MAIN QUESTIONS

Q1. The Delhi High Court’s injunction against Sci-Hub has reignited the debate on access to knowledge in India. Critically examine whether the ‘One Nation, One Subscription’ scheme can address structural flaws in scholarly publishing. (250 words, 15 marks)

Topic – One Nation, One Subscription (ONOS) initiative

Source: The Hindu

Model Answer:

Introduction

The recent Delhi High Court order blocking Sci-Hub and its mirrors has once again highlighted the tension between intellectual property rights and the right to knowledge. While publishers such as Elsevier and Wiley defended their business model through legal action, many researchers view Sci-Hub as a symptom of dysfunctional scholarly publishing, characterised by high subscription costs despite publicly funded research. In this context, the Government of India’s One Nation, One Subscription (ONOS) initiative, with an outlay of ₹6,000 crore for 2023–26, aims to democratise access by negotiating bulk subscriptions with publishers.

Body

• The Problem of Scholarly Publishing in India
• Significance of ONOS
• Limitations and Concerns
• Remedies and Way Forward

Conclusion

The ONOS initiative is a progressive step towards equitable access, but it addresses symptoms rather than the root disease of structural inequities in scholarly publishing. Unless India complements ONOS with open-access mandates, national repositories, and indigenous publishing reforms, the risk remains that it will be an expensive detour rather than a transformative shift. The real goal must be to put knowledge back in the hands of the public who fund it.

Final Answer:

Introduction

The recent Delhi High Court order blocking Sci-Hub and its mirrors has once again highlighted the tension between intellectual property rights and the right to knowledge. While publishers such as Elsevier and Wiley defended their business model through legal action, many researchers view Sci-Hub as a symptom of dysfunctional scholarly publishing, characterised by high subscription costs despite publicly funded research. In this context, the Government of India’s One Nation, One Subscription (ONOS) initiative, with an outlay of ₹6,000 crore for 2023–26, aims to democratise access by negotiating bulk subscriptions with publishers.

Body

The Problem of Scholarly Publishing in India

• Exorbitant Subscription Costs: Indian institutions often pay lakhs per journal; access is limited to elite universities.
• Public Funding Paradox: Research is publicly funded, but access to its outputs is restricted behind paywalls.
• No Author Royalties: Unlike books or films, researchers are not paid by journals; peer review is voluntary.
• Global Dependence: Dominance of foreign publishers fosters structural dependence.

Significance of ONOS

• Wider Access: Negotiates subscriptions with ~30 major publishers, enabling access to 13,000 journals for public institutions.
• Equity: Reduces disparities between resource-rich and resource-poor universities.
• Legal & Ethical Alternative: Offers a legitimate path to replace reliance on shadow libraries like Sci-Hub.
• Resource Reallocation: Frees institutional funds for research support, potentially enabling open access initiatives.

Limitations and Concerns

• Exclusion of Private Sector: Phase I covers only public institutions; independent and private researchers remain excluded.
• High Costs: ₹6,000 crore outlay may be unsustainable given the global shift towards open access.
• No Structural Reform: Continues to reinforce dependence on foreign publishers and their profit-driven model.
• Copyright Issues: Indian researchers still compelled to transfer rights to journals, losing control over their work.
• Global Trends: U.S. (from 2026) and EU already mandate open access for federally funded research, potentially making ONOS outdated.

Remedies and Way Forward

• National Rights Retention Policy: Like Harvard and MIT, mandating deposition of all publicly funded research in open repositories.
• Strengthening Institutional Repositories: Build indigenous archives accessible to all citizens.
• Per-Article Models: Instead of blanket subscriptions, allow flexible access to niche journals on demand.
• Promote Indian Journals: Invest in indigenous publishing houses to reduce dependence on Western publishers.
• Public Engagement: Ensure that ONOS negotiations are guided by researchers’ needs, not just publishers’ packages.

Conclusion

The ONOS initiative is a progressive step towards equitable access, but it addresses symptoms rather than the root disease of structural inequities in scholarly publishing. Unless India complements ONOS with open-access mandates, national repositories, and indigenous publishing reforms, the risk remains that it will be an expensive detour rather than a transformative shift. The real goal must be to put knowledge back in the hands of the public who fund it.

Q 2. About 30% of MPs and MLAs in India face serious criminal cases. Critically examine the causes, implications, and the role of institutional mechanisms in addressing the criminalisation of politics. Suggest remedies. (250 words, 15 marks)

Topic – Criminalisation of Politics

Source: The Hindu

Model Answer:

Introduction

The criminalisation of politics has emerged as one of the gravest challenges to Indian democracy. Data shows that 31% of Lok Sabha MPs (2024) and 29% of MLAs across states have declared serious criminal cases, a significant rise from 14% in 2009 for MPs. Serious charges include offences that are non-bailable or attract imprisonment of five years or more. This trend undermines the principles of constitutional morality, free and fair elections, and public trust in governance.

Body

• Causes of Criminalisation of Politics
• Implications for Democracy and Governance
• Institutional Efforts and Judicial Interventions
• Remedies and Way Forward

Conclusion

The rise in criminalisation of politics—from 14% MPs with serious cases in 2009 to 31% in 2024—is a systemic crisis eroding India’s democratic fabric. Judicial interventions and committee recommendations exist, but their implementation has been weak. Political will, voter awareness, and institutional reforms are essential to cleanse the polity. Ensuring probity in legislatures is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative for safeguarding India’s constitutional democracy.

Final Answer:

Introduction

The criminalisation of politics has emerged as one of the gravest challenges to Indian democracy. Data shows that 31% of Lok Sabha MPs (2024) and 29% of MLAs across states have declared serious criminal cases, a significant rise from 14% in 2009 for MPs. Serious charges include offences that are non-bailable or attract imprisonment of five years or more. This trend undermines the principles of constitutional morality, free and fair elections, and public trust in governance.

Body

Causes of Criminalisation of Politics

• Electoral Financing & Muscle Power: High election expenditure often makes parties rely on candidates with money and muscle power.
• Weak Legal Framework: Conviction, not charges, leads to disqualification; trials take years.
• Vote-bank Politics: Voters often overlook criminal backgrounds due to caste, community, or patronage considerations.
• Delayed Justice System: Prolonged trials mean accused legislators continue in office for years.
• Political Parties’ Incentives: Parties field “winnable” candidates regardless of criminal records.

Implications for Democracy and Governance

• Erosion of Public Trust: Citizens lose faith in Parliament and Assemblies as institutions of justice.
• Policy Distortions: Legislators with vested interests influence laws to weaken accountability.
• Corruption Nexus: Close link between crime, business, and politics fuels corruption.
• Governance Deficit: Focus on self-preservation rather than public welfare.
• Threat to Rule of Law: Criminal networks gain legitimacy through political power.

Institutional Efforts and Judicial Interventions

• Election Commission of India (ECI): Mandates candidates to declare criminal records through affidavits (2003 SC ruling in ADR vs Union of India).
• Supreme Court Directions:
  • Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) – Convicted lawmakers disqualified immediately.
  • Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018) – Parties must publish details of candidates’ criminal background.
• Law Commission Reports (170th & 244th): Recommended debarring candidates with serious charges framed.
• Parliamentary Committees: Ethics Committee and Standing Committees have flagged risks but reforms remain limited.

Remedies and Way Forward

• Legislative Reforms: Amend RPA, 1951 to bar candidates facing serious charges (framed by a court, not mere FIRs).
• Fast-Track Courts: Ensure time-bound trial of cases involving legislators.
• Political Will: Parties must adopt inner-party reforms; denial of tickets to tainted candidates.
• Voter Awareness: Strengthen voter literacy campaigns to reduce tolerance of criminality.
• Electoral Finance Reform: State funding of elections, strict monitoring of expenditure.
• Strengthening ECI Powers: Empower ECI to reject nominations of candidates with declared serious charges.

Conclusion

The rise in criminalisation of politics—from 14% MPs with serious cases in 2009 to 31% in 2024—is a systemic crisis eroding India’s democratic fabric. Judicial interventions and committee recommendations exist, but their implementation has been weak. Political will, voter awareness, and institutional reforms are essential to cleanse the polity. Ensuring probity in legislatures is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative for safeguarding India’s constitutional democracy.