Current Affairs 29 July 2025

Content

1. Justice on hold: India’s courts are clogged
2. What is Maharashtra’s new security Bill?
3. How the fair use clause is being applied to generative AI
4. Noon River Rejuvenation Initiative in Uttar Pradesh
5. India vs Qatar: The Race to Host the 2036 Olympics

Justice on hold: India’s courts are clogged

Core Issue: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

• Prolonged delays in Indian courts undermine public trust and access to justice.
• District courts, which handle 87% of pending cases, face the worst delays — civil cases often stretch beyond 5 years.

Relevance : GS 2( Judiciary , Social Justice)

Data Highlights

• Total Pendency: Over 5 crore cases across all courts.
  • Supreme Court: 86,700+ cases.
  • High Courts: 63.3 lakh.
  • District & Subordinate Courts: 4.6 crore+.

• Vacancy Rate: 21%–33% of sanctioned judge posts remain vacant.
  • Only 15 judges per 10 lakh people, against Law Commission’s 50 judges per 10 lakh recommendation.

• Time to Disposal (Chart 2):
  • Supreme Court Civil Cases: ~8.3 years.
  • District Courts Civil Cases: ~5.7 years.
  • High Court Civil Cases: ~5.3 years.

• Lok Adalat Potential:
  • 22.2 crore cumulative cases resolved in last 4 years (pre-litigation + pending).

Key Structural Issues

• Severe judge shortage at all levels → Only 79% of sanctioned strength is filled.
• Heavy dependence on courts for every dispute → no credible ecosystem for pre-litigation resolution.
• District courts overstretched with complex, voluminous caseloads and poor infrastructure.
• Limited use of alternative mechanisms like ADR, mediation, online dispute resolution.
• Inadequate digital integration at lower judiciary levels despite e-Courts push.

Institutional Challenges

• Structural bottlenecks: outdated procedures, adjournments, lack of unified court management systems.
• Legal delays: frequent misuse of appeals, bail, and procedural loopholes.
• Inconsistent reform: judicial reforms often bypass subordinate judiciary where majority pendency lies.

Way Forward

• Fill all judicial vacancies urgently.
• Implement All India Judicial Services for professional recruitment.
• Strengthen ADR mechanisms: mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalats, Online Dispute Resolution.
• Expand digitisation, especially at district court level: AI-based case triage, e-filing, virtual hearings.
• Enforce strict adjournment control and case management systems.
• Create a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority (pending proposal) to modernise courts.
• Promote citizen awareness about alternative resolution options to reduce court dependency.

What is Maharashtra’s new security Bill?

What is the Bill About?

• Bill Name: Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024
• Objective (Govt’s Stance): Tackle ‘urban Naxalism’ and left-wing extremist (LWE) frontal organisations, particularly in urban Maharashtra.
• Justification: Govt claims 60+ Naxal-linked front organisations operate in the state, inadequately addressed by existing laws.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance )

Legislative Timeline

• Introduced: Monsoon Session, late 2024
• Revived: December 20, 2024 (after Mahayuti’s return to power)
• Public Feedback: 12,500+ suggestions/objections received
• Changes Made: Only 3 minor amendments incorporated
• Passed: Voice vote, July 2025
• Status: Awaiting Governor’s assent

Key Provisions

• Expansive Definition of “Illegal Activity”: Includes gestures, expressions, or signs that may “tend to interfere with public order” or “cause concern”.
• No Ban Limits: Organisations can be banned indefinitely.
• Executive Power Expansion: Govt can unilaterally declare organisations as “unlawful”.
• Protection to Officials: Immunity for actions “in good faith”.
• Restricted Judicial Access: Lower courts barred from jurisdiction.
• Opaque Governance: State can withhold information “in public interest”.

Criticism & Concerns

Ambiguity & Overbreadth

• Terms like “cause concern” or “interfere with order” are vague and subjective.
• May criminalise peaceful protest, satire, critical expression, or civil disobedience.

Democratic and Civil Rights Risks

• Could be misused against farmers’ protests, student groups, NGOs, and opposition voices.
• CPI(M) formally opposed, other parties raised concerns but abstained from voting.
• Critics warn of it becoming a tool for silencing dissent post-2024 elections.

Comparative Context

• Similar State Laws: Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh have older Public Security Acts.
• However:
  • These laws pre-date a strengthened UAPA.
  • Critics argue UAPA already covers most threats the Bill addresses.
  • Govt itself notes LWE now confined to 2 districts, questioning the need for new powers.

Legal & Constitutional Implications

• Article 19: Potential infringement on freedom of speech, association, and expression.
• Article 21: Due process and fair trial standards may be undermined.
• Article 14: Risk of arbitrary classifications and unequal application.
• Curtailment of Judicial Oversight: Blocking lower courts may delay access to remedies, increasing legal costs.

Future Scenarios & Impacts

• Legal Challenge Likely: Could face PILs in High Court or Supreme Court.
• Possible Domino Effect: Other states may replicate the law if upheld.
• Public Trust Issues: Civic backlash and legal activism may rise.
• Governance Risk: May fuel polarisation and erode federal and democratic norms.

Core Tensions

Conclusion

• The Bill sits at the intersection of national security and constitutional freedoms.
• With broad executive authority, vague definitions, and minimal judicial checks, it raises substantial concerns around misuse and erosion of democratic dissent.
• The Governor’s assent and ensuing judicial review will determine its constitutionality and long-term implications.

How the fair use clause is being applied to generative AI

Context & Relevance

• Access to diverse and voluminous training data (books, articles, web content) is central to improving Large Language Models (LLMs).
• This includes both public domain and copyrighted works—raising significant legal and ethical issues when used without permission.

Relevance : GS 3(IPR , Technology)

Central Legal Issue

• Key Question: Does using copyrighted material for LLM training—without authorisation—constitute copyright infringement?
• In the U.S., this hinges on whether the use qualifies as “fair use” under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

Fair Use Doctrine – Four Factors

Courts evaluate fair use claims based on:

1. Purpose & Character: Is the use transformative (e.g., generating new knowledge vs reproducing existing works)?
2. Nature of Work: Factual works are more likely to be fair use than fictional/creative ones.
3. Amount & Substantiality: How much of the original was used?
4. Market Effect: Does the use harm the original’s market or potential licensing revenue?

Case 1: Anthropic PBC (Claude LLM)

• Used copyrighted books—some legally purchased, some from questionable sources—to train its GenAI.
• Court ruling:
  • Training with legally purchased books = Fair Use  (due to transformative use).
  • Copying from illegal sources = Not fair use ; court refused to grant blanket protection.
• Key takeaway: Court distinguishes between transformative use and how the data was acquired.

Case 2: Meta (LLaMA LLM)

• Sued by 13 authors for using illegally sourced books for training.
• Court ruling:
  • Training = Fair Use  (highly transformative).
  • Plaintiffs failed to prove market harm with empirical data.
  • Court did not penalise unauthorised downloading as a separate infringement (unlike Anthropic case).
• Judge acknowledged “market dilution” concern but said proof of harm was lacking.

Comparison: Anthropic vs Meta

Precedent Case: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence

• Court held no fair use because AI simply retrieved legal opinions (not transformative).
• Also competed directly with plaintiff’s product—thus hurting the market.

Emerging Legal Standards

• Courts seem to support transformative use in GenAI training—tilting toward fair use.
• But evidence of market harm will be crucial in future cases.
• Use of illegally sourced data may be treated as a separate violation—creating liability even if training is transformative.

Challenges for Plaintiffs

• Hard to prove “market substitution” or “licensing market harm.”
• LLM outputs are often not reproductions, but generated content—making infringement indirect and difficult to establish.

Implications Going Forward

• Unsettled legal landscape: Outcomes will vary case-by-case, based on data sourcing, model purpose, and market effects.
• Need for clearer copyright licensing frameworks and/or legislative clarity.
• Future rulings may hinge on empirical studies, including AI impact on creative economies.

Noon River Rejuvenation Initiative in Uttar Pradesh

Context & Background

• The Noon river in Kanpur district had become indistinguishable due to infestation of jal kumbhi (water hyacinth) and siltation from debris and blocked channels.
• Reviving the Noon is part of a state-wide river rejuvenation mission launched in June 2024 at the Saryu Mahotsav, with the motto: “One district, one river”.
• Uttar Pradesh has identified over 60 forgotten rivers to be revived—each district assigned one.

Relevance : GS 1(Geography) ,GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Geographical Details

• Length of Noon River: 48.5 km
• Coverage: Flows through 34 gram panchayats across 3 blocks—Shivrajpur, Chaubeypur, and Bilhaur.
• Origin: Kanhiya Khera in Rampur Narua
• Endpoint: Ganges river
• Area Surveyed: Nearly 24 km of natural path mapped and cleared.

Key Interventions

• Drone Mapping & GIS:
  • Remote sensing used by Remote Sensing Centre (Lucknow) to detect dry patches, channel blocks, and water hyacinth zones.
  • Entire stretch digitally mapped for revival planning.

• Community Participation:
  • Awareness slogans like “Hum sabne milkay than lia, Noon nadi ko fir se jeevant karana hai” helped mobilize women and villagers.
  • Villagers contributed shramdaan (voluntary labor) and input for tracing natural channels.

• Multi-departmental Coordination:
  • Officials from 10 departments (forest, agriculture, irrigation, horticulture, fisheries, etc.) coordinated under district administration.

• Employment Generation:
  • Works carried out under MGNREGA, creating local employment while reviving ecology.

 Outcomes & Impact

• Hydrological Restoration:
  • Removal of hyacinth and clearing of silt restored water flow in large sections.
  • Monsoon overflow now properly channels into Noon, rather than damaging nearby fields.
• Agricultural Benefits:
  • Fields previously waterlogged or left uncultivated have regained productivity.
• Cost Efficiency:
  • Revival used minimal external funding, relying largely on community labor and existing government schemes (e.g., MGNREGA).

Challenges Faced

• Resistance from Locals:
  • Convincing farmers and landowners was difficult due to past failures.
  • Required strong leadership by gram panchayat officials and continuous dialogue.
• Ecological Degradation:
  • Old jal kumbhi infestation (over 10 years) had choked many sections.

Replicability & Model Value

• Model can be scaled to:
  • Other degraded non-perennial rivers and rivulets in the Indo-Gangetic belt.
  • Similar efforts in Bundelkhand and eastern UP facing groundwater distress.
• Combines:
  • Tech-driven mapping
  • Employment-linked public works
  • Decentralized governance
  • Community-led planning

Way Forward

• Institutionalize “One District, One River” under a mission-mode program.
• Create a real-time monitoring dashboard using drone & GIS tools.
• Launch eco-literacy campaigns for aquatic weed control & water stewardship.
• Link river rejuvenation with crop planning and irrigation strategy.
• Integrate with Namami Gange for rivers feeding into the Ganga.

India vs Qatar: The Race to Host the 2036 Olympics

Context & Background

• Both India and Qatar are competing to host the 2036 Summer Olympics.
• This race also includes Turkey, Indonesia, Hungary, and Germany (seeking to mark the 100th anniversary of the 1936 Berlin Olympics).
• The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has not yet begun the final selection process, still reviewing current rules and proposals.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)

Infrastructure Readiness: Qatar vs India

• Qatar’s edge:
  • Claims 95% of Olympic venues are already in place and tested.
  • Cites infrastructure legacy from:
    • 2022 FIFA World Cup
    • 18 world championships hosted in past 20 years
    • Asian Games 2006, U20 Athletics (2028), and future Asian Games 2030
  • All key sporting complexes already built and operational.
• India’s status:
  • Infrastructure building underway:
    • Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Sports Enclave (Ahmedabad) to be the central hub.
    • Ahmedabad to host:
      • 2030 Commonwealth Games (in bid stage)
      • 2027 Volleyball World Championship
      • 2028 U20 World Athletics
  • Recent events: 2023 Commonwealth Weightlifting and Asian Wrestling Championships.

Diplomatic & Strategic Messaging

• Qatar’s diplomatic pitch:
  • Emphasizes being a “global hub of tolerance, inclusion, and peace.”
  • Aims to mark:
    • First Olympics & Paralympics in Middle East & North Africa (MENA)
    • Platform for Arab youth, regional unity, and global representation.
  • Strong emphasis on Arab soft power.
• India’s diplomatic pitch:
  • Links Olympics bid to:
    • Global South representation
    • Transformative social-cultural impact in SAARC & South Asia
    • A natural extension of India’s growing global diplomatic standing.
  • Cited as “the only major economy yet to host the Games.”

Vision & Narrative Framing

• Qatar’s Vision:
  • “National Vision 2030” — leveraging sports infrastructure and prior mega-event experience to ensure smooth, tested execution.
  • Targeting inclusion, youth empowerment, and regional identity.
• India’s Vision:
  • “Viksit Bharat 2047” – Olympics as a transformative moment tied to national development goals.
  • Pitch: “India reflects the types of sports and social benefits the Olympics can provide.”

Data & Comparative Edge

Challenges & Weaknesses

• India:
  • Weak on tested infrastructure.
  • Tight timelines to complete venues and host qualifying events before 2036.
• Qatar:
  • Possible perception of “sportswashing” due to prior controversies (2022 WC).
  • Needs to overcome past criticism around human rights, labor laws, and inclusivity.

Outlook

• Qatar appears more ‘ready’ – infrastructure complete, experience strong.
• India brings ‘promise’ – demographic and geopolitical capital, long-term vision.
• Final decision will depend on:
  • IOC’s evolving criteria (sustainability, inclusiveness)
  • Readiness vs narrative
  • Regional geopolitics & IOC’s outreach strategy