Watch: Affidavit in Supreme Court: States too can define minority status, says Centre #supremecourt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xFGXRE2fS4

Watch: UPSC extra attempt: SC asks Centre to consider appeal of Covid-hit students #upscnews #covid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CqgqD6wnDM

Podcast - What is ‘general consent’ for CBI? | best daily editorial analysis for upsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNpwy6i7-rE
#UPSCOnlineClasses #OnlineClassses #IASOnlineclasses

Watch: KSG EXPLAINER | SC puts sedition law on hold | GS Paper 2 (Polity) #seditionlaw #upsc #supremecourt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oD7oFlEO5o

Watch: KSG EXPLAINER | SC order on Gyanvapi row #upsc #currentaffairs #Gyanvapi | GS Paper - 2 Polity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tpBl27C94

Watch: Supreme Court upholds govt’s decision on One Rank, One Pension for defence forces #defenceforces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5TfG1lI8sI&list=PLCUwtp5IghZlGtWhDAkuXVFs8MLdVey75&index=59
#UPSCOnlineClasses #OnlineClassses #IASOnlineclasses

Watch: KSG EXPLAINER | SC lifts curbs on iron ore exports | GS Paper - 2 (Polity) #KSGIndia #UPSC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKkLpMJZ3cY

KSG Podcast - What is ‘general consent’ for CBI? | best daily editorial analysis for upsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNpwy6i7-rE&list=PLCUwtp5IghZmJBi1h7xiAhsORKmmumVsR&index=22
#UPSCOnlineClasses #OnlineClassses #IASOnlineclasses

KSG Podcast - The law against sexual harassment in India | daily best editorial analysis for upsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ls1dLRjMms&list=PLCUwtp5IghZmJBi1h7xiAhsORKmmumVsR&index=77
#UPSCOnlineClasses #OnlineClassses #IASOnlineclasses

KSG PODCAST | Pleas against excavation around Puri temple #upsc #editorial #editorialanalysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqCbbOm83P8&list=PLCUwtp5IghZmJBi1h7xiAhsORKmmumVsR&index=71
#UPSCOnlineClasses #OnlineClassses #IASOnlineclasses

Watch: Supreme Court on cryptocurrency
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0oxr12LKlFE

KSG PODCAST | Pleas against excavation around Puri temple #upsc #editorial #editorialanalysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqCbbOm83P8&list=PLCUwtp5IghZmJBi1h7xiAhsORKmmumVsR&index=185
#UPSCOnlineClasses #OnlineClassses #IASOnlineclasses

Consent in perpetuity: This is the assumption that once married; a woman gives her permanent consent, which she cannot retract. This concept in the colonial-era law is rooted in the idea that a woman is the ‘property’ of the man who marries her.
Expectation of sex: This is the assumption that a woman is duty-bound or is obligated to fulfil sexual responsibilities in a marriage, since the aim of marriage is procreation. And since the husband has a reasonable expectation of sex in a marriage, the provision implies that a woman cannot deny it.
What are the main arguments against the exception to the IPC section on rape?

It has been argued that the marital rape immunity stands against the light of the right to equality, the right to life with dignity, personhood, sexual, and personal autonomy — all of which are fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution respectively.
In the Delhi case, the petitioners argued that the exception creates an unreasonable classification between married and unmarried women and, by corollary, takes away the right of a married woman to give consent to a sexual activity.
They also argued that since courts have recognised that consent can be withdrawn even during or in between a sexual act, the assumption of “consent in perpetuity” cannot be legally valid. On the issue of “reasonable expectation of sex”, the petitioners argued that even though there is a reasonable expectation of sex from a sex worker or other domestic relationships as well, consent is not irrevocable.
The petitioners also argued that since the provision was inserted before the Constitution came into force, the provision cannot be presumed to be constitutional.
In 2013, the J S Verma Committee, set up to look into criminal law reforms following the brutal gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old paramedic in Delhi in 2012, had recommended removing the marital rape exception. But the then government did not change the law on marital rape.

#upsc #news #supremecourt #petitions #maritalrape #immunity #judgment #karnataka #exception #IPCsection375 #quash #charges #perpetuity #autonomy #JSVERMA #committee #criminal #law #paramedic

Today's Headlines - 25 July 2023
SC stops Gyanvapi mosque survey
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)

The Supreme Court on 24 July 2023 stayed the ongoing scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, which a 30-member team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had begun earlier in the day. In doing so, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud put on hold until 26 July 2023 the order of a district court in Varanasi that had directed the ASI to carry out a “scientific” survey of the mosque premises.

What was the Varanasi court’s order?

On 21 July 2021, the Varanasi court asked for a “scientific investigation/ survey/ excavation” of the mosque premises by the ASI.
District and Sessions Judge Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha asked the ASI to conduct a “ground penetrating radar survey just below the three domes of the building in question and conduct excavation, if required”.
The court directed the “Director of ASI…to conduct a detailed scientific investigation by using GPR Survey, Excavation, Dating method and other modern techniques of the present structure to find out…whether the same has been constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple”.
The ASI was also directed to investigate the age and nature of the construction of the western wall of the building through scientific methods, and to carry out a GPR survey beneath the ground of all the cellars and an excavation, if required.
The court told the ASI Director to ensure that no damage is done to the “structure standing on the disputed land” and that “it remains intact and unharmed”.

How did the court take up this matter?

The court was acting on a petition filed by four Hindu women petitioners seeking the right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque complex, located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi.
In its order, the court clarified that the survey will exclude the wuzu khana or the ablution area which was sealed last year on the orders of the Supreme Court after Hindu litigants claimed that they had identified a Shivling there.
However, the Muslim litigants contended that the object that had been found was a fountain. Following this, the court instructed that the survey proceedings be videographed, and a report is submitted to it before 4 August.
The Hindu litigants contend that the mosque was built on the site of the original Kashi Vishwanath temple. The Muslim litigants maintain that the mosque was built on Waqf premises, and that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 barred changing the character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August, 1947.
However, this was not the first time this issue reached the court. The Varanasi district court had agreed to hear the present plea for an ASI survey on 16 May this year, after an order by the Allahabad High Court.

How did the Supreme Court come into the picture?

The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, moved the top court, arguing that the proceedings were an attempt to change the religious character of the mosque.
The Places of Worship Act, 1991 bars the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship from how it existed on 15 August 1947.
On 20 May 2022, the Supreme Court, underlining the “complexity of the issues involved in the civil suit”, transferred the case to the District Judge. The SC subsequently said it would intervene only after the District Judge had decided on the preliminary aspects of the case.
After that, the Supreme Court in November 2022 extended its interim direction securing the area of the Gyanvapi complex where the “Shivling” was claimed to have been found without impeding or restricting the rights of Muslims to access and offer namaz there till further orders.

#upsc #news #todayheadline #gyanvapi #mosque #supremecourt #archaeological #survey #CJI #districtcourt #varanasi #sessions #scientific #penetrating #construction #shrinagar #kashivishwanath #temple #anjumanintezamia #masajid

Today's Headlines - 04 August 2023
Report on ‘sub-categorisation’ of OBCs
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)

The long awaited report of a commission set up to examine the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was submitted to President Droupadi Murmu. The four-member commission headed by Justice G Rohini, a retired Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, was appointed on 2 October 2017, and received as many as 13 extensions to its tenure.

Why was this Commission set up?

The commission was set up in recognition of the perceived distortions in the affirmative action policy, which was seen as leading to a situation in which a few castes cornered the bulk of benefits available under the 27% quota for OBCs, and tasked with suggesting corrective actions.
The report of the commission is widely expected to be politically sensitive and the contents of the report have not been made public as yet.

What is the need for sub-categorisation of OBCs?

OBCs get 27% reservation in central government jobs and admission to educational institutions.
There are more than 2,600 entries in the Central List of OBCs, but over the years, a perception has taken root that only a few affluent communities among them have benefited from the quota.
Therefore, there is an argument that a “sub-categorisation” of OBCs — quotas within the 27% quota — is needed in order to ensure “equitable distribution” of the benefits of reservation.
Even as the Justice Rohini Commission was examining the matter, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2020 intervened in the sub-categorisation debate, ruling that the 2005 decision of another five-judge Bench in ‘E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh’ must be revisited.
‘Chinnaiah’ had held that no special sub-quota can be introduced within the quota for SCs and STs for the benefit of castes or tribes that were more backward than the others on these lists.
The 2020 verdict of the SC referring ‘Chinnaiah’ to a larger Bench was passed in ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ in which the court examined the validity of a 2006 Punjab law that created sub-classification within the SCs, and sought to reserve half the SC quota for certain identified castes.

The commission’s brief was originally to:

Examine the extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation among the castes or communities included in the broad category of OBCs with reference to such classes included in the Central List.
Work out the mechanism, criteria, norms and parameters in a scientific approach for sub-categorisation within such OBCs.
Take up the exercise of identifying the respective castes or communities or sub-castes or synonyms in the Central List of OBCs and classifying them into their respective sub-categories.
It was set up with tenure of 12 weeks ending 3 January 2018, but was given repeated extensions.
On 30 July 2019, the commission wrote to the government that it had “noted several ambiguities in the list… [and] is of the opinion that these have to be clarified/ rectified before the sub-categorised central list is prepared”.
Thus, on 22 January 2020, a fourth item was added to the terms of reference: “To study the various entries in the Central List of OBCs and recommend correction of any repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies and errors of spelling or transcription.”

#upsc #news #headline #report #subcategorisation #OBC #polity #commission #president #droupadimurmu #justice #rohini #commission #distortion #castes #institutions #supremecourt #chinnaiah #andhrapradesh #synonyms #transcription

Today's Headlines - 22 August 2023
Violation of privacy in caste survey
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)

The Supreme Court asked the petitioners challenging the Bihar caste survey what was the violation of privacy in asking people to disclose their caste after the latter contended that the exercise was clearly in violation of the top court’s nine-judge decision in the privacy case wherein it was held that the state cannot encroach on the privacy of individuals without a law to back it.

What

If somebody is asked to give caste or sub-caste, in a state like Bihar, caste is known to neighbours… Which of these 17 questions (asked as part of the survey) invades privacy, asked Justice Sanjeev Khanna, presiding over a two-judge Bench, and said the exercise was carried out on the strength of an executive order.
The Bench commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the 1 August decision of the Patna High Court, which gave the go-ahead to the caste survey.
Some of these petitions have claimed the exercise was an infringement of the people’s right to privacy.
The SC, he pointed out, had said that “while it intervenes to protect legitimate state interests, the state must nevertheless put into place a robust regime that ensures the fulfillment of a threefold requirement.
These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and content based mandate of Article 21.
The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21.
For, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement.
The caste survey, however, was carried out on the basis of an executive order, which does not even set out the aim of the exercise.
Puttaswamy judgment says privacy can be intruded upon only by a just fair and reasonable law, with a legitimate aim, which has to stand the test of proportionality.

#upsc #news #violation #privacy #castesurvey #polity #supremecourt #bihar #caste #neighbours #patna #highcourt #pleas #caste #survey #requirement #interests #threefold #restraints #encroachment #puttaswarmy #judgment #law #proportionality #executive #order #article #decision #polity

Today's Headlines - 01 September 2023
Validity of ‘self-respect’ marriages
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)

The Supreme Court observed that there is no blanket ban on advocates solemnising “self-respect” marriages under Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In doing so, a Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar set aside a 2014 ruling of the Madras High Court holding that marriages performed by the advocates are not valid and that “suyamariyathai” or “self-respect” marriages cannot be solemnised in secrecy.

What are ‘self-respect’ marriages?

On 17 January 1968, the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, received the President’s approval and became the law.
This amendment modified the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, by inserting Section 7-A into it. However, it extended only to the state of Tamil Nadu.
Section 7-A deals with the special provision on “self-respect and secular marriages”.
It legally recognised “any marriage between any two Hindus”, which can be referred to as “suyamariyathai” or “seerthiruththa marriage” or by any other name.
Such marriages are solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons, with parties declaring each other to be husband or wife, in a language understood by them.
Further, each party to the marriage garlands the other or puts a ring on the other’s finger or ties a “thali” or mangal sutra. However, such marriages are also required to be registered as per the law.
The rationale behind the Tamil Nadu government amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to include “suyamariyathai” or “self-respect” marriages, was to radically simplify weddings by shunning the need for mandatory Brahmin priests, holy fire and saptapadi (seven steps).
This allowed marriages to be declared in the presence of the couple’s friends or family or any other persons. In a nutshell, the amendment was made to do away with the need for priests and rituals, which were otherwise required to complete wedding ceremonies.
In its recent order, the Supreme Court allowed a petition challenging a Madras High Court order dated 5 May where the court had ordered the initiation of disciplinary action against the advocates who solemnised such marriages in their offices and issued marriage certificates to consenting adults.
What has the top court ruled on ‘self-respect’ marriages in the past?

In “S. Nagalingam vs Sivagami” (2001), a bench of Justices DP Mohapatra and KG Balakrishnan recognised the petitioner’s marriage with his wife to be a valid one despite the ceremony of “saptapadi” or seven steps around the sacred fire, not taking place.
Clarifying that the parties in the present case did not consider the “saptapadi” ceremony to be as essential as per their personal law, the court said that Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu State Amendment) would apply instead.
The main thrust of this provision is that the presence of a priest is not necessary for the performance of a valid marriage. Parties can enter into a marriage in the presence of relatives or friends or other persons and each party to the marriage should declare in the language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife or, as the case may be, her husband and the marriage would be completed by a simple ceremony requiring the parties to the marriage to garland each other or put a ring upon any finger of the other or tie a thali,” the court had observed in its ruling.

#upsc #news #headline #validity #selfrespect #marriages #polity #supremecourt #hindumarriage #Ravindrabhat #Aravindkumar #madrashighcourt #suyamariyathai #selfrespect #tamilnadu #seerthiruththamarriage #mangal #brahmin #saptapadi #sevensteps #SNagalingyam #Sivagami #garlands #secularmarriages

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

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

Introduction To Indian Judiciary and Its Powers | SBR Series | Polity | Dr A R Khan | KSG INDIA

https://youtu.be/TtUomB2xH2Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez3XmmOjXs0

In today's enlightening discussion video our esteemed mentors tried to cover the Current Affairs topics for UPSC Aspirants from renowned "The Hindu", "The Indian Express", "PIB" and More

Today's Topics includes:
Prior Sanction Required to Prosecute Public Servants for Money Laundering - Supreme Court Ruling
Vehicular emissions top contributor to air pollution
PM-Vidyalaxmi scheme for higher education gets nod
RNA editing is promising to go where DNA editing can’t

Mentors (alphabetically)
1. Abdul Gani Khan
2. Gaurav Thakur
3. Kanhaiya Patidar
4. Mustafa Ali Shah