TGPSC Current Affairs April 2nd 2026

News at a Glance

Proposal to Increase Lok Sabha Strength by 50%: Concerns Over Regional Imbalance

Source: The Hindu

Relevance: GS Paper II – Polity (Parliament, Representation, Delimitation, Federalism, Electoral Reforms)

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

Lok Sabha, Delimitation, Census, Article 81, Delimitation Commission, Freeze on Delimitation, 42nd Amendment, 84th Amendment, 87th Amendment, Nari Shakti Vandan Act

For Mains:

Federalism, Regional Imbalance, Political Representation, Population vs Representation Debate, Electoral Reforms, Centre-State Relations

Why in News?

Concerns have been raised by leaders including A. Revanth Reddy over a reported proposal to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha by 50%, which may impact regional representation.

Background and Constitutional Context

The composition of Lok Sabha is governed by Article 81, which provides for representation of states based on population.
Delimitation ensures periodic adjustment of constituencies based on census data.
However, to promote population control, delimitation has been frozen until after the first Census post-2026, creating a major constitutional and political debate.

Key Highlights of the Proposal

Proposal to increase Lok Sabha seats by 50%
Proportionate increase in seats across states
Larger states likely to gain more seats in absolute terms
No official confirmation yet (based on political claims)
Linked indirectly with future delimitation exercise

Delimitation & Census

Aspect	Details
Delimitation Meaning	Process of redrawing boundaries of constituencies and allocation of seats based on population
Constitutional Basis	Articles 81, 82 (Lok Sabha), Article 170 (State Assemblies)
Authority	Delimitation Commission of India
Nature of Commission	Independent, quasi-judicial body; orders have force of law and cannot be challenged in court
Composition	Retired Supreme Court judge (Chairperson), Chief Election Commissioner, State Election Commissioners
Frequency	After every Census (ideally every 10 years)
Past Delimitation Exercises	1952, 1963, 1973, 2002 (based on 2001 Census)
Current Status	Frozen until after Census post-2026
Freeze Reason	To avoid penalising states that controlled population growth
42nd Amendment (1976)	Froze delimitation until 2001
84th Amendment (2001)	Extended freeze till 2026
87th Amendment (2003)	Allowed readjustment using 2001 Census without altering seat numbers
Next Delimitation	Expected after Census conducted post-2026
Census Meaning	Official population count conducted every 10 years
Census Authority	Conducted under Census Act, 1948
Last Census	2011 (2021 Census delayed)
Link with Representation	Determines seat allocation in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
Key Debate	Population-based representation vs federal fairness
Impact on South vs North	Northern states gain more seats due to higher population growth
Relation with Women Reservation	Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 linked to delimitation
Major Concern	Penalising states that achieved population control

Concerns Raised by States

Regional imbalance: Northern states may gain significantly more seats
Reduced influence of southern states
Population control paradox: Better-performing states may lose political weight
Federal tensions: Perception of unequal representation

Significance

Enhances representative democracy
Addresses need for increased parliamentary capacity
Reflects changing population dynamics
Opens debate on equity vs equality in representation

Issues and Challenges

Risk of political imbalance
- - Between other states and regions
Delay in census data availability
Complex delimitation exercise post-2026
Potential politicisation of representation reforms

Way Forward

Conduct timely Census and delimitation
Ensure consultative approach with states
Maintain balance between population principle and federal fairness
Explore institutional safeguards to prevent regional dominance

Conclusion

The debate over increasing Lok Sabha seats highlights deeper structural questions about representation, federalism, and demographic change. The upcoming delimitation exercise will be crucial in shaping India’s political future.

CARE MCQ

Q. With reference to delimitation in India, consider the following statements:

Delimitation Commission orders cannot be challenged in any court.
Delimitation has been frozen until after the Census post-2026.
Delimitation is carried out by the Election Commission of India.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: A

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: Orders of Delimitation Commission have legal force and are not subject to judicial review.

Statement 2 is correct: Freeze continues till after Census post-2026.

Statement 3 is incorrect: Delimitation is conducted by a separate Delimitation Commission, not the Election Commission.

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the functions of the Election Commission of India:

It determines the territorial extent of electoral constituencies in accordance with the Delimitation Commission Act.
It prepares and periodically updates electoral rolls to ensure inclusion of all eligible voters.
It has the power to disqualify Members of Parliament on grounds of defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None

Answer: (a)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is incorrect: The delimitation of constituencies, including determination of their territorial boundaries, is carried out by the Delimitation Commission, which is an independent statutory body constituted under the Delimitation Commission Act. The Election Commission of India (ECI) does not perform this function; it only implements elections based on the constituencies so delimited.

Statement 2 is correct: One of the core constitutional functions of the Election Commission of India under Article 324 is the preparation, revision, and maintenance of electoral rolls. This ensures universal adult suffrage by including all eligible citizens and removing ineligible entries.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The power to decide on disqualification of Members of Parliament or State Legislatures on grounds of defection under the Tenth Schedule lies with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (or State Legislatures, as applicable). The Election Commission has no direct role in such decisions, although it may advise the President or Governor in certain disqualification matters under Articles 102 and 191 (not related to defection).

MAINS QUESTION :

Q. Examine the implications of the upcoming delimitation exercise on India’s federal structure and political representation.

Word Limit: 250 words

Are Recurrent Stampedes in India a Failure of Crowd Management or Governance Deficit?

Source: HT

Relevance: GS Paper III – Disaster Management (Human-Induced Disasters, Crowd Management, NDMA Guidelines, Public Safety)

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

Stampede, Compressive Asphyxia, NDMA Guidelines, Crowd Density, Barricading Failure, NCRB Data

For Mains:

Crowd Management, Disaster Preparedness, Governance Failure, Risk Assessment, Public Safety, Institutional Capacity, Mass Gathering Risks

Why in News?

A tragic stampede at the Maa Sheetla Mandir in Nalanda district of Bihar led to the death of eight women after overcrowding caused barricades to collapse, highlighting serious gaps in crowd management during large religious gatherings.

Background and Context

Stampedes are a recurring phenomenon in India, particularly during religious gatherings, festivals, and mass events. The combination of high population density, inadequate infrastructure, and weak enforcement of safety protocols often leads to such disasters. Despite repeated incidents, systemic issues in planning and crowd control continue to persist.

Concept of Stampede

A stampede refers to a sudden rush of a large number of people, often triggered by panic, overcrowding, or structural failure, leading to injuries and fatalities.
The primary cause of death in such incidents is usually compressive asphyxia, where individuals are unable to breathe due to intense crowd pressure.

Key Features of Nalanda Incident

The stampede occurred at the Maa Sheetla Mandir in Maghra village during a religious gathering when a sudden surge of pilgrims overwhelmed the existing barricades.
The collapse of these barriers triggered panic among the crowd, resulting in people pushing and falling over one another.
The absence of effective crowd management mechanisms led to eight fatalities and multiple injuries.

Nature and Characteristics

Stampedes in India are typically associated with religious events, where large crowds gather in confined spaces.
These incidents are sudden, unpredictable, and escalate rapidly due to panic and lack of coordinated response.
They are characterised by high crowd density, limited mobility, and rapid transmission of pressure and fear.

Data and Trends

India has recorded nearly 4,000 stampede incidents over the last three decades.
According to NCRB data from 2000 to 2022, around 3,074 people have lost their lives in such events. The NCRB has been collecting stampede-related data since 1996.
In 2025 alone, approximately 90 deaths were reported due to crowd crush incidents, indicating the persistent nature of the problem.

Core Issues Involved

A major issue is the lack of scientific crowd management and risk assessment in large gatherings.
There is also a governance deficit reflected in poor planning, weak enforcement of safety norms, and inadequate institutional preparedness.
Behavioural factors such as panic, rumours, and disregard for rules further aggravate the risks.

Causes / Reasons

Stampedes are often caused by inadequate crowd control measures where authorities fail to regulate the flow and density of people.
Structural failures, such as barricade collapse, intensify the situation. Poor planning and underestimation of crowd size, along with lack of coordination among agencies, contribute significantly.
Rumours and misinformation can trigger panic, while high crowd density increases the likelihood of compressive asphyxia.

Implications

Humanitarian Implications

Stampedes lead to loss of life and serious injuries, often affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, and the elderly.
Governance Implications

They expose administrative failures in planning, coordination, and enforcement of safety protocols.
Social Implications

Such incidents create fear and reduce public confidence in the safety of mass gatherings.
Economic Implications

They result in financial costs related to compensation, healthcare, and disruption of events.

NDMA Guidelines and Institutional Mechanism

The National Disaster Management Authority recommends real-time crowd monitoring using CCTV and drones.
It emphasises proper infrastructure design with separate entry and exit points, emergency lanes, and strong barricading systems.
Capacity mapping is necessary to ensure that crowd size does not exceed safe limits.
Public address systems should be used to provide clear communication and prevent panic during emergencies.

Challenges / Criticisms

Managing large-scale gatherings in India is difficult due to their sheer size and diversity.
There is often a societal tendency to ignore regulations, which complicates enforcement.
Late detection of danger and rapid spread of panic make response difficult.
Additionally, lack of institutional learning leads to repeated occurrences of similar incidents.

Way Forward

There is a need to adopt scientific crowd modelling using AI-based tools to predict and manage crowd behaviour. Strict entry regulation through digital systems such as e-ticketing can help control crowd size. Training of personnel to identify early signs of distress in crowds is essential. Standard operating procedures should be developed and implemented for all major events. Public awareness campaigns should promote safe behaviour during large gatherings.

Conclusion

The Nalanda stampede highlights the urgent need for scientific crowd management and strict enforcement of safety protocols. The recurrence of such incidents reflects systemic gaps in governance and preparedness. Ensuring safety at mass gatherings requires a combination of technology, effective planning, and behavioural change among citizens.

Nature and Characteristics

Stampedes in India are typically associated with religious events, where large crowds gather in confined spaces.
These incidents are sudden, unpredictable, and escalate rapidly due to panic and lack of coordinated response.
They are characterised by high crowd density, limited mobility, and rapid transmission of pressure and fear.

Data and Trends

India has recorded nearly 4,000 stampede incidents over the last three decades.
According to NCRB data from 2000 to 2022, around 3,074 people have lost their lives in such events. The NCRB has been collecting stampede-related data since 1996.
In 2025 alone, approximately 90 deaths were reported due to crowd crush incidents, indicating the persistent nature of the problem.

Core Issues Involved

A major issue is the lack of scientific crowd management and risk assessment in large gatherings.
There is also a governance deficit reflected in poor planning, weak enforcement of safety norms, and inadequate institutional preparedness.
Behavioural factors such as panic, rumours, and disregard for rules further aggravate the risks.

Causes / Reasons

Stampedes are often caused by inadequate crowd control measures where authorities fail to regulate the flow and density of people.
Structural failures, such as barricade collapse, intensify the situation. Poor planning and underestimation of crowd size, along with lack of coordination among agencies, contribute significantly.
Rumours and misinformation can trigger panic, while high crowd density increases the likelihood of compressive asphyxia.

Implications

Humanitarian Implications

Stampedes lead to loss of life and serious injuries, often affecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, and the elderly.
Governance Implications

They expose administrative failures in planning, coordination, and enforcement of safety protocols.
Social Implications

Such incidents create fear and reduce public confidence in the safety of mass gatherings.
Economic Implications

They result in financial costs related to compensation, healthcare, and disruption of events.

NDMA Guidelines and Institutional Mechanism

The National Disaster Management Authority recommends real-time crowd monitoring using CCTV and drones.
It emphasises proper infrastructure design with separate entry and exit points, emergency lanes, and strong barricading systems.
Capacity mapping is necessary to ensure that crowd size does not exceed safe limits.
Public address systems should be used to provide clear communication and prevent panic during emergencies.

Challenges / Criticisms

Managing large-scale gatherings in India is difficult due to their sheer size and diversity.
There is often a societal tendency to ignore regulations, which complicates enforcement.
Late detection of danger and rapid spread of panic make response difficult.
Additionally, lack of institutional learning leads to repeated occurrences of similar incidents.

Way Forward

Conclusion

UPSC PYQ

Q. Describe the various measures that can be taken to prevent stampedes during mass gatherings in India. (250 words)

CARE MCQ

Q. With reference to stampedes in India, consider the following statements:

Compressive asphyxia is a major cause of death in stampede incidents.
NDMA recommends limiting crowd size based on capacity mapping.
Stampedes occur only due to rumours and misinformation.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: A

Explanation:

Statement 1 – Correct :compressive asphyxia is the primary cause of death.

Statement 2 – Correct: NDMA recommends capacity mapping.

Statement 3 – Incorrect: since stampedes occur due to multiple factors, not only rumours.

Q. With reference to data on stampede incidents in India, consider the following statements:

NCRB has been collecting stampede-related data since the 1990s.
India has recorded more than 3,000 deaths due to stampedes in the last two decades.
Stampedes are rare and declining incidents in India.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: A

Explanation:

Statement 1 → Correct: NCRB data collection started in the 1990s.
Statement 2 → Correct: Around 3,000+ deaths recorded (2000–2022).
Statement 3 → Incorrect: These incidents are recurring, not rare.

Are Recurrent Stampedes in India a Failure of Crowd Management or Governance Deficit?

Source: TH

Relevance: GS Paper III – Science and Technology (Space Technology, Governance, Emerging Technologies, Global Commons)

Important Keywords for Prelims and Mains

For Prelims:

Outer Space Treaty 1967, Liability Convention 1972, Orbital Debris, Space Objects, Satellite Constellations, Radio Frequency Spectrum

For Mains:

Space Governance, Global Commons, Commercialisation of Space, Orbital Congestion, Space Sustainability, Liability Regime, Space Situational Awareness

Why in News?

Space governance is increasingly being questioned as Earth’s orbital environment becomes crowded with satellites and debris.
The existing regulatory frameworks struggle to keep pace with rapid commercial expansion and technological advancements.

Background and Context

Outer space has evolved from a state-dominated domain during the Cold War era to a highly commercialised and competitive environment.
The rise of private players, mega satellite constellations, and increasing frequency of launches has intensified pressure on orbital resources.
However, the existing legal framework, largely developed in the mid-20th century, is not fully equipped to address these modern challenges.

Concept of Space Governance

Space governance refers to the system of international treaties, national laws, regulatory mechanisms, and ethical norms that govern human activities in outer space.
It includes the regulation of satellite launches, allocation of orbital slots and radio frequencies, mitigation of space debris, and determination of liability for damages caused by space objects.

Key Legal Frameworks

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 forms the foundation of international space law and establishes that states are responsible for national space activities, including those carried out by private entities.
The Liability Convention of 1972 further elaborates on compensation mechanisms for damage caused by space objects.
In addition, national licensing regimes act as modern regulatory tools requiring operators to meet safety and disposal conditions before launch.

Nature and Characteristics

The current framework of space governance is largely state-centric, non-binding in many aspects.
It is dependent on voluntary compliance.
It lacks strong enforcement mechanisms and is fragmented across jurisdictions.
The system is reactive rather than preventive, focusing more on liability after incidents rather than avoiding risks beforehand.

Importance of Space Governance

Effective governance is essential to prevent collisions between satellites and debris, which can cause cascading damage in orbit.
It helps mitigate cumulative harm from debris generation and ensures long-term sustainability of space activities.
Governance also protects critical global services such as GPS, weather forecasting, and communication systems.
Additionally, it promotes intergenerational equity by ensuring that future generations retain access to orbital resources and establishes a duty-of-care among space actors.

Core Issues Involved

A key issue is the mismatch between rapid technological advancements and outdated regulatory frameworks.

There is also the problem of balancing commercial interests with sustainability concerns. The absence of enforceable global norms leads to unequal responsibilities among actors, while lack of transparency creates governance gaps.

Causes / Reasons

The primary reason for governance challenges is the rapid rise of private sector participation and satellite constellations, which existing treaties did not anticipate.
Technological advancements have increased launch frequency and orbital congestion.
Additionally, regulatory fragmentation and lack of international consensus contribute to weak enforcement.

Implications

From a technological perspective, increasing debris raises the risk of collisions and threatens operational satellites.
Economically, disruptions to satellite services can affect communication, navigation, and global trade.
Environmentally, space debris represents a form of orbital pollution that may become irreversible.
Strategically, unequal access to data and governance mechanisms can create geopolitical tensions.

Challenges / Criticisms

There exists a verification gap, as there are no robust mechanisms to ensure compliance with debris mitigation commitments.
Debris tracking systems are limited and cannot monitor smaller yet dangerous fragments.
Information asymmetry persists due to restricted data sharing for commercial or security reasons.
Existing treaties are outdated and do not reflect the realities of modern space activities.
Regulatory loopholes allow operators to choose jurisdictions with weaker standards, undermining global safety.

Way Forward

There is a need to standardise global licensing norms to prevent regulatory arbitrage. Mandatory data sharing mechanisms should be established to enhance space situational awareness. Enforceable debris mitigation and end-of-life disposal standards must be introduced. Environmental principles such as precaution and sustainability should be integrated into space policies. Strengthening international cooperation and creating binding agreements will be essential for effective governance.

Conclusion

Space governance is at a critical juncture as increasing congestion and commercialisation threaten the sustainability of outer space. The existing framework, based largely on voluntary compliance and outdated assumptions, is insufficient to address current challenges. A shift towards enforceable, transparent, and cooperative governance mechanisms is essential to preserve space as a global commons.

UPSC MAINS PYQ:

Q. “Discuss India’s achievements in the field of space science and technology. How has the application of this technology helped India in its socio-economic development?”

GS Paper III (2021)

UPSC MCQ

Q. With reference to challenges in space governance, consider the following statements:

There is no reliable global mechanism to verify whether satellites are de-orbited after mission completion.
All space debris capable of causing damage can be accurately tracked.
Countries often restrict sharing of space object data due to commercial and security concerns.

Which of the above statements are correct? A. 1 and 3 only B. 2 and 3 only C. 1 and 2 only D. 1, 2 and 3 Answer: A Explanation: Statement 1 – Correct: One of the major gaps in space governance is the absence of a reliable global verification mechanism to ensure that satellites are properly de-orbited after the end of their mission life.

Existing guidelines recommend de-orbiting (e.g., 25-year rule), but compliance monitoring is weak. → Hence, there is a clear verification and enforcement gap.

. Statement 2 – Incorrect: It is not possible to accurately track all space debris.

Only larger objects (generally >10 cm in low Earth orbit) are consistently tracked.
Millions of smaller debris fragments remain untracked but are still capable of causing significant damage due to high velocities. → Therefore, the statement is incorrect.

Statement 3 – Correct: Countries often restrict sharing of space situational data due to:

National security concerns (military satellites, surveillance systems)
Commercial interests (private satellite operators, proprietary data)

→ This leads to limited transparency and coordination, complicating global space governance.

UPSC MAINS PYQ:

Q. With reference to space sustainability, consider the following statements:

Orbital debris can cause cascading collisions in space.
Space governance frameworks currently enforce mandatory global standards for debris mitigation.
Space is considered a global commons requiring international cooperation.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 1 and 3 only

C. 2 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: B

Explanation:

Statement 1 – Correct: Orbital debris poses a serious threat to space sustainability. Even small fragments can travel at extremely high speeds and collide with satellites, generating more debris.

→ This can trigger a chain reaction of collisions, known as the Kessler Syndrome, potentially making certain orbits unusable.

Statement 2 – Incorrect: At present, space governance frameworks do not enforce mandatory global standards for debris mitigation.

Most guidelines (such as those by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS)) are non-binding and voluntary.

→ Hence, there is no strict global enforcement mechanism, making this statement incorrect.

Statement 3 – Correct: Outer space is widely regarded as a global commons, meaning it is beyond national jurisdiction and must be used for the benefit of all humankind.

→ This principle is reflected in the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, which emphasizes international cooperation and peaceful use.

CARE MCQ

Q. With reference to space governance, consider the following statements:

The Outer Space Treaty makes states responsible for both governmental and private space activities.
The Liability Convention provides mechanisms for compensation for damage caused by space objects.
Existing space governance frameworks fully address challenges posed by private satellite constellations.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: A

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct:The Outer Space Treaty, 1967 establishes that states bear international responsibility for all national space activities, whether conducted by governmental agencies or private entities. This means private companies (like satellite operators) function under the authorization and supervision of their respective states.

Statement 2 is correct: The Liability Convention, 1972 provides a legal framework for compensation in case damage is caused by space objects.