Introduction: Daily current affairs for 6 June 2025 are crucial for UPSC and other competitive exams. This update covers important national and international news, government policies, and significant events to keep you informed and prepared. 1. Nuclear Energy and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 About India’s increasing focus on clean and sustainable energy has brought nuclear power to the forefront of its energy mix. In this context, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010 plays a crucial role. Enacted after the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement (2008), the Act creates a legal framework for liability and compensation in the event of a nuclear incident. It aims to ensure both public safety and investor confidence, especially from foreign suppliers. Key Provisions of CLNDA Section 6:Limits the liability of the nuclear plant operator to ₹1,500 crore. Also mandates the creation of a Nuclear Liability Fund to cover damages. Section 17(b):Allows the operator to claim compensation from the supplier if a nuclear accident occurs due to defective equipment or materials supplied. Section 46:Maintains that other applicable laws can impose additional liability. This diverges from international standards, raising concerns for global investors. Recent Developments Discussions are ongoing to amend key provisions of the CLNDA to attract more foreign participation, especially from countries like the United States and France. Efforts are being made to revive large-scale nuclear projects, including the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant in Maharashtra, which involves French collaboration. Challenges Supplier Liability Clause:The provision allowing recourse against suppliers (Section 17) has deterred international vendors due to risk exposure. Legal Ambiguity:The presence of overlapping liability laws (via Section 46) creates uncertainty, especially when compared to global norms under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). Impact on India’s Energy Goals Current Capacity: Around 7,000 MW generated from nuclear power. Future Target: India aims to reach 22,480 MW nuclear capacity by 2031. Nuclear power is crucial to achieving low-carbon energy and energy security in alignment with India's climate goals. Challenges & Way Forward Clarify Legal Liability: Clearly define the limits and nature of supplier/operator liabilities in line with global conventions. Strengthen Domestic Capabilities: Encourage indigenous manufacturing of nuclear components to reduce dependency on foreign vendors. Ensure Balance: Maintain public safety protocols while also creating an investor-friendly legal environment to attract critical foreign technology and investment. UPSC Quick Facts India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but voluntarily adheres to IAEA safeguards for its civil nuclear program. The CLNDA was passed in 2010, two years after India and the U.S. signed the historic Civil Nuclear Deal. India's nuclear liability law is stricter than global norms, primarily due to the lessons learned from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984). 2. AI’s Unchecked Ascent & Regulatory Legislative About: Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI, is revolutionizing sectors like education, media, healthcare, and governance. However, regulation hasn't kept pace, resulting in legal, ethical, and socio-economic challenges globally. Key Points: Dual-use Nature: AI can aid medicine but also spread misinformation. Societal Impact: Alters job markets, amplifies bias, disrupts democratic processes. Global Divide: Lack of common regulatory standards across countries. Regulatory Legislative: Rapid Tech Evolution: Laws can’t match AI's speed. Expertise Gap: Legislators lack deep tech knowledge. Big Tech Influence: Lobbying delays strict oversight. Jurisdictional Complexity: Cross-border applications hinder uniform laws. Concerns: Bias & Discrimination: Due to flawed datasets. Privacy Breach: Data scraping and tracking. Deepfakes: Threaten national security and democracy. Job Displacement: Especially in coding, BPOs, content roles. Accountability Vacuum: No clarity on liability in AI decisions. Global Responses: EU: AI Act (first comprehensive legislation – risk-based). USA: Innovation-focused, voluntary framework. China: Strict controls on algorithms and content. UK: Light-touch, sector-specific approach. India’s Strategy: NITI Aayog “AI for All” initiative. National AI Mission: Focus on inclusion, innovation. DPDP Act 2023: Regulates AI data indirectly. Global Dialogue: Participated in Bletchley Park & Seoul AI Summits. Emphasis: Responsible AI, Global South perspective. UPSC Quick Facts: FATE: Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, Explainability. AGI vs ANI: General vs. Narrow AI. UN AI Resolution (2024): For safe, inclusive AI. EU Digital Regulations: GDPR, DMA, DSA influencing global AI laws. 3. Digital Census for Timely Data & Governance About: India’s upcoming Digital Census aims to leverage technology to make data collection faster, more accurate, and policy-relevant. It will be India’s first fully app-based enumeration, set to redefine public planning. Key Points: Legal Framework: Census Act, 1948. Constitutional Backing: Articles 82 & 170 (delimitation, electoral readjustment). Implementing Body: Office of Registrar General & Census Commissioner (ORG&CCI). Benefits: Faster Processing: Real-time data entry and transmission. Improved Accuracy: Less manual error, geo-tagging for spatial insights. Cost-Efficiency: One-time infrastructure, long-term saving. Better Targeting: Scheme planning, social welfare, infrastructure. Challenges: Digital Divide: Low connectivity in rural regions. Privacy Concerns: Fear of surveillance and misuse. Operational Barriers: Multilingual, large-scale training needs. Tech Readiness: App glitches, server overload, cybersecurity. Recent Developments: CMMS Platform: Census Monitoring & Management System for real-time tracking. Enumerator Training: Tech familiarization for field staff. Pilot Projects: Mobile app trials in multiple states. NPR Integration: Stirs concerns on privacy and data sensitivity. UPSC Quick Facts: Next Census: Delayed; likely around 2027. Enumerator Profile: Public servants, mostly teachers. Census Usage: Planning, Finance Commission, delimitation, welfare design. Digital Tools: App-based surveys, cloud infrastructure. 4. Is IBC an Effective Resolution Tool? About IBC The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 was introduced to provide a comprehensive legal mechanism for resolving insolvencies in a time-bound manner. It was based on the recommendations of the T.K. Viswanathan Committee and aims to empower creditors, resolve non-performing assets (NPAs), and improve India's business environment and credit culture. Key Features Core Objective: Promote corporate rescue and revival, with liquidation as a last resort. Control Shift: From debtor-in-possession to creditor-in-control. Defined Timeline: Corporate resolution process limited to 180 to 330 days. Wide Applicability: Covers companies, LLPs, individuals, and partnerships. Institutional Framework: Insolvency Professionals (IPs) Information Utilities (IUs) Committee of Creditors (CoC) Achievements of IBC Higher Recovery Rate: Average recovery stands at 71.6 cents per dollar, compared to 26.5 cents pre-IBC (World Bank, 2020). Faster Resolutions: Average time to resolve insolvency reduced from 4.5 years to ~658 days. Behavioral Changes: Promoters are more compliant and prefer early settlement due to fear of losing control. Support to MSMEs: The Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) was introduced to help micro, small, and medium enterprises. Improved Credit Discipline: Banks are quicker to recognize and act on bad loans. Important Timeline Year Development 2016 IBC passed by Parliament 2017 IBC became operational 2018 Essar Steel Case upheld the primacy of CoC 2020 PIRP introduced for MSMEs 2021–24 Amendments & cross-border insolvency discussions initiated under UNCITRAL model Challenges Overloaded NCLT: Cases often exceed stipulated timelines due to insufficient benches and procedural delays. Deep Haircuts: In several cases, creditors recover only 10–30% of their dues. Litigation Misuse: Deliberate appeals and legal delays hinder the speedy resolution process. Limited IP Pool: Shortage of well-trained insolvency professionals. Resolution vs Liquidation: Over 50% of cases result in liquidation, not revival. Recent Reforms Strengthening NCLT: New benches are being set up for faster case handling. Digital Advancements: Adoption of e-filing and digital case management systems. Regulatory Improvements: Updates to the IBBI Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals. Cross-Border Insolvency Framework: Under discussion for future implementation, guided by UNCITRAL Model Law. UPSC Quick Facts Constitutional Basis: Entry 9, Concurrent List – both Centre and States can legislate. Key Institutions: IBBI (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India) NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) NCLAT (Appellate Tribunal) CoC (Committee of Creditors) Important Legal Provision: Section 53: Establishes the waterfall mechanism for debt repayment during liquidation. Landmark Case: Essar Steel v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) – Upheld the final authority of CoC in resolution matters. [caption id="attachment_26213" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Daily Current Affairs 6 June 2025[/caption] 5. Should India Amend Its Nuclear Energy Laws? Why in News:India’s ambitious nuclear energy expansion to meet climate goals and energy security is impeded by the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010. The debate is whether amending this law will unlock foreign investments and advanced technology transfers. Key Issues (Mains Focus): India’s Nuclear Energy Imperatives: Energy Security: Provides reliable base-load power, reduces fossil fuel imports. Climate Goals: Essential for India’s Net Zero carbon emission target by 2070 due to minimal operational emissions. Growing Demand: Rising electricity needs from economic and demographic growth. Three-Stage Programme: Indigenous thorium utilisation plan ensures long-term energy independence. Enacted after Bhopal disaster to ensure victim compensation in nuclear accidents. Section 17(b): Grants right of recourse to NPCIL (operator) against suppliers for defects/negligence. Seen by foreign suppliers (e.g., Westinghouse, Rosatom) as open-ended liability risk, deterring foreign investment. Arguments for Amending CLNDA: Attract FDI and enable technology transfer for advanced reactors (AP1000, EPR). Facilitate faster capacity expansion of nuclear plants. Align India with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), focusing liability on operators, not suppliers. Boost ‘Make in India’ through joint ventures and localisation. Arguments Against Amending CLNDA: Could weaken safety incentives by limiting supplier liability. Risks delaying or limiting compensation to victims. May erode public trust, recalling Bhopal’s legacy. Threatens strategic autonomy by increasing foreign dependency. Political sensitivity may provoke backlash against perceived corporate leniency. Timeline & Legal Developments: 1962: Atomic Energy Act enacted. 1984: Bhopal Gas Disaster. 2010: CLNDA enacted. 2016: India ratifies CSC. Present: Debate on CLNDA’s compatibility with CSC and supplier hesitation. Recent Government Initiatives: Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal (2008) breakthrough, but limited by CLNDA concerns. India Nuclear Insurance Pool (2015) reduces supplier liability fears. Policy clarifications indicate limited recourse only in wilful misconduct cases. Focus on indigenous PHWR and thorium reactors. Active participation in GNEP and cooperation with IAEA. UPSC Quick Facts: Atomic Energy Act, 1962: Governs nuclear energy development. AERB: Regulates nuclear safety standards. NPCIL: Operator of nuclear plants. CSC (2016): International treaty focusing liability on operators. IAEA: Oversees global nuclear cooperation. Bhopal Case: Union Carbide vs. Union of India highlights importance of strong liability laws. Way Forward: Amend CLNDA with precise supplier liability definitions, balancing safety and investor confidence. Strengthen domestic manufacturing and safety oversight. Build political consensus to balance innovation with accountability. 6.The University vs Constitutionally Protected Speech Why in News:Universities face challenges balancing freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)) with maintaining institutional discipline, student safety, and fostering inclusive education. Key Issues (Mains Focus): Universities as Free Speech Arenas: Cradle for debate, dissent, and critical thinking. Academic freedom vital for research, teaching, and knowledge dissemination. Pillar of democracy by nurturing informed citizens and leaders. Challenges: Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions for public order, morality, security. Distinguishing hate speech from legitimate dissent is complex. Student protests often invoke sedition (Section 124A IPC), creating controversy. Offensive speech can alienate vulnerable groups, challenging inclusivity. Political interference risks institutional autonomy. Social media amplifies issues rapidly, complicating management. Speech disrupting academic functioning requires sensitive handling. Legal and Judicial Guidance: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Decriminalized online speech unless inciting violence. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): Sedition valid only when inciting violence or public disorder. Courts uphold university autonomy but within constitutional limits. Recent Developments: Universities adopting codes of conduct defining acceptable speech. Mediation and dialogue preferred over punitive measures. Civic education to foster constitutional literacy and respectful discourse. Government supports free speech but cautions against “anti-national” activities. UPSC Quick Facts: Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression. Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions allowed. Section 124A IPC: Sedition law under review. Contempt and Defamation Laws: Balance freedom with responsibility. Shreya Singhal Case (2015): Landmark for protecting digital speech. Way Forward: Promote civic engagement through dialogue rather than suppression. Establish clear campus policies aligned with constitutional rights. Empower universities to protect free speech while preventing hate and violence. Clarify legal boundaries on academic expression. 6. Eurocentric Reset – A Gateway for India Why in News:India’s strategic engagement with Europe is deepening through various partnerships and initiatives that align with India’s global ambitions and Europe’s Indo-Pacific focus. Key References & Initiatives: India-EU Strategic Partnership Roadmap to 2025: Framework for cooperation across economy, technology, and security. India-EU Trade & Technology Council (TTC), 2023: Platform to boost tech collaboration and trade. India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC): Launched at G20 2023, linking India with Europe via Middle East, facilitating trade & energy security. Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI): India’s vision for a free, open Indo-Pacific emphasizing maritime security and cooperation. India-EU Connectivity Partnership (2021 Porto Summit): Enhances physical and digital infrastructure connectivity. International Context: France, Germany, and the EU have Indo-Pacific strategies focusing on multilateralism, economic resilience, and security cooperation. EU’s Global Gateway Initiative counters China’s Belt and Road Initiative by promoting sustainable infrastructure in partner countries. ASEM facilitates Asia-Europe dialogue, with India as a key participant. Strategic Concepts: Strategic Autonomy: Core to India’s foreign policy and Europe’s recalibrations post-Brexit and Ukraine conflict. UNCLOS: Legal framework for maritime cooperation between India and EU. Significance for India: Strengthens multi-alignment foreign policy. Boosts trade, technology, and infrastructure connectivity. Reinforces India’s role in Indo-Pacific security and economic architecture. 7. Trampled Over – Police Brutality & Crowd Mismanagement Why in News:Incidents of police excesses and mishandling of crowds have raised concerns over human rights and police reforms. Constitutional Provisions: Article 21: Right to life includes dignity and safety. Article 19(1)(b): Right to peaceful assembly. Articles 32 & 226: Writ remedies for fundamental rights violations. Judicial Precedents: Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006): Police reforms for autonomy and accountability. D.K. Basu vs. West Bengal (1997): Guidelines against custodial torture. Statutory Framework: Police Act, 1861: Outdated colonial law; calls for urgent modernization. CrPC Sections 129–132: Police powers to disperse unlawful assemblies. NHRC Guidelines: Standards on police conduct and crowd control. Government Initiatives: Police reforms committees recommend human rights training and crowd management. Modernization of Police Forces (MPF) Scheme: Equipment and training upgrades. Smart Policing Vision: Emphasizes accountability and technology use. International Standards: UN Basic Principles on Use of Force (1990): Calls for proportionality and accountability. UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979). Challenges: Balancing law enforcement with human rights. Need for police modernization and cultural change. 8. Injustice in the Delay – Judicial Backlog Why in News:India’s judiciary faces a massive backlog, affecting the right to a speedy trial and overall justice delivery. Constitutional Provisions: Article 21: Right to speedy trial (affirmed in Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar, 1979). Article 39A: Directive Principle for equal justice and free legal aid. Article 50: Directive for separation of judiciary from the executive. Key Judgments: Hussainara Khatoon (1979): Speedy trial is a fundamental right. Salem Advocate Bar Association (2005): Supported civil procedure reforms. Moti Lal Saraf (2007): Criticized long judicial vacations. Statutory Measures: Gram Nyayalayas Act (2008): Local courts for speedy justice. Legal Services Authorities Act (1987): Promotes free legal aid and Lok Adalats. Arbitration and Conciliation Act (1996): Alternative dispute resolution promotion. Government Projects: e-Courts Mission Mode Project: ICT integration in judiciary. Nyaya Vikas Portal: Monitors judicial infrastructure. Fast Track Special Courts: Handle sensitive cases efficiently. International Practices: World Bank Ease of Doing Business: Judicial efficiency as a key factor. OECD Guidelines: Emphasize use of technology and specialized courts. Challenges & Way Forward: Infrastructure and manpower shortages. Need for alternative dispute resolution and judicial reforms. Digital transformation to speed up case disposal.
