Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Undeterred by criticism of the Collegium system of appointing judges, the Supreme Court asserted that it is the “final arbiter” of the law under the Constitutional scheme and as the law stands, the government will “have to appoint” all names reiterated by its Collegium.
Without taking names, a three-judge bench presided by Justice S K Kaul also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to advise Union ministers who are criticising the Collegium system to control themselves.
Responding to Supreme Court Bar Association president, senior advocate Vikas Singh’s comment that “persons in constitutional posts were saying SC does not have power to exercise judicial review”, Justice Kaul said that “tomorrow people will say basic structure is not part of the Constitution”.
The bench did not take names, but the remarks come close on the heels of statements by Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar’s criticism of the SC for its 2015 decision to strike down the law to set up a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to appoint judges.
During Thursday’s hearing, the bench, also comprising Justice A S Oka, made it clear that courts are the final arbiter of law. “The scheme of our Constitution stipulates the court should be the final arbiter on the position of law.
The power to enact a law is with Parliament. However, that is subject to scrutiny by the courts. It is necessary that all follow the law as laid down by this court. Else sections…may decide to follow their own course even where law is laid down…” Justice Kaul said.
Underlining that the Collegium system is the law of the land, he said, “Parliament passed NJAC law but it did not muster the Constitutional mandate. That’s the view prevalent today.
Giving vent to its displeasure over the government returning reiterated names for appointment of judges, Justice Kaul said it gives the impression that the government will appoint only palatable names.
In Parliament
Rajya Sabha clears Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill (Page no. 19)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2022, which seeks to strengthen the protection of endangered species and enhance punishment for illegal wildlife trade, was passed in the Rajya Sabha by a voice vote.
The Bill, which was cleared by the Lok Sabha on August 2 during the monsoon session, was introduced by Environment and Forest Minister Bhupender Yadav.
Yadav said India was a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora that required certain legislative actions.
Responding to the debate on the Bill in the Upper House, Yadav noted that while protecting forest land is critical, it is equally important to safeguard the rights of the people who have been residing there since ages.
He said the NDA government has taken steps to increase the green cover in the country since taking over the reins in 2014, and it is bound to protect wildlife according to the provisions of the law.
The Bill, which had undergone the scrutiny of a parliamentary panel, seeks to conserve and protect wildlife through better management of protected areas and rationalise schedules, which list out species under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
According to the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants with a view to ensure the ecological and environmental security of the country.
Congress Rajya Sabha member Kumar Ketkar alleged that “real estate sharks” and corporates are destroying forests and creating problems for the wildlife.
To protect the wildlife, not only should the laws be strict but their implementation should also be equally stringent. Real estate sharks are using their money and muscle power or their contacts in the bureaucracy and in the government for not implementing the laws.
GM Mustard hybrid’s yield 28% more than national check (Page no. 19)
(GS Paper 3, Biotechnology)
Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard hybrid Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) has showed approximately 28 per cent more yield than the national check and 37 per cent more than the zonal checks, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) of Science & Technology and Earth Sciences Dr Jitendra Singh informed Rajya Sabha.
GM mustard hybrid Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) has been tested for three years (2010-11, 2011-12, 2014-15) against national check Varuna and zonal check RL1359 during the confined field trials i.e., Biosafety Research Level (BRL)-I and BRL-II trials at multiple locations. DMH-11 showed approximately 28% more yield than the national check and 37% more than the zonal checks,” Singh said in a written reply to a question asked by BJP member Sushil Modi.
Sushil Modi had asked him about the per hectare yield advantage associated with GM Mustard as compared to different High Yielding Varieties of mustard.
In response to Sushil Modi’s query about the reasons for GM Mustard not been classified as an Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crop variety despite the presence of the ‘bar’ gene, Singh replied, “Bar gene is responsible for herbicide tolerance and its use has been claimed and approved by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) during hybrid seed production phase to maintain the genetic purity of hybrid seed by killing male fertile plants in female rows in seed production plot only and not during commercial cultivation by the farmers.”
Extensive studies carried out on toxicity (both acute and subchronic), allergenicity, compositional analysis, field trials and environmental safety studies of GM Mustard lines vs their non-transgenic comparators have provided evidence that mustard (B juncea) lines Varuna bn 3.6, EH-2 modbs 2.99, and DMH-11 are safe for cultivation and for food and feed use.
Visitation of bees to the transgenic lines is similar to the non-transgenic counterparts as per the data recorded during the BRL-I and BRL-II trials conducted over three growing seasons at multiple locations as per the protocols approved by Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) and GEAC.
Explained
India’s Central Asia outreach (Page no. 20)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval hosted a meeting of his counterparts from five Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan — in New Delhi on December 6. All countries except Turkmenistan sent their NSAs; Ashgabat was represented by its ambassador in New Delhi.
The meeting, which took place in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the security situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, flowed from the first India-Central Asia virtual summit of January 27 this year.
The leaders of the Central Asian countries had been invited for the Republic Day celebrations, but their in-person participation was scuttled by the Omicron-led Covid surge in India.
The Silk Route connected India with Central Asia from the 3rd century BC to the 15th century AD. From the export of Buddhism to the lasting influence of Bollywood, India has shared old and deep cultural ties with the region.
In 1955, during a 16-day visit to the erstwhile Soviet Union, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru travelled to Almaty, Tashkent, and Ashgabat, all of which became capitals of newly-independent countries after the 1991 collapse of the USSR.
Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in 1992, and Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1995. In 2003, Atal Bihari Vajpayee became the first Prime Minister to visit Tajikistan; he had travelled to Kazakhstan in the previous year. Manmohan Singh visited Uzbekistan in 2006, and the Kazakh capital Astana in 2011.
Despite India’s focus on its other relationships — the US (nuclear deal), China (2003 border pact), and Pakistan (in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks — diplomatic parts continued to move on Central Asia.
India also attended Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summits, which were attended by the Central Asian countries, and put in its request for membership.
Focussed engagement began with the “Connect Central Asia policy” in 2012, which received a fillip with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to all five Central Asian countries in July 2015 — the first by an Indian Prime Minister.
National Party (Page no. 20)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was leading in 5 seats in Gujarat after more than seven hours of counting of votes on December 8, but its vote-share was close to 13%, which meant it is on track to be recognised as a national party by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The name suggests that a national party would be one that has a presence ‘nationally’, as opposed to a regional party whose presence is restricted to only a particular state or region.
National parties are usually India’s bigger parties, such as the Congress and BJP. However, some smaller parties, like the communist parties, are also recognised as national parties.
A certain stature is sometimes associated with being a national party, but this does not necessarily translate into having a lot of national political clout.
Some parties, despite being dominant in a major state — such as the DMK in Tamil Nadu, BJD in Odisha, YSRCP in Andhra Pradesh, RJD in Bihar, or TRS in Telangana — and having a major say in national affairs, remain regional parties.
The ECI has laid down the technical criterion for a party to be recognised as a national party. A party may gain or lose national party status from time to time, depending on the fulfilment of these laid-down conditions.
As per the ECI’s Political Parties and Election Symbols, 2019 handbook, a political party would be considered a national party if:
i. it is ‘recognised’ in four or more states; or
ii. if its candidates polled at least 6% of total valid votes in any four or more states in the last Lok Sabha or Assembly elections and has at least four MPs in the last Lok Sabha polls; or
iii. if it has won at least 2% of the total seats in the Lok Sabha from not less than three states.
To be recognised as a state party, a party needs:
i. at least 6% vote-share in the last Assembly election and have at least 2 MLAs; or
have 6% vote-share in the last Lok Sabha elections from that state and at least one MP from that state; or
ii. at least 3% of the total number of seats or three seats, whichever is more, in the last Assembly elections; or
iii. at least one MP for every 25 members or any fraction allotted to the state in the Lok Sabha; or
iv. have at least 8% of the total valid votes in the last Assembly election or Lok Sabha election from the state.