Goaltide Daily Current Affairs 2023

Jun 01, 2023

Current Affair 1:
Importance of Graphene

 

This Article is taken from the Hindu:

Graphene is the world’s thinnest, strongest, and most conductive material of both electricity and heat. Other features:

  1. It conducts electricity better than copper.
  2. It is 200 times stronger than steel but six times lighter.
  3. It is almost perfectly transparent as it absorbs only 2% of light.
  4. It is impermeable to gases, even those as light as hydrogen and helium. It has the potential to revolutionize electricity, conductivity, energy generation, batteries, sensors and more.
  5. Also, when added to other materials, graphene even in small quantities produces composite materials with dramatically transformed qualities.

Applications:

  1. Its exceptional strength makes it promising material for armour and ballistic protection.
  2. Graphene has the potential to absorb and dissipate electromagnetic waves, making it valuable for developing stealth coatings and materials that reduce radar signatures and electromagnetic interference.
  3. Graphene is highly sensitive to environmental changes, which makes it an excellent candidate for sensing chemical and biological agents, explosives, radiation, and other hazardous substances.
  4. Besides, graphene-based materials can also protect us against chemical and biological attacks.
  5. Better energy storage and electronics properties make graphene attractive in defence and aerospace as well as in civil and commercial applications.
  6. Graphene composites are used in aerospace, automotive, sports equipment and construction.
  7. It is used for high-performance batteries and super-capacitors, touchscreens, and conductive inks. Graphene-based sensors are used for environmental monitoring, healthcare and wearable devices.
  8. Graphene oxide membranes are used for water purification and desalination. Graphene-based masks were made during COVID.

 

Production:

 

Current Affair 2:
World’s largest grain storage plan

 

News:

The Union Cabinet approved the constitution and empowerment of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) for facilitation of the “world’s largest grain storage plan in cooperative sector” by convergence of various schemes of the Ministries of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Food Processing Industries.

In order to ensure time bound and uniform implementation of the Plan in a professional manner, Ministry of Cooperation will implement a pilot project in at least 10 selected Districts of different States/ UTs in the country.

Implementation

An Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) will be constituted under the Chairmanship of Minister of Cooperation,

with Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Minister of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Minister of Food Processing Industries and Secretaries concerned as members to modify guidelines/ implementation methodologies of the schemes.

Background

The Prime Minister of India has observed that all out efforts should be made to leverage the strength of the cooperatives and transform them into successful and vibrant business enterprises to realize the vision of “Sahakar-se-Samriddhi”. To take this vision forward, the Ministry of Cooperation has brought out the ‘World’s Largest Grain Storage Plan in Cooperative Sector’. The plan entails setting up various types of agri-infrastructure, including warehouse, custom hiring center, processing units, etc. at the level of PACS, thus transforming them into multipurpose societies.

There are more than 1,00,000 Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) in the country with a huge member base of more than 13 crore farmers.

Current Affair 3:
Nullifies Supreme Court Judgment Is Unconstitutional?

 

Read this entire explanation. You will get some good points.

A week after the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India recognizing the legislative and executive powers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi over “services”, the Union Government promulgated the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance (GNCTD), 2023 which nullifies the effect of the Constitution Bench verdict.

What it effectively does is to give primacy to the Lieutenant Governor (an appointee of the Union Government) in transfer and postings of civil servants serving the Delhi Government, undoing the Supreme Court’s ruling that the elected government will have the control of services (except in matters relating to police, public order and land).

Can the legislature overrule judgments?

Legislative overriding of judgments is permissible in certain circumstances. The legislature can neutralize the effect of a judgment by altering the legal basis of the judgment (Madan Mohan Pathak vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 803). For example, if a Court has struck down a decision taken by an authority on the ground of lack of statutory power, the legislature can later amend the law to confer the requisite power on such authority and validate the decision retrospectively. That is taking away the legal basis of the judgment through a subsequent amendment.

It is also permissible for the legislature to amend the law to cure the defects in the statute which led to the judgment. In the recent Jallikattu case (Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India), the Supreme Court held that state amendments permitting bull-sports were not overriding the 2014 judgment which banned such animal activities and opined that the laws had the effect of curing the problems flagged by the Court.

But, in exercising legislative power, the Legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. Two cases you can see below:

  1. In State of Kerala vs State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2014 SC 2407, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a Kerala law, which limited the water level of the Mullaperiyar dam contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions.
  2. In the 2021 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions of Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021 on the ground that they were contrary to an earlier judgment of the Court.

Is the GNCTD Ordinance overruling the judgment?

 

In the light of the above discussed principles, let us analyze the GNCTD Ordinance.

 

Section 3 of the Ordinance, which seeks to insert Section 3A in the GNCTD Act, is crucial. It reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order or decree of any Court, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws as per Article 239AA except with respect to any matter enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto"(emphasis supplied)

This provision overrides the Constitution Bench judgment which holds that the NCTD has legislative and executive powers over “services” (which is enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule). Further, the Ordinance confers powers on the LG to act in “his sole discretion” in matters related to services.

Can the Ordinance be said to be merely taking away the legal basis of the judgment and hence a permissible exercise of legislative power?

To answer that, we need to first understand what is the basis of the judgment. The basis of the judgment is Article 239AA (3)(a) of the Constitution which says that the Delhi Legislative Assembly has powers over all matters in List II except the matters in Entries 1, 2 and 18 (public order, police and land) and other matters related to the exempted entries.

Since “services” is not exempted in Article 239AA(3)(a), the Delhi assembly has powers over it and consequently, the Delhi Government has executive powers on the subject - this is the long and short of the judgment.

This is clear from paragraph 96 of the judgment:

“NCTD shall have legislative power to make laws on “services”. This is because “services” (that is, Entry 41) is not expressly excluded in Article 239AA(3)(a). As it has legislative power, it shall have executive power to control “services” within NCTD”.

Article 239AA(3)(a), the basis of the judgment, is still there in the Constitution intact.

The Ordinance does not (and cannot) amend Article 239AA(3)(a) to exempt “services” from the legislative powers of the NCTD. So, the Ordinance does not have the effect of taking away the legal basis of the judgment. Rather, it is merely declaring that the judgment is ineffective, without disturbing its legal basis, which is an impermissible exercise. By doing so, the Ordinance is breaching the doctrine of separation of powers and is liable to be struck down as per the judgments in State of Kerala v. State of Tamil Nadu and Madras Bar Association cases.

Let see how it goes in future. We will wait for ordinance which will be presented soon in Parliament.

Nullifies Supreme Court Judgment Is Unconstitutional?

Read this entire explanation. You will get some good points.

A week after the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India recognizing the legislative and executive powers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi over “services”, the Union Government promulgated the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance (GNCTD), 2023 which nullifies the effect of the Constitution Bench verdict.

What it effectively does is to give primacy to the Lieutenant Governor (an appointee of the Union Government) in transfer and postings of civil servants serving the Delhi Government, undoing the Supreme Court’s ruling that the elected government will have the control of services (except in matters relating to police, public order and land).

Can the legislature overrule judgments?

Legislative overriding of judgments is permissible in certain circumstances. The legislature can neutralize the effect of a judgment by altering the legal basis of the judgment (Madan Mohan Pathak vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 803). For example, if a Court has struck down a decision taken by an authority on the ground of lack of statutory power, the legislature can later amend the law to confer the requisite power on such authority and validate the decision retrospectively. That is taking away the legal basis of the judgment through a subsequent amendment.

It is also permissible for the legislature to amend the law to cure the defects in the statute which led to the judgment. In the recent Jallikattu case (Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India), the Supreme Court held that state amendments permitting bull-sports were not overriding the 2014 judgment which banned such animal activities and opined that the laws had the effect of curing the problems flagged by the Court.

But, in exercising legislative power, the Legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. Two cases you can see below:

  1. In State of Kerala vs State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2014 SC 2407, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a Kerala law, which limited the water level of the Mullaperiyar dam contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions.
  2. In the 2021 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions of Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021 on the ground that they were contrary to an earlier judgment of the Court.

Is the GNCTD Ordinance overruling the judgment?

 

In the light of the above discussed principles, let us analyze the GNCTD Ordinance.

 

Section 3 of the Ordinance, which seeks to insert Section 3A in the GNCTD Act, is crucial. It reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order or decree of any Court, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws as per Article 239AA except with respect to any matter enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto"(emphasis supplied)

This provision overrides the Constitution Bench judgment which holds that the NCTD has legislative and executive powers over “services” (which is enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule). Further, the Ordinance confers powers on the LG to act in “his sole discretion” in matters related to services.

Can the Ordinance be said to be merely taking away the legal basis of the judgment and hence a permissible exercise of legislative power?

To answer that, we need to first understand what is the basis of the judgment. The basis of the judgment is Article 239AA (3)(a) of the Constitution which says that the Delhi Legislative Assembly has powers over all matters in List II except the matters in Entries 1, 2 and 18 (public order, police and land) and other matters related to the exempted entries.

Since “services” is not exempted in Article 239AA(3)(a), the Delhi assembly has powers over it and consequently, the Delhi Government has executive powers on the subject - this is the long and short of the judgment.

This is clear from paragraph 96 of the judgment:

“NCTD shall have legislative power to make laws on “services”. This is because “services” (that is, Entry 41) is not expressly excluded in Article 239AA(3)(a). As it has legislative power, it shall have executive power to control “services” within NCTD”.

Article 239AA(3)(a), the basis of the judgment, is still there in the Constitution intact.

The Ordinance does not (and cannot) amend Article 239AA(3)(a) to exempt “services” from the legislative powers of the NCTD. So, the Ordinance does not have the effect of taking away the legal basis of the judgment. Rather, it is merely declaring that the judgment is ineffective, without disturbing its legal basis, which is an impermissible exercise. By doing so, the Ordinance is breaching the doctrine of separation of powers and is liable to be struck down as per the judgments in State of Kerala v. State of Tamil Nadu and Madras Bar Association cases.

Let see how it goes in future. We will wait for ordinance which will be presented soon in Parliament.

Nullifies Supreme Court Judgment Is Unconstitutional?

Read this entire explanation. You will get some good points.

A week after the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India recognizing the legislative and executive powers of the National Capital Territory of Delhi over “services”, the Union Government promulgated the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance (GNCTD), 2023 which nullifies the effect of the Constitution Bench verdict.

What it effectively does is to give primacy to the Lieutenant Governor (an appointee of the Union Government) in transfer and postings of civil servants serving the Delhi Government, undoing the Supreme Court’s ruling that the elected government will have the control of services (except in matters relating to police, public order and land).

Can the legislature overrule judgments?

Legislative overriding of judgments is permissible in certain circumstances. The legislature can neutralize the effect of a judgment by altering the legal basis of the judgment (Madan Mohan Pathak vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 803). For example, if a Court has struck down a decision taken by an authority on the ground of lack of statutory power, the legislature can later amend the law to confer the requisite power on such authority and validate the decision retrospectively. That is taking away the legal basis of the judgment through a subsequent amendment.

It is also permissible for the legislature to amend the law to cure the defects in the statute which led to the judgment. In the recent Jallikattu case (Animal Welfare Board of India vs Union of India), the Supreme Court held that state amendments permitting bull-sports were not overriding the 2014 judgment which banned such animal activities and opined that the laws had the effect of curing the problems flagged by the Court.

But, in exercising legislative power, the Legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. Two cases you can see below:

  1. In State of Kerala vs State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2014 SC 2407, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a Kerala law, which limited the water level of the Mullaperiyar dam contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions.
  2. In the 2021 Madras Bar Association case, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions of Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021 on the ground that they were contrary to an earlier judgment of the Court.

Is the GNCTD Ordinance overruling the judgment?

 

In the light of the above discussed principles, let us analyze the GNCTD Ordinance.

 

Section 3 of the Ordinance, which seeks to insert Section 3A in the GNCTD Act, is crucial. It reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order or decree of any Court, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws as per Article 239AA except with respect to any matter enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India or any matter connected therewith or incidental thereto"(emphasis supplied)

This provision overrides the Constitution Bench judgment which holds that the NCTD has legislative and executive powers over “services” (which is enumerated in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule). Further, the Ordinance confers powers on the LG to act in “his sole discretion” in matters related to services.

Can the Ordinance be said to be merely taking away the legal basis of the judgment and hence a permissible exercise of legislative power?

To answer that, we need to first understand what is the basis of the judgment. The basis of the judgment is Article 239AA (3)(a) of the Constitution which says that the Delhi Legislative Assembly has powers over all matters in List II except the matters in Entries 1, 2 and 18 (public order, police and land) and other matters related to the exempted entries.

Since “services” is not exempted in Article 239AA(3)(a), the Delhi assembly has powers over it and consequently, the Delhi Government has executive powers on the subject - this is the long and short of the judgment.

This is clear from paragraph 96 of the judgment:

“NCTD shall have legislative power to make laws on “services”. This is because “services” (that is, Entry 41) is not expressly excluded in Article 239AA(3)(a). As it has legislative power, it shall have executive power to control “services” within NCTD”.

Article 239AA(3)(a), the basis of the judgment, is still there in the Constitution intact.

The Ordinance does not (and cannot) amend Article 239AA(3)(a) to exempt “services” from the legislative powers of the NCTD. So, the Ordinance does not have the effect of taking away the legal basis of the judgment. Rather, it is merely declaring that the judgment is ineffective, without disturbing its legal basis, which is an impermissible exercise. By doing so, the Ordinance is breaching the doctrine of separation of powers and is liable to be struck down as per the judgments in State of Kerala v. State of Tamil Nadu and Madras Bar Association cases.

Let see how it goes in future. We will wait for ordinance which will be presented soon in Parliament.

Current Affair 4:
India Country Partnership Strategy 2023-2027: ADB

 

News:

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) recently rolled out its 2023-27 country partnership strategy for India. This new strategy focuses on key areas to accelerate the country’s development and promote inclusive growth.

This Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), 2023-2027 for India is well aligned with India’s national development priorities to be achieved by 2047, when the country marks 100 years of independence. Economic and sector reforms and national flagship programs embody the national priorities.

The CPS will advance Strategy 2030’s seven operational priorities.

  1. As it aims to help India return to its development trajectory, it will support better health, education, and social protection and improved urban livability and rural development while ensuring gender empowerment.
  2. The CPS will channel financing and expertise toward strengthened policies, plans, and institutions for achieving net-zero carbon emissions.
  3. It will leverage India’s unique position to deepen regional cooperation and integration in South Asia.

Also learn about ADB:

First see the origin of the bank:

A major landmark was the establishment in 1974 of the Asian Development Fund to provide low-interest loans to ADB's poorest members.

In 1995, ADB became the first multilateral organization to have a Board-approved governance policy to ensure that development assistance fully benefits the poor. Policies on involuntary resettlement and indigenous peoples were also put in place.

Members

From 31 members at its establishment in 1966, ADB has grown to encompass 68 members—of which 49 are from within Asia and the Pacific and 19 outside.

India is a member since 1966.

Something more:

How is voting rights for members? Equal ni h. It all depends on capital share.

See top 5 countries below:

 

 

 

<< Previous Next >>


Send To My Bookmarks


section-title