Companies (Amendment) Bill passed
Lok Sabha on 26 July 2019 gave its nod to the Companies (Amendment) Bill which seeks to tighten corporate social responsibility compliance and reduce the load of cases on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Read Here: https://www.ksgindia.com/index.php/study-material/news-for-aspirants/21041-companies-amendment-bill-passed
#Amendment #Bill #NCLT #LokSabha #criminal #NirmalaSitharaman

Chandrayaan-2 raises orbit
Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft moved into a higher orbit around the earth, by performing its second orbit-raising manoeuvre in the early hours of 26 July 2019.
Read Here: https://www.ksgindia.com/index.php/study-material/news-for-aspirants/21040-chandrayaan-2-raises-orbit
#Chandrayaan2 #orbit #GSLV #spacecraft #Earth #ISRO

28 new stars in Milky Way
Scientists at the Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (ARIES) in Nainital have discovered 28 new variable stars in the Milky Way galaxy. ARIES Director Wahab Uddin described the finding of the new variable stars, whose luminosity or brightness keeps changing, as a "rare achievement".
Read Here: https://www.ksgindia.com/index.php/study-material/news-for-aspirants/21039-28-new-stars-in-milky-way
#MilkyWay #stars #ARIES #DOT #NGC #SnehLata #NGC4147

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They also argued that since courts have recognised that consent can be withdrawn even during or in between a sexual act, the assumption of “consent in perpetuity” cannot be legally valid.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 - 26 July 2023
Centre withdraws DNA Bill
GS Paper - 3 (Biotechnology)

The Union government withdrew the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019, from the Lok Sabha. First proposed in 2003, the Bill has gone through numerous changes, led by both the Department of Biotechnology and the Law Ministry, over the years. In 2019, it was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee after being introduced in the Lok Sabha. Two years later, the panel’s report was released, in which it highlighted the fears of a number of MPs, saying the Bill could be misused to target segments of society based on religion, caste or political views.

What is the Bill?

The Bill seeks to create a regulatory framework for obtaining, storing and testing DNA samples of human beings, mainly for the purposes of criminal investigations, and with the objective of establishing the identity of a person.
DNA testing is already being used for a variety of purposes, such as criminal investigations, establishment of parentage, and search for missing people.
The proposed law seeks to bring in a supervisory structure to oversee these practices, and frame guidelines and rules so that the DNA technology is not misused.
To achieve these objectives, the Bill proposes to set up two institutional structures — a DNA regulatory board and a DNA data bank — at the national level. Regional centres of the board as well as the data bank can be set up at the state level too.
The board, which is proposed to be the main regulatory authority, would frame the rules and guidelines for DNA collection, testing and storage, while the data bank would be the repository of all DNA samples collected from various people under specified rules.
The Bill proposes that testing of DNA samples can be carried out only at laboratories that are authorised to do so by the regulatory board.
It also specifies the circumstances under which a person can be asked to submit DNA samples, the purposes for which such requests can be made, and the exact procedure for handling, storing and accessing these samples.

What are the objections against the Bill?

The main debate over the proposed law has been around three issues — whether DNA technology is foolproof, whether the provisions adequately address the possibility of abuse of DNA information, and whether the privacy of the individual is protected.
DNA information can be extremely revelatory. It can not only establish a person’s identity but also reveal a lot about physical and biological attributes of the person like eye, hair or skin colour, susceptibility to diseases, possible medical history, and possible clues to biological relatives.
For years, critics of the Bill have been claiming that collecting and storing such intrusive information could lead to abuse, besides being violative of a person’s privacy.

What has the government said?

The government has defended the Bill by arguing that nearly 60 countries have enacted similar legislation and that all important matters related to privacy, confidentiality and data protection have been taken into account.
It has also claimed that very limited information is proposed to be stored in the indices — just 17 sets of numbers out of billions that DNA samples can reveal. These can tell nothing about the individual and only act as a unique identifier.

#upsc #news #DNAbill #withdraws #technology #Department #biotechnology #lawministry #parliamentary #loksabha #criminal #parliamentary #committee #bill #government #violative #privacy #attributes