Why in the News?

• The Union Agriculture Ministry has released the Draft Seeds Bill 2025, inviting public comments until December 11.
• The Bill aims to modernise seed regulation by amending the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds (Control) Order 1983, ensuring quality seeds for farmers while reducing compliance burdens for the seed industry.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Seeds Bill 2025 (Context, Rationale, Regulatory Architecture, Offences & Penalties, Concerns, etc.)

Context and Rationale Behind the Seeds Bill 2025

• India’s seed sector has undergone a massive transformation since the 1960s, through advances in biotechnology, hybridisation, commercial seed processing, and international trade.
• According to the Agriculture Ministry, in 2023-24, the national requirement for seeds was 462.31 lakh quintals, while availability reached 508.60 lakh quintals, creating a surplus of 46.29 lakh quintals.
• Industry associations have argued that the 1966 Act is outdated and ill-equipped to deal with new scientific and commercial realities.

Regulatory Architecture Proposed Under the Bill

• Clear Definition of Stakeholders
  • The Bill defines key actors, farmer, dealer, distributor, and producer, as separate entities engaged in seed use and trade. This creates regulatory clarity across the supply chain.
• Central and State Seed Committees
  • Two statutory bodies are proposed:

• Central Seed Committee (27 members)
• State Seed Committees (15 members)

• The Central Committee will recommend standards such as:

• Minimum germination levels,
• Genetic and physical purity,
• Traits and seed health norms,
• Additional quality parameters.

• The State Committees will advise on the registration of seed producers, dealers, nurseries, and processing units.

Quality Control and Registration Systems

• Mandatory Registration of Seed Processing Units
  • All processing units must register with the State government. This ensures quality control but may increase operational costs for small seed entrepreneurs.
  • To ease compliance for companies operating across multiple States, a Central Accreditation System may be introduced, merit-based, transparent, and uniform.
• National Seed Variety Register
  • The Bill creates the office of a Registrar responsible for maintaining a National Register of Seed Varieties under the Central Seed Committee.
  • Field trials to determine the Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) are also standardised in the Bill.
• Seed Testing Laboratories
  • Central and State seed testing laboratories will be strengthened to:

• Analyse genetic purity,
• Assess germination and health parameters,
• Assist in compliance monitoring.

• Role of Seed Inspectors
  • Seed inspectors will have search-and-seizure powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, ensuring stronger enforcement against violations.

Offences and Penalties

• The new draft significantly revises the penalty framework compared to the 2019 draft.
• The Bill classifies offences as: Trivial, Minor, Major, with corresponding penalties.
• This stronger penal architecture reflects the government’s intent to curb seed fraud and maintain quality standards.

Farmers’ Rights and New Safeguards

• The Bill reiterates that farmers retain the right to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seeds, except under a brand name. This aligns with long-standing protections under Indian law.
• The draft also links seed regulation to the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act 2001, attempting to ensure that quality norms and intellectual property rights are harmonised.

Concerns Raised by Farmers’ Organisations

• Farmers’ unions, including the All India Kisan Sabha, have criticised the Bill for:

• Potential increase in seed costs, enabling large companies to engage in “predatory pricing.”
• Risk to seed sovereignty, as centralisation may favour multinational and domestic seed corporations.
• Dilution of biodiversity protections, arguing that the Bill conflicts with global treaties such as the CBD and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture.
• Creating a “corporatized regulatory structure” that may overshadow the PPV&FR Act’s progressive farmer-centric provisions.

• These groups demand that the Bill must complement, not undermine, India’s biodiversity and farmers’ rights legal architecture.

Why in news?

Economists expect India’s Q2 FY26 GDP to surpass the RBI’s 7% forecast, potentially reaching 7.3%, slightly below the previous quarter’s 7.8% high. Growth remains robust despite 50% US tariffs introduced in late August.

Broad-based rural recovery, supported by strong labour markets and good crop output, along with increased urban consumer durable spending following GST cuts, is driving the expansion. Q3 FY26 is also expected to benefit from the GST cuts.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Nominal GDP Growth Slows, Poses Risks to Budget Targets
• GDP Growth Likely Lags GVA Due to Slower Tax Collections
• Q2 FY26 Sees Surge in Private Consumption
• Q2 FY26 Sees Strong Corporate Profits Amid Low Inflation
• Government Capex Surges, Private Investment Shows Early Signs of Revival

Nominal GDP Growth Slows, Poses Risks to Budget Targets

• April-June GDP data showed nominal growth at a three-quarter low of 8.8%, below the Finance Ministry’s 10.1% Budget assumption.
  • Nominal growth refers to the growth of an economic variable without adjusting for inflation.
  • In other words, it measures the increase in value at current prices, so it includes the effects of rising prices (inflation) along with the actual increase in output or income.
• Economists expect July-September and FY26 nominal growth could fall below 8%, potentially impacting tax collections and raising fiscal deficit and debt-to-GDP ratios, despite strong real growth of 7.8%.
  • Fiscal deficit is the gap between the government’s total expenditure and its total revenue (excluding borrowings) in a financial year.
  • Debt-to-GDP ratio measures a country’s total government debt relative to its GDP. It shows the government’s ability to repay debt. A higher ratio means debt is growing faster than the economy, which can strain public finances.
• Monitoring nominal GDP is crucial for fiscal planning.

GDP Growth Likely Lags GVA Due to Slower Tax Collections

• In Q2, GDP growth may trail GVA growth, projected at 7.5–8% versus 8% GVA growth.
  • GDP (Gross Domestic Product): It measures total value of goods and services produced within a country in a given period. It is calculated as GVA + net indirect taxes (indirect taxes minus subsidies).
  • GVA (Gross Value Added) – It measures total value of goods and services produced by all sectors, excluding net indirect taxes. It indicates actual production and sectoral performance.
    • GDP growth can differ from GVA growth if net indirect taxes rise or fall.
• GDP includes net indirect taxes (GST minus subsidies), which fell year-on-year after a 10% rise in Q1.
• Slower growth in these taxes explains why GDP growth may be lower than GVA.

Q2 FY26 Sees Surge in Private Consumption

• Private consumption likely rose by 8% in Q2 FY26, the highest since Q3 FY25.
• It was boosted by the late-September GST rate cuts, low retail inflation (1.7%), rural wage growth (~6%), personal income tax cuts, and a 7.8% rise in employee costs of listed companies.
• Growth could have been higher if households had not delayed purchases ahead of the GST rollout. Q1 FY26 consumption had risen to 7% from 6% in Q4FY25.

Q2 FY26 Sees Strong Corporate Profits Amid Low Inflation

• Q2 FY26 was the best quarter for companies in two years, with sales up 6% YoY and profits rising 13%, aided by low retail inflation (1.7%) and zero wholesale inflation.
• Limited impact from US tariffs and subdued input costs boosted profitability, supporting value-added growth and likely contributing to GDP growth around 7% for FY26, above the RBI’s 6.8% forecast.

Government Capex Surges, Private Investment Shows Early Signs of Revival

• In Q2 FY26, Central government capital expenditure rose 31% YoY to ₹3.06 lakh crore, supporting overall investment.
• Private sector interest also increased, accounting for 71% of fresh investments in H1 FY26 versus 61% last year.
• Q1 FY26 gross fixed capital formation grew 7.8%, down from 9.4% in the previous quarter but above 6.7% in Q1 FY25.

Why in news?

The Supreme Court criticised the Union government for not responding to its five-year-old directive to install CCTV cameras in all police stations and central agency offices such as the CBI, ED and NIA. Only 11 States/UTs submitted compliance reports; the Centre did not.

The Bench expressed shock that custodial torture continues unabated, citing 11 custodial deaths in Rajasthan within eight months. The judges observed that custodial brutality persists despite earlier judicial orders.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Custodial Torture in India: A Persisting Human Rights Crisis
• Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre for Ignoring CCTV Directions

Custodial Torture in India: A Persisting Human Rights Crisis

• Custodial torture in India is a widespread and systemic human rights violation involving physical and psychological abuse of individuals in police or judicial custody.
• Despite the high number of custodial deaths each year, conviction rates remain extremely low, reflecting deep-rooted impunity and weak accountability mechanisms within the system.
• Prisoners’ dignity and fundamental rights are protected under international law.
• The UN Charter (1945) emphasizes humane treatment, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) safeguards individuals from torture, cruel treatment, and enforced disappearances, ensuring security and dignity.
• Scale of the Problem
  • Custodial torture—both physical and psychological—remains widespread and systemic.
  • NHRC reported 2,739 custodial deaths in 2024, up from 2,400 in 2023.
  • Marginalised groups—Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, daily-wage earners—are disproportionately targeted.
  • Accountability is abysmal: Zero convictions in 345 judicial inquiries (2017–2022) despite arrests and charge sheets.
• Why Custodial Torture Persists?
  • Absence of Specific Anti-Torture Law - India lacks a dedicated legislation criminalising torture as per global standards. Although India signed UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT, 1997), it has not ratified it.
  • Culture of Impunity - Police personnel often shield each other, discouraging accountability. Systemic misuse of coercive interrogation methods remains widespread.
  • Systemic and Institutional Failures - Overworked police forces, inadequate training in non-coercive techniques. Weak prison infrastructure and insufficient oversight mechanisms.
  • Weak Legal Protection for Victims - Fear of retaliation and lack of legal aid prevent victims from reporting abuse.
• Legal & Judicial Safeguards
  • Article 14: Ensures that all individuals are treated equally, reinforcing that law enforcement agencies are not above the law.
  • Article 21: Right to life includes protection from torture.
  • Article 20(1): Prohibits conviction for acts that were not offences when committed and guards against excessive or arbitrary punitive actions.
  • Article 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination.
  • D.K. Basu Guidelines (1997): Mandate arrest memo, medical exam, identification of police officers, etc.
• New Criminal Laws
  • Section 120, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - Criminalises causing hurt or grievous hurt to extract confessions or information through violence or coercion.
  • Section 35, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Requires that all arrests and detentions follow legally valid, clearly documented procedures.
  • Section 22, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) - Declares confessions obtained under inducement, threat, coercion, or promise as legally inadmissible.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Centre for Ignoring CCTV Directions

• The Supreme Court expressed displeasure that only 11 States/UTs had filed compliance affidavits regarding the installation of functional CCTVs in police stations.
• The Union government had not filed its response either.
• Background: The 2020 Nariman Judgment
  • In Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh (2020), the Supreme Court mandated CCTV installation in police stations and offices of all agencies with arrest and interrogation powers — including the NIA, CBI, ED, NCB, DRI, and SFIO.
  • This was ordered to safeguard fundamental rights and deter custodial torture.
• Debate on CCTVs and Security Concerns
  • The Centre argued that CCTV installation outside police stations could be counter-productive, citing security concerns.
  • The court disagreed, referring to live-streamed police stations in the U.S. and the need for more open correctional facilities to reduce overcrowding.

Context:

• Actors Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan have sued Google and YouTube in the Delhi High Court, accusing them of hosting AI-generated videos that depict them in fabricated — sometimes explicit — scenarios.
• They argue that such deepfakes violate their personality rights, damage their reputation, and threaten financial interests.
• The case also seeks safeguards to prevent these fake videos from being used to train future AI models.
• The issue underscores how generative AI blurs the line between real and fake, challenging existing legal protections over one’s identity — name, image, likeness, and voice.
• Personality rights, rooted in privacy, dignity, and commercial autonomy, were not designed for the scale and speed of AI manipulation.
• Deepfakes now fuel misinformation, extortion, and loss of public trust, revealing a growing need for stronger legal and ethical safeguards to prevent the misuse and commodification of human identity.
• This article highlights how the rise of generative AI and deepfakes is challenging traditional personality rights in India and across the world.

The Evolving Legal Landscape of Personality Rights in the Age of AI

• India’s Hybrid and Reactive Approach
  • India follows a hybrid model rooted in dignity (Article 21) and property-like control.
  • Personality rights are not codified but recognised through landmark judgments:
    • Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022): Affirmed personality rights.
    • Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life (2023): Banned AI misuse of Mr. Kapoor’s likeness and “Jhakaas”.
    • Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (2024): Protected his voice from AI replication.
  • While the IT Act and 2024 Intermediary Guidelines tackle impersonation and deepfakes, challenges remain due to anonymity, global data sharing, and limited enforcement capacity.
• United States: Property-Based ‘Right of Publicity’
  • The U.S. treats personality rights as commercial property that can be licensed or transferred.
  • Key developments:
    • Haelan Labs v. Topps (1953): Separated publicity rights from privacy rights.
    • ELVIS Act, Tennessee (2024): Prohibits unauthorised AI cloning of voices and likenesses.
  • Litigation against Character.AI highlights risks of AI chatbots inducing self-harm or impersonating therapists; courts have rejected First Amendment immunity claims.
• European Union: Dignity and Consent Framework
  • The EU’s GDPR mandates explicit consent for processing personal and biometric data.
  • The EU AI Act (2024) classifies deepfakes as high-risk, requiring transparency, labelling, and disclosure to prevent manipulation and deception.
• China: Stricter Consumer-Focused Enforcement
  • Chinese courts emphasise preventing deception:
    • A 2024 Beijing ruling held synthetic voices must not mislead consumers.
    • Another case awarded damages to a voice actor whose AI-replicated voice was sold without consent — affirming voice as personality property.
• A Fragmented Global Framework
  • AI’s borderless nature outpaces national laws, creating a fragmented regulatory mosaic.
  • Scholars argue for expanded “extended personality rights” covering style, persona, and creative patterns to protect individuals from exploitative AI training and misuse.

The Human–AI Nexus: Ethical and Legal Concerns

• UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI (2021) provides a rights-based framework emphasising dignity, autonomy, and protection from exploitation.
• Scholars argue that personality rights must evolve to address AI-generated impersonation and manipulation.
• Gaps in India’s Legal Architecture
  • Experts highlight India’s fragmented AI laws and call for:
    • statutory definitions of AI,
    • explicit classification of deepfakes as high-risk,
    • clearer regulation of behavioural data processing.
  • They also raise concerns about AI recreations of deceased artists, noting that Indian courts do not recognise personality rights as inheritable.
• Debates on AI Personhood
  • Critics, however, warn that granting AI legal personhood could dilute human rights protections and complicate liability frameworks.
  • The tension lies between leveraging AI for innovation and preventing erosion of human autonomy and dignity.
• Need for Robust Indian Legislation
  • The rise of deepfakes exposes structural gaps. India must:
    • codify personality rights,
    • mandate AI watermarking and model transparency,
    • strengthen platform liability,
    • enable cross-border regulatory cooperation.
  • The government’s 2024 deepfake advisory is a first step, but inadequate on its own.
• Call for Global Harmonisation
  • Adopting and aligning with UNESCO principles can help India prevent ethical deterioration, ensure accountability, and safeguard human identity in the age of generative AI.

Context:

• The Poshan Tracker — launched by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in 2021 — has recently entered public debate due to misconceptions surrounding e-KYC and Facial Recognition System (FRS).
• e-KYC and FRS are used for monitoring Take-Home Ration (THR) delivery under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS).
• The article clarifies myths, highlights technological safeguards, and outlines the need for improved awareness and usability.

Background - What is the Poshan Tracker?:

• The Poshan Tracker is an application under Mission Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 and is the primary tool for POSHAN Abhiyaan.
• It is one of the world’s largest government-funded nutrition monitoring systems used to monitor the delivery of nutrition services under the umbrella of the ICDS scheme.
• It covers 1.4 million Anganwadi Centres and monitors over 88 million beneficiaries (women, children and adolescent girls).
• It is designed to ensure transparency, accountability, real-time monitoring and reduce leakage in food and nutrition delivery.

Why e-KYC and FRS Were Introduced?:

• Persistent ground-level challenges:
  • Duplicate or “ghost” beneficiaries.
  • Diversion and leakage of THR.
  • Shortfalls in quantity or quality of rations.
  • Need for proof-based delivery and real-time tracking.
• How e-KYC works: The Anganwadi worker enters the Aadhaar number, an OTP is sent to the registered mobile number, and once verified, the beneficiary is marked as e-KYC verified on the Poshan Tracker.
• How facial recognition works?:
  • Anganwadi worker captures a live photo at the time of THR distribution.
  • The system matches the photo with the registration or e-KYC photo.
  • Ensures ration reaches the rightful recipient, and records delivery digitally.

Myths vs Facts:

• Myth vs fact 1: e-KYC needs to be done every month. The fact is that it is a one-time verification process. Once verified, the beneficiary is permanently marked as “e-KYC verified”.
• Myth vs fact 2:
  • Even small children must undergo facial recognition.
  • The Poshan Tracker does not undertake facial authentication of children under six years for delivery of THR.
  • It verifies the child’s identity through the parent or guardian, usually the mother.
• Myth vs fact 3:
  • FRS for THR distribution cannot function offline, and concerns about the lack of internet connectivity in rural areas.
  • Face matching works in both online and offline modes, with the offline option specifically developed for low-connectivity areas.
• Myth vs fact 4: Personal data and photographs are stored locally. Data flows through encrypted channels, no local storage of photos or identifiers, backend servers remain secured.
• Myth vs fact 5: Beneficiaries need smartphones for FRS. Only the Anganwadi worker uses the smartphone, beneficiaries do not need one.

Achievements and Scale:

• As of August 2025, nearly 3.69 crore THR beneficiaries (out of 4.9 crore registered), representing about 75% of the target base — had completed e-KYC and facial authentication.
• This reflects India’s remarkable readiness to embrace digital tools at scale and its growing confidence in technology-driven public service delivery. 

Challenges Identified:

• Digital misconceptions and misinformation among citizens and frontline workers.
• Usability issues in the app; time burden on Anganwadi workers during THR distribution.
• Connectivity gaps in remote rural areas (though offline mode exists).
• Need for improved digital literacy among Anganwadi workers.
• Ensuring constant adherence to data privacy norms.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen public communication to counter myths and misinformation.
• Conduct usability testing to improve app efficiency and reduce workload.
• Streamline service delivery workflows to save time during THR distribution.
• Invest in capacity building, training, and digital literacy of Anganwadi workers.
• Maintain robust data protection and encryption standards to build public trust.
• Encourage community awareness to ensure smooth authentication processes.

Conclusion:

• The Poshan Tracker represents a landmark initiative in India’s digital governance and nutrition service delivery, aiming to ensure that every beneficiary receives their rightful entitlements.
• While misconceptions around e-KYC and FRS exist, the system is backed by strong security protocols and has already achieved significant coverage.
• Addressing myths will be crucial to realising its full potential in strengthening nutrition governance, transparency, and accountability in India.

Context

• A rare instance of accountability in Chandigarh, where a college professor was dismissed after an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) probe under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act/ POSH Act 2013.
• This incident has highlighted both the potential and the limitations of India’s institutional mechanisms against sexual harassment.
• While the verdict has been celebrated as justice served, it simultaneously exposes systemic challenges that prevent consistent and empathetic implementation of the law, particularly within educational spaces marked by sharp power imbalances.

The Limits of Consent and the Missing Idea of Informed Consent

• One of the fundamental gaps in the POSH framework lies in its narrow understanding of consent.
• The Act acknowledges consent but ignores informed consent, a concept especially crucial in academic and workplace hierarchies.
• A relationship that appears consensual on the surface may be shaped by emotional manipulation, authority, or information asymmetry.
• When these imbalances become visible later, earlier consent becomes void and results not only in harassment but in deep emotional betrayal.
• The current legal framework remains oriented toward visible, explicit acts, failing to recognise psychological or manipulative behaviour.
• Many well-educated perpetrators deliberately operate in grey zones, avoiding behaviours that leave clear evidence while exploiting trust and emotional vulnerability.
• The absence of recognition for emotional harassment and coercive, deceptive conduct leaves survivors without adequate legal protection.

Procedural and Linguistic Limitations: Barriers to Justice

• The Three-Month Limitation Period
  • Several procedural elements of the Act inadvertently hinder survivors. The three-month limitation period for filing complaints is particularly restrictive.
  • Survivors who experience coercion or prolonged manipulation often take far longer to recognise the violence or gather the courage to report it.
  • In universities, where students may remain under the same institutional umbrella for years, crucial evidence or realisation may emerge well beyond this timeline.
  • Justice should not come with an expiry date, yet the existing rule reinforces perpetrators’ belief that time is on their side.
• Linguistic Limitations
  • Language also shapes how seriously misconduct is perceived.
  • The Act refers to the accused as a respondent, softening the gravity of actions that would constitute criminal offences outside institutional settings.
  • Such diluted terminology normalises the violation and diminishes the psychological trauma experienced by survivors.
• The Burden of Proof
  • The burden of proof further tilts the scales against complainants. Sexual harassment usually unfolds as a pattern of behaviour rather than as a single, documentable event.
  • Yet ICCs often dismiss complaints due to lack of direct evidence, without considering corroborative testimony, anonymous feedback, or circumstantial indicators.
  • While committees are carefully structured to protect the respondent’s rights, similar institutional trust is rarely extended toward recognising a survivor’s lived experience.

Inter-Institutional Misconduct: A Silent Blind Spot

• Modern academia thrives on collaboration, conferences, visiting faculty programmes, and inter-campus research. Misconduct, therefore, often spans institutional boundaries.
• The POSH Act, however, provides no mechanism for inter-institutional complaints, leaving repeat offenders free to move across campuses without accountability.
• For survivors, filing a complaint is already an emotionally exhausting battle. What follows is frequently marked by delays, bureaucratic hesitation, and the threat of counteraction.
• The clause allowing punishment for malicious complaints, intended as a safeguard, often intimidates genuine victims, deterring them from seeking justice.

Digital Harassment and the Challenge of Evidence

• With communication increasingly shifting to digital platforms, harassment now occurs through vanishing messages, encrypted chats, or temporary images.
• Expecting ICC members, often without specialised technical training, to interpret such evidence is unrealistic.
• The Act has not adapted to the complexities of digital communication, offering no clear protocols for handling such material.
• To remain relevant, the law must integrate updated definitions of digital harassment, mandate training for ICC members, and establish procedures for managing electronic evidence so that technology does not become a shield for offenders.

The Way Forward: Toward a Stronger and More Responsive POSH Framework

• The Chandigarh case demonstrates what a committed ICC and a determined group of complainants can achieve, but such outcomes are far from the norm.
• The promise of the POSH Act can be fulfilled only through structural reforms that include recognising emotional coercion, expanding the definition of consent, extending timelines for reporting, strengthening digital evidence protocols, and improving investigative methods.

Conclusion

• Informal whisper networks among women reflect not empowerment but institutional failure.
• A decade after its enactment, the POSH Act must evolve to match the realities of modern workplaces and academic environments.
• Justice should not depend on the survivor’s endurance or the discretion of committees; it must be built into the framework of the law
• Until then, the protection offered by the POSH Act risks remaining symbolic rather than substantive.

About Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS), 1988:

• It was introduced by the Central Government in 1988 to help taxpayers claim exemptions on long-term capital gains.
• Under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, income from capital gains must be reinvested within 3 years to avoid tax liability.
• However, there could be instances when the due date for filing income tax falls during this specified tenure.
• If a taxpayer is unable to invest in such a short period of time, they can deposit such underutilised capital gains under CGAS.
• However, taxpayers must deposit such funds before filing their Income Tax Returns.
• Investing the gains in this account is treated the same as direct reinvestment for exemption purposes.
• However, short-term capital gains are not eligible for the CGAS, as exemptions apply only to long-term capital gains.
• Who Can Deposit in CGAS?
  • Any taxpayer who earns long-term capital gains and wants to claim exemption can deposit in the CGAS.
  • This includes Individuals, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), Companies, Trusts, and any other person eligible for capital gains exemption.
• The scheme is mainly used when the taxpayer is unable to reinvest the capital gains before the due date of filing their income tax return but intends to invest within the specified period to claim exemption.
• The deposited amount must then be used within the stipulated period to invest in the eligible asset; otherwise, it will be treated as taxable capital gain in the year the deadline expires.

Capital Gains Accounts (Second Amendment) Scheme, 2025:

• Previously, CGAS deposits were largely limited to public sector banks and a few older institutions.
• Under the new notification, all non-rural branches of 19 major private banks are now authorised to receive deposits and maintain CGAS accounts.
• The “non-rural branch” condition means that only branches at centres with population 10,000 or more (per 2011 census) are in scope.
• The amended scheme explicitly defines ‘electronic mode’ of deposit to include credit/debit cards, net banking, UPI, IMPS, RTGS, NEFT, BHIM/Aadhaar Pay etc.

About Special Leave Petition (SLP):

• A SLP is a request made to the Supreme Court of India seeking special permission to appeal against any judgment, order, or decree from any court or tribunal (except military tribunals), even when the law does not provide a statutory right of appeal.
• In other words, SLP is not a right—it's a privilege granted by the Supreme Court at its discretion.
• Article 136 states that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, or order from any court or tribunal in India.
• It can only be exercised when a substantial question of law or gross injustice has been committed.
• A judgement, decree, or order need not be final for an SLP. An interim or interlocutory order, decree, or judgement can also be challenged.
• It is a discretionary/optional power of the SC, and the court can refuse to grant the appeal at its discretion.
• The aggrieved party can’t affirm a special leave to offer under Article 136 as a right.
• SLP can be filed by:
  • Any aggrieved party (individual or business)
  • Government bodies
  • Public sector undertakings
  • NGOs or associations (in relevant cases)
    • The key requirement is that the party must be aggrieved by the impugned judgment or order.
    • An SLP can be filed for any civil or criminal matter, etc.
  • SLP can be filed against judgments from:
    • High Courts
    • Tribunals (except those under armed forces)
    • Quasi-judicial bodies
  • Time limit to file SLP:
    • It can be filed against any judgment of the High Court within 90 days from the date of judgment or
    • It can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to SC.
  • Procedure for a SLP:
    • A SLP must contain all the facts upon which the SC is to decide, which revolve around the grounds on which an SLP can be filed.
    • The said petition needs to be duly signed by an Advocate-on-Record.
    • The petitioner must include a statement within the SLP stating that no other petition has been filed in a High Court.
    • Once the petition is filed, the SC will hear the aggrieved party and depending upon the merits of the case, will allow the opposite party to state their part in a counter affidavit.
    • After the hearing, if the court deems the case fit for further hearing, it will allow the same; otherwise it will reject the appeal.

About Bharat NCAP:

• The Bharat New Car Assessment Programme (Bharat NCAP) is an indigenous star-rating system for crash testing cars, under which vehicles will be assigned between one to five stars, indicating their safety in a collision.
• It is an ambitious joint project between the Government of India (GoI) and Global NCAP, the regulatory body behind the safety crash test ratings.
• Objective: To help consumers make an informed decision before purchasing a car, thereby spurring demand for safer cars.
• Under the Bharat NCAP, cars voluntarily nominated by automobile manufacturers will be crash tested as per protocols laid down in the Automotive Industry Standard (AIS) 197.
• Vehicles tested under the Bharat NCAP are evaluated across three critical safety domains: adult occupant protection, child occupant protection, and safety assist technologies.
• Applicability:
  • Only right-hand drive passenger vehicles on sale in India and weighing less than 3,500 kg are eligible for consideration.
  • Base variants of cars are to be tested, and ratings will be applicable for four years.
  • Besides internal combustion engine (ICE) models, CNG cars as well as battery-powered electric vehicles are eligible to undergo the safety test.
• It is a voluntary programme under which the cost of the car for assessment for star rating and the cost of such assessment are borne by the respective vehicle manufacturer or importer.
• Bharat NCAP is overseen by the Ministry of Road Transport, but is an independent body.
• The current Bharat NCAP regulations remain valid until September 30, 2027, after which Bharat NCAP 2.0 is expected to be implemented by October 2027.

Bharat NCAP 2.0 Proposed Guidelines:

• It brings in fresh mandatory tests, revised scoring methods, and updated safety verticals.
• Notably, for the first time, vehicles will be assessed on vulnerable road user protection.
• The Bharat NCAP 2.0 proposal introduces a 100-point rating system across five pillars: Crash Protection, Vulnerable Road-User Protection, Safe Driving, Accident Avoidance, and Post-Crash Safety.
• The crash test will be expanded from two to five and will now have Male, female, and child dummies for testing.
• The cars will go through offset frontal impact, full-width frontal impact, side impact, pole side impact, and rear impact.
• Electronic stability control (ESC) and curtain airbags will be compulsory for any model seeking a star rating.
• Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) remains optional. Models with side-facing seats will not be eligible for a rating.
• From 2027-29, a 5-star rating will require 70 points, and this would rise to 80 points from 2029-31.
• Minimum scores will also apply across each pillar.