Daily Quiz: UPSC Prelims Marathon (Polity & International Relations) – August 30, 2020

The 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution (which talks about the anti-defection law) is designed to prevent political defections prompted by the lure of office or material benefits or other like considerations.

• The Anti-defection law was passed by Parliament in 1985 and reinforced in 2002.
• The 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution popularly referred to as the ‘Anti-Defection Law’ was inserted by the 52nd Amendment (1985) to the Constitution.
• The anti-defection law was enacted to ensure that a party member does not violate the mandate of the party and in case he does so, he will lose his membership of the House.
• The law applies to both Parliament and state assemblies.

As the government abrogated Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, Article 371, which has special provisions for other States, mostly from the Northeast, has invited some attention.

• Article 371(A) states that no act of Parliament shall apply to the State of Nagaland in respect of the religious or social practices of the Nagas, its customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law and ownership and transfer of land and its resources.
• Article 371B deals with special provision with respect to the State of Assam.
• The main objective of inserting Article 371B was to facilitate the creation of the sub-State ‘Meghalaya’.
• Article 371C deals with special provisions with respect to Manipur which became a State in 1972.
• Articles 371F, 371H talk about special provisions with respect to States of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, respectively.
• Article 371 gives the power to the President of India to establish separate development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada regions of Maharashtra and the rest of the State and Saurashtra, Kutch and rest of Gujarat.
• Special provisions with respect to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa are dealt in Articles 371D and 371E, 371J, 371I respectively.

In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act.

• The purpose of the Act was to establish an institutional framework that could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
• To this end, the Act created a National Human Rights Commission, and also, Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various States.
• Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Commissions are empowered to inquire into the violations of human rights committed by state authorities, either upon petitions presented to them, or upon their own initiative.
• While conducting these inquiries, the Commissions are granted identical powers to that of civil courts, such as the examining witnesses, ordering for documents, receiving evidence, and so on.
• These proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings, and they require that any person, who may be prejudicially affected by their outcome, has a right to be heard.
• The controversy before the Madras High Court stems from the issue of what is to be done after the Human Rights Commission completes its enquiry, and reaches a conclusion that human rights have been violated.
• Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to “recommend” to the concerned government to grant compensation to the victim, to initiate prosecution against the erring state authorities, to grant interim relief, and to take various other steps.

Amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, or CAA, 2019, and the threat of non-cooperation by some States with the Central government’s plan to update the National Population Register (NPR) and possibly establish a National Register of Indian Citizens, Kerala has filed a suit in the Supreme Court of India seeking to declare the CAA as unconstitutional.
• Meanwhile, Chhattisgarh has also filed a similar suit, challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act.
• Both have invoked Article 131, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the top court to adjudicate disputes between two or more States, or between States and the Centre.
• Article 131 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in disputes involving States, or the Centre on the one hand and one or more States on the other. This means no other court can entertain such a dispute.
• It is well-known that both High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to adjudicate cases against the State and Central governments.
• In particular, the validity of any executive or legislative action is normally challenged by way of writ petitions — under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 32 in the Supreme Court.

The Constitution does not contain any specific procedure for the selection and appointment of the Chief Minister.

• Article 164 only says that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the governor.
• However, this does not imply that the governor is free to appoint any one as the Chief Minister.
• In accordance with the convections of the parliamentary system of government, the governor has to appoint the leader of the majority party in the state legislative assembly as the Chief Minister.

The Industrial Security Annex (ISA), signed between India and the U.S. at the second 2+2 dialogue in Washington, will open the door for U.S. defence companies to partner with the Indian private sector for several multi-billion dollar deals in the pipeline, especially the deal for 114 fighter jets.

• The ISA is a part of the General Security Of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), which India signed with the U.S. long back.
• It became critical as India opened up the defense sector to the private sector and the Strategic Partnership policy, which has few big military platforms and is reserved for the Indian private sector. U.S. companies are in the race for multi-billion dollar deal for 114 fighter jets, among other deals.

The Information Fusion Centre for the Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR), an initiative of the Indian Navy and supported by the Government of India launched in December 2018, has started functioning.

The IFC-IOR has been established at Gurugram along with the Information Management and Analysis Centre, jointly administered by the Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guard.

India and other members of the SCO condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and called on the international community to promote cooperation in combating the menace.

According to the Bishkek Declaration of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s Heads of State Council, the member states stressed that acts of terrorism and extremism cannot be justified.

The G-20 is the G-7 plus developing nations such as Brazil, China, India, and Russia.

• The G-20’s members represent two-thirds of the world’s people and 85 percent of its economy.
• Since 2007, the media has covered each G-20 summit. That recognizes the members’ role as significant drivers of the world economy.
• The G-20’s primary mandate is to prevent future international financial crises. It seeks to shape the global economic agenda.
• It lends the perspective of Asian and Latin American growing economies. That “broadens the scope of international economic and financial cooperation.”

While the proclamation of financial emergency (under Article 360) is in operation, the Centre can give directions to the states:

• to observe the specified canons of financial propriety;
• to reduce the salaries and allowances of all class of persons serving in the state (including the high court judges); and
• to reserve all money bills and other financial bills for the consideration of the President.