09 Jan 2019: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

A. GS1 Related
SOCIAL ISSUES
1. 25 held for ‘social boycott’ in Telangana village
B. GS2 Related
POLITY AND GOVERNANCE
1. SC reinstates Alok Verma as CBI Director, but clips his wings
2. Lok Sabha passes Citizenship Bill amidst Congress walkout
3. 10% quota for the poor gets LS approval
4. Mixed response to ST status to 6 Assam groups
5. SC refuses to stay NGT order on Sterlite plant
C. GS3 Related
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
1. Lok Sabha passes DNA technology Bill
D. GS4 Related
E. Editorials
POLITY AND GOVERNANCE
1. Quota questions (10% quota for economically weaker sections)
2. A renewed attack on privacy (The Aadhaar Bill- Right to Privacy Debate)
F. Tidbits
1. SC sets aside Delhi HC ruling against Monsanto
G. Prelims Fact
1. NASA’s probe discovers a new planet
H. UPSC Prelims Practice Questions
I. UPSC Mains Practice Questions

A. GS1 Related

 

Context

• Twenty-five people were arrested earlier this week for the alleged social boycott of members of a Scheduled Caste community over the construction of an Ambedkar Sangam building in Nizamabad district of Telangana, the police said on Tuesday.
• Members of the village development committee of Marampally allegedly began a social boycott of the SC people since December 24 last year after the latter ignored threats and began construction on open land near the village tank, the police said.

Social Boycott

• A social boycott is an act of voluntary and intentional abstention from dealing with a person, organization, as an expression of protest, usually for social, political reasons.
• It is true that in India, certain groups or individuals may face boycotts or discrimination based on their caste, religion, rituals, or traditions.
• It was categorically stated that social boycott for reasons such as religious rituals, inter-caste marriage, lifestyle, dress or vocation are happening.

Maharashtra’s law against Social Boycott

• The Maharashtra Prohibition of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016 – the first law that treats social boycott as a serious crime
• The law disallows social boycott in the name of caste, community, religion, rituals or customs. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said that a “progressive state like Maharashtra” cannot allow social evils in the garb of caste panchayat diktats or rituals.

How to overcome the challenges?

• A social movement to spread awareness needs to be taken up
• The attitude of the people needs to be addressed. This can be done through regular awareness weeks in schools, colleges, specialised training workshops and so on
• The administration should make a concerted effort to popularise the achievements of people who broke this barrier and were successful in their lives.
• Experts opine legal mechanisms are only a part of the solution. The masses need to be educated through workshops, celebrating Anti-boycott weeks etc
• The sensitivity training needs to be imparted to the administration at all levels
• The registration of cases needs to be tracked using technology like CCTNS projects so that Police do not use their discretion to avoid registering cases.
• Various stakeholders like NGO’s Media groups, public policy advocacy groups need to be engaged meaningfully to ensure effective implementation of the act.
• To address the various layers of exclusion as mentioned above, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law is required, on the lines of the Civil Rights enactments in the United States and the United Kingdom.

B. GS2 Related

Context

• The Supreme Court on Tuesday “reinstated” exiled CBI Director Alok Verma, but ordered him to “cease and desist” from taking any major policy decisions till a high-power committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi decides the question of his divestment in a week.
• Now, with just a few days left before the end of his tenure as CBI Director, Mr. Verma’s fate hinges on the decision of this committee comprising Mr. Modi, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Congress MP Mallikarjun Kharge, as Leader of the Opposition.
• The judgment, delivered by a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi, however, concluded that the CVC and the government acted outside their authority to unilaterally divest Mr. Verma and appoint M. Nageshwar Rao as the interim CBI Director in back-to-back decisions taken overnight on October 23 last year. The court set aside both orders.

Background

• The tussle between CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana started in 2017. It all started with Asthana’s appointment to CBI.
• Verma handed over a confidential letter to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) over Asthana’s promotion to the post of CBI special director, claiming the latter was under investigation in the 2017 Sterling Biotech bribery case. However, Asthana’s promotion was cleared.
• In June 2018, Alok Verma wrote another letter to the CVC that Asthana could not represent him in his absence since the latter faces allegations of corruption.
• Later, Asthana shot back and filed a complaint against Verma accusing him of interfering in the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) corruption case involving the family members of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad Yadav.
• This bureaucratic infight between Verma and Asthana came to a head when the CBI named Asthana in a First Information Report (FIR) in a bribery case and the allegations escalated.
• On October 21, the CBI charged Rakesh Asthana, a 1984-batch Indian Police Service officer of Gujarat cadre, of accepting a bribe of Rs 2 crore from a Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana, who was under probe in the Moin Qureshi case in order to “wreck” the investigation.
• The CBI has alleged that bribes were given at least five times between December 2017 and October 2018.
• The charges against Asthana came to light after Dubai-based middleman Manoj Kumar gave a confessional statement before a magistrate stating that he paid Rs 2 crore to Asthana on behalf of Moin Qureshi, who is being probed by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on charges of money laundering. Qureshi was arrested by the ED in August 2017 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
• On October 22, the CBI arrested its own DSP Devender Kumar in connection with the bribery allegations against Asthana. Kumar has been accused of fabricating the statements given by Sathish Babu Sana, a witness in the Qureshi case, showing that he had recorded a statement on September 26, 2016, in New Delhi. However, after investigation, it was found that Sana was never in New Delhi but in Hyderabad and joined the probe only on October 1, 2018.
• Rakesh Asthana has been sent on leave, while CBI Director Alok Verma was relieved of his post and Deputy SP Devender Kumar has been suspended and sent to a seven-day CBI custody, M Nageshwar Rao appointed as the Interim CBI Director.
• Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi recently asked the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, to explain the exigency that prompted it to take an “overnight” decision to divest Alok Verma of his powers as CBI Director.
• At one point, the CJI asked senior advocate Fali Nariman whether the Supreme Court, if the necessity arose, had the power to appoint an interim CBI Director.
• Nariman, who has been appearing for Mr. Verma, considered the question for a moment before replying that the court could, indeed, do so in exercise of its “inherent powers” as the final interpreter of the Constitution.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

• The CBI was established as the Special Police Establishment in 1941, to enquire into cases of corruption in the procurement during the Second World War.
• The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption recommends the establishment of CBI. The CBI was then established by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of Personnel eventually took over the responsibility of CBI and now it plays the role of an attached office.
• The CBI is the premier investigating agency of the Central Government. It is not a statutory body; it derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
• The important role of CBI is prevention of corruption and maintaining integrity in administration. It works under the overall supervision of Central Vigilance Commission in matters related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The CVC act provides for a security of two year tenure in office for CBI Director. The CVC Act also provides the mechanism for the selection of the Director of CBI and other officers of the rank of SP and above in the CBI.
• Central government appoints The CBI director based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson, the Vigilance Commissioners, the Secretary to the Government of India in-charge of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary (Coordination and Public Grievances) in the Cabinet Secretariat.
• Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act lays down guidelines for removal of CBI Director, which mandates that the CBI Director cannot be “transferred” without the previous consent of a high-power committee chaired by the Prime Minister.
• All the major crimes in the country having National and International ramifications will be investigated by CBI. It is also involved in collection of criminal intelligence pertaining to three of its main areas of operation, viz., Special Crimes, Economic Crimes and Anti-Corruption.

C. GS3 Related

D. GS4 Related

E. Editorials

• On 4th January, 2019, the Lok Sabha, without any attendant discussion, passed the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2018.

• Some critics point out that on any reasonable reading it should be apparent that the Bill flagrantly flouts both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgment which gave the Aadhaar programme a conditional approval.

• Critics further allege that the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2018 has been proposed despite the government’s abject failure to enact comprehensive legislation protecting our data and our privacy.

• They further point out that unless the Rajya Sabha places a constraint on the government’s impudence, the consequences will prove devastating.

The Period between September 2018 and the Present:

• Experts opine that there is no doubt that the Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered in September 2018, enjoined Parliament to make certain specific legislative changes.

• To that end, experts suggest that some of the court’s concerns are addressed by the Bill, such as the inclusion of a clause intended at ensuring that children are not denied benefits on account of a failure to possess Aadhaar.

• However, it is important to note that this policy places an onus on the ministry introducing a law to publish the draft of any proposed legislation, together with, among other things, the objectives behind the law and an estimated assessment of the impact that such legislation may have on fundamental rights, and to thereafter invite comments from the public.

• Critics allege that the Bill, which makes amendments not only to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, but also to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), was introduced without any prior consultation, leading to a credible belief that the proposed changes are an act of subterfuge (deceit).

• It is important to note that originally, Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act allowed both the state and private entities to use the programme to establish an individual’s identity pursuant to a law or a contract.

• As a matter of fact, it was on this basis that various notifications were issued allowing corporations of different kinds, including telecom operators, e-commerce firms and banks, to use Aadhaar. However, when the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the legislation, although it upheld vast portions of the law through a 4:1 majority, it unanimously struck down Section 57 insofar as it applied to private entities.

A Case for Commercial exploitation

• Justice A.K. Sikri, in his judgment for the majority, wrote: “Even if we presume that legislature did not intend so, the impact of the aforesaid features would be to enable commercial exploitation of an individual biometric and demographic information by the private entities. Thus, this part of the provision which enables body corporate and individuals also to seek authentication, that too on the basis of a contract between the individual and such body corporate or person, would impinge upon the right to privacy of such individuals. This part of the section, thus, is declared unconstitutional.”

• Experts believe that although this leaves little room for doubt, the government, for its part, may well defend the Bill by arguing that the majority’s judgment nonetheless permits the enactment of a new law allowing the use of Aadhaar by private entities so long as a person voluntarily consents to such authentication.

A Closer Look:

• • In its aid, experts have pointed out that the government will likely point to paragraph 367 of Justice Sikri’s opinion. “The respondents may be right in their explanation that it is only an enabling provision which entitles Aadhaar number holder to take the help of Aadhaar for the purpose of establishing his/her identity,” he wrote. “If such a person [voluntarily] wants to offer Aadhaar card as a proof of his/her identity, there may not be a problem.”

  • However, this passage scarcely expresses an opinion on private entities. To the contrary, it merely reaffirms the position that even for the state to utilise Aadhaar, in cases not involving the drawing of subsidies, benefits or services from the Consolidated Fund of India, the authentication must be voluntary and backed by separate legislation.

  • Further, experts have pointed out that while there are indeed portions of the majority’s ruling that are vague and indeterminate, on Section 57 the opinion is unequivocal.

• In as much as the provision allows private companies the authority to authenticate identity through Aadhaar, even by securing an individual’s informed consent, the clause, Justice Sikri held, disproportionately contravened the right to privacy.

• • Since the Supreme Court has found that the operation of Aadhaar by private entities violates fundamental rights, there is today no avenue available for fresh legislative intervention, unless the government chooses to amend the Constitution.

  • In any event, the proposed legislative amendments virtually seek to impose Aadhaar as a prerequisite for the availing of certain basic services.

• For example, the amendments proposed to the Telegraph Act and the PMLA state that service providers — telecom companies and banks, respectively, — ought to identify their customers by one of four means: authentication under the Aadhaar Act; offline verification under the Aadhaar Act; use of passport; or the use of any other officially valid document that the government may notify.

Issue of fraud:

• • Therefore, experts point out that if the government fails to notify any new form of identification, a person’s identity will necessarily have to be authenticated through Aadhaar or through her passport.

  • Given that only a peripheral portion of India’s population possess passports, Aadhaar is effectively made compulsory. Allowing private corporations to access and commercially exploit the Aadhaar architecture, as we have already seen, comes with disastrous consequences — the evidence of reports of fraud emanating out of seeding Aadhaar with different services is ever-growing.

• Hence, the amendments not only fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s verdict but are also wholly remiss in attending to the dangers both of slapdash data protection and of corruption and scamming.

• Lastly it is important to note that this move, to restore the use of Aadhaar by telecom companies and banks, however, is not the Bill’s only problem. There is a hatful of other concerns, including:

1. the re-introduction of a marginally refurbished Section 33(2).
2. In its original form, the clause had allowed an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India to direct disclosure of Aadhaar information in the “interest of national security”. The Supreme Court declared the clause unconstitutional and ruled that while disclosure in the interest of national security may be important, such disclosure should spring out of a request of a “higher ranking officer”.
3. What is more, in order to avoid any misuse of the provision, requests of this kind, the court held, ought to require separate scrutiny, and, therefore, “a Judicial Officer (preferably a sitting High Court judge) should also be associated with” the process. However, the Bill, merely seeks to substitute the words “Joint Secretary” with “Secretary” in Section 33(2), completely disregarding the Supreme Court’s order demanding inquiry by a judge.

Concluding Remarks:

• In conclusion, the Bill seeks to pave the path for the Aadhaar to permeate through every conceivable sphere of human activity, transferring all authority over our bodies, in the process, from the citizen to the state, and, in many cases, from the citizen to private corporations.
• Experts suggest that the Rajya Sabha, therefore, should resist any developing sense of ennui around the programme, and reject this Bill, for the utter contempt of democracy that it represents.

1. SC sets aside Delhi HC ruling against Monsanto

Context

• The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Delhi High Court Division Bench decision that held that U.S. agro major Monsanto did not have patent for its genetically modified BT cotton seed variants and had allowed it to claim registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001.
• The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and Navin Sinha held that the High Court’s Division Bench had no business to go into the merits of the patent rights and should have just confined itself to the validity of an injunction granted earlier by a Single Judge of the High Court in March 2017.
• The judgment, authored by Justice Sinha, restored the decision of the Single Judge. It remanded the case back to the Single Judge for disposal of the patent suit between Monsanto and Indian end-users like Nuziveedu.
• Monsanto had sought a restraint on these Indian companies from selling, using seeds/hybrid seeds bearing its patented technology.

Background

• The issue dates back to 2004 when Monsanto entered into a sub-licence agreement with companies like Nuziveedu for an initial period of 10 years.
• The agreement had entitled the Indian firms to genetically modified hybrid cotton planting seeds with help of Monsanto’s technology and to commercially exploit it within the limits of the agreement on the payment of a licence fee.
• However, the agreement was terminated in November 2015, giving rise to the patent suit. The Single Judge, in March 2017, in an interim relief, restored the agreement and ordered the parties (Monsanto and companies like Nuziveedu) to adhere to their obligations under it.
• Now, the Supreme Court has restored this Single Judge decision.

1. NASA’s probe discovers a new planet

Context

• NASA’s latest planet-hunting probe has discovered a new world outside our solar system, orbiting a dwarf star 53 light years away.
• This is the third new planet confirmed by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) since its launch in April last year.
• The planet, named HD 21749b, orbits a bright, nearby dwarf star about 53 light years away, in the constellation Reticulum, and appears to have the longest orbital period of the three planets so far identified by TESS.

Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite

• The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) is the step in the search for planets outside of our solar system, including those that could support life.
• The mission will find exoplanets that periodically block part of the light from their host stars, events called transits. TESS will survey 200,000 of the brightest stars near the sun to search for transiting exoplanets.
• TESS scientists expect the mission will catalog thousands of planet candidates and vastly increase the current number of known exoplanets.
• Of these, approximately 300 are expected to be Earth-sized and super-Earth-sized exoplanets, which are worlds no larger than twice the size of Earth. TESS will find the most promising exoplanets orbiting our nearest and brightest stars, giving future researchers a rich set of new targets for more comprehensive follow-up studies.

Question 1. Consider the following statements:

1. The powers, salaries, allowances of Chief Election Commissions and other Election Commissioners are equal.
2. The term of the Chief Election Commissioner is 6 years or of the age of 70 years (whichever is earlier).

Which of the above statement(s) is/are correct?

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

See

Question 2. Sills, dykes and lopoliths is typical characteristics of

1. Extrusive volcanic landforms
2. Intrusive volcanic landforms
3. Landforms due to glaciation
4. Faulting

See

Question 3. Atmospheric Brown Cloud is: 

1. A cloud made up of ‘black carbon’ containing soot and smog.
2. Name of Cloud services provided by Amazon Web Services
3. Upcoming Project of ISRO to launch a weather satellite
4. Recent Mission of UNEP to combat forest fires.

See

I. Practice Questions for UPSC Mains Exam