08 May 2019: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

A. GS1 Related

B. GS2 Related

Context:

The government in Rajasthan has decided to execute the Business Reforms Action Plan (BRAP) on time this year.

Details:

• The move is aimed at facilitating ease of business in order to maintain the State’s ranking as one of the top achievers in the field.
• The World Bank has been giving the ranking to the States in consultation with the Union Government since 2015.
• It was said that the works and services for improving the ease of business would be completed by June 15 to ensure high ranking in the key areas, involving 80 action points laid down this year, on which the feedback would be obtained.
• It is also found that as many as six departments of the State government were involved in the implementation of BRAP.
• Rajasthan was one among the Top achievers in Ease of doing business ranking of states of India 2018.
• The 2018 list was topped by Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Haryana.

Ease of doing business ranking of states of India:

• It is the annual ease of doing business index of states and union territories of India based on the completion percentage scores of action items points of annual Business Reforms Action Plan (BRAP) under the make in India initiative.
• This ranking of states has been done by World Bank since 2015 and facilitated by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions of Government of India based on the progress of states in completing annual reform action plan covering 8 key areas which has a number of points that vary every year.
• The World Bank ranks individual nations on the Ease of doing business index.
• The ranking of states is not done on same criteria as ranking of nations.
• Ranking of states does not reflect the level of business-conducive nature of the states, it reflects the willingness of states to reform and attract investments.

Context:

The World Health Organisation has said that over 1.35 mn lives are lost in a year owing to road accidents.

Details:

• Road accidents are the leading cause of death among people in the 5-29 age-group worldwide with more than 1.35 million lives lost each year and 50 million sustaining injuries, according to a WHO report released during the on-going global road safety week.
• What makes matters worse for India is the fact that since 2008, India has maintained the dubious distinction of being world number one in road crash deaths.
• In 2015, India became a signatory to the Brasilia Declaration on Road Safety, where she committed to halving road crash deaths by 2020.
• A member of Save LIFE foundation said that India has not even addressed the full scale of the problem.
• The data released by the Indian government, road crashes kill close to 1,50,000 people each year. However, the WHO global status report on road safety had challenged the numbers and stated that India might be losing over 2,99,000 people each year.

Major causes of increase in road accident death toll:

• Rapid urbanisation
• Poor safety
• Lack of enforcement of rules
• Riding/ driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
• Speeding
• Not paying heed to safety measures such as wearing seat-belts or helmets.

India is in the midst of a major pandemic and the need of the hour is strong political will and leadership to address the issue. Simply blaming individual drivers will not help when the existing systems in which they are forced to operate are outdated.

Have right to copy of Bobde panel report

Context:

The Supreme Court in-house panel gave CJI a clean chit stating that there was “no substance” found in the sexual harassment allegations raised against him by a staff member of the Supreme Court.

Background:

• The Supreme Court said the committee’s report would be kept confidential. As part of the in-house procedure, the report would not be placed in the public domain.
• It said copies of the report were given to Chief Justice Gogoi and the “next senior judge competent to receive the report”, that is Justice Arun Mishra who is the fourth senior most judge.
• It was announced that even the complainant will not be provided a copy of the report.
• The Supreme Court quoted its reported decision of 2003 in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India, which had held that an in-house inquiry report was “discreet” and “not for the purpose of disclosure to any other person”.

Issue:

• The complainant has stated that she has the right to know how, why and on what basis have the Lordships found her complaint to have ‘no substance’.
• The woman has appealed that if a copy of the report is being given to the CJI directly or indirectly, she is also entitled to a copy thereof in any case.
• Her letter said “The Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, in Section 13 provides that both parties have a right to receive a copy of the report. Not providing a copy to the complainant while holding her complaint to be unfounded would be a violation of the principles of natural justice and a complete travesty of justice,”
• She said the Supreme Court is relying on a judgment which pre-dates the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 which mandates the fundamental right to information.

Details:

• Former Central Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu has called for the public release of the report of the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry committee, stating that it is a very important issue of transparency and good governance in judiciary.
• Apart from issues of principles of natural justice, Mr. Acharyulu said that the committee’s verdict raised several concerns about information rights as well.
• As per Indira Jaising order, the enquiry into Mysore incident was informal and only to gather some information from colleague judges, but in this case, it is a statutorily mandated inquiry and it is not opinion collection or information gathering.
• He also added that the 2003 order also pre-dated the Right to Information Act, which only has an exemption for information that would impede the investigation or prosecution process, which would not apply in this case.
• The CJI in this case was not seeking views of peer judges, but three judges constituted a committee to inquire into an allegation against the CJI, it is not official secret and has to be made public, the statement said.
• When the committee is convinced that there was no substance in allegation, it has a duty to give reasons for their decision and to convince the people in general about the correctness of their conclusion.

C. GS3 Related

Context:

Agriculture scientists and environmentalists predict that the deadly pest, fall armyworm (FAW), could turn out to be a scourge for farmers.

Details:

• Fall Armyworm (FAW), an insect indigenous to the Americas, has been spreading across the globe harming crops.
• It migrated to Africa in 2016 and India in June 2018.
• It has also spread to neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Southern parts of China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh.
• The impact of the FAW is so intense that in one year — 2017-18 — it has damaged 20-25% crop yield worth $3.5 billion to 5 billion in about 40 African countries.
• For the first time, India has imported 5 million tonnes maize and it is suspected that the impact of FAW might be one of the reasons for that.
• FAW is an invasive and damaging pest endemic that is spreading across Asia and Africa particularly targeting maize.
• Being a nocturnal pest, the FAW hide under maize leaves in the day time and is difficult to be detected.
• This lepidopteran pest feeds in large numbers on leaves and stems of more than 80 plant species causing major damage to economically important cultivated crops and grasses such as maize, rice, sorghum and sugarcane, vegetable crops and cotton.
• America addressed the problem by introducing BT Maize.
• The FAW outbreak was reported in neighbouring Bangladesh and Myanmar early this year.

Crops worth ₹20 crore damaged in insect attack in Mizoram:

• The Mizoram government has informed the centre about the crop loss caused by an outbreak of the ‘Fall Army Worm’ (FAW) in the State.
• The State government has constituted a Rapid Response Team to monitor the outbreak and take measures to mitigate the loss of crops.
• Chemical pesticides and organic ones were being used to kill the worm in maize fields.

Measures taken:

• Four major organisations — USAID, International Crops Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRSAT), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) and Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) — have joined hands to prepare strategy to address the issue.
• A consortium with 45 institutes was established to chalk out strategies to address the problem.
• The scientists also suggest sowing of treated maize seeds and inter-cropping with red gram and use of pheromone traps.

D. GS4 Related

E. Editorials

Note to Students:

This is an important issue to cover from the civil services perspective as it involves an allegation of sexual harassment on part of the Chief Justice of India. Several articles have featured in the press since the news made headlines and there have been multiple perspectives brought out in the media on the same. Here we present some of the salient points and perspectives on this issue as covered by two articles, namely, “A miscarriage of justice” as published in the Hindu on the 7^th of May, 2019 and “Prisoner of procedure” as published by the Hindu on the 8^th of May, 2019.

Larger Background:

Important facets of the complaint filed:

• The complaint made by the victim of sexual harassment to the judges of the Supreme Court had two equally serious facets.

1. One related to sexual harassment, a very serious charge.
2. The other related to the victimisation of the complainant and her family “at the hands of the Chief Justice of India [CJI]”, as claimed by her.

Experts opine that it is this latter charge to which the nation needs to pay equal, if not greater, attention.

• The in-house committee of the Supreme Court spoke: “No substance in the allegations contained in the Complaint dated 19th April, 2019 of a former Employee of the Supreme Court.”
• In the absence of any known procedure, the non-observance of the principles of natural justice and the absence of effective representation of the victim, the report, even though not for the public, is non-est and void ab initio.

A Closer Look into Specifics:

• The charge on this count, as per her affidavit, involves the following: after the alleged incident on October 11, 2018, her transfer to the Centre for Research and Planning on October 22, 2018, change of position to “Admin, Material Section” on November 16, 2018, issuance of a memorandum on November 19, 2018, by Deepak Jain, Registrar, accusing the victim of violating conduct rules and seeking an explanation, her third transfer to the Library Division on November 22, 2018, the issuance of a memorandum on November 26, 2018 rejecting her explanation and proposing further action, her suspension on November 27, 2018 and the communication of December 18, 2018 from the Registrar that the charges against her stood proved.
• On December 21, 2018 she was dismissed from service.
• Meanwhile, according to her affidavit, on November 27, 2018 her husband, a head constable with the Delhi Police, Crime Branch Division, was transferred to the Third Battalion.
• On December 8, 2018 her husband, and the latter’s brother, also a constable with the Delhi Police, were suspended over telephone, and the orders followed the next day.
• On January 2, 2019, an inquiry was initiated by a Deputy Commissioner of Police against her husband on the ground that “unsolicited calls were made to the Office of the Hon’ble Chief Justice amounting to official misconduct”.
• On January 11, 2019, the victim and her husband were summoned to Delhi’s Tilak Marg police station by Station House Officer (SHO) Naresh Solanki.
• In their presence, the SHO called the Registrar, Mr. Jain, to discuss ways to reach the residence of CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
• The SHO, the victim and the husband went there, and in the presence of Mr. Jain, the victim was forced to fall at the feet of the CJI’s wife.
• Upon their return to the police station, the SHO had a long conversation with the victim and her husband.
• On January 14, 2019 the disabled brother-in-law of the victim, who had been appointed temporary Junior Court Attendant under the orders of the CJI himself on October 9, 2018, was removed from service.
• On March 3, 2019, an FIR was registered on a complaint by a person named Naveen Kumar at the Tilak Marg police station in respect of an alleged demand made by the victim in June 2017 for a bribe of ₹10 lakh for getting him a job in the Supreme Court and his payment of ₹50,000 as advance.
• Based on this FIR, the victim and her husband were arrested from their village in Rajasthan, hand-cuffed and subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment.
• The victim was remanded for a day on March 10, 2019. She was released on bail on March 12, 2019.
• The affidavit in support of the complaint appears truthful and honest.
• The details are heart-rending and extremely troubling, and reflect a deep malaise that appears to have set in in high offices.
• These incidents are all corroborated by official records.
• Experts opine that collectively, they establish beyond doubt the victimisation of the woman, her husband and other family members at the hands of the state machinery, including the Registry of the Supreme Court.

Violations of rights:

• Experts opine that each of these actions is either unconstitutional or illegal or criminal in nature.
• Clearly, they establish a well-designed conspiracy to victimise the victim beyond redemption so as to ensure that neither she nor her husband and her family members could raise their heads again to seek justice in respect of the complaint made against the CJI.
• Together, they constitute gross violations of the constitutional and fundamental rights of the victim and her family members, including those guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21.
• Clearly, the motive behind ensuring grossly inhuman, illegal, unconstitutional and disproportionate punishment to the victim and her family members seems to be to suppress her will and spirit so that she does not raise any charge about the incident of October 11, 2018.

The last straw:

• One thing is clear: the complainant Naveen Kumar, who alleged that the victim demanded a bribe and willingly offered, according to his own case, ₹50,000, has made himself an accomplice to the alleged bribery to secure public employment.
• He must therefore face the rigour of the law.
• The case on its own showing appears to be concocted and its timing raises serious questions about its authenticity.
• If the bribe was demanded in June 2017, it is a curious coincidence that the complainant from Jhajjar, Haryana surfaces in March 2019 and that too in Tilak Marg police station to make the complaint.
• It activates the entire police machinery against the victim and her family.
• This was the final nail in the coffin, as the proverb goes, pushing the victim and her family to the wall and igniting in them the courage to stand up against the CJI and make the complaint on April 19, 2019.

Dispelling doubts over the delay in the complaint:

• Those who have doubts about the so-called delay in the complaint must be prepared to put themselves in the shoes of the victim, a Class III employee pitted against the Chief Justice of India, one of the highest and the most powerful constitutional functionaries.
• Her approaching lawyers who are widely respected as human rights activists was natural and cannot be viewed with suspicion under any circumstances.

Some legal precedents:

• The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation recognised procedural safeguards as necessary and said they have “historical origins in the notion that conditions of personal freedom can be preserved only when there is some institutional check on arbitrary action on the part of public authorities”.
• In Uma Shankar Sistani v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (1996), the Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the circumstances under which a false complaint was registered against the petitioner, leading to his arrest.
• The FIR against the victim in this case needs the same treatment.
• Equally, the punishment of dismissal imposed on her is grossly disproportionate, even assuming that the charges against her were proved.
• The Supreme Court has consistently frowned upon such punishments.
• In Ranjit Thakur v. UOI (1987), the court interpreted the doctrine of proportionality “as part of the concept of judicial review” to ensure that if the sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then it can be corrected.

Grounds for judicial review?

• Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review.
• The court has held that if the punishment is outrageously disproportionate and the court considers it arbitrary in that it is wholly irrational or “a punishment is so excessive or disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court the same can be interfered with”.
• Experts opine that on each one of these counts the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the victim is completely arbitrary and perverse. It must go.

There are important questions which arise:

• Where can she and her family members get justice if the police at the highest level is pitted against them?
• Will they ever get a fair investigation and fair reports in the criminal cases? (This appears to be doubtful)
• Can she and her family get justice at all at the hands of the judiciary, considering the respondents would be the CJI and the Supreme Court? Only time will tell.
• But certainly for the present, the picture is dark for them.
• All these raise extremely troubling and discomforting thoughts in the minds of many.

Editorial Analysis:

A Critical Perspective:

• Critics opine that in this particular case, the main question was whether the Supreme Court would live up to the standards of fairness it expects of all authorities while inquiring into a former woman employee’s complaint of sexual harassment and victimisation against the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.
• An ad hoc committee, following an informal procedure, has concluded that the allegations have “no substance”, however, the findings will not be made public.
• Moreover, the report cannot be reviewed judicially.
• No one else, not even the complainant, knows what evidence was examined and who else testified apart from herself.
• All that is known is that she was heard, and questioned, at two sittings.

The Power Imbalance:

• She later withdrew from the inquiry, saying she was denied the help of a lawyer or a representative, that she found the questions from a panel of three sitting Supreme Court judges quite intimidating, and that she was not clear how her testimony was being recorded.
• Critics opine that there is no doubt that the committee remained impervious to the power imbalance in the situation.
• Perhaps she ought not to have pulled out from the probe, despite these grievances.
• The panel’s conclusion would have been even starker had she been present to hear how Justice Gogoi defended himself; and who among the court officials, if any, answered her specific and documented charges about the administrative harassment she was put through following the alleged incident of sexual harassment.
• The most relevant parts of the complaint were the transfer orders and disciplinary inquiry against her, the role of the court administration in dismissing her, and that of the Delhi Police in arresting her on a complaint of alleged bribery and initiating disciplinary action against her husband and his brother, both police personnel. It is not known if any of these officials were examined.

Dealings of the Court: Less than fair?

• Critics opine that the manner in which the court dealt with the complaint on the administrative side has been less than fair.
• It is true that the in-house procedure devised in 1999 envisages only a committee of three judges to deal with allegations against serving Supreme Court judges.
• The fact that a special law to deal with sexual harassment at the workplace is in force since 2013 appears to have made no difference.
• Unfortunately, the court could not bring itself, even in the interest of appearing fair, to adopt a formal procedure or allow the complainant to have legal representation.
• Critics opine that for all its judicial homilies on fairness, when it comes to dealing with its own the Supreme Court has come across as a prisoner of procedure and displayed an alarming propensity to mix up its institutional reputation with an individual’s interest.

Concluding Remarks:

• “The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power,” wrote Shakespeare. The decision by the ‘in-house committee’ is not an example of the institution abusing its power, but rather a reflection of its commitment to upholding its values and principles.
• Is it the Supreme Court as an institution that is responsible for what has happened, or is it the CJI?
• The dichotomy will emerge only when other Justices act independently, uphold the majesty of the law and steer the institution out of troubled waters.
• If they fail, the institution is doomed to serious loss of face and credibility.
• It is time the collective conscience of the Justices prevails.

Category: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1. Belt and Road 2.0

Q1. Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary is in

Q2. Consider the following statements:

Q3. Consider the following statements:

Q4. Consider the following statements: