UPSC CARE Mains Practice 17th November 2025

Mains Practice Questions for the Day

1Q. The Draft Seed Bill 2025 appears to be designed more for corporations than cultivators.” Critically examine this statement in the context of key provisions of the Bill and the concerns raised by farmer groups and seed conservers. (GS-II – Governance; Role of State; Rights of farmers; Issues with corporatisation of agriculture)

(GS Paper 2 – Health, Governance)

Introduction:

Seeds form the foundation of agricultural productivity and farmer autonomy. In this context, the Draft Seed Bill 2025 seeks to replace the Seeds Act 1966 and regulate the modern seed market through mandatory registration, quality control, and digital traceability. While the government claims it will curb fake seeds and improve accountability, several provisions have raised apprehensions that the Bill may disproportionately favour seed corporations over small cultivators and traditional seed systems.

Body

The Bill mandates registration and VCU testing for all seed varieties except farmers’ traditional seeds. Farmer groups argue that the standardised VCU criteria favour uniform hybrids produced by large companies, making it difficult for indigenous and climate-resilient varieties to qualify for sale.

The requirement for QR-coded digital traceability and continuous online reporting ensures accountability, but imposes a significant digital burden on community seed banks, FPOs, and women’s collectives. These groups are treated as commercial entities and must meet the same compliance standards as corporations—an approach critics say undermines community-led seed conservation.

The proposed Central Accreditation System allows nationally accredited companies to operate across states with minimal oversight, effectively easing compliance for big firms. In contrast, farmers still lack a simple compensation mechanism. Crop failure due to faulty seeds requires litigation in civil courts, making redress inaccessible for smallholders.

Moreover, the Bill’s provision permitting foreign organisations to conduct VCU testing raises concerns about easier entry of GM, gene-edited, and patented seeds, potentially encouraging biopiracy and increasing farmer dependency.

Conclusion:

While the Seed Bill 2025 attempts to strengthen seed quality regulation, its design risks centralising control within large corporations and marginalising traditional, diverse seed systems. A more farmer-centric framework must ensure simplified compliance, accessible compensation, and stronger safeguards for India’s genetic heritage.

2Q.The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 aim to strengthen digital privacy in India, yet concerns remain about transparency, delayed implementation and institutional independence.” Examine. (GS Paper II – Government Policies & Interventions)

Relevance: GS Paper-3(Environment),

Introduction:

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 operationalise the DPDP Act, 2023—India’s first comprehensive privacy legislation following the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy (2017) judgment. The Rules seek to empower citizens through informed consent, data erasure, digital grievance redressal and a digital-by-design Data Protection Board. However, concerns persist over transparency, state exemptions, RTI dilution and slow implementation.

Body

Key Strengths of the DPDP Rules

(a) Citizen-centric rights

Informed consent, easy withdrawal, right to erasure, correction, and digital nominees.
Stronger safeguards for children, including ban on profiling and targeted advertising.

(b) Digital-by-Design Governance

Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) functions completely online—speeding up grievance redress and enabling Ease of Living.

(c) Graded compliance

Reduced burden for startups/MSMEs; stricter obligations (DPO, DPIA, audits) for Significant Data Fiduciaries.

(d) Awareness and inclusion

Rules based on wide stakeholder consultations and global benchmarks.

Concerns & Criticisms

(a) Dilution of RTI Act

Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) removes public interest exception.
Could weaken social audits, anti-corruption efforts and transparency.

(b) Government exemptions

Broad permissions for state agencies to process data without proportional safeguards raise concerns of surveillance and misuse.

(c) Institutional independence

DPBI is a subordinate office under MeitY → conflict of interest between regulator and promoter of digital industry.

(d) Delayed implementation

Most privacy protections deferred for 12–18 months, pushing meaningful enforcement to 2026–27.

(e) Ambiguity

Insufficient clarity on cross-border data transfer, sensitive data processing and government accountability.

Way Forward

Ensure DPBI autonomy through independent appointments and parliamentary oversight.
Restore public interest override under RTI to balance privacy with transparency.
Narrow government exemptions; adopt necessity–proportionality tests.
Fast-track core privacy protections and define cross-border data flow rules.
Strengthen citizen awareness and build privacy-by-design into all public digital services.

Conclusion:

The DPDP Rules, 2025 mark a major step in India’s journey toward a rights-based digital ecosystem. Yet the success of the framework depends on independent enforcement, restoration of transparency safeguards, and timely implementation. A balanced, citizen-first approach is essential to secure both privacy and democratic accountability in India’s growing digital economy.