Relevance: TSPSC – Telangana Specific (Health Governance, Regulation, Digital Governance, Social Issues)
For Prelims:
Surrogacy Portal Telangana, ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology), Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, Surrogacy Act, ART Act, World Health Day
For Mains:
- Health Governance in Telangana, Regulation of Fertility Clinics, Digital Governance in Health Sector, Transparency in Licensing, Ethical Issues in Surrogacy
Why in News?
The Government of Telangana has introduced a digital Surrogacy and ART portal to regulate fertility services after a baby-selling racket was exposed in Hyderabad in 2025.
Background
- A major scam involving illegal surrogacy and baby selling was uncovered at a fertility centre in Hyderabad.
- The incident exposed serious gaps in the State’s ability to track and regulate surrogacy and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services.
- Officials found that there was no clear system to identify which clinics were authorised, how approvals were granted, or how cases were being monitored.
Issues Identified
- The investigation revealed multiple administrative and regulatory weaknesses.
- There was heavy reliance on manual record-keeping, which made tracking difficult and delayed decision-making.
- The approval process for surrogacy cases was complex and fragmented, involving multiple authorities at district and State levels.
- There was no centralised system to monitor applications, track approvals, or maintain data on ongoing cases.
- Even basic information, such as the number of applications or their status, was not readily available.
Existing Legal Framework
The regulation of surrogacy and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services in India is governed by two key legislations:
- The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
- The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021
- These Acts provide a comprehensive legal framework for regulating fertility services and protecting the rights of all stakeholders involved. They mandate that only registered and authorised clinics are permitted to operate.
- Surrogacy is allowed only under specific conditions and follows an altruistic model, which prohibits commercial exploitation.
- The law also requires mandatory approvals, including medical certification, eligibility verification, and insurance coverage for the surrogate mother.
The Surrogacy Act 2021
- Regulates surrogacy in India by allowing only altruistic surrogacy and prohibiting commercial surrogacy.
- Works in conjunction with the ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) Act, 2021 to regulate assisted reproduction.
- Altruistic surrogacy permits only medical expenses and insurance for the surrogate mother; no additional payment allowed.
- Commercial surrogacy is banned and punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine up to ₹10 lakh.
- Only legally married Indian couples with proven infertility are eligible; age limits prescribed for both partners.
- A single woman (widow or divorcee) aged 35–45 years is also eligible under specified conditions.
- The intending couple should not have a surviving child, except in cases of disability or life-threatening disorder.
- The surrogate mother must have previously given birth and can act as a surrogate only once in her lifetime.
- National and State Surrogacy Boards are established for supervision and regulation.
- Mandatory registration of all surrogacy clinics; unregistered clinics are prohibited from operating.
- The child born through surrogacy is treated as the biological child of the intending couple, and abandonment is prohibited.
- Issues include restrictive eligibility, exclusion of LGBTQ+ and unmarried couples, and challenges in effective implementation.
Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021
- The Act regulates Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services such as IVF, sperm donation, and embryo transfer in India.
- The law aims to ensure ethical practices, prevent exploitation of women, and provide legal clarity in fertility treatments.
- The scope of ART includes techniques like in-vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), gamete donation, and embryo storage.
- The Act establishes National and State ART Boards for regulation, supervision, and policy guidance.
- The law mandates compulsory registration of ART clinics and ART banks, prohibiting unregistered operations.
- The provisions allow ART access to married couples and single women under prescribed conditions.
- The Act requires written informed consent of all parties involved, including donors and intending parents.
- The law prescribes eligibility conditions for gamete donors and limits the number of donations.
- The Act prohibits sex selection and misuse of embryos or gametes for non-medical purposes.
- The provisions ensure confidentiality of donors and patients, with strict data protection rules.
- The Act provides penalties, including fines and imprisonment, for violations and malpractice.
- The law faces issues such as high cost, regulatory challenges, ethical concerns, and overlap with surrogacy laws.
Key Features of the New Portal
- To address these issues, the State government has developed a digital portal covering the entire lifecycle of surrogacy and ART services.
- The portal will allow applicants to submit documents online, reducing the need to visit multiple offices.
- It will provide timeline-based tracking, enabling applicants and officials to monitor the progress of applications.
- The system will schedule and record interviews and approvals digitally, ensuring accountability.
- It aims to create a single integrated platform for all approvals, licensing, and monitoring activities.
Comparison between Earlier and New System
The transition from the earlier system to the new digital portal represents a significant administrative reform.
Aspect | Earlier System | New Portal System |
Records | Maintained manually | Maintained digitally |
Tracking of applications | Not available | Real-time tracking available |
Data management | Fragmented across offices | Centralised database |
Licensing process | Unstructured and manual | Online, standardised, and monitored |
Transparency and accountability | Limited | Significantly improved |
Significance
- The initiative strengthens health governance in Telangana by introducing transparency and accountability in a sensitive sector.
- It creates a digital trail for surrogacy cases, which helps prevent illegal activities such as baby selling.
- The portal simplifies the process for applicants by reducing administrative delays and improving access to services.
- It also positions Telangana as a State adopting digital solutions in health regulation, which may serve as a model for other states.
Challenges
- Effective implementation will require proper training of officials and stakeholders to use the digital system.
- Ensuring data privacy and protection is critical due to the sensitive nature of medical and personal information.
- Monitoring compliance of private fertility clinics remains a challenge.
- There may be initial difficulties in transitioning from manual to digital systems.
Way Forward
- The government should ensure strict enforcement of regulations through the portal.
- Capacity building and awareness programmes should be conducted for both officials and applicants.
- Data security measures must be strengthened to protect sensitive information.
- The system can be expanded and integrated with national-level platforms for better coordination.
CARE MCQ
Q.Consider the following statements regarding the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021:
- The Act regulates both ART clinics and ART banks in India.
- The Act permits sex selection under certain medical conditions.
- The Act mandates registration of all ART clinics.
How many of the above statements are correct?
A. Only one
B. Only two
C. All three
D. None
Answer: B
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is correct: The Act clearly distinguishes between ART clinics (which conduct procedures like IVF) and ART banks (which store gametes such as sperm and eggs), and both are brought under a regulatory framework to ensure accountability and quality standards.
- Statement 2 is incorrect: The Act strictly prohibits sex selection in any form. This aligns with the broader legal framework under the PCPNDT Act, reinforcing the principle that reproductive technologies should not be used for gender bias or selection.
- Statement 3 is correct: Registration of ART clinics is mandatory. Any clinic operating without registration is considered illegal and subject to penalties, ensuring that only authorized institutions provide such sensitive medical services.
Q.Which of the following is/are covered under Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)?
- In-vitro fertilization (IVF)
- Intrauterine insemination (IUI)
- Surrogacy arrangements
Select the correct answer:
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: IVF is a core ART technique where fertilization occurs outside the body and is explicitly covered under the Act.
- Statement 2 is correct: IUI is another ART method involving direct insertion of sperm into the uterus, and it falls within the definition of ART services.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: Surrogacy is regulated separately under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Although ART techniques may be used in surrogacy, the legal framework governing surrogacy is distinct. This distinction is important and often tested in exams.
Q.With reference to the ART (Regulation) Act, 2021, consider the following statements:
- Single women are allowed to access ART services.
- Foreign nationals are explicitly allowed under the Act.
- Written informed consent is mandatory for ART procedures.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A.1 and 3 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: A
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is correct: The Act adopts a relatively inclusive approach compared to the Surrogacy Act and allows single women to access ART services, reflecting reproductive autonomy.
- Statement 2 is incorrect: The Act does not explicitly provide broad permission to foreign nationals. The regulatory intent is to prevent misuse and exploitation, especially in the context of “reproductive tourism.”
- Statement 3 is correct: Written informed consent is a core ethical requirement. It ensures that all parties (intending parents, donors, etc.) are fully aware of procedures, risks, and legal implications, thereby safeguarding rights and preventing disputes.
Q.Which of the following statements best describes the role of ART Banks under the Act?
A.They perform fertility procedures like IVF
B. They store and supply gametes and embryos
C. They regulate surrogacy agreements
D. They certify infertility of couples
Answer: B
Explanation:
- Option A is incorrect: ART clinics, not banks, perform procedures like IVF and IUI.
- Option B is correct: ART banks are responsible for collection, screening, storage, and supply of gametes (sperm and eggs) and embryos. They play a crucial role in maintaining quality and traceability.
- Option C is incorrect: Surrogacy agreements fall under the Surrogacy Act, not ART banks.
- Option D is incorrect: Certification of infertility is a medical function carried out by registered medical practitioners, not ART banks.
Q.With reference to maternal health in India, consider the following statements:
- Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) is defined as the number of maternal deaths per 1,00,000 live births.
- The Sample Registration System (SRS) provides official estimates of Maternal Mortality Ratio in India.
- Maternal Mortality Ratio excludes deaths occurring within 42 days after the termination of pregnancy.
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
Answer: A
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct: Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) refers to the number of maternal deaths per 1,00,000 live births. It is a key indicator used to assess the quality of maternal health care in a country.
Statement 2 is correct: The Sample Registration System (SRS) is the official source of data on Maternal Mortality Ratio in India. It is conducted by the Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India and provides reliable demographic estimates.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Maternal Mortality Ratio includes deaths that occur:
- During pregnancy
- During childbirth
- Within 42 days after termination of pregnancy
The statement is incorrect because it wrongly excludes deaths within this period, which are actually part of the definition.
MAINS QUESTION
Q. Discuss the role of digital governance in improving regulation and transparency in the health sector, with reference to surrogacy services in Telangana.
Word Limit: 250 words
FAQs
Q.Why is Amaravati important for prelims?
Amaravati is both a modern capital region and an ancient Buddhist centre associated with the Satavahanas. It is frequently asked due to its dual relevance (history + current affairs).
Q.What is the Amaravati School of Art?
It is a Buddhist art tradition known for white limestone/marble sculptures, narrative panels, and depiction of Jataka tales. It differs from Gandhara (Greco influence) and Mathura (red sandstone).
Q.What is special about the Amaravati Stupa?
The Amaravati Stupa is one of the largest Buddhist stupas in India, known for detailed relief carvings and symbolic representation of Buddha in early phases.
Q.Why is Buddha not shown in human form in early Amaravati art?
Early Amaravati art followed the Hinayana tradition, where Buddha was represented symbolically (like footprints, Bodhi tree) instead of anthropomorphic images.
Q.What is the Storytelling Corridor?
It is a proposed tourism corridor linking Amaravati–Visakhapatnam–Tirupati to integrate cultural, coastal, and religious tourism into a single experience.
Relevance: GS Paper II – Governance, Constitution, Human Rights
For Prelims:
Custodial Death, Article 21, Police Custody, Judicial Custody, NHRC, UNCAT
For Mains:
- Right to life and dignity, Custodial violence, Rule of law, Police reforms, Institutional accountability, Due process
Why in News?
- A Tamil Nadu trial court has awarded the death penalty to nine policemen in the Sattankulam custodial murder case of 2020.
- The judgment described custodial torture as a “rarest of rare” crime and highlighted the seriousness of abuse of state power. The case has revived concerns about recurring custodial deaths despite judicial safeguards and constitutional protections.
- It raises a broader governance question regarding the effectiveness of existing legal mechanisms in preventing custodial violence.
Background and Context
- Custodial deaths continue to occur in India despite constitutional guarantees and repeated judicial interventions.
- The policing system retains elements of colonial-era practices that rely on coercion rather than rights-based investigation.
- Oversight bodies like NHRC exist, but enforcement remains weak due to structural constraints.
- The absence of a dedicated anti-torture law further weakens accountability. As a result, custodial violence reflects systemic governance failure rather than isolated incidents.
Concept of Custodial Death
Custodial death refers to the death of an individual while under police or judicial custody due to torture, excessive force, or negligence.
Police custody deaths usually occur during interrogation, whereas judicial custody deaths occur in prisons due to poor conditions or violence. Such incidents represent a direct violation of fundamental rights and indicate misuse of state authority. They undermine the basic principle that the state must protect, not harm, individuals under its control.
Types of Custodial Death
There are two types of Custodial death:
Police Custody Death:
Death occurs when a person is held by the police during interrogation or investigation in a police station or lock-up.
Judicial Custody Death
Death occurs when a person is kept in jail or prison under the orders of a court.
Constitutional Framework (Article 21)
- Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
- Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded its scope to include the right to live with dignity, protection against torture, and humane treatment in custody.
- In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the Court held that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, thereby expanding Article 21 into a substantive due process guarantee.
- In Nilabati Behera vs State of Odisha, the Court established state liability to compensate victims of custodial death, recognizing it as a violation of fundamental rights.
- In Joginder Kumar vs State of UP, the Court emphasized that arrest must not be arbitrary and must follow procedural safeguards.
- These rulings collectively establish that custodial violence is a direct violation of the right to life and dignity.
Data and Trends
- India recorded around 170 custodial deaths in 2025–26, reflecting the persistence of the problem.
- Over the last five years, figures have remained consistently high, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
- Certain states such as Bihar and Rajasthan show higher incidence, pointing to governance disparities.
- Despite this, accountability remains minimal, with very few cases resulting in punishment or disciplinary action.
Core Issues Involved
- The persistence of custodial deaths is linked to structural weaknesses in policing.
- There is a heavy reliance on coercive interrogation methods due to lack of forensic infrastructure.
- Institutional culture often protects erring officials, creating a culture of impunity.
- Legal gaps, including the absence of a specific anti-torture law and non-ratification of UNCAT, weaken accountability.
- Procedural barriers such as prior sanction for prosecution further delay justice.
Judicial Safeguards
The Supreme Court has laid down several safeguards to prevent custodial violence.
- In K. Basu vs State of West Bengal, guidelines for arrest and detention were established, including mandatory medical checks and informing relatives.
- In Prakash Singh vs Union of India, reforms such as Police Complaints Authorities were mandated to ensure accountability.
- In Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh, installation of CCTV cameras in police stations was made mandatory.
However, weak implementation continues to limit their effectiveness.
Implications
- Custodial deaths undermine the rule of law by eroding public trust in law enforcement agencies.
- They disproportionately affect marginalized communities, reinforcing social inequalities.
- Such incidents also damage India’s human rights reputation at the global level.
- Moreover, they weaken the criminal justice system by promoting coercive methods over due process.
Challenges / Criticisms
- Implementation gaps remain a major concern, as safeguards are often not effectively enforced.
- Legal provisions such as prior sanction for prosecution delay accountability.
- Investigations are frequently prolonged, leading to loss of evidence.
- Lack of independent oversight allows institutional bias to persist.
- Additionally, prison overcrowding contributes to deaths in judicial custody.
Way Forward
India should enact a comprehensive anti-torture law and ratify UNCAT to strengthen the legal framework. Investigations must shift toward forensic and evidence-based methods. Independent agencies should handle custodial death cases to ensure impartiality. Strict enforcement of accountability mechanisms, including CCTV compliance, is essential. Police reforms focusing on training, human rights awareness, and institutional restructuring are necessary for long-term change.
Conclusion
The Sattankulam verdict reflects a strong judicial response to custodial violence, but systemic reform remains essential. Protecting Article 21 requires not only punishment of offenders but transformation of policing practices. A rights-based approach to law enforcement is crucial to uphold constitutional values and public trust.
CARE MCQ
Q.Consider the following statements regarding custodial death in India:
- Custodial death refers to the death of a person while in the custody of police, judicial authorities, or other law enforcement agencies.
- Custodial deaths are treated as violations of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution of India.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is correct: Custodial death occurs when a person dies while under the custody or control of police, jail authorities, or other law enforcement agencies.
- Statement 2 is correct: Such deaths are considered violations of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) unless proven to be natural and free from negligence or abuse.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding legal safeguards against custodial torture in India:
- Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects an accused person from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
- Article 22 provides safeguards relating to arrest and detention.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is correct: Article 20(3) protects individuals from self-incrimination, preventing forced confessions during interrogation.
- Statement 2 is correct: Article 22 guarantees safeguards such as being informed of grounds of arrest and the right to consult a lawyer.
These provisions collectively aim to prevent custodial abuse and torture.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding the role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in custodial deaths:
- All cases of custodial death must be reported to the NHRC by the concerned authorities.
- The NHRC has the authority to award punishment directly to the police officials responsible for custodial deaths.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is correct: As per NHRC guidelines, every custodial death must be reported within 24 hours to ensure transparency and investigation.
- Statement 2 is incorrect: The NHRC can recommend action or compensation, but it cannot directly punish officials. Punishment is carried out through courts or disciplinary authorities.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding judicial safeguards in custodial cases:
- The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to prevent custodial violence in the case of D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal.
- The guidelines include the preparation of an arrest memo and the right of the arrested person to inform a relative or friend.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is correct: In the landmark case D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial abuse.
- Statement 2 is correct: The guidelines include:
- Arrest memo
- Right to inform relatives
- Medical examination
- Proper identification of police officers
These safeguards aim to ensure accountability in police custody.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding safeguards against custodial abuse under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
- Section 41A mandates that in cases where arrest is not required under Section 41(1), the police officer may issue a notice of appearance to the person instead of arresting him.
- Section 41 requires the police to record reasons for arrest as well as for not making an arrest in certain categories of offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
- Section 176 provides that in every case of death in custody, the investigation shall be conducted only by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
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: Section 41A CrPC was introduced to reduce unnecessary arrests. It allows police to issue a notice of appearance instead of arresting the accused if arrest is not required under Section 41.
- Statement 2 is correct: After amendments and judicial interpretation, Section 41 requires police to record reasons for arrest as well as reasons for not arresting in offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary arrest.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: Section 176 CrPC provides for a Magisterial inquiry in cases of custodial death, disappearance, or rape in custody. The inquiry is conducted by a Judicial or Executive Magistrate, not by a police officer. This ensures independent investigation in custodial cases.
UPSC PYQ
Q. Discuss the role of Article 21 in protecting individuals against custodial violence in India. (250 words)
FAQs
Q1. Why is Article 21 important in custodial death cases?
It guarantees life, dignity, and protection against arbitrary state action.
Q2. What is the key issue behind custodial deaths?
Dependence on coercive policing and lack of accountability.
Q3. What reform is most needed?
A strong anti-torture law and police reforms.
Q4.Constitutional protection against custodial torture comes from which provisions?
Protection against custodial torture comes mainly from:
- Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.
- Article 20(3) – Protection against self-incrimination.
- Article 22 – Safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Q5. Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides what safeguard?
Section 41 regulates police power to arrest without a warrant and requires police to record reasons for making an arrest or not making an arrest in certain cases.
Relevance: GS Paper II – Governance, GS Paper III – Economy
For Prelims:
Decriminalization, Adjudicating Officer, Regulatory Penalty, Civil Liability, Compounding of Offences
For Mains:
- Trust-based governance, Ease of Doing Business, Proportional regulation, Regulatory rationalisation, Administrative adjudication, Judicial backlog reduction, Compliance burden, Investor confidence
Why in News?
- Parliament has passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, commonly referred to as Jan Vishwas 2.0, expanding the scope of earlier reforms aimed at decriminalising minor offences.
- The Bill amends around 79 Central Acts and decriminalises more than 700 provisions, marking one of the largest compliance reforms in India.
- It seeks to reduce the burden on courts while improving the regulatory environment for businesses, particularly MSMEs.
- The reform signals a shift in governance philosophy from punitive enforcement to trust-based compliance.
Background and Context
- The original Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 initiated the process of decriminalisation by amending 42 Central laws and removing imprisonment for minor offences.
- However, concerns remained regarding regulatory uncertainty, retrospective penalties, and procedural complexities.
- India’s compliance framework has historically been characterised by excessive criminal provisions even for technical lapses, discouraging entrepreneurship.
- This created a need for a broader and more consistent reform to rationalise penalties and improve ease of doing business.
- Jan Vishwas 2.0 builds upon this earlier effort by expanding coverage and addressing gaps identified by industry and policymakers.
Nature and Concept of Reform
- Jan Vishwas 2.0 reflects a fundamental shift in regulatory philosophy from a “command-and-control” model to a “trust-based governance” framework.
- It recognises that not all violations require criminal prosecution, especially those that are procedural or non-malicious in nature.
- The reform introduces the principle of proportionality, where penalties correspond to the severity of the offence.
- It also promotes voluntary compliance by reducing fear of imprisonment and encouraging corrective behaviour.
- This approach aligns India’s regulatory practices with global standards of modern governance and economic efficiency.
Key Provisions and Features
- The Bill decriminalises around 717 provisions across 79 Central Acts by replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties or administrative sanctions.
- It introduces a system of graded enforcement where minor violations attract warnings or reduced penalties instead of immediate punitive action.
- The reform shifts enforcement from criminal courts to executive authorities through an adjudication-based mechanism.
- Adjudicating officers are empowered to impose penalties, supported by a structured appellate mechanism to ensure fairness and accountability.
- The Bill also addresses earlier concerns by clarifying the treatment of retrospective cases and ensuring that serious offences involving public safety, environmental protection, or fraud continue to attract stringent penalties.
- Overall, it creates a differentiated framework where minor and major violations are treated distinctly.
Governance and Economic Significance
- The reform significantly reduces the compliance burden on businesses, especially MSMEs, by eliminating the fear of criminal prosecution for minor procedural lapses.
- It enhances investor confidence by creating a predictable and rational regulatory environment. By diverting minor cases away from courts, it contributes to reducing judicial backlog and improving efficiency of the justice system.
- From a governance perspective, it marks a transition towards a facilitative state that prioritizes economic growth while maintaining accountability.
- It also aligns with broader economic reforms aimed at improving India’s business climate, especially in the context of global benchmarks like the World Bank’s Business Ready (B-READY) framework.
Issues and Concerns
- Despite its advantages, the reform raises concerns regarding regulatory enforcement and accountability.
- There is a risk that companies may treat monetary penalties as a cost of doing business, reducing deterrence.
- The shift to administrative adjudication may lead to inconsistencies if regulatory authorities lack capacity or independence.
- Concerns also exist about regulatory capture, where close links between regulators and industry may weaken enforcement.
- Additionally, absence of uniform implementation across sectors and states could lead to uneven outcomes.
- Therefore, while decriminalisation improves ease of doing business, it must be balanced with effective oversight mechanisms.
Way Forward
- Effective implementation of Jan Vishwas 2.0 requires strengthening institutional capacity and ensuring transparency in adjudication processes. Standardised guidelines should be developed to ensure uniformity in penalties across sectors. Regular monitoring and review mechanisms must be established to assess the impact of decriminalisation.
- At the same time, strict enforcement should continue in cases involving public safety, environmental damage, and financial fraud. Capacity building of regulatory authorities and digitalisation of compliance systems can further enhance efficiency. A balanced approach is essential to ensure that trust-based governance does not compromise regulatory effectiveness.
Conclusion
Jan Vishwas 2.0 represents a major step towards modernising India’s regulatory framework by promoting trust-based compliance and proportional enforcement. It reflects the evolution of governance from a punitive to a facilitative model, supporting economic growth and reducing judicial burden. However, its long-term success will depend on maintaining a balance between ease of doing business and effective regulatory oversight.
UPSC PYQ
Q.Discuss the role of regulatory reforms in improving ease of doing business in India. (250 words)
CARE MCQ
Q. With reference to Jan Vishwas 2.0, consider the following statements:
- It replaces imprisonment for minor offences with civil penalties.
- It shifts enforcement from courts to administrative authorities.
- It removes penalties for serious offences affecting public safety.
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
Statement 1 – Correct
Jan Vishwas 2.0 continues the reform initiated in 2023 by decriminalising minor and procedural offences across multiple Central Acts.
Instead of imprisonment, such violations now attract civil penalties such as fines, warnings, or administrative sanctions.
This reflects the principle of proportionality, ensuring that minor technical lapses are not treated as criminal acts.
The objective is to reduce the fear of prosecution, especially for businesses and MSMEs, and promote voluntary compliance.
Statement 2 – Correct
A key structural change under Jan Vishwas 2.0 is the shift from judicial enforcement to administrative adjudication.
Earlier, even minor violations were tried in criminal courts, contributing to case backlog.
Now, such cases are handled by adjudicating officers (executive authorities), who can impose penalties.
This leads to:
• Faster resolution of cases
• Reduced burden on judiciary
• Improved efficiency in regulatory enforcement
Thus, the reform supports both ease of doing business and judicial efficiency.
Statement 3 – Incorrect
The reform does not remove penalties for serious offences.
Offences involving public safety, environmental protection, financial fraud, or national interest continue to attract strict penalties, including imprisonment.
Jan Vishwas 2.0 is based on selective decriminalisation, not blanket removal of penalties.
Its aim is to differentiate between:
• Minor procedural violations → civil penalties
• Serious offences → criminal liability retained
Q. Consider the following statements regarding Jan Vishwas reforms:
A. The reforms aim to reduce compliance burden on businesses.
B. They contribute to reducing judicial backlog.
C. They completely eliminate criminal liability in economic laws.
Answer: A
Explanation
Statement 1 -Correct
Jan Vishwas 2.0 is specifically designed to reduce compliance burden, especially for MSMEs and startups, by removing imprisonment for minor procedural violations.
Earlier, even technical lapses (like filing delays or minor documentation errors) attracted criminal provisions, creating a “fear of jail” environment.
By replacing such provisions with monetary penalties and warnings, the reform promotes ease of doing business, voluntary compliance, and formalisation of the economy.
Statement 2 – Correct
The reform significantly contributes to reducing judicial backlog, which is a major governance concern in India.
A large number of minor regulatory offences were earlier routed through criminal courts, leading to unnecessary case accumulation.
Jan Vishwas 2.0 introduces an administrative adjudication mechanism, where adjudicating officers handle such cases.
This ensures faster dispute resolution, reduces pendency, and allows courts to focus on serious criminal and constitutional matters.
Statement 3 – Incorrect
The reform does not completely eliminate criminal liability in economic or regulatory laws.
Serious offences involving public safety, environmental damage, fraud, national security, or financial misconduct continue to attract strict criminal penalties, including imprisonment.
Thus, the reform is based on the principle of proportionality, not blanket decriminalisation.
Q. In the context of regulatory reforms, what is the primary role of “Adjudicating Officers”?
A) To hear constitutional disputes between the Union and the States
B) To examine cases of non-compliance and impose monetary penalties or corrective directions
C) To review the judgments delivered by criminal courts
D) To recommend amendments to Parliamentary laws
Answer: B) To examine cases of non-compliance and impose monetary penalties or corrective directions
Explanation:
Adjudicating Officers are an important institutional mechanism under reforms such as Jan Vishwas. Their main role is to ensure administrative enforcement of minor violations without relying on criminal courts.
Their key functions include:
Examining cases of non-compliance under various laws
Imposing monetary penalties
Issuing warnings or corrective directions
Ensuring time-bound resolution of minor offences
Significance:
This reflects a shift from:
Judicial / Criminal enforcement → Administrative / Executive enforcement
Governance Benefits:
Reduces burden on courts
Improves speed and efficiency
Encourages specialised decision-making
Q. With reference to Jan Vishwas 2.0, consider the following statements regarding its potential concerns:
1. It may lead to regulatory capture, where regulators act in favour of industries they regulate.
2. Replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties may reduce deterrence in some cases.
3. It may result in increased criminalisation of minor offences.
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
Answer: A) 1 and 2 only
Explanation:
Statement 1 – Correct
There is a risk of regulatory capture, especially when enforcement is handled by executive authorities closely interacting with industries.
Statement 2 – Correct
Monetary penalties may reduce deterrence, as large firms might treat fines as a cost of doing business.
Statement 3 – Incorrect
The reform aims at decriminalisation, not increased criminalisation. It removes imprisonment for minor offences.
Final Answer:
FAQs
Q1. What is the main objective of Jan Vishwas 2.0?
To promote trust-based compliance by decriminalising minor offences and reducing regulatory burden.
Q2. How does it help the economy?
By improving ease of doing business, boosting investor confidence, and reducing litigation.
Q3. What is the major concern?
Possible weakening of deterrence and inconsistent enforcement by regulatory authorities.
Q4. What is meant by decriminalisation in regulatory governance?
Decriminalisation refers to removing criminal penalties such as imprisonment for minor or procedural violations and replacing them with civil penalties like fines, warnings, or administrative sanctions.
Q5. How is Jan Vishwas 2.0 different from the 2023 Act?
While the 2023 Act covered around 42 Central laws, Jan Vishwas 2.0 expands the reform to about 79 Acts and addresses gaps such as retrospective penalties and regulatory inconsistencies.
