Mains Practice Questions for the Day
- Q. Deep-ocean exploration can strengthen India’s critical-mineral, energy and maritime security, but it also raises serious environmental and social concerns. Discuss. Suggest measures for the sustainable utilisation of deep-ocean resources.
- Q. “Blanket prohibition of lotteries may be morally appealing but administratively counterproductive.” Examine the statement in the context of India’s constitutional framework. Suggest measures for establishing an accountable lottery regulatory regime.
Q. Deep-ocean exploration can strengthen India’s critical-mineral, energy and maritime security, but it also raises serious environmental and social concerns. Discuss. Suggest measures for the sustainable utilisation of deep-ocean resources.
Introduction:
The deep ocean contains polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, hydrocarbons and other strategic resources. Their exploration is important for India’s blue economy, especially when critical minerals are essential for clean energy and advanced manufacturing.
Body
Significance for India
- Critical-Mineral Security: Polymetallic deposits contain nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper and rare-earth elements required for batteries and renewable-energy systems.
- Energy Security: Offshore oil and gas exploration can raise domestic production and reduce import dependence.
- Scientific Capability: ISA contracts, NCPOR surveys, the Deep Ocean Mission and the Sagar Manthan research vessel strengthen ocean research.
- Blue Economy: Exploration may support fisheries, aquaculture, employment, tourism and blue trade.
- Maritime Security: Seabed mapping improves underwater domain awareness and protection of submarine communication cables.
- Domestic Manufacturing: Offshore projects can promote indigenous sensors, vessels, machinery and technical services.
Challenges
- Ecological Uncertainty: Limited scientific knowledge makes long-term environmental impacts difficult to predict.
- Biodiversity Loss: Mining may damage seabed habitats and disturb marine food chains.
- Sensitive Ecosystems: Activities near Great Nicobar may affect coral reefs, turtle nesting sites and Nicobar megapode habitats.
- Community Concerns: Projects may affect fishermen and the ancestral lands of the Great Nicobarese community.
- High Costs: Deep-sea operations require specialised technology, infrastructure and skilled personnel.
- Commercial Risk: Exploration does not guarantee economically viable discoveries.
Way Forward
- Apply the precautionary principle and conduct detailed environmental assessments.
- Expand seabed mapping, biodiversity research and long-term monitoring.
- Consult fishing and indigenous communities during project planning.
- Develop indigenous vessels, sensors and offshore equipment.
- Maintain a clear separation between exploration and mining approvals.
- Ensure compliance with domestic laws, UNCLOS and ISA regulations.
- Promote benefit-sharing and train marine scientists, engineers and technicians.
Conclusion:
India should pursue deep-ocean exploration through a science-based and environmentally responsible framework. Economic and strategic gains must be balanced with biodiversity protection, community rights and the principle of the common heritage of mankind.
Q. “Blanket prohibition of lotteries may be morally appealing but administratively counterproductive.” Examine the statement in the context of India’s constitutional framework. Suggest measures for establishing an accountable lottery regulatory regime.
Introduction:
Lotteries can cause addiction, indebtedness and financial distress, particularly among low-income households. However, prohibition may not eliminate demand and can push participants towards illegal and unaccountable gambling networks.
Body
Constitutional and Legal Position
- Entry 40 of the Union List covers lotteries organised by the Union or State governments, while Entry 34 of the State List covers betting and gambling.
- The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 permits State lotteries subject to Section 4 conditions.
- In B.R. Enterprises v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1999), the Supreme Court held that a State can prohibit outside lotteries only after abandoning its own lottery.
- Gambling is treated as res extra commercium and does not receive ordinary trade protection under Articles 19(1)(g) and 301.
Why Prohibition May be Counterproductive
- Shadow Economy: Participants may shift towards matka, satta, smuggled tickets and offshore platforms.
- Consumer Vulnerability: Illegal operators lack age checks, audited draws, secure prize funds and grievance mechanisms.
- Fiscal Loss: States lose lottery surplus and GST revenue while enforcement costs increase.
- Livelihood Impact: Small vendors, persons with disabilities and low-income sellers may lose employment.
Challenges
- Lotteries impose a regressive burden on poorer households.
- Rapid draws can promote compulsive gambling and loss-chasing.
- Government may face a conflict of interest as both operator and regulator.
- Offshore platforms and mule accounts complicate enforcement.
- Misleading advertisements may distort the probability of winning.
Way Forward
- Amend Section 5 to make destination-State consent decisive, subject to uniform treatment of outside lotteries.
- Introduce Section 4A for voluntary multi-State lotteries.
- Establish independent statutory lottery authorities.
- Mandate third-party audits of draws, software and prize funds.
- Prohibit credit sales and regulate rapid-draw games and advertisements.
- Coordinate MeitY, FIU-IND and State agencies against illegal platforms.
- Transparently allocate lottery surplus to health care, welfare and addiction rehabilitation.
Conclusion:
India should adopt controlled legality rather than choose between complete prohibition and unrestricted gambling. Kerala’s public-operator model offers a useful example, provided regulation prioritises consumer protection over revenue generation.
