Uttarakhands new anti cheating law (GS Paper 2, Governance)
Why in news?
- A day after a protest in Dehradun over paper leaks and scams in government recruitment tests turned violent, the Uttarakhand Governor gave his assent to an ordinance brought to prevent the use of unfair means in exams.
- The Uttarakhand Competitive Examination (Measures For Control and Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Ordinance, 2023, has provisions of fines up to Rs 10 crore and life imprisonment for the guilty. With Governor Lt Gen (retd) Gurmit Singh’s assent, it became law within 24 hours.
Key Provisions:
Objective:
- The main aim behind the law was to prevent offences related to obstructing the sanctity of examinations, use of unfair means, leakage of question papers, and other irregularities.
- It covers public examinations for recruitment to posts under the state government, autonomous bodies run by the government, and authorities, corporations, and institutions operated with grants of the state government.
Penalty:
- According to the ordinance, if any examinee is caught cheating or causing another examinee to cheat in a competitive examination (online and offline) or to have indulged in unfair means, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for three years and with a minimum fine of Rs 5 lakh. If the fine is not paid, the examinee shall be jailed for another nine months.
- A second-time offender will be punishable with a minimum jail term of 10 years and fine of Rs 10 lakh. In default of payment of fine, he will be jailed for another 30 months.
- If any person, printing press, service provider contracted or ordered for examination, management for conducting an examination, or any person and organisation authorised to keep and transport the examination material, any employee of the examination authority, limited liability partnership, coaching centre or any other institution has indulged in conspiracy or other unfair means, they shall be punished with a jail term of not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment.
- They will also be punished with a minimum fine of Rs 1 crore, which can go up to Rs 10 crore. If they can’t pay the fine, the convicts will serve another jail term of three years.
- Also, an applicant found cheating will be debarred for two to five years from the date of the chargesheet, and in case of conviction, from all competitive exams for 10 years. All the properties earned using unfair means will be seized.
- The offences are cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
Background:
- The law was in the works from last year, after allegations of irregularities in the Uttarakhand Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UKSSSC) exams.
- For the past few days, there have been continuous agitations against multiple paper leaks in Uttarakhand since 2016.
The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) completes 37 years of its journey
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
Why in news?
- Recently, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA),completed 37 years of its journey.
- It was established in 1986 and works under the Ministry of Commerce and Trade.
Highlights of journey:
- Started with a merely USD 0.6 billion export in 1987-88, the APEDA’s active intervention took the export of agricultural products to a new height of USD 19.69 billion till April-December 2022-23 and expanded the export basket to over 200 countries. In 2021-22, the APEDA exported agricultural products worth USD 24.77 billion.
- The target given to APEDA in the current financial year (2022-23) is USD 23.56 billion, out of which 84% i.e. USD 19.69 billion has been achieved till December 2022, and the remaining target is expected to be completed within the stipulated time period.
- According to the WTO Trade Data, India was ranked at 25th in 1986, which slipped further to 28th in 1987 and at 29th position in 1988.
- However, the ranking of India improved significantly as the county’s position moved to 10th rank in 2019 which improved further to 9th position in 2020 and at 8th rank in 2021.
Key Interventions:
- Aiming to take export of agricultural products to a new level, APEDA promoted IT-enabled activities for ease of doing business in the promotion and development of exports from India. APEDA has undertaken initiatives like paperless office (re-engineering, digital signatures, electronic payment facility), APEDA Mobile App, phase-wise delivery of online services, monitoring and evaluation, uniform access, and virtual trade fair to make governance more efficient and effective.
- The Agriculture Export Policy stepped in as an Institutional mechanism in 2018 for promotion of agricultural exports in the States for the first time with a focus on agriculture export-oriented production, export promotion, better farmer realization and synchronization with the policies and programmes of Govt. of India laying emphasis on farmer-centric approach.
- A Market Intelligence Cell has been constituted in APEDA and the activity of dissemination of E-market intelligence reports comprising detailed market analysis has commenced.
- A Farmer Connect Portal has also been set up by APEDA on its website for providing a platform for FPOs/FPCs, Cooperatives to interact with exporters.
Background:
Way Forward:
- The visionary approach, aggressive and consistent efforts of APEDA has enabled India to position itself as a consistent and quality supplier of agri products.
Constitutional oath is not a mere formality
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Constitution)
Context:
- A Constitution is the basic law that lays the foundation for the governance of a country. It lays down broad policy/directives for the authorities and institutions tasked with its implementation.
- Basic eligibility criteria for appointment to several high constitutional offices are prescribed in the Constitution. Yet, many silent disqualifications operate.
- These are implied and read into the eligibility criteria by courts, solely guided by the objective of upholding the Constitution and the law and the integrity of the institution for which the functionary is chosen.
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001):
- In B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001), the Governor’s appointment of Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister despite her conviction for a criminal offence was called in question.
- Article 164(1) of the Constitution does not prescribe any disqualification for the appointment of a Chief Minister. Article 173, however, disqualifies a person with prior conviction from being a member of the Legislature.
- The court was confronted with the question of whether it could import a disqualification for a person being appointed as a Chief Minister, when none was prescribed. The Supreme Court said yes.
- It held, “The will of the people as expressed through the majority party prevails only if it is in accord with the Constitution. The Governor... is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the laws (Article 159). The Governor cannot... do anything that is contrary to the Constitution and the laws.” The Governor’s act of administering oath to Jayalalithaa after her conviction was declared unconstitutional.
Oath for judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court:
N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose (2009):
- “Eligibility of a judge of a High Court should not be construed in a pedantic manner,” declared the Supreme Court in N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose (2009).
- An additional judge of the High Court, who was not appointed as a permanent judge due to allegations of lack of probity, was later recommended by the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court for appointment as president of the State Consumer Commission.
- The appointment was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, which held that an independent and impartial judiciary should be manned by persons who dispense justice “without fear or favour, ill-will or affection.” It held that a person who lacked the qualities necessary to adhere to the oath of office of a judge was ineligible for appointment to any judicial office. Thus, the capacity to dispense justice in terms of constitutional oath was held to be non-negotiable.
K.S. Haja Shareef (1983) Case:
- Inability to adhere to the Constitution as per the oath prescribed has been held to be a disqualification by a full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Haja Shareef (1983), who, after taking oath as a member of the Assembly to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,” accepted appointment as Honorary Consul General of Turkey at Madras.
- On such appointment, he had agreed to abide by the directives of a foreign State. The court held that such a person cannot be expected to be a member of the Legislature since a conflict of interest between the two countries would arise and the constitutional oath will prevail to unseat him.
Selection of judges:
- To limit ‘eligibility’ for appointment of a High Court judge to a minimum of 10 years of legal practice prescribed in Article 217(2) makes a mockery of the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Such a facile reading turns the solemn assurance of an impartial and fair judiciary into a hollow promise. Just as breach of the oath will result in removal, adherence to the Constitution should precede taking the oath of office.
- Faced with opacity in judicial appointments/ transfers, the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) directed the Government and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to disclose all the materials.
- The judges held that their constitutional duty demanded such scrutiny through judicial review. They also held that if on scrutiny it was found that all the materials were not before the CJI (now collegium), the consultation/ selection process is defective and invalid.
Conclusion & Way Forward:
- The events leading up to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court regarding the selection of Justice Victoria Gowri reveal the fault lines between the government and the judiciary. The selection process came under a cloud once the CJI expressed in open court that materials now brought before the collegium were not available earlier.
- The collegium relies on the government’s agencies to produce background materials of persons recommended to be judges. Transparency and accountability in the selection of judges alone will ensure an independent judiciary. The Preamble to the Constitution should permeate selection of every judge.
