1. Little has changed in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025

2. Remodeling the UAE-India aviation partnership

3. Designing India’s AI Safety Institute

4. Double trouble: The Aadhaar seems the default bet to restrict a voter to one polling location

5. Against domination: The U.S. is seeking to dictate the terms of engagement in space

6. Government talks big on gender budget, delivers little

7. What are the issues around delimitation?

8. What is the current status of U.S.-Taiwan relations?

9. Zelenskyy calls for ‘truce’ after Trump halts military assistance & U.K.’s Starmer calls Zelenskyy, welcomes his peace initiative

10. Kerala passes resolution against offshore mining

11. Belgium defence giant ties up with Indian firm to manufacture tank turrets &Belgium to scale up defence ties, set to sign MoU this year

12. SC directs States, UTs to provide full records of forest lands in 6 months

13. Jaishankar meets U.K. PM Starmer, Cabinet officials

Mains-GS-III: Indian Economy – Mobilization of Resources, Taxation Policies

The Income-Tax Bill, 2025 was introduced by the Union Finance Minister with the intent to replace the Income-Tax Act of 1961. The government claims that this bill will simplify tax laws for both taxpayers and administrators. However, a detailed examination reveals that while the language may have been refined, the fundamental approach to taxation remains largely unchanged.

The Income-Tax Act of 1961 was enacted to consolidate and regulate direct tax laws in India. Over the decades, it became highly complex due to continuous amendments, provisos, and legal interpretations by courts. As a result, calls for a comprehensive overhaul grew stronger, leading to the formulation of the

Income-Tax Bill, 2025.

• The bill aims to simplify the language of tax laws, making them more accessible to taxpayers.

• However, the substantive legal provisions remain largely unchanged, making it more of a reorganization rather than an overhaul.

• Certain redundant provisions have been removed, and some definitions have been made crisper.

• Many of the so-called reforms are textual rather than substantive.

• Example: The definition of "income" in Section 249 now explicitly includes digital assets like cryptocurrencies and virtual digital storage.

• Despite some clarifications, the bill does not introduce fundamental reforms in tax computation.

• The powers of tax authorities have been expanded, giving them greater discretion to access digital communications, including emails, social media, and encrypted messaging services.

• Judicial clarity on "reason to believe" for tax reassessments remains absent, potentially increasing discretionary action by tax officers.

• The bill allows tax officials to demand encryption keys for access to personal and business data.

• Certain provisions related to retrospective taxation, which have been struck down by courts in the past, remain unchanged.

• The "notwithstanding" clause, which overrides conflicting laws, is still widely used.

• Despite efforts to streamline legal language, several sections remain vague, leaving scope for discretionary interpretation.

• While simplification was a key objective, many procedural requirements still exist, making compliance costly for businesses and individuals.

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirmed the right to privacy, raising questions about tax authorities’ powers to access private communications.

• The bill grants sweeping powers to tax officers, raising concerns over potential harassment of taxpayers and businesses.

• Instead of merely rearranging existing provisions, the government should introduce a comprehensive direct tax code.

• The bill should ensure clear judicial safeguards to prevent misuse of powers by tax authorities.

• Taxation of cryptocurrencies and digital assets should be accompanied by transparent rules to avoid confusion and excessive litigation.

• A clear taxpayer rights charter should be embedded within the bill to protect against arbitrary actions.

Mains-GS-III: Science & Technology – AI, Digital India, Cybersecurity Challenges

India has taken a major step in AI governance by announcing the establishment of an AI Safety Institute (AISI) under the Safe and Trusted Pillar of the IndiaAI Mission. The initiative aims to regulate, research, and mitigate AI-related risks, ensuring responsible AI deployment.

• Countries like the U.K., U.S., Singapore, and Japan have already established AISIs to evaluate AI risks.

• The U.S. AISI convened a task force to tackle national security & public safety risks from AI.

• Singapore’s AISI focuses on content assurance & rigorous AI testing.

• The U.K. AI Safety Summit emphasizes cybersecurity and misinformation risks.

• Bias & Discrimination: AI models trained on biased data can reinforce socioeconomic discrimination.

• Linguistic & Technological Gaps: AI must cater to India’s diverse linguistic landscape.

• Data Representation Issues: Indian startups like Karya are tackling under-representation in AI datasets.

• The hub-and-spoke model will allow collaboration between startups, academia, and government.

• AISI must focus on critical AI risks such as:

   o Watermarking & AI labeling

   o Ethical frameworks

   o Risk assessment & deepfake detection

C. Global Cooperation & Standardization

• India’s AISI should align with global frameworks while adapting to local needs.

• International AI safety taxonomy will ensure a common language for AI risk evaluation.

• AISI must support a global AI notification system to track powerful AI models & ensure transparency.

• AI must be built on India-specific regulations to tackle unintended biases.

• Interoperability is key to ensuring AI accountability across borders.

• India’s partnership with UNESCO on AI readiness provides a strong foundation.

• The IT Ministry’s IndiaAI Mission is already working on:

   o Machine unlearning

   o Synthetic data generation

   o AI bias mitigation

   o Privacy-enhancing tools

• India’s leadership in the Global South positions it as a key player in shaping ethical AI development.

• AISI should work towards developing regulatory sandboxes that allow controlled AI experimentation.

• Implement adaptive AI regulations instead of rigid rules that quickly become outdated.

• Ensure data privacy & security measures align with global AI standards.

• Deploy AI risk assessment tools in:

   o Healthcare

   o Finance

   o Education

   o Cybersecurity

• Invest in AI skilling programs to develop a strong AI workforce.

• Encourage public-private partnerships to enhance AI safety research.