MAINS Current Affairs includes NATGRID and the architecture of surveillance & Top court’s green governance

Governance

1. NATGRID and the architecture of surveillance

Context: Recent reports indicate a major expansion of the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), including its integration with the National Population Register (NPR) and wider access for State police, raising fresh debates on privacy, oversight, and the future of surveillance in India.

About NATGRID and the architecture of surveillance:

What is NATGRID?

• National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) is a technology-enabled intelligence-sharing platform conceived after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks to overcome information silos. It allows authorised agencies to query multiple databases in real time through a secure middleware, without directly holding the data.

Key features:

• Multi-database access: Links 21 categories of datasets—travel, financial records, telecom metadata, identity documents, assets, etc.
• Agency access: Initially limited to select central agencies; now extended to State police (up to SP rank).
• Tiered sensitivity: Queries classified as non-sensitive, sensitive, and highly sensitive.
• Advanced analytics: AI-enabled tools (e.g., entity resolution, facial recognition) to connect fragmented records.

NATGRID: Success and challenges:

Success of NATGRID in India:

• NPR integration: Linking National Intelligence Grid with the National Population Register enables family-tree–based identity validation for 119 crore residents, strengthening suspect verification across datasets.
• High operational volume: Processing nearly 45,000 queries per month, NATGRID has shifted intelligence work from episodic requests to continuous, real-time investigative support.
• CCTNS linkage: Integration with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network allows instant access to FIRs from 14,000+ police stations, improving Centre–State coordination in serious crimes.
• AI deployment (GANDIVA): AI-based entity resolution has reduced suspect-linking time from days to minutes, enhancing efficiency in terror financing and organised crime probes.
• State-level access expansion: Granting secure access to SP-rank officers across all States has dismantled centralised silos and strengthened last-mile policing intelligence.

Recent expansion of NATGRID:

1. Integration with NPR: Linking National Intelligence Grid with the National Population Register enables population-scale identity verification (~119 crore residents) through household and lineage-based cross-checks.
2. Wider access to States: Access has expanded from central agencies to State police up to SP rank, making NATGRID a routine Centre–State investigative tool beyond counter-terrorism.
3. AI deployment (Gandiva): The AI tool Gandiva links suspects across KYC, vehicle and licence databases, speeding probes but increasing risks of automated errors.

Challenges and concerns:

• Legislative lacuna: NATGRID continues to operate via executive orders, lacking a statutory framework defining powers, limits, and accountability mechanisms.
• Proportionality risk: Access to sensitive financial and travel data without a registered FIR may violate the necessity and proportionality standards set in Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India.
• Algorithmic bias: Internal reviews noting ~15% false positives in facial recognition raise risks of misidentification, especially for marginalised groups.
• DPDP Act exemptions: Exemptions under the DPDP Act, 2023 deny citizens correction and grievance rights, weakening informational self-determination.
• Function creep: Expansion from counter-terrorism to routine financial and civil cases dilutes purpose limitation and normalises mass surveillance.

Way ahead for NATGRID:

• Parliamentary oversight: Establish a Standing Committee on Intelligence to audit query logs, scope creep, and compliance annually.
• Judicial authorisation: Mandate judicial warrants for access to “highly sensitive” data such as bank records and tax information.
• Sunset and data minimisation: Introduce time-bound data retention with automatic deletion for individuals cleared of suspicion.
• Algorithmic accountability: Adopt bias audits, explain ability standards, and human-in-the-loop safeguards for AI-driven profiling.
• Privacy-preserving global cooperation: Use privacy-preserving data-sharing protocols for cooperation with Interpol and foreign agencies without raw data exposure.

Conclusion:

NATGRID has strengthened intelligence coordination and investigative efficiency in India. However, its rapid expansion—especially population-scale integration and AI analytics—has outpaced constitutional safeguards. Embedding law-bound oversight, proportionality, and transparency is essential to ensure security without sacrificing democratic freedoms.

Polity/Environment

2. Top court’s green governance

Context: Recent articles have highlighted concerns over the Supreme Court’s evolving role in environmental governance, pointing to frequent policy reversals and uncertainty arising from judicially driven green regulations, especially visible in 2025 environmental rulings.

About Top court’s green governance:

What it is?

• Top court’s green governance refers to the Supreme Court’s proactive role in environmental protection, where it goes beyond adjudicating legality and issues continuous, policy-shaping directions—often through continuing mandamus—to compensate for regulatory failure.

Major Supreme Court judgments on environment in 2025:

1. Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025)

• • Initially held ex post facto environmental clearances illegal as violative of the precautionary principle.
  • Later reversed in review, allowing such clearances citing disruption to ongoing projects, raising concerns of doctrinal inconsistency.

2. Aravalli Hills Mining Matter (2025)

• • Court adopted a restrictive definition of Aravallis (excluding areas below 100 metres), opening large tracts to mining.
  • Order later stayed by a coordinate bench, and an expert committee constituted.

3. Kancha Gachibowli Forest Case, Hyderabad (2025)

• • Suo motu cognisance of mass tree felling for IT infrastructure.
  • Court stayed further deforestation citing biodiversity loss and public trust doctrine.

4. K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (Great Indian Bustard case)

• • Continued strong conservation stance: undergrounding power lines, habitat restoration, predator-proof fencing.
  • Reaffirmed link between environmental protection and inter-generational equity.

5. Delhi-NCR Air Pollution cases (2025)

• • Court repeatedly directed Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on long-term planning, data transparency, and enforcement.
  • Highlighted regulatory delay and lack of coordinated airshed-level governance.

6. Stray Dog Management Case (2025)

• • Initial order for relocation of stray dogs later modified to sterilisation-and-release policy.
  • Reflected judicial struggle to balance animal welfare with public safety.

Successes of the Supreme Court in Environmental Conservation:

• Strengthened environmental jurisprudence: The Court has constitutionalised environmental protection by embedding global environmental principles into Article 21, moving beyond statutory interpretation to rights-based climate and ecological justice.
• Checked executive inaction: The Court has acted as a constitutional watchdog, compelling lethargic regulators to fulfil statutory duties when governance paralysis threatens public health.
• Prevented irreversible ecological damage: Applying the precautionary principle, the Court has halted environmentally risky activities until scientific certainty and safeguards are ensured.
• Expanded the public trust doctrine: The Court has reinforced that natural resources are held by the State in trusteeship, not ownership, for present and future generations.
  • g. Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee v. District Collector (2025) imposed restoration liability on polluting tanneries under Polluter Pays.
• Mainstreamed environmental rights: Environmental protection has been linked to dignity, health, and equality, making it a non-derogable constitutional obligation.
  • g. Union of India v. Rajiv Suri (2024–25) mandated rapid constitution of SEIAAs to prevent bypassing environmental scrutiny.

Issues and Challenges Associated:

• Judicial overreach into regulation: The Court sometimes prescribes technical or operational solutions, blurring the separation between adjudication and administration.
  • g. In Delhi air pollution cases, directions on smog towers and traffic management intruded into CAQM’s technical domain.
• Policy uncertainty due to reversals: Frequent dilution or reversal of landmark rulings weakens regulatory predictability and long-term environmental planning.
  • g. Vanashakti v. Union of India (2025) reversed the ban on post-facto clearances within months, unsettling environmental jurisprudence.
• Expertise paradox: Judicial reliance on expert committees, followed by rejection or reconstitution, undermines scientific consistency.
  • g. The fluctuating judicial definition of “Aravalli Hills” led to repeated committee reviews before a final standard emerged.
• Shrinking space for public challenge: Direct Supreme Court intervention can sideline statutory forums, narrowing participatory environmental justice.
  • g. Mining proponents bypassed NGT proceedings in 2025 by approaching the Supreme Court directly, muting local objections.
• Continuing mandamus fatigue: Long-running cases risk judicial micromanagement, replacing durable policy reform with interim governance.
  • g. The 1-km ESZ mandate (2022) was modified after protests, reflecting instability inherent in prolonged mandamus.

Way Ahead

• Re-anchor to legality: Judicial review should prioritise due process, statutory compliance, and reasoning, not policy design.
• Discipline, don’t replace: The Court should enforce accountability rather than substitute governance.
  • g. Holding officials liable for failure to utilise CAMPA funds would strengthen execution without micromanagement.
• Clear thresholds for intervention: A principled standard can prevent arbitrary dilution of environmental safeguards.
  • g. A Doctrine of Non-Regression would have avoided reversal on post-facto environmental clearances.
• Strengthen institutions: Robust regulators reduce dependence on judicial governance.
  • g. Filling vacancies in SPCBs, CAQM, and NGT would decentralise environmental justice and restore institutional balance.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court remains a crucial guardian of India’s environmental rights where governance fails. However, frequent doctrinal shifts and regulatory substitution risk eroding certainty and institutional balance. A principle-based, regulator-disciplining—not regulator-replacing—approach is essential for sustainable and democratic green governance.

Download Pdf | Study Material | Downloads | Daily Quiz  | FREE Youtube Videos