Daily Mains Answer Writing Practice – 7 September 2026
Attempt first. Upload your handwritten answer. Then compare it with the model answer.
“Urban air pollution is not merely a municipal problem; it is an airshed-level governance challenge.” In the light of the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), examine India’s progress in improving urban air quality and discuss the institutional reforms needed for sustained results.
Official reference: MoEFCC / PIB – Swachh Vayu Diwas 2026
Attempt the answer before checking the model
Model Answer
Introduction
Urban air pollution is produced by several overlapping sources—transport, road dust, industries, construction, waste burning and regional biomass use. Since pollutants travel across administrative boundaries, cleaner air cannot be secured by municipal action alone. NCAP has improved monitoring and city-level action, but sustained gains require an airshed-based governance framework.
Body
Progress under NCAP
- Wider city coverage: NCAP now provides a structured air-quality management framework for 130 cities.
- Measurable improvement: The government reported improvement in PM10 levels in 108 cities in 2025–26 compared with the 2017–18 baseline.
- Performance-linked finance: Grants have helped cities invest in road-dust control, waste management, cleaner transport and other mitigation measures.
- Monitoring and accountability: Platforms such as PRANA and Swachh Vayu Sarvekshan have encouraged tracking, comparison and city-level responsibility.
- Local innovation: Best-practice recognition has encouraged municipalities to experiment with technology, enforcement and citizen participation.
Why city-wise action remains insufficient
- Airshed effect: Industrial emissions, crop-residue smoke and transport pollution can travel across districts and States.
- Fragmented institutions: Pollution-control boards, municipalities, transport departments and development authorities often work in silos.
- Source uncertainty: Weak or outdated emission inventories can lead to poorly targeted interventions.
- Capacity gaps: Many urban local bodies lack technical staff, monitoring capability and predictable finance.
- PM10-centric progress: Improvement in one pollutant does not automatically mean safe overall air quality, especially where PM2.5 and ozone remain concerns.
Institutional reforms needed
- Adopt airshed-based planning for major polluted regions instead of treating each city as an isolated unit.
- Create formal mechanisms for inter-State and inter-city coordination with clearly assigned responsibilities.
- Update source-apportionment studies and emission inventories regularly.
- Strengthen CPCB/SPCB capacity while giving local bodies technical and financial support.
- Link grants to verified reductions in emissions and exposure, not only to expenditure or activity.
- Expand public access to real-time data and make clean-air planning a citizen-participation process.
Conclusion
NCAP has moved India from episodic pollution control toward structured air-quality management. The next step is to move from city plans to airshed governance, where science, finance and institutions operate across boundaries. Only then can short-term improvements become durable gains in public health.
“Judicial review is indispensable to constitutional supremacy, but an expansive judicial role may also blur the boundaries between adjudication and governance.” Critically examine in the context of the doctrine of separation of powers in India.
Attempt the answer before checking the model
Model Answer
Introduction
India does not follow a rigid separation of powers; instead, the Constitution creates functional separation with checks and balances. Judicial review is one such check, allowing constitutional courts to test laws and executive actions against the Constitution. The challenge is to preserve this role without converting courts into substitute policy-makers.
Body
Why judicial review is indispensable
- Constitutional supremacy: Articles 13, 32 and 226 empower courts to invalidate actions inconsistent with fundamental rights and constitutional limits.
- Protection of rights: Judicial review gives practical meaning to fundamental rights when majoritarian or executive action threatens individual liberty.
- Federal balance: Courts resolve disputes over legislative competence and Centre–State powers.
- Basic structure: In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court held that even Parliament’s amending power is limited by the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Rule of law: Review ensures that discretionary power is exercised lawfully, reasonably and for proper purposes.
Where concerns of overreach arise
- Courts may enter areas requiring technical expertise, budgetary choices or continuous administration.
- Detailed judicial directions can reduce the policy space of elected governments.
- Public Interest Litigation, while transformative, can become a route for courts to supervise governance beyond adjudicatory necessity.
- Frequent intervention may weaken institutional accountability by allowing the executive to shift difficult decisions to courts.
How the balance should be maintained
- Courts should intervene strongly where rights, legality or constitutional structure are at stake.
- In questions of policy design, they should normally examine legality, arbitrariness and procedural fairness rather than choose among competing policy options.
- Reasoned judgments, institutional restraint and respect for democratic accountability should guide judicial remedies.
- The legislature and executive must also perform their constitutional duties effectively; judicial restraint cannot compensate for institutional failure elsewhere.
Conclusion
Judicial review and separation of powers are not competing principles; both serve constitutional government. The ideal is neither judicial supremacy nor unchecked legislative-executive power, but a system of constitutional dialogue and mutual restraint in which each organ remains effective within its legitimate sphere.
- Did I directly address the directive used in the question?
- Did I build an argument instead of merely listing facts?
- Did I cover multiple dimensions and limitations?
- Did I use relevant examples, institutions, data or keywords?
- Did I give a practical way forward where required?
- Did I end with a balanced conclusion and stay within the word limit?
