1. “Despite global pledges, climate finance remains grossly inadequate to meet the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. Discuss the challenges and implications of this finance gap, and suggest measures to make global climate finance architecture more equitable and effective.”
| Syllabus: General Studies Paper – 3 – Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment |
IN NEWS: Climate Finance Gap — Developing Nations Need 12× More Funds
Climate finance — the flow of funds from developed to developing nations for climate mitigation, adaptation, and loss & damage — lies at the heart of global climate action. Yet, as per UNEP’s “Running on Empty” Report (2024), developing nations need $310–365 billion annually by 2035, nearly 12 times current financial flows (~$26 billion in 2023).
Challenges in Climate Finance (with data & reports)
1. Unmet Global Pledges:
- The Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015) commitments of $100 billion annually remain unfulfilled.
- The COP-26 (Glasgow) target to double adaptation finance to $40 billion by 2025 will be missed (UNEP, 2024).
2. Debt-Dominated Structure:
- 58% of international adaptation finance (2022–23) came as loans, while only 42% were grants.
- This worsens debt distress — IMF (2023) reports that 60% of low-income countries face debt vulnerabilities due to climate-linked borrowing.
3. Institutional Weakness:
- Green Climate Fund (GCF) disbursed only ~$12 billion by 2023 against a $100 billion target (OECD, 2023).
- Standing Committee on Finance (UNFCCC, 2023) highlighted underreporting and lack of transparency in fund accounting.
4. Geopolitical Distractions:
- Post-pandemic recovery and the Ukraine conflict diverted resources from climate priorities (World Bank, 2023).
Implications for Developing Nations (examples + data)
- Climate Inequity: IPCC AR6 (2023) confirms developing nations face 70–80% of global climate losses despite contributing <10% of emissions.
- Slower Transition: India requires $170 billion annually till 2030 for its green transition (Economic Survey 2022–23), but current flows meet only 15–20%.
- Loss of Trust: At COP-29 (Baku, 2024), developing nations demanded $1.3 trillion annually, but developed countries agreed to just $300 billion under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), deepening the North–South trust gap.
Measures for an Equitable and Effective Climate Finance Architecture
1. Fulfil and Upscale Commitments:
- Implement the Baku to Belém Roadmap (2024–25) to raise finance to $1.3 trillion/year by 2035.
2. Shift to Grant-Based Finance:
- Reduce debt-heavy instruments; adopt debt-for-climate swaps (e.g., Seychelles 2021 model).
3. Operationalize the Loss & Damage Fund (COP-27, Sharm El-Sheikh):
- Prioritize LDCs and SIDS with grant-based relief mechanisms.
4. Institutional Reforms:
- Strengthen the Green Climate Fund and Standing Committee on Finance for accountability.
- Establish a Global Climate Finance Registry under UNFCCC to track flows and delivery.
5. Private and Innovative Finance:
- Expand green bonds (India issued ₹16,000 crore in 2023), blended finance, and carbon markets.
6. South–South Cooperation:
- Initiatives like ISA (International Solar Alliance) and CDRI (Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure) show effective models of equitable climate partnerships.
The widening finance gap is not a resource crisis but a justice crisis. Bridging it requires predictable, transparent, and equitable funding aligned with the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) principle. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Finance is the oxygen of climate action — without it, all promises will suffocate.”
| PYQ REFERENCE (2021) Q. Explain the purpose of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). How far can it help developing countries in adaptation and mitigation of climate change? |
2. “Despite repeated judicial and institutional interventions, criminalization of politics continues to undermine constitutional governance in India”. Discuss in the light of recent legislative initiatives such as the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill
| Syllabus: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure General Studies – : GS Paper 2 |
IN NEWS: An amended Constitution Bill, its contentious issues (130th Amendment Bill)
Criminalisation of politics persists despite judicial and institutional efforts. Around 40–45% of legislators face criminal cases and 25–30% face serious charges, prompting new measures like the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to disqualify ministers detained for over 30 days in serious offences to uphold political integrity.
Why judicial/institutional steps fell short
1. Time-lagged remedy: Disqualification under the Representation of the People Act (Section 8) operates only upon conviction, and trials are often prolonged — rendering the remedy ineffective.
2. Limit of judicial remedies: SC pronouncements (e.g., Arnesh Kumar—directions on arrest; Joginder Kumar—arrest justification) protect liberty but cannot expedite trials or change political incentives to field tainted candidates.
3. Weak party self-regulation: Political parties continue to prefer winnability over probity; internal mechanisms to screen candidates are inadequate.
4. Policing and prosecution gaps: Investigative delays, discretionary arrests and occasional political misuse undermine institutional trust (historic commissions and studies have flagged high rates of unnecessary arrests).
About the 130th Amendment Bill — merits & concerns
- Merit: Attempts immediate executive accountability — prevents a person in prolonged custody from “running government from jail” and signals zero tolerance for serious wrongdoing by office-holders.
Constitutional concerns:
- Presumption of innocence (Art. 21): Automatic cessation on arrest (not conviction) risks penalising the innocent.
• Police discretion & misuse: Arrest is discretionary (CrPC §41/BNSS) — risk of politically motivated arrests to unseat rivals. - Procedural mismatch: Default judicial remand and special laws (PMLA/NDPS/UAPA) often keep accused in custody beyond 30 days even when trials are pending or bail standards are stringent.
Way forward (balanced reforms)
1. Trigger removal only after judicial cognizance/framing of charges (as Law Commission (244th) recommended) rather than mere arrest.
2. Independent review mechanism (judicial/ombudsman) to vet executive removal orders within a short period.
3. Fast-track courts for cases involving public office-holders and statutory timelines for trial.
4. Differentiate offences — limit automatic removal to clearly defined heinous/serious corruption/abuse-of-office offences.
5. Strengthen party-level vetting and political finance reforms to reduce incentives for tainted candidates.
Criminalisation of politics erodes constitutional governance. Legislative reforms like the 130th Amendment address symptoms, but must be paired with procedural safeguards, speedy trials and political reforms to protect both probity and fundamental rights.
Value-Addition Material
1. Constitutional & Legal Provisions
| Theme | Relevant Article / Law / Judgment | Key Point for Integration |
| Constitutional Governance | Article 14, 19, 21 | Basis for equality, liberty and due process — undermined when tainted legislators misuse power. |
| Collective Responsibility | Article 75(3) (Union) & 164(2) (State) | Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the legislature — detention erodes legitimacy. |
| Oath of Office | Third Schedule | Ministers swear to uphold the Constitution and discharge duties faithfully — contradicts continuation under custody. |
| Disqualification Grounds | Article 102(1)(e) & 191(1)(e) + Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Sections 8–10A) | Provide for disqualification upon conviction, not arrest — hence the need for reform. |
| Judicial Precedents | Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) | SC struck down Section 8(4) of RPA, ending 3-month cushion for convicted MPs/MLAs. |
| Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018) | Directed political parties to disclose criminal antecedents of candidates. | |
| Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) | SC advised PM/CM to avoid including tainted individuals in government — moral restraint. | |
| Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) | Guidelines on arrest — relevant to balance liberty with accountability. |
2. Data and Reports for Introduction / Body
| Source | Key Findings |
| ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms), 2024 | 43% of Lok Sabha MPs face criminal cases; 29% face serious charges (murder, attempt to murder, crimes against women). |
| ADR (State Assemblies, 2023) | Average of 44% MLAs have criminal cases; over 25% serious charges. |
| Law Commission of India (244th Report, 2014) | Recommended disqualification from contesting elections upon framing of charges for serious offences (≥5 years punishment). |
| Vohra Committee Report (1993) | Warned about deep nexus between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats. |
| Second ARC, Ethics in Governance (2007) | Identified criminalisation of politics as a major threat to rule of law and public trust. |
| ECI Data (2023) | 13% increase in candidates with criminal cases compared to 2019; 30% rise in those with serious charges. |
| Supreme Court Observation (2020) | “Criminalisation of politics is the bane of Indian democracy” – expressed concern over non-compliance with 2018 disclosure directions. |
3. Value-Adding Points for 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (2025)
| Aspect | Key Insight |
| Objective | Prevent Ministers/PM/CM from holding office while in judicial custody beyond 30 days for offences punishable ≥5 years. |
| Moral Rationale | “No one should run government from jail” — aligns with principles of constitutional morality (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision). |
| Comparative Insight | In UK & Canada, ministers resign upon indictment or custody, even before conviction — upholds moral accountability. |
| Checks and Balances | Bill proposes automatic removal, but must ensure protection under Article 21 (presumption of innocence, fair process). |
| Concerns | Could be misused for political vendetta, given police arrest discretion under CrPC §41 or BNSS equivalent. |
4. Supporting Value-Addition for “Way Forward”
| Reform Area | Supporting Report / Precedent |
| Fast-track courts for politicians | Recommended by SC (2020) – directed special courts to complete trials within 1 year. |
| Independent ethics ombudsman | Suggested by Second ARC and NITI Aayog’s Ethics Report (2017). |
| Transparency in political funding | ECI White Paper (2022) – linkage between opaque funding and criminal candidates. |
| Inner-party democracy | 170th Law Commission Report (1999) – called for reforms to democratize party functioning. |
| Public awareness | ADR & ECI joint initiatives promoting “clean candidate” campaigns — critical for behavioural change. |
5. Model Conclusion with Data
Criminalisation of politics remains a systemic threat to constitutional governance and public faith. With nearly 45% legislators facing criminal charges, the 130th Amendment Bill is a timely moral intervention. Yet, sustainable reform demands institutional integrity, judicial speed, and political will — to balance probity in public life with constitutional justice under Articles 14 and 21.
| PYQ REFERENCE (2023) Q. How far do you agree that political funding and criminalization of politics are the twin challenges to good governance in India? |