12 December 2025

• Govt plans to amend the Copyright Act, 1957 within three years to address AI-related challenges.
• DPIIT released a working paper proposing blanket licensing for AI training data.
• A second paper will examine copyrightability and authorship of AI-generated content.
• NASSCOM and Big Tech expressed concerns over feasibility and legal inversion of burden of proof.

Key Points

• Blanket Licensing: AI developers may scrape publicly available data; royalty payments routed via CRCAT after model commercialisation.
• Publisher Compensation: Addresses global suits (NYT, ANI) demanding remuneration for training contributions.
• Burden of Proof Issue: Big Tech warns proposal flips jurisprudence—copyright owners traditionally must prove infringement.
• NASSCOM’s Stand: Favors an opt-out mechanism to reduce liability risks.
• Upcoming Amendments: Will clarify legality of scraping, authorship of AI output, and royalty frameworks.

Static Linkages

• Copyright is a statutory property right (Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A implications).
• India adheres to Berne Convention, TRIPS, and WIPO treaties.
• Indian law already uses compulsory/statutory licensing (e.g., Sec. 31D).
• Data scraping intersects with privacy proportionality principles from Puttaswamy.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Creates legal clarity for AI training.
  • Ensures systematic remuneration to content owners.
  • Supports innovation by delaying royalty till commercialisation.
• Cons
  • Burden-of-proof shift may be legally unsound.
  • Blanket model may restrict publisher autonomy.
  • Royalty distribution is technically difficult for probabilistic AI outputs.
• Stakeholder Perspectives
  • Govt: seeks balance between innovation and rights protection.
  • Publishers: want compensation.
  • Tech Firms: fear compliance complexity.   
  • Startups: concerned about future costs.

Way Forward

• Provide transparent opt-out/opt-in systems.
• Establish AI transparency standards without forcing dataset disclosure.
• Create strong CRCAT audit mechanisms.  
• Align reforms with Digital India Act.
• Expand public/open datasets and strengthen fair-dealing for research.

INDIA’S RISING EDUCATION COSTS

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• NSS 80th Round (2025) provides new data on school enrolment, fees, and private coaching.
• Comes amid Article 21A (free education, 6–14 years) and NEP 2020 goal of universal education 3–18 years by 2030.
• Despite “free” schooling, rising private enrolment + coaching costs strain households.

Key Points

• Enrolment
  • National: 55.9% govt, 31.9% private unaided, 11.3% private aided.
  • Private enrolment: 51.4% urban vs 24.3% rural; marginal gender gap.
  • Urban private share declines with higher classes; rural remains lower throughout.
  • Compared to NSS 75th Round (2017–18), private enrolment has increased across levels.
• Fees
  • Govt school annual fees:
  • Rural: ₹823–₹7,308; Urban: ₹1,630–₹7,704.
• Private school annual fees:
  • Rural: ₹17,988–₹33,567; Urban: ₹26,188– ₹49,075.
•  Monthly private-schooling cost ≈ MPCE of poorest 5% households (pre-primary); 3rd decile (higher secondary).
• Private Tuition
  • Coaching: 25.5% rural, 30.7% urban; higher at upper levels.
  • Annual tuition expenditure: ₹7,066 rural, ₹13,026 urban.
  • Tuition dependency highest among private-school students.

Static Linkages

•  Article 21A + 86th Amendment → Free education (6–14 yrs).
• RTE Act 2009 → No fees, neighbourhood schools, PTR norms.
• Entry 25, Concurrent List → Centre & States legislate on education.
• NEP 2020 → Universalisation 3–18 yrs, school restructuring 5+3+3+4. 
• DPSP Article 45 → Early childhood education.
• Human Development → Education as social-sector investment.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Higher private enrolment shows rising aspirations.
  • Tuition supplements weak instructional quality.
• Concerns
  • High costs contradict the spirit of Article 21A.  
  • Tuition + fees deepen learning inequality.
  • Declining govt school enrolment undermines public systems.
  • Private sector quality often inconsistent; teachers underpaid.
• Stakeholders
  • Parents: Seeking quality; facing financial stress.  
  • Govt: Pressure to revitalise public schools.
  • Private schools: Expanding but weak regulation.
  • Students: Unequal access to learning.

Way Forward

• Strengthen public school quality (teachers, infrastructure, assessments).
• Regulate private school fees; enforce RTE norms.
• Expand early childhood education per NEP.  
• Increase public expenditure to 6% of GDP.
• Provide in-school remedial learning to reduce tuition dependency.
• Improve monitoring: NAS, PARAKH, school- quality audits.

MADRAS HIGH COURT MUST SPEAK OUT

• Madras High Court Collegium recommended six district judges and later nine advocates for elevation.
• Tamil Nadu government sought clarification on Collegium composition, not candidate merit.
• Justice J. Nisha Banu, though transferred to Kerala HC (not joined), remains senior enough to be part of Madras HC Collegium.
• She was excluded, and the next senior judge, Justice M.S. Ramesh, was included.
• The State asked for the legal basis for this substitution under Article 217 and the MoP; Collegium proceeded with further recommendations without answering.

Key Points

• MoP mandates: CJI of HC + two seniormost judges form the Collegium.
• Justice Nisha Banu maintains jurisdiction and seniority as she did not assume charge in Kerala HC.
• Procedural deviation questions validity of the recommending authority itself.
• Lack of clarity may create a constitutional friction between Judiciary and State Executive.
• Revives debate on transparency, seniority norms, and accountability in Collegium functioning.

Static Linkages

• Article 217 & 222 – Appointment and transfer of HC judges.
• Second & Third Judges Cases – Collegium structure, primacy of judiciary
• Institutional Integrity Doctrine – Decisions must follow proper procedure.
• MoP – Executive–Judiciary framework guiding appointments.
• Basic Structure – Judicial independence depends on procedural propriety.

Critical Analysis

• Pros / Valid Concerns
  • Ensures procedural fidelity crucial for judicial independence.
  • Prevents arbitrariness in Collegium functioning.
  • Strengthens trust between branches of government.
• Concerns / Risks
  • Unexplained exclusion threatens legitimacy of recommendations.
  • May reinforce criticisms of opacity and internal bias.
  • Possibility of appointments becoming void if the Collegium is invalidly constituted.
• Stakeholders
  • State: Demands legality, clarity.
  • Judiciary: Must maintain autonomy with transparency.
  • Legal community & citizens: Require fairness, objectivity.

Way Forward

• Provide written reasons for deviating from seniority.
• SC should clarify MoP rules on transfers and non-joining judges.
• Create clearer guidelines on Collegium composition.
• Strengthen transparency through mandatory disclosures.
• Consider an independent secretariat for appointments.

• Karnataka introduced a Bill to define and penalise hate speech and hate-motivated acts.
• Aims to curb rising hostility, misinformation, and online/offline targeting of communities.
• Critics warn of vague terms (“disharmony,” “hatred,” “ill will”) enabling misuse.
• Global experience shows such laws often suppress dissent rather than protect groups.
• Existing IPC provisions already cover threats to public order and incitement.

Key Points

• Covers spoken, written, visual and electronic expressions made in public.
• Defines hate speech very broadly; intention threshold unclear.
• Protected grounds: religion, caste, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
• Expands police discretion; heightens free- speech concerns.
• Tension between Article 19(1)(a) and restrictions under Article 19(2).

Static Linkages

• Article 19(1)(a) + reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
• Shreya Singhal (2015): only imminent incitement to violence justifies restriction. 
• IPC Sections 153A, 295A, 505 already address hate-based offences.
• Rule of Law requires clarity and non- arbitrariness.
• ICCPR: restrictions must be necessary and proportionate.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Acknowledges rising hate speech, digital radicalisation.
  • Offers legal recognition of hate-motivated acts.
  • Signals state commitment to protect vulnerable groups.
• Cons
  • Overbroad definitions → high misuse potential.  
  • Encourages censorship and self-censorship.
  • Overlaps with existing IPC; creates over- regulation.
  • Contradicts Shreya Singhal standards.
  • Enables selective enforcement.

Way Forward

• Narrow definitions based on imminent incitement.
• Independent review bodies for complaints.
• Police training on rights and digital forensics.
• Prefer counter-speech, education, and better IPC enforcement.
• Judicial oversight and periodic review of the law.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Context of the News

• U.S. released its first NSS of Trump’s second term, projecting a roadmap to sustain American dominance.
• Five priorities: ending mass migration, protecting core liberties, reducing U.S. global stabilisation role, pushing peace deals, and prioritising economic security.
• NSS sharply criticises European allies, especially Germany, triggering concerns over NATO cohesion and regional stability.

Key Points

• Reduced Global Policing: U.S. will no longer “prop up” the world order; allies expected to manage regional stability.
• Economic Security Central: Focus on balanced trade, critical minerals, reindustrialisation, defence infrastructure, and energy dominance.
• Migration Limits: Declares “era of mass migration has ended.”
• European Rebuke: Claims Europe faces “civilizational decline”; Germany rejects U.S. criticism.
• Risk Outlook: Weakening NATO unity may embolden authoritarian expansion.

Static Linkages

• Collective security principles; NATO’s Article 5 structure.
• Balance of Power theory in IR; role of hegemonic stability.
• IEA definition of energy security: availability + affordability.
• Trade protectionism cycles explained in classical economic theory.
• UN frameworks on refugees and migration.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • May open space for India in supply chains, manufacturing, digital finance cooperation.
  • Pushes Europe toward strategic autonomy; strengthens multipolarity.
  • Regional bodies may assume greater responsibility.
• Cons
  • NATO instability risks Russian assertiveness; uncertainty for Indo-Pacific security.
  • U.S. unilateralism may weaken multilateral norms.
  • Strong migration rhetoric harms global refugee protections.
  • Burden-sharing could embolden autocrats to test territorial norms.
• Stakeholder Views
  • EU: Sees NSS as undermining alliance trust.
  • Russia/China: View reduced U.S. commitments as opportunity.
  • India: Gains in economic domains; uncertainty in global security landscape.

Way Forward

•  Strengthen India–EU cooperation; reduce strategic vacuum.
• Build Indian capabilities in supply chains, semiconductors, minerals.
• Expand multilateral platforms (Quad, IPEF).
• Deepen India–U.S. defence and tech partnerships.
• Promote balanced, rule-based approaches to migration and security.

INDIA- US TRADE NEEDS STABILITY

Context of the News

• A senior US trade delegation is in New Delhi to explore a limited trade package.
• India–US trade is ~$200 billion, yet lacks a formal agreement.
• US has imposed ~50% cumulative tariffs on key Indian goods; India wants tariff rollback before any deal.
• Frictions persist inagriculture access, digital trade, data localisation, and skilled mobility (H- 1B fee hike).
• Both sides see scope for cooperation in energy, critical minerals, and tech supply chains.

Key Points

• Tariffs & Market Access: US flags trade imbalance; threatens tariffs on Indian rice. India defends agri/dairy protection citing domestic sensitivities.
• Regulatory Divergence: US sees India’s SPS and digital rules as barriers; India cites consumer safety & digital sovereignty.
• Labour Mobility: Mobility remains a priority for India; US fee hikes add friction.
• Energy: US LNG/crude can help India diversify from Russian dependence.
• India’s Trade Shift: After exiting RCEP (2019), India prefers bilateral/minilateral deals aligned with China+1 strategy.
• Deal Prospects: Early gains likely in low-cost, high-payoff sectors; deeper rule-making expected in 2026.

Static Linkages

• Tariff & non-tariff barriers; WTO MFN & national treatment.
• SPS/TBT principles; BoP-based tariff deviations.
• FTA structures; data localisation & digital sovereignty.
• Energy security and diversification.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Tariff rollback could boost Indian exports.
  • Strengthens Indo-Pacific strategic alignment.
  • Joint tech standards may shape regional supply chains.
  • Enhances India’s energy diversification.
• Cons / Challenges
  • Agriculture/dairy opening risks farmer backlash.
  • Digital trade tensions persist.
  • Mobility disagreements remain structural.  
  • Election cycles may slow progress.
• Stakeholders
  • US farm lobbies seek market diversification.  
  • Indian farmers resist subsidised US imports.
  • US tech firms oppose localisation; Indian startups support it.
  • Energy firms see long-term opportunities.

Way Forward

• Phase-wise pact with modest early deliverables.
• Joint framework on data governance & digital standards.
• Dedicated mechanism for skilled mobility.
• Expand energy cooperation, including long- term LNG ties.
• Reduce SPS/TBT frictions through regulatory dialogue.
• Co-develop Indo-Pacific standards in semiconductors & critical minerals.
• Insulate negotiations from political cycles.