Constitution.
(c) It was introduced by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.
(d) It allows a member to change parties if there’s a merger of two-thirds of the members.

Answer: (c) It was introduced by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.

Explanation:
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

FAQs

Q1. What is the Anti-Defection Law?

It is a constitutional law under the Tenth Schedule that prevents legislators from changing political parties for personal or political gain.

Q2. Which amendment introduced the Anti-Defection Law?

The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 introduced it.

Q3. What is the merger exception?

If at least two-thirds of members of a legislature party join another party, they are protected from disqualification.

Q4. Who decides disqualification in Rajya Sabha cases?

The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha decides such cases.

Q5. Why is the Anti-Defection Law criticized?

It suppresses dissent, allows misuse of the merger clause, and gives excessive discretion to presiding officers.

Relevance:GS Paper III – Agriculture | Crop Protection | Agri Reforms | Food Security

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

  • Pesticides Management Bill, Insecticides Act 1968, Protection of Regulatory Data (PRD), Data Exclusivity, Registration Committee, Central Pesticides Board, CropLife India, Crop Protection Chemicals, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Resistance Management

For Mains:

  • Agricultural productivity, innovation gap, farmer welfare, food security, regulatory reforms, sustainable agriculture, agrochemical governance, pesticide safety, crop resilience, technology access

Why in News?

  • CropLife India, an industry body representing major crop protection companies, has urged the Union Agriculture Ministry to make targeted changes in the draft Pesticides Management Bill before it is introduced in Parliament.
  • The industry argues that the current draft does not adequately address the innovation gap in India’s pesticide sector and may delay farmers’ access to safer and more effective crop protection technologies.
  • Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has announced that an amended Seeds and Pesticide Management Bill will be introduced in the upcoming parliamentary session.
Source: The Hindu

What is the Pesticides Management Bill?

  • The Pesticides Management Bill, 2025 is proposed to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Insecticides Rules, 1971, which currently regulate pesticides in India.
  • The objective is to create a modern legal framework for regulating pesticides from manufacture to final disposal and to address issues such as fake pesticides, weak monitoring, and lack of digital traceability.
  • The Bill covers the manufacture, import, export, transport, storage, sale, distribution, use, and disposal of pesticides.
  • It provides that no pesticide can be manufactured, imported, or sold unless it is registered under the law.
  • For this purpose, it establishes a Central Pesticides Board as the apex scientific and advisory body and a Registration Committee responsible for registration, review, suspension, and cancellation of pesticides.

 

 

Why the Existing Law Needs Replacement

  • The Insecticides Act of 1968 was framed when India’s agricultural and technological realities were very different.
  • It primarily focused on regulating insecticides and did not fully account for modern crop protection chemicals, new pest threats, digital traceability, or environmental concerns.
  • Over the years, agriculture has become more complex due to climate change, pest resistance, changing cropping patterns, and export-linked food safety standards. The old law is not fully equipped to deal with these realities.
  • Farmers today require faster access to newer molecules that are lower-dose, more targeted, and environmentally safer.
  • Therefore, replacing the 1968 law has become necessary for both agricultural productivity and sustainable farming.

Industry Concerns Regarding the Draft Bill

  • CropLife India has stated that while the proposed Bill is a positive reform, the current draft still leaves major policy gaps that discourage innovation.
  • The industry argues that India faces a serious innovation lag because new crop protection technologies take too long to enter the market. This pushes farmers toward excessive use of older pesticides that are less efficient and often more harmful.
  • According to the industry, the absence of a clear incentive structure for innovation discourages companies from introducing advanced molecules in India quickly.

This affects:

  • pest resistance management
    • residue control for exports
    • environmental sustainability
    • farmer productivity
    • long-term crop resilience

The industry is therefore demanding a more predictable and time-bound regulatory framework.

Protection of Regulatory Data (PRD) Debate

The most important issue raised by CropLife India is the need for Protection of Regulatory Data (PRD), also known as Data Exclusivity.

  • When a company develops a new pesticide molecule, it spends large amounts of money on safety studies, toxicity testing, field trials, and environmental impact assessments. This proprietary data is submitted to the regulator for market approval.
  • PRD prevents competitors from immediately using that same data to obtain approval for generic versions of the product for a limited period.
  • The industry has proposed a five-year PRD period from the date of first registration. This would allow innovators temporary protection while still permitting competition later.
  • Without PRD, companies fear “free-riding,” where competitors benefit from expensive research without making the same investment. This reduces incentives for innovation.

PRD vs Patent: Important Difference

  • A patent protects the invention itself, such as a chemical compound or manufacturing process. It generally lasts for 20 years.
  • Protection of Regulatory Data protects only the test data submitted for regulatory approval, not the invention itself. It usually lasts for 5–10 years depending on the country.
  • Even if a patent expires, PRD may still provide temporary market exclusivity because competitors cannot rely on the innovator’s safety and efficacy data.
  • Thus, PRD acts as a second layer of innovation protection, especially in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals.

Importance of Faster Access to New Crop Protection Technologies

Modern crop protection technologies are far more advanced than older pesticide formulations. They are often:

  • lower-dose
    • more targeted
    • safer for beneficial insects
    • less harmful for soil and water
    • better for export residue compliance
    • more effective against resistant pests

Delayed access to such technologies forces Indian farmers to overuse outdated chemicals, increasing production costs and pest resistance.

This is especially important in high-value crops like fruits, vegetables, cotton, and export-oriented agriculture where international residue standards are strict.

Faster access to newer solutions improves both productivity and competitiveness.

 

Key Features of the Draft Pesticides Management Bill

  • The Bill proposes the creation of a Central Pesticides Board to provide scientific advice and policy guidance.
  • A Registration Committee will act as the executive authority for approving, suspending, or cancelling pesticide registrations.
  • Digital licensing and a national registry are proposed to improve monitoring and reduce fake pesticide sales.
  • Specific timelines of around 12 to 18 months are proposed for registration decisions so that approval delays can be reduced.
  • The Bill also introduces stronger penalties for manufacturing or selling unregistered and spurious pesticides.
  • It improves safety standards related to labeling, packaging, protective equipment, and worker training.
  • These provisions aim to improve accountability across the pesticide supply chain.

Challenges in India’s Pesticide Regulation

  • India faces multiple problems in pesticide governance.
  • Spurious and counterfeit pesticides remain a major issue, harming both farmers and crop productivity.
  • Regulatory approvals are often slow and unpredictable, discouraging innovation and reducing investor confidence.
  • Awareness among farmers regarding safe pesticide use, dosage, and protective gear remains limited, leading to health risks.
  • Overuse of chemical pesticides has created environmental problems such as soil degradation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss.
  • Balancing innovation incentives with affordability for farmers remains a major policy challenge. Too much exclusivity can raise prices, while too little protection can discourage new technologies.

Way Forward

India needs a balanced Pesticides Management Bill that protects both farmer interests and innovation incentives.

A limited and time-bound PRD framework should be considered so that companies are encouraged to introduce safer technologies while competition is still ensured after the exclusivity period ends.

Regulatory approvals must be faster, transparent, and science-based to reduce delays in introducing modern crop protection solutions. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) should be promoted so that pesticide use remains efficient and environmentally sustainable rather than excessive. Farmer education on safe pesticide usage, protective equipment, and resistance management must be strengthened through extension systems.

The final law should support productivity without compromising environmental and health safeguards.

Conclusion

The debate over the Pesticides Management Bill is not only about industry interests—it is about the future of Indian agriculture. Farmers need access to safer and more effective technologies, but this must be balanced with affordability, public health, and environmental sustainability.

A modern law replacing the outdated Insecticides Act, 1968 is necessary, but its success will depend on how well it balances innovation with regulation. If designed properly, the Bill can strengthen food security, export competitiveness, and sustainable agricultural growth.

CARE MCQ

Q. With reference to Protection of Regulatory Data (PRD), consider the following statements:

  1. PRD protects the proprietary safety and efficacy data submitted for regulatory approval.
  2. PRD and patents are exactly the same forms of intellectual property protection.
  3. PRD is often demanded in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

A. 1 and 3 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 2 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Ans: (a)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct : PRD protects the regulatory data generated by innovators for product approval.

Statement 2 is incorrect : PRD protects regulatory data, while patents protect the invention itself. They are different legal mechanisms.

Statement 3 is correct : PRD is commonly debated in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals where R&D costs are very high.

Q. With reference to the Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, consider the following statements:

  1. It seeks to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968.
  2. It establishes a Central Pesticides Board as the apex advisory body.
  3. It is administered by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers.
  4. It includes regulation of bio-pesticides.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1, 2 and 4 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2, 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Ans: (a)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: The Pesticides Management Bill, 2025 seeks to replace the old Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Insecticides Rules, 1971.

Statement 2 is correct: The Bill provides for the establishment of the Central Pesticides Board as the apex scientific and advisory body for pesticide regulation.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The Bill comes under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, not the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers.

Statement 4 is correct: The Bill also includes provisions for regulating bio-pesticides and newer crop protection technologies.

Q.Consider the following statements regarding Pesticide Residue Monitoring:

  1. It primarily aims to ensure food safety by verifying compliance with Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs).
  2. Advanced analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) are commonly used for detection and quantification of pesticide residues.
  3. The scope of monitoring is generally restricted only to fresh fruits and vegetables and does not include processed food products.
  4. Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) are fixed only on the basis of acute toxicity of pesticides without considering long-term exposure risks.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1, 3 and 4 only
(c) 2, 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Ans: (a)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: Pesticide residue monitoring is mainly aimed at ensuring food safety by checking whether pesticide residues in food remain within the prescribed Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). These limits are fixed to protect consumers from harmful exposure and to ensure that agricultural produce remains safe for domestic use as well as exports.

Statement 2 is correct: Advanced techniques such as Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) are commonly used for accurate detection and measurement of pesticide residues. These methods are highly sensitive and can detect even trace amounts of chemicals in food samples.

Statement 3 is incorrect: Pesticide residue monitoring is not limited only to fresh produce like fruits and vegetables. It also extends to processed foods, cereals, pulses, beverages, milk, meat products, and even environmental samples like soil and water. This broader scope helps in understanding total exposure and contamination risks.

Statement 4 is incorrect: MRLs are not fixed only on the basis of acute toxicity. They are determined after considering both acute and chronic toxicity, Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), long-term health risks, dietary exposure, and Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Therefore, long-term safety is an important factor in setting MRLs.

Q. Consider the following statements regarding pesticide regulation in India:

  1. The Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) functions under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to regulate the manufacture, import, sale, and use of pesticides in India.
  2. The Insecticides Act, 1968 classifies pesticides into four toxicity categories based on their acute oral and dermal LD50 values.
  3. The Pesticide Management Bill, 2020 introduces provisions for mandatory compensation to farmers for losses caused by poor quality or misleading claims of pesticides.
  4. Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides in food products are determined and enforced by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC).

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) Only three
(d) All four

Ans: (c)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: The Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) functions under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. It is responsible for advising the government on technical matters related to pesticides and for registering insecticides after evaluating their safety, efficacy, and suitability for use in India.

Statement 2 is correct: Under the Insecticides Act, 1968, pesticides are classified into four toxicity categories (Class I to Class IV) based on their acute oral and dermal LD50 values. This helps determine safety precautions, warning labels, and restrictions for handling and use.

Statement 3 is correct: The Pesticide Management Bill, 2020, proposed to replace the Insecticides Act, includes provisions for mandatory compensation to farmers if pesticides are found to be sub-standard, adulterated, or if misleading claims lead to crop losses. This strengthens farmer protection and accountability of manufacturers.

Statement 4 is incorrect: Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides in food are not fixed by CIBRC. They are determined and enforced by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. CIBRC deals with pesticide registration, while FSSAI regulates food safety standards.

FAQs

Q1. What is the Pesticides Management Bill?

It is a proposed law to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968 and modernize pesticide regulation in India.

Q2. What is PRD?

PRD stands for Protection of Regulatory Data. It prevents competitors from immediately using an innovator’s test data for regulatory approval.

Q3. Why is PRD controversial?

Because it must balance innovation incentives with affordable access for farmers and competition in the market.

Q4. What is the main demand of CropLife India?

The main demand is a time-bound PRD framework of about five years for new pesticide molecules and uses.

Q5. Why are newer crop protection technologies important?

They are safer, lower-dose, more targeted, reduce resistance, and improve export competitiveness through better residue management.

APPSC Current Affairs April 24th 2026

Enroll Now for Unlimited UPSC Utsav

Start Date

22/03/2026

Timings

08 AM – 4 PM

    Courses

    Scroll to Top