AMIGOS IAS Daily Current Affairs (15^th July 2024)

SC judgment on Muslim women’s Right to Maintenance: A Legal Battle from 1980 to 2024

GS 2: Polity and Governance: Women related issues

Why is it in the news?

• The recent Supreme Court judgment in Mohd Abdul Samad vs The State of Telangana has upheld the rights of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
• This decision represents a full circle from the contentious 1985 Shah Bano case and the subsequent enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986 (MWA), which provided maintenance during the iddat period and beyond for divorced Muslim women.

More about the news

• The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the MWA precludes divorced Muslim women from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. This had been a point of confusion with conflicting rulings from various high courts over the years.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that the rights under Section 125 remain unaffected by the enactment of the MWA, affirming its socially beneficial provision.
• The case involved a deserted wife who initially sought maintenance under Section 125 from a family court in Telangana. After her divorce, her husband argued that she could no longer claim maintenance under Section 125, as the MWA now exclusively governed her rights. However, the Telangana High Court, while reducing the maintenance amount, rejected this argument, leading the husband to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• On July 10, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih upheld the divorced woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The court reasoned that Section 125 provides a beneficial remedy independent of the provisions in the MWA.
• This judgment settles longstanding ambiguity and ensures that divorced Muslim women retain their rights under both specific personal laws and general provisions like Section 125 of the CrPC.
• This ruling builds upon previous landmark judgments such as Danial Latifi vs Union of India (2001), which upheld the constitutional validity of the MWA while affirming that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under both specific personal laws and general provisions like Section 125 of the CrPC.
• The court emphasized that denying maintenance rights under Section 125 would contravene constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
• Way back in 1980, Justice V R Krishnaiyer in Fuzlunbi v K Khader Vali highlighted that Section 125’s enactment embodies a secular commitment to uphold maintenance as a societal responsibility, benefiting all women regardless of religious or regional affiliations.

Why the film ‘Srikanth’ gets disability — and ‘Aankh Micholi’ did not

GS 2: Polity and Governance: PWDs

Why is it in the news?

• On July 8, the Supreme Court established guidelines for representing Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in visual media, prompted by a case involving the film ‘Aankh Micholi’.
• Since its trailer launch, disability activists and scholars have criticised the movie for perpetuating stereotypes.

More about the news

• The Court emphasized the human rights model of disability, which surpasses the medical and social models by asserting that disability is a natural facet of human diversity. This model obligates governments and private entities to ensure the full participation and inclusion of PwDs in society, although the extent of private bodies’ obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) remains contested.
• Additionally, the Court addressed the attitudinal barrier under the RPwD Act, highlighting how stereotypes perpetuate discrimination against PwDs. It underscored that such stereotypes undermine individual dignity, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The Court differentiated between cinematic speech and hate speech, emphasizing that freedom of expression does not encompass the right to demean or stereotype marginalized groups like PwDs.
• The Supreme Court’s timely intervention emphasizes the necessity for a nuanced portrayal of disability in mainstream media. The guidelines, including language use and consultation with disability advocacy groups, aim to improve representations of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
• However, the impact of these measures, observed in recent films like ‘Srikanth’, will be assessed over time.

Additional Information:

About Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act):

• The Act passed by the Parliament of India aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ratified by India in 2007, ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities are upheld in accordance with international standards.
• The Act replaces the 1995 Persons with Disabilities Act, aiming to address the inadequacies and introduced a broader and evolving definition of disability, reflecting a dynamic understanding of disabilities over time
• The Act expands the recognition of disabilities to 21 types, granting the government authority to include additional disabilities, such as Leprosy Cured Persons, Parkinson’s Disease, and autism spectrum disorder, among others.
• Persons with “benchmark disabilities” are those certified to have at least 40 percent of the disabilities specified under the Act.
• Penalties for Offences under the Act:
• The Act prescribes penalties for violations, including imprisonment up to six months and/or a fine of Rs 10,000 for initial offences, and imprisonment up to two years and/or fines ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs five lakh for subsequent violations.
• Special courts will be designated in each district to handle cases concerning violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.

Other Legal Provisions:

• Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 outlines the “Principles of guidance in certifying films,” empowering film certification authorities to withhold certification for public exhibition if a film violates standards of decency and morality. This provision serves as a tool to encourage filmmakers to prioritize dignity and uphold creative integrity above all else.
• In parallel, the RPwD Act strives to uphold equality and dignity for individuals with disabilities. Section 3 of the RPwD Act emphasizes equality and non-discrimination, operationalized across various sectors to mandate compliance from both governmental and private entities. Therefore, aligning the Cinematograph Act with these foundational principles is crucial to ensuring inclusivity and respect in cinematic representation.

The Yuan challenge: Implications of India-Russia trade gap on Rupee Internationalisation

GS 2: International Relations: India-Russia

Why is it in the news?

• In a strategic move aimed at curbing its burgeoning oil import bill and reducing dependence on the expensive US dollar, New Delhi aims to bolster bilateral trade with Moscow to $100 billion by 2030.
• However, the dynamics of India-Russia trade have been skewed since the onset of the Ukraine war in 2022.

More about the news:

• Russia has rapidly become India’s top oil supplier, but Indian exports to Russia have struggled, resulting in a $57 billion trade deficit in the bilateral trade worth $66 billion in FY24.
• While India has managed to save over $10 billion by importing cheaper Russian oil in the last two years and has benefited from exporting petroleum products by processing Urals crude, meagre exports to Russia mean that a historic geopolitical opportunity to reduce dependence on the expensive US dollar has remained elusive.
• The widening trade gap with Russia has notably benefited the yuan, unlike India, where challenges persist in leveraging trade opportunities with Russia amid Western sanctions.
• China has capitalized on export opportunities in Russia, with Chinese shipments increasing by 47% year-on-year to $111 billion in 2023, while imports grew by 13% to $129 billion. This balanced trade has fostered the use of the yuan in Russian transactions, making it the preferred currency over the US dollar. Consequently, Russian oil exports are increasingly demanding payment from Indian refineries in Chinese currency, while rupee transactions remain limited.
• India’s efforts to internationalise the rupee face hurdles, particularly due to ongoing border tensions with China, which preclude support for the yuan as a currency for settling international trade.
• Despite the Reserve Bank of India’s efforts to facilitate trade using the rupee, challenges persist in enhancing its global acceptance. The FY23 Economic Survey underscores the need for increased use of the rupee in trade invoicing to elevate its status as an international currency, although it currently accounts for just 1.6% of global forex turnover, dominated by the US dollar at 88%.
• Exporting to Russia remains challenging primarily due to private banks’ reluctance to engage in trade facilitation amid concerns over Western sanctions.
• Despite initiatives to bolster industrial cooperation and streamline the rupee settlement mechanism, Indian exporters encounter operational hurdles, including the lack of a standardized procedure for banks and currency volatility compared to the yuan.

Efforts to enhance bilateral trade between Russia and India:

• Eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers and exploring a trade deal within the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), comprising Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia, collectively representing a $5 trillion economy.
• Both nations are committed to expanding reciprocal trade flows in sectors such as transport engineering, metallurgy, and chemicals, underscoring the importance of strategic partnerships in fostering economic cooperation and addressing mutual interests.

Additional Information:

What is Internationalisation of Rupee?

• Internationalisation of the rupee refers to the strategic effort to enhance the usage of India’s currency in international transactions. Initially focused on trade transactions, gradually expand to cover various current account transactions and then capital account transactions.

Practice MCQ:

Recently, India signed a deal known as ‘Action Plan for Prioritization and Implementation of Cooperation Areas in the Nuclear Field’ with which of the following countries? (UPSC 2019)

(a) Japan

(b) Russia

(c) The United Kingdom

(d) The United States of America

Answer: B

Maharashtra’s new bill to curb ‘Naxalism in urban areas’

GS 2: Polity and Governance: Maharashtra’s Anti- Naxal Bill

Why is it in the news?

• The Maharashtra government has proposed a new law to address the increasing presence of Naxalism in urban areas.

More about the news

• The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPC) Bill, 2024, introduced in the Assembly on July 11, targets various actions by suspects, such as interfering with public order, generating fear, and encouraging disobedience to the law.
• Critics, including former Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, have labelled the bill as “draconian” and unconstitutional, arguing that it aims to suppress dissent.
• The government argues that Naxalism is spreading from remote areas to urban centres through front organizations providing logistics and refuge to armed cadres and the existing laws are deemed insufficient to combat this threat. Other states like Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha have enacted similar Public Security Acts, banning several Naxal front organizations.
• However, the bill’s progress will depend on the next Maharashtra government as the current Assembly session has ended, and elections are due by November.
• Some of the key provisions of the bill include:

1) Allows the government to declare any suspect organization as unlawful and prescribe punishments for membership, fundraising, managing, or assisting such organizations, and committing unlawful activities.

2) Penalties range from two to seven years of imprisonment and fines between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 5 lakh.

3) Offences under the proposed law are cognizable and non-bailable, allowing arrests without a warrant.

MSPC Bill vs UAPA

• The MSPC Bill differs from the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) of 1967, India’s main anti-terror law.
• While both laws empower the state to declare associations unlawful, the MSPC Bill has a lower threshold for defining unlawful activity. Under the UAPA, a High Court judge-led tribunal confirms the state’s declaration, whereas the MSPC Bill appoints an advisory board of three qualified individuals for this purpose.
• Moreover, the Maharashtra Bill defines unlawful activity more broadly than the UAPA, encompassing acts that threaten public order, interfere with law administration, overawe public servants, incite violence, or encourage disobedience to the law. It allows district magistrates or police commissioners to quickly sanction prosecutions, aiming to prevent delays that could lead to acquittals.

Additional Information:

About Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA):

• Introduced in 1967, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was initially enacted to impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental freedoms under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, including freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and the right to form associations. Over time, laws such as TADA and POTA faced legal challenges and were repealed, leaving the UAPA as India’s principal anti-terrorism legislation.
• It defines criteria and procedures for classifying an organization as an “unlawful association” based on specified activities it engages in.
• ‘Unlawful activity’ under the UAPA encompasses actions by individuals or groups, through words, signs, or visible representations, aimed at causing secession or disaffection against India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
• Key Provisions:
• Authority: The Act assigns absolute power to the central government to declare activities unlawful through an Official Gazette.
• Timelines for Charge Sheet: The investigating agency is required to file a charge sheet within 180 days of arrest, with provision for extension upon court notification.
• Applicability to Nationals and Foreigners: UAPA allows for charges against both Indian and foreign nationals, regardless of the location of the crime, including offenses committed outside India.
• Severity of Punishments: The Act includes provisions for severe penalties such as death penalty and life imprisonment.
• Amendments of the Act:
• 2004 amendment: It added “terrorist act” to the list of offences, to ban organisations for terrorist activities.
• Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory.
• 2019 amendment:
• Empowerment to Designate Individuals: The 2019 amendment grants the Central Government authority to designate individuals as terrorists based on specified grounds.
• Approval for Property Seizure: Under the amendment, the Director-General of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is empowered to approve the seizure or attachment of property during investigations conducted by the agency.
• Expansion of Investigative Powers: The amendment allows NIA officers of Inspector rank or higher to investigate terrorism cases, a role previously limited to officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police.

The Union Government’s financial control over states

GS 2: Polity and Governance: Financial Transfers

Why is it in the news?

• Since the Fourteenth Finance Commission period starting in 2015-16, the Union government has decreased financial transfers to States, despite the Commission’s recommendation to increase States’ share of Union tax revenues to 42%—a significant rise from the previous commission.
• Further, the Fifteenth Finance Commission upheld this recommendation at 41%, excluding Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, now Union Territories.
• In addition to reducing financial transfers to States, the Union government has increased its total revenue to expand discretionary expenditure which bypasses State budgets, leading to varying impacts across different States.

More about the news

• Despite the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Finance Commissions recommending 42% and 41%, respectively, of States’ share in the Union government’s net tax revenue, the actual share of gross tax revenue for States was only 35% in 2015-16 and 30% in 2023-24 (Budget Estimate).
• While the Union government’s gross tax revenue more than doubled from ₹14.6 lakh crore to ₹33.6 lakh crore, the States’ share increased only from ₹5.1 lakh crore to ₹10.2 lakh crore. Moreover, grants-in-aid to States decreased from ₹1.95 lakh crore to ₹1.65 lakh crore by 2023-24, resulting in a decline in the combined share of statutory financial transfers from 48.2% to 35.32%.
• One of the reasons for the declining States’ share can be attributed to the increasing collections from cess and surcharges, which do not benefit the States directly. From comprising 5.9% (₹85,638 crore) of the gross tax revenue in 2015-16, these collections rose to 10.8% (₹3.63 lakh crore) by 2023-24.
• One reason for the decline in States’ share of gross revenue is the increasing revenue collected through cess and surcharge, which has grown significantly. In 2015-16, cess and surcharge accounted for 5.9% (₹85,638 crore) of the Union government’s gross tax revenue, rising to 10.8% (₹3.63 lakh crore) by 2023-24. This excludes the GST cess aimed at compensating States for GST implementation losses. The Union government boosts these collections primarily to fund its own sector-specific schemes, bypassing the obligation to share these revenues with the States.
• Furthermore, the reliance on Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and Central Sector Schemes (CSec Schemes) further underscores this trend. CSS allocations have surged from ₹2.04 lakh crore to ₹4.76 lakh crore between 2015-16 and 2023-24, reflecting a strategy where States must match a portion of the funding. This requirement poses challenges for less wealthy States that may need to borrow funds, thereby increasing their financial liabilities and exacerbating inter-State inequalities.
• Additionally, CSec Schemes, fully funded by the Union government, have seen a substantial allocation increase from ₹5.21 lakh crore to ₹14.68 lakh crore over the same period, targeting various sectors and initiatives. Despite this substantial investment, the actual devolution of funds to States remains relatively modest, raising concerns about the equitable distribution of resources and the influence of such schemes on regional development disparities.
• However, these financial arrangements through CSS and CSec Schemes lack statutory backing and are tied to specific spending purposes, limiting States’ flexibility in managing public expenditure. This, combined with the Union government’s retention of a significant portion of gross tax revenue and a substantial fiscal deficit, underscores the considerable financial control wielded by the Union government.

Additional Information:

About Finance Commission:

• The Finance Commission, a constitutional body established under Article 280, determines the formula for distributing tax revenues between the Centre and states, and among states, based on current needs and constitutional arrangements.
• Apart from the share of taxes, States are also provided grants-in-aid as per the recommendation of the FC.
• Under the leadership of NK Singh since November 2017, the 15th Finance Commission has recommended that states receive a 41% share from the divisible pool (Vertical devolution) for the period from 2021-22 to 2025-26.
• Dr. Arvind Panagariya chairs the 16th Finance Commission, tasked with making recommendations for the period from 2026-31.

About Grants in aid to States:

• In addition to tax sharing between the Centre and the States, the Constitution allows for Grants-in-Aid from Central resources to the States, categorized into two types:
• Statutory Grants (under Article 275), allocated by Parliament from the Consolidated Fund of India on the recommendation of the Finance Commission, to states which are in need of financial assistance (different States may be granted different sums). 
• Discretionary Grants (under Article 282), enabling both the Centre and states to provide funds for any public purpose, even beyond their legislative competence.
• Discretionary grants allow the Centre flexibility in funding allocation, aiming to assist states in achieving their developmental goals and fostering coordination between the Centre and states towards national objectives.
• In discretionary grants, there is no objective criteria (there is no legal obligation) for the distribution and that is where political determination comes in i.e., States which are closer to the Centre may get more funds.
• However, the possibility of large-scale discretionary transfers is limited in order to maintain fiscal prudence (responsible management of public funds and avoiding excessive spending that could lead to financial instability).

What are the Central Sector and Centrally Sponsored Schemes?

• Central Sector Schemes are formulated by the central government and are fully funded by it, focusing on subjects from the Union List like Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, and Khelo India Scheme.
• Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), on the other hand, involve shared funding between the Central and State Governments, with the central government providing a larger portion of the funds. These schemes enable the central government to assist states financially in implementing their plans, with varying degrees of state participation across different states and Union territories.

Practice MCQ:

Consider the following: (2023)

1. Demographic performance

2. Forest and ecology

3. Governance reforms

4. Stable government

5. Tax and fiscal efforts

For the horizontal tax devolution, the Fifteenth Finance Commission used how many of the above as criteria other than population area and income distance?

(a) Only two

(b) Only three

(c) Only four

(d) All five

Answer: B

SC verdict on West Bengal’s challenge to CBI probes

GS 2: Polity and Governance: CBI

Why is it in the news?

• On July 10, the Supreme Court upheld the West Bengal government’s challenge against the Union government’s use of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) despite the state’s withdrawal of general consent on November 16, 2018.
• Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Centre’s objections, affirming the CBI’s operational control under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act with the Government of India.

Key Takeaways

• The Court deemed the suit valid and scheduled further hearings for August 13 to frame substantive issues.
• Under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, the CBI must obtain prior consent from the state government before initiating investigations, essential because “police” and “public order” are State List subjects. However, this requirement doesn’t apply in Union territories or railway areas.
• General consent, typically given by states, enables the CBI to investigate corruption charges against Central government officials within their territories.
• Since 2015, several states including Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, Meghalaya, and West Bengal have revoked this consent, alleging misuse by the Union government to target political opponents. Without such consent, the CBI cannot register new cases in these states without explicit permission.
• In August 2021, West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, arguing that the Union’s actions infringed on state sovereignty by continuing investigations post-consent withdrawal.
• The Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction under Article 131 to resolve disputes between the Union and states, crucial for determining legal rights, as highlighted in previous judicial rulings.
• Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued against the suit’s maintainability, citing the CBI’s independent status and lack of direct Union government control over its operations.
• However, the Court emphasized the central government’s supervisory role under the DSPE Act, requiring state consent for CBI investigations, except in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Additional Information:

About Article 131 of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 131 grants the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over legal disputes between states or between states and the union, specifically focusing on matters involving legal rights rather than political disputes.

About Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):

• CBI is India’s top investigative agency, tasked with investigating serious cases and leading anti-corruption efforts nationwide.
• The CBI is not a statutory body but derives its power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 
• The establishment of the CBI was recommended by the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964).
• Territorial Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction is extended to all the Union Territories and could be extended to the States with the consent of the State Government concerned. The power of consent is governed as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946.
• Types of consent:
• General consent allows the CBI to investigate cases in a state without needing to seek fresh permission for each specific instance, typically granted to facilitate seamless investigations of corruption involving central government employees in that state.
• So far, 10 States have withdrawn the general consent to CBI to probe the case. These are: Punjab, Jharkhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Mizoram, Telangana, Meghalaya, and Tamil Nadu.
• Exception to general consent: Supreme Court and High Courts can order CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the state.
• Specific consent: When general consent is revoked, the CBI must obtain case-specific approval from the state government for each investigation, without which its officials lack police powers in that state, hindering their ability to conduct comprehensive inquiries.
• Motto: Industry, Impartiality, and Integrity
• Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions

Practice Mains Question:  

Q. The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting a probe within a particular state is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India. (UPSC 2021)