Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
The G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting was unable to agree to a joint communique over sharp differences on the Russia-Ukraine war between the US-led West on one side and Russia-China on the other.
While, on the surface, this is a repeat of stated positions, what is significant is that both US and India said that the outcome document was approved by an overwhelming majority.
In what marks a calibrated step forward, Washington backed Delhi’s statement that the Chair’s summary – put out by India as Chair of the G-20 — was a product of consensus on a variety of issues.
This is the second time in a week that the G-20 ministerial has failed to come to a consensus — the G-20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in Bangalore could not come up with a communique. India, as the chair of the G-20 meeting, came with a Chair’s summary.
After the G-20 ministers’ meeting, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said: “There were differences on the Ukraine conflict which we could not reconcile.”
He said that while the Bali declaration had a consensus, some countries felt that it cannot be extrapolated, referring to Russia and China.
However, he sought to clarify that while there was consensus on “95 per cent” of the issues, there was none on two paragraphs. “Everyone was not on the same page on those two paragraphs.
Supreme Court steps in: Panel of PM, LoP and CJI will choose CEC, ECs (Page no. 3)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Stating that “core values of the Constitution, including democracy, and Rule of Law, are being undermined”, the Supreme Court Thursday stepped in to check what it called the “pernicious effects of the exclusive power being vested with the Executive to make appointment to the Election Commission” and ordered that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India.
Ruling on petitions seeking an independent mechanism to appoint the CEC and ECs, a five-judge Constitution Bench presided by Justice K M Joseph said where no Leader of Opposition is available, the committee will include the leader of the largest Opposition party in Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength.
Four of the five judges on the bench, meanwhile, rejected the prayer to grant the same protection as is available to the CEC in the matter of removal from office to the ECs too. Justice Rastogi favoured the idea of granting them equal protection.
The Supreme Court ruling, for now, will bring to an end the decades-old practice of the CEC and ECs being appointed on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as is laid down in the Constitution.
According to Article 324(2) of the Constitution, the CEC and ECs shall be appointed by the President, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, till Parliament enacts a law fixing the criteria for selection, conditions of service and tenure.
The City
In Delhi, an exhibition celebrating ‘India-Denmark friendship’ (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
Silver beads strung as a necklace from 3000 BCE Mohenjo-daro juxtaposed with a 1590 silver lidded tankard from Copenhagen – these are among the oldest objects from India and Denmark to feature in an exhibition that documents artefacts and objects in silver from the two countries.
Taking place at the National Museum, the showcase featuring over 250 exhibits was inaugurated on February 27 by Crown Prince of Denmark and Crown Princess of Denmark, in the presence of Minister of State for External Affairs and Culture Meenakshi Lekhi, and Foreign Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Also present were Danish Ambassador to India Freddy Svane, and Indian Ambassador to Denmark Pooja Kapur.
This precious metal is a living organism like our friendship,” said Rasmussen, pointing out that the exhibition is part of India-Denmark Cultural Exchange programme signed last year by PM Narendra Modi in Denmark.
Whenever one looks at Denmark, one looks at a friend, and I am sure the same feeling exists in the Danish minds and hearts. The two friendly nations are bound by many ethos, value systems, including democracy, value for law and order,” said Lekhi in her address to the audience.
Curated by Steen RosenvingeLundbye, ConniRamskov and Komal Pande from the collections of National Museum in India and Museum Kolding in Denmark, the objects in the exhibition are divided into five themes, beginning with historic silver from India and the history of Danish silver designs, where viewers are introduced to the trade route between the two countries in the 1300s, followed by some of the oldest objects in the showcase.
The Ideas Page
The more independent commission (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Let it be now stated in unmistakable terms: The Supreme Court of India (SC) remains the most powerful centre of political power in the country at a time when almost every political issue is a matter of adjudication before the Court.
A neutral body for the selection of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners was the principal relief sought in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, which has been granted by the Court.
The judgment revives the era of judicial activism. This time, it acted against an aggrandising executive, and not against the follies of a weak coalition at the Centre, as happened earlier.
The bone of contention of the petitioners was that as per Article 324(2) of the Constitution, the appointment of the CEC and ECs, though to be made by the President, should be done based on a law to be promulgated.
Yet, no law was enacted by Parliament in this regard. Taking advantage of this scenario, the dispensation at the Centre chooses the CEC and ECs, who are often seen to act in tune with those in power and those who select them.
Therefore, the petitioners pleaded for an independent body to appoint the CEC and the ECs to ensure functional autonomy for the panel.
There is yet another issue with the constitutional provision. According to the proviso to Article 324(5), a special protection against removal is given to the CEC while not extending the said immunity to the other ECs.
The proviso says that “the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court”.
This practically means that the only way to remove the CEC is to get him impeached by Parliament which is difficult, but not impossible.
The same provision also says that the conditions of service of the CEC “shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment”.
Express Network
India and Australia sign mechanism to mutually recognise qualifications (Page no. 18)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
India and Australia signed a framework mechanism for mutual recognition of qualifications that will help in easing the mobility of students and professionals between the two countries.
The agreement was signed on Thursday following a bilateral meeting between India’s Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and his Australian counterpart Jason Clare in Delhi.
The agreement is part of the commitment by prime ministers of both countries at the 2nd India-Australia Virtual Summit held on March 21, 2022, wherein they had agreed to establish a joint task force for mutual recognition of qualifications.
Pradhan said that Australia and India are aligned to make the knowledge pillar a key aspect of bilateral relations.Clare said that the Australian government will be contributing 1.89 million dollars for running a skill programme in India in the area of agriculture which is a critical sector for India.
He further added that Australia is working on a top priority basis to clear the pendency of education visas for Indian students.
Both ministers while addressing the audience had reiterated that this partnership is a two-way street for students from both countries to immigrate and pursue the courses of their choice.
When asked how many Australian students are expressing interest in pursuing education in India, Clare said, “The number of Australian students showing interest to study in India is very small and it’s not big enough.
One of the things we spoke about this morning in our meeting is what steps can we take to encourage more Australians to come and study here.”
Express Network
Myanmar teak trade: Highly prized, highly dodgy (Page no. 19)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
Since the February 2021 coup in Myanmar when the democratically elected government was overthrown, the military junta has also taken control of Myanma Timber Enterprises (MTE), the state-owned company which has exclusive rights over the country’s precious timber and teak trade.
The MTE has held an estimated dozen timber auctions since the coup and sales of this “conflict” wood, pro-democracy supporters allege, are a key revenue stream for the military regime.
Teak from Myanmar’s deciduous and evergreen forests is considered the most tensile and durable hardwood, resistant to water and termites.
This prized wood is in demand for high-end furniture, veneer and ship-decking – much sought-after by the luxury yacht industry. Adding to its value, ironically, is Myanmar’s shrinking forest cover and depleting teak reserves.
Global Forest Watch says the country, over the last two decades, has lost forest cover roughly the size of Switzerland.
In 2013, the European Union introduced the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), which put the onus on timber merchants to do sufficient due diligence to disallow illegal timber from entering their markets.
A year later, Myanmar itself banned the export of whole logs – the same year international NGO Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) released data which showed that over 70% of the logs exported from Myanmar between 2000-2013 were illegally harvested.
Explained
Methane emission by fossil fuel firms: what IEA report says (Page no. 24)
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual Methane Global Tracker report, fossil fuel companies emitted 120 million metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere in 2022, only slightly below the record highs seen in 2019. It added that these companies have done almost nothing to curb the emissions despite their pledges to find and fix leaking infrastructure.
The report said 75 per cent of methane emissions from the energy sector can be reduced with the help of cheap and readily available technology. The implementation of such measures would cost less than three per cent of the net income received by the oil and gas industry in 2022, but fossil fuel companies failed to take any substantial action regarding the issue.
The report has come just weeks after energy giants such as Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and others reported record profits last year as the Russia-Ukraine war drove up oil and natural gas prices, Associated Press reported.
Our new Global Methane Tracker shows that some progress is being made but that emissions are still far too high and not falling fast enough – especially as methane cuts are among the cheapest options to limit near-term global warming. There is just no excuse.
The energy sector accounts for around 40 per cent of the total average methane emissions from human activity, as oil and natural gas companies are known to release methane into the atmosphere when natural gas is flared or vented.
The greenhouse gas is also released through leaks from valves and other equipment during the drilling, extraction and transportation process.
More than 260 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas (mostly composed of methane) is wasted through flaring and methane leaks globally today.
Although it’s impossible to avoid all of this amount, the right policies and implementation can bring 200 bcm of additional gas to markets.
In the oil and gas sector, emissions can be reduced by over 75 per cent by implementing well-known measures such as leak detection and repair programmes and upgrading leaky equipment.
It further mentioned that 80 per cent of the available options to curb the release of methane could be implemented by the fossil fuel industry at net zero cost.
SC verdict on ECI appointments (Page no. 24)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a high-power committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India must pick the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
In 2015, a public interest litigation was filed by Anoop Baranwal challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of the Centre appointing members of the Election Commission.
In October 2018, a two-judge bench of the SC referred the case to a larger bench since it would require a close examination of Article 324 of the Constitution, which deals with the mandate of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The SC had not debated this issue earlier. In September last year, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph began hearing the case and almost a month later, the verdict was reserved.
Article 324(2) reads: “The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time-to-time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.”
The crux of the challenge is that since there is no law made by Parliament on this issue, the Court must step in to fill the “constitutional vacuum.”
This examination also leads to the larger question of separation of powers and if the judiciary is overstepping its role in filling this gap in the law.
Two corollary issues that were also examined by the Court are whether the process of removal of the two Election Commissioners must be the same as the CEC; and regarding the funding of the EC.
As per the current process, the Law Minister suggests a pool of suitable candidates to the Prime Minister for consideration. The President makes the appointment on the advice of the PM.