KSG IAS - KSG India (Official Telegram Channel)

Additionally, activists from the community say that this will come at a loss for Dalit, Bahujan and Adivasi transgender persons, as they will have to make a choice between availing reservation either based on caste and tribal identity or gender identity.

“This is in violation of the Constitution. SC, ST persons should be able to avail internal reservation in their categories. If trans persons from these categories do not have the choice to do that, they will be forced into two corners. Either compete with cis-gendered SC, ST persons. Or under OBC, compete with other savarna transgender persons, and cis-gendered persons from OBC communities,” said Kanmani, a trans woman and lawyer, to The Indian Express.

What has happened so far on horizontal reservations?

Since the NALSA judgment, there has been no direction from the Central government on delivering on the right to reservation for trans persons.

In 2015, Rajya Sabha DMK MP Tiruchi Siva presented the Rights of Transgender Persons Bill. Prepared with inputs from the trans community, this Private Member’s Bill, in line with the NALSA judgment, had provisions for reservation for trans persons — in the public and private sector. After being passed in the Rajya Sabha, the Bill was rejected in the Lok Sabha. Instead, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016 was introduced by the Centre. It had no provision for reservations.

In 2018, a parliamentary standing committee under the Ministry of Social Justice was set up. It was headed by BJP MP Ramesh Bais, now Governor of Maharashtra. The committee, again in line with the NALSA judgment, recommended reservations for transgender persons. Yet, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 did not have any mention of reservation — vertical or horizontal.

Alternatively, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, included in its purview the right of disabled persons to accrue horizontal reservation. Since this Act has been implemented, horizontal reservation for disabled people is now ensured under the Central government.

In 2015, the Tamil Nadu government decided to categorise “transgender or eunuch (thirunangai or aravani)”, that is, only transwomen under the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category. After Sangama v State of Karnataka, Karnataka became the first and only state to offer one per cent horizontal reservation to transgender persons in 2021. In April this year, transgender persons were included in the OBC category in Madhya Pradesh.

“The aspect of the implementation [of the NALSA judgment] has really not gone anywhere. Currently, the primary challenges are legislative. This lack of action needs to be legally challenged,” Bittu K R, a genderqueer trans man and Associate Professor of Biology and Psychology at Ashoka University, told The Indian Express.

Transgender persons have filed several petitions of late in the Delhi HC, Madras HC, Rajasthan HC, etc., asking for horizontal reservation in education and jobs.

#upsc #news #reservation #theindianexpress #transgendercommunity #bombay #highcourt #variouscommunities #nalsa #socialasymmetry #sc #st #obc #policies #national #human #rights #commission #violation #constitution #uttarakhand #bihar

1.2K viewsKOL KSG India, 10:00

Today's Headlines - 22 July 2023
Section 69 (A) on social media platforms
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)

After a video of two Manipur women sparked outrage, the Centre has asked Twitter and other social media platforms to take down the video. The Centre has powers to issue content takedown orders to social media companies under Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

What is Section 69 (A)?

Section 69 of the IT Act allows the government to issue content-blocking orders to online intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecom service providers, web hosting services, search engines, online marketplaces, etc.
The Section requires the information or content being blocked to be deemed a threat to India’s national security, sovereignty, or public order.
If the Centre or state government are satisfied that blocking the content is “necessary” and “expedient” on grounds of “sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence,” it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct any agency “to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource,” the law says.
As per rules that govern these blocking orders, any request made by the government is sent to a review committee, which then issues these directions.
Blocking orders issued under Section 69 (A) of the IT Act are typically confidential in nature.
What has the SC said on Section 69 (A)?

In a landmark 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which entailed punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services, etc.
The plea had also challenged Section 69A of the Information Technology Rules 2009, but the SC held this to be “constitutionally valid”.
It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so.
Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2).
Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court noted.
How did the Karnataka HC rule on this?

Section 69A was again under legal scrutiny in July last year when Twitter approached the Karnataka HC against the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Alleging disproportionate use of power by officials, Twitter challenged the Ministry’s content-blocking orders issued under Section 69 (A) after the IT Ministry wrote to the social media giant, asking it to comply with its orders or lose safe harbour protection.
In July this year, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka HC dismissed the plea, saying the Centre had the power to block tweets.
Justice Krishna D Dixit also ruled that the blocking powers of the Centre extend to not just single tweets but entire user accounts.

#upsc #news #section69 #socialmedia #manipur #technology #constitution #disproportionate #karnataka #alleging #ministry #electronics #polity #manipurwomen #information #content #sovereignty #integrity #monitor #landmark

1.1K viewsKOL KSG India, 05:45

KSG IAS - KSG India (Official Telegram Channel)

Today's Headlines - 29 July 2023
India urges Sri Lanka to implement 13th Amendment
GS Paper - 2 (International Relations)

Sri Lanka President Ranil Wickremesinghe held an all-party meeting to discuss the issue of Tamil reconciliation and welfare. This comes days after his visit to India, during which Prime Minister Narendra Modi conveyed to him the need to “ensure a life of dignity” for the Tamil community in the island nation. The PM also expressed the hope that Wickremesinghe would be committed to implementing the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s constitution — which flows from the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 — and holding provincial council elections.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987

The 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s constitution was made after the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President J R Jayewardene, on 29 July 1987, in Colombo.
Under the 1978 constitution, Sri Lanka had a unitary government, with all powers in the hands of the Centre.
The Tamil minority in Sri Lanka was concentrated in the Northern and Eastern provinces and the struggle for rights and greater autonomy here had flared up into the long and bloody civil war between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan government, with some other groups also involved.
The 1987 Accord aimed at amending the constitution to transfer some powers to the governments of the country’s nine provinces, thereby finding a constitutional solution to the civil war.
After the Accord, the constitution underwent the 13th Amendment to allow devolution of power to provinces.
Apart from the devolution of power, the Accord had other clauses, such as Tamil and English being adopted as official languages along with Sinhala, lifting of emergency on the “Eastern and Northern Provinces by 15 August 1987”, surrender of arms by militant groups, and “general amnesty to political and other prisoners now held in custody under The Prevention of Terrorism Act and other emergency laws”.
The Accord also says that “The Government of India will underwrite and guarantee the resolutions, and co-operate in the implementation of these proposals”.

What about the 13th Amendment’s implementation?

The separation of powers was never done fully, and while some are unhappy over too little devolution, the hardline nationalists raise alarms over the “weakening” of the Central government’s authority.
The Sinhala nationalists also oppose the 13th Amendment as they see it as imposed by India. Moreover, the regions that the devolution was primarily meant for never benefitted much from it.
Under the Accord, the North and Eastern provinces were to be merged into one, temporarily, and later, a referendum was to be held to decide if they should stay together or have two separate provincial councils.
Thus, elections to the merged North Eastern Province were held on 19 November 1988. However, little over three months later, Chief Minister Annamalai Varadaraja Perumal moved a motion in the Council to declare an independent ‘Eelam’.
This prompted the President, Ranasinghe Premadasa, to dissolve the council, and impose President’s rule, which lasted till December 2006.
The referendum on the two provinces was never held, and in 2006, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court ruled that the merger had been illegal. Thus, the Northern and Eastern provinces were separated again, on 1 January 2007.
Since 2014, provincial elections are pending across Sri Lanka. This is because Parliament is yet to amend a 2017 Act in Parliament, for reforming the election process by introducing a hybrid system of first past the post and proportional representation from the current system of proportional representation.

#upsc #news #todayheadline #india #srilanka #implement #amendment #ranil #wickremesinghe #tamil #community #islandnation #constitution #civilwar #liberation #government #sinhala #eastern #northern #annamalai #varadaraja #proportional

1.2K viewsKOL KSG India, 04:43

KSG IAS - KSG India (Official Telegram Channel)

Today's Headlines - 06 September 2023
Your personal data online
GS Paper - 3 (ITC)

Recently, India notified its personal data protection framework as a law, signalling the beginning of a new era of privacy legislation in the country. Provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 will come in force in a few months, after the Centre has allowed enough transition time to the industry, with users of these platforms — you — experiencing several new notices and rights, as prescribed in the law.

When can an entity process your personal data?

There are broadly two circumstances under which entities — both government and private — can process an individual’s personal data: (i) There has to be clear consent for such processing; and (ii) for certain “legitimate uses”.
When an entity is processing your personal data for which you have consented, it has to be accompanied by a notice, which is to be made available in all 22 languages of Schedule 8 of the Constitution.
You can directly consent to businesses, and the government can process your personal data, or alternatively use a consent manager.
What happens to your personal data that was collected before this law came into existence?

Any entity that has collected a person’s personal data before the Act came into being should give her a notice about the personal data in its possession “as soon as it is reasonably practicable”.
The notice should include:

The personal data an entity is processing and the purpose for such processing;
The way in which a user can withdraw their consent;
The means of grievance redressal
However, the contents of this notice have been significantly diluted from previous iterations of the many data protection Bill drafts in the last five years.
For instance, the Act doesn’t require companies to state the duration for which they will store personal data, if it will be shared with third-parties, and if it will be sent to a foreign jurisdiction.
There are exemptions to consent requirements as well:

The Act says that the government can exempt itself and its instrumentalities from adhering to any and all provisions of the law that relate to processing of personal data.
Will your rights be restricted in any way?

Broadly, there are three major roadblocks that impose restrictions, or limit the rights prescribed in the provisions of the law from applying to individuals. These are as follows:
Government exemptions: In the interest of national security, friendly relations with other governments and public order among others, many of the provisions of the Act, including rights afforded to citizens will no longer be applicable.
The way we have prepared the law, it has adequate safeguards for citizens. A lot of the fear against the government’s power comes from citizens’ experience with previous governments. But that is not the case today. People have a lot of trust in our government, IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said.
Processing of data for legitimate uses: Neither the government nor private companies need to seek informed consent from citizens for certain legitimate uses.
For the government, this includes processing personal data for offering subsidies and certificates, responding to a medical emergency, for national security, and during natural disasters.
Private entities can assume consent when an individual has not expressly denied her consent.

#upsc #news #headline #personaldata #online #ITC #protection #industry #rights #legitimateuses #Constitution #grievance #redressal #duration #instrumentalities #roadblocks #ITMinister #AshwiniVaishnaw #subsidies #medicalemergency #disasters #safeguards #online

1.4K viewsKOL KSG India, 08:00

KSG IAS - KSG India (Official Telegram Channel)

Bharat Ratna 2024 & Article 18 | Controversies On Bharat Ratna| Anshul Singh

https://youtu.be/98xzHgzzsIw?si=Tk1Ic8-Fqduqiqd3

YouTube

Bharat Ratna 2024 & Article 18 | Controversies On Bharat Ratna| Anshul Singh | #currentaffairs #upsc

#bharatratna #currentaffairs #upsc #upscgk #generalknowledge #constitution #article18 #polity #controversy #supremecourt #csat #generalstudies

Bharat Ratna Award. Know More About The Origin, History & Controversies Related To Bharat Ratna. Find Out The Popular…

1.5K viewsKOL KSG India, 10:33

KSG IAS - KSG India (Official Telegram Channel)

PT Marathon - UPSC Prelims 2024 | Polity Part 1 | Ankit Sir | KSG INDIA

https://youtu.be/-cAOT42WkXM?si=sevu1Lly7dGmhxux?utm_source=tel&utm_medium=post

YouTube

PT Marathon - UPSC Prelims 2024 | Polity Part 1 | Ankit Sir | KSG INDIA

In this video, Sir has covered the conceptual underpinnings of the subject along with the current updates. This series would help aspirants gauge UPSC's priority areas for Prelims.

#parliament #committees #polityforprelims #fundamentalrights #fundamentalduties…