March 2, 2023: Important Current Affairs

WritiyIAS

Please wait 0 seconds...

Scroll Down and click on Go to Link for destination

Congrats! Link is Generated

S-400 air defence systems

Deliveries of five regiments of S-400 air defence systems under a $5.43 billion deal with Russia are expected to be completed by year end or early 2024.
In July 2019, the Union government said in a written reply in Parliament that S-400 deliveries were “likely to be made by April 2023”.
India has contracted five S-400 regiments under a $5.43 billion or ₹40,291 crore deal as per a conversation rate of ₹74.2 against the dollar at the time, signed in October 2018. The deal has been delayed from the start over payment issues. With the looming threat of U.S. sanctions under CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), the two sides had worked out payments through the rupee-rouble exchange.

India has called upon G20 countries to adopt multilateral action for faster extradition of fugitive economic offenders and recovery of assets both on domestic front as well as from abroad, during the first anti-corruption working group meeting held in Gurugram, on the outskirts of Delhi.
Economic offences have been a problem faced by many, especially when the offenders flee from the jurisdiction of the country. India has put in place specialised legislation in this regard, in the form of Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, the term wherein ‘fugitive economic offender’ (FEO) is defined as an individual against whom a warrant of arrest in relation to scheduled offence has been issued by any court in India and who has left the country so as to avoid criminal prosecution; or the FEO abroad, refuses to return to face criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court of India is a political court in the sense that it is the final arbiter of political disputes.
The political and ideological positions of judges may influence their judgments — at least on contentious political questions
Thus, concern about the ideological/political learnings of Judges is perfectly. It is a center of political power because it can influence the agenda of political action, control over which is what power politics is in reality all about”.

The Hindutva judgement (1996) was a big boost and legitimised the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s ideological position.
ADM Jabalpur (1976) verdict gave a boost to the Indira Gandhi government.
S.R. Bommai (1994) that had upheld the dismissal of the BJP governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, on the ground of secularism as the basic structure, was a big victory for the Congress.
The Rafale verdict in 2018 which came before the general election in 2019 was a big political boost for the Narendra Modi government.
The final judgment in the Ayodhya case (2019) too had huge political significance.
Pegasus order (2021) of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) N. V. Ramana, on constituting an independent probe.
The upholding of reservation for the economically weaker sections reservation (2022) amendment, and on demonetisation (2023) spelt major political victories for the BJP government.
The ongoing Shiv Sena case too has political implications.
At the same time, several politically sensitive cases have not yet been heard such as challenges to the electoral bonds scheme, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and the dilution of Article 370.
Public Interest Litigation, on changing names of over a 1,000 places, a uniform divorce law, anti conversion laws, love jihad, and women’s entry in mosques are examples of the use of the court for political purposes.

The left leading Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was a Minister in the communist government in Kerala.
Justice Baharul Islam was an elected member of the Rajya Sabha representing the Congress.
CJI Subba Rao was the Opposition candidate in a presidential election.
Justice Guman Mal Lodha had rightist leanings and subsequently thrice won the Lok Sabha election on the BJP ticket.
Justice K.S. Hegde even became Speaker in the Janata government.
Justice Vijay Bahuguna was Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.
Every government would want Judges who are likely to decide cases in its favour- this was very much the norm even under Congress

Justice M.H. Beg was appointed on the directions of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi overruling CJI Sikri’s opposition.
Justice D.G. Palekar was appointed because of close proximity with then Law Minister H. R. Gokhale.
Justice S.N. Dwivedi was related to H.N. Bahuguna.
CJI Sikri had serious reservations about Justice Dwivedi’s elevation.

Many government appointed judges were able to assert their independence; barring a few exceptions, they have been quite impressive.
Some even struck down major decisions taken by the Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi governments.
In Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the reservation policy of Madras was struck down by the majority of 7:0.
In I.C. Golaknath (1967), the Supreme Court denied Parliament the power to amend the Constitution and held fundamental rights to be the primordial rights necessary for the development of the human personality.
In R.C. Cooper (1970), the top court (10:1) struck down the historic bank nationalisation decision; in Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Scindia (1971), abolition of privy purses was also struck down by a 9:2 majority.
In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the basic structure theory was propounded to restrict and limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
In the Raj Narain case(1975), Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha had struck down the Prime Minister’s election.
Even during the Emergency, as many as nine High Courts had upheld the right to habeas corpus against illegal detention.

Such strong judgments are rarely delivered today.

The collegium system has not drastically improved the situation as the government continues to have the final word in the judicial appointments.
Since the government does have a veto power in practice in spite of the Memorandum of Procedure laying down that the government would be bound to appoint a judge if his/her name is reiterated by the collegium, it is better to include the Union Law Minister in the collegium (just as in several other countries) so that his views are heard and his reservations discussed threadbare.
If the other five judges (CJI plus four judges) are not convinced, decisions can be made by the majority, and the government being party to the deliberations and recommendations would have to accept collegium’s recommendations.
The goal should be to end the supersession, cherry picking of judges and making the process more transparent.