Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Ruling on a dispute that began in June last year, the Election Commission decided that the Shiv Sena faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde was the real Shiv Sena as opposed to the group led by former CM Uddhav Thackeray.
It said the party name and symbol of ‘Bow and Arrow’ would be retained by the Shinde group.
Dealt a blow, Thackeray, speaking to reporters in Mumbai, said “They (Shinde faction) have stolen our Bow and Arrow symbol, but people will avenge this theft.” Calling the EC decision “very dangerous for democracy”, he said it would be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Shinde hailed the EC decision, calling it “the victory of ideologies of Balasaheb and Anand Dighe, of our workers, MPs, MLAs, public representatives and lakhs of Shiv Sainiks. It is a victory for democracy”.
The EC ruling comes at a time when the Supreme Court is still to decide on the dispute over the powers of the Deputy Speaker to disqualify rebel Shiv Sena MLAs when a notice for his own removal has been given.
In its 77-page order, the three-member Commission relied on the test of majority, which the Shinde faction was able to prove it had with the support of 40 out of 67 MLAs and MLCs in Maharashtra, and 13 out of 22 MPs in both Houses of Parliament.
The EC said the 40 MLAs of the Shinde group had got 76% of the votes polled by the 55 Shiv Sena MLAs in the 2019 elections, as opposed to 23.5% for the MLAs in the Thackeray camp.
The EC decided that the “test of party Constitution” could not be relied upon as the party had not submitted a copy of its amended Constitution in 2018 and the document itself had been changed to become more undemocratic.
It also found that it could not rely on the test of majority in the organisational wing of the party as claims of numerical majority by both factions were not satisfactory.
Express Network
Govt bans Khalitani, J&K group, declares Rinda a terrorist (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 3, Internal Security)
The Centre notified Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) and Jammu and Kashmir Ghaznavi Force (JKGF) as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). It also notified alleged Khalistani operative Harwinder Singh Sandhu alias Rinda as a “terrorist”.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Rinda has been associated with terrorist organisation Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and is presently based in Lahore, Pakistan, “under the patronage of cross border agencies and has been found involved in various terrorist activities, particularly in Punjab”.
With this declaration, now there are 54 designated terrorists under the IVth Schedule of the UAPA.Reinforcing the commitment of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to strengthen national security and combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, the Ministry of Home Affairs under the guidance of Union Home Minister Amit Shah today declared one more individual and two organisations as ‘Terrorist’/‘Terrorist Organisation’.
Giving reasons for declaring KTF as a terror organisation, the MHA said, “It is a militant outfit and it aims to revive terrorism in Punjab and challenges the territorial integrity, unity, national security and sovereignty of India and promotes various acts of terrorism, including targeted killings in Punjab.
About JKGF, the MHA said the organisation “has been found involved in infiltration bids, narcotics and weapon smuggling and carrying out terror attacks in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Explained
Special Marriage Act and how it differs from religious codes of marriage (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
For several interfaith couples including actress Swara Bhasker and her partner FarhadZirar Ahmad, the choice to marry under a secular personal law is through the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Announcing her marriage, the actress hailed the legislation that provides an alternate route to religious laws for marriage. “Three cheers for the #SpecialMarriageAct (despite notice period, etc.) At least it exists and gives love a chance.
The right to love, the right to choose your life partner, the right to marry, the right to agency should not be a privilege.
The Special Marriage Act of 1954 (SMA) was passed by the Parliament on October 9, 1954. It governs a civil marriage where the state sanctions the marriage rather than the religion.
Issues of personal law such as marriage, divorce, adoption are governed by religious laws that are codified. These laws, such as the Muslim Marriage Act, 1954, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, require either spouse to convert to the religion of the other before marriage.
However, the SMA enables marriage between inter-faith or inter-caste couples without them giving up their religious identity or resorting to conversion.
The Indian system, where both civil and religious marriages are recognised, is similar to the laws in the UK’s Marriage Act of 1949. An earlier version of the SMA was enacted in 1872 and was later re-enacted in 1954 with provisions for divorce etc.
The applicability of the Act extends to the people of all faiths, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, across India.
Some customary restrictions such as parties not being within degrees of a prohibited relationship still apply to couples under SMA.
In 1952, when the Bill was proposed, the requirement of monogamy was considered radical. Section 4 of the SMA requires that at the time of marriage, “neither party has a spouse living” or is “incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind”.
Even if both parties are capable of giving valid consent, it requires that they do not suffer from “recurrent attacks of insanity” or any mental disorder that renders them “unfit for marriage and the procreation of children.
Ideas Page
Learning in an AI world (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 3, Science and Technology)
Intelligent Machines are revealing glimpses of a future envisaged long ago in science fiction as they steadily morph from human-assist systems to systems-as-human. The currently indispensable face obsolescence.
Now, one not only needs to be competent in a major area but also learn new topics quickly and deeply and be able to work at the edges of disciplines, while innovating constantly.
Capability is judged not only by grades, but also by skills demonstrated in complex situations.Worth will also be measured vis-a-vis Artificial Intelligence.
Critical and original thinking, quality communication, IQ-EQ balance, and ethics will remain important strengths for swimming through these rapidly evolving times.
Change is already in the air. Students and institutions are evolving, the former much faster, to assimilate advancements and prepare for the times ahead.
Good colleges enable students to follow flexible pathways where learning happens through four channels – core academics, external experiences, student-driven activities and hostel life.
Students are no longer strictly bound to the department where they enrolled in first year and can find their passion in due course. There are options for dual degrees, minors, specialisations across disciplines in their home institutions as well as certifications from worldwide venues.
External experiences like internships in industry, academia, research institutions and start-ups add value to a candidate’s capability repertoire.
A terror law less arbitrary (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 3, Internal Security)
In recent times, two cases have drawn our attention to India’s omnibus anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
In 2021, Muhammad Manan Dar, a young Kashmiri photojournalist, was arrested and imprisoned for documenting the daily lives of common Kashmiris with his camera.
A year earlier, another journalist, SidheequeKappan, was charged with participating in a plot to ignite rioting in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.
In reality, no riots occurred in Hathras, and Kappan was detained even before he arrived there. In the past few weeks, the courts have granted bail to the two journalists.
Since the passage of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in 1985, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002, the extraordinary nature of anti-terror laws has remained a matter of intense political debate.
TADA and POTA were known for their lengthy pretrial detention, in-custody torture, false prosecutions, and forced confessions. Minority community members, in particular, paid a heavy price. The 2004 version of UAPA was supposed to be a more humane variant of its predecessors.
While repealing POTA in 2004, the UPA government stated that POTA “was a slur on our democracy” and not needed as “there was no dearth of laws for prevention of terrorism”. The government dusted off UAPA, enacted in 1967 to declare illegal any organisation questioning India’s sovereignty, and turned the act into an anti-terror law.
Since then, the law has undergone three significant revisions — 2008, 2013 and 2019. Each modification has made it more stringent.
The law has not only expanded beyond its original purpose but is proving to be more oppressive than TADA and POTA ever were.