Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Chief Justice of India N V Ramana recommended to the government the name of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, the second most senior judge of the Supreme Court, as his successor.
Elevated directly to the Supreme Court from the Bar in August 2014 — only the sixth lawyer to be so honoured —Justice Lalit will take over as the 49th CJI after the incumbent retires on August 26. He has a short term in office and will retire on November 8, 2022.
It also “recalled” that the CJI’s Secretariat received a communication dated August 3 from the office of the Union Minister of Law and Justice requesting him to recommend the name of his successor.
As per convention, the incumbent CJI recommends the name of his successor only upon receiving the communication from the Law Ministry urging him/her to do so.
Enrolling as an Advocate in June 1983, Justice Lalit has been a key part of the country’s jurisprudential journey in the last couple of decades, initially as a lawyer and then as judge. His father U R Lalit was an Additional Judge of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court from 1974-76.
He has also been part of several important rulings in the SC. Justice Lalit headed the bench that last month sentenced Vijay Mallya, who was found guilty of contempt of court in 2017, to four months’ imprisonment and fine of Rs 2,000. He also headed the bench that convicted the fugitive businessman for contempt in May 2017.
A bench presided by him underscored the importance of mitigating circumstances while dealing with death penalty convicts.
In a Madhya Pradesh case involving a man sentenced to death for the gangrape of a child, the bench gave credence to the role of a “mitigation investigator” in going into the background of the convict.
The court also initiated a suo motu case to streamline the process of consideration of mitigating circumstances in such matters.
In Parliament
Amid protests, Rajya Sabha passes family courts Bill (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Rajya Sabha passed The Family Courts (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to extend statutory cover to family courts set up in Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland. The Bill was passed amidst protests and sloganeering by the Opposition over alleged misuse of central agencies.
As the Bill was being introduced by Union Minister for Law and Justice Kiren Rijiju, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh tried to raise a point of order but it was denied by Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh, who said a point of order can be raised only “in relation to the business of the House at the moment”.
TMC MP Derek O Brien said that subject to the Constitution and rules of Parliament, every member has the freedom of expression. In response, Union Minister Bhupendra Yadav said, “The members have freedom of speech. The Constitution does not give freedom of ‘hungama’.”
Discussing the Bill, BJP MP Saroj Yadav said that western concepts were slowly encroaching on Indian values, especially in family-related issues.
We need more family courts to ensure that matrimonial cases are addressed faster. We need to protect Indian culture. One of the Western concepts that we often hear about is same-sex marriage. This is against Indian culture.
Law Minister Rijiju said there are currently 715 family courts in 26 states and Union Territories across the country, including in Himachal Pradesh and Nagaland, the two states where the Bill seeks to extend legal backing to courts already existing.
If we did not bring a legislation to extend statutory powers to three family courts in Himachal Pradesh and two family courts in Nagaland, thousands of pending cases would be affected.
According to the non-profit PRS, the establishment of family courts in the two states will be retrospectively valid and all actions taken under the Act, including the appointment of judges, and orders and judgments passed by the courts, will also be deemed to be valid from these dates retrospectively.
Express Network
J&K sees fall in militant attacks, but shift in recruitment strategy remains a worry (Page no. 9)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Three years since the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, recruitment into militant ranks remains a cause of concern for the security apparatus in the Union Territory.
Since 2019, more than 690 militants have been killed in Jammu and Kashmir, 132 of them this year. In the same period, 527 individuals joined militant ranks.
In an interview to The Indian Express, J&K Director General of Police Dibag Singh attributed the recruitment numbers in large measure to “social media and internet-based propaganda” while raising concern that the recruitment age had been lowered to include school dropouts.
The recruitment figure was 143 for 2019, rose to 172 in 2020 before falling again to 136 in 2021. For 2022, till July 31, 76 individuals have joined the militancy.
Senior security officials said about half the militant recruits are “uncategorised”. As such, security forces “sometimes find out that an individual has joined an outfit only after an incident,” said an official. So, they cannot be referenced against any existing database.
As per government data, law-and-order incidents fell from 584 in 2019 to 147 in 2020 and 77 in 2021. This year, the number stands at 20.
And in the case of terror-related incidents, the data show a slow but steady decline from 255 in 2019 to 244 in 2020 and 228 in 2021. The number of such incidents so far this year is 81.
At least 29 top militant commanders were killed in operations in 2022. In 2021, at least 44 militant commanders from different militant outfits were killed.
Flagging a strategic shift in militant recruitment, DGP Singh said the modus operandi of handlers has changed. “They immediately ask them (terror recruits) to commit an act of terror violence — throw a grenade, fire at somebody, or kill someone. Once they are involved, it becomes a way of preventing their return to society.”
The Editorial Page
Who benefits of delay (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
On Wednesday, the Minister for the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MEITY), Ashwini Vaishnaw, withdrew the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019.
The reasons for the withdrawal were circulated in a note to MPs, which stated that,“considering the report of the JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee), a comprehensive legal framework is being worked upon…”.
The decision lays waste years of labour and deliberation on a law essential for the protection of every Indian in a digitised society. Hence, it is important for us to understand its implications by first taking into account why the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was introduced in Parliament, and second, whether its withdrawal is justified.
A proposal for a data protection framework was first considered in 2011 when a draft was coordinated through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Alongside this, an expert committee headed by Justice (retd) A P Shah recommended in October, 2012,“a detailed framework that serves as the conceptual foundation for the Privacy Act”.
This did not come to fruition, with proposals buried by 2014 due to objections from the intelligence establishment on surveillance reforms. While petitions on the constitutionality of Aadhaar and the right to privacy were pending before the Supreme Court, the Union government constituted an expert group headed by Justice (retd) B N Srikrishna in July, 2017.
At the time of the constitution of this panel, the then minister for MEITY, Ravi Shankar Prasad stated that “data protection law… will set a global benchmark.” (IE, September 9, 2017).
In August, a nine-judge bench unanimously pronounced the Puttaswamy judgment that reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy for the autonomy, dignity and liberty for every Indian. Justice D Y Chandrachud, who authored the majority opinion, noted the formation of the Srikrishna Committee as a positive obligation on the government to enact a law for informational privacy.
This buoyed hopes when the report by the Srikrishna Committee was submitted in July 2018, as it was welcomed by Prasad, who said, “It is a monumental law and we would like to have the widest parliamentary consultation”.
The Idea Page
Breathing LiFE into it (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
In the midst of a global climate crisis, and as India gets closer to hosting the G20 presidency, it is important to recognise our country’s leadership at both ends of the climate debate: By walking the talk on our climate commitments as well as leading people-powered climate action.
In November 2021, at the CoP 26 in Glasgow, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in addition to announcing the panchamrit, or five climate-related commitments of the country, also articulated the concept of “Lifestyle for the Environment” (LiFE) — advocating for “mindful and deliberate utilisation” by people worldwide, instead of “mindful and wasteful consumption”.
There is unequivocal evidence that the Earth’s temperature is rising exponentially, with multiple threats around the world. It has been estimated that the global economy could lose up to 18 per cent of GDP, and India could lose $6 trillion by 2050 if no climate action is taken. In India alone, more than 50 per cent of our largely rural workforce will be negatively affected by climate change.
Food and water security are already threatened across the world due to the climate crisis. Clearly, climate change can no longer be an after-thought to the global development agenda.
Over the last two decades, many countries have attempted policies and actions to address climate change. However, the positive impact that individual and community behaviours can have on climate action has remained under realised.
According to the United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP), if one billion people out of the global population of close to eight billion adopt eco-friendly behaviours in their daily lives, global carbon emissions could drop by approximately 20 per cent.
Such eco-friendly behaviours include turning off ACs, heaters and lights when not in use, as this, for instance, can conserve up to 282 kilowatts of electricity per day.
Avoiding food wastage can reduce an individual’s carbon footprint by 370 kg per year. Reducing one flight trip per year can reduce per capita carbon emissions by 700 to 2,800 kg.
Playing it safe (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
The RBI’s latest Financial Stability Report (FSR) has given the banking system a reasonably clean bill of health. It’s a significant achievement, considering the stress of the previous decade, the shock of the pandemic and the associated slowdown of the economy.
However, the improvement in banks’ financials is a glass half-full picture. It is still unclear whether the banking system is healthy enough to provide the sustained credit growth needed for a strong economic recovery.
Two key indicators demonstrate the banking system’s progress. Successive waves of recapitalisation have given banks enough resources to write off most of their bad loans.
As a result, they have been able to bring down their gross NPAs (non-performing loans) from 11 per cent of total advances in 2017-18 to 5.9 per cent in 2021-22.
NPAs for industrial credit have been reduced even more dramatically, from 23 per cent to 8.4 per cent. Even after these large write-offs, most banks retain comfortable levels of capital.
This financial turnaround has given banks the space to resume their business of extending credit. During the decade when banks were under stress, non-food bank credit growth had been declining, reaching just 6 per cent in 2020, its lowest point in six decades. Since then, credit growth has nearly doubled.
These are the visible signs of a healthier banking system. However, the broad aggregates conceal a worrisome picture, raising questions about the role bank credit will play in supporting GDP growth. The problem is that very little of this credit is going to large-scale industry or for financing investment.
The World
Furious China fires missiles into waters off Taiwan coast, some land near Japan (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
China conducted “precision missile strikes” in the Taiwan Strait and in the waters off the eastern coast of Taiwan as part of military exercises that have raised tensions in the region to their highest level in decades.
China earlier announced that military exercises by its navy, air force and other departments were underway in six zones surrounding Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its own territory to be annexed by force if necessary.
Five of the missiles fired by China landed in Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone off Hateruma, an island far south of Japan’s main islands.
He said Japan protested the missile landings to China as “serious threats to Japan’s national security and the safety of the Japanese people.
China fired long-range explosive projectiles, the Eastern Theater Command of the People’s Liberation Army, the ruling
Communist Party’s military wing, said. It also said it carried out multiple conventional missile launches in three areas in the eastern waters off Taiwan.
Taiwan’s Defence Ministry said it tracked the firing of Chinese Dongfeng series missiles. It later said it counted 11 Dongfeng missiles in the waters in the north, east and south.
The ministry said it scrambled jets to warn away 22 Chinese fighter aircraft that crossed the Taiwan Strait median line into its air defence zone, and said troops fired flares to drive away four drones above Kinmen islands.
Taiwanese President Tsai Ingwen criticised the drills saying China “destroyed the status quo and violated our sovereignty” with its “irresponsible actions.”
She urged China to be “reasonable and restrained.” “We are calm and not impulsive, reasonable and not provocative. But we will also be firm and not back down.
Explained Page
Data Regulation : What now (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The government has withdrawn the Personal Data Protection Bill from Parliament as it considers a “comprehensive legal framework” to regulate the online space, including bringing separate laws on data privacy, the overall Internet ecosystem, cybersecurity, telecom regulations, and harnessing non-personal data to boost innovation in the country.
The government has taken this step after nearly four years of the Bill being in the works. It had gone through multiple iterations, including a review by a Joint Committee of Parliament (JCP), and faced major pushback from a range of stakeholders including big tech companies such as Facebook and Google, and privacy and civil society activists.
The tech companies had, in particular, questioned a proposed provision in the Bill called data localisation, under which it would have been mandatory for companies to store a copy of certain sensitive personal data within India, and the export of undefined “critical” personal data from the country would be prohibited.
The activists had criticised, in particular, a provision that allowed the central government and its agencies blanket exemptions from adhering to any and all provisions of the Bill.
The delays in the Bill had been criticised by several stakeholders, who had pointed out that it was a matter of grave concern that India, one of the world’s largest Internet markets, did not have a basic framework to protect people’s privacy.
The withdrawal of the Data Protection Bill, 2019 is concerning, for a belated regulation is being junked. It’s not about getting a perfect law, but a law at this point,” Apar Gupta, executive director of the Delhi-based digital rights group Internet Freedom Foundation, said.
It has been close to 10 years since the (Justice) A P Shah Committee report on privacy, five years since the Puttaswamy judgment (right to privacy) and four years since the (Justice B N) Srikrishna Committee’s report — they all signal urgency for a data protection law and surveillance reforms. Each day that is lost causes more injury and harm.”
A data protection law for India has been in the works since 2018, when a panel led by Justice Srikrishna, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, drew up a draft version of a Bill. The draft was reviewed by the JCP, which submitted its recommendations along with a draft Bill in November 2021.
In a note circulated to Members of Parliament, Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw explained the reason behind the withdrawal of the Bill: “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was deliberated in great detail by the Joint Committee of Parliament. 81 amendments were proposed and 12 recommendations were made towards a comprehensive legal framework on the digital ecosystem.
Rare earth elements and India’s push for inclusion supply partnership (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
As part of a global ‘China-plus-one’ strategy adopted post the Covid-19 pandemic that caused massive supply-chain disruptions, a group of western nations are cooperating to develop alternatives to China to ensure key industrial supplies.
A new US-led partnership initiative of 11 nations aims to bolster critical mineral supply chains. India is not part of this arrangement — called the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP) — but New Delhi is working through diplomatic channels to fetch an entry.
The US and 10 partners — Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the European Commission — have come together to form the MSP.
The new grouping is aimed at catalysing investment from governments and the private sector to develop strategic opportunities.
“Demand for critical minerals, which are essential for clean energy and other technologies, is projected to expand significantly in the coming decades.
The MSP will help catalyse investment from governments and the private sector for strategic opportunities — across the full value chain — that adhere to the highest environmental, social, and governance standards,” the US State Department said in a statement issued on June 14.
The new grouping, industry insiders say, could focus on the supply chains of minerals such as Cobalt, Nickel, Lithium, and also the 17 ‘rare earth’ minerals.
The alliance is seen as primarily focused on evolving an alternative to China, which has created processing infrastructure in rare earth minerals and has acquired mines in Africa for elements such as Cobalt.
The 17 rare earth elements (REE) include the 15 Lanthanides (atomic numbers 57 — which is Lanthanum — to 71 in the periodic table) plus Scandium (atomic number 21) and Yttrium (39). REEs are classified as light RE elements (LREE) and heavy RE elements (HREE).