VIASACADEMY | IAS Online Coaching | upsc live classes

Hampi

Ministry of Tourism recently organised their latest webinar titled Hampi- Inspired by the past; Going into the future under Dekho Apna DeshWebinar series.

Dekho Apna Desh Webinar Series is an effort to showcase India’s rich diversity under Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat programme.

About Hampi:

It was the last capital of the last great Hindu Kingdom of Vijayanagar. In 1336 CE, the Vijayanagara Empire arose from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom. It grew into one of the famed Hindu empires of South India that ruled for over 200 years.

It was a part of the Mauryan Empire back in the third century BC.

It is a UNESCO World Heritage site
Its name is derived from Pampa which is the old name of the Tungabhadra River on whose banks the city is built.
The site used to be multi-religious and multi-ethnic; it included Hindu and Jain monuments next to each other.

Architecture:

It has been described by UNESCO as an “austere, grandiose site” of more than 1,600 surviving remains of the last great Hindu kingdom in South India.

The buildings here predominantly followed South Indian Hindu arts and architecture dating to the Aihole-Pattadakal styles, but the Hampi builders also used elements of Indo-Islamic architecture in the Lotus Mahal, the public bath and the elephant stables.
The 15th Century Virupaksha temple is one of the oldest monuments of the town.
Hemkunta Hill, south of the Virupaksha temple contains early ruins, Jain temples and a monolithic sculpture of Lord Narasimha, a form of Lord Vishnu.
Vittal temple built in the 16th Century, is now a World Heritage monument. The columns of the temple are so balanced that they have a musical quality.

Mission Karmayogi for Civil Servants

The Union Cabinet cleared major changes in the way civil services officers will be skilled and trained across the country. ‘Mission Karmayogi’ or National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (NPCSCB), will be steered by four new bodies, and will be available for civil servants from the rank of assistant section officer to Secretary, across services.

The new entities will be a Prime Minister’s Public Human Resources Council, a Capacity Building Commission, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that will own and operate the digital assets and technological platform for online training, and a Coordination Unit, which will be headed by the Cabinet Secretary.

An Integrated Government Online Training (iGOT)-Karmayogi platform will be developed for the project.

Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Jitendra Singh said “Mission Karmayogi is an endeavour to reincarnate a government servant as an ideal karmayogi to serve the nation, by enabling him to be creative, to be constructive, to be proactive, and technically empowered”.

Key Points

  • Aim & Objective:
    • It is aimed at building a future-ready civil service with the right attitude, skills and knowledge, aligned to the vision of New India.
    • It aims to prepare Indian civil servants for the future by making them more creative, constructive, imaginative, proactive, innovative, progressive, professional, energetic, transparent, and technology-enabled.
    • Comprehensive reform of the capacity building apparatus at the individual, institutional and process levels for efficient public service delivery.
    • Mission Karmayogi will shift the focus from rule-specific to role-specific, and training programmes will be available to all civil servants across services and ranks
  • Reason for Mission:
    • At present bureaucracy is facing challenges like- Rule orientation, political interference, inefficiency with promotions, and generalist and specialist conflict.
    • To change the status quo of civil services and bring about the long pending civil services reforms.
    • The capacity of Civil Services plays a vital role in rendering a wide variety of services, implementing welfare programs and performing core governance functions.
  • Features of the scheme:
    • Tech-Aided: The capacity building will be delivered through iGOT Karmayogi digital platform, with content drawn from global best practices.
      • The platform will act as a launchpad for the National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (NPCSCB).
    • Coverage: The scheme will cover 46 lakh central government employees, at all levels, and involve an outlay of Rs. 510 crores over a five-year period.
    • Shift from Rules to Roles: The programme will support a transition from “rules-based to roles-based” Human Resource Management (HRM) so that work allocations can be done by matching an official’s competencies to the requirements of the post.
      • Apart from domain knowledge training, the scheme will focus on “functional and behavioural competencies” as well, and also includes a monitoring framework for performance evaluations.
    • Integrated Initiative: Eventually, service matters such as confirmation after probation period, deployment, work assignments and notification of vacancies will all be integrated into the proposed framework.
  • Governance Structure:
    • Human Resource Council: NPCSCB will be governed by the Prime Minister’s Human Resource Council, which will also include state Chief Ministers, Union Cabinet ministers, and experts.
      • This council will approve and review civil service capacity building programmes.
    • Cabinet Secretary Coordination Unit: There will be a Cabinet Secretary Coordination Unit comprising select secretaries and cadre controlling authorities.
    • Capacity Building Commission: Also, there will be a Capacity Building Commission, which will include experts in related fields and global professionals. This commission will prepare and monitor annual capacity building plans and audit human resources available in the government.
    • Special Purpose Vehicle: Finally, there will be a wholly-owned Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which will govern the iGOT-Karmayogi platform.
      • It will be set up under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013.
      • The SPV will be a “not-for-profit” company and will own and manage the iGOT-Karmayogi platform.
      • The SPV will create and operationalize the content, market place and manage key business services of the iGOT-Karmayogi platform, relating to content validation, independent proctored assessments and telemetry data availability.
      • The SPV will own all Intellectual Property Rights on behalf of the Government of India.
    • Monitoring and Evaluation Framework: An appropriate monitoring and evaluation framework will also be put in place for performance evaluation of all users of the iGOT-Karmayogi platform so as to generate a dashboard view of Key Performance Indicators.
  • To conclude, the ultimate aim of Mission Karmayogi is to ensure “Ease of Living” for the common man, “Ease of Doing Business” and Citizen-Centricity that is reducing the gap between the government and the citizens. This can only be achieved by regular and constructive involvement by the government and civil servants.

Global Innovation Index 2020 released

13th edition of Global Innovation Index released.

The index is a leading reference for measuring an economy’s innovation performance.

Released By?

The GII is co-published by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency of the United Nations.

Theme: Who Will Finance Innovation? is timely given the human and global economic damage wreaked by the COVID-19 global pandemic.

How are countries ranked?

GII rankings are based on 80 indicators, from traditional measurements like research and development investments and international patent and trademark applications.

India’s performance:

This year, India climbed four spots and is now at 48th position in the list.
India is at the top position among the nations in central and southern Asia.

India has now become the third most innovative lower middle-income economy in the world.
India ranks in the top 15 in indicators such as ICT (Information and Communication Technology) services exports, government online services, graduates in science and engineering, and R&D-intensive global companies.
lagging_infra

Global scenario:

The rankings show stability at the top but a gradual “eastward shift in the locus of innovation” as Asian economies like China, India, the Philippines and Vietnam have advanced considerably in the innovation ranking over the years.

Top 5: Switzerland, Sweden, the US, the UK and the Netherlands lead the innovation ranking.

UNSC 1267 committee

Why in News?

Recently, the UNSC threw out a Pakistani attempt to get two Indians designated as terrorists under Resolution 1267. This was the third such attempt by Pak this year.

What is UNSC 1267 committee?

It was first set up in 1999, and strengthened after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

It is now known as the Da’esh and Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee.
It comprises all permanent and non-permanent members of the UNSC.

The 1267 list of terrorists is a global list, with a UNSC stamp. It is full of Pakistani nationals and residents.

What is the process by which people are listed under UNSC 1267?

Any member state can submit a proposal for listing an individual, group, or entity.The 1267 Committee meets as required with a notice of four working days. Decisions on listing and de-listing are adopted by consensus.
The proposal is sent to all the members, and if no member objects within five working days, the proposal is adopted. An “objection” means curtains for the proposal.
Any member of the Committee may also put a “technical hold” on the proposal, and ask for more information from the proposing member state. During this time, other members may also place their own holds.
The matter remains on the “pending” list of the Committee until such time as the member state that has placed the hold decides to turn its decision into an “objection”, or until all those who have placed holds remove them within a timeframe laid down by the Committee.
Pending issues must be resolved in six months, but the member state that has placed the hold may ask for an additional three months. At the end of this period, if an objection is not placed, the matter is considered approved.

Any proposal for listing must meet set criteria:

The proposal must include acts or activities indicating the proposed individual/group/entity had participated “in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities” linked to “ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida or any cell, affiliate, splinter group or derivative thereof”.

Kesavananda Bharati passed away

Kesavananda Bharti, the head seer of Edneer Mutt in Kerala since 1961 passed away. He was famous for initiating the historic judgement of Supreme Court that “Basic Structure of Constitution” cannot be amended by the Parliament.
Kesavananda Bharati case
In Kesavananda Bharati case, a relief was sought against the Kerala government vis-à-vis two state land reform laws, which imposed restrictions on the management of religious property.

o The case was challenged under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.
o Question underlying the case: Was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights?
The Constitutional Bench in Kesavananda Bharati case ruled by a 7-6 verdict that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
However, the court did not define the term ‘basic structure’, and only listed a few principles — federalism, secularism, democracy — as being its part.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been interpreted to include

o the supremacy of the Constitution,
o the rule of law,
o Independence of the judiciary,
o doctrine of separation of powers,
o sovereign democratic republic,
o the parliamentary system of government,
o the principle of free and fair elections,
o welfare state, etc.
An example of application of basic structure is the SR Bommai case (1994).

o In this case the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of BJP governments by the President following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, invoking a threat to secularism by these governments.
Arguments related to Basic structure

o Critics of the doctrine have called it undemocratic, since unelected judges can strike down a constitutional amendment. At the same time, its proponents have hailed the concept as a safety valve against majoritarianism and authoritarianism.
The Keshavananda Bharti case depicts the tussle between Articles 13(2) and 368.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was the culmination of a serious conflict between the judiciary and the government. It is popularly known as fundamental rights case. Under this case Supreme Court of India outlined the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution and it can be regarded as a second sitting of 'Constituent Assembly'. The fundamental question dealt in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala is whether the power to amend the constitution is an unlimited, or there is identifiable parameters regarding powers to amend the constitution.
Background
In order to understand the famous case of Kesavananda Bharathi, one must trace through the basics, events and cases which led to the historic decision.
The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which was in contravention of then fundamental Right to Property (Article 31). It was hit by 13(3) as it was infringing Article 31 (Part III, Fundamental Rights). The Act was challenged in High Court which held the act to be unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Thus in order to protect and validate  zamindari abolition laws, the Government made First Amendment of the Constitution of India which made  several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution. Article 31-A and 31 B was also added. Ninth Schedule was inserted which protects any legislation inserted within the schedule, from judicial review.
Hence the buildup to Kesavananda was marked by a series of cases and decisions that set the stage for the case itself. At the core of all these cases was the basic question: Was Parliament's power to amend the Constitution unlimited, since it represented the will of the people and its majority, or was that power circumscribed when it came to certain fundamental rights of the people?
Series of cases prior to Kesavananda Bharti case are following.
1)    Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951)
The constitutional validity of first amendment (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The SC ruled out that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also included the power to amend fundamental rights and that the word "law" in Article 13 (8) includes only an ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative powers and does not include Constitutional amendment which is made in exercise of constituent power. Therefore, a Constitutional amendment will be valid even if it abridges or takes any of the fundamental rights.
2)    Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan (1965)
The validity of the 17th Amendment Act, 1964 (which changed the definition of an "estate" given in article 31A of the Constitution so as to include therein lands held under ryotwari settlement in addition to other lands in respect of which provisions are normally made in land reform enactments. The Amendment also added 44 additional State enactments relating to land reforms to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution in order to secure their constitutional validity and prevent them from being challenged before the judiciary on the ground that they are inconsistent with any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights. This was challenged on the ground that one of the acts inserted by the amendment in the 9th Schedule affected the petitioner on the basis that the amendment fell within the purview of Article 368.
Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13 (2) the case was rightly decided. Amendment includes amendment to all provisions of the Constitution.
3)    Golaknath V. State of Punjab (1967)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court prospectively overruled its decision in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases and held that Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. It also added that Article 368 merely lays down the procedure for the purpose of amendment. Further, the Court said that an amendment is a law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India and if it violates any fundamental right, it may be declared void. Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed. Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure.
To nullify the Golaknath verdict, Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, laying down that its powers to amend the Constitution were unrestricted and unlimited. Finally all the issues related to it was challenged in Keshavanand Case.
 
Ambiguity of the Judgment
Kesavananda Bharati actually left an ambigious historical legacy.
•        It said that Parliament could not interfere with the basic structure of the Constitution, but left open the question of what constituted "basic structure". As to what are these basic features, the debate still continues.
•        The judgment also refused to consider the right to property as a fundamental right that was covered by the 'basic structure' doctrine. Despite that, the right to private property, is more solid today, and yet not absolute, as it should be in a market economy.
•        This judgment ruled that Article 368 does not enable Parliament in its constituent capacity to delegate its function of amending the Constitution to another legislature or to itself in its ordinary legislative capacity.
•        The basic structure doctrine applies only to the constitutionality of amendments and not to ordinary Acts of Parliament, which must conform to the entirety of the Constitution and not just to its basic structure.
Significance
•        The most significant contribution by Kesavananda Bharati judgment is the recognition of supremacy of the Constitution of India and its unalterable features.
•        The Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rights, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted.
Conclusion
This case upheld the changes in 24th amendment in Article 368 and Article 13 of Indian Constitution by overruling Golaknath Judgment. It determined the fabric of Indian constitution which is still relevant and serving as Fundamental Rights case.