Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India: On Sexual Harassment and Legality of Rule 135 of RAW Rules.

The SC in the present judgment dealt with the constitutionality of Rule 135 of the Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975.

Rule 135 of the RAW (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975 gives power to the Central government to voluntary retire RAW Officers whose identity is exposed or compromised.

In the present case, an ex-female employee of RAW was compulsorily retired after she made allegations of sexual harassment against two senior officials of RAW.

Constitutionality of the Impugned Rule.

Appellant argued that Rule 135 is in direct contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution, which deals with “dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or the State”. The court held the Rule 135 of the RAW (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules constitutional, because:

1. Until and unless the action taken against a public servant is in the nature of punishment, the need for conducting an inquiry coupled with the grant of an opportunity of being heard, as envisaged under Article 311, does not arise at all.

1. The Rule has been carved out as a special provision and is premised on the doctrine of necessity. It forms a small subset of the genus of Article 309 deals strictly with cases of “exposure” of “intelligence officers” who become unemployable in the Organisation for reasons of security.”

The Court concluded that the effect of any action taken under Rule 135 does not entail any penal consequence for the employee and, therefore, it cannot be put at the same pedestal as an action of dismissal or removal, and no inquiry or opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Article 311 is required while taking an action under this Rule.

Order for Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights.

The bench ordered the Respondent, (Union of India) to pay compensation worth Rs.1,00,000/-­ to the Petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity caused by improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment.

The bench observed that time taken to process the stated complaint and improper constitution of the first Complaints Committee (intended or unintended) in violation of the Vishaka Guidelines, constituted undignified treatment and violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, more particularly Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Widening the ambit of law regarding sexual harassment, the bench observed that apart from the actual commission of acts of harassment, the approach of law also covers situations wherein the woman employee is subjected to prejudice, hostility, discriminatory attitude and humiliation in day to day functioning at the workplace. 

Important Legal News: May 2019

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India.

• In petitions, challenging the Scheme, filed by the NGOs Common Cause and Association for Democratic Reforms(ADR) and CPI (M), the SC declined to stay the controversial Electoral Bonds Scheme observing that the question could not be determined on the basis of a short hearing.
• But the bench headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi directed all parties to furnish by May 30 information as to the donations received by way of Electoral Bonds (including the identity of the donors, amounts received, details of payments, bank accounts etc) to the Election Commission in sealed covers. 

Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India.

• The SC held the right to travel abrod as an important basic human right as it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. 

General Studies: April 2019 PDF

Lexengine_ General Studies ... by anoopuni4u on Scribd

Wage Code Bill, 2019

• 2017: Introduced in Lok Sabha first.
• Subsumes following 4 Acts:
• Payment of Wages Act, 1926.
• Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
• Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
• Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
• Object: To transform old and obsolete labour laws.
• Universalizes the provision of minimum wages and timely payment of wages to employees, irrespective of sectors.
• Central Government will fix floor wages taking into account living standard of workers.
• It may also fix different floor wages for different geographical areas.
• Minimum wages to be fixed higher than floor wages.
• Advisory boards to be constituted by the Central Government and state governments to advise government on issues of fixation of minimum wages, increasing employment opportunities for women etc.
• Prohibits gender discrimination in matters of payment of wages and recruitment.
• Constitutional Provisions:
• Article 43: state shall endeavor to secure to all workers a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life.
• Labour is the subject of Concurrent List.   
• Expert committee headed by Anoop Satpathy, submitted report on Determining the Methodology for Fixation of the National Minimum Wage.

General Studies: Small Topics.

• National People's Party recognized as a National Party.

• First political party from Northeastern India to have attained this status.
• 8th national party in the country.
• Conrad Sangma is its president.
• Ground of recognition: state party in 4 states of Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya. 
• Its election symbol is a book.

• Paryatan Parv 2019 (October 2019)
• Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas and  Minister of Steel, Shri Dharmendra Pradhan inaugurated at New Delhi.
• Dedicated to 150^th Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.
• Components: 
• Dekho Apna Desh:  To encourage Indians to visit their own country.
• Tourism for All:  Tourism Events at sites across all States in the country.
• Tourism & Governance:  Interactive Sessions & Workshops with Stakeholders on varied themes.

• Fit India Movement.
• On the occasion of National Sports Day 29th August 2019. 
• Prime Minister launched it across many schools across the country.

• 10th Mekong-Ganga Cooperation Ministerial Meeting (10th MGC MM).
• Held on 01 August 2019 in Bangkok.
• MGC is a Sub-regional cooperation organisation. Its 6 members are:
• India,Combodia,Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. 
• China is not member.
• Except India, others are Mekong River Basin countries.

• Stride Scheme:
• Fund research projects that are socially relevant, locally need-based, nationally important and globally significant.
• Initiated by UGC.

General Studies for Exams: National Education Policy (NEP)

Points to remember:

• The first National Education Policy was framed in 1986 and modified in 1992.
• The draft of National Education Policy (NEP), 2019 was developed by a committee chaired by K. Kasturirangan. 
• The Draft Policy is built on foundational pillars of Access, Equity, Quality, Affordability & Accountability.

Aims:

1. Extension of Right to Education Act - RTE, 2009 will cover all Indians between ages 3 and 18 by 2030 (from pre-school to class XII).
2. Age-appropriate foundational literacy and numeracy for every student to be achieved by 2025.
3. It proposes new Curricular and Pedagogical Structure, with 5+3+3+4 design for children in the age group 3-18 years. 
4. MHRD will be called the Ministry of Education (MoE).
5. Protect and promote our culture through the study of classical languages, mother tongues, and regional languages.
6. Promote school education, higher education and professional education (includes agricultural education, legal education, medical education and technical education).
7. Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog or the National Education Commission - apex body - to be constituted. 
• It will be chaired by the Prime Minister.
• Developing, articulating, implementing, evaluating, and revising the vision of education in the country.
• Oversee the implementation and functioning of several bodies including the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the proposed National Higher Education Regulatory Authority, and National Research Foundation.
8. The National Higher Education Regulatory Authority (NHERA) will be the only regulator for all higher education including professional education.
9. National Research Foundation: A National Research Foundation (NRF) to grant competitive funding for outstanding research proposals across all disciplines.

Read Full Draft

Bihar PCS J 2018 Prelims Law Paper.

Bihar PCS J 2018 Prelims Law by anoopuni4u on Scribd

General Studies for Exams: National Register for Citizens (NRC).

Object: move of government to update NRC in Assam, in order to identify illegal migrants to Assam from erstwhile East Pakistan (now called Bangladesh) on and after 25th March 1971 (cut-off date for the deportation of illegal migrants). 

Timeline:

• 1951: The register was first prepared after the 1951 Census of India. But remained updated until recently.

• 1985: Assam Accord: After 1971, a the six-year-long movement led by the All Assam Students' Union (AASU) from 1979 to 1985, for deporting illegal migrants. 

• It demanded the updating of the NRC and the deportation of all illegal migrants who had entered Assam after 1951.

• The movement culminated in the signing of the Assam Accord in 1985.

• March 25, 1971 was set as the cut-off date for the deportation of illegal migrants.
• 2013: Assam Public Works and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court demanding the deletion of illegal migrants' names from voter lists in Assam.
• 2014: Supreme Court ordered for updation of NRC in accordance with Citizenship Act, 1955 and Citizenship Rules, 2003 in all parts of Assam.
• August 31, 2019: The updation process officially started in 2015 and the updated final NRC was released on August 31.
• Over 1.9 million applicants failing to make it to the NRC list.
• This led to protests.
• However, the excluded people have about 120 days to appeal against their exclusion to the foreigner tribunals.

General Studies for Exams: PM Kisan Maan Dhan Yojana (PM-KMY).

Points to remember.

1. Voluntary and contribution based Pension scheme for farmers.
2. Launched by Prime Minister at Ranchi in September 2019.
3. Beneficiaries: all landholding Small and Marginal Farmers (with land holdings are less than 2 hectares of land).
4. A fixed pension of Rs.3,000/- to beneficiaries.
5. Eligibility:  farmers of the age between 18 and 40 years.
6. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) shall be the Pension Fund Manager. 
7.  Farmers to make a monthly contribution of Rs.55 to Rs.200, depending on their age of entry, in the Pension Fund till they reach the retirement- 60 years.The Central Government will also make an equal contribution of the same amount.
8. Beneficiaries of PM-Kisan Scheme can allow their contribution debited from the benefit of that Scheme directly.

Bihar PCS J 2018 G.K. (Prelims) Paper.

Bihar PCS J 2018 G.K. by anoopuni4u on Scribd

General Studies for Exams: SUMAN Scheme

Points to remember.

1. Surakshit Matritva Aashwasan (Suman) Scheme.
2. Aims to bring down the maternal and infant mortality  rates (MMR and IMR) in India.
3. Eligibility: All pregnant women, newborns and mothers up to 6 months of delivery.
4. Inaugurated by Union Minister for Health & Family Welfare Dr. Harsh Vardhan at 13th Conference of Central Council of Health and Family Welfare (CCHFW).
5. Benefits: free healthcare to all beneficiaries, respectful care with privacy and dignity. Also it includes, ante natal check-ups, at least one checkup under Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan, Iron Folic Acid supplementation, Tetanus diptheria injection.

General Studies for Exams: Col Chewang Rinchen bridge.

Points to remember.

1. Defence Minister Shri Rajnath Singh inaugurated this strategically important bridge.
2. Col Chewang Rinchen was a highly decorated officer of Indian Army from Ladakh region. He is known as the “Lion of Ladakh”.
3. Bridge has been built by Border Roads Organisation (BRO) over River Shyok.
4. It connects Durbuk and Daulat Beg Oldie in Eastern Ladakh.
5. 430-metre bridge built at an altitude of about 15,000 feet using Micro Piling Technology.
6. India's highest altitude all-weather permanent bridge.
7. will lead to development of border areas and villages across Shyok River.

Accountability and Independence of Judiciary: Impact of Judicial Appointment Commission Bill, 2014 on these two aspects.

Accountability and Independence are considered two sides of the same coin. If one is present the other has to be there to ensure a balanced framework for smooth and effective functioning of the Indian Judiciary. But the basic issue relating to concoction of the two aspects seems really a tough job for the policy makers on one hand and legal experts on the other hand. The debates on setting up of a Judicial Appointment Commission through Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) Bill, 2013 have got a lot of media coverage but what still remains unsettled are the questions raised on its constitutionality and to what extent can this step by the government would go on to achieve the objectives it has been formulated for.

Separation of power is said to be one of the most fundamental features of constitutional setup in our country. The fountain-head of the power is the Constitution itself. The basic reason behind this doctrine was to ensure non - interference of other bodies of the government in the Judicial process. Now it becomes imperative on our part to raise this question that whether the appointment of Judges should also be kept out of the purview of the government control while conforming to the basic principle behind the doctrine of Separation of Power? Can it be considered feasible for India to allow the decision making body to have absolute powers in appointment of Judges? This is something which can be answered in both affirmative and negative. If it is in affirmative i.e if judiciary is allowed to have absolute powers without government interference then although it would result in providing independence to the Judiciary but at the same time that would lead to monopoly and nepotism and this is one of the major effects which the experts think have been resulted by the collegium system. And if it is answered in negative, there would be a lot of government interference without Judiciary having an upper hand in its own affairs. The requirement of checks and balances and accountability of the judiciary would be met but it would not allow effective functioning of the Judicial System.  Therefore the call for the day is to strike a balance between the two aspects and to come up with such parameters that seek for reforms in the appointment process.

The existing Collegium system has been condemned by the various experts on the grounds that it is wholly and largely dependent on the decision taken by CJI and four senior most Judges of the Supreme Court while appointing judges to the Supreme Court. In the case of appointment of judges to the High Court, again the collegiums system constitutes members only from the judiciary i.e CJI and 2 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This has put the process of appointment of judges in the arena of doubt and dilemma thereby rendering it ineffective and unjust. But the debate does not end here for the basic reason that the Bill, 2013 proposed for setting up of Judicial Appointment Commission is equally criticized by the legal experts and eminent jurists stating that the new proposed collegium constituting 2 eminent persons selected by the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition would again not serve the purpose as desired so.

Thus, to strike a balance between the two requirements, the model must be judiciously adopted that it not only encompasses members of the Judiciary and the government but also people from non legal background and also other stakeholders so that diversified forum is formed to appoint the Judges. Also, instead of limiting the number of members of the commission to just 5, the number should be increased to more than double of what is otherwise proposed in the new bill so that the appointment is done by a larger group which to a great extent diminish the possibility of arbitrariness and biased approach on the part of the commission.

The government should take this as an opportunity to make Judiciary as transparent as it can by keeping a close check on the initial process i.e the decision of who would be the upcoming set of Judges. Although prima facie it looks not more than a mere administrative function, yet the consequences and the reach it would lead to would to a great extent determine the future of a large number of people who always seek to get justice. It is the duty of the Parliamentarians to secure and safeguard the independent nature of Judiciary and this can be done by providing a proper model for the appointment of the Judges and not by directly interfering and taking away the powers in the pretext of formulating a commission. It should not be made a sham process which is what the bill of 2013 is leading to.