Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Satellite images of Uttarakhand’s Joshimath released by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) show that the Himalayan town sank at a rapid pace of 5.4 cm in just 12 days, triggered by a possible subsidence event on January 2.
Joshimath, the gateway to famous pilgrimage sites like Badrinath and Hemkund Sahib and international skiing destination Auli, is facing a major challenge due to land subsidence.
The preliminary study by ISRO’s National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) said the land subsidence was slow between April and November 2022, during which Joshimath had sunk by 8.9 cm.
But between December 27, 2022 and January 8, 2023, the intensity of land subsidence increased and the town sank by 5.4 cm in these 12 days.
The region subsided around 5 cm within a span of a few days and the areal extent of subsidence has also increased. But it is confined to the central part of Joshimath town.
It said a subsidence zone resembling a generic landslide shape was identified – tapered top and fanning out at base.The report noted that the crown of the subsidence was located near Joshimath-Auli road at a height of 2,180 metres.
The images show the Army Helipad and Narsingh Temple as the prominent landmarks in the subsidence zone that spans the central part of Joshimath town.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah assessed the situation in Joshimath and steps taken to ameliorate people’s hardship at a meeting attended by Union ministers Nitin Gadkari, R K Singh, Bhupendra Yadav and Gajendra Singh Shekhawat and top officials.
A total of 169 families consisting of 589 members have so far been shifted to relief centres.There are 835 rooms serving as relief centres in Joshimath and Pipalkoti which can together accomodate 3,630 people.An interim assistance of Rs 1.5 lakh has been paid so far to 42 affected families.
On hate speech, SC asks: Have TV anchors been taken off air? (Page no. 1)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Supreme Court favoured action against television anchors who act unfairly during debates and sought to know how many times an anchor has been taken off air over a programme.
Justice Joseph posed the query when Bhambani said the Authority had taken quick and effective action whenever it receives a complaint regarding a programme aired by any of its members.
Appearing for the government, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, responding to demands to moderate the content on TV, told the bench, also comprising Justice B V Nagarathna, that there are sufficient check and balances in place.
He said anchors sometimes shut down people from expressing their views. “Many of these TV programmes, you don’t allow people to talk on an equal basis.
Participants you don’t want to express their views, you will either mute them, or allow the other person to go on the whole time unchallenged”, he said adding “so the point is it is not the right of the broadcaster or the views of the panelist. It is the right of the persons who are viewing it”.
Justice Joseph said he would attribute the conduct of channels to what Adi Sankaracharya had said ‘udaranimitham, bahukritha vesham’ (many things are done for the stomach).
“All of this ultimately is traced to your udaram (stomach). What is happening is driven by TRP. This is the fundamental problem. Channels are basically competing with each other.
Unfortunately, you are not doing anything about it. They sensationalise certain things. You should understand, unlike some reading a newspaper, somebody who watches a television, the visual part in the brain, immediately they appeal, particularly the youngsters, they get glued to it.
And you create divisions among society or you create whatever opinion you want to create much faster than any other medium”, he told the NBSA counsel.
Govt. and Politics
Seeing infrastructure that was unimaginable years ago: Modi (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Prime Minister Narendra Modi Friday flagged off the “world’s longest river cruise”, from Varanasi in UP to Dibrugarh in Assam via Bangladesh, saying that the country “is witnessing a level of infrastructure which was unimaginable a few years ago”. He also inaugurated the Tent City in Varanasi and laid foundation stones for schemes worth more than Rs 1,000 crore.
This decade of the 21st century is a decade of infrastructure transformation in India. India is witnessing a level of infrastructure which was unimaginable a few years ago. From social infrastructure like houses, toilets, hospitals, electricity, water, cooking gas, educational institutes to digital infrastructure to physical connectivity infrastructure like railways, waterways, airways and roads, all these are strong indicators of the rapid growth of India. In all the fields, India is seeing the best and biggest.
In his speech, the Prime Minister said that earlier, there was very little use of waterways in the country, whereas they have a history that dates back to thousands of years ago.
Post 2014, India is harnessing this ancient strength for the cause of modern India. There is a new law and detailed action plan for developing waterways in big rivers of the country.
He said that there were only five national waterways in the country in 2014. Now, he said, there are 111 national waterways with about two dozen already operational. Similarly, there has been a three-fold increase in cargo transportation via river waterways from 30 lakh metric tonnes eight years ago.
MV Ganga Vilas is a luxury vessel with three decks, including 18 suites and a capacity of 36 tourists. The maiden voyage has 32 tourists from Switzerland for the entire journey with the operators estimating the cost at approximately Rs 25,000 per person per day.
Referring to the Tent City, Modi said it is “infused with modernity, spirituality and faith, and will provide a novel experience to tourists”.
The Prime Minister also said that the country “is entering a robust phase of tourism as with a growing global profile, curiosity about India is also increasing.
India to set up Global South Center of Excellence, says PM Narendra Modi (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
Underlining that India’s approach in its development partnerships has been “consultative, outcome oriented, demand driven, people-centric, and respectful of the sovereignty of partner countries”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a Global South Center of Excellence, a Global South Science & Technology initiative, a project to provide essential medical supplies and Global South Scholarships for students in developing countries.
The slew of announcements came at the virtual summit on Voice of Global South, which was hosted by India.
Announcing that India will establish a Global South Center of Excellence, this institution will undertake research on development solutions or best-practices of any of these countries, which can be scaled and implemented in other members of the Global South.
As an example, the digital public goods developed by India in fields like electronic-payments, health, education, or e-governance, can be useful for many other developing countries.
During the Covid pandemic, India’s Vaccine Maitri initiative supplied made-in-India vaccines to over a 100 nations. I would now like to announce a new Aarogya Maitri project under which India will provide essential medical supplies to any developing country affected by natural disasters or humanitarian crisis.
For synergising our diplomatic voice, I propose a Global-South Young Diplomats Forum, to connect youthful officers of our foreign ministries. India will also institute Global-South Scholarships for students from developing countries to pursue higher education in India.
The last three years have been difficult, especially for us developing nations. The challenges of the Covid pandemic, rising prices of fuel, fertilizer and foodgrains, and increasing geo-political tensions have impacted our development efforts.
Explained
Outraging modesty of a women (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 1, Social Issues)
Shankar Mishra, the Air India passenger accused of urinating on a woman on board a New York-New Delhi flight on November 26 last year, told a Delhi court on January 11 that while his act may have been obscene and revolting, it did not qualify as a case of outraging the woman’s modesty. The court reserved its order but denied him bail, which is usually done when a prima facie case is made out.
Under the Indian Penal Code, outraging the modesty of a woman is a punishable offence. IPC Section 354 prescribes either a jail term of up to five years or a fine or both for the offence.
Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. — Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
In 2013, Section 354 was amended to make the punishment more stringent, and the sentence was changed to not less than one year and up to five years.
The offence is cognisable (which means the police can arrest without a warrant), non-bailable (which means that bail is not a right of the accused and is granted on the discretion of the judge), and it can be tried by any magistrate.
The words “assault” and “criminal force” (used in the section) are defined in Sections 351 and 350 of the IPC respectively.
Section 350 says: “Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”
Pertinently, ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ are vital ingredients for the alleged act to fall under the purview of IPC Sections 354, 351, and 350.
Offences that are less severe in nature, fall under the purview of Section 509 of the IPC, which deals with “word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman”.
The main difference between Sections 509 and 354 IPC is that the latter goes beyond the act of outraging the modesty of a woman and involves clear threat of physical harm or assault to the woman.
Centre vs Delhi Govt on control over services: timeline of a dispute (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a dispute between the Delhi government and the Centre over the control of services.
Almost five years ago, another Constitution Bench had ruled in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party-led state government in a similar tussle.
A three-judge Bench headed by former CJI N V Ramana had referred this case to a larger Bench on the Centre’s plea. The three-judge Bench had decided that the question of control over administrative services required “further examination”.
The Centre on April 27, 2022 sought a reference to a larger Bench, arguing that it needed the power to make transfers and postings of officers in Delhi on account of it being the national capital and the “face of nation”.
The court agreed that the limited question relating to the scope of the legislative and executive powers of the Centre and NCT of Delhi, with respect to the term “services”, would need an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench in terms of Article 145(3) of the Constitution.
The court noted that the primary contention related to the interpretation of Article 239 AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for the NCT of Delhi.
In its order of May 6, the court said: “The Constitution Bench of this Court, while interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution, did not find any occasion to specifically interpret the impact of the wordings of the same with respect to Entry 41 in the State List (State public services; State Public Service Commission).”
Article 145(3) deals with the setting up of a Constitution Bench comprising at least five judges “for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution.
The case had come before the three-judge Bench because a two-judge Bench had earlier delivered a split verdict on the issue of services.
In this judgment, delivered in 2019 by a two-judge Bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, several issues relating to the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) were settled; however, on the issue of control over services, the two judges ruled differently.
The Idea Page
In Defence of Basic Structure (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 2, Constitution)
When the Constituent Assembly adopted, after intensive and prolonged deliberations, the Constitution of India in January 1950, it had scarcely imagined that a day would come when the statute would be mutilated and democracy endangered by the government itself. Nevertheless, the astute and farsighted makers of the Constitution had built in many defences to ensure as a reliable shield against assaults by despotic rulers.
The Prime Minister [Indira Gandhi] and her coterie of sycophantic advisors knew this too well. Hence, soon after the imposition of the Emergency, they set in motion systematic measures to dismantle, one by one, the democratic defences laid out in the Constitution.
In the very first farcical session of Parliament in the monsoon of 1975, the government got the 39th Constitution Amendment Bill passed.
It made the proclamation of the Emergency non-justiciable and protected the provision of the President’s “satisfaction” from judicial scrutiny not only in the matter of Article 352 (Proclamation of Emergency), but also with regard to Article 123 (Proclamation of Ordinances) and Articles 356 (Imposition of President’s Rule in States).
The Governor’s power to issue ordinances under Article 213 was similarly protected. Protection was also accorded to the power of the President to suspend citizens’ Fundamental Rights under Article 359.
Clearly, the government was laying the foundation for an authoritarian state, in which the political executive (the Prime Minister) first turned the incumbent of the Rashtrapati Bhavan into a rubber-stamp, and made the rubber-stamp, and itself, unaccountable to the judiciary.
On August 7, the government introduced the 40th Constitution Amendment Bill, the strangest-ever legislation of its kind to be considered by Parliament.
It aimed at preventing the courts from hearing petitions challenging the election of the President, Vice President and MPs holding the office of Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
These elections, the amendment provided, could be challenged only before a special forum to be created by Parliament. The most obnoxious feature of the Bill was its fourth clause, which declared that all decisions taken by a high court with regard to the election of any of these four dignitaries would be deemed null and void!
Under the cloak of exercising its amending power, Parliament had thus usurped the powers of the judiciary. Only a fascist state could have vandalised the Constitution in this manner.
In 1976, the government introduced in Parliament the Constitution (44th Amendment) Bill which, after adoption, would become the 42nd Amendment. Apart from providing for a six-year term for the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies, it sought to drastically curtail the Fundamental Rights of citizens and make the most rapacious encroachments into the independence of the judiciary.