Current Affairs 13 February 2025

Content:

1. IMEC project gains traction as PM holds talks with Macron
2. AI dangerous tool, be it in Chinese or American hands, says Delhi HC
3. Implications of the AI Diffusion Framework
4. A 11-year high of 55% urban residents report stagnant income in 2025
5. Should convicted persons contest elections?
6. Centre’s new Immigration Bill likely to have provisions denying entry to foreigners
7. Illegal coal mining continues in Meghalaya: report

IMEC project gains traction as PM holds talks with Macron

• Project Overview: The India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) aims to connect India to Europe through both sea and land routes.

Relevance : GS 2(international Relations) , GS 3( Infrastructure)

• Key Stakeholders: India and France reaffirmed their commitment to advancing the IMEC project during PM Modi’s two-day visit to France.
• Discussion Focus: PM Modi held talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, emphasizing the importance of the project and strengthening bilateral ties.

• Previous Milestone: IMEC was first launched during the G-20 Summit in Delhi in September 2023.
• Objective: Both nations agreed to collaborate closely on the implementation of the IMEC, enhancing connectivity and economic cooperation.
• Broader Vision: The corridor is expected to bolster trade, infrastructure, and diplomatic relations between India, the Middle East, and Europe.

India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) Project

• Objective: To connect India to Europe via the Middle East using sea and land routes, enhancing trade, economic ties, and regional connectivity.
• Key Stakeholders: India, France, Middle Eastern countries, European Union.
• Launched: First announced at the G-20 Summit in September 2023; reaffirmed by PM Modi and President Macron in February 2025.
• Strategic Components:
  • Sea Routes: Connecting Indian and Middle Eastern ports to Europe.
  • Land Routes: Rail networks linking the Middle East to Europe.
  • Digital Integration: AI and tech for optimized trade flow.
• Benefits: Economic growth, job creation, improved regional stability, and energy/resource transport.
• Challenges: Geopolitical tensions, high infrastructure costs, multi-nation coordination.
• Future Outlook: Strong backing from India and France, with momentum expected in the coming years.

AI dangerous tool, be it in Chinese or American hands, says Delhi HC

• Court’s Observation: The Delhi High Court stated that artificial intelligence (AI) is a “dangerous tool” in anyone’s hands, whether Chinese or American.

Relevance : GS 3(Technology)

• Context: The observation came during a petition urging the Centre to block access to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI chatbot available in India.
• AI’s Risks: The court emphasized the potential dangers of AI, highlighting its misuse regardless of the origin (China or the U.S.).
• Centre’s Response: The Centre’s counsel acknowledged the issue and sought more time to get instructions, with the matter scheduled for hearing on February 20.
• Petitioner’s Concerns: The petition raised issues with DeepSeek’s privacy and security practices, claiming it poses a threat to India’s sovereignty, integrity, data security, and public order.
• Privacy Issues: The petition cited that DeepSeek’s terms of use and privacy policies fail to protect Indian citizens’ right to privacy and do not comply with IT Rules, 2011 and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
• Global Concern: Other countries have also raised concerns regarding DeepSeek’s data handling practices.

Implications of the AI Diffusion Framework

Overview of the AI Diffusion Framework

• Announced in the final week of the Biden-Harris administration.
• Aims to:
  • Maintain U.S. dominance in AI technology.
  • Balance innovation with national security.
  • Prevent adversaries (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran) from leveraging AI for strategic gains.
• Reflects U.S. strategy of using AI for economic and military advancements.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations) ,GS 3(Technology)

Mechanism of the Framework

• Extends export controls to all aspects of AI technology:
  • AI chips and chip-making tools.
  • Closed AI model weights (key to AI decision-making).

• Three-tier classification of countries:
  • First tier: Key allies (e.g., Austria, Israel) — unrestricted AI access.
  • Second tier: Includes India — limited AI access with restrictions on compute capacity and model exports.
  • Third tier: U.S. adversaries (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran) — full export controls to block AI advancements.

• Short-term effects:
  • No major disruptions in global AI trade.
  • Restrictions on closed AI model weights impact only future advanced AI systems.

Long-term Strategic Implications

• U.S. seeks to concentrate AI technological capabilities within its own borders and closest allies.
• American AI companies face barriers in setting up frontier AI facilities abroad.
• Concerns for U.S. allies:
  • Sets a precedent for unilateral U.S. restrictions.
  • Allies may diversify supply chains to reduce dependence on the U.S.
• Potential risk of fragmenting the global AI ecosystem, reducing U.S. dominance over time.

Impact on India

• India placed in the second tier, limiting its AI technology access.
• Could discourage AI investments in India from leading U.S. tech companies.
• May lead to brain drain, with top Indian AI talent moving abroad.
• Risks slowing knowledge transfer and innovation in India’s AI sector.
• Contradicts India-U.S. strategic cooperation in sectors like semiconductors and Indo-Pacific security.
• Could strain bilateral ties, pushing India to seek alternative AI partnerships.

Takeaways

• The framework aims to secure U.S. AI leadership but may alienate strategic partners like India.
• India may hedge against over-reliance on the U.S. by strengthening domestic AI capabilities and forging new tech alliances.
• The policy mirrors past U.S. technology restrictions (e.g., post-1998 nuclear sanctions), raising concerns over long-term trust in India-U.S. tech cooperation.

A 11-year high of 55% urban residents report stagnant income in 2025

Context : Stagnant Income Levels

• 55% of urban consumers reported unchanged income in January 2025, the highest in 11 years.
  • Decline in the share of respondents who reported an increase in income.

Relevance :GS 3(Indian Economy)

• Employment Concerns
  • 42.7% of respondents observed a decline in job opportunities compared to the previous year.
  • Employment optimism, which had improved post-pandemic, started reversing in mid-2024.

• Inflation Trends
  • Retail inflation eased to 4.31% in January, a five-month low.
  • 93% of respondents still felt that prices increased, but this was the lowest since July 2024.

• Consumer Spending Perception
  • Essential Items: 87.6% reported increased spending, the lowest since September 2024.
  • Non-Essential Items: A slight increase in those reporting unchanged spending, with a marginal decline in those saying spending increased.

• Economic Sentiment
  • 43% of urban consumers felt the overall economic situation worsened in January 2025, the highest in at least a year.
  • Pessimism about income and job prospects overshadowed optimism from lower inflation.

Implications

• Consumer Confidence: A weak employment market and stagnant incomes may dampen economic sentiment, affecting consumer spending and business investments.
• Policy Challenges: The government may need targeted interventions, such as employment generation schemes or wage support, to boost purchasing power.
• Growth Prospects: Reduced consumer spending, especially on discretionary items, could slow down overall economic growth.
• Long-term Impact: If income stagnation persists, it may widen income inequality and hinder aspirations of upward mobility among urban households.

Should convicted persons contest elections?

Context: Legal Provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951)

• Section 8(3): Disqualifies a person convicted of a criminal offense with imprisonment of at least two years. The disqualification extends for six years post-release.
• Section 8(1): Includes disqualification for heinous crimes like rape, untouchability (PCR Act), unlawful association (UAPA), and corruption (Prevention of Corruption Act), irrespective of sentence duration.
• Section 8(4): Previously allowed sitting legislators to continue post-conviction if they appealed. Struck down in the Lily Thomas case (2013).
• Section 11: Election Commission (EC) can reduce or remove disqualification. Used in 2019 to shorten Prem Singh Tamang’s disqualification period.

Relevance : GS 2(Elections)

Key Supreme Court Judgments Supporting Decriminalization of Politics

• ADR Case (2002): Mandated candidates to disclose criminal records.
• CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar (2013): Held that undertrial prisoners cannot contest elections, but Parliament later overturned this through an amendment.
• Lily Thomas Case (2013): Invalidated Section 8(4), ensuring immediate disqualification of convicted legislators.

Current Petition for a Lifetime Ban

• Petition seeks a permanent ban on convicted persons from contesting elections.
• Argument: If convicted individuals are barred from government jobs, they should not become lawmakers.
• Government’s stance (2020): MPs and MLAs are not subject to service conditions like government employees, and the existing six-year disqualification is adequate.

Criminalization of Politics: The Data

• ADR Report (2024):
  • 46% (251 out of 543) elected MPs have criminal cases.
  • 31% (171 MPs) face serious charges like rape, murder, and kidnapping.
  • Candidates with a criminal background had a 15.4% winning chance, while clean-background candidates had only 4.4%.

Recommendations and Challenges

• Law Commission (1999, 2014) and EC:
  • Recommended disqualification of candidates facing charges for crimes punishable with more than five years.
  • However, concerns remain about misuse of politically motivated cases.

• Way Forward:
  • Possible lifetime disqualification for heinous crimes and corruption-related offenses.
  • Review of EC’s power to reduce disqualification periods.
  • Need for political consensus on stricter norms to curb criminalization.

Centre’s new Immigration Bill likely to have provisions denying entry to foreigners

Context : Key Provisions of the Centre’s new Immigration Bill

Relevance : GS 2(Governance)

• Denial of Entry on Security Grounds:
  • First-time introduction of threat to national security and sovereignty as explicit grounds to deny entry or stay to foreign nationals.
  • May also bar entry based on relations with a foreign state.

• Immigration Officer’s Authority:
  • The Bill could make the Immigration Officer’s decision final and binding regarding entry denial.
  • Previously, entry was denied, but there was no explicit legal provision mentioning such authority.

• Repeal of Existing Laws:
  • The Bill is likely to replace four Acts:
    • Foreigners Act, 1946
    • Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
    • Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
    • Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000
  • These laws were enacted around World War I and II and had overlapping provisions.

• Avoiding Legal Overlaps:
  • The new law aims to streamline regulations related to passports, visas, registration, and exit procedures.
  • Seeks to remove inconsistencies between multiple laws.

New Definitions and Institutional Responsibilities

• Immigration Officers:
  • The Bill may define their functions and grant them legal backing under the Bureau of Immigration.

• Responsibilities of Educational and Medical Institutions:
  • Universities and medical institutions admitting foreigners may have new obligations under the law.
  • Foreigners may bear the burden of proof to establish their nationality.

Penalties for Violations

• Illegal Entry:
  • Punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment or fines up to ₹5 lakh or both.

• Fraudulent Travel Documents:
  • Usage or distribution may lead to 2-7 years’ imprisonment.
  • Fines may range from ₹1 lakh to ₹10 lakh.

Implications & Concerns

• Strengthening of national security measures by legally empowering immigration authorities.
• Concerns over broad executive powers and potential misuse in denying entry based on vague security concerns.
• Impact on foreign students, medical tourists, and businesses due to increased scrutiny.
• Clarity on appeal mechanisms needed, as the Immigration Officer’s decision may be final and binding.

Illegal coal mining continues in Meghalaya: report

Context: Key Findings of the Report

• Illegal mining persists in six coal-rich districts despite government action.
• Drone videography and volumetric assessment provided fresh evidence of unauthorized mining.
• Seized coal data discrepancies suggest large-scale illegal extraction and potential underreporting.

Relevance : GS 3(Minerals , Mining)

Coal Seizure and Discrepancies

• 2022 Report (State Government Data):
  • 92,268.43 MT seized in East Jaintia Hills, South Garo Hills, and West Khasi Hills (May-Aug 2022).
  • Private firm recorded an additional 41,477.54 MT in these districts.

• 2025 Report (State Mining & Geology Department Data):
  • Total seized coal now 4,10,796.44 MT across six districts:
    • New additions: West Jaintia Hills, East Garo Hills, and South West Khasi Hills.
  • Increase of 1,69,602.35 MT in three newly reported districts compared to 2022 figures.
  • Mismatch in coal figures across districts raises concerns of illicit mining operations.

Challenges and Recommendations

• Difficult terrain hinders conventional surveillance.
• Drone monitoring suggested for better enforcement.
• Regular patrolling needed to curb ongoing illegal mining activities.

Implications

• Environmental concerns: Unregulated rat-hole mining leads to severe ecological damage.
• Regulatory failure: Discrepancies in coal seizure data indicate possible collusion or inefficiency in enforcement.
• Need for stronger action: More robust monitoring mechanisms and legal interventions required.