Daily Current Affairs for UPSC CSE
Topics Covered
- Hijab Verdict
- Green Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
- Solar Energy Challenges
- Sealed cover Jurisprudence
- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
- One Rank One Pension
- Caste based Payment System
- Facts for Prelims
1 . Hijab Verdict
Context : The Karnataka High Court upheld the restriction on Muslim women wearing a hijab in educational institutions. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and Khazi M Jaibunnisa, held that the right to wear a hijab is not constitutionally protected.
Background
- Karnataka government passed an order exercising its powers under Section 133(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The provision grants powers to the state to issue directives for government educational institutions to follow. In 2013, under this provision, the state had issued a directive making uniforms compulsory for education institutions. Referring to the 2013 directive, the latest directive specifies that a headscarf is not part of the uniform.
- It states that wearing a headscarf is not an essential religious practice for Muslims that can be protected under the Constitution.
- The order takes refuge in three cases decided by different High Courts to hold that banning the headscarf is not violative of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of religion.
- The petitioners, however, have argued that the facts and circumstances of the three cases are different and cannot be applied to the Karnataka case. This means that the High Court will have to first decide whether wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice.
Details of the Verdict
Whether wearing hijab/headscarf is a part of ‘essential religious practice’ in Islamic Faith protected under Article 25 of the Constitution
- The court held that there is no “Quranic injunction” on wearing the hijab and that wearing the hijab is not “religion-specific”. The court’s inquiry, it said, was to ascertain whether wearing the hijab is so essential that if not followed, one could not practise the religion.
- “It is not that if the alleged practice of wearing hijab is not adhered to, those not wearing hijab become the sinners, Islam loses its glory and it ceases to be a religion,” the court said.
- The court said that the petitioners did not present sufficient evidence to prove that wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice of Islam. It said the material presented was “extremely meager”, and the petitioners’ averments were “vague”.
Whether prescription of school uniform (by educational institutions) is not legally permissible, as being violative of petitioners’ Fundamental Rights…guarantees under Articles 19(1)(a) (i.e., freedom of expression), and 21 (i.e., privacy) of the Constitution”
- While the petitioners’ argument was specifically about allowing students to wear hijab of a structure and colour that suited the prescribed dress code so they could continue their education, the court stressed on the institution’s right to prescribe a dress code.
- “We are not impressed by this argument. Reasons are not far to seek: firstly, such a proposal if accepted, the school uniform ceases to be uniform. There shall be two categories of girl students viz., those who wear the uniform with hijab and those who do it without. That would establish a sense of ‘social-separateness’, which is not desirable. It also offends the feel of uniformity which the dress-code is designed to bring about amongst all the students regardless of their religion & faiths,” the court said on the “principle of reasonable accommodation”.
- On the example of Kendriya Vidyalayas allowing the headscarf, the court said that states need not follow the Centre. “What the Kendriya Vidyalayas prescribe as uniform/dress code is left to the policy of the Central Government. Ours being a kind of Federal Structure…, the Federal Units, namely the States need not toe the line of Center,” it said.
- The court added that “…it hardly needs to be stated that the uniform can exclude any other apparel like bhagwa or blue shawl that may have the visible religious overtones”
Government Order is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution” (equality before law and non-discrimination):
- The Karnataka government order issued on February 5 under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, said that colleges can restrict students from wearing the hijab. Along with “unity” and “intergrity”, the order cited “public order” as one of the grounds for not allowing students to wear a headscarf in educational institutions.
- The petitioners had asked the state to show how the mere wearing of a hijab by students could constitute a public order issue.
- The court, however, appeared to suggest that the words in the government order must not be construed literally.
- “We hasten to add that certain terms used in a Government Order such as ‘public order’, etc., cannot be construed as the ones employed in the Constitution or Statutes. There is a sea of difference in the textual structuring of legislation and in promulgating a statutory order as the one at hands. The draftsmen of the former are ascribed of due diligence & seriousness in the employment of terminology which the government officers at times lack whilst textually framing the statutory policies,” the court said.
- Quoting Oscar Wilde, the court said that there is room for improvement even in heaven. It agreed with the government’s submission that “the impugned order could have been well drafted…”.
- The petitioners had also argued that the government order suffered from material irregularity as the rulings of other HCs cited by the government did not lay down the ratio, which the government wrongly stated that they did. The court recorded that it had already discussed the HC decisions referred to in the government order at another place (paragraph X, “As to views of other High Courts on hijab being an essential religious practice”), “and therefore, much need not be discussed here”.
- In any case, the court said, “if the Government Order is otherwise sustainable in law, which we believe it does, the challenge thereto has to fail for more than one reason: The subject matter of the Government Order is the prescription of school uniform. Power to prescribe, we have already held, avails in the scheme of the 1983 Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder. Section 133(2) of the Act which is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions…which obviously includes the authority to prescribe school dress code.
2 . Green Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Context : The Union Road Transport and Highways minister hailed hydrogen as the “fuel for the future”. Later in the day he launched a Green Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) by Toyota.
About Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
- Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are powered by hydrogen. They are more efficient than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and produce no tailpipe emissions—they only emit water vapor and warm air.
- FCEVs use a propulsion system similar to that of electric vehicles, where energy stored as hydrogen is converted to electricity by the fuel cell. Unlike conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, these vehicles produce no harmful tailpipe emissions.
How Fuel Cells Work
- The most common type of fuel cell for vehicle applications is the polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell.
- In a PEM fuel cell, an electrolyte membrane is sandwiched between a positive electrode (cathode) and a negative electrode (anode). Hydrogen is introduced to the anode, and oxygen (from air) is introduced to the cathode. The hydrogen molecules break apart into protons and electrons due to an electrochemical reaction in the fuel cell catalyst. Protons then travel through the membrane to the cathode.
- The electrons are forced to travel through an external circuit to perform work (providing power to the electric car) then recombine with the protons on the cathode side where the protons, electrons, and oxygen molecules combine to form water.
3 . India’s Solar Energy Challenges
Context : Even as India continues down this impressive journey, there are some areas of concern to highlight. First, of the 50 GW installed solar capacity, an overwhelming 42 GW comes from ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, and only 6.48 GW comes from roof top solar (RTS); and 1.48 GW from off-grid solar PV.
Background
- India added a record 10 Gigawatt (GW) of solar energy to its cumulative installed capacity in 2021. This has been the highest 12-month capacity addition, recording nearly a 200% year-on-year growth. India has now surpassed 50 GW of cumulative installed solar capacity, as on 28 February 2022. This is a milestone in India’s journey towards generating 500 GW from renewable energy by 2030, of which 300 GW is expected to come from solar power.
- India’s capacity additions rank the country fifth in solar power deployment, contributing nearly 6.5% to the global cumulative capacity of 709.68 GW.
Why is India falling short in roof-top solar installations?
- The steep rise in large, ground-mounted solar energy is indicative of the strong push towards increasing the share of utility-scale solar projects across the country. RTS deployment stands at 6.48 GW in 2021, far short on the Union Government’s target of 40 GW of RTS by end 2022.
- The large-scale solar PV focus fails to exploit the many benefits of decentralised renewable energy (DRE) options, including reduction in transmission and distribution (T&D) losses.
- One of the primary benefits of solar PV technology is that it can be installed at the point of consumption, significantly reducing the need for large capital-intensive transmission infrastructure. This is not an either/or situation; India needs to deploy both large and smaller-scale solar PV, and particularly needs to expand RTS efforts.
- However, there is limited financing for residential consumers and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) who want to install RTS. Coupled with lukewarm responses from electricity distribution companies (DISCOMS) to supporting net metering, RTS continues to see low uptake across the country. Governments, utilities, and banks will need to explore innovative financial mechanisms that bring down the cost of loans and reduce the risk of investment for lenders. Increased awareness, and affordable finance for RTS projects could potentially ensure the spread of RTS across the scores of SMEs and homes around the country. Aggregating roof spaces could also help reduce overall costs of RTS installations and enable developing economies of scale.
What are the challenges to India’s solar power capacity addition?
- Despite significant growth in the installed solar capacity, the contribution of solar energy to the country’s power generation has not grown at the same pace. In 2019-20, for instance, solar power contributed only 3.6% (50 billion units) of India’s total power generation of 1390 BU.
- The utility-scale solar PV sector continues to face challenges like land costs, high T&D losses and other inefficiencies, and grid integration challenges. There have also been conflicts with local communities and biodiversity protection norms. Also, while India has achieved record low tariffs for solar power generation in the utility-scale segment, this has not translated into cheaper power for end-consumers.
What’s the state of India’s domestic solar module manufacturing capacity?
- Domestic manufacturing capacities in the solar sector do not match up to the present potential demand for solar power in the country.
- Crisil’s report on the subject highlights that as on March 31, 2021, India had 3 GW capacity for solar cell production and 8 GW for solar panel production capacity. Moreover, backward integration in the solar value chain is absent as India has no capacity for manufacturing solar wafers and polysilicon.
- In 2021-22, India imported nearly $76.62 billion worth solar cells and modules from China alone, accounting for 78.6% of India’s total imports that year. Low manufacturing capacities, coupled with cheaper imports from China have rendered Indian products uncompetitive in the domestic market.
- This situation can, however, be corrected if India embraces a circular economy model for solar systems. This would allow solar PV waste to be recycled and reused in the solar PV supply chain. By the end of 2030, India will likely produce nearly 34,600 metric tonnes of solar PV waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that the global value of recoverable materials from solar PV waste could exceed $15 billion.
- Currently, only the European Union has taken decisive steps in managing solar PV waste. India could look at developing appropriate guidelines around Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which means holding manufacturers accountable for the entire life cycle of solar PV products and creating standards for waste recycling. This could give domestic manufacturers a competitive edge and go a long way in addressing waste management and supply side constraints.
What are the key takeaways from India’s solar story?
- India has grown from strength to strength in overcoming barriers to achieve the 50 GW milestone in Feb 2022. The destination is clear, and the journey is progressing. As India attempts to deal with some of the shortcomings identified above, India’s solar story will continue to provide important lessons for other developing countries that are looking to transition to clean energy.
- In addition to an impressive domestic track record, through the International Solar Alliance (ISA) established by India and France at COP-21 in 2015, there is a global platform to bring countries together to facilitate collaboration on issues such as mobilising investments, capacity building, program support and advocacy and analytics on solar energy. Technology sharing and finance could also become important aspects of ISA in the future, allowing a meaningful cooperation between countries in the solar energy sector.
4 . Sealed Cover Jurisprudence
Context : While hearing a criminal appeal against the Bihar Government, Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana admonished a counsel for submitting a ‘sealed cover report’ to the court. The CJI asked the counsel to not submit the report in a sealed cover. Later in the day, senior advocate Dushyant Dave recalled the same remarks to a bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud hearing the government imposed ban on Media One channel. In this case too, the Centre had submitted relevant files to the court in a sealed cover. I am very averse to what is called the ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’,” Justice Chandrachud said.
What is sealed cover jurisprudence?
- It is a practice used by the Supreme Court and sometimes lower courts, of asking for or accepting information from government agencies in sealed envelopes that can only be accessed by judges.
- While a specific law does not define the doctrine of sealed cover, the Supreme Court derives its power to use it from Rule 7 of order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules and Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.
- It is stated under the said rule that if the Chief Justice or court directs certain information to be kept under sealed cover or considers it of confidential nature, no party would be allowed access to the contents of such information, except if the Chief Justice himself orders that the opposite party be allowed to access it. It also mentions that information can be kept confidential if its publication is not considered to be in the interest of the public.
- As for the Evidence Act, official unpublished documents relating to state affairs are protected and a public officer cannot be compelled to disclose such documents.
- Other instances where information may be sought in secrecy or confidence are when its publication impedes an ongoing investigation, such as details which are part of a police case diary.
What is the criticism and what do the courts say?
- Critics of this practice contend that it is not favourable to the principles of transparency and accountability of the Indian justice system, as it stands against the idea of an open court, where decisions can be subjected to public scrutiny.
- It is also said to enlarge the scope for arbitrariness in court decisions, as judges are supposed to lay down reasoning for their decisions, but this cannot be done when they are based upon information submitted confidentially.
- What is further contested is whether the state should be granted such a privilege to submit information in secrecy, when existing provisions like in-camera hearings already provide sufficient protection to sensitive information.
- Besides, it is argued that not providing access to such documents to the accused parties obstructs their passage to a fair trial and adjudication. In the 2019 judgment in the case of P. Gopalakrishnan vs The State of Kerala, the Supreme Court had said that disclosure of documents to the accused is constitutionally mandated, even if the investigation is ongoing and said documents may lead to a breakthrough in the investigation.
- In the INX Media case in 2019, while granting bail to Congress leader P. Chidambaram, a Bench of the Supreme Court had criticised the Delhi High Court for basing its decision to deny bail to the former Union Minister on documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a sealed cover.
- The three-judge Bench of Justices R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy had said: “Though it is held that it would be open for the Court to peruse the documents, it would be against the concept of fair trial if in every case the prosecution presents documents in sealed cover and the findings on the same are recorded as if the offence is committed and the same is treated as having a bearing for denial or grant of bail”.
5 . UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Context : Myanmar’s military has engaged in systematic human rights violations, many amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, the United Nations said on Tuesday, in its first comprehensive human rights report. Security forces have shown a flagrant disregard for human life, using airstrikes and heavy weapons on populated areas and deliberately targeting civilians, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, said.
About OHCHR
- The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights) is the leading UN entity on human rights.
- The General Assembly entrusted both the High Commissioner and her Office with a unique mandate to promote and protect all human rights for all people.
- The United Nations human rights programme aims to ensure that the protection and enjoyment of human rights is a reality in the lives of all people.
- The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) works to offer the best expertise and support to the different human rights monitoring mechanisms in the United Nations system :
- UN Charter-based bodies, including the Human Rights Council,
- Bodies created under the international human rights treaties and made up of independent experts mandated to monitor State parties’ compliance with their treaty obligations.
Charter based Bodies
- Charter bodies include the UN Human Rights Council and Special Procedures.
About UNHRC
- The Human Rights Council replaced the Commission on Human Rights
- This intergovernmental body, which meets in Geneva 10 weeks a year, is composed of 47 elected United Nations Member States who serve for an initial period of 3 years, and cannot be elected for more than two consecutive terms.
- The Human Rights Council is a forum empowered to prevent abuses, inequity and discrimination, protect the most vulnerable, and expose perpetrators.
- The Human Rights Council is a separate entity from OHCHR.
Special Procedures
- Special Procedures is the general name given to the mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights and assumed by the Human Rights Council to address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world.
- Special Procedures are either an individual -a special rapporteur or independent expert-or a working group.
- They are prominent, independent experts working on a voluntary basis, appointed by the Human Rights Council.
- Special Procedures’ mandates usually call on mandate-holders to examine, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, known as country mandates, or on human rights issues of particular concern worldwide, known as thematic mandates.
- All report to the Human Rights Council on their findings and recommendations, and many also report to the General Assembly. They are sometimes the only mechanism that will alert the international community to certain human rights issues, as they can address situations in all parts of the world without the requirement for countries to have had ratified a human rights instrument.
6 . One Rank One Pension
Context : The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled there was “no constitutional infirmity” in the way the government had introduced ‘one rank, one pension’ (OROP) among ex-service personnel. The scheme, notified by the Defence Ministry on November 7, 2015, was challenged by Indian Ex-Service Movement, an association of retired defence personnel.
About One rank, one pension
- OROP means that any two military personnel retiring at the same rank, with the same years of service, must get an equal pension.
Reasons for difference in Pensions
- There are several reasons why two military personnel who may have retired at the same rank with the same years of service, may get different pensions.
- Military personnel across the three services fall under two categories, the officers and the other ranks, as they’re called. The other ranks, which are soldiers, usually retire at age 35. Unlike government employees who retire close to 60, soldiers can thus miss out on the benefits from subsequent pay commissions. And since pensions are based on the last drawn salary, pensions too are impacted adversely.
- Similarly, the age when officers in the military retire depends upon their ranks. The lower the rank, the earlier they superannuate. But the problem is not just that.
- From 1950 to 1973, there was a concept known as the Standard Rate of Pension, which was similar to OROP. In 1974, when the 3rd Pay Commission came into force, certain changes were effected in terms of weightage, additional years of notion service, etc., with regard to pensions. In 1986, the 4th Pay Commission’s report brought further changes.
- What ultimately happened was that the benefits of the successive pay commissions were not passed to servicemen who had retired earlier. Pensions differed for those who had retired at the same rank, with the same years of service, but years apart.
Demand for OROP
- Ex-servicemen demanded OROP to correct the discrepancy. Over the decades, several committees looked into it. The Brig K P Singh Deo committee in 1983 recommended a system similar to Standard Rate of Pension, as did Parliament’s standing committees on defence. The Narendra Modi government notified the current OROP scheme in November 2015, and it was made applicable from July 1, 2014.
- There are several reasons why soldiers have to retire early, the main reason being that the country needs a young military. It was argued that early retirement should not become an adverse element for what a soldier earns as pension, compared with those who retire later.
Question of finance
- During the OROP protests of 2013-15, it was argued repeatedly that meeting the demand would be financially unsustainable. Because soldiers retire early and remain eligible for pension for much longer than other employees, the Defence Ministry’s pension budget is very large, which impacts its capital expenditure.
- The Parliament Standing Committee on Defence report submitted on Wednesday says there were 26,79,645 armed forces pensioners in the country as of April 1, 2021.
- The total defence pensioners are 32.9 lakh, but that includes 6.14 lakh defence civilian pensioners.
- The actual expenditure of the Defence Ministry on pensions was Rs 1.18 lakh crore in 2019-2020, Rs 1.28 lakh crore in 2020-2021, and Rs 94,860 crore until January 2022 for the current financial year.
- The Defence Ministry’s pension-to-budget ratio is the highest among all ministries, and pensions are more than one-fifth of the total defence budget. Retired defence personnel also have the largest share in pensions among all retired government employees.
- There are administrative and legal issues involved too. When the late Manohar Parrikar was Defence Minister, it was estimated that a one-time payout of Rs 83,000 crore would be needed to clear all past issues. However, every time a new pay commission came, it would lead to substantial payouts to bring parity.
Challenge to OROP
- The petitioners contended that the principle of OROP had been replaced by ‘one rank multiple pensions’ for persons with the same length of service. They submitted that the government had altered the initial definition of OROP and, instead of an automatic revision of the rates of pension — under which any future raising of pension rates would be passed on to past pensioners — the revision would now take place at periodic intervals. According to the petitioners, this was arbitrary and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21.
- The demand for OROP was initially examined by Parliament in 2010-11. In its report of December 2011, the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions (Koshyari Committee) recommended the implementation of OROP. The panel defined OROP as a uniform pension to be paid to armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement.
- In February 2014, the UPA government announced it had accepted OROP in principle, and that it would be implemented prospectively from 2014-15. In December 2014, the NDA government in a reply to Parliament reaffirmed the principle of automatic revision.
- The court noted that the petitioners had highlighted this sequence of events to show that OROP always entailed an automatic revision. However, the petitioners contended, the government’s letter of November 7, 2015 introduced a revised definition of OROP, where the revision between the past and current rates was to take place at periodic intervals.
The court’s ruling
- The court did not agree with the argument that the government’s 2015 policy communication contradicted the original decision to implement OROP. It said that “while a decision to implement OROP was taken in principle, the modalities for implementation were yet to be chalked out”, and that “there was no conscious policy decision on the part of the Union Government on the modalities for implementing OROP until the communication dated 7 November 2015 came into being”.
- The court also said that while the Koshyari Committee report furnishes the historical background of the demand, and its own view on it, it “cannot be construed as embodying a statement of governmental policy”.
- The court said that the OROP policy “may only be challenged on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary or capricious”. After evaluating the government’s policy, it found “no constitutional infirmity in the OROP principle as defined by the communication dated 7 November 2015”.
7 . Caste-based payment system
Context : Parliament’s Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj has asked the government to roll back the system of caste-based wages, under which NREGS workers are paid based on whether they belong to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Others. The panel has asked the Ministry of Rural Development to restore the earlier system by which a single Fund Transfer Order was generated without “any sort of segregation on the basis of caste”.
What is the caste-based payment system?
- On March 2 last year, the Rural Development Ministry sent an advisory to states asking them to take necessary action for payment of wages to NREGS workers according to their categories — SC, ST, and Others — from the 2021-22 financial year.
- Under the new system, if 20 individuals (say, six SCs, four STs and 10 others) work together at a site under MG-NREGA, a single muster roll would be issued, but payment would be done by issuing three separate Fund Transfer Orders (FTOs), one for each of the three categories.
- After the new system came into force on April 1, 2021, some beneficiaries started complaining that despite working at the same site and registering on the same muster roll, they were getting their wages at different times depending on their categories. Beneficiaries in the ‘Others’ category, which includes the ‘General’ and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories, especially complained of delays
What was the earlier system of payment?
- Until 2020-21, the wages were being paid to NREGS beneficiaries through a single funds transfer order. In other words, if 20 beneficiaries, including SCs, STs and Others work at a site under MGNREGA, all received their wages at the same time, through a single muster roll and a single funds transfer order.
Why was the system of caste-based wage payment introduced?
- According to the Ministry, the system of category-wise payment of wages was introduced to “accurately reflect on the ground flow of funds to various population groups”. Last October, a process of “streamlining” of the new system was taken up.
What specific criticisms has the Committee put forward?
- The Committee pointed out that MNREGS draws from the MGNREG Act, 2005, in which “such absurdity is nowhere mentioned”. The digression from the “basic tenets of treating all the MGNREGA beneficiaries at par calls for sternest possible criticism”
- “The beneficiaries of MGNREGA cutting across the different sections of society have only one thing in common, i.e., they are poor, destitute and have no other fallback option but MGNREGA to look upon for their basic source of survival,” the Committee said.
- The system of caste-based segregation in wage payment would “give rise to resentment and create rift”, it said. It said the practice needed to be addressed “urgently”, and should not to be encouraged any further. It should be ensured that all labourers under the scheme receive payment within the timeframe fixed by the MGNREGA.
- “In view of such piquant situation, the Committee unanimously recommend DoRD to restore the earlier mechanism of generation of single Fund Transfer Order without any sort of segregation on the basis of caste so that the welfare oriented nature of MGNREGA is not divided on caste basis,” it said.
8 . Facts for Prelims
International Day to Combat Islamophobia
- UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Tuesday to proclaim March 15 as International Day to Combat Islamophobia,
Chair of Excellence
- On the eve of the 65th birthday of late Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Bipin Rawat, the Indian Army has instituted a Chair of Excellence in his memory at the United Service Institution of India (USI).
- The aim of the proposed Chair of Excellence will be to conduct research on strategic issues of significance pertaining to the armed forces. The Chair will be open to veterans of the three Services and civilians having expertise in the field of national security and military affairs.