We cannot kill jobs in cracker industry: SC                                                                                             

No names removed based on draft NRC: Election Commission                                                           

‘10% quota a step towards casteless society’                                                                                          

SC questions govt. on tracking assets                                                                                                   

Biodiversity-rich zones also ‘hotspots’ of human impacts                                                                    

To serve the governed                                                                                                                                

We cannot kill jobs in cracker industry: SC

GS PAPER - 02 GOVERNANCE - Government policies and interventions  for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Context :

     ★ Vehicles cause more pollution than firecrackers,’ says Supreme Court

     ★ The Supreme Court questioned why there were calls to ban firecrackers when the pollution caused by automobiles was far greater than that produced by firecrackers.

     ★ The court asked the Centre whether there was any comparative study on the pollution caused by firecrackers and vehicles

     ★ However, the bench said that banning firecrackers can kill jobs of people working in the firecracker industry. “We cannot give money or jobs or support people who will lose their jobs if we shut down firecrackers manufacturing units... We do not want to generate unemployment,” the judges said.

Issue :

     ★ Cracker manufacturers, have argued that there was no definite study to show that use of firecrackers made the air quality worse during festivals like Diwali.

     ★ The fundamental right to occupation of those working in the cracker industry could not be put in peril on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that crackers pollute, they have contended.

     ★ The industry has argued that the revenue generated from the manufacturing and sale of fireworks is to the tune of ₹6,000 crore p.a. and that the industry supported five lakh families.

     ★ “Such a revenue to the State as well as employment to a large number of workers cannot be put in jeopardy by imposing a total ban,” the manufacturers had argued.

Background :

     ★ On October 31 last year, the Supreme Court had, on an application from Tamil Nadu, clarified that only green crackers could be made henceforth across the country.

     ★ This meant that no polluting crackers could be made after the factories sent out the existing stock.

     ★ The mandatory manufacture and sale of green crackers was implemented in the National Capital Region with immediate effect from last year itself.

                                                                                                                                                          Source :- The Hindu

No names removed based on draft NRC: Election Commission

GS PAPER - 01 SOCIETY - Population and associated Issues

Context :

     ★ The Election Commission of India (ECI) has assured the Supreme Court that names have not been deleted from the Assam electoral roll on the basis of their exclusion from the draft National Register of Citizens (NRC)

Issue :

     ★ A petition has been filed  by Assam-based residents Gopal Seth and Susanta Sen, alleging that several categories of persons were deprived of voting rights ahead of the Lok Sabha polls.

     ★ One category included persons whose names figured in the draft NRC but not in the voter list.

     ★ Second category included persons whose names were deleted from the voter list appeared in the draft NRC published on July 30, 2018. The petition claimed these people had voted in the last Lok Sabha election in 2014.

     ★ The third category of people were those declared foreigners by the foreigners’ tribunal as well as by the Guwahati High Court; the court order was stayed by the Supreme Court.

     ★ The fourth category comprised those already declared foreigners by the tribunal; this was set aside by the Supreme Court. However, their names had been deleted from the voters list pursuant to the order of the tribunal.

     ★ In the fifth category were those whose names had not been included in the draft NRC, but their family members were included; these had filed a claim for the inclusion of their names.

                                                                                                                                         Source :- The Hindu           

‘10% quota a step towards casteless society’

GS PAPER - 02 GOVERNANCE - Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Context :

     ★ The Constitution(103rd) Amendment Act introducing Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution to provide for economic reservation does not affect the basis structure of the Constitution, said the Centre in its affidavit filed in Supreme Court countering the petitions challenging economic reservation.

     ★ The 10% quota law is a step towards a classless and casteless society, the Union government has indicated in the Supreme Court 

Background :     

     ★ A clutch of petitions have challenged the validity of the 103 Constitutional amendment.

     ★ Their primary contention is that the quota breaches a basic feature of equality in the Constitution.

     ★ They have argued that the Supreme Court in earlier judgements has ruled that a 50% limit on quotas was required under the basic structure of the Constitution, to protect the equality clause.

Centers Response :

     ★ The Centre referred to the court’s past decisions that called for the “attainment of economic equality as the final and only solution to the besetting problems” of the country. The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, was meant “to benefit the economically weaker sections of society who were not covered by the existing schemes of reservation…”

     ★ It said the law was meant to benefit a “large section of the population of 135 crore people,” who are mostly lower middle class and below the poverty line.

     ★ The government quoted the 2010 report of the Commission for Economically Backward Classes, chaired by Major General S.R. Sinho (retired), which said 18.2% of the general category came under the below poverty line (BPL).

10% Quota - Not violation of basic Structure :

     ★ The Centre filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the law, stating that the 50% limit imposed will apply only to reservations made under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution

     ★ It is asserted that the the newly inserted provisions of Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) are enabling provisions for advancement of the Economically Weaker Sections(EWS) and are in fact, in conformity with the principle of affirmative action.

50% ceiling  of Indra Sawhney case - Not Applicable

     ★ The challenge on the ground that EWS quota will breach 50% limit of reservation is rebutted by stating that this limit imposed by Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney case is not applicable after constitution amendment.

     ★ The Centre has argued that the Indra Sawhney judgment will not apply to the 10% quota for two reasons.

     ★ One, unlike the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations, which was done in 1990 through an office memorandum, the 10% quota was effected through a constitutional amendment.

     ★ The limit of 50% is only applicable to reservation made under Article 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) and does not apply to Article 15(6) and 16(6).

     ★ The Supreme Court, in the Indra Sawhney judgment, did not have the opportunity to test these provisions as they were enacted only in 2019, whereas that judgment, imposing the 50% ceiling, was delivered in 1992.

                                                                                                                                                         Source :- The Hindu

SC questions govt. on tracking assets

GS PAPER - 02 GOVERNANCE - Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential; citizens charters, transparency & accountability and institutional and other measures.

Context :

     ★ The Supreme Court questioned the government why it has not set up a permanent mechanism to track unnatural increase in the assets of candidates,  as directed by the top court in February 2018.

     ★ The SC bench sought response from the Centre on the non-compliance of the top court direction that the non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by a candidate will amount to undue influence within the meaning of Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

     ★ The court has asked the government to clarify whether it has made the necessary amendments in Form 26, mandating submission by the candidates of information whether they suffer from any disqualification under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Background :

     ★ In a landmark verdict on electoral reforms on Feb 16 last year, the apex court had said the undue accretion of assets by lawmakers was a "sure indicator" of the beginning of a failing democracy, which if left unattended, would lead to the destruction of democracy and pave way for "rule of mafia".

     ★ It had then asked for a permanent mechanism to monitor the undue accretion of wealth by lawmakers.

     ★ It had said that undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of any individual would not be conducive to the general welfare of the society. Besides, income of lawmakers without any known or by questionable sources, would pave the way for the rule of mafia over the rule of law.

                                                                                                                                     Source :- The Hindu

Biodiversity-rich zones also ‘hotspots’ of human impacts

GS PAPER - 03 ENVIRONMENT - Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment

Context :

     ★ A study titled “Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates”, published in the journal PLOS Biology,  has reported human impacts on species occur across 84% of the earth’s surface.

Key findings :

     ★ Southeast Asian tropical forests — including India’s biodiversity-rich Western Ghats, Himalaya and the north-east also fall in this category.

     ★ Malaysia ranks first among the countries with the highest number of impacted species (125).

     ★ India ranks 16th in such human impacts, with 35 species impacted on average.

     ★ The study mapped the distribution of eight human activities — including hunting and conversion of natural habitats for agriculture — in areas occupied by 5,457 threatened birds, mammals and amphibians worldwide.

Road Poses Threat :

     ★ India has the world’s second largest road network.

     ★ While the impact of roads is highest (affecting 72% of terrestrial areas), crop lands affect the highest number of threatened species: 3,834.

Hot spots of Threatened Species :

     ★ Southeast Asian tropical forests — including those in India’s Western Ghats, Himalaya and north-east — are among the ‘hotspots’ of threatened species.

     ★ For instance, the average number of species impacted in the South Western Ghats montane rainforests is 60 and in the Himalayan subtropical broadleaf forests, 53.

Cool Spots :

     ★ There are ‘cool-spots’ (the world’s last refuges where high numbers of threatened species still persist).

     ★ Cool-spots could be the result of protection or because of intact habitat that has not been cleared yet.

     ★ India still has crucial refuges that need protecting. Identifying such areas could aid conservation and development planning for countries.

                                                                                                                                                           Source :- The Hindu

To serve the governed [ Editorial / Opinion ]

GS PAPER - 02 GOVERNANCE -  Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models

Context :

     ★ The Official Secrets Act is archaic, irrelevant and “simply used if you want to make an example of somebody”, former Vice-President Hamid Ansari said calling for a re-examination of the law in the light of present-day realities.

Background :

     ★ The constitutional freedom to use and publicise information is directly affected by the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which as with most of British India enactments followed the Official Secrets Act, 1920, passed by the British Parliament.

     ★ It was strict enough then but after Independence in ‘free India’ it was amended  and made stricter in 1967, widening the scope of Section 5 (“Wrongful communication. etc., of information”) and enlarging the scope of Section 8 (“Duty of giving information as to commission of offences”).

Instances of use of OSA :

     ★ the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which has been so frequently misused, it ought to have been repealed when India got independence

     ★ Janata government which came to power at the end of the Internal Emergency, and set up what was then known (and is now forgotten) as the Second Press Commission, it was chaired by a great and good judge, Justice Goswami of the Supreme Court of India, whose common sense approach to all subjects greatly attracted me to him.

     ★ The Commission proceeded in great earnestness for months, and ultimately, when its report was ready in December 1979, a report that implored the government of the day to immediately repeal the Official Secrets Act, 1923, it never saw the light of day.

     ★ It was replaced by the now officially known Second Press Commission presided over by Justice K.K. Mathew.

     ★ The Official Second Press Commission (the Mathew Commission) did not recommend the repeal of the Official Secrets Act of 1923.

Press as Champion :

      ★ Press (and no longer the electronic media) is regarded  as the champion of Article 19(1)(a) freedoms.

     ★ Abraham Lincoln In his famous Gettysburg Address, described good governance as “of the people, by the people and for the people”.

     ★ Centuries later we do understand the “of”, and are willing to tolerate the “by” but unfortunately we keep forgetting the “for”. If government is indeed for the people, it has a solemn obligation to keep the people well informed.

Recommendations of various committees :

     ★ Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) Report recommended That OSA should be repealed and replaced with a new chapter in National Securities act.

     ★ The Law Commission also recommended consolidation of all laws dealing with national security and suggested a “National Security Bill”.

     ★ Commission also recommended that any person voluntarily receiving any official secret knowing or having reasonable ground to believe, at the time he receives it, that the official secret is communicated in contravention of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

     ★ The Shourie Committee recommended a comprehensive amendment of Section 5(1) to make the penal provisions of OSA applicable only to violations affecting national security.

     ★ the Commission is of the view that the disclosure of information has to be the norm and keeping it secret should be an exception.

     ★ In order to send a strong signal about the change and for the sake of effective implementation, the old law/s should be repealed or modified to the extent necessary.

Conclusion :

      ★ Fortunately, the modern trend in today’s world is towards less secrecy and more information.

      ★ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations way back in 1966, specifically includes the right to freedom of expression, defined as “the freedom to seek, receive and impart the information and ideas of all kinds”.

     ★ The Janata government signed and ratified this Covenant in 1979, but none of the later Governments has lived up to its ideals.

     ★ We have enacted Article 19(1)(a) in our 1950 Constitution with extremely limited restrictions — in Article 19(2) — but again only paid lip service to freedom of speech and expression.

                                                                                                                                                Source :- The Hindu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​