Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Akhaura-Agartala Rail Link
Mains level: Not Much
Central Idea
- The Akhaura-Agartala rail connection has been launched. After nearly seven and a half decades, Bangladesh and northeastern India are set to re-establish rail connectivity through Tripura.
Akhaura-Agartala Rail Link
- This rail link stretches over 12.24 km, with a 6.78 km dual gauge rail line in Bangladesh and 5.46 km in Tripura.
- Akhaura junction, located in Bangladesh’s Brahmanbaria district, has historical ties with India’s northeastern region, dating back to the colonial era.
- The connection was originally constructed in the late 19th century to cater to Assam’s tea industry’s demand for access to the Chittagong port.
- The project gained momentum in 2010 when then-PM Manmohan Singh signed an agreement to rebuild the rail link during PM Sheikh Hasina’s visit to Delhi.
Significance of the project
- Multilevel connectivity: Akhaura is currently well-connected by rail, river, and road to several industrial areas in Bangladesh, including Dhaka, Chittagong, and Sylhet.
- NE connectivity: The rail link to Agartala is expected to enhance connections between India’s northeast and Chittagong, facilitating the transportation of goods.
- Shortened Routes: The Akhaura link has the potential to significantly reduce travel time and distance for trains travelling to Tripura, southern Assam, Mizoram, Kolkata, and the rest of India, compared to the longer route via Guwahati and Jalpaiguri stations.
- Unique Event: This event is unique as it marks the first direct rail connection between Akhaura and Agartala, with the first trains anticipated to run between Nishchintapur and Gangasagar stations.
Commercial benefits
- Trade Expansion: The rail link is expected to boost India-Bangladesh trade in various sectors, including agriculture products, tea, sugar, construction items, iron and steel, and consumer goods, while also fostering people-to-people relationships.
- Expanded Connectivity: The Akhaura-Agartala rail route is seen as a significant initiative to enhance India’s connectivity with Southeast Asian regions, holding potential for regional economic growth.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary
Mains level: NA
Central Idea
- The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court issued directives to the Goa government, compelling the establishment of a tiger reserve within Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS).
- The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) had identified Goa’s Cotigao-Mhadei forest complex, which encompasses several protected areas, as an ideal habitat for tigers.
About Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary
| Location |
Western Ghats, spanning Goa, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. |
| Establishment |
Designated as a wildlife sanctuary in 1999. |
| Area |
Approximately 208.5 square kilometers. |
| Ecological Significance |
Located within the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Sahyadri mountain range. Comprises various forest types and grasslands, supporting diverse flora and fauna. |
| Flora |
Rich in plant species, including medicinal plants and endemic flora. |
| Fauna |
Home to Tigers, Indian gaur, sambar deer, leopards, barking deer, wild boars, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. |
| Conservation Importance |
Crucial for conserving endangered species and maintaining biodiversity in the Western Ghats. Promotes genetic diversity through wildlife corridors. |
| Legal Dispute |
Ongoing disagreement between Goa and Karnataka regarding Mhadei/Mahadayi (Mandowi) River water diversion, with concerns about its impact on the sanctuary’s ecology. |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Pegasus Spyware
Mains level: Whatsapp snooping and related issues
Central Idea
- Several prominent opposition leaders recently reported receiving “threat notifications” from Apple regarding a potential state-sponsored spyware attack on their iPhones.
- This incident has drawn parallels with the Pegasus Spyware Case, which targeted individuals globally, including in India.
About Pegasus Spyware
- Functionality: Pegasus, like its name suggests, is a spyware designed to surveil individuals through their smartphones.
- Covert Installation: It infiltrates a target’s device by enticing them to click on an exploit link, installing the malware without their knowledge or consent.
- Comprehensive Access: Once installed, Pegasus grants the attacker complete control over the victim’s phone, enabling eavesdropping, data retrieval, and even activation of the camera and microphone.
What is the Pegasus Spyware Case?
- Global Revelation: In July 2021, a collaborative global investigative project uncovered the use of Pegasus spyware, developed by NSO Group, an Israeli cybersecurity company, to target mobile phones worldwide, including India.
- Government Denials: The Indian government denied the allegations and accused the opposition of undermining national security but did not explicitly deny using Pegasus.
- Supreme Court’s Involvement: On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court appointed an Expert Committee headed by Justice R V Raveendran to investigate the allegations, considering their public importance and potential violation of citizens’ fundamental rights.
- Cyber Terrorism: This intrusion constitutes a cyber-terrorism attempt and calls for the application of Section 66(F) of the Information Technology Act 2008 (IT Act) to deal with the perpetrators.
Expert Committee’s Mandate
- Terms of Reference: The committee had seven terms of reference, including determining the entity that procured Pegasus, verifying if petitioners were targeted, and assessing the legal basis for using spyware like Pegasus on Indian citizens.
- Policy Recommendations: It was also tasked with making recommendations on a legal and policy framework for cybersecurity to protect citizens’ privacy.
- Technical Expertise: The committee comprised technical experts from various fields, including cybersecurity and forensic sciences.
Key Findings
- Lack of Conclusive Evidence: On August 25, 2022, the Supreme Court revealed that the expert committee did not find conclusive evidence of Pegasus use in the 29 phones it examined.
- Government Non-Cooperation: The Centre did not cooperate with the committee, as observed by the panel itself.
- Malware Discovery: While malware was found in five phones, it could not be definitively linked to Pegasus.
- Inconclusive Determination: The committee concluded that the limited data available made it inconclusive to determine Pegasus use.
- National Security Concerns: The committee’s report contained information about malware that could pose threats to national security and private confidential information.
Implications and Urgent Action
- Fundamental Right to Privacy: Protecting citizens’ smartphones through technologies like encryption is crucial for national security.
- Need for Inquiry: Establishing an independent high-level inquiry with credible members and experts can restore confidence and ensure transparency.
- Global Cooperation: Given the multinational impact of such attacks, coordinated global cooperation is essential for a thorough investigation.
- Data Sovereignty and Privacy: Citizens’ data sovereignty should encompass their right to privacy, with stringent punishments for privacy violations.
Conclusion
- The Pegasus spyware case, which raised significant concerns about citizen privacy and national security, prompted a comprehensive investigation by the Supreme Court-appointed Expert Committee.
- While the committee did not find conclusive evidence of Pegasus use, it emphasized the potential risks associated with malware and cybersecurity.
- The case remains open, and further developments may shed light on the extent of surveillance and privacy infringements.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Article 32, Legislative Powers of Governor
Mains level: State vs . Governor Row
Central Idea
- The Tamil Nadu state government has taken its concerns to the Supreme Court regarding the prolonged delay in the approval of Bills and Government orders by the Governor.
TN Petition to the Supreme Court
- Constitutional Challenge: The TN government has filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
- Objective: The petition seeks a declaration that the Governor’s inaction, omission, and delay in assenting to Bills and considering Government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and a misuse of power.
- Impact on Administration: The Governor’s delay in signing remission orders, day-to-day files, appointment orders, and granting approvals for prosecution is causing severe disruptions in the state administration.
Article 32 of Indian Constitution
- Article 32 grants individuals the right to move to the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
- It is considered a fundamental right in itself and is often referred to as the “Right to Constitutional Remedies.”
|
What are the Discretionary Powers of the Governor?
The Constitution makes it clear that if any question arises whether a matter falls within the governor’s discretion or not, the decision of the governor is final and the validity of anything done by him cannot be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
Constitutional Discretion:
- Reservation of a bill for the consideration of the President (Article 200).
- Recommendation for the imposition of the President’s Rule (Article 356) in the state.
- While exercising his functions as the administrator of an adjoining union territory (in case of additional charge).
- Determining the amount payable by the Government of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram to an autonomous Tribal District Council as royalty accruing from licenses for mineral exploration.
- Seeking information from the chief minister with regard to the administrative and legislative matters of the state.
Situational Discretion:
- Appointment of chief minister when no party has a clear-cut majority in the state legislative assembly or when the chief minister in office dies suddenly and there is no obvious successor.
- Dismissal of the council of ministers when it cannot prove the confidence of the state legislative assembly.
- Dissolution of the state legislative assembly if the council of ministers has lost its majority.
Can the Governor withhold His Assent to a Bill in Exercise of His Discretionary Powers?
- While a plain reading of Article 200 suggests that the Governor can withhold his assent, experts question whether he can do so only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The Constitution provides that the Governor can exercise his executive powers only on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 154.
- The larger question is why a Governor should be allowed to withhold assent when the Bill is passed by the Assembly.
Rationale behind Governor’s Power
- Checks and Balances: Delay in approval allows the Governor to scrutinize bills and orders more thoroughly, ensuring that they are in line with the constitution and the interests of the state.
- Prevention of Hasty Decisions: It prevents hasty or ill-considered legislation from being passed, which might have unintended negative consequences.
- Protection of Minority Rights: The Governor can act as a safeguard against the majority’s potentially oppressive decisions, protecting the rights and interests of minority groups.
- Aid to Parliamentary Democracy: The delay provides time for public debate, expert opinions, and stakeholder consultations, which are essential aspects of parliamentary democracy.
- Conflict Resolution: In situations where there are disputes between the state government and the center or between various state institutions, the Governor’s involvement can facilitate resolution.
Issues with the delays
- Delay in Decision-Making: The Governor’s failure to take a decision on the Bills passed by the legislature leads to a delay in decision-making, which affects the effective functioning of the state government.
- Delay in Implementation of Policies and Laws: When the Governor fails to make a decision on a Bill passed by the assembly, it delays the implementation of policies and laws.
- Undermines the Democratic Process: The Governor, who is appointed by the Centre, can use his powers to delay or reject Bills passed by state assemblies for political reasons, which undermines the democratic process.
- Public Perception: The public often views pending Bills with the Governor as a sign of inefficiency or even corruption in the state government, which can damage the government’s reputation.
- Constitutional Ambiguity: There is ambiguity in the Constitution regarding the Governor’s power to withhold assent.
- Lack of Accountability: When the Governor withholds assent, he does not provide any reason for his decision.
Recent Instances of Withholding Assent
- Chhattisgarh (2020): The Chhattisgarh Governor withheld assent to a bill amending the Chhattisgarh Lokayukta Act, 2001.
- Tamil Nadu (2021): The Tamil Nadu Governor reserved a bill exempting state students from NEET medical entrance exams for the President’s consideration after a significant delay.
- Kerala (2023): Kerala’s Governor signed five bills into law but withheld assent to six others, citing concerns about their constitutionality and legality.
Mains Marks Enhancer: Supreme Court’s Stance and Commission Recommendations
- Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Dy.Speaker (2016): The SC clarified that a Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is limited to deciding whether a bill should be reserved for the President’s consideration. The Court emphasized that actions or inactions by the Governor regarding bill assent can be subject to judicial review.
- Punchhi Commission (2010): This commission recommended the establishment of a time limit within which the Governor should decide on granting assent or reserving a bill for the President’s consideration.
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC): NCRWC proposed a four-month time limit for the Governor to decide on a bill’s fate. It also suggested the removal of the Governor’s power to withhold assent except in cases explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.
Conclusion
- The dispute between the government and the Governor underscores the importance of timely decision-making to ensure the effective functioning of the state administration.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Central idea
The London summit on Artificial Intelligence underscores a global commitment to addressing the technology’s promises and dangers, led by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Focused on AI safety, historical ties to Bletchley Park, and a strategic institute announcement, the summit marks a pivotal moment for international collaboration, aiming to navigate challenges while ensuring the responsible and inclusive use of AI.
Key Highlights:
- Global Gathering: The London summit serves as a global congregation, bringing together leaders, including the US Vice President and tech industry bigwigs, emphasizing the importance placed on AI governance at an international level.
- British Leadership: British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak aims to position the UK as a leader in AI governance, echoing the historical significance of Bletchley Park, where early AI research by Alan Turing took place during World War II.
- Safety Focus: The summit centers on ensuring the safe utilization of AI, acknowledging its potential benefits while recognizing the inherent risks, marking a pivotal moment in addressing the safety concerns associated with AI.
- AI Safety Research Institute: The anticipated announcement of an AI Safety Research Institute underscores a commitment to understanding and evaluating the capabilities and risks of new AI models, reflecting a proactive approach to technological advancements.
Challenges:
- Striking a Balance: Finding the right balance between creating rules for AI and allowing room for innovation poses a tricky challenge, as too many rules can stifle the creativity and growth of the AI industry.
- Ethical Quandaries: Figuring out the ethical aspects of AI governance, including issues like fairness, responsibility, and transparency, is a significant hurdle. It’s like navigating a complex maze of values and principles.
- Differing Global Views: Dealing with the fact that countries see AI governance differently adds an extra layer of difficulty. It’s like trying to agree on a movie to watch when everyone has different preferences.
- Defining “Frontier AI”: Deciding what falls under the category of “cutting-edge AI” is complicated. It’s like trying to decide which technologies are at the forefront and need special attention.
- Public and Private Teamwork: Getting governments and big tech companies to work together is tough. It’s like trying to coordinate a group project where everyone has their own ideas and goals.
Concerns:
- Diverse Risks: The identified risks span from disinformation proliferation to the potential weaponization of knowledge for crafting chemical and biological weapons, emphasizing the multifaceted challenges AI governance must confront.
- Global Inequalities in AI Expertise: Acknowledging the concentration of AI expertise in a select few companies and countries, the summit recognizes the potential exacerbation of global inequalities and digital divides.
Analysis:
- Global Landscape – Varied Approaches: The summit takes place against the backdrop of diverse global initiatives, including the US executive order on AI, the EU’s comprehensive regulatory framework, and China’s call for increased developing country representation in AI governance.
- Financial Commitments Disparities: Discrepancies in financial contributions among nations and the absence of a standardized approach underscore the complexity of achieving cohesive global AI regulation.
Key Data:
- Limited Participation: With around 100 participants, including global leaders and tech industry figures, the summit aims to facilitate focused and in-depth discussions on AI governance.
- China’s AI Principles: China’s outlined principles emphasize elevating the voice of developing countries and supporting UN discussions on establishing an international institution for AI governance.
- EU Regulatory Framework: The EU’s discussions on the world’s first comprehensive framework for AI regulation highlight the ambitious goal of shaping rules across its member states.
Key Terms:
- AI Safety Research Institute: The proposed institute signifies a commitment to rigorously evaluate new AI models, offering insights into capabilities and associated risks.
- Frontier AI: As a focal point of summit discussions, “frontier AI” encompasses deliberations on risks and the potential establishment of an international register for AI models.
Way Forward:
- Foundational Emphasis on AI Safety: The summit’s emphasis on AI safety lays a crucial foundation for addressing multifaceted challenges, fostering responsible AI development, and ensuring user safety.
- International Cooperation Imperative: The ongoing need for international cooperation is underscored as nations grapple with harmonizing diverse approaches to AI governance, addressing disparities, and fostering a collective commitment to responsible AI development.
- UN Advisory Body on AI: Initiatives like the UN advisory body on AI contribute to ongoing discussions, shaping the narrative on responsible AI development and accessibility in the global arena.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Central idea
The article emphasizes the critical role of climate finance in global trust-building, highlighting challenges such as inequality, mandatory contribution frameworks, and political will. Concerns arise from insufficient funding, voluntary contributions, and disparities between pledged amounts and actual commitments.
Key Highlights:
- Climate Finance Crucial: Climate finance is essential for trust in climate change negotiations, especially in COP 28. The Synthesis Report highlights a 1.1°C temperature increase causing hazardous weather, intensifying demands for mitigation actions by developing countries.
- $100 Billion Commitment: Developed countries committed to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020, but the Glasgow conference in 2021 reported only $79.6 billion mobilized, leading to concerns about insufficient funding to support developing nations in low-carbon transitions.
- NDC Financial Needs: Developing nations, as per their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), estimate financial needs close to $6 trillion until 2030. India’s NDCs highlight financial requirements of $206 billion for adaptation and $834 billion for mitigation.
Challenges:
- Inequality in Contribution: Developed countries exhibit disparities in fulfilling climate finance commitments, with the U.S. contributing only 5% of its fair share. This inequality hampers the effective mobilization of funds required for climate action.
- Mandatory Contribution Framework: The absence of a mandatory framework for developed nations to contribute poses a significant challenge. The lack of clear criteria for collecting funds creates uncertainty about achieving the set financial goals.
- Discrepancies in Pledged Amounts: The second replenishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) revealed contributions from only 25 out of 37 developed countries. The shortfall in meeting pledges raises concerns about the reliability of financial commitments.
- Global Urgency Disparity: Unlike the swift response to the 2009 global financial crisis, there is a notable lack of political will and urgency among developed nations to address climate finance needs. This disparity impedes progress in protecting the global atmosphere.
Concerns:
- Insufficient Funding: The $79.6 billion mobilized falls short of the committed $100 billion annually, hindering the capacity of developing nations to transition to sustainable practices. The insufficiency raises concerns about meeting climate finance goals.
- Voluntary Contributions Challenge: The inclusion of voluntary contributions by nine developing countries in the GCF introduces complexities in defining and accounting for international public climate finance. The challenge lies in establishing uniform criteria for contributions.
- Impact on Developing Nations: Developing nations, as highlighted in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), express financial needs close to $6 trillion until 2030. The gap between needs and actual mobilized funds poses a significant concern for these nations.
Analysis:
- Crisis of Commitment: Discrepancies between pledged amounts and actual contributions underscore a crisis of commitment among developed countries. This undermines the effectiveness of global climate finance mechanisms, impacting the transition to sustainable practices.
- Political Will Deficiency: The lack of political will and a sense of urgency among developed nations to address climate finance needs reveals a critical deficiency. Urgent action is necessary to bridge the gap between commitments and tangible contributions.
Key Data:
- GCF Replenishment: The second replenishment of the Green Climate Fund gathered pledges of $9.3 billion, with contributions from 25 developed countries out of 37.
- Developed Countries’ $100 Billion Commitment: The actual mobilization reported at the Glasgow conference in 2021 was $79.6 billion, falling short of the committed $100 billion annually.
Key Terms:
- Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): Country-specific climate action plans submitted under the Paris Agreement outlining mitigation and adaptation goals.
- Global Stocktake: Periodic assessment of collective progress in climate action, informed by scientific findings, as part of the COP meetings.
Way Forward:
- Transparent Burden-Sharing: Establishing a transparent and agreed-upon burden-sharing formula among developed countries is crucial for fair and consistent contributions to climate finance.
- Mandatory Contribution Framework: Implementing a mandatory framework for developed nations to contribute, accompanied by clear criteria for mobilizing funds, is essential to ensure reliability in financial commitments.
- Global Cooperation and Urgency: Fostering a sense of urgency and global cooperation is imperative. A collective and urgent response, similar to past financial crises, is needed to address the critical climate finance needs and fulfill international commitments effectively.
- Capacity Building: Prioritizing capacity building in developing nations to facilitate a smooth transition to sustainable practices. This includes supporting economic opportunities and livelihoods for those entrenched in fossil fuel economies.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Central idea
The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee is checking if Mahua Moitra took money for asking questions, mixing parliamentary rules with possible law-breaking. Without a clear definition of ‘unethical conduct,’ it shows the challenge of balancing parliamentary norms and legal issues. The case highlights the complex process of handling allegations of misconduct among MPs.
Key Highlights:
- Mahua Moitra, a Trinamool Congress MP, faces proceedings from the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee over allegations of receiving money for posing questions in Parliament.
- Accepting money for parliamentary work is considered a breach of privilege and contempt of the House.
- Past instances include expulsion of MPs found guilty of accepting money for putting up questions, emphasizing the seriousness of such charges.
Challenges:
- Lack of clear definitions for ‘unethical conduct’ places the evaluation of MPs’ actions on the Ethics Committee’s discretion.
- The term ‘unethical conduct’ remains undefined, and decisions rely on the committee’s judgment.
- Cases of misconduct, misuse of privileges, and personal indiscretions fall under the purview of the Ethics Committee.
Concerns:
- The Ethics Committee examines cases of moral lapses by MPs, ranging from personal misconduct to misuse of official privileges.
- Legal implications of accepting illegal gratification for parliamentary work might involve criminal investigations, separate from parliamentary proceedings.
- The scope of investigation by parliamentary committees differs from judicial probes, and evidence evaluation is based on the preponderance of probabilities.
| Prelims focus
Establishment: Formed in 2000.
Mandate: Examines complaints related to unethical conduct of MPs.
Responsibilities: Investigates complaints, recommends action, and formulates a code of conduct.
Scope: Focuses on behavior that may not have a clear definition, leaving it to the committee’s discretion.
Decision Authority: Decides whether specific acts are unethical or not.
|
Analysis:
- Past cases include MPs found guilty of unethical conduct, such as bringing companions under false pretenses on official tours.
- Serious cases of misconduct, violating laws like the Passports Act, are often dealt with by the Committee of Privileges or special committees, not the Ethics Committee.
- Investigative methods include examining written documents, oral testimonies, expert depositions, and findings are based on a common-sense approach.
Key Data:
- The Ethics Committee was established in 2000 to examine complaints related to the unethical conduct of MPs and recommend actions.
- MPs facing expulsion due to misconduct, such as accepting money for parliamentary work, may still face criminal charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Key Terms for mains value addition:
- Breach of privilege and contempt of the House.
- Unethical conduct, moral lapses, and misuse of privileges.
- Committee of Privileges, special committees, and the Ethics Committee.
- Article 105 of the Constitution grants MPs the freedom to speak without disclosing their information sources.
Way Forward:
- The Ethics Committee’s role in probing MPs’ conduct necessitates a balance between parliamentary discipline and legal considerations.
- Clarity in defining ‘unethical conduct’ and guidelines for online submission of questions could enhance transparency.
- Recognizing the distinction between parliamentary discipline and criminal investigations in handling serious allegations against MPs.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now