Content Electronics Development Fund EXERCISE GARUDA 25 Electronics Development Fund Why in News? PIB reported that the Electronics Development Fund has invested ₹257.77 crore in 8 Daughter Funds, enabling ₹1,335.77 crore downstream investments into 128 startups. EDF-supported startups have created 23,600+ high-tech jobs and generated 368 Intellectual Properties (IPs) as of 30 September 2025. Relevance : GS-III: Economy & S&T Boosts semiconductor, ESDM, AI, robotics, cybersecurity innovation. Strengthens R&D, IP creation, design-led manufacturing. Addresses deep-tech funding gaps and reduces electronics import dependence. GS-III: Government Policies Case study of Fund-of-Funds model, public–private investment mobilisation. Supports Digital India, Make in India, Atmanirbhar Bharat. GS-II/III: Development & Security Enables strategic tech capabilities (drones, AI, cybersecurity). High-value job creation and startup ecosystem strengthening. What is the Electronics Development Fund (EDF)? Launched in February 2016 by MeitY to create a “Fund of Funds” model for electronics, nano-electronics, and IT innovation. Objective: Build India’s Electronics System Design & Manufacturing (ESDM) ecosystem through risk capital for technology startups. Structure: Government invests in Daughter Funds → These invest in startups developing deep-tech products and IPs. Strategic Objectives (Conceptual Foundation) Strengthen Innovation & R&D – Promote domestic capability in electronics and advanced technologies. Support Venture/AIF Funds – Provide anchor capital to Category I & II SEBI-regulated Alternative Investment Funds. Foster Indigenous Product Development – Promote IP creation and reduce import dependence. Enhance Domestic Design Ecosystem – Promote local ESDM design for strategic and commercial sectors. Enable Strategic Tech Acquisition – Encourage purchase/acquisition of critical foreign technologies. Build National IP Pool – Strengthen India’s IP ownership in frontier tech. Operational Framework (How EDF Works) Institutional Architecture Anchor Investor: Ministry of Electronics & IT (MeitY) Trustee & Sponsor: Canara Bank Investment Manager: Canbank Venture Capital Funds Ltd. Key Features Functions as a Fund of Funds; invests indirectly through Daughter Funds. Maintains minority participation, catalysing large private-sector co-investments. Daughter Funds must be SEBI-registered Category I/II AIFs. Daughter Fund managers have autonomy in investment decisions. EDF covers the entire electronics/IT value chain, from hardware design to deep tech startups. Selection of Daughter Funds based on strict due diligence. Performance & Achievements (Data-Driven Analysis) Financial Footprint Total EDF Investment: ₹257.77 crore Total Downstream Investment by Daughter Funds: ₹1,335.77 crore Leverage Ratio: For every ₹1 invested by EDF → ~₹5.18 mobilised in the ecosystem. Startup-Level Outcomes Total Startups Supported: 128 Job Creation: 23,600+ jobs Intellectual Properties Generated: 368 IPs Exits: 37 exits Cumulative Returns to EDF: ₹173.88 crore Priority Sectors Supported IoT Robotics Drones Autonomous Vehicles HealthTech AI/ML Cybersecurity Semiconductor & Embedded Systems Overview Relevance to Electronics Manufacturing & Digital Economy EDF plugs India’s early-stage funding gap in deep tech. Critical to India’s semiconductor and design-led manufacturing goals. Aligns with Make in India, Digital India, and Atmanirbhar Bharat. Economic & Strategic Significance Reduces import dependence on critical electronics (India’s annual imports >$70 bn historically). Boosts domestic design, raising India’s share in global electronics value chains. Strengthens strategic tech sectors (AI, robotics, cybersecurity, drones) important for national security. Policy & Governance Evaluation Minority participation model ensures market efficiency and avoids micromanagement. Fund-of-Funds design mitigates risk and creates multipliers in private funding. Transparent SEBI-regulated structure improves investor confidence. Challenges / Limitations Financing gap persists for hardware-heavy startups with long gestation periods. India still lacks large-scale deep-tech venture capital depth compared to US/China. Scaling from prototype to commercial production remains challenging for ESDM. Future Imperatives Increase EDF corpus aligned with semiconductor strategy. Deeper linkages with academia (IITs, IIITs) and R&D labs. Integration with Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes. Strengthen exit ecosystem (IPOs, strategic acquisitions). Conclusion The Electronics Development Fund is a key pillar in India’s shift from electronics assembly to electronics design leadership. Its Fund-of-Funds model has successfully mobilised private capital, supported deep-tech startups, created high-value IP, and strengthened India’s innovation ecosystem. EDF now occupies a strategic position in India’s long-term tech self-reliance and semiconductor roadmap. EXERCISE GARUDA 25  Why in News? PIB announced India’s participation in Exercise Garuda 25, the 8th edition of the bilateral air exercise with the French Air and Space Force (FASF), held at Mont-de-Marsan, France (16–27 Nov 2025). IAF deployed Su-30MKI fighters, supported by C-17 Globemaster III and IL-78 flight refuellers. Relevance : GS-II: International Relations Key pillar of India–France defence partnership. Defence diplomacy tool; strengthens Indo-Pacific alignment. GS-III: Defence & Internal Security Enhances IAF interoperability, BVR/EW capability, multi-domain readiness. Improves preparedness for high-intensity and coalition operations. What is Exercise GARUDA? Bilateral air exercise between the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the French Air & Space Force (FASF). Launched in 2003 as part of expanding India–France strategic defence cooperation. Hosted alternately in India and France. Among the longest-running IAF international air exercises. Key Features of GARUDA 25 (2025 Edition) Host: France (Mont-de-Marsan Air Base). Date: 16–27 November 2025. IAF Deployment: Su-30MKI; C-17 for strategic airlift; IL-78 for mid-air refuelling. French Deployment: Rafale (F3R), Mirage-2000 variants, support aircraft. Exercise Scenarios: Advanced air combat Air defence and joint strike missions Multi-domain coordination Complex BVR and EW settings Objectives (Strategic & Tactical) Strengthen interoperability with a major strategic partner. Exposure to advanced NATO-aligned air combat doctrines. Training in air superiority, joint strike, and defensive counter-air ops. Enhance long-range strike capability through IL-78 refuelling support. Increase personnel exchanges and operational best-practice sharing. Operational Significance Enables Su-30MKI to engage with European multirole fighters in realistic contested airspace. Supports IAF’s transition towards network-centric, multi-domain operations. Boosts proficiency in BVR combat, EW tactics, and mixed fighter package ops. Enhances joint planning and execution of combined air campaigns. India–France Defence Cooperation Context France is a long-term defence partner (Mirage-2000 → Rafale). Part of the tri-service exercise framework: Varuna (Navy), Shakti (Army), Garuda (Air). Strong alignment on Indo-Pacific priorities including maritime security and open sea lanes. Broader Strategic Context Fits India’s push for high-end military exercises with trusted partners. Improves preparedness for high-intensity combat and coalition operations. Supports indigenisation by validating domestic systems in multinational settings. Enhances defence diplomacy, especially with European strategic actors. Strengthens capability for long-duration missions in contested operations. Significance for the Indian Air Force Improves operational readiness through realistic multinational scenarios. Enhances Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) exposure for pilots. Strengthens interoperability for future UN/multilateral contingencies. Contributes to IAF’s evolving combat doctrine and integrated air defence architecture. Past Editions at a Glance Conducted in: 2003, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2019, 2022, 2023/24, 2025. Venues included Istres (France), Jodhpur (India), and Mont-de-Marsan (France). Progression from basic DACT to full-spectrum, multi-domain combat simulations.

Content The POCSO Act is gender-neutral by design Too little, much later The POCSO Act is gender-neutral by design  Why in News? The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition where a woman is accused of ‘penetrative sexual assault’ (Section 3, POCSO Act, 2012). The petitioner argued that Section 3 applies only to male perpetrators, claiming the provision is gender-specific. The case raises a foundational question: Can women be prosecuted for penetrative sexual assault under POCSO? Relevance : GS-II: Police reforms, Judicial Interpretation, Vulnerable sections (Children), Legislative intent GS-I (Society): Gender issues, Protection of children GS-II (Governance): Statutory interpretation, Role of General Clauses Act GS-II (Polity): Constitutional values—equality (Art 14), non-discrimination (Art 15), protection of children Practice Question : The POCSO Act is often described as gender-neutral by design. Discuss how statutory interpretation, legislative intent, and child-centric principles support a gender-neutral reading. (250 Words) What is the POCSO Act? Enacted in 2012 to protect children (below 18 years) from sexual offences. Covers penetrative sexual assault, aggravated assault, sexual harassment, pornography. Designed as a comprehensive, child-centric special law with mandatory reporting, special courts, and survivor-friendly procedures. Core Legal Issue in This Case Whether Section 3 (penetrative sexual assault) applies to female perpetrators. Petitioner’s claim: Section uses the pronoun ‘he’, implying only males can be offenders. Judicial question: Is POCSO gender-neutral regarding perpetrators, victims, or both? Textual Evidence Supporting Gender Neutrality Section 13(1), General Clauses Act (1897): Words importing masculine gender include females unless statute states otherwise. The POCSO Act does not explicitly restrict offenders to males. Section 3 includes acts beyond penile penetration: Digital penetration Object penetration Oral penetration Acts where a child performs penetrative acts on themselves or a third person These acts can be committed by persons of any gender, reinforcing neutrality. Legislative Intent: Explicitly Gender-Neutral Lok Sabha written reply (Dec 20, 2024): Government clarified POCSO is gender neutral. Statement of Objects & Reasons, POCSO Amendment Bill 2019: Reiterates gender neutrality. Comparative logic: BNS Section 63 (rape) is explicitly gender-specific (“a man” commits rape against “a woman”). If Parliament wanted POCSO to be gender-specific, it would have written similar wording. Its absence shows deliberate legislative intent to keep POCSO gender-neutral. Do Government Statements Limit Neutrality Only to Victims? Some replies mention “covers sexual abuse of boys as it is gender-neutral”. However, this does not exclude gender–neutrality for perpetrators. A restricted reading would contradict: Statutory language General Clauses Act Legislative history Broader protective purpose of POCSO. Normative Justification for Gender-Neutral Interpretation Supreme Court in Sakshi v. Union of India (2004): Child sexual abuse involves many forms beyond penile-vaginal intercourse. Abuse is rooted in power, trust, vulnerability, not just gender dynamics. Research shows women can and do commit sexual offences against children. Gender-specific reading would: Render certain offences invisible Deny justice to victims abused by female offenders Undermine the Act’s protective purpose. Why Gender-Neutral Reading Serves the Law’s Purpose POCSO’s objective: protect children from all forms of sexual abuse. Must be interpreted in a manner that: Reflects ground realities Ensures all victims are protected Holds all offenders accountable Gender-neutral interpretation aligns with: Statutory text Legislative intent Judicial precedents Modern understanding of abuse dynamics. Constitutional & Policy Angle  Aligns with Articles 14 & 15 (equality, protection from discrimination). Prevents arbitrary exclusion of perpetrators based on gender. Supports a rights-based approach centred on child safety, not gender assumptions. Likely Judicial Considerations Court will examine: Statutory wording General Clauses Act Legislative debates, official statements Purpose-oriented interpretation Expected direction: Upgrading POCSO interpretation to align with child-centric justice. Conclusion Strong legal, textual, and normative grounds indicate that POCSO is gender-neutral for both victims and perpetrators. A gender-neutral reading best fulfils the intent and purpose of the Act: Protecting all children Recognising all forms of abuse Holding all offenders accountable Too little, much later  Why in News? The Government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The Rules delay implementation of almost all key data protection safeguards until 2027, while the dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) Act takes immediate effect. Raises concerns over: Weak privacy protections, Reduced transparency under RTI, A non-independent Data Protection Board of India (DPBI), Prolonged compliance timelines favouring Big Tech and government agencies. Relevance : GS-II: Government policies, Transparency, RTI, Regulatory bodies GS-III: Data governance, Cybersecurity, Privacy as a fundamental right GS-II (Polity): Executive accountability, Separation of powers GS-III (Tech): Digital economy regulation, Big Tech oversight Practice Question : The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 have been criticised for delaying privacy protections while immediately curtailing transparency under the RTI Act. Analyse. (250 Words) Evolution of India’s Data Protection Framework 2017: Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (Privacy) judgment declared privacy a fundamental right. 2018: Srikrishna Committee draft – strong, rights-based, independent regulator. 2019–2021: Multiple drafts diluted user rights; Joint Parliamentary Committee suggested 90+ amendments. 2022: Govt withdrew the JPC Bill, promised a new framework. 2023: DPDP Act passed – simplified but diluted user protections; expansive exemptions for government. 2025: DPDP Rules notified – criticised for delaying safeguards and weakening transparency. What the DPDP Act 2023 Sought to Do ? Regulate digital personal data processing. Obligations on Data Fiduciaries, rights for Data Principals. Introduced Data Protection Board of India (DPBI). Provided broad government exemptions (national security, public order, research). Amended RTI Act to narrow definition of “information.” Key Features of DPDP Rules 2025 Most core provisions deferred to 2027, including: Independent grievance timelines Data breach notifications Rights to correction, erasure, and portability Strict purpose limitation Immediate implementation of RTI dilution restricting access to personal information. Compliance timelines (12–18 months) for private companies, despite long prior awareness. Procedural framework for DPBI but no structural independence. Major Concerns Raised a) Delay of Protections to 2027 Pushes actual privacy enforcement nearly 4 years after the Act, leaving users vulnerable. Weakens constitutional promise of informational privacy. b) RTI Dilution Implemented Immediately Public Information Officers may now decline any personal information unless mandated elsewhere. Shrinks transparency space built since 2005. c) Non-Independent Data Protection Board DPBI placed under MeitY, which: Courts Big Tech investments, and Will investigate those same firms. Structural conflict of interest; lacks autonomy of regulators like TRAI/SEBI. d) Weak Checks on Government Access Wide exemptions remain unchanged. Limited accountability for state surveillance or misuse of citizen data. e) Industry-Favourable Timelines Big Tech receives long compliance buffers despite advance preparedness. Citizens continue without meaningful privacy safeguards. Implications for Citizens Continued asymmetry of power between citizens and the state/Big Tech. Users remain “open books”, with limited control over: What data is collected How long it is stored How it is used/shared Reduced ability to use RTI for accountability of public institutions. Governance & Institutional Issues Lack of independence undermines credibility of the data protection regime. Over-reliance on executive rule-making without sufficient parliamentary oversight. DPBI’s structure insufficient for complex enforcement (cross-border flows, AI profiling). Comparison with 2018 Draft / Global Norms 2018 Draft: Strong rights, strict data minimisation, independent regulator. Closer to GDPR standards. 2023 Act + 2025 Rules: More centralised control Far weaker user autonomy Broader government exemptions Reduced enforcement power Global Gap: India diverges from GDPR, Brazil LGPD, South Korea PIPA — all of which ensure independent regulators. Impact on Transparency & Accountability  Immediate RTI dilution reduces: Democratic oversight Investigative journalism Anti-corruption disclosure Creates a privacy–transparency paradox: privacy protections delayed, transparency curtailed overnight. Constitutional & Rights-Based Analysis Delaying protections undermines the right to privacy (Art. 21). RTI dilution weakens citizens’ right to information, affecting participatory democracy. Conflicts with constitutional principles of proportionality, necessity, accountability. Way Forward Ensure independence of DPBI akin to a statutory regulatory authority. Revisit RTI amendments to restore transparency. Clear timelines and immediate enforcement of core user rights. Stronger safeguards for: Government access AI-based processing Cross-border transfers Data localisation balance Increased parliamentary scrutiny and open public reasoning for rule-making. Conclusion Eight years after recognising privacy as a fundamental right, India remains far from a robust privacy framework. The 2025 Rules delay protections, weaken transparency, and maintain structural weaknesses in the institutional architecture. For citizens, the result is a continued imbalance of privacy vs state/industry power, undermining both accountability and digital rights.

Content An uncertain solar-powered future What are Digital Personal Data Protection Rules? How is the global precision medicine market shaping up? Article 32 enables people to approach SC for fundamental rights, says CJI Gavai Senkaku Islands Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) detected on another star After tax havens, dirty money finds a new home: Cryptocurrency Case Study : An uncertain solar-powered future  Why in News? Thousands of villagers from Jharkhand (Dhanbad district) and West Bengal (Purulia district) jointly protested on October 15 against upcoming floating and ground-mounted solar power projects on the Panchet Dam reservoir. Locals fear loss of access to grazing land, fishing zones, and displacement due to land acquisition for renewable energy expansion by DVC–NTPC JV (GVREL). Relevance: GS 2 – Governance Land acquisition, rehabilitation, resettlement failures. Federal issues: Centre–State–local governance overlap (DVC, NTPC, Jharkhand, WB). Stakeholder participation, Gram Sabha role, Scheduled Areas governance. GS 3 – Environment & Energy Renewable energy targets, COP26 commitments, solar policy. Conflicts in RE expansion; socio-environmental impact of floating solar. Ecology: aquatic systems, reservoir ecosystems. GS 1 – Society Impact on Adivasi livelihoods, fishing communities, pastoralists. Historical displacement and land rights issues. Panchet Dam Built: 1959; last of the four multipurpose dams under the first phase of the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). Location: Northern bank – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. Southern bank – Purulia, West Bengal. Purpose: Flood control in the Damodar River (historically called “Sorrow of Bengal”), irrigation, hydropower. Original displacement (1950s–70s): 33,898 acres acquired; 10,339 families displaced (DVC archival reports, 1957–76). Large-scale submergence of villages; inadequate compensation and unresolved land title issues continue. Upcoming Renewable Energy Projects Floating Solar Project Promoter: Green Valley Renewable Energy Ltd. (GVREL) – JV: NTPC Green Energy Ltd. (51%) DVC (49%) Capacity: 155 MW AC floating solar + ground-mounted PV plant. Site: Surface of Panchet reservoir + adjoining land. Central Government Policy Push Driven by India’s COP26 Panchamrit commitments: 500 GW non-fossil capacity by 2030. 50% energy from renewables by 2030. Solar projects rising rapidly, especially floating solar for land-scarce regions. Stakeholder Concerns Livelihood Loss Fishing community (~2,500 people across both States): Reservoir access to be restricted → direct loss of daily income (₹500–800 on good days). Grazing lands: Floating solar + fenced zones → cattle-grazing areas blocked. Villages already have minimal greenery. Displacement Anxiety Already displaced once during the 1950s dam construction. Fresh land acquisition reignites fear of second displacement cycle. Land Rights Issues Majority of families still lack: Land titles Aadhaar Caste certificates Voter list validation Current settlements on “wasteland” without documentation → high vulnerability. Broken Promises Old commitments during dam construction (land, rehabilitation, infrastructure) remain pending. New RE projects revived demand for return of unused DVC land, and for bridge connectivity (Bathanbari–Mahishnadi). Conflict and Governance Dimensions Land Conflict Watch Report Findings 45% RE land-acquisition cases lack community consultation. 48% conflicts occur on common lands: Adivasi, Dalit, and pastoralist-dependent. 29%: Completed RE projects still face protests. 5 major national RE projects stalled due to community opposition. Why Conflicts Intensify? Solar energy is land-intensive. Exemptions from environmental & social impact assessments for speed of implementation. Overlapping jurisdictions: DVC (central), State govts (WB & Jharkhand), Local Panchayats. Weak social safeguards in RE infrastructure expansion. Environmental & Social Impact Floating solar reduces fishing zones and affects aquatic ecosystems. Shadowing effect impacts plankton growth → reduces fish breeding. Restricted mobility around reservoir affects tribal communities’ traditional grazing and collection activities. Governance Questions Raised Who benefits from the solar project? Why no updated rehabilitation for old displacement? Why no land rights regularisation before new land acquisition? Demand for transparent EIAs and Gram Sabha consultation (especially in Scheduled Areas). Government/Agency Stand (Implied) DVC and GVREL aim to align with national RE targets. Consider floating solar as optimal for land-scarce, high-water-storage zones. No detailed public response yet (as per report) What are Digital Personal Data Protection Rules?  Why in News? Government notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025, operationalising major parts of the DPDP Act, 2023. Notification triggers: Formation of Data Protection Board of India (DPBI). Implementation of consent framework, data processing norms, and compliance timelines. Controversy: Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 officially comes into force, sparking protests from transparency activists (MKSS, NCPRI). Relevance GS 2 – Polity & Governance DPDP Act, 2023 + DPDP Rules, 2025 implementation. Privacy vs transparency debate (RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) amendment). Data Protection Board of India (DPBI): powers & limitations. State–citizen interface: consent, data processing, grievance redressal. GS 3 – Cybersecurity Data breach reporting norms, digital governance challenges. Rights of minors online; digital ecosystems. DPDP Act, 2023 Purpose India’s first comprehensive data protection law—parallel to GDPR (EU) and PDPA (Singapore). Key Concepts Data Fiduciary: Entity (firm/state) processing personal data. Data Principal: Individual whose data is processed. Significant Data Fiduciary (SDF): Large firms with higher compliance obligations. Core Obligations on Fiduciaries Security safeguards: Encryption, access control, security audits. Purpose limitation: Data collected only for specific, lawful purposes. Storage limitation: Delete data after purpose is fulfilled or inactivity. Breach notification: Report as soon as possible. Rights of Data Principals Informed consent backed by clear summaries. Right to access data. Right to correction, erasure, deletion. Right to grievance redressal. Right to withdraw consent. Children’s Data Restrictions on data processing and targeted ads. Rules carve out parental access to child’s location. DPDP Rules, 2025 – What They Add Operational details for consent notices, breach reporting, storage deletion. Consent Manager Ecosystem: Users manage data permissions across platforms via a single interface. Comparable to OS-level permissions managers. Data Protection Officer (DPO) requirement for SDFs becomes enforceable in 1 year. Compliance timelines: Firms get up to 18 months. Penalties: ₹10,000 to ₹250 crore depending on severity and repeated non-compliance. Institutional Mechanism Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) Now operational. Under MeitY, with four members. Functions: Inquiry into breaches. Adjudication of penalties. Oversight and compliance. Major Controversy: RTI Act Amendment What changed? Section 8(1)(j) earlier exempted “personal information” unless public interest justified disclosure. DPDP Act removed the public interest override. Now govt bodies can reject requests more broadly. Why activists oppose it? Eliminates a critical transparency safeguard. Potential consequences: Social audits (ration rolls, muster rolls, work logs) risk being classified as private. Shields officials from scrutiny in corruption cases. Undermines MKSS-led accountability campaigns. MKSS and NCPRI protested since 2022 draft; vowed to challenge implications. Government stance Amendment notified despite resistance. Another amendment to IT Act, 2000 still pending. Wider Governance Issues Increased government discretion in defining “personal information”. Risk of over-classification by officials. Debate on balancing: Privacy rights Transparency and public interest Accountability in public expenditure Comparison with GDPR Similarities: Consent, data minimisation, erasure rights, fiduciary obligations. Differences: No data localisation mandate. No explicit independent regulator (DPBI under MeitY). Broader govt exemptions. Narrower scope of “sensitive personal data”. Status of Implementation In force now: DPBI formation RTI amendment Consent Manager framework (initialisation) To be enforced within 18 months: Firm-level compliance DPO appointment Full breach reporting norms How is the global precision medicine market shaping up?  Why in News? A detailed expert analysis by Shambhavi Naik (Takshashila Institution) was published, highlighting India’s progress, challenges, and opportunities in precision biotherapeutics. Comes amid rapid global advances in gene editing, CAR-T therapy, mRNA therapeutics, and India’s push towards genomics-driven healthcare under DBT’s biotechnology priorities. Relevance:   GS 3 – Science & Technology Gene editing (CRISPR), mRNA therapeutics, cell therapy, biologics. India’s biotech sector: regulatory vacuum, ATMP challenges. GenomeIndia, IndiGen, precision oncology. GS 2 – Health NCD burden in India, health innovation priorities. Access, affordability, public health ethics. What Are Precision Biotherapeutics? Definition: Medical interventions tailored to a patient’s unique genetic, molecular, proteomic, or cellular profile. Aim: Correct the root cause of disease rather than managing symptoms. Core Technologies Genomic & proteomic analysis Identifies mutations, protein dysfunctions; basis of personalised therapies. Gene editing therapies CRISPR-based correction of defective genes (e.g., blood disorders). mRNA / nucleic acid therapeutics Program cells to produce needed proteins or silence harmful ones. Monoclonal antibodies & biologics Target specific disease proteins (cancer, autoimmune, viral diseases). AI-driven drug discovery Predicts molecular interactions, accelerates drug design. Why India Needs Precision Biotherapeutics 65% of deaths in India caused by NCDs (cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases). High genetic diversity → foreign-developed drugs may not suit Indian populations. Enables predictive, preventive, personalised healthcare. Uses large Indian genomic resources: IndiGen, GenomeIndia, disease-mapping studies. Addresses India-specific disease burdens and drug response variations. Where India Stands: Current Status Government & Research Initiatives DBT lists precision biotherapeutics as 1 of 6 national biotech priorities. Leading institutions: Institute of Genomics & Integrative Biology (IGIB) National Institute of Biomedical Genomics (NIBMG) Translational Health Science and Technology Institute (THSTI) Focus: genetic diversity mapping, disease susceptibility profiling. Private Sector Efforts Biocon Biologics, Dr Reddy’s: biosimilars, monoclonal antibodies. Immuneel Therapeutics: immuno-oncology. Bugworks Research: novel antibiotics. Akrivia Biosciences: precision cancer diagnostics. miBiome Therapeutics: patient-centric healthcare. 4baseCare: AI-driven precision oncology. ImmunoACT: first Indian company to bring CAR-T therapy to India. Challenges for India Regulatory No clear regulatory framework for gene editing, cell therapy, mRNA therapeutics. Guidelines restrict therapeutic use but do not define scope of therapy. Lack of harmonised ethics guidelines across institutions. Manufacturing & Infrastructure Limited biologics and advanced therapy (ATMP) manufacturing capacity. Heavy dependence on imports for raw materials and equipment. Cost & Access Precision therapies are extremely expensive → accessible only to affluent urban patients. Insurance coverage gaps and weak public-sector capacity. Data Governance Risks Genetic data privacy concerns. Lack of comprehensive protections (DPDP Act insufficient for genomic data). Risk of misuse: discrimination, insurance profiling, surveillance. India’s Opportunities Global precision medicine market projected to cross $22 billion by 2027. India’s advantages: Skilled scientific workforce. Strong IT + data analytics ecosystem. Low-cost biotech manufacturing potential. Can emerge as global hub for affordable precision therapeutics. Export potential: biosimilars, AI-driven diagnostics, cell therapy services. Opportunity to build a regulatory model balancing innovation, ethics, and affordability. Article 32 enables people to approach SC for fundamental rights, says CJI Gavai  Why in News? Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai delivered a lecture on “India and the Living Indian Constitution at 75 Years”, emphasising the origins and significance of Article 32. The two developments stirred national debate on the foundations of constitutional rights, social reform legacies, and political misuse of historical narratives. Relevance: GS 2 – Polity Fundamental rights enforcement, writ jurisdiction. Article 32 as part of Basic Structure. Constitutional morality, role of judiciary, Ambedkar’s vision. Emergency provisions (Art. 359), judicial remedies. What is Article 32? Constitutional remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court directly for rights violations. Empowers the SC to issue five writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it the “heart and soul of the Constitution.” Ambedkar’s Vision (As Highlighted by CJI Gavai) Rights without remedies are meaningless → Article 32 inserted to provide effective remedy, not mere declaration. Objective Resolution (1946) lacked enforceability; Article 32 filled this gap. Ambedkar wanted a Constitution that was living, evolving, enabled through Article 368 (amendments). Constitution built on justice, liberty, equality, fraternity. Advanced Constitutional Analysis Article 32 is part of Basic Structure (SC in L. Chandra Kumar, 1997). Remedies under Article 32 cannot be suspended except during Emergency (Art. 359). Article 32 is simultaneously a Fundamental Right and a remedy mechanism. CJI Gavai highlighted how debates of the Constituent Assembly remain critical to understanding constitutional morality. Current Issues Highlighted by CJI Gavai Need to safeguard Constitution from political distortion. Need for citizens and lawyers to understand Constituent Assembly debates. Amendments remain contentious → liberal vs restrictive interpretations. Importance of continuing Ambedkar’s project of social and economic equality (DPSPs). Senkaku Islands  Why in News? China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels conducted a “rights enforcement patrol” inside waters of the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands (called Diaoyu by China). Move came days after Japan PM Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could trigger a military response by Japan, escalating tensions. China condemned the statement and has stepped up maritime and aerial activities near both Japan and Taiwan. Relevance GS 2 – International Relations China–Japan maritime dispute; US–Japan security treaty (Article 5). Taiwan crisis spillover; Indo-Pacific power shifts. Grey-zone warfare, Coast Guard militarisation. GS 3 – Security Maritime security, freedom of navigation, SLOC vulnerability. Implications for India: Indo-Pacific strategy, QUAD cooperation. Where Are the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands? Located in the East China Sea, northeast of Taiwan and southwest of Okinawa. Uninhabited but strategically critical for geopolitics and maritime control. Administered by Japan, but claimed by China and Taiwan. Located near rich fishing grounds, potential hydrocarbon deposits, and critical shipping lanes. Territorial Claims Japan (Senkaku): Claims sovereignty since 1895; incorporated the islands as terra nullius. Administers them since 1972 (post-US handover). China (Diaoyu): Claims historical control dating back to Ming dynasty. Argues Japan seized them during imperial expansion. Taiwan (Tiaoyutai): Aligns largely with China’s historical claim. Why Senkaku Matters Strategically ? Geopolitical Hotspot: Japan-China territorial standoff; US–Japan alliance involved. First Island Chain: Key to China’s strategy to break US-led maritime dominance. Buffer for Okinawa: Just 170 km from Okinawa, home to major US military bases. Proximity to Taiwan: Close enough to matter in any Taiwan-related conflict. Control of SLOCs: Dominance enables influence over East Asian supply routes. Latest Developments: China’s “Rights Enforcement Patrol” CCG vessel 1307 sailed inside territorial waters of Senkaku. China called it a “lawful mission to defend national sovereignty”. Follows a pattern: China regularly uses CCG (not PLA Navy) for grey-zone coercion, avoiding open conflict but asserting presence. Japan often shadows these ships using its Coast Guard. Why China Is Increasing Pressure Now ? Retaliation against Japan PM’s Taiwan remarks: Japan stated it may respond militarily if China attacks Taiwan → major shift from post-war pacifism. China demands retraction, accuses Japan of violating “One China principle”. Taiwan-related escalation: Over 30 PLA aircraft and seven naval vessels detected around Taiwan on the same day. China conducted “joint combat patrols”, signalling capability for multi-front pressure. Testing Japan–US alliance resolve: China probes how far the US will back Japan under the US-Japan Security Treaty (Article 5), which explicitly covers Senkaku. Japan’s Response and Strategic Concerns Japan views incursions as violations of sovereignty. Strengthening Coast Guard and Self-Defense Forces in the Ryukyu and Okinawa regions. Increasing interoperability with the US for East China Sea contingencies. Taiwan scenario now central to Japan’s defence strategy (2022 NSS). US Position The US recognises Japanese administration but not sovereignty. However, Senkaku falls under Article 5 of the US-Japan treaty, meaning the US would defend Japan if attacked. This elevates any Senkaku incident to a potential US-China flashpoint. Broader East Asian Security Implications Intensifies Japan–China rivalry. Increases risks of miscalculation in crowded maritime zones. Pushes Japan to further militarise → shift away from its post-war pacifist doctrine. Strengthens trilateral security alignment: US–Japan–Taiwan (de facto). Encourages China’s use of paramilitary maritime forces (coast guard, militia) for incremental territorial assertion. Implications for India Validates India’s concerns about Chinese expansionist behaviour in Ladakh and Indian Ocean. Reinforces India–Japan strategic partnership in the Indo-Pacific. Provides rationale for stronger Quad cooperation on maritime domain awareness and rule-based order. Coronal Mass  Ejection (CME) detected on another star Why in News? Astronomers, using the LOFAR (Low-Frequency Array) telescope network, have detected a coronal mass ejection (CME) on a star other than the Sun for the first time. The CME originated from red dwarf StKM 1-1262, located ~133 light years away. Published in Nature, the discovery marks a breakthrough in studying stellar space weather and exoplanet habitability. Relevance: GS 3 – Science & Tech Space weather, exoplanet habitability, stellar magnetic activity. Significance of LOFAR radio network, astronomy breakthroughs. Impact of CMEs on atmospheres, satellites, communication systems. What Is a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME)? Massive bursts of plasma and magnetic fields ejected from a star’s corona. On the Sun: Can disrupt satellites, GPS, radio communications. Trigger auroras; recent Nov 12 auroras reached as far south as Tennessee and New Zealand. Traditionally observed only on the Sun due to difficulty detecting faint radio signatures from distant stars. The Breakthrough Discovery LOFAR has been continuously collecting low-frequency radio data since 2016. While originally built to study black holes and other high-energy cosmic phenomena, its wide field of view also captures background stars. Researchers reprocessed archived data and detected a one-minute-long explosive burst from 2016. Confirmed to be a CME — the first-ever radio detection of such an event on a non-Sun star. The CME was 10,000 times more powerful than typical solar CMEs. About the Host Star: StKM 1-1262 A red dwarf star, mass 10–50% of the Sun. Most common host star type for Earth-sized exoplanets in the galaxy. Known for high magnetic activity and violent stellar flares. Scientific Significance Breakthrough for Stellar Space Weather Opens the field of extra-solar space weather—understanding how other stars affect their planetary systems. Allows study of stellar magnetic activity through continuous radio monitoring. New Methodology Demonstrates that archival low-frequency radio data can detect extreme stellar events. Provides a new tool to study stellar magnetic cycles similar to the Sun’s 11-year cycle. Implications for Planetary Habitability Atmospheric Erosion Red dwarf CMEs can strip atmospheres of planets in close orbits (common around red dwarfs). Without an atmosphere, planets lose: Surface water stability UV protection Climate stability Such CMEs severely weaken chances for life near red dwarfs. Reassessing Exoplanet Habitability Models Many “habitable zone” planets (e.g., TRAPPIST-1 system) orbit red dwarfs. New evidence suggests: High stellar activity may make these environments far less habitable than earlier believed. Need for stronger planetary magnetic fields to retain atmospheres. Astronomy & Astrophysics Relevance First direct confirmation that stellar CMEs occur beyond the Sun. Helps refine models of: Star–planet interactions Atmospheric retention Magnetic shielding Evolution of exoplanetary climates Why This Matters for the Future of Exoplanet Research Radio detection is scalable → enables studying thousands of nearby stars. Helps prioritise exoplanets with stable stellar environments for biosignature searches. Supports missions like JWST, PLATO, ARIEL that study exoplanet atmospheres. Cryptocurrency and Dirty Money Why in News? An international investigation by The Indian Express + International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) + The Coin Laundry Project exposed how cryptocurrency is emerging as the new hub for cross-border money laundering, replacing traditional tax havens. Agencies tracked laundering routes from India → Dubai → China → Cambodia via crypto exchanges and OTC brokers. The report highlights misuse of mule accounts, fake wallets, P2P transfers, and unregulated crypto channels for hawala-style transactions. Relevance : GS 3 – Economy & Security Money laundering through crypto; hawala 2.0. PMLA applicability to crypto; FIU, ED roles. Financial fraud ecosystems (Cambodia scam hubs, Chinese networks). FATF, AML/CFT regulations, global crypto governance. GS 2 – Governance Cybercrime regulation gaps; need for global crypto rulebook. Issues with KYC, consent, anonymity. GS 3 – Internal Security Crypto in sextortion, betting, cybercrime, loan apps. Cross-border criminal networks. What is Crypto Money Laundering? Using digital assets (BTC, USDT, ETH) to obscure origins of illicit funds. Operates through anonymous wallets, mixers/tumblers, P2P platforms, decentralised exchanges (DEXs). Mimics old hawala, but: Faster Harder to trace Borderless Uses technology to hide audit trails How Cryptocurrency Is Used to Launder Money (as per investigation) Victims defrauded → money deposited in mule bank accounts. Funds routed to pool accounts controlled by operators. Operators use: Crypto OTC desks P2P transfers Unhosted wallets International crypto exchanges Crypto moved to Dubai / Cambodia / China → cashed out into local currency → returned as “clean” funds. Mimics classic hawala but using USDT (Tether) as preferred stablecoin due to near-zero volatility. Key Findings from The Coin Laundry Project Over $12 billion globally laundered via crypto-linked fraud networks (ICIJ estimate). India emerging as a major node for: Pig-butchering scams Crypto-based forex arbitrage Investment fraud networks Crypto transactions used to layer money across borders without physical movement. Migrant workers, students, and gullible individuals used as mule account operators. Several crypto exchanges in India flagged for weak KYC, fake identities, and lax monitoring. Why Crypto is Attractive for Criminal Networks No central authority, decentralised validation. Pseudo-anonymity: wallet addresses not linked to verified identities. Micro-transactions allow easy structuring. Instant transfer across borders with minimal cost. Difficulty for agencies to track mixers, privacy coins, TOR + VPN used transactions. Case Studies Mentioned Multiple Indian firms and individuals allegedly routed money through USDT to China-based operators. Fraud rings in Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Telangana using cryptocurrency to bypass hawala raids. Several accounts flagged for₹1,000 crore+ cyber fraud ecosystem connected to Cambodia scam factories. Agencies’ Findings (ED, FIU, State Police) Crypto part of layering in cybercrime, betting rackets, sextortion, loan apps. ED & FIU identified routes: India → Dubai (crypto OTC desks) Dubai → China (USDT wallets) China → Cambodia scam hubs P2P crypto traders act as parallel hawala operators. FIU issued notices to several exchanges for AML violations. Regulatory Issues in India Crypto is not illegal but unregulated. AML provisions extended under PMLA (2023) but enforcement weak due to: No licensing framework Unhosted wallets outside Indian jurisdiction Difficulty tracing foreign exchanges India proposed global crypto regulatory framework at G20 (2023) but progress slow. Implications for India Cybercrime escalation: online scams use crypto for instant international payouts. Economic risks: capital flight via unregulated crypto pathways. Internal security challenge: scam operations in Cambodia/Myanmar targeting Indians. Threat to banking integrity: mule accounts becoming systemic. Diplomatic/consular challenges: rescuing Indians trapped in foreign cyber-scam factories. Global Context FATF identifies crypto as a major ML/TF threat. Countries like US, EU, Singapore tightening rules on: KYC for exchanges Travel Rule Mixer/service provider licensing Rise of privacy coins (Monero, Zcash) complicates global enforcement. Way Forward Implement comprehensive crypto regulation covering exchanges, wallets, stablecoins. Full FATF Travel Rule compliance for Indian exchanges. Mandatory KYC + PAN integration for large crypto transfers. Licensing regime for OTC desks. Strengthen FIU, ED digital forensic tools for tracing blockchain trails. India must push for global cooperation on unregulated exchanges and scam hubs.