Current Affairs 03 June 2025
Content : Centre will allow import of EVs at 15% to promote domestic manufacturing Health facilities not fully prepared for diabetes, hypertension care: study How is President’s Rule imposed? How Japan’s new AI Act fosters an innovation-first ecosystem Centre calls for proposals to set up de-addiction centres in ‘gap’ districts Team from CCMB finds clues to Darwin’s ‘abominable mystery’ Centre will allow import of EVs at 15% to promote domestic manufacturing Policy Overview Import Duty Reduced: EV manufacturers allowed to import up to 8,000 electric cars per year at 15% customs duty, down from 70-100%. Eligibility Criteria: Manufacturers must commit to investing ₹4,150 crore (~$500 million) in setting up domestic EV manufacturing units. Implementation Timeline: Approved companies must start operations within 3 years and meet local value addition norms. Duration: Concessional duty valid for 5 years from date of approval. Relevance : GS 2(Governance ) , GS 3(Energy ,Technology) Domestic Manufacturing Push Objective: Boost Make in India for EVs while attracting foreign investment. Companies can use either greenfield (new) or brownfield (existing) investments—a key change from earlier draft policy. Brownfield clause may added after lobbying from domestic players who concerned unfair competition. Global Interest & Tesla’s Position Heavy Industries Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy noted that Tesla is not keen on manufacturing in India; more focused on setting up showrooms and sales. Policy possibly aimed at attracting other global EV players like BYD, Hyundai, or VW. Key Features of the Scheme Car Price Minimum: Imported vehicles must have minimum CIF value of $35,000 to avoid dumping of low-cost imports. Cap on Imports: Limited to 8,000 units annually, ensuring domestic manufacturers are not overwhelmed. Localization Mandate: Gradual increase in domestic value addition over the years to ensure manufacturing ecosystem develops. Implications for India Encourages technology transfer, job creation, and supply chain development. Potential to reduce import dependence in long term. Ensures controlled opening of Indian EV market while safeguarding domestic industry interests. Challenges & Criticisms Risk of policy misuse if localization norms are not strictly enforced. Possible market distortion if foreign EVs dominate high-end segment. Domestic manufacturers may still face pressure to match global tech and quality. Health facilities not fully prepared for diabetes, hypertension care: study A recent ICMR study highlights that India’s lower-tier health facilities are inadequately prepared for diabetes and hypertension care, with significant gaps in diagnostics, staffing, and medicine availability. Relevance : GS 2(Health, Governance) Key Findings Survey Scope: Cross-sectional survey across 19 districts in 7 States. Total 415 health facilities surveyed; 75.7% were public facilities. 57.6% were primary care facilities. 53.3% located in rural areas. Overall Readiness: Sub-centres: Lowest readiness at 61%. Community Health Centres (CHCs): 59% readiness. Primary Health Centres (PHCs): 73% readiness – better than other public primary-level facilities. Private primary care facilities (Level 2): Only 57% readiness. District hospitals & tertiary care centres (public/private): Above 70% – considered prepared. Preparedness Criteria Used: Based on WHO’s Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA). Parameters included: Equipment, diagnostics, staff, medicines, guidelines, and data systems. Key Concerns Identified Infrastructure gaps at lower-tier facilities (sub-centres, CHCs). Inadequate diagnostic capacity at district hospitals, despite being secondary-level facilities. Weak drug supply chains and data systems at primary care level. Private primary care also lags behind public PHCs in readiness. Recommendations by Experts Human Resource Strengthening: Ensure adequate staffing at all public health levels. Supply Chain Improvements: Provide an uninterrupted supply of essential medicines for diabetes and hypertension. Diagnostic Services:Upgrade diagnostic facilities at district hospitals to manage complications. Programme Management: Deploy dedicated programme managers to ensure full utilization of services. Data & Guidelines: Improve health information systems and ensure availability of standard treatment guidelines. Implications India’s frontline rural healthcare (sub-centres, CHCs) is underprepared for managing NCDs. PHCs show relatively better readiness, indicating success of certain public health investments. Highlights the urgent need for systemic strengthening in infrastructure, diagnostics, and human resources to handle the rising burden of non-communicable diseases. How is President’s Rule imposed? Context & Current Situation Manipur has been under President’s Rule since February 2025 due to a deteriorating security situation. A delegation of 10 MLAs met the Governor to press for forming a viable government, as the assembly’s term ends in March 2027. Relevance : GS 2(Federalism ,Polity ) What is President’s Rule (Article 356)? Imposed when the State government cannot function as per the Constitution. Triggered by: Governor’s report, or Failure to comply with Union’s directions (Article 365). President (i.e., Union government) takes over executive authority of the State. Procedure for Imposition Proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 2 months (simple majority). Valid for 6 months at a time, extendable up to 3 years in total (with conditions). Assembly may be: Kept under suspended animation, or Dissolved, depending on the situation. Historical Misuse & Political Expediency B.R. Ambedkar hoped Article 356 would remain a “dead letter”. However, it was misused frequently, especially to remove Opposition-led governments. Past examples: Imposition based on loss in Lok Sabha elections, or law and order issues. Dissolution of Assemblies – No Uniform Norm No standard approach adopted by Governors after President’s Rule: Kerala (1970) and Punjab (1971): Assemblies dissolved despite doubtful majority. Punjab (1967), UP (1968), MP (1969), Odisha (1971): Assemblies retained; attempts made to form new Ministries. Governor’s discretion often politically driven. Judicial Intervention – S.R. Bommai Case (1994) Landmark case that limited misuse of Article 356. Key rulings: President’s Rule can be imposed only in case of breakdown of constitutional machinery. Subject to judicial review. Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved until Parliament approves the proclamation. Prevents dissolution for political reasons. Post-Bommai Judicial Oversight Courts struck down imposition of President’s Rule in: Bihar (2005) Uttarakhand (2016) Arunachal Pradesh (2016) Judiciary now acts as a constitutional watchdog against arbitrary use. Revocation of President’s Rule In Manipur’s case: Assembly has 18+ months left. Viable government with majority support can be formed without elections. Conclusion Article 356 remains a sensitive constitutional tool. Its use must be strictly limited to constitutional crises, not political expediency. Current situation in Manipur calls for a government with democratic and social legitimacy. How Japan’s new AI Act fosters an innovation-first ecosystem Core Features of Japan’s AI Act (2025) Name: Act on the Promotion of Research, Development and Utilisation of AI-Related Technologies. Philosophy: Promotes innovation over regulation; coordination over control. Model Type: Voluntary and facilitative, not risk-tiered or enforcement-heavy. Relevance : GS 2(Governance) ,GS 3(Technology) Key Assumptions Behind the Law Assumption 1: Innovation thrives better without rigid regulatory burdens. Assumption 2: Voluntary cooperation, under national guidance, can mitigate risks effectively. Structural and Strategic Provisions Establishes AI Strategy Headquarters under the Cabinet. Responsible for creating a Basic Plan for AI: includes R&D, deployment, international cooperation, and public education. Article 13: Government must develop non-binding guidelines reflecting international norms to prevent misuse (e.g., privacy violations, IP theft). Article 17: Mandates international cooperation and global norm alignment (e.g., via G7 Hiroshima Process, OECD, UN AI bodies). Strengths of the Innovation-First Model Avoids regulatory chilling effects: Encourages experimentation and rapid development. Government as a facilitator: Signals support instead of regulatory policing. Encourages multi-stakeholder participation: Includes businesses, universities, public bodies, and citizens. Supports long-term economic revival: Aligned with Japan’s strategy to overcome workforce shrinkage and global tech competition. Flexible for future adaptation: The law includes provisions for future review and amendment. Challenges and Risks Lack of binding standards: Could delay response to harm or malpractice. Accountability concerns: Unclear enforcement pathways for bias, misinformation, or AI failure. Risk of public trust erosion: Without enforceable rules, public may question AI reliability and fairness. Global pressure to clarify “responsible AI”: Especially in high-risk sectors like health or defense. Comparative Global Context EU: Risk-tiered model (2024 AI Act); values digital sovereignty, rights-based governance, and strict enforcement. U.S.: Moving toward sector-specific legislation (AI Disclosure Act); balancing innovation with oversight. UAE: Executive-led, innovation-friendly with sectoral pilots and AI sandboxes. Strategic Implications Japan’s model is a trust-based gamble on coordinated governance and technocratic leadership. Aims to lead globally by showing that responsibility doesn’t need rigidity. Real test lies in policy agility, cross-sector coordination, and global norm adaptation. Conclusion Japan’s AI Act is a bold alternative to both deregulation and hyper-regulation. Success would offer a replicable blueprint for innovation-led governance. Failure could expose the limits of voluntary models in the face of rapidly advancing, high-risk technologies. Centre calls for proposals to set up de-addiction centres in ‘gap’ districts Context : The Union Government has invited proposals to establish District De-Addiction Centres (DDACs) in 291 “gap” districts across 30 States and UTs. These are part of the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) led by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE). Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues ,Governance) What Are “Gap” Districts? Districts without any centrally supported: Integrated Rehabilitation Centres for Addicts (IRCAs), Community-based Peer Led Initiatives (CPLIs), Outreach and Drop-in Centres (ODICs). These lack basic infrastructure for treatment or rehabilitation related to substance abuse. Objectives of New DDACs Provide treatment and rehabilitation facilities for substance use disorder. Act as multi-functional centres with: Drop-in facility, Peer-led initiative area, Rehab beds for 15 to 30 patients. Conduct primary prevention through awareness campaigns. Engage in risk mitigation of substance use in vulnerable communities. Key Implementation Details Proposals invited from NGOs and start-ups with a minimum of 2 years’ experience in the field. Last date to apply: June 30, 2025. Centres to have defined infrastructure norms including space for staff and multi-functional facilities. States with Highest Number of Gap Districts Chhattisgarh: 31 out of 33 districts. Bihar: 25 districts. Madhya Pradesh: 23. Gujarat: 22. Arunachal Pradesh: 21. Others: Jharkhand (16), Punjab (16), Uttar Pradesh (18), Assam (10). Future Roadmap MoSJE will conduct a fresh nationwide survey to gather district-level data on extent and pattern of substance use. Data will help target interventions more precisely in future phases. Significance Addresses regional disparity in access to de-addiction services. Aims to create a comprehensive network of support in previously underserved regions. Critical for early intervention, especially in rural and tribal belts affected by drug dependency. Team from CCMB finds clues to Darwin’s ‘abominable mystery’ Background & the “Abominable Mystery” Darwin termed the sudden and rapid diversification of flowering plants (around 130 million years ago) an “abominable mystery”. Fossil records show flowering plants (angiosperms) diversified abruptly in anatomy and habitat. This was an anomaly in the otherwise gradual process of evolution. Relevance : GS 3(Science ) Findings by CCMB Scientists Study published in Nature Plants by CSIR-CCMB, Hyderabad. Researchers identified a gene called SHUKR in Arabidopsis thaliana, a model flowering plant. SHUKR: Expressed in sporophyte cells. Crucial for pollen (male gametophyte) development. Regulates F-box genes, which help remove old proteins and make room for new ones in developing pollen. Shift in Plant Life Cycle Control In mosses (early land plants): Gametophyte is dominant; sporophyte is dependent. Sperm swims in water to reach egg. In flowering plants: Sporophyte is dominant. Gametophytes (pollen and ovules) are enclosed and reduced. SHUKR reveals sporophyte controls gametophyte development — overturns old assumption of independent gametophyte control. Role of SHUKR in Evolutionary Success SHUKR and F-box genes are: Present only in eudicots (which form 75% of flowering plants). Rapidly evolving, enabling adaptive pollen production. Helps pollen adjust to variable conditions — heat, drought, humidity. Suggests molecular basis for flowering plants’ rapid radiation and global success. Implications for Food Security & Climate Resilience Flowering plants are central to: Food systems (seeds = cereals, pulses, oilseeds). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Climate change threatens plant reproduction by damaging pollen viability. SHUKR could: Help breed climate-resilient crops. Enable precision pollination strategies based on environmental cues. Open avenues for adaptive, genetically-informed agriculture. Scientific Significance Cracks part of Darwin’s puzzle by linking molecular innovation (SHUKR) to evolutionary expansion. Shows sporophyte’s regulatory role in gametophyte formation — a paradigm shift in plant developmental biology.