Call Us Now

+91 9606900005 / 04

For Enquiry

legacyiasacademy@gmail.com

Current Affairs 15 July 2025

  1. Kaziranga’s First Grassland Bird Survey Reveals High Avian Diversity
  2. Dowry Deaths in India: High Incidence, Slow Investigations, Rare Convictions
  3. SC Flags Misuse of Free Speech on Social Media, Calls for Regulatory Balance
  4. Denmark’s Copyright-Based Approach to Combat Deepfakes
  5. Environment Ministry’s New SO₂ Emission Framework for Thermal Plants Defended
  6. India Loses ₹7,000 Crore to Cyber Frauds in 5 Months: Cross-Border Scams Under Scanner


Context & Significance

  • A first-of-its-kind survey in Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR) (Assam) has recorded 43 species of grassland-dependent birds.
  • Conducted between March 18 and May 25, 2025, it marks a milestone in the documentation of avifaunal diversity in the Brahmaputra floodplains.
  • This is important for grassland ecosystem conservation, which remains under-researched in India compared to forests and wetlands.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

About Kaziranga National Park

FeatureDetail
LocationAssam, Brahmaputra floodplains
Total Area1,174 sq. km
UNESCO World Heritage SiteYes, since 1985
Habitat TypeMix of wet grasslands, forests, and wetlands
Known forOne-horned rhinoceros, tigers, elephants, and now, grassland birds

Key Findings from the Survey

Species CategoryExample(s)
Critically EndangeredBengal florican
EndangeredFinn’s weaver (locally: Tukura Chorai), confirmed breeding
Vulnerable (6 species)Marsh babbler, Swamp francolin, Jerdon’s babbler, Bristled grassbird, etc.
OthersTotal of 43 species documented across 3 divisions of Kaziranga

Innovative Methodology Used

  • Passive Acoustic Monitoring
  • Use of passive acoustic recorders for:
    • Non-invasive, continuous monitoring
    • Detecting shy, cryptic, or nocturnal birds
    • Coverage of inaccessible or high-risk areas
  • Significantly improved the depth and accuracy of avifaunal detection.

Why Grasslands Matter

  • Wet grasslands, like those in Kaziranga, are ecologically rich but poorly studied.
  • These ecosystems support unique, endemic, and endangered species.
  • Serve as breeding grounds, foraging zones, and indicator habitats of environmental health.

Comparative Significance

  • Kaziranga’s grassland bird diversity is now comparable to dry grasslands of Gujarat and Rajasthan, known for species like:
    • Great Indian Bustard (critically endangered)
    • Lesser florican
  • Highlights importance of wet grasslands in conservation discourse, which often emphasizes forests and dry grasslands.

Policy & Conservation Implications

1. Need for Ecosystem-Specific Surveys

  • Wet grasslands are under-surveyed across India.
  • Targeted studies like this can guide species-specific conservation plans.

2. Grassland Management

  • Presence of Finn’s weaver breeding suggests healthy grassland ecology.
  • Conservation of such indicator species is critical to ecosystem stability.

3. Integration with Tiger Reserves

  • Emphasizes multi-species management in Protected Areas (PA)—not just megafauna like rhinos or tigers.
  • Enhances landscape-level conservation under CAMPA, Project Tiger, and Biodiversity Action Plans.

Challenges & Way Forward

IssueSuggestion
Grasslands misclassified as ‘wastelands’Reclassify and protect under eco-sensitive zones
Limited research outside flagship faunaExpand surveys to birds, insects, amphibians
Human pressure & encroachmentBalance tourism, local livelihoods, and habitat protection
Climate vulnerabilityLong-term monitoring using tools like acoustic sensors + AI


Context

Despite being legally banned, dowry practices and related violence persist across India. A spate of recent cases — involving torture, suicides, and murders — underlines the systemic failures in prevention, investigation, and prosecution.

Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues)

Key Data: Dowry Deaths in India (2017–2022)

IndicatorValue/Insight
Avg. Dowry Deaths Reported/Year~7,000 (NCRB data, likely under-reported)
Charge-Sheeted Cases/Year~4,500 (rest delayed or closed for lack of evidence)
Pending Investigation Cases (2022)~3,000, of which 67% pending >6 months
Delay in Charge-Sheet Filing (2022)70% filed after >2 months of investigation
Cases Sent for Trial/Year~6,500
Convictions/Year~100 (⟶ conviction rate < 2%)
States with Highest IncidenceUP, Bihar, Jharkhand, MP, Odisha, WB, Haryana, Rajasthan
City with Most Cases (2017–22)Delhi (30%), followed by Kanpur, Bengaluru, Lucknow

Key Insights

1. Dowry Violence Is Rampant and Under-reported

  • The 7,000 annual cases represent only the tip of the iceberg — social stigma, family pressure, and fear of reprisal prevent reporting.
  • Cultural normalization of dowry demands continues, especially in patriarchal setups.

2. Investigations Are Slow and Incomplete

  • Nearly half of the reported cases are not charge-sheeted.
  • Delays in charge-sheeting (70% take >2 months) weaken the case and reduce chances of conviction.

3. Convictions Are Rare

  • Less than 2% conviction rate despite FIRs and trial initiation.
  • Acquittals, withdrawals, and plea bargains are common due to weak evidence, societal compromise, or prolonged legal processes.

4. Geographic Concentration

  • 80% of dowry deaths are concentrated in 9 states, largely in the Hindi heartland and eastern India.
  • Delhi alone accounts for 30% of dowry death cases among cities—reflecting both high reporting and severity.

Legal & Institutional Framework

Law/ProvisionRelevance
Section 304B, IPCPunishes dowry death (within 7 years of marriage)
Section 498A, IPCCruelty by husband/in-laws for dowry
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Prohibits giving/taking dowry
CrPC Sections 174 & 176Mandate inquest/investigation into unnatural deaths of married women
NCRB DataCaptures only police-reported cases; no mechanism for socio-cultural reporting

Challenges

1. Delayed Justice

  • Investigation lags and evidence tampering compromise trials.
  • Lack of forensic support and insensitive police response further aggravate the problem.

2. Social Pressures & Normalisation

  • Silencing of victims due to family honour, fear, or economic dependence.
  • Many families withdraw or settle cases informally, undermining justice.

3. Misuse vs Genuine Cases Debate

  • Concerns over misuse of Section 498A IPC have led to dilution in enforcement.
  • Judicial caution often overrides the urgency in genuine dowry harassment cases.

4. No Survivor-Centric Framework

  • Lack of psychological, legal, and financial support for survivors and families.
  • No centralised tracking of dowry cases from FIR to conviction.

Policy Recommendations

DomainSuggestions
Criminal Justice ReformFast-track dowry death cases; monitor time-bound charge-sheeting
Police & ForensicsCapacity-building in gender-sensitive investigation, forensic tools
Social ReformMass awareness campaigns; involve community leaders & youth groups
Survivor SupportLegal aid, rehabilitation funds, and safe shelter mechanisms
Data TransparencyCreate a real-time national dowry case dashboard for monitoring


Context

The Supreme Court has flagged the increasing misuse of free speech on social media, especially when it incites division, hate, or undermines dignity. The Court called for a framework of regulation, not censorship, to balance constitutional rights with social responsibility.

Relevance : GS 2(Fundamental Rights, Fake Speech, Misinformation)

Constitutional & Legal Context

Provision / CaseRelevance
Article 19(1)(a)Guarantees freedom of speech and expression
Article 19(2)Allows reasonable restrictions for interests like public order, morality, etc.
IT Act, Section 66A (struck down)Declared unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
IPC Sections 153A, 295A, 505Punish speech that promotes enmity, religious insult, or false alarms

Supreme Court’s Observations (July 2025)

  • Free speech is being weaponized—particularly online—to fuel communalism, defame individuals, or erode public trust.
  • Social media magnifies harm due to its viral nature and low accountability.
  • The Court clarified: “We are not calling for censorship, but for self-restraint and regulatory balance.”

Why the Concern Over Social Media Speech?

1. Unchecked Virality

  • Harmful or hateful content spreads rapidly—amplifying misinformation and communal tensions.
  • Algorithms favour sensational content, not responsible speech.

2. Weak Platform Accountability

  • No uniform grievance redressal.
  • Platforms often delay taking down harmful content unless legally compelled.

3. Fragmented Legal Response

  • Multiple FIRs across states for the same post—leads to harassment, forum shopping, and misuse of law.

4. Polarising Content

  • Politically or religiously divisive speech increases during elections, riots, or crises.
  • Example: Communal trolling, deepfakes, disinformation campaigns.

Challenges in Regulation

ChallengeDetails
Balancing Free Speech vs. RegulationOverregulation may lead to suppression of dissent or creativity
Jurisdictional ConflictsSame post may invite FIRs in multiple states
Platform Non-ComplianceTech giants are governed by foreign laws and may resist Indian rules
Ambiguity in ‘Harmful Speech’Difficult to define ‘hate’, ‘offensive’, or ‘divisive’ speech uniformly
Lack of Digital LiteracyMany users unknowingly spread false or hurtful content

Policy & Institutional Framework

InitiativeStatus & Gaps
IT Rules, 2021Mandate content takedown, grievance officers, traceability.
Digital India Act (Drafted)Aims to replace IT Act, 2000 — but still under consultation.
Social Media Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC)Redressal mechanism lacks user awareness and enforcement teeth
Judicial Guidelines (proposed)SC hinted at laying down uniform procedural safeguards

Way Forward

Priority AreaSuggestions
Regulatory ClarityFinalise and implement Digital India Act with free speech safeguards
Self-Regulation & Platform EthicsMandate code of ethics, transparency in moderation algorithms
Judicial FrameworkSC to evolve guidelines on multi-state FIRs, content responsibility
Digital Literacy CampaignsPublic education on legal rights and responsible online behavior
Stronger Civil Society RoleNGOs, fact-checkers, and user groups to build counter-narratives


Context

Denmark has proposed a new legal approach to combat the spread of deepfakes—synthetic media generated using AI—by extending copyright protections to individuals’ facial features, voice, and appearance, even if the manipulated media is not originally theirs.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations , Social Issues)

Why This Matters

  • Deepfakes are becoming more realistic and easier to create, posing serious risks to privacy, consent, democracy, and digital trust.
  • India and many countries lack a specific legal framework to address deepfakes.

Key Features of Denmark’s Proposal

ProvisionDescription
Copyright-like ProtectionIndividuals will get exclusive rights over their facial data, voice, etc., like authors have over their works.
Criminalisation of Realistic ImitationsDeepfakes mimicking a real person’s appearance/voice without consent will be illegal, even if not defamatory.
Consent-Based UsagePlatforms must obtain explicit permission from individuals before sharing their likeness.
Platform LiabilitySocial media platforms will face penalties for non-removal of deepfake content.

Caveats & Limitations

LimitationExplanation
Scope Limited to DenmarkEnforcement outside Danish jurisdiction will be difficult.
Freedom of Expression RisksRisk of overblocking content; critics warn of unintended curbs on satire or art.
Exemptions for News/ParodyThe bill doesn’t fully clarify if satire, journalism, or AI-generated art is protected.

Global Relevance

  • Indias Gap: India has no standalone law to regulate deepfakes. IT Rules 2021 address harmful content but don’t define deepfakes explicitly.
  • Comparative Insight:
    • EU AI Act: Classifies deepfakes as high-risk AI.
    • US: Various state laws penalize deepfakes in elections or pornography.
    • China: Requires labelling of all AI-generated media.


Context

On July 11, 2025, the Union Environment Ministry issued a revised framework to regulate sulphur dioxide (SO) emissions from thermal power plants. It has exempted many older coal-based plants from retrofitting Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) devices and staggered deadlines for compliance based on location-based categorisation.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

 Scientific & Technical Basis

  • SO₂: Harmful gas emitted during coal combustion; causes acid rain and respiratory illnesses.
  • Also contributes to secondary pollutants like particulate matter.
  • Ministry claims:
    • Framework is evidence-based, informed by:
      • Ambient SO₂ studies from 7 cities.
      • Inputs from CPCB, NEERI, and IITs.
      • Scientific analysis across 537 thermal power plants (TPPs).

Key Elements of the New Framework

CategoryDescriptionDeadline/Exemption
AWithin 10 km of Delhi-NCR or cities >1 million populationCompliance by Dec 2027
BWithin 10 km of polluted cities (non-attainment)Compliance case-by-case, based on expert review
CLocated outside polluted zonesFully exempted from SO₂ retrofitting, must meet stack height norms
  • Plants retiring before Dec 2030 are also exempted, subject to ₹0.40/unit compensation if they continue operating beyond that date.

Cost Implications

  • Retrofitting FGD systems across 537 plants estimated to cost ₹2.54 lakh crore.

Issues & Criticism

ConcernsExplanation
“Regulatory dilution”Environmental groups fear that exemptions weaken pollution control and delay India’s clean energy transition.
Health implicationsSO₂ is linked to asthma, bronchitis, and cardiovascular issues. Exemptions may worsen local air quality.
Delayed actionIndia committed to SO₂ norms in 2015, but deadlines have been repeatedly extended.
Equity concernPopulations near Category B/C plants may still face localized pollution, yet plants may escape full compliance.

Concept Check

TermMeaning
FGD (Flue Gas Desulphurisation)A technology to remove SO₂ from exhaust flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants.
Non-attainment citiesCities that consistently violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Stack height normsChimneys must be tall enough to disperse pollutants and reduce ground-level concentration.

Conclusion

The revised SO₂ compliance framework reflects a balancing act between health, environment, and economic costs. While phased deadlines reduce retrofitting burdens, critics warn of potential dilution of environmental safeguards.



Context

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Indians lost over ₹7,000 crore to cyber frauds in the first 5 months of 2025. More than 50% of this loss is linked to cross-border scams originating in Southeast Asia (especially Cambodia), with deep links to human trafficking and organised cybercrime.

Relevance : GS 3 ( Cyber Security, Internal Security, Governance)

Key Data

MonthAmount Lost (₹ crore)
January1,992
February951
March1,000
April731
May999
Total~7,000 crore

Source: Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFRMS) under Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)

Key Issues Identified

1. Transnational Nature of Cybercrime

  • Scams operated from high-security compounds in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand.
  • Controlled by Chinese-linked operators.
  • At least 53 scam centres identified (45 in Cambodia alone).

2. Human Trafficking Angle

  • Thousands of Indians trafficked and forced to work in scam operations.
  • Workers recruited via agents under the promise of overseas tech jobs.

3. Types of Scams

  • Investment scams, digital arrest scams, and task-based scams (e.g., fake stock trading apps, online tasks-for-money cons).

4. Recruitment Hubs in India

StateNumber of Agents
Maharashtra58
Tamil Nadu51
Jammu & Kashmir46
Uttar Pradesh41
Delhi38
  • Trafficking route: India → Dubai → China → Cambodia/Vietnam/Thailand.
  • Other direct routes: Delhi/Lucknow/Jaipur/Kolkata/Kerala to SEA nations.

Institutional Response

  • Inter-Ministerial Panel formed by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
  • CBI FIRs filed against SIM card sellers aiding ghost identities.
  • Collaboration with Cambodian officials, who sought exact GPS coordinates of scam centres for enforcement action.

Governance Gaps

SectorIdentified Issues
TelecomGhost SIM cards issued via fraud
BankingLax KYC enables mule accounts
ImmigrationTrafficking routes exploit visa gaps

Conclusion

The ₹7,000 crore cyber fraud loss highlights India’s growing vulnerability to transnational digital crime networks. Urgent legal, diplomatic, and technological coordination is needed to plug recruitment, financial, and cyber loopholes.


July 2025
MTWTFSS
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031 
Categories