TGSC Daily Current Affairs - 24th December 2025
Source: Deccan Chronicle
Relevance:
GS Paper II – Urban Governance, Local Bodies (GHMC), Public Health
GS Paper III – Environment, Biodiversity, Urban Ecology, Disaster & Health Management
Important Key Concepts for Prelims and Mains:
For Prelims:
- Urban Lakes, Water Hyacinth (Invasive Species), Mosquito Breeding, Anti-Larval Operations, GHMC, Lake Maintenance Contracts, Vector-Borne Diseases (Dengue, Malaria)
For Mains:
- Urban Water Governance, Public Health Risk, Invasive Aquatic Weeds, Urban Ecology Degradation, Municipal Capacity Constraints, Election–Governance Trade-offs, Preventive Health Failure, Biodiversity Loss, Sustainable Urban Lake Management
Why in News?
Several lakes across Hyderabad are witnessing an uncontrolled spread of water hyacinth following the expiry of lake maintenance contracts in October 2025 and the diversion of anti-larval staff for election duties. This has heightened concerns over mosquito breeding, public health risks, and ecological degradation.
Background
- Lakes such as Kamuni Cheruvu, Mundla Kathwa, Maisamma Cheruvu, Sunnam Cheruvu, Rangadhamuni Kunta, and others were under routine maintenance until October 2025.
- After the contracts lapsed, mechanical de-weeding stopped and entomology staff of GHMC were reassigned as booth-level officers for elections.
- As a result, regular anti-larval operations and lake surveillance were disrupted.
Water Hyacinth
About:
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes Mart.), belonging to the family Pontederiaceae, is a free-floating aquatic weed widely found in freshwater bodies across South Asia, including India.
- It is a non-native (exotic) species, introduced to India during the British colonial period as an ornamental plant from South America.
- The plant is characterised by attractive purple flowers, which initially gave it high aesthetic and ornamental value, leading to its deliberate introduction.
- Over time, its invasive and fast-growing nature has turned it into a major ecological and management challenge in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs.
Current Situation
- Rapid thickening of water hyacinth has reduced visible water spread and slowed circulation.
- Dense hyacinth mats block sunlight and trap stagnant water, creating ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes.
- Residents report increased mosquito presence, reduced walkability along lake bunds, and growing health concerns, especially during early morning and evening hours.
Public Health and Environmental Significance
- Mosquito Breeding Risk: Delay in anti-larval work increases the likelihood of dengue and malaria outbreaks, particularly during winter when breeding often goes unnoticed.
- Urban Health Challenge: Rising vector-borne disease risk puts pressure on urban health infrastructure.
- Ecological Impact: Prolonged hyacinth growth can degrade water quality, reduce oxygen levels, and harm local biodiversity in urban lakes.
Administrative Issues Highlighted
- Contractual Gaps: Absence of interim arrangements after expiry of maintenance contracts.
- Human Resource Diversion: Election duties disrupting essential civic services like mosquito control.
- Delayed Tendering: Maintenance tenders not renewed immediately, leading to operational vacuum.
Steps Being Initiated
- GHMC officials indicated that the tender process for lake maintenance is expected to begin shortly.
- Once contracts are awarded, de-weeding and regular anti-larval operations are expected to resume.
- Authorities acknowledged that while staff are not on election duty daily, overall efficiency has been affected.
Issues and Concerns
- Lack of contingency planning for essential urban services during elections.
- Weak preventive public health approach, reacting only after risks escalate.
- Inadequate integration of urban ecology management with public health planning.
Conclusion
The spread of water hyacinth in Hyderabad’s lakes underscores a larger governance challenge in managing urban commons, public health, and administrative continuity. Addressing contractual gaps, safeguarding essential services during elections, and adopting a preventive approach to vector control are crucial to protecting both urban ecosystems and public health.
CARE MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements:
I. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is an invasive aquatic weed found in Indian waterbodies.
II. It was introduced into India during the British period as an ornamental plant.
III. It is native to South America.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
Answer: (c) All three
Explanation
- Statement I – Correct: Eichhornia crassipes spreads rapidly in lakes, ponds, and rivers.
- Statement II – Correct: It was introduced during British rule for ornamental purposes.
- Statement III – Correct: The plant originates from South America.
Source: The Hindu
Relevance: (GS Paper II – Polity and Governance)
Important Key Concepts for Prelims and Mains:
For Prelims:
- Parliamentary Privileges, Article 105, Article 122, Breach of Privilege, Contempt of the House, Privilege Motion, Committee of Privileges, Freedom of Speech in Parliament, British House of Commons, Code of Civil Procedure (1908)
For Mains:
- Legislative Autonomy, Parliamentary Accountability, Separation of Powers, Privilege vs Fundamental Rights, Speaker’s Discretion, Democratic Dissent vs Legislative Discipline, Codification of Privileges, Ethical Self-Regulation in Parliament, Rule of Law, Harmonious Construction
Why in News?
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is currently considering a notice alleging breach of Parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House, arising from alleged disorderly and disruptive conduct by Members during the discussion on the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025.
What are Parliamentary Privileges?
- About:
Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by each House of Parliament, its committees, and its members.- These privileges extend to the Attorney General of India but do not extend to the President.
- Objective:
They are essential for the effective discharge of parliamentary functions and go beyond the rights enjoyed by ordinary individuals or bodies.
Types of Parliamentary Privileges
- Collective Privileges:
Rights enjoyed by the House as a whole, including:- Right to regulate its own proceedings
- Right to punish for contempt of the House
- Right to exclude strangers from parliamentary proceedings
- Individual Privileges:
Rights enjoyed by individual Members of Parliament, such as:- Freedom of speech in Parliament
- Freedom from arrest in civil cases during parliamentary sessions
Sources of Parliamentary Privileges
- Constitutional Basis:
Articles 105 and 122 (Parliament) and Articles 194 and 212 (State Legislatures) provide various privileges to:- Members of Parliament (MPs)
- Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs)
Legal Basis:
- Article 105(3) states that until Parliament defines privileges by law, they shall be those of the British House of Commons as on 26 January 1950.
- Since no comprehensive law has been enacted so far, British parliamentary precedents continue to guide practice.
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides freedom from arrest in civil cases during parliamentary sessions and for a specified period before and after sessions.
Parliamentary Conventions:
- Privileges are also shaped by long-established British parliamentary conventions and customs.
Parliamentary Procedure:
- Detailed procedures are laid down in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
Judicial Interpretations:
- Supreme Court judgments have clarified the scope of privileges, including:
- Searchlight Case (1958)
- JMM Bribery Case (1998)
- Other subsequent rulings refining limits and accountability
- Supreme Court judgments have clarified the scope of privileges, including:
Breach of Parliamentary Privilege
- Breach of Privilege (BoP):
A breach occurs when any individual or authority violates or disregards the individual or collective privileges of Parliament or its members. - Privilege Motion:
- Moved by an MP when a Minister is alleged to have:
- Withheld facts, or
- Given wrong, misleading, or distorted information
- The objective is to censure the concerned Minister for undermining parliamentary dignity.
- Moved by an MP when a Minister is alleged to have:
Privilege Notice:
- A formal complaint submitted by an MP against:
- Another member, or
- An external individual/authority
- Example: Derogatory remarks against MPs or the House.
- A formal complaint submitted by an MP against:
Committee of Privileges
- The Committee performs semi-judicial functions.
- It examines cases of breach of privilege of the House or its members and recommends appropriate action.
- Composition:
- Lok Sabha: 15 members
- Rajya Sabha: 10 members
Parliamentary Privileges Enjoyed by MPs
Parliamentary privileges are special rights and immunities that ensure the independent and effective functioning of Parliament.
1. Individual Privileges
- Freedom of Speech
- Guaranteed under Article 105(1)
- Absolute freedom inside Parliament; not subject to Article 19
- Immunity from Legal Action
- No legal proceedings for speeches or votes in Parliament or committees
- Article 105(2)
- Protection for Authorized Publications
- No liability for publishing Parliament-authorized reports and proceedings
- Article 105(2)
- Exemption from Judicial Inquiry
- Courts cannot question parliamentary proceedings on procedural grounds
- Article 122(1)
- Freedom from Arrest (Civil Cases)
- During sessions and 40 days before and after
- Section 135A, CPC 1908
- Exemption from Jury Service / Court Appearance
- MPs may refuse to appear as witnesses during sessions
2. Collective Privileges
- Right to Publish Proceedings
- Parliament controls publication of debates and reports
- 44th Amendment, 1978 allows fair press reporting (except secret sittings)
- Right to Secret Sittings
- Strangers can be excluded during sensitive discussions
- Rule-Making & Disciplinary Powers
- Power to regulate proceedings and punish for contempt
- Includes reprimand, suspension, imprisonment, expulsion
- Right to Information about Members
- House must be informed of arrest, detention, conviction or release of MPs
- Inquiry & Summoning Powers
- Power to summon witnesses and demand documents
Key Judicial Pronouncements on Parliamentary Privileges
- Pandit M.S.M. Sharma vs. Sri Krishna Sinha (1958) – Searchlight Case
- SC held that legislative privileges under Article 194(3) prevail over freedom of the press (Article 19(1)(a)) in case of conflict.
- State legislatures can control publication of their proceedings, similar to the British House of Commons.
- P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State (1998) – JMM Bribery Case
- SC ruled that MPs/MLAs cannot be prosecuted for bribery if the bribe was linked to speech or vote in the House.
- Extended parliamentary immunity to corrupt acts connected with legislative functions.
- State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith & Others (2021)
- SC clarified that parliamentary privileges do not override criminal law.
- Members are not immune from prosecution for acts unrelated to legislative functions.
- Sita Soren vs. Union of India (2024)
- SC overruled the JMM Bribery Case (1998).
- Held that accepting a bribe is a criminal offence, even if linked to voting or speech.
- Parliamentary immunity does not protect corruption, reinforcing democratic accountability.
Key Issues and Debates on Parliamentary Privileges
- Codification Debate
- Whether privileges should be codified into a law.
- Committees (e.g., Lok Sabha Privileges Committee, 2008) opposed codification, fearing loss of flexibility to address new forms of contempt.
- Tension with Fundamental Rights
- Conflict between privilege powers and freedom of speech & press.
- Raises concerns of overreach against media and dissent.
- Conflict with Democratic Principles
- Privileges like immunity from arrest clash with Article 14 (Equality before Law).
- Risk of Misuse
- Privileges sometimes used to shield wrongdoing or target political opponents.
- Privilege motions risk becoming tools of political vendetta.
- Opacity and Weak Oversight
- Privilege proceedings lack transparency.
- Limited public scrutiny undermines institutional credibility and trust.
Reforms Needed in the Regime of Parliamentary Privileges
- Adopt a Balanced Statutory Framework
Instead of rigid codification, Parliament should enact a broad enabling framework that clearly outlines the core principles and contours of parliamentary privileges, incorporates key judicial pronouncements, and sets constitutional limits, while retaining sufficient flexibility to address emerging forms of contempt through parliamentary procedure. - Institutionalise Transparent Procedures
Standardised, time-bound and publicly accessible procedures should be evolved for handling privilege complaints, from admission of notice to final decision, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and reasoned decision-making. - Strengthen Ethical Self-Regulation
The Code of Conduct for Members should be reinforced and explicitly linked to the responsible exercise of privileges, especially freedom of speech, to prevent misuse and promote parliamentary dignity. - Empower Ethics Committees
Ethics Committees should be vested with a proactive role in advising, sensitising, and guiding Members on ethical limits of privilege use, particularly when assertions of privilege conflict with public interest, constitutional morality, or democratic norms. - Clarify Interface with Fundamental Rights
The Rules of Procedure should formally embed the Supreme Court’s doctrine of harmonious construction, ensuring that parliamentary privileges are exercised in a manner consistent with fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, equality before law, and rule of law.
Conclusion
Parliamentary privileges are indispensable for safeguarding legislative independence; however, their democratic legitimacy rests on responsible exercise, procedural transparency, and ethical restraint. Recent privilege proceedings underscore the urgency of reforming the privilege framework to balance institutional autonomy with constitutional accountability, thereby strengthening public trust in Parliament.
UPSC PYQ
Q. The Parliament of India exercises control over the functions of the Council of Ministers through: (2017)
- Adjournment Motion
- Question Hour
- Supplementary Questions
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3
Explanation:
- Adjournment Motion is a powerful parliamentary device used to discuss matters of urgent public importance and implies censure of the government, thereby exercising control over the Council of Ministers.
- Question Hour enables Members of Parliament to seek information and hold ministers accountable for their actions and policies.
- Supplementary Questions allow MPs to seek further clarification on ministerial replies, strengthening executive accountability.
CARE MCQ
Q. The Supreme Court judgment in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha (1958) is significant because it held that:
(a) Freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) is absolute and cannot be restricted by legislatures
(b) Legislative privileges under Article 194(3) prevail over freedom of the press in case of conflict
(c) Parliamentary privileges are subordinate to Fundamental Rights
(d) State legislatures have no authority to regulate publication of their proceedings
Correct Answer: (b) Legislative privileges under Article 194(3) prevail over freedom of the press in case of conflict
Explanation:
- The Searchlight Case (1958) arose when a newspaper published proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Assembly that were ordered to be expunged.
- The Supreme Court ruled that legislative privileges under Article 194(3) override the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) in case of a conflict.
- The Court held that state legislatures have the power to regulate or prohibit the publication of their proceedings, similar to the British House of Commons.
Source: The Hindu
Relevance: GS Paper 2 – Government Policies & Interventions, Labour Reforms, Constitutional Rights
Important Key Concepts for Prelims and Mains:
For Prelims:
- Right to Disconnect, Private Member’s Bill, Labour Codes, Occupational Safety Health and Working Conditions Code 2020, Employer Control, Article 21
For Mains:
- Digital labour regulation, Work–life balance, Employer control vs working time, Right to dignity at workplace, Constitutionalisation of labour rights
Why in News?
A Private Member’s Bill on the Right to Disconnect has been introduced in Parliament to regulate after-hours digital work communication, responding to the growing challenges of constant connectivity, work-related stress, and erosion of personal time in India’s digital economy.
Background and Context
- India recently consolidated 29 labour laws into four Labour Codes, primarily focusing on:
- Working hours
- Overtime
- Employer supervision
- These laws were designed for physical workplaces, not digital environments.
- With the rise of:
- Work-from-home
- Platform work
- Always-on digital tools
traditional distinctions between work time and personal time have blurred.
- The Bill represents India’s first formal legislative attempt to address this structural shift.
What is the Right to Disconnect Bill?
- Provides employees the right to not respond to work-related calls, emails, or messages beyond prescribed working hours.
- Seeks to:
- Protect mental health
- Ensure work–life balance
- Limit excessive employer control enabled by technology
- Introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, which:
- Rarely becomes law
- Often shapes future legislative thinking
Legal and Structural Gaps
1. Absence of a Digital Definition of “Work”
- Indian labour law does not define “work” in the context of digital availability.
- The Bill regulates communication but does not clarify whether after-hours digital engagement counts as work.
- This becomes problematic when read with the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which:
- Regulates working hours and overtime
- Remains silent on digital labour
- A conceptual gap where communication is regulated but working time is not redefined.
2. Behavioural Norm Rather Than Enforceable Right
- Since digital engagement is not legally classified as “work”:
- Employers are not clearly liable for violations
- Employees lack enforceable remedies
- The right risks functioning as a moral or behavioural guideline, not a binding labour standard.
- This weakens:
- Legal certainty
- Compliance
- Worker protection
3. Mandatory Right or Contractual Flexibility
Indian labour law mixes:
Mandatory statutory norms (e.g., maximum working hours)
Contractual arrangements via company policies
The Bill does not clarify whether the Right to Disconnect is non-negotiable.
This opens the possibility of:
Dilution through contracts
Uneven application across sectors
Stronger rights for white-collar workers, weaker for informal or gig workers
Comparative International Experience
European Union:
- Employer control determines working time
- Even standby or on-call time counts as work (SIMAP, Jaeger, Tyco cases)
France:
- Clear distinction between working time and rest time
- Digital communication regulated through collective bargaining
Germany:
- Strict working-hour caps and mandatory rest periods
- When an employer controls an employee’s time, that time belongs to work.
Constitutional Dimension
- The right to disconnect has a strong link with Article 21:
- Right to life
- Right to dignity
- Mental well-being
- Personal autonomy
- Indian courts have expanded Article 21 to include:
- Right to privacy
- Right to health
- Right to humane working conditions
- However, the Bill:
- Does not explicitly invoke Article 21
- Leaves the constitutional basis implicit
This creates ambiguity on whether the right is:
- Merely statutory, or
- A constitutional guarantee enforceable through courts
Way Forward
- Legally define digital work and employer control.
- Treat after-hours digital availability as working time where employer control exists.
- Clarify whether the right is a mandatory labour standard.
- Explicitly link the right to Article 21 jurisprudence.
- Encourage sector-wise collective bargaining to balance flexibility and protection.
Conclusion
The Right to Disconnect Bill is a significant normative intervention acknowledging that digital technologies have transformed the nature of work. However, without redefining “work”, integrating digital labour into existing labour codes, and clarifying its constitutional basis, the Bill remains incomplete. It should be seen as the starting point of a broader legal and constitutional evolution in Indian labour law.
CARE MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Right to Disconnect Bill risks functioning more as a behavioural norm than an enforceable labour right.
Statement-II: The Right to Disconnect Bill risks this outcome because Indian labour law does not define digital availability as “work”.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I.
B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I.
C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.
D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct.
Answer: A
Explanation:
- Statement-I is correct. Without enforceability, the right may remain a moral guideline rather than a binding standard.
- Statement-II is correct. Since after-hours digital engagement is not legally recognised as “work”, employers face no clear liability, and workers lack remedies.
- Therefore, Statement-II correctly explains Statement-I.
- The OSH Code, 2020 regulates working hours but is silent on digital labour.
- This creates a conceptual gap: communication is regulated, but working time is not redefined.
Source: The Hindu
Relevance: GS Paper 2 – Government Policies & Interventions, Labour Reforms, Constitutional Rights
Important Key Concepts for Prelims and Mains:
For Prelims:
- Right to Disconnect, Private Member’s Bill, Labour Codes, Occupational Safety Health and Working Conditions Code 2020, Employer Control, Article 21
For Mains:
- Digital labour regulation, Work–life balance, Employer control vs working time, Right to dignity at workplace, Constitutionalisation of labour rights
Why in News?
A Private Member’s Bill on the Right to Disconnect has been introduced in Parliament to regulate after-hours digital work communication, responding to the growing challenges of constant connectivity, work-related stress, and erosion of personal time in India’s digital economy.
Background and Context
- India recently consolidated 29 labour laws into four Labour Codes, primarily focusing on:
- Working hours
- Overtime
- Employer supervision
- These laws were designed for physical workplaces, not digital environments.
- With the rise of:
- Work-from-home
- Platform work
- Always-on digital tools
traditional distinctions between work time and personal time have blurred.
- The Bill represents India’s first formal legislative attempt to address this structural shift.
What is the Right to Disconnect Bill?
- Provides employees the right to not respond to work-related calls, emails, or messages beyond prescribed working hours.
- Seeks to:
- Protect mental health
- Ensure work–life balance
- Limit excessive employer control enabled by technology
- Introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, which:
- Rarely becomes law
- Often shapes future legislative thinking
Legal and Structural Gaps
1. Absence of a Digital Definition of “Work”
- Indian labour law does not define “work” in the context of digital availability.
- The Bill regulates communication but does not clarify whether after-hours digital engagement counts as work.
- This becomes problematic when read with the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which:
- Regulates working hours and overtime
- Remains silent on digital labour
- A conceptual gap where communication is regulated but working time is not redefined.
2. Behavioural Norm Rather Than Enforceable Right
- Since digital engagement is not legally classified as “work”:
- Employers are not clearly liable for violations
- Employees lack enforceable remedies
- The right risks functioning as a moral or behavioural guideline, not a binding labour standard.
- This weakens:
- Legal certainty
- Compliance
- Worker protection
3. Mandatory Right or Contractual Flexibility
Indian labour law mixes:
Mandatory statutory norms (e.g., maximum working hours)
Contractual arrangements via company policies
The Bill does not clarify whether the Right to Disconnect is non-negotiable.
This opens the possibility of:
Dilution through contracts
Uneven application across sectors
Stronger rights for white-collar workers, weaker for informal or gig workers
Comparative International Experience
European Union:
- Employer control determines working time
- Even standby or on-call time counts as work (SIMAP, Jaeger, Tyco cases)
France:
- Clear distinction between working time and rest time
- Digital communication regulated through collective bargaining
Germany:
- Strict working-hour caps and mandatory rest periods
- When an employer controls an employee’s time, that time belongs to work.
Constitutional Dimension
- The right to disconnect has a strong link with Article 21:
- Right to life
- Right to dignity
- Mental well-being
- Personal autonomy
- Indian courts have expanded Article 21 to include:
- Right to privacy
- Right to health
- Right to humane working conditions
- However, the Bill:
- Does not explicitly invoke Article 21
- Leaves the constitutional basis implicit
This creates ambiguity on whether the right is:
- Merely statutory, or
- A constitutional guarantee enforceable through courts
Way Forward
- Legally define digital work and employer control.
- Treat after-hours digital availability as working time where employer control exists.
- Clarify whether the right is a mandatory labour standard.
- Explicitly link the right to Article 21 jurisprudence.
- Encourage sector-wise collective bargaining to balance flexibility and protection.
Conclusion
The Right to Disconnect Bill is a significant normative intervention acknowledging that digital technologies have transformed the nature of work. However, without redefining “work”, integrating digital labour into existing labour codes, and clarifying its constitutional basis, the Bill remains incomplete. It should be seen as the starting point of a broader legal and constitutional evolution in Indian labour law.
CARE MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Right to Disconnect Bill risks functioning more as a behavioural norm than an enforceable labour right.
Statement-II: The Right to Disconnect Bill risks this outcome because Indian labour law does not define digital availability as “work”.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I.
B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I.
C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect.
D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct.
Answer: A
Explanation:
- Statement-I is correct. Without enforceability, the right may remain a moral guideline rather than a binding standard.
- Statement-II is correct. Since after-hours digital engagement is not legally recognised as “work”, employers face no clear liability, and workers lack remedies.
- Therefore, Statement-II correctly explains Statement-I.
- The OSH Code, 2020 regulates working hours but is silent on digital labour.
- This creates a conceptual gap: communication is regulated, but working time is not redefined.
