Source: The hindu  – international relation

The recent UK-EU agreement under Prime Minister Keir Starmer marks a significant geopolitical shift, aimed at reviving collaboration in trade, border security, and regulatory standards. While seemingly Eurocentric, this development offers India strategic diplomatic, trade, and diaspora-related opportunities. As both the UK and EU are key Indian partners, the reset provides a platform for India to realign its external strategies in trade harmonisation, talent mobility, and global governance participation.

  1. Trade and Economic Opportunities
    • Simplified regulatory compliance for Indian exporters due to harmonisation.
    • Sectors benefiting: Pharma (25% of UK’s demand met by India), seafood (₹60,524 crore in FY24), and textiles.
    • Opportunity to push for improved RoDTEP incentives and complete the India–UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
  1. Strategic and Diplomatic Leverage
    • India’s role in trilateral and multilateral platforms (e.g., G20, WTO) can be reinforced.
    • Scope to align with UK-EU in Indo-Pacific security architecture, especially vis-à-vis assertive China.
    • Strengthening India-France naval cooperation and EU engagement through India-EU Trade and Technology Council.
  1. Mobility and Human Capital
    • India has the world’s largest diaspora, with major presence in both the UK and EU.
    • Over 1 lakh Indian student visas issued by the UK in 2024 alone.
    • Possibility of a “semi-integrated talent corridor” post-Brexit to allow professional and educational mobility.
    • Potential for migration partnerships with Germany, France, Portugal.
  1. Global South and Governance Role
    • India’s leadership in the Global South (G20, 2023) can be synergised with a unified West on:
      • Climate finance,
      • Digital infrastructure,
      • Reforming global governance.

Way Forward

    • Accelerate negotiations on FTAs with both UK and EU.
    • Enhance quality compliance infrastructure for exports.
    • Leverage diaspora networks for soft power and diplomatic advantage.
    • Push for greater say in global rule-making bodies by aligning with West on democratic and economic platforms.

with reference to the UK-EU diplomatic reset, consider the following statements:

  1. India is a major supplier of generic medicines to the UK.
  2. The India-EU Trade and Technology Council was launched in 2024.
  3. The RoDTEP scheme is aimed at remitting duties on imported goods.

Q. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 only
b) 1 and 2 only
c) 2 and 3 only
d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: b)
Statement 3 is incorrect: RoDTEP is for exported goods, not imported ones.

 

India is considering amendments to its nuclear energy legal framework, particularly the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962, to attract foreign investment and expand nuclear capacity from 7 GW to 100 GW over the next 25 years.

  1. Need for Amendments – Pro-Reform View (Ashley Tellis)
    • India’s nuclear expansion goals (100 GW) are unrealistic without foreign participation and technology transfer.
    • Current laws create legal uncertainty and discourage global suppliers.
    • The CLNDA 2010 makes suppliers potentially liable, unlike global norms which place the onus on operators.
    • No major foreign company (U.S., Russia, France) is willing to invest under the present liability regime.
    • Technology advancements like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are commercially driven and will come only if India eases legal restrictions.
  1. Arguments Against Amendments – Cautionary View (D. Raghunandan)
    • India’s nuclear goals are based on flawed assumptions; solar and renewables are growing faster and cheaper.
    • The CLNDA is necessary to protect citizens, especially in light of industrial disasters like Bhopal.
    • India’s public sector (NPCIL) and existing tech (PHWRs) are sufficient.
    • SMRs are unproven and overhyped, and changing laws for them may compromise safety.
    • Government must focus on transparent public investments instead of diluting liability norms for foreign players.

Way Forward

    • If amended:
      • Provide legal clarity on supplier liability through model contracts.
      • Link amendments with investment guarantees and technology access agreements.
      • Ensure parliamentary scrutiny and public safety safeguards are intact.
    • If not amended:
      • Focus on indigenous capacity building (e.g. NPCIL, BARC).
      • Invest in renewables and hybrid systems.
      • Strengthen nuclear safety norms through public accountability mechanisms.

Q. Which of the following statements is/are correct about the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010?

1.It allows the operator to seek compensation from suppliers in case of intentional or defective supply.

2.It fully aligns with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC).

3.It has been a key factor deterring foreign nuclear suppliers from investing in India.

Select the correct answer:

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 1 and 3 only 

C. 2 and 3 only

D. All of the above

ANSWER : B

Statement 1: Correct

    • Under Section 17(b) of the CLNDA, 2010, the operator (in India, usually NPCIL) can seek recourse against the supplier only if:

“The nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, done with the intent to cause damage or resulted from the supplier’s wilful act or gross negligence.”

    • So, the Act does allow compensation from suppliers but only in exceptional cases like intent, defect, or negligence — not automatically.

Statement 2: Incorrect

    • The Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) places exclusive liability on the operator and seeks to establish a global compensation framework.
    • However, India’s CLNDA goes beyond CSC norms by allowing recourse against suppliers in some cases (as per Section 17), which is seen as inconsistent with CSC.
    • This has led to international criticism that India’s law is not fully compliant with CSC provisions.

Statement 3: Correct

    • Foreign suppliers like Westinghouse (USA) and Rosatom (Russia) have refused to sign contracts or transfer technology due to the uncertainty and open-ended liability imposed by CLNDA.
    • This has been a major deterrent to foreign private investment in India’s nuclear sector.
    • The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), enacted in 2016, marked India’s first comprehensive legal framework to handle corporate insolvency.
    • After 8 years, a critical assessment of its achievements and challenges is essential for policy reform and investor confidence.

Why was IBC introduced?

    • Prior frameworks (like SICA, SARFAESI) were fragmented, inefficient, and time-consuming.
    • IBC was designed to:
      • Shift control from debtors to creditors.
      • Establish a time-bound resolution mechanism (330-day limit).
      • Improve credit culture and reduce non-performing assets (NPAs).
      • Strengthen ease of doing business and attract investment.

Achievements of IBC

  1. Financial Recoveries:
    • ₹3.89 lakh crore recovered.
    • Recovery rate: ~32.8% of total admitted claims.
  2. Reduction in NPAs:
    • Gross NPAs declined from 11.2% (2018) to 2.8% (2024) for commercial banks.
  3. Behavioural Change:
    • Ended the “defaulter’s paradise”.
    • Encouraged timely repayments and deterred willful default.
  4. Cost of Credit:
    • 3% reduction in borrowing costs for distressed firms.
    • Improved environment for stressed asset investment.

Challenges Affecting IBC’s Effectiveness

  1. Judicial Delays:
    • NCLT overburdened, leading to breaches of the 330-day limit.
  2. Post-Resolution Uncertainty:
    • Issues in enforcement, treatment of pending dues, and ongoing litigation.
  3. Inadequate Capacity:
    • Need for stronger tribunals and better infrastructure.
  4. Lack of Clarity on Key Elements:
    • Intellectual property, employee dues, tech continuity are ambiguously treated.
  5. SC Verdict on Bhushan Steel:
    • Reaffirmed creditor rights but raised concerns about post-resolution judicial clarity and investor confidence.
  6. Adapting to New-Age Business Models:
    • Current code lacks flexibility for handling start-ups and tech-based firms.

Recent Legal Interpretation

    • Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Bhushan Steel case) have reinforced the creditor-in-control model but introduced ambiguity in post-resolution scenarios, affecting predictability.

Way Forward

  1. Tribunal Reforms:
    • Increase NCLT/NCLAT benches and resources.
  2. Legal Clarity:
    • Codify treatment of employee dues, IP rights, and continuity issues.
  3. Institutional Strengthening:
    • Invest in training, technology, and pre-packaged insolvency mechanisms.
  4. Jurisdictional Consistency:
    • Establish jurisprudence to guide decision-making and avoid litigation delays.
  5. Policy Evolution:
    • Make IBC future-ready for digital, service-based, and start-up companies.

The primary objective behind enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 was to:

A. Promote disinvestment of public sector undertakings
B. Shift control from creditors to debtors during insolvency
C. Establish a time-bound and creditor-driven insolvency resolution mechanism
D. Nationalize non-performing assets of scheduled commercial banks

Answer: C
Explanation: The IBC was enacted to streamline insolvency proceedings by shifting control from debtors to creditors and ensuring a time-bound resolution process (330 days).

Recent disciplinary actions by universities against student expressions have sparked debate on freedom of speech in educational institutions.

Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions under 19(2).

    • Universities as Spaces of Dialogue:
      • Should uphold intellectual freedom, dissent, and critical thinking.
      • Disciplining students for peaceful expression contradicts democratic ethos.
    • Balancing Order & Liberty:
      • Restrictions must be reasonable, proportionate, and defined by law.
      • Arbitrary or preventive actions by university authorities reflect authoritarian overreach.

Q. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees:
A) Right to protest in any public space without restriction
B) Right to freedom of speech and expression
C) Right to participate in elections
D) Right to form educational institutions

Answer: B

Explanation: Article 19(1)(a) specifically guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

2 .Assertion (A): Students should be allowed to peacefully express dissent in universities.
Reason (R): The right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is absolute and unlimited.

A) Both A and R are correct, and R is the correct explanation of A.
B) Both A and R are correct, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
C) A is correct, but R is incorrect.
D) A is incorrect, but R is correct.

Answer:  C

Explanation: While A is correct—peaceful dissent is protected—R is incorrect because freedom of speech is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

The Government has announced the next Census after a 14-year gap (last in 2011). This delay is being criticized as a failure of administrative planning and commitment to data-driven governance.

    • Census as a Governance Tool:
      • Essential for planning, budgeting, and delivery of schemes (e.g., food subsidies, education, urban development).
      • Forms the backbone of socio-economic mapping.
    • Impact of Delay:
      • Affects targeted welfare schemes and misallocates resources.
      • Hampers delimitation and reservation exercises, affecting federal equity.
      • Southern states, with lower population growth, lose out in representation and fund allocation.
    • Constitutional & Political Angle:
      • Delay affects cooperative federalism and violates the principle of equitable representation.

Which of the following is not a function of the Census in India?

A) Determining the size of the Cabinet of Ministers
B) Planning allocation for welfare schemes
C) Delimitation of constituencies
D) Providing data for reservation policies

Answer:  A

Explanation: The size of the Cabinet is determined by Article 164(1A) (which caps it at 15% of the strength of the Legislative Assembly), not by the Census. Census data is crucial for planning, delimitation, and affirmative action policies, but not for deciding cabinet size.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *