2025 for January 1970

India Imposes Curbs on Jute Imports from Bangladesh Amid Trade and Strategic Concerns

June 30, 2025

Import Curbs Latest News

India has decided to ban the import of jute products and woven fabrics from Bangladesh through all land routes.

Background

In June 2025, India imposed strict restrictions on the import of jute products from Bangladesh through all land routes, restricting entry only through the Nhava Sheva seaport in Maharashtra.
This policy shift, announced via a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) notification, excludes Bangladeshi goods in transit to Nepal and Bhutan.
This move comes amidst rising concerns about Dhaka’s growing strategic proximity to Beijing and persistent trade malpractices by Bangladeshi exporters, including circumvention of anti-dumping duties (ADD).
These factors have combined to harm India’s domestic jute industry, especially in states like West Bengal and Bihar.

Items Covered Under the Import Curbs

The restrictions apply to a wide range of jute-related goods, including:
- Jute products, Flax tow and waste, Jute and other bast fibres, Single yarn of jute or flax, Multiple folded woven fabrics, Unbleached woven jute fabrics
These categories previously enjoyed duty-free access under the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) Agreement.

Impact of Subsidised Imports on the Indian Jute Industry

India’s jute sector has long suffered due to dumped and subsidised imports from Bangladesh. According to official sources, Bangladeshi exporters continue to receive direct subsidies from their government, undermining Indian manufacturers.
Although India imposed anti-dumping duties following investigations by the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties (DGAD), these measures were circumvented through:
- Technical exemptions
- Export through firms exceeding production capacity
- Mis-declaration and under-invoicing
Despite the ADD, jute imports from Bangladesh rose from USD 117 million in FY 2021-22 to USD 144 million in FY 2023-24.

Fallout for Indian Farmers and Mills

The increased influx of low-cost jute goods has disrupted the domestic market. In FY 2024-25, jute prices in India fell below Rs. 5,000 per quintal, lower than the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of Rs. 5,335, triggering liquidity crises and mill closures.
Six jute mills remain shut with Rs. 1,400 crore in unpaid dues, including Rs. 400 crore in legacy liabilities.
Over 4 lakh workers are employed in the organised jute sector, with rural livelihoods in West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, and Odisha heavily dependent on the crop.
The availability of under-priced Bangladeshi products has also led to under-utilisation of Indian mills, threatening their viability and disrupting local procurement.

Policy Response and Strategic Signals

The Indian government’s decision to channel imports exclusively through Nhava Sheva port is a calibrated move aimed at:
- Ensuring better quality checks (especially hydrocarbon oil-free status)
- Preventing misdeclaration and fraudulent labelling
- Closing loopholes that allow routing through third countries
India's response is not limited to trade concerns. It signals dissatisfaction with Bangladesh’s interim government’s increasing tilt towards China and its inadequate response to repeated trade violations.
While Bangladesh has made minor adjustments under diplomatic pressure, it has continued to incentivise the export of value-added jute products, further exacerbating the trade imbalance.

Long-Term Outlook: Revival of the Indian Jute Sector

India's jute industry is poised for regulatory protection, with more streamlined import monitoring and potential policy reforms on the horizon.
Officials indicate a willingness to enforce tighter scrutiny and push back against trade practices that destabilise domestic production.
Moreover, the government may explore extending protection mechanisms to raw jute, which currently remains outside the ADD regime, to protect the incomes of Indian farmers.

Source: IE

India Bangladesh Jute Import Curbs FAQs

Q1: What prompted India to restrict jute imports from Bangladesh?

Ans: India acted due to trade malpractices, subsidy-backed dumping, and Bangladesh’s growing proximity to China.

Q2: Which items are restricted under the new import rules?

Ans: Jute yarn, fibres, flax tow, woven jute fabrics, and related products are restricted from land route entry.

Q3: How have these imports impacted Indian jute farmers and mills?

Ans: They depressed jute prices, caused mill closures, and led to ₹1,800 crore in unpaid dues.

Q4: Why is the restriction limited to Nhava Sheva port?

Ans: The port enables better quality checks and prevents circumvention of anti-dumping duties.

Q5: What is the broader strategy behind India’s trade move?

Ans: It is both a trade safeguard and a geopolitical signal to counter Dhaka’s tilt toward Beijing.

GPS Interference Threatens Global Navigation for Flights and Ships

June 30, 2025

GPS Interference Latest News

Recent incidents—including a Delhi-Jammu flight turning back, a tanker collision at the Strait of Hormuz, and a container ship grounding near Jeddah—were all caused by GPS interference, which has now become a major threat to global aviation and maritime navigation.

About GPS Interference

GPS interference refers to deliberate cyber-attacks that disrupt or deceive Global Positioning System (GPS) signals, affecting navigation for aircraft, ships, and other vehicles.

Types of GPS Interference

GPS Jamming
- Involves the use of a jammer device that emits strong radio signals on GPS frequencies.
- These signals overpower the weaker satellite signals, causing GPS receivers to lose location and time data.
- This is a form of signal disruption.
GPS Spoofing
- Uses a device to transmit false signals that mimic those from GPS satellites.
- It deceives receivers into accepting incorrect location or time data.
- Unlike jamming, spoofing doesn’t block signals—it manipulates them.
While often used interchangeably, jamming disrupts GPS functionality, whereas spoofing misleads the receiver.
Both pose serious threats to navigation and safety in air and sea operations.

Dangers Associated with GPS Interference

GPS interference poses a serious threat to both civilian and military operations, enabling remote disruption without physical confrontation.
In 2024, there were reports of up to 700 GPS spoofing incidents daily worldwide, underlining the scale and urgency of the threat.

Risks to Aviation and Maritime Safety

Spoofing can mislead pilots, causing incorrect position judgments and increasing the risk of collisions with terrain or other aircraft.
For ships, loss of GPS accuracy can lead to groundings, collisions, and disruption of maritime operations, including port functions.
GPS spoofing isn’t limited to air and sea—it can also disrupt road navigation, leading to traffic jams and paralyzing transport systems, particularly during emergencies.

Impact on Critical Infrastructure

Air traffic control, port operations, and vessel traffic systems (VTS) are highly dependent on GPS.
Interference can cause systemic failures in these sectors, with wide-ranging safety and operational consequences.

Multiple Causes of GPS Interference

GPS interference can arise from both natural and intentional sources, including:
- Electromagnetic radiation from nearby devices
- Ionospheric disturbances and solar flares
- Deliberate jamming and spoofing in conflict zones
Countries with advanced electronic warfare capabilities—especially those involved in active conflicts—are often responsible for intentional interference.
While military in intent, civilian vessels and aircraft nearby can also be affected.

Hotspots of GPS Interference

Persian Gulf and Red Sea
- Maritime GPS interference has surged due to regional tensions.
- Windward’s Q1 2025 data shows a 350% increase in spoofing in the Red Sea compared to 2024.
- Vessels reported sudden jumps of hundreds of nautical miles.
Eastern Europe
- Ongoing Russia–Ukraine war has led to frequent GPS spoofing incidents, especially affecting airspace safety.

How Aircraft Mitigate GPS Interference

Use of Backup Navigation Systems
- Inertial Navigation Systems (INS): Uses gyroscopes and accelerometers to calculate position from the last known location.
- VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME): Ground-based radio navigation aids that help pilots cross-check their position.

Other Navigation Techniques
- Dead reckoning and celestial navigation are rare but can be used in extreme cases.
  - Dead reckoning - the process of calculating one’s position by estimating the direction and distance travelled.
- Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) remain unaffected by spoofing and ensure safe landings.
Crew Training and Communication
- DGCA mandates enhanced crew training to identify and respond to spoofing threats.
- Pilots are encouraged to monitor control room chatter for early warning signs.

How Ships Handle GPS Spoofing

Manual Navigation During Spoofing
- Ships typically operate on autopilot using GPS, but spoofing forces a switch to manual helm control.
- Terrestrial navigation using lighthouses, radars, and paper charts ensures continued situational awareness.
Adoption of Multi-GNSS Systems
- Ships increasingly rely on multi-constellation Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), which includes:
  - U.S. GPS
  - Russia’s GLONASS
  - EU’s Galileo
  - China’s Bei Dou
- This diversification reduces dependency on a single system and enhances resilience.

Conclusion

Mitigating GPS interference involves a multi-layered approach:
- Redundant systems in aircraft
- Manual navigation and GNSS diversification in ships
- National autonomy through indigenous systems like NavIC
This strategy ensures continuity, safety, and sovereignty in navigation and critical operations.

Source: IE | BBC

GPS Interference FAQs

Q1: What is GPS interference?

Ans: It’s the disruption or deception of GPS signals through jamming or spoofing, affecting navigation systems of planes and ships.

Q2: Why is GPS interference dangerous?

Ans: It misleads pilots and ship crews, increasing collision risks and compromising safety in critical infrastructure like ports and airports.

Q3: Where is GPS interference common?

Ans: Conflict zones like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Eastern Europe often report high GPS spoofing and jamming activity.

Q4: How do aircraft handle GPS interference?

Ans: Aircraft switch to INS, VOR, and DME systems, while pilots rely on training and air traffic control communication for safety.

Q5: How do ships manage GPS spoofing?

Ans: Ships switch to manual control using radars and lighthouses, and adopt multi-GNSS systems like GLONASS and NavIC for accuracy.

ECI’s Crackdown on Unrecognised Political Parties, Delisting 345 Defaulters from Political Registry

June 30, 2025

Unrecognised Political Parties Latest News

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has initiated steps to de-list 345 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs).

Overview of Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs)

Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) are associations registered with the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
These parties are distinct from recognised national or state parties as they have not secured a sufficient vote share or seats in previous elections.
Despite not having official recognition, RUPPs enjoy certain benefits:
- Tax exemption under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Eligibility for common poll symbols during elections.
- Permission to nominate up to 20 ‘star campaigners’ for canvassing.
They are, however, required to:
- Contest elections periodically.
- File annual audit accounts and contribution reports.
- Disclose donations exceeding Rs. 20,000, and ensure that no donations above Rs. 2,000 are accepted in cash.

Reasons Behind the Election Commission Delisting 345 RUPPs

The Election Commission has initiated the process of delisting 345 RUPPs that have:
- Not contested even a single election in the last six years.
- Failed to maintain physical offices at their registered addresses.
- Ignored statutory filing requirements, including financial disclosures.
This is part of a broader clean-up initiated by the ECI, which began identifying and acting against “non-functional” parties as early as 2022.
Since then, 284 RUPPs have been delisted and 253 declared inactive for failing to comply.
The latest batch of 345 brings this drive to a sharper focus, particularly with upcoming elections in view.
The Election Commission has tasked the Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of the respective States and UTs to issue show-cause notices to these parties before delisting.
Final decisions will be made based on the CEO’s recommendations.

Legal Framework and Loopholes

The right to form a political association is protected under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.
Registration is governed by Section 29A of the RP Act, 1951, which does not grant ECI explicit power to de-register a political party once registered, except in cases of fraud or violation of constitutional allegiance.
This legal vacuum means that while the ECI can delist or declare parties inactive (affecting their privileges), it cannot de-register them outright.
The Supreme Court, in Indian National Congress vs Institute of Social Welfare (2002), affirmed this interpretation.
Thus, ECI’s current action is limited to delisting RUPPs from the list of parties eligible for benefits, not erasing them as legal entities.

Financial Implications and Risks

Many of these parties were found to be:
- Availing 100% tax exemptions despite non-compliance.
- Operating as shell entities or even engaging in money laundering activities.
- Selling nominations by fielding dummy candidates to extract withdrawal payments from major parties.
By delisting such entities, the ECI aims to block misuse of public trust and state-sanctioned benefits.

Reforms Needed and Way Forward

The Law Commission, in its 255th report (2015), recommended empowering the ECI to de-register parties that fail to contest elections for 10 consecutive years.
The ECI echoed this in its 2016 electoral reform memorandum.
Additionally, the lack of inner-party democracy remains an unresolved concern. Many RUPPs, and even some recognised parties, operate without periodic internal elections or transparency in leadership appointments.
The 170th and 255th Law Commission Reports called for specific amendments to the RP Act to instill internal democracy.
Policy Recommendations:
- Amend the RP Act to explicitly allow de-registration for non-contesting or non-compliant parties.
- Mandate inner-party democracy through legal provisions.
- Establish independent auditing of party finances, possibly under a public accounting body.

Source: TH

Unrecognised Political Parties FAQs

Q1: Why is the Election Commission delisting unrecognised political parties?

Ans: These parties have neither contested elections in six years nor maintained valid office addresses, violating compliance norms.

Q2: What benefits do RUPPs enjoy despite not being recognised?

Ans: They are entitled to tax exemptions, common poll symbols, and star campaigner nominations.

Q3: Does the ECI have legal authority to de-register political parties?

Ans: No, the ECI can delist parties but cannot legally de-register them unless the registration was obtained fraudulently.

Q4: What risks do inactive RUPPs pose to the electoral system?

Ans: They can be misused for money laundering, tax fraud, or extracting funds through illegitimate election practices.

Q5: What reforms have been suggested to tackle this issue?

Ans: The Law Commission and ECI recommend amending the RP Act to allow de-registration and ensure internal democracy in parties.

Legal Reforms to Boost Private and Foreign Investment in India’s Nuclear Sector

June 30, 2025

Nuclear Sector Reforms Latest News

India is preparing legislative changes to two major laws in its atomic energy sector to attract private and foreign investment.

Amendments to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLNDA) aim to ease liability provisions, addressing long-standing investor concerns.

Another key reform would allow private companies to operate nuclear power plants, potentially enabling foreign firms to hold minority stakes in future projects.

India Plans Major Changes to Nuclear Liability Law

The government is working on amendments to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLNDA) to address concerns that have deterred foreign and domestic investment in the nuclear sector.

Foreign Vendor Concerns Over ‘Right of Recourse’

Section 17(b) of the CLNDA gives nuclear plant operators the right of recourse against suppliers in case of defects in equipment or services.
This provision has been flagged by companies like Westinghouse Electric (U.S.) and Framatome (France) as a major barrier due to fears of future liability.

Broad Definition of ‘Supplier’ Worrying for Indian Sub-Vendors

The current definition of "supplier" is considered too broad, with no distinction between primary suppliers and sub-vendors.
Indian equipment manufacturers have expressed concern that they too may be held liable, creating uncertainty and reluctance to participate.

Proposed Amendments to Align with Global Norms

Two key amendments are being considered:
- Diluting Section 17(b) to bring it in line with international nuclear liability standards.
- Clarifying the definition of 'supplier' to exclude smaller sub-vendors unless specifically mentioned in contracts.

Possible Caps on Vendor Liability

Deliberations are also underway to limit the liability of vendors:
- Monetary cap pegged to the original contract value
- Time-bound applicability of liability
This is expected to reassure both foreign and domestic suppliers.

Regulatory Oversight as a Safeguard

All nuclear projects must be vetted by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), which can ensure that contractual clauses for recourse are properly defined, maintaining safety and accountability.

Move to Align Nuclear Liability Law with Global Norms

Amendments to the CLNDA aim to align India’s liability framework with the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).
India became a party to the CSC in 2016, and the current legal tweaks would bring its national law in closer conformity with international standards.

Opening the Nuclear Sector to Private Participation

The government is planning a major amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 to allow private companies to operate nuclear power plants—an activity currently reserved for state-owned entities like NPCIL and NTPC.
The proposed reform could also enable foreign companies to take minority equity stakes in upcoming nuclear projects, paving the way for greater global collaboration in India's atomic energy sector.

A Historic Shift in a Traditionally Closed Sector

India’s atomic energy sector has remained closed to private and foreign players.
These legislative reforms mark a transformational shift aimed at unlocking its commercial potential.
Nearly two decades after the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement, the amendments are seen as a way to revive and capitalize on its unrealized potential, strengthening bilateral strategic and commercial ties.
The nuclear sector reforms are also being positioned as part of a larger trade and investment framework with the U.S., possibly leading up to a formal trade pact currently under negotiation.

U.S. Clears Regulatory Hurdle for Nuclear Cooperation

In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy granted a ‘10CFR810’ specific authorisation to Holtec International. This clearance allows:
- Transfer of unclassified small modular reactor (SMR) technology to India
- Collaboration with Holtec Asia, Tata Consulting Engineers, and L&T
Earlier, this regulation barred U.S. firms from manufacturing or designing nuclear components in India, which had stalled cooperation.
The responsibility now lies with India to enact the two key legislative amendments to unlock the full potential of the Indo–U.S. civil nuclear deal and expand its domestic nuclear energy capacity.

Conclusion

Experts underscore the economic necessity of these amendments to attract foreign vendors and enable domestic manufacturing in the nuclear sector.
With global legal alignment, domestic clarity on liability, and U.S. cooperation now secured, passing these reforms could finally activate the long-awaited civil nuclear partnership and bolster India's energy security and industrial capability.

Source: IE | ET

Nuclear Sector Reforms FAQs

Q1: What are the key nuclear sector reforms?

Ans: Amendments to CLNDA and Atomic Energy Act to ease liability and allow private and foreign participation in nuclear power.

Q2: Why is Section 17(b) of CLNDA controversial?

Ans: It gives operators recourse against suppliers, deterring foreign investment due to potential liability risks and broad supplier definition.

Q3: What’s the benefit of aligning with CSC?

Ans: It harmonizes India’s liability framework with global standards, encouraging international nuclear collaboration and easing vendor concerns.

Q4: What role does the U.S. play in reforms?

Ans: The U.S. cleared Holtec to transfer SMR tech to India; now India must pass reforms to unlock civil nuclear cooperation.

Q5: How will reforms impact India’s energy future?

Ans: Reforms can boost energy security, domestic manufacturing, and long-delayed Indo–U.S. nuclear cooperation for clean energy expansion.