19.5.25 Current Affairs

Leave a Comment / By /

Successful PSLV-C57 Mission – Aditya-L1 Launch

  • Date of Launch: September 2, 2023
  • Rocket Used: PSLV-C57 (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle)
  • Payload: Aditya-L1 spacecraft – India’s first solar observatory
  • Objective: To study the Sun’s corona and solar activities from Lagrange Point 1 (L1), about 1.5 million km from Earth
  • Significance: A major scientific achievement for India; demonstrated ISRO’s deep-space capabilities

PSLV Rocket Overview

  • PSLV Full Form: Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
  • Design: A four-stage launch vehicle with alternating solid and liquid fuel stages
  • Stage Details:
    • Stage 1: Solid fuel (HTPB), augmented by six strap-on boosters in XL version, thrust is 4.8 MN
    • Stage 2: Liquid fuel (Vikas engine using UDMH + N2O4); thrust: 0.8 MN
    • Stage 3: Solid fuel (HTPB)
    • Stage 4: Liquid fuel (MMH + MON); dual-engine configuration
  • Use Case: Primarily used to launch satellites into sun-synchronous polar orbits (SSPO)

PSLV-C61 Mission Failure

  • Configuration: XL version with six strap-on boosters
  • Objective: To place EOS-09 (an Earth observation satellite) into SSPO
  • Issue: Failure occurred in the third stage of the flight
  • Cause (Preliminary): Drop in chamber pressure in the third-stage motor during flight
  • Result: Satellite not placed in intended orbit; mission deemed unsuccessful

ISRO’s Response and Future Action

  • ISRO Chairman: V. Narayanan
  • Immediate Action: Technical analysis initiated to determine the root cause of the third-stage failure
  • Future Plan: ISRO to relaunch a duplicate EOS-09 satellite after resolving the issue
  • Agency’s Stance: Committed to transparency, rectification, and mission continuity despite setbacks
  • PSLV’s Track Record: Known for its reliability and cost-efficiency; cornerstone of India’s satellite launches
  • Importance of EOS-09: Enhances India’s remote sensing capabilities
  • Significance of Setback: Reinforces the complexity and risk inherent in space missions
  • Institutional Strength: ISRO’s quick diagnosis and intent to reattempt indicate operational maturity and resilience

Operation Olivia

  • Initiative: Operation Olivia is an annual mission by the Indian Coast Guard (ICG) aimed at protecting Olive Ridley turtles along the Odisha coastline.
  • Record Achievement: In February 2025, the ICG safeguarded over 6.98 lakh Olive Ridley turtles nesting at the Rushikulya river mouth in Odisha, marking a significant conservation success.
  • Duration: The operation is conducted annually from November to May, focusing on key nesting sites like Gahirmatha Beach and surrounding coastal areas.

Conservation Efforts and Strategies

  • Patrolling and Surveillance: Since its inception, Operation Olivia has executed over 5,387 surface patrol sorties and 1,768 aerial surveillance missions to deter illegal activities and protect turtle habitats.
  • Enforcement Actions: During these operations, 366 boats involved in illegal fishing were detained, showcasing the ICG’s commitment to marine law enforcement.
  • Community Engagement: The ICG collaborates with local fishing communities, promoting the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) and partnering with NGOs through formal Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) to support sustainable fishing practices and conservation education

Significance of Olive Ridley Turtle Conservation

  • Ecological Importance: Olive Ridley turtles are an endangered species, and their mass nesting, known as an arribada, is a critical natural phenomenon that contributes to marine biodiversity.
  • Global Recognition: The successful protection of these turtles enhances India’s reputation in global marine conservation efforts and underscores the country’s commitment to environmental sustainability.

Future Outlook

  • Continued Vigilance: The ICG plans to maintain rigorous patrolling and surveillance to ensure the ongoing protection of Olive Ridley turtles during their nesting seasons.
  • Enhanced Collaboration: Strengthening partnerships with local communities and NGOs remains a priority to foster a collective approach to marine conservation.

Generative AI and Copyright Law

  • Origin: Copyright law began in 1710 in response to the invention of the printing press, primarily to protect publishers from unauthorized reproduction.
  • Evolution: It has since adapted to new technologies, including photocopying, recording devices, and the Internet.
  • Present Challenge: The emergence of generative AI poses a potential disruption to copyright’s traditional frameworks.

The Generative AI Challenge

  • Shift in Concern: Previously, copyright law addressed copying or reproduction of protected works. Now, the focus is on whether AI can be trained using copyrighted content.
  • Key Issue: AI models, like Large Language Models (LLMs), learn from a vast corpus scraped from the internet, including copyrighted material.
  • Legal Debate: The debate centers not on the output of AI but on the training process using protected expressions.

Legal Disputes in India and Beyond

  • Ongoing Litigation: The Federation of Indian Publishers and Asian News International have filed cases against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court for unauthorized use of their content.
  • Global Parallel: Similar suits are ongoing in the United States, where the defense includes ‘fair use’ and ‘fair learning’ claims.
  • Amicus View: Prof. Arul George Scaria has recommended assessing whether it’s technically feasible for AI to “unlearn” previously trained copyrighted content.

The Indian Legal Landscape

  • Distinct Legal Test: India follows a strictly enumerated exception test in its Copyright Act, unlike the flexible ‘fair use’ test in the U.S.
  • Classroom Limitation: In India, exceptions for education are confined to classrooms and do not cover open-access training of AI.
  • Strategic Advantage: Indian publishers may benefit from the rigid framework, while AI developers face constraints.

The Opt-Out Dilemma

  • OpenAI’s Response: Introduced an opt-out mechanism allowing publishers to restrict future training, but not retroactively.
  • Implication: The lack of access to high-quality training data may hinder emerging AI platforms, disadvantaging smaller players.

Balancing Interests: AI vs. Copyright

  • Creation on Creation: All forms of creativity, human or machine, build on existing work — a natural process of learning.
  • No Double Standards: The law currently does not distinguish between human- and AI-generated content.
  • Expression vs. Idea: Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — an essential distinction for AI training legality.

The Way Forward

  • Doctrinal Clarity: Courts must ensure that AI training on non-expressive content (ideas/information) remains legal and encouraged.
  • Guardrails for Infringement: If AI copies expressive content, traditional copyright tools are sufficient to detect and penalize infringement.
  • Level Playing Field: Legal frameworks must support innovation and fairness, ensuring both large and small AI players can thrive under the same rules.

Conclusion

Generative AI and copyright law stand at a critical juncture. As the courts deliberate, the key lies in protecting the rights of original creators while ensuring that future creativity — whether human or AI-driven — is not stifled. A balanced legal response rooted in foundational copyright norms is essential to guide this evolving landscape.

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution

🔹 What does Article 143 state?

  • Article 143 (Advisory Jurisdiction) empowers the President of India to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.
  • The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • The Supreme Court may choose to answer or decline the reference.
  • Its opinion is not binding but carries high persuasive value.

Global Comparisons: Do Other Countries Have Similar Provisions?

  • Canada: The Canadian Supreme Court can give advisory opinions to the federal/provincial governments.
  • United States: The U.S. Supreme Court does not provide advisory opinions due to the strict separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.

What Has President Droupadi Murmu Referred to the Supreme Court?

  • The President has referred 14 constitutional questions regarding
    • Timelines for governors and the president to act on state legislature bills.
    • Justiciability of decisions by governors and the president before a bill becomes law.
    • Limits of judicial review under Article 142.
  • This follows a Supreme Court judgment setting time limits for constitutional heads to act on bills, which the Union government has questioned.

Is the Supreme Court Bound to Answer?

  • No, the court is not obligated to provide an opinion.
  • Out of 15 references made so far, the Court has declined only once (in 1993, regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi issue).
  • The court may refuse if:
    • The questions are vague.
    • The issue would encroach upon parliamentary privileges.
    • The case is an attempt to re-argue past judgments.

Notable Past References to the Supreme Court under Article 143:

  1. Delhi Laws Act Case (1951)
    • Defined the concept of delegated legislation, allowing the legislature to delegate certain powers to the executive for effective implementation.
  2. Kerala Education Bill Case (1958)
    • Laid down the principle of harmonious construction between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
    • Interpreted protection to minority educational institutions under Article 30.
  3. Berubari Case (1960)
    • Clarified that cession or acquisition of Indian territory requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
  4. Keshav Singh Case (1965)
    • Explained the powers and privileges of the legislature, especially regarding legislative procedures and contempt powers.
  5. Presidential Poll Case (1974)
    • Held that presidential elections must continue even if there are vacancies in the electoral college due to the dissolution of state assemblies.
  6. Special Courts Bill Case (1978)
    • Asserted that the Supreme Court can refuse to answer vague or inappropriate references.
    • Stated that the Court must not encroach on parliamentary functions while giving advisory opinions.
  7. Third Judges Case (1998)
    • Issued detailed guidelines for the collegium system regarding the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

Why Is the Current Reference Important?

  • Federalism at stake: The issue arises amidst tensions between the center and opposition-led states.
  • Clarifies constitutional roles: Will define boundaries for the President, Governors, Parliament, and Judiciary.
  • Settles interpretative conflicts: Brings clarity to Articles 200, 201, and 142 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

  • While the Supreme Court’s response to Article 143 references is not mandatory, it is crucial for constitutional clarity.
  • The current reference is expected to clarify the limits of judicial intervention and the scope of executive discretion, especially regarding pending bills.
  • The outcome could have lasting impacts on India’s democratic processes, federal relations, and balance of power.

India to Inform FATF About Terror Bases in Pakistan

Context: Pahalgam Terror Attack & Operation Sindoor

  • After the Pahalgam terror killings, Indian defense forces launched Operation Sindoor, destroying terror bases in Pakistan.
  • This development has prompted India to share fresh evidence of existing terror infrastructure in Pakistan with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Why Inform FATF?

  • FATF decisions are based on technical compliance with AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and CFT (Counter-Terrorism Financing) recommendations.
  • Despite FATF’s technical mandate, gruesome acts like the Pahalgam attack necessitate global awareness of state-sponsored terrorism.
  • A government official stated that international forums will be used to highlight Pakistan’s support for banned terror outfits.
  • October 2022: Pakistan was removed from the FATF Grey List, with a note to continue improvements in AML/CFT via the Asia Pacific Group (APG).
  • June 2018: FATF placed Pakistan on the Grey List due to strategic deficiencies in curbing terror financing.
  • October 2021: FATF retained Pakistan on the Grey List; it had complied with 26/27 action items.
    • Remaining concern: lack of action against senior leaders of UN-designated terror outfits.
  • June 2021: Pakistan agreed to address new deficiencies flagged in the 2019 APG Evaluation Report.
  • History:
    • 2008: First greylisting of Pakistan.
    • 2009: Removed from Grey List.
    • 2012–2015: Again under increased monitoring.

Implications of Greylisting

  • FATF Grey List status restricts a country’s access to international financial support and loans.
  • It increases pressure on the country to act against terrorism financing and money laundering.

Leave a Comment

error:
Scroll to Top