10th may 2025 Current Affairs

India now 3rd largest vehicle manufacturer: Union Minister Nitin Gadkari

Syllabus:Governance

Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, Nitin Gadkari, announced that India is now the third-largest vehicle manufacturer globally, reflecting the rapid growth of the country’s automobile industry. Speaking at the 4th International BBB Summit and Expo on Bioenergy Value Chain in New Delhi, the Minister emphasized the increasing demand for various types of vehicles in India.
He noted that while this growth fuels economic development, it also leads to a corresponding rise in fossil fuel consumption, raising concerns over energy sustainability. To address this, he underscored the urgent need to curb fuel imports, boost exports, and transition towards alternative energy sources.
Highlighting the economic challenges faced by the agricultural sector, Mr. Gadkari called for measures to make agriculture more economically viable, asserting that true self-reliance is not possible without strengthening the agrarian economy.
The two-day summit brings together policymakers, scientists, technocrats, industrial leaders, and bioenergy experts. Its primary focus is on promoting cutting-edge technologies that utilize India’s vast biomass resources to build a sustainable bioenergy value chain.

Consider the following statements regarding the interpretation of Sedition laws and Freedom of Speech in India:

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes sedition, has been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in its entirety.
The Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) judgment upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
The Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) ruling clarified that casual sloganeering without incitement to violence does not amount to sedition.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 interim order on sedition mandates all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under Section 124A to be kept in abeyance, and no new FIRs should be filed under the provision until reconsidered.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?
A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2, 3, and 4 only
C) 1, 2, and 4 only
D) 2 and 4 only

Correct Answer: B) 2, 3, and 4 only

Explanation:

Statement 1 – Incorrect: Section 124A has not been struck down. It has been kept in abeyance by an interim SC order (2022), but not declared unconstitutional yet.
Statement 2 – Correct: In Kedar Nath Singh (1962), the SC upheld the provision but narrowed its scope to “incitement to violence or public disorder.”
Statement 3 – Correct: In Balwant Singh (1995), the SC ruled that merely raising slogans like “Khalistan Zindabad” does not amount to sedition unless there is incitement to violence.
Statement 4 – Correct: In 2022, the SC ordered that all pending cases under Section 124A be paused and no fresh FIRs be filed while the law is under review.

CENJOWS hosts MRSAM-India Eco-System Summit 2.0

Syllabus:Environment

On May 7, 2025, the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies (CENJOWS), in collaboration with Aerospace Services India (ASI) and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), hosted the MRSAM India Eco-System Summit 2.0 at the Manekshaw Centre in New Delhi. The summit aimed to bolster India’s air and missile defence capabilities under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat and Make-in-India initiatives.

Key Highlights:

Collaborative Efforts: The event underscored the growing synergy between Indian and Israeli defence sectors, with ASI reaffirming its vision to become India’s premier defence service provider.
Participation: Senior representatives from the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Armed Forces, DRDO, Bharat Electronics Limited, Bharat Dynamics Limited, and leading Indian defence manufacturers attended the summit.
Focus Areas: Panel discussions centered on operational readiness, self-reliance in missile systems, and technology showcases featuring AI-powered service management systems like STORMS developed by ASI.
Indigenous Manufacturing: The summit highlighted the achievements of ASI-IAI’s wholly-owned Indian subsidiary, which plays a critical role in providing technical representation, life-cycle support, and local manufacturing for the MRSAM system and its associated subsystems such as the BARAK 8 missile and Air Defence Fire Control Radar.
Future Outlook: The event emphasized the importance of establishing a resilient and future-ready air defence infrastructure through sustained collaboration, capability development, and localized innovation.
This summit marks a significant step towards enhancing India’s indigenous defence manufacturing capabilities and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers.

With reference to the Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MRSAM) India Eco-System Summit 2.0, held in 2025, consider the following statements:

The MRSAM system, developed through India-Israel collaboration, is equipped with the BARAK 8 missile and integrates with the Air Defence Fire Control Radar.
The summit was organized solely by DRDO to showcase India’s independent missile development efforts under the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020.
STORMS, an AI-powered service management system, was demonstrated at the summit and is developed by an Indian public sector defence manufacturer.
The summit aligns with India’s vision of ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’ by emphasizing indigenization, lifecycle support, and the establishment of wholly foreign-owned subsidiaries within Indian defence production.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

A) 1 and 4 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1, 3, and 4 only
D) 1, 2, and 4 only

Correct Answer: A) 1 and 4 only

Explanation:

Statement 1: Correct. The MRSAM system includes the BARAK 8 missile and Air Defence Fire Control Radar as part of the India-Israel collaboration.
Statement 2: Incorrect. The summit was co-organized by CENJOWS, ASI (Aerospace Services India), and Israel Aerospace Industries — not solely by DRDO.
Statement 3: Incorrect. STORMS was developed by ASI (a private-sector partner), not a public sector manufacturer like BEL or BDL.
Statement 4: Correct. The summit strongly aligns with the goals of ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’, and the Indian subsidiary of IAI facilitates local production and lifecycle support.

DELIVERY OF ‘ARNALA’- FIRST ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE SHALLOW WATER CRAFT TO THE INDIAN NAVY

Syllabus:Defence

On 8 May 2025, INS Arnala, the first of eight Anti-Submarine Warfare Shallow Water Crafts (ASW SWCs), was officially delivered to the Indian Navy at L&T Shipyard, Kattupalli. Designed and built indigenously by Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE), Kolkata, the ship marks a major step forward in India’s naval self-reliance under the ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’

Key Highlights:

Public-Private Partnership (PPP): Constructed in collaboration with L&T Shipyard, demonstrating successful defence sector cooperation.
Maritime Legacy: Named after the historic Arnala Fort near Vasai, Maharashtra, reflecting India’s naval heritage.

Design & Capabilities:

Length: 77 metres
Propulsion: Diesel Engine–Waterjet combination – largest Indian Navy ship with this setup
Role: Underwater surveillance, search & rescue, Low Intensity Maritime Operations (LIMO)
Armed with mine-laying and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems, optimized for coastal operations.
With over 80% indigenous content, INS Arnala embodies India’s growing capability in defence manufacturing. Its induction will significantly strengthen the Navy’s shallow-water ASW proficiency, aligning with national security and self-reliance goals.

With reference to INS Arnala, recently delivered to the Indian Navy, consider the following statements:

INS Arnala is the first Indian naval ship to be powered by a combined Diesel-Electric-Waterjet propulsion system, enabling deep-sea ASW operations.
The ship is named after a historical maritime fort off the coast of Maharashtra, highlighting India’s coastal defence legacy.
Its construction under the GRSE–L&T Public-Private Partnership reflects compliance with both Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) rules and the Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative.
INS Arnala is primarily designed for high-intensity blue-water naval engagements in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1, 2, and 4 only
D. 2, 3, and 4 only

Correct Answer: B. 2 and 3 only

Explanation:

Statement 1 – Incorrect: INS Arnala uses a Diesel Engine–Waterjet combination, not Diesel-Electric, and it is optimized for shallow-water coastal ASW, not deep-sea operations.
Statement 2 – Correct: Named after Arnala Fort off Vasai, Maharashtra — part of India’s maritime heritage.
Statement 3 – Correct: Built by GRSE under IRS classification and via PPP with L&T, aligning with Aatmanirbhar Bharat
Statement 4 – Incorrect: The vessel is tailored for shallow-water and low-intensity operations, not high-intensity blue-water warfare.

Coal India’s Thalassemia Bal Sewa Yojana Marks a Milestone; Minister Emphasizes Expanding Access and Strengthening Partnerships

Syllabus:Schemes

On World Thalassemia Day 2025, Coal India Limited (CIL), in collaboration with the Ministry of Coal and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, celebrated the success of its flagship CSR initiative, the Thalassemia Bal Sewa Yojana (TBSY), at Hotel Ashok, New Delhi.
The scheme, launched in 2017, provides free bone marrow transplants for underprivileged children suffering from thalassemia and, since 2020, aplastic anemia. So far, over 700 children have benefited from this life-saving initiative.
The event was graced by Shri G. Kishan Reddy, Minister of Coal and Mines, who announced the ambitious “One State, One Hospital” goal to expand the scheme’s reach.
He emphasized the importance of awareness, early screening, and genetic counseling to reduce thalassemia incidence.
Shri Satish Chandra Dubey, Minister of State for Coal and Mines, highlighted the scheme’s humanitarian impact and praised the partnerships with leading hospitals.
Rupinder Brar, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Coal, stressed the need for synergies between CIL-operated hospitals and Bone Marrow Transplant centers to improve early screening and intervention.
The event also featured the felicitation of top-performing hospitals, including Christian Medical College (CMC) Vellore, Narayana Hrudayalaya Bengaluru, and Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre, Delhi, for their exemplary efforts in delivering successful transplant outcomes.
Additionally, 15 thalassemia warrior children were honored, and guardians of two beneficiaries shared emotional testimonials expressing deep gratitude for restoring hope and health to their families.
Through the Thalassemia Bal Sewa Yojana, Coal India Limited continues to exemplify how corporate leadership can extend beyond business imperatives to transformative impact, compassion, and nation-building.

Consider the following statements regarding the Thalassemia Bal Sewa Yojana (TBSY):

The scheme was initiated by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and is exclusively funded through the National Health Mission budget.
The TBSY provides financial assistance of up to ₹10 lakh per child for bone marrow transplantation, including for patients with aplastic anemia.
The “One State, One Hospital” initiative under TBSY aims to establish a dedicated bone marrow transplant centre in every Indian state.
The scheme currently operates through a fixed public hospital network of exactly four government-run transplant centres.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 2 and 3 only
B) 1 and 4 only
C) 2, 3, and 4 only
D) 1, 2, and 3 only

Correct Answer: A) 2 and 3 only

Explanation:

Statement 1 – Incorrect: The scheme is led by Coal India Limited under CSR in collaboration with the Ministry of Coal and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, not solely initiated or funded under the NHM.
Statement 2 – Correct: The scheme provides up to ₹10 lakh per child for bone marrow transplants, including thalassemia and aplastic anemia.
Statement 3 – Correct: The “One State, One Hospital” initiative aims to expand BMT facilities across Indian states under TBSY.
Statement 4 – Incorrect: Though it began with 4 hospitals, the scheme has now expanded to 17 empanelled hospitals, including leading private institutions.

SC Rules Rohingya Refugees Subject to Foreigners Act

Syllabus:Polity

The Supreme Court has remarked that if the Rohingya refugees are classified as ‘foreigners’ under the Foreigners Act, they will be dealt with according to the law.

Key Details:

Petitioners’ Argument:
The Rohingya refugees are recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and should therefore be granted protection under the principle of non-refoulement (which prohibits returning refugees to countries where they face serious threats).
Deporting them back to Myanmar, where they are stateless and allegedly face torture and death, would violate Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Indian Constitution.

Government’s and Court’s Position:

India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the Foreigners Act provides the government broad powers to regulate the entry and exit of foreigners.
Article 19(1)(e), which grants the right to reside and settle in India, applies only to Indian citizens, not foreigners or refugees, according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
While the Court recognized that Articles 14 and 21 (Right to Equality and Right to Life) apply to all persons in India, it stressed that the right to stay or settle in India does not extend to foreigners or refugees under Indian law.
The matter of whether refugees can stay in India is subject to legal processes under Indian law.

Who Are the Rohingya Refugees?

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority ethnic group originally from the Arakan Kingdom in Myanmar.
They are culturally and religiously distinct from Myanmar’s majority Buddhist population.
Though the Rohingya claim to have lived in Myanmar’s Rakhine State for generations, Myanmar’s successive governments have denied their ties to the country, labeling them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
Since 1982, Myanmar has denied them citizenship, making them the world’s largest stateless population.
The largest exodus of Rohingya refugees began in 2017, with more than 5 lakh fleeing to Bangladesh to escape the brutality of Myanmar’s security forces.
India’s Policy on Refugees:
India has provided refuge to nearly 300,000 refugees in the past, including Tibetans, Chakmas from Bangladesh, and refugees from countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.
However, India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and does not have a formal refugee policy or law.
Undocumented foreign nationals in India are governed by laws like the Foreigners Act, 1946, The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, and The Citizenship Act, 1955.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), foreign nationals entering India without valid documents are considered illegal immigrants.

Reasons for India’s Policy on Refugees:

Resource Strain: Hosting refugees puts pressure on India’s infrastructure, particularly in regions already facing resource shortages.
Social Cohesion: A significant refugee influx can strain the social fabric, potentially leading to tensions with local communities.
Security Concerns: The influx of refugees can raise security issues, including the risk of extremist elements infiltrating and challenges in monitoring border security.
Diplomatic Relations: Hosting refugees can strain diplomatic relations with neighboring countries or countries of origin.
Economic Impact: Refugees may compete for low-skilled jobs, affecting the local labor market, and may not contribute fully to the economy due to the lack of formal employment opportunities.

Way Forward:

India’s approach to refugees is shaped by a tradition of humanitarianism, regional geopolitics, and national security concerns. Though India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, the country has historically provided refuge to various displaced communities.As global displacement continues to rise, there is a growing need for India to establish a clear and consistent national refugee policy that balances humanitarian obligations with security and demographic concerns.

Consider the following statements regarding the legal and constitutional status of Rohingya refugees in India:

India is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and hence, is bound by the principle of non-refoulement under international law.
Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution apply only to Indian citizens and not to foreign nationals, including refugees.
The Foreigners Act, 1946 provides the Indian government with broad powers to expel undocumented foreign nationals, including refugees.
The Supreme Court has held that the right to settle and reside in India under Article 19(1)(e) does not extend to refugees or other foreign nationals.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 and 2 only
B) 3 and 4 only
C) 1, 3 and 4 only
D) 2 and 4 only

Correct Answer: B) 3 and 4 only

Explanation:

Statement 1 – Incorrect: India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Hence, although non-refoulement is a part of customary international law, India is not legally bound under treaty obligations.
Statement 2 – Incorrect: Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life) extend to all persons, not just Indian citizens. This includes refugees and undocumented migrants.
Statement 3 – Correct: The Foreigners Act, 1946 gives the government the power to detect, detain, and deport illegal foreign nationals, including refugees without valid documentation.
Statement 4 – Correct: The Supreme Court has held that Article 19(1)(e) — the right to reside and settle in any part of India — applies only to Indian citizens, and not to foreigners or refugees.

CJI Forwards ‘In-House’ Panel Probe Report To President

Syllabus:Polity

Context:

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, has forwarded the report of an in-house committee investigating allegations against a Delhi High Court judge to the President and Prime Minister of India.

In-House Procedure for Investigation:

To address judicial misconduct outside the formal impeachment process, the Supreme Court of India introduced the “in-house procedure” in 1999 for conducting investigations into allegations against judges. The procedure includes the following steps:

Filing Complaints:

Complaints about judicial misconduct can be filed with the CJI, the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, or the President of India.

Preliminary Inquiry:

The Chief Justice of the High Court in question conducts an initial inquiry, seeking a response from the accused judge and submitting the findings to the CJI.

Fact-Finding Committee:

If the allegations are serious, the CJI appoints a fact-finding committee consisting of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge to conduct a detailed investigation.

Recommendations and Action:

If the committee finds sufficient grounds for the judge’s removal, the CJI may recommend the judge’s resignation. If the judge refuses to resign, the report is forwarded to the President and Prime Minister for further action, which can eventually lead to impeachment.

Judicial Precedents:

Several key judgments have shaped the judicial process for handling allegations against judges:

K Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991):

This landmark case established that no criminal case can be filed against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court without the prior approval of the Chief Justice of India.

Additional District and Sessions Judge vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2014):

This judgment emphasized that if a judge refuses to resign despite adverse findings from an in-house panel, the report must be forwarded to the constitutional authorities for further action.

Mechanism for Removal of Judges:

The Constitution of India outlines the process for removing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 124(4) and Article 217 on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity. The steps involved are as follows:

Initiation of Impeachment:

A motion for the removal of a judge can be introduced in either House of Parliament, requiring a special majority (⅓ of the total membership and ⅓ of the members present and voting).

Presidential Approval:

If the motion is passed by Parliament, the President of India issues an order for the judge’s removal.

Concluding Remarks:

The existing in-house procedure and constitutional safeguards are designed to ensure that allegations of judicial misconduct are examined in a fair and transparent manner, without compromising the independence of the judiciary. This process highlights the strength of India’s legal framework in addressing concerns about judicial conduct while preserving the dignity of the judicial system.

Consider the following statements regarding the in-house procedure for investigating allegations against judges in India:

The in-house procedure for investigating judicial misconduct was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 to address such issues outside the formal impeachment process.
A fact-finding committee for investigating serious allegations against a judge must consist of two sitting Supreme Court judges and one Chief Justice from a High Court.
The process for the removal of judges under Articles 124(4) and 217 involves a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
The report of the fact-finding committee, if it recommends the judge’s removal, is forwarded to the President and Prime Minister only if the judge refuses to resign voluntarily.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A) 1, 3, and 4 only
B) 2, 3, and 4 only
C) 1 and 4 only
D) 1, 2, 3, and 4

Correct Answer: A) 1, 3, and 4 only

Explanation:

Correct: The Supreme Court adopted the in-house procedure in 1999 to address judicial misconduct outside the formal impeachment process.
Incorrect: The fact-finding committee consists of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge, not two Supreme Court judges and one Chief Justice of a High Court.
Correct: The process for the removal of judges under Articles 124(4) and 217 requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.
Correct: If the committee recommends the removal of a judge, the report is forwarded to the President and Prime Minister only if the judge refuses to resign.

India’s latest MMR Shows a Declining Trend

Syllabus :GS 2/Health

Maternal mortality refers to the death of a woman during pregnancy or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, excluding accidental or incidental causes. One of the key indicators of maternal health is the Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR), which is defined as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births over a specific time period. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to reduce the global MMR to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030.

India’s Recent MMR Statistics:

According to the latest data released by the Registrar-General of India, India’s MMR has improved significantly, dropping to 93 per 100,000 live births for the period 2019-21.
This marks a decline from 97 per 100,000 (2018-20) and 103 per 100,000 (2017-19). However, maternal mortality remains disproportionately high in several states, with Madhya Pradesh (175), Assam (167), Uttar Pradesh (151), Odisha (135), Chhattisgarh (132), West Bengal (109), and Haryana (106) exhibiting high MMRs.
The highest MMR is observed in the 20-29 age group, followed by the 30-34 age group.

Global Context and Trends:

Globally, over 700 women die daily from preventable pregnancy-related causes, translating to a maternal death every 2 minutes. Over 90% of these deaths occur in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Since 2000, the global MMR has fallen by approximately 40%, highlighting the progress made in maternal health worldwide.

Challenges and Concerns:

Despite improvements, maternal mortality remains a critical public health concern in India.
It is a key indicator of the quality and accessibility of healthcare services, reflecting the effectiveness of maternal health programs. The majority of maternal deaths in India are due to complications arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, rather than accidental causes.

Government Initiatives to Combat Maternal Mortality:

India has made substantial progress towards reducing maternal mortality, aligning with the UN’s SDG target for MMR of 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030.
The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017 set a target of reducing MMR to below 100 per 100,000 live births by 2020, which India has successfully met.
Several key initiatives by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) support the reduction of MMR:
Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY): Launched in 2005, this program promotes institutional deliveries among marginalized women (SC/ST/BPL) to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality.
Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY): This maternity benefit scheme offers ₹5,000 to eligible women for their first live birth. Under PMMVY 2.0, additional incentives are provided if the second child is a girl, promoting positive behavioral change.
Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakaram (JSSK): Since 2011, this scheme provides free delivery, transportation, medicines, diagnostics, and diets in public healthcare facilities for pregnant women and sick newborns.
Surakshit Matritva Aashwasan (SUMAN): Launched in 2019, it ensures free, respectful, and quality healthcare for all pregnant women and newborns, aiming to eliminate preventable deaths.
Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan (PMSMA): Introduced in 2016, this program provides free antenatal care on the 9th of every month, with a focus on high-risk pregnancies.
The e-PMSMA extension offers individual tracking for high-risk pregnancies and provides financial incentives. As of March 2025, over 9 crore women have benefited from these initiatives.

Conclusion and the Way Forward:

India has made impressive strides in reducing maternal mortality, meeting the NHP target of an MMR below 100 per 100,000 live births by 2020.
However, achieving the SDG target of MMR below 70 by 2030 requires continued efforts.
Strengthening healthcare infrastructure, expanding maternal health programs, and addressing socio-economic barriers will be pivotal to further reducing maternal mortality in the country.
India’s maternal health journey showcases the vital role of comprehensive policies and targeted interventions in improving maternal health outcomes.
Further attention to high-MMR states, ensuring equitable access to healthcare, and continued investments in maternal health programs are essential for continued progress in this area.

Consider the following statements regarding the latest Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) data in India:

The Maternal Mortality Ratio in India decreased from 103 per 100,000 live births (2017–19) to 93 per 100,000 live births (2019–21).
Madhya Pradesh, Assam, and Uttar Pradesh have the highest MMRs in India as per the latest available data.
India has successfully achieved the SDG target for MMR of 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030.
The National Health Policy 2017 set an MMR target of below 100 per 100,000 live births by the year 2020.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A) 1, 2, and 4 only
B) 1, 2, and 3 only
C) 1 and 4 only
D) 1, 2, 3, and 4

Correct Answer: A) 1, 2, and 4 only

Explanation:

Correct: The MMR in India decreased from 103 (2017–19) to 93 (2019–21).
Correct: Madhya Pradesh, Assam, and Uttar Pradesh have among the highest MMRs.
Incorrect: India has not yet achieved the SDG target of an MMR below 70 by 2030; it still needs further progress.
Correct: The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017 set the target for MMR to be below 100 per 100,000 live births by 2020.

Air Defence Systems: India & World

Syllabus: Defence

Recently, India successfully thwarted aerial attacks from Pakistan along its western border using its advanced air defense systems. India also neutralized an air defense system in Lahore, Pakistan, demonstrating the effectiveness of its defense infrastructure.

About Air Defence Systems

Air defence systems are crucial elements of national security, designed to detect, track, and neutralize aerial threats such as enemy aircraft, missiles, and drones. These systems employ a multi-layered defense mechanism that integrates radar, missile interceptors, electronic warfare (EW) tools, and command centers to protect the airspace.

Key Components of Air Defence Systems

Detection and Surveillance:
Radar Systems: Air defense begins with radar systems, which detect incoming threats by emitting high-frequency radar waves that bounce back from objects in the sky.
Satellite and Infrared Sensors: Modern systems use satellite imaging and infrared tracking to identify stealth aircraft and hypersonic missiles.
Tracking and Target Identification: Once a threat is detected, tracking systems analyze its speed, altitude, and trajectory to classify the threat—whether it’s a fighter jet, ballistic missile, or drone.
Command Centers: Command centers evaluate the threat and decide on the appropriate response.

Engagement and Neutralization:

Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs): SAMs are designed to intercept incoming threats, such as aircraft or projectiles, before they reach their intended targets.
Electronic Warfare (EW) Systems: Jammers are used to disrupt enemy communications and radar signals, preventing them from effectively coordinating attacks.
Anti-Aircraft Artillery: High-caliber guns are used in close-range combat to provide an additional defense layer.

Types of Air Defence Systems

Short-Range Air Defence (SHORAD): These systems are built to counter low-altitude threats, including drones and cruise missiles.
Example: Barak-8 Missile System.
Medium-Range Air Defence (MRAD): These systems cover larger areas and intercept fighter jets and long-range missiles.
Examples: Patriot Missile System, S-400 Triumf.
Long-Range Air Defence (LRAD): These systems protect large regions and are capable of neutralizing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Examples: THAAD, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense.

Key Air Defence Systems in India

Akash Missile System: This Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system is designed to neutralize multiple airborne threats simultaneously using command guidance and phased array radar.
S-400 Triumf Missile System: A state-of-the-art system procured from Russia, enhancing India’s air defense capabilities.
It can detect and intercept ballistic missiles, fighter jets, and drones at distances up to 400 km.
It is also used by China and Turkey for missile and aircraft defense.
Integrated Counter-UAS Grid: This counter-drone technology is deployed to neutralize hostile Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) along sensitive borders.
It integrates radar detection, electronic jamming, and kinetic interception to prevent aerial intrusions.
Barak-8 Missile System: Jointly developed by India and Israel, this system provides high-speed interception against airborne threats and enhances both naval and land-based air defense capabilities.

Other Air Defence Systems Around the World

Patriot Missile System (United States): Widely used for missile interception and neutralizing aerial threats.
It is deployed by the U.S., Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia for high-altitude defense.
Iron Dome (Israel): Designed specifically for short-range missile interception, particularly effective against rocket attacks.
It is extensively used by Israel to protect urban areas and military installations.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) – United States: This high-altitude missile defense system is capable of intercepting ballistic missiles during their terminal phase.
It is deployed by the U.S., South Korea, and Japan to enhance regional security.

Consider the following statements regarding Air Defence Systems:

Air defence systems combine radar, missile interceptors, electronic warfare tools, and command centers to protect a nation’s airspace from aerial threats.
The Barak-8 Missile System is a short-range air defence system developed solely by India for neutralizing low-altitude threats like drones and cruise missiles.
The S-400 Triumf Missile System, procured by India from Russia, can detect and intercept targets up to 400 km, including ballistic missiles, fighter jets, and drones.
The Integrated Counter-UAS Grid in India is designed to neutralize aerial threats such as missiles but does not have a counter-drone capability.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A) 1 and 3 only
B) 1, 3, and 4 only
C) 2 and 3 only
D) 1, 2, 3, and 4

Correct Answer: A) 1 and 3 only

Explanation:

Statement 1: Air defence systems rely on various components like radar, missile interceptors, electronic warfare tools, and command centers to protect airspace.
Statement 2: The Barak-8 Missile System was developed jointly by India and Israel and is a medium-range system, not solely Indian. It is used for neutralizing low-altitude threats like drones and missiles.
Statement 3: The S-400 Triumf Missile System, procured from Russia, can detect and intercept a variety of aerial threats, including ballistic missiles, fighter jets, and drones, at a distance of up to 400 km.
Statement 4: The Integrated Counter-UAS Grid is specifically designed to neutralize drones, with integrated radar detection, electronic jamming, and kinetic interception. It does not focus on missiles.

CCI Notifies New Definitions to Curb Predatory Pricing

Syllabus :GS 3/Economy

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has introduced the “Determination of Cost of Production Regulations, 2025,” replacing the existing framework from 2009.

Objective of the New Regulations::

This regulatory change is designed to enhance the CCI’s ability to scrutinize predatory pricing and deep discounting practices, particularly in the e-commerce and quick commerce sectors.

Background: Predatory Pricing and Competition Law

Predatory pricing, under the Competition Act, 2002, refers to the practice of selling goods or services at a price lower than the cost of production with the intent to reduce competition or eliminate competitors.
Such practices are deemed to be an abuse of dominant market position under Section 4 of the Act.The previous 2009 regulations were becoming increasingly inadequate in addressing the complexities of modern digital markets, which involve intricate pricing structures, cross-subsidies, and non-monetary exchanges.

Key Features of the 2025 Regulations

Flexible, Sector-Agnostic Framework::The new regulations move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. They provide for a case-by-case analysis, adapting to sector-specific dynamics, including those seen in platform-based digital businesses.
Focus on Measurable Production Costs:The regulations reaffirm that internal production costs, rather than market value, will serve as the benchmark for assessing predatory pricing. Market value, influenced by factors such as consumer perceptions, brand value, and subsidies, was rejected due to its subjectivity and external dependencies.
Modernization and Global Alignment:The regulations align with international competition law standards and best practices. They incorporate modern economic theories and judicial interpretations that address the complexities of platform economies and dynamic pricing in today’s markets.

Significance of the 2025 Regulations

Legal Clarity:The new framework offers clear guidelines for determining cost benchmarks, grounded in economic reasoning, making it easier for the CCI to assess potential cases of predatory pricing.
Digital Economy Readiness:The regulations account for the unique challenges posed by the digital economy, including cross-subsidization, high fixed costs, and unconventional revenue models often found in platform-based businesses.
Consumer and MSME Protection:By preventing large firms from engaging in price wars that could drive out smaller competitors, the regulations aim to safeguard consumers and protect the interests of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
Ease of Regulation:The updated framework enhances the CCI’s capacity to efficiently investigate and adjudicate cases involving anti-competitive pricing practices, ensuring consistency in its

Consider the following statements regarding the “Determination of Cost of Production Regulations, 2025” notified by the Competition Commission of India (CCI):

The new regulations replace the 2009 framework and aim to provide the CCI with enhanced powers to scrutinize predatory pricing, particularly in e-commerce and quick commerce sectors.
The 2025 regulations introduce a flexible, sector-agnostic framework, allowing a case-by-case assessment tailored to specific sector dynamics, including digital platforms.
The regulations adopt market value as the primary benchmark for determining the cost of production, as opposed to internal production costs.
The 2025 regulations align with global competition law standards, addressing the complexities of digital markets, cross-subsidies, and non-monetary value exchanges.

Which of the above statements are correct?

A) 1, 2, and 4 only
B) 2, 3, and 4 only
C) 1 and 4 only
D) 1, 2, and 3 only

Correct Answer: A) 1, 2, and 4 only

Explanation:

Statement 1: The 2025 regulations replace the 2009 framework, providing the CCI with enhanced powers to examine predatory pricing, especially in digital sectors.
Statement 2: The new regulations offer a sector-agnostic, flexible approach, allowing for case-by-case assessments tailored to the specifics of different sectors, including platform-based businesses.
Statement 3: The regulations focus on internal production costs as the benchmark, rejecting the use of market value due to its subjectivity and external dependencies.
Statement 4: The 2025 regulations align with international competition law standards and incorporate insights from modern economic theories, addressing challenges in digital platforms and dynamic pricing