A team of conservationists, zoologists and veterinary medicine specialists has successfully used artificial insemination to
breed wild endangered parrots in New Zealand.
Kakapo
The Kakapo is a large, flightless, nocturnal parrot endemic to New Zealand.
Known for its distinct owl-like face, green plumage and musky odor the Kakapo is one of the rarest and most endangered
birds in the world.
•Scientific Name:- Strigops habroptilus
•Common Name :-Owl Parrot
•Status Critically:- Endangered (IUCN Red List)
•Lifespan Up to 90 years
•Habitat Native forests of New Zealand (islands)
•Flight capability Flightless, uses wings for balance
•Diet Herbivorous – seeds, fruits, leaves, bark
•Breeding Lek breeding system, low reproductive rate
•Conservation Significance
Ecological Importance
Acts as a seed disperser in its native habitat.
A keystone species for the forest ecosystems of New Zealand.
Evolutionary Uniqueness
Only flightless and nocturnal parrot in the world.
Sole surviving species of the genus Strigops and tribe Strigopini (ancient parrot lineage).
Biodiversity Indicator
Reflects the ecological health of New Zealand’s forest systems.
•Threats to Survival
Habitat Loss- Deforestation, land-use changes post-human colonization
Introduced Predators Cats, rats and stoats introduced by European settlers
Low Reproduction Mating only during mast years; infrequent and irregular
Genetic Bottleneck Only ~250 individuals alive, leading to inbreeding and health issues
- Conservation efforts
Kakapo Recovery Programme (New Zealand)
Started in 1995 under the New Zealand Department of Conservation.
Focus areas: Translocation to predator-free islands, artificial insemination, genetic management, intensive monitoring.
Use of radio transmitters and data science to track movements and health.
Predator-Free Islands
Kakapos are now confined to islands like Codfish Island / Whenua Hou, Anchor Island and Little Barrier Island to keep them
safe from predators.
Technological Interventions
Use of AI and machine learning e.g., in egg fertility detection.
Genome sequencing to manage genetic diversity.
VEERASWAMI CASE
Context:
Veeraswami judgment outlines when an FIR can be filed against a sitting judge.
Veeraswami Case (1991)
Background
Justice K. Veeraswami, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court (1969–76), faced corruption allegations for having
assets disproportionate to his income. An FIR was filed against him by the CBI in 1979, but he challenged its validity.
Key Legal Questions
- Are judges “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act (1947)?
- Who can sanction an FIR against a sitting judge?
Supreme Court’s 1991 Ruling
Judges are public servants under anti-corruption laws. However, prior sanction from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is
mandatory to register an FIR against a sitting judge. This shields judges from politically motivated cases and protects judicial independence.
Unlike other public servants, judges aren’t appointed by the President in a typical employer-employee sense, so the CJI, not
the executive, decides on prosecution sanction. The CJI acts as the “competent authority” for sanction, not the President or
executive, to prevent executive interference.
Justice Yashwant Varma’s Case (2025)
Incident - Unaccounted cash was found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence in March 2025. He was a Delhi High Court judge
then but later transferred to Allahabad HC. - The Supreme Court initiated an in-house inquiry (a panel of judges investigating misconduct) in May 2025, but the SC
dismissed petitions seeking an FIR, stating the report was sent to the President and PM.
Vice President Dhankhar’s Criticism - Called the in-house inquiry “unconstitutional” and demanded an FIR against Justice Varma.
- Argued that the Veeraswami judgment creates a “scaffolding of impunity” by making CJI approval mandatory, which
delays accountability.
Key Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability
Impeachment (Constitutional Process) - Article 124 (SC Judges) and Article 218 (HC Judges): Judges can only be removed via impeachment by Parliament for
“proven misbehavior or incapacity.” - Reality: No judge has ever been impeached successfully in India. The process is politically difficult and requires a two-
thirds majority in both Houses.
In-House Inquiry - Developed by the Supreme Court to address complaints without impeachment.
- Process:
o CJI forms a panel of judges to investigate.
o If misconduct is found, the panel recommends actions like withdrawing judicial work or voluntary resignation.
o The report is sent to the President/PM, but it cannot directly lead to criminal prosecution. - Limitations: Critics call it opaque and ineffective. For example, Justice S.N. Shukla (Allahabad HC) faced an in-house
probe and impeachment recommendations in 2018, but the government took no action, letting him retire in 2020.
✓ WHY INDIA NEEDS STABLE URBAN FORESTS
•Context
Urban forests often the last green sanctuaries in India’s rapidly expanding cities play a pivotal role in maintaining ecological
balance, public health and urban resilience.
With increasing threats from urbanisation and real estate development their stability and protection have become more
critical than ever.
•Significance of Urban Forests in India
=Ecological Functions
One hectare of urban forest can remove nearly 1 ton of air pollutants annually.
Trees absorb CO₂ and reduce greenhouse gases.
Reduce urban heat island effects, moderate temperatures.
Control runoff, soil erosion and prevent urban flooding.
=Health and Social Wellbeing
Access to green spaces improves mental health, reduces stress and encourages physical activity.
Reduces incidences of respiratory illnesses by filtering PM2.5 and PM10 particles.
=Biodiversity Conservation
Urban forests serve as habitats for birds, insects and animals ensuring ecosystem continuity in urban zones.
Protect endangered species from extinction due to habitat loss.
Cultural and Recreational Importance
Facilitate nature-sensitive recreation e.g., walking trails, birdwatching.
Act as urban commons promoting community interaction and environmental awareness.
=Impact of Urbanisation
Kancha Gachibowli (Hyderabad)
400 acres allotted for industrial use, endangering biodiversity and tree cover.
100 acres of tree cover already lost prompting Supreme Court intervention.
Highlights conflict between development and environmental sustainability.
=Other Urban Forests Under Threat
Aarey Forest (Mumbai): Threatened by metro car shed; saved after citizen protests and judicial stay.
Turahalli (Bengaluru): Subjected to tree felling for infrastructure.
Delhi Ridge (Aravalli corridor): Protected through High Court orders.
Dol Ka Baadh (Jaipur) and parts of Bhopal and Allahabad faced indiscriminate tree cutting.
•Judicial Interventions and Constitutional Backing
•Landmark Court Cases
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996): Broadened the definition of ‘forest’ under law.
Aarey Forest Case (2020): Supreme Court stayed tree felling, upheld citizen rights.
Delhi Ridge Case (2015): Delhi HC directed the government to notify and protect.
Baran, Rajasthan (2024): Suo motu action by Rajasthan HC against illegal tree felling.
•Constitutional Provisions
Article 21: Right to a healthy environment as part of the Right to Life.
Article 48A: Directive to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty to safeguard natural surroundings.
•Policy Framework and Government Initiatives
National Forest Policy, 1988: Emphasis on social and urban forestry.
National Mission for Green India, 2014: Focus on ecosystem restoration increasing forest cover.
Smart Cities Mission & AMRUT, 2015: Emphasis on ecologically smart urban infrastructure.
Nagar Van Yojana (2020–2027)
Aim: Develop 1,000 urban forests across India.
Progress: As per India State of Forest Report 2023, led to 1,445.81 km² increase in forest and tree cover.
•Implementation Agency: MoEF&CC.
•Objectives:
Integrate forest areas into urban landscapes.
Encourage community participation in conservation.
Provide sustainable recreation and educational benefits.
✓ GOLDEN DOME
•Context
The announcement of the Golden Dome missile defence shield by U.S. President Donald Trump marks a potentially
revolutionary leap in the militarization of space and the evolution of missile defence systems.
Modeled loosely after Israel’s Iron Dome this $175-billion project with an ambitious deadline of 2029 aims to create a space-
integrated, multi-domain defence architecture capable of intercepting hostile missiles including Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles at various phases of their flight.
•What is the Golden Dome?
The Golden Dome is envisioned as a comprehensive missile defence shield that utilizes:
=Space-based sensors
Satellite-launched interceptors
Land and sea-based radar and tracking systems
It seeks to provide real-time global missile tracking and interception including neutralizing missiles moments after launch.
=Technological Breakthrough
Would be the first operational space-based weapon system transitioning from current satellite-based reconnaissance
to offensive-defensive interception capabilities.
Includes the deployment of thousands of small satellites capable of early detection and interception.
Israel’s Iron Dome protects against short-range threats primarily from non-state actors. The Golden Dome targets strategic
threats from peer adversaries like Russia and China especially nuclear-capable ICBMs.
•Strategic Rationale and Geopolitical Context
•Need for Advanced Missile Defence:
ICBMs and hypersonic threats from adversaries like Russia and China pose strategic risks.
Existing ground-based systems e.g., THAAD, GMD are insufficient against high-speed, multi-phase threats.
•Militarization of Outer Space
Golden Dome would represent the militarization and weaponization of space previously governed by strategic restraint e.g.,
Outer Space Treaty, 1967.
Raises concerns of an arms race in space with potential countermeasures from adversaries.