Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021

Definition is quite unambiguous under the Rules. Colloquially, paddy fields are called temporary wetlands but the rules explicitly lay them outside the purview of "wetlands."

However, the statement is from Vikaspedia. It says 18.4 percent of the land surface in India are wetlands and that 70 percent of that is under paddy cultivation. 

Isn't it the other way round? Isn't a wave always faster in deeper water? Having high wavelength and speed. As it reaches the shore, wavelength decreases, amplitude increases and speed decreases?

Remember that this was a controversial question last time and the jury was out. The statement was verbatim from an article written by PDT Achary in the Indian Express. 

A right to die does not exist (Gian Kaur case, 1996 I think)

However a right to dignified death exists under Article 21. (Aruna Shanbaug case, Common Cause 2018 case)

Generally, no. Contempt powers vest in Courts of Record. By Courts of record, I mean courts where the proceedings are recorded forever. In India, it means the Supreme Court and High Court. On behalf of tribunals/District courts within their jurisdiction, a High Court can generally exercise contempt powers. However, a tribunal does not generally have contempt powers unless the statute establishing it expressly provides for it. 

My comment was with respect to the general rule. This judgement you have mentioned did not lay down a general rule. Statutes establishing tribunals may specifically provide for contempt. Or power to punish for contempt may be inferred from surrounding circumstances. 

In this case you have mentioned, section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act expressly provided for powers to punish for contempt. This power to punish for contempt of tribunals may be expressly stated in the statute establishing the tribunal or may be inferred by the HC/SC by referring to the statute in totality. In such cases, a tribunal would have power to punish for contempt. For the general rule, please see section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act. 

Also, tribunals can mean a lot of things. Even an arbitral tribunal is a tribunal. The tribunal often has to appeal to a superior court of record so that such court would initiate contempt proceedings. 

https://www.vantageasia.com/violation-tribunals-orders-can-lead-contempt-proceedings/

Breaking it down, in order to have any power at all, the Court/Tribunal must derive it from something that establishes such Court/Tribunal. This is why the District Court cannot hear an inter-State water dispute for example. Or why a Debt Recovery Tribunal cannot hear an insolvency proceeding. 

Coming specifically to contempt, the Supreme Court and HCs have power to punish for contempt because the document establishing these Courts provides for such power. (A.129, 215, and in addition, Contempt of Courts Act) Similarly, a tribunal does not have such powerunless it derives such power from something that establishes it.If a tribunal exercises contempt power when no such power exists, such exercise of power would be wrong in law.

Inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt vests in Courts of Record. In India, SC and HCs are courts of Record.(Similar to King's Court in England). Tribunals/subordinate courts etc. are not courts of record and therefore, they do not have theinherent power to punish for contempt. By inherent, I mean, merely by reason of its existence. If the legitimate source of power (Parliament) vests such subordinate court with power to punish for contempt without reference to the High Court or supreme Court, it would have power to punish for contempt. Otherwise, under Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court would have power to punish for contempt of a subordinate court. 

1. Nobody does. State recognition is usually accorded if the following things are present: a) Population; b) Definite territory; c) A government or some form of political organisation; d) Said government/political organisation exercises political control over said territory and population; e) This political control is not temporary and tends towards permanence. If its temporary, a state of belligerency may be recognised; f) Said state is able and willing to perform obligations under international law.

States can be generally recognised as legal entities if they have the above qualities. However, there is no body which approves this. Reason is: sovereignty is never given or taken, it is alwaysasserted.This is why Palestine for example is recognised as a Country by a number of countries, and not recognised as so by others. Recognition is usually granted on the basis of political considerations.

Now, if a "State" fulfils the above six conditions, do other states have a duty to recognise it? That is a moot question, and the jury is out on that. So, I can't give you a straight answer on that without going into unnecessary details.

2. What clothes a State with personality, and what is its significance?

 Two important theories: a)Constitutive theory: Other States recognising this new State gives it rights and duties under international law. This act of other States is what clothes it with personality.b)Declaratory theory:The act of other states in recognising this new State ismerely a recognitionof already existing rights and duties under International law. In other words, when the above six conditions are satisfied, Statehood is automatic and the act of other states in recognising this State is merely a declaration or recognition of existing circumstances.

 Specific question of Israel/West Bank:

A number of UNGA resolutions and ICJ also has observed that Israeli occupation of the west bank isinconsistentwith international law. However, this by itself does not prevent it from being a State in the eyes of other parties, or even by the metrics of international law. Nothing can in fact prevent other States from recognising Israel's occupation as valid and legal despite these resolutions/judgements. This is because the fundamental basis of international law is the principle of sovereign equality of States. Sovereignty, by its very nature is absolute and an external body cannot impose restrictions on it without that other body being superior. If that other body is superior, then it violates the principle of sovereign equality of parties. See the conundrum? International law is considered a weak law for exactly this reason; it can have no enforcement mechanism (weak enforcement mechanism) because such a mechanism would fundamentally alter the character of international law.

Occupation may be illegal, but as long as the above six conditions are present, itmay continue to be a Statein the eyes of other parties or for the purposes of international organisations. Illegality may arise from a number of reasons including those you mentioned, and from customary international law. Even basis the UN charter, illegality may be found. In an advisory opinion in 2004, the ICJ found possession to be illegal, basis the above. That being so, such a judgement cannot divest Israel of its sovereignty or prevent other States from recognising Israel's occupation as a valid exercise of its sovereignty. This is because, as I already quoted J. Chelameswar (Enrica Lexie, 2013), "sovereignty is never given or taken, it is always asserted."

Both approval and removal done by President. Please see Ss. 6 and 9 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the manner in which this is done.

From Anuradha Bhasin judgement of SC. Her contention was that the restrictions imposed in J&K precluded her (a journalist) from exercising her rightunder A. 19(1)(g)through the medium of internet. This contention was upheld. Nothing more was said. 

In Faheema Shireen case, Kerala High Court had said that Right to internet was a fundamental right. In this case, the context was that the petitioner was a student staying in the ladies hostel of the college she was studying in. The rules were such that mobile phones (having internet facility) were not permitted to be used past evening hours. Her contention was that this deprived her of her right to life and personal liberty underA. 21.The Court accepted this contention and said that in this day and age, a person should not be arbitrarily deprived of facilities which enable them to achieve their full potential. The internet could well be used as an educational tool, and that was held to be a fundamental right under A. 21.  

She's wrong about the SC judgement. 

Depends on: 1. which Fundamental Right is claimed to be violated; 2. Who claims violation of Fundamental right. 

1. In case of a lay person,not being an MP/MLA/MLC,publishes a malicious report on proceedings of parliament, he cannot claim protection of his FR under A. 19(1)(a). It would be a breach of privilege irrespective of his right under A. 19, andsuch a person may be punished for contempt of the legislature notwithstanding his fundamental right.However, substantially true reports of proceedings in Parliament are constitutionally protected. (A. 361A, I think)

2. In case of MLA, MP, MLC, their right to freedom of speech in Parliament extends beyond the confines of A. 19, and is not limited by reasonable restrictions therein.In such cases, parliamentary privileges prevail.However, if an order of arrest is issued by the Speaker against any member for breach of privilege, and the protections under A. 20 and A.21 are violated, the MP/MLA/MLC can claim infringement of fundamental rights.In such cases, fundamental rights will prevail as against parliamentary privileges. (Raja Ram Paul Case)

That is one of the reasons. However, even those companies are now almost entirely regulated by the new Act.An amendment is done for minor changes within the existing framework while a new act is enacted for a complete unshackling and reassembly/introduction of a new framework.If you look at the two acts you have mentioned, there has been a complete overhaul of the regulatory ecosystem itself.

The primary reason a new act was introduced and the old one repealed was that these old acts (CA 1956 and CPA 1986) had become anachronistic and extremely out of sync with the present times. A 1956 legislation in the digital era, you can imagine how that would've been.

Companies Act, 2013 completely changed the entire regulatory ecosystem when it came to companies. Everything beginning from incorporation to dissolution was changed.The NCLTwas brought in to stop cloggingup of the High Courts (liquidation proceedings/ oppression-mismanagement proceeding against majority shareholders) under the previous regime. Major changes as relating toprivate placement, related party transactions etc. were brought in. The regulatory ecosystem and compliance mechanism when it came tolisting of shares, borrowing, creation of security, registration of chargewas simplified to a large extent. Entirely new concepts likeOne person company, Differential shareholder litigation etcwere brought in. It was truly a transformative change in the company law ecosystem. If you had amended the previous act to bring these changes, the amended act would have little to no resemblance to the original. 

To a lesser extent, the same is the case with the CPA, 1986. You had theeconomy opening up post 1991 reforms, rise of e-commerce, tech platforms; you had a proliferation of advertising services.Further, under the old act, from experience, I can tell you that the DCDRF or the SCDRC, or NCDRC were not really working hard to protect consumers.On the contrary, they were hardly working. Adjournments and inordinate delays were a matter of course. In fact, to a large extent, the fora would assemble solely to give new dates for cases without even a preliminary hearing. So, there was a need for greater accountability and a completely new regulatory ecosystem. Hence, the new act.@AlexanderSupertramp 

Hey! 

So, as per A. 81 (1), the House of the People will have 550 members (530+20 (UT)).

Now, these available seats have to be distributed equitably between the States so as to avoid inequitable distribution between the States. A. 81(2) says that this distribution shall be basis population of each state, in the sense that, the ratio between population and number of seats allotted remains the same for all states.This would avoid underrepresentation or overrepresentation of people belonging to one State.Further, since population is a fluid number, this ratio would keep changing with time and readjustment is necessary. Hence, the provision for readjustment was brought in under A. 82. Every 10 years, after a census, a Delimitation Commission would be appointed to consider and revise this number allotted to each state. (A.82)

Now, as you know, we were going through a population explosion at that time. Some states did better than others in controlling population growth. But according to the prevailing Constitutional scheme, they would be the biggest losers, because they would be underrepresented in Parliament despite better performance in controlling population. Hence, as per the42nd amendment actand later the84th Amendment Act, A. 81(3) and A. 82(3) were amended such that the allocation of seats to each State wasset in stone for the future. It would be limited to the number ascertained in the delimitation carried out by the Delimitation Commission (1972) basis Census numbers of 1971.  No readjustment of seats was to take place till2000, as per the 42nd amendmentand as per the84th amendment, this was extended till 2026.

Now comes the question of dividing these States into different single-seat constituencies within each State so that ratio between population and seats allotted remains the same throughout the State (A.82(2)). Here also, there is a need for revision because demography/population of different parts of a State is not constant with the efflux of time. This division was consistently revised, but as of now, has beenfixed as per 2001 censustill the year 2026, by the87th Amendment. 

4th Delimitation Commissionappointed in2002submitted its report in 2007(I think) and as per this report (and subsequent approval by Parliament and Presidential order) since 2008,  division of each State into Constituencies has been as per 2001 census. 

Please note that readjustment of seats and division into constituenciestakes effect only after a Presidential order to that effect.

As it stands, ceterus paribus, the next readjustment will effectively be post 2031 census. The fixing of seats/division may be criticised on the ground that it erodes the idea of one person-one vote-one value.

You may see S. 4 and S. 9 of Delimitation Act for further details!

No. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.onlinesbi.com/documents/27022018_2032_FAQ_Final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGyIXtyO_rAhVeyTgGHWZYAWUQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw20qZ8gbf5uZW-TfOJs5ojy&cshid=1600324389759

Generally, no. Once the Supreme court (even a single judge bench) passes an order/judgement, it is final. This is why the SC is called a polyvocal court. One speaks for all. 

The only way it can be revisited on the initiative of the aggrieved is by way of review. Review is permissible onextremely limited groundsand not as a matter of course. So, generally, even a fullstop cannot be changed once a judgement is passed even by a single judge bench of the SC. 

Of course, this is all discounting the fact that the SC does what it wants nowadays without caring for due procedure. As the saying goes, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final."

As per many sources, IVC script was written boustrophedonically.(Bidirectional) But this is not certain, and many claim that it was written right to left. 

NCERT suggests that it was written from right to left. 

I think the word "absolute" in the manner they are using it in the question simply means that it is not subject to any restrictions. 

In that sense, the text is quite clear: "Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden." No ifs or buts. Further, enforcement of untouchability"shall"be an offence punishable by law. Both these things show that the prohibition is of a mandatory and absolute nature.

To answer your specific question, an enabling legislation such as PoCRA is not necessary to enforce the right. A person who has the benefit of the right under A. 17 has two specific rights: 1. Against untouchability being practiced against him by any person; 2. That practice of untouchability shall be an offence punishable by law.

If either of these two aspects are violated, he has a remedy under A. 32 against a) The person/agency which practiced untouchability as in (1) above; b) Against the State if the State has not penalised the practice of untouchability and made it an offence punishable under criminal law. These rights are absolute and subject to no restrictions whatsoever.

The remedy to the right against untouchability is not to be found in PoCRA, but in Article 32 since it is a Fundamental Right. The punishment for practices of untouchability can be found in PoCRA, but that only gives further teeth to the Fundamental right. Again, on the example you have given, if it is made punishable with a nominal fee, the right is rendered illusory and a matter of fiction. In such cases again, the remedy would be under Article 32 and this remedy is not subject to any restrictions. The Parliament's law under PoCRA cannot limit or circumscribe the absolute nature of the right guaranteed under A. 17.

Also, about the Sabarimala judgement, even though J. Indu Malhotra's judgement took a narrow view on Untouchability, J. Chandrachud's judgement gave it an expansive meaning.

More on this here:

https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/the-sabarimala-judgment-iii-justice-chandrachud-and-radical-equality/

Guys, answer is given as A.

I understand principle of remote sensing isnt directly in use in telecommunications, but it definitely has application in Traffic studies right?

Help pliss. 

CARTOSAT uses remote sensing, no?@mhs11 @dragon_rider 

Thanks for your response guys! :)

Yeap. NSO releases GDP data. 

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1650021

Yes, there was a change in government policy. Large Hydro is categorised as renewable energy. 

Could someone please dumb down superposition, Quantum entanglement for me? 

I'm super dumb in science, so, dummy level explanation please!!

Thanks so much for the Simplified explanation mate!

Short answer:

1. He may declare it for a part of India as well, theoretically. 

2. Your interpretation is correct. 

PM for long answer if you need it?

We are all aware about the problems associated with lack of effective regulation of NGOs in India. However, we cannot deny their impact on developmental processes either. In this regard, how do we balance the need for effective regulation without crippling the agency of NGOs? 

Things to keep in mind: NGO concentration in urban areas, small scale of the majority of NGOs, the causes raised by NGOs being so diverse but all important in their own sense, need for equality in regulation of NGOs, need for equitable distribution of resources and equity in society

.

Hear hear!

Isn’t the answer C?

Thanks@Celeborn and@MachineGunJoe for clarifying. I’m quite poor at Geography :P

@crikeymate , happy to have misled you. :D