On 7th October 2023, an armed conflict broke out between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip[o] after the latter launched a multi-pronged invasion of southern Israel. After clearing Hamas militants, the Israeli military retaliated by conducting an extensive aerial bombardment campaign on Gazan targets and followed up with a largescale ground invasion of Gaza. More than 1,400 Israelis, mostly civilians, and more than 10,000 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting. Over 240 Israelis and foreign nationals were taken hostage and brought into the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas-led attack began in the morning of 7th October, as Palestinian militants in Gaza launched a barrage of over 5,000 rockets against Israeli cities and kibbutzim while some 3,000 Palestinian militants breached the Gaza-Israel barrier. Over 1,000 Israeli civilians were killed in more than a dozen massacres, including the Re’im music festival massacre, and military bases were attacked. Over 200 civilians and Israeli soldiers were captured or abducted and taken to the Gaza Strip. At least 44 countries, mostly from the Western world, characterized the massacres of civilians as terrorism. Hamas declared that the invasion was carried out in response to the ‘‘desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque’’, the Gaza Strip blockade, the construction of Israeli settlements, and Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Israel declared a state of war on 8th October, and its response to the attack has seen the most significant military escalation in the region since the Yom Kippur War. The current hostilities constitute the fifth war of the Gaza–Israel conflict, which is part of the broader Israeli– Palestinian conflict. In 2023, before the offensive started, an uptick in Israeli–Palestinian 11 * UG violence saw at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis, and two foreigners killed. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, as of 6 November, over 10,000 Palestinians had been killed, including 79 UNRWA staff. Israel dropped a total of 6,000 bombs during the first six days of the conflict—nearly double the number of bombs dropped by the American-led CJTF—OIR in one month during the War against the Islamic State. There has been widespread killing of civilians, and human rights groups and a panel of United Nations special rapporteurs have accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes.

The Supreme Court on September 1 held that a child born of a void or voidable marriage can inherit the parent’s share in a joint Hindu family property. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud however clarified that such a child would not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any other person in the family. A voidable marriage is one that is made invalid by the husband or wife through a decree. A void marriage is invalid at its very inception.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said the first step to the inheritance of a child from a void or voidable marriage would be to ascertain the exact share of his parent in the ancestral property. This could be done by means of conducting a “notional partition” of the ancestral property and calculating how much of the property the parent would have got immediately before his death. Once the share of the deceased parent in the property is ascertained through such a notional partition, his heirs, including his children by means of void or voidable marriage, would be entitled to their portions in the share.
The Chief Justice said that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act has statutorily conferred legitimacy to children born out of void or voidable marriages. In fact, Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Section 16(3) stipulates that children from void and voidable marriages would have a right to their parents’ property. The court said the intent of granting legitimacy to such children in the Hindu Marriage Act should also be reflected in the Hindu Succession Act, which governs inheritance. Children from void or voidable marriages come within the ambit of “legitimate kinship” and cannot be regarded as illegitimate by the Hindu Succession Act when it comes to inheritance.
The case before the three-judge Bench was focused on an amended provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 16(3). The case was referred to a larger Bench in 2011 after a Division Bench of the apex court refused to follow past precedents and championed the cause of children born out of illegitimate marriages.
“With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today. The concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus, in the shaping of which various social groups play a vital role,” Justice Ganguly, who authored the 2011 judgment, had observed.
During the hearings on the reference, Chief Justice Chandrachud had agreed with the Division Bench’s findings that children from void and voidable marriages had rights over the property, whether self-acquired or ancestral, of their parents
[Extracted with edits and revisions from “Children from void, voidable marriages entitled to parents’ share in ancestral property: Supreme Court”, by Krishnadas Rajagopal, The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/children-from-void-voidable-marriages-arelegitimate-can-claim-rights-in-parents-properties-sc/article67259229.ece ]

Automobiles are the most preferred mode of transport because they allow us to cover large distance quickly. Resultantly, vehicles have been developed that run on diesel, petrol and even on electricity, which is a remarkable innovative development. During a survey about the percentage wise distribution of cars in four different states, the information regarding ratio between the diesel engine cars, petrol engine cars and electric cars was collected. Total number of cars for which data was collected was 8000. Of these, State 1 had 15% of the total cars in the ratio of 3:4:1 (diesel, petrol and electric); State 2 had 20% of the total cars in the ratio of 5:3:2 (diesel, petrol and electric); State 3 had 30% of the total cars in the ratio of 4:5:3 (diesel, petrol and electric), and; State 4 had 35% of the total cars in the ratio of 7:5:2 (diesel, petrol and electric).
Based on the above information, answer the following questions.

On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy, which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.
I feel that the constitution is workable, it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and in wartime. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that man was vile?
The third thing we must do is not be content with mere political democracy. We must note that our political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life, which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.
… however, good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution.
[Excerpts from Dr. Ambedkar’s address to the Constituent Assembly, 25 November 1949]

Students have been abuzz over how artificial intelligence tools can do their homework and programmers over how these can increase their productivity or take away their jobs. As much as digitization has transformed the country in recent years, there is a widespread feeling that at some point around the horizon, AI shall rejig everything in even more fundamental, fantastic, and frightening ways. This is why deciding how the coming changes should be regulated is very important. TRAI has made a strong case for an independent statutory authority to ensure the responsible development and use of AI in the country, a global agency along similar lines shall likely be pitched at the G20 leaders’ summit, and interestingly even American MNC Microsoft has floated a blueprint for AI governance in India. The great size and diversity of its “data points” make India of great interest to all developers of AI technologies.
But India is only at their receiving end, nowhere close to the US and China’s advances. Although lately, it is becoming obvious how much state censorship is encumbering China’s large language modeling, the country is still very much in the game with PhDs in fields related to AI, investments in AI chip hardware design, and domestic generative models like Wu Dao. The scientific accomplishments of India’s Chandrayaan mission have seen it being wooed for various international space collaborations. This promises spinoff technological benefits across Indian industry and is also geo-strategically useful. Likewise, it is only with sufficient AI prowess that India shall really get to play at the high table of global rulemaking for AI.
Knowing how much Indians’ future shall be shaped by generative AI needs matching efforts to create indigenous models. In this and at this stage, a proactive government role is key, rather than just waiting on some large corporation to do the needful. Missing this bus will after all be even more costly than missing the chip research one. Plus, GOI alone can push academia-industry collaborations with the necessary weight and urgency. This does not let other institutions off the hook. A US judge has rejected the copyright for an AI-generated artwork. Indian courts should start engaging with the broader issue of non-human agency rather than wait for precedence to be set elsewhere. Indian schools need to think beyond the ban-ChatGPT mindset. Let us lead instead of only being led.
[Extracted from “First, get the tech: Unless India develops domestic AI heft, it wouldn’t play any meaningful part in global regulatory efforts”, Times of India]

The Indian legal system places a significant emphasis on protecting the rights and welfare of children. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is a vital piece of legislation in this regard. It is designed to ensure that children in conflict with the law receive special care, protection, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
One of the key provisions of the Act is the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) at the district level. These boards consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class and two social workers, at least one of whom should be a woman. The primary function of the JJB is to determine the age of the juvenile, the circumstances in which the offense was committed, and whether the juvenile should be sent to a special home or released on probation.
The Act makes a clear distinction between a “child in conflict with the law” and a “child in need of care and protection.” A child in conflict with the law is one who has committed an offense, while a child in need of care and protection is a child who is vulnerable or at risk and requires special care and support.
The Act introduces a unique approach to dealing with children who are in conflict with the law. For children between the ages of 16 and 18, who have committed heinous offenses, they can be tried as adults, subject to a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board. This assessment considers the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit such an offense. If the board determines that the child should be tried as an adult, the case is transferred to the regular criminal courts.
The Act also places restrictions on the publication of information that could lead to the identification of a juvenile offender. This is done to protect the privacy and future prospects of the child.