Read Current Affairs
- Why in News?
- The Supreme Court’s response to defamation charges against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi signals a concerning departure from constitutional principles safeguarding political speech.
- Key Provisions:-
- While staying proceedings related to Mr. Gandhi’s 2020 comments on the Galwan clash, Justice Dipankar Datta’s remark that a “true Indian” wouldn’t make such statements raised troubling questions. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law—not to define patriotism. In a democracy, dissent and scrutiny of government actions, especially on sensitive matters like national security, are essential. Mr. Gandhi’s remarks on Chinese intrusions and the government’s border stance fall well within the bounds of legitimate political discourse, supported by public reports, satellite data, and parliamentary discussions. Independent defence experts and military sources have also acknowledged loss of patrol access in Ladakh. Rather than passing moral judgments, the Court must focus on impartial legal reasoning. Upholding free expression and critical debate is vital for maintaining judicial credibility and democratic health.
- Why in News?
- The recent disaster in Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, is a grim reminder of the Himalayas’ fragile ecosystem and the escalating threats posed by extreme weather.
- Key Provisions:-
- Torrential rains triggered a devastating flash flood in the Kheer Ganga river, sweeping through Dharali town and leaving at least four dead and over 60 missing. Video footage captured powerful waves engulfing buildings and people. While officials attributed the event to a ‘cloudburst’, such classification requires specific rainfall metrics that the India Meteorological Department cannot verify due to limited radar coverage at high altitudes. It’s more likely that continuous intense rainfall over 48 hours destabilised the terrain, releasing water, silt, and debris. Labeling it a freak event allows authorities to evade accountability. However, climate change has made such disasters more frequent. Infrastructure development, unchecked debris, and weakened slopes add fuel to the fire. Beyond emergency relief, the State must urgently assess risk-prone zones and enforce sustainable planning to prevent future tragedies.
- Why in News?
- In the Vanashakti v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court invalidated a Central Government exemption that allowed industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels to bypass the environmental clearance process, provided they implemented eco-friendly practices. The Court ruled that all large construction projects exceeding 20,000 square metres have significant environmental implications and must undergo scrutiny under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
- Key Provisions:-
- The EIA Notification, 2006 mandates prior environmental clearance (EC) for construction activities covering 20,000 sq. m or more. It categorizes projects into two groups:
- Category A projects, which require clearance from the Central Government.
- Category B projects, which fall under the purview of State Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).
- By reinforcing the need for mandatory assessment, the Court emphasized the importance of environmental accountability in urban development and rejected attempts to dilute environmental norms through administrative exemptions.
- The EIA Notification, 2006 mandates prior environmental clearance (EC) for construction activities covering 20,000 sq. m or more. It categorizes projects into two groups: