Read Current Affairs
Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Crisis: Global Supply Chain and India's Strategic Interests
General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.
Context
In recent years, rising geopolitical tensions in the Red Sea and West Asia have cast serious doubts on global maritime trade security. Following the Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, threats by Yemen's Houthi rebels to block the Bab al-Mandab Strait have once again brought this region to the epicenter of conflict. This situation not only impacts the global supply chain but also poses direct strategic and economic risks to nearly one-third of India's total foreign trade.
Bab al-Mandab Strait: Exam-Useful Facts
Geographical Position: This strait connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.
- Location: It is situated between the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) in the northeast and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti and Eritrea) in the southwest.
- Meaning and Etymology: In Arabic, it means "Gate of Tears," reflecting its dangerous navigation history and geographical narrowness.
- Strategic Importance:
- It is the primary gateway to the shortest maritime route connecting the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal.
- It is one of the world's major 'choke points', through which millions of barrels of crude oil and massive commercial vessels pass daily.
Why in the News?
Threat by Houthi Rebels: Yemen's Ansarallah (Houthi) group has warned to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait in response to US strikes.
- Blockade on Saudi Ships: A "maritime blockade" on Saudi Arabian ships has been declared by the Houthis.
- Safety of Indian Seafarers: The insecurity of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab has deepened the risk to the safety of Indian ships and maritime personnel.
Recent Incidents
October 2023 – March 2024: During the Gaza conflict, the Houthis launched missile and drone attacks on more than 40 commercial ships linked to Israel or Western nations in the Red Sea.
- December 2023: The US launched a multinational coalition, 'Operation Prosperity Guardian', to provide security in the Red Sea.
- January 2024: The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2722 (UNSCR 2722), calling for freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.
- Action by the Indian Navy: In January 2024, the Indian Navy demonstrated its rapid response capability in the region by rescuing the crew of a British tanker that caught fire.
Historical Context
Traditional Trade Route: Historically, Bab al-Mandab has been the most important waterway for the trade of spices, silk, and raw materials between Europe and Asia.
- Construction of the Suez Canal (1869): After the opening of the Suez Canal, the strategic importance of this strait increased dramatically, as it eliminated the need to navigate around the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa).
- Impact of the 2024 Crisis: Due to the 2023–24 attacks, over 2,000 ships were forced to bypass the Suez Canal and revert to the 170-year-old longer route via the Cape of Good Hope.
Impact on the World and India
Impact on the World:
- Supply Chain Delays: Ships had to detour around Africa, increasing travel time by 10–14 days and driving up freight rates.
- Sharp Rise in Insurance Rates: Maritime insurance companies (P&I Clubs) raised risk premiums, leading to an increase in overall trade costs.
- Decline in Revenue: Egypt's Suez Canal recorded a 50–60% drop in revenue, and Israel's Port of Eilat faced a severe economic crisis.
- Impact on India:
- Trade Risk: Approximately one-third of India's trade (exports and imports) passes through this route towards Europe and North America.
- Energy Security and Inflation: Delays in crude oil and LNG imports threaten to increase domestic fuel prices and inflation.
- Human Resource Safety: Thousands of Indian seafarers work in the global merchant navy, directly impacting their life and safety.
Operations Conducted: Past to Present
Operation Prosperity Guardian (Dec 2023): A US-led multinational security coalition.
- UNSC Resolution 2722 (Jan 2024): An effort to reach global consensus on protecting navigation rights.
- Indian Navy Anti-Piracy/Security Patrols: The Indian Navy deployed frontline warships and P-8I aircraft in the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden to escort and protect Indian commercial vessels.
- Proposed 'Trade Protection Task Force': A suggestion to form a regional naval task force through cooperation among India, France, and Japan (utilizing bases in Djibouti).
Rules and Laws Governing the Seas
UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982):
- Right of Innocent Passage: The right of foreign ships to move peacefully through territorial seas.
- Transit Passage: The right of unimpeded transit for all ships and aircraft through international straits (such as Bab al-Mandab).
- UNSC Resolution 2722: Strongly condemns attacks on commercial and merchant vessels in international waters and emphasizes the defense of navigation rights.
Other Important Points
SAGAR Vision: India's 'Security and Growth for All in the Region' (SAGAR) vision advocates for a rules-based order in the Indian Ocean and connected maritime spaces.
- IFC-IOR (Information Fusion Centre – Indian Ocean Region): This center based in India can play a crucial role in sharing accurate maritime domain awareness.
- Regional Partnerships: The economic stability of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia depends on a peaceful Red Sea; hence, strategic dialogue with them is essential.
Analysis
The Bab al-Mandab crisis is not merely a regional geopolitical conflict; it is a test of the global maritime order and economic security. Despite multinational operations and global alignments, the ability of non-state actors to hold narrow global trade passages hostage is concerning. China and the US have their own interests, and the divided state of the UN Security Council makes global consensus difficult to achieve. In such a scenario, a major maritime nation like India must lead a practical 'Trade Protection Task Force' in cooperation with neutral, rules-based regional partners (such as France, Japan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) to ensure an uninterrupted global supply chain.
Way Forward
India, together with France, Japan, and regional nations, should form a dedicated naval trade protection task force under the 'SAGAR' initiative.
Simultaneously, at the diplomatic level, India must engage in continuous dialogue with Tehran, Riyadh, and Cairo to play the role of a mediator and prevent Bab al-Mandab from turning into a theater of war.
Conclusion
The security of the Bab al-Mandab Strait is not just a regional geopolitical issue, but an essential foundation for safeguarding the global supply chain and India's economic interests. Under the 'SAGAR' vision, India should form a rules-based 'Trade Protection Task Force' in partnership with allies like France, Japan, and Egypt. Only a balance between diplomatic mediation and a prompt naval presence can secure this sensitive maritime route from future crises.
Defection, Merger and Constitutional Powers: Supreme Court's Stand on the Decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker
General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International Relations.
​​​​​​​
Context
In order to maintain political stability and curb political opportunism (the politics of 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram'), the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) was added to the Indian Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act in the year 1985. Subsequently, to prevent the misuse of the anti-defection law, the provision of 'one-third split' mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule was omitted by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003. At present, 'merger' provided under Paragraph 4 is the only legal exception to disqualification. Due to recent developments, the issue of balance between anti-defection provisions, parliamentary administrative powers, and judicial review has once again come into focus.
Current News
In recent developments, the Supreme Court has refused to grant an interim stay on the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker recognizing the "merger" of 6 Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the rival faction led by Eknath Shinde.
- The petition filed by the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader challenged the circular issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, describing it as "ex facie unconstitutional, illegal and perverse." The bench (Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe) has sought a response from the Lok Sabha Speaker and scheduled the matter for a detailed hearing after two weeks.
Powers of the Lok Sabha Speaker
Inside the House, the Speaker exercises two distinct constitutional and administrative jurisdictions:
- Quasi-Judicial Power: Under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the primary constitutional authority to decide on questions of disqualification arising from defection lies with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
- Administrative Power: As the administrative head of the House, functional recognition of parliamentary parties, seating arrangements, recognition of opposition status, and recognizing the leader of a parliamentary party fall within the Speaker's jurisdiction.
It is noteworthy that the registration, status, and allocation of election symbols to political parties is the domain of the Election Commission of India (ECI), whereas the management of a parliamentary party inside the House remains under the Speaker.
Judicial Review on the Decision
Kihoto Hollohan Case, 1992: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that while giving a decision under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker functions as a 'Tribunal'. Hence, their decision is not final and is subject to Judicial Review.
- Grounds for Review: The court can interfere with the Speaker's decision only if the decision suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, mala fide (bad intention), or violation of constitutional limits.
- Nabam Rebia Case, 2016: The Supreme Court held that if a notice of intention to move a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is pending, the Speaker cannot decide on disqualification petitions under defection law, as it creates a conflict of interest.
Constitutional Provisions Regarding Merger
Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule: According to this, a member of parliament or state legislature cannot be disqualified on grounds of defection if at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of their original political party agree to the merger.
- Reciprocity of Conditions: The petitioner argues that under the constitutional provision, the agreement of 2/3 members of the legislative party alone is not sufficient; the merger of the 'original political party' is also necessary. The final judicial decision on this question is currently pending.
Core Point of Dispute
Petitioner's Argument: The main argument of the petitioner is that a legislative party cannot independently decide on a merger at its own level, as Paragraph 4 contemplates the merger of the 'original political party'. A decision taken solely by a group of MPs without the original organization falls under the category of defection.
- Shinde Faction and Speaker's Stand: Since they possess more than two-thirds strength in the parliamentary party, it has been recognized as a valid process.
Analysis
This case highlights that the constitutional boundaries between the 'original political party' and the 'legislative party' often get blurred in the anti-defection law. If a 2/3 group of MPs is permitted to merge without the organization, it could render the spirit of the 91st Amendment (which made splits illegal) ineffective. This dispute also raises the question of balance between the Tenth Schedule's objective of "political stability" and the constitutional concept of party representation in a parliamentary democracy.
Way Forward
Provision for Binding Advice: As recommended by the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and the 170th Report of the Law Commission, decisions on disqualification cases related to defection should be made by the President/Governor on the binding advice of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
- Time-Bound Disposal: As directed by the Supreme Court in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker case (2020), petitions related to disqualification or merger should strictly be disposed of by the Speaker within a general timeframe of 3 months.
- Constitutional Clarity: The wording of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule should be amended to fully define the roles of the 'original party' and the 'legislative party'.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's refusal to grant an interim stay indicates that the judiciary is prioritizing in-depth constitutional interpretation over procedural haste. This case will serve as a crucial constitutional precedent clarifying the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule, the interrelationship between the 'original political party' and the 'legislative party', the constitutional role of the Lok Sabha Speaker, and the boundaries of judicial review.
Defection, Merger and Constitutional Powers: Supreme Court's Stand on the Decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker
General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International Relations.
​​​​​​​
Context
In order to maintain political stability and curb political opportunism (the politics of 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram'), the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) was added to the Indian Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act in the year 1985. Subsequently, to prevent the misuse of the anti-defection law, the provision of 'one-third split' mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule was omitted by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003. At present, 'merger' provided under Paragraph 4 is the only legal exception to disqualification. Due to recent developments, the issue of balance between anti-defection provisions, parliamentary administrative powers, and judicial review has once again come into focus.
Current News
In recent developments, the Supreme Court has refused to grant an interim stay on the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker recognizing the "merger" of 6 Shiv Sena (UBT) MPs with the rival faction led by Eknath Shinde.
- The petition filed by the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader challenged the circular issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, describing it as "ex facie unconstitutional, illegal and perverse." The bench (Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe) has sought a response from the Lok Sabha Speaker and scheduled the matter for a detailed hearing after two weeks.
Powers of the Lok Sabha Speaker
Inside the House, the Speaker exercises two distinct constitutional and administrative jurisdictions:
- Quasi-Judicial Power: Under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the primary constitutional authority to decide on questions of disqualification arising from defection lies with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
- Administrative Power: As the administrative head of the House, functional recognition of parliamentary parties, seating arrangements, recognition of opposition status, and recognizing the leader of a parliamentary party fall within the Speaker's jurisdiction.
It is noteworthy that the registration, status, and allocation of election symbols to political parties is the domain of the Election Commission of India (ECI), whereas the management of a parliamentary party inside the House remains under the Speaker.
Judicial Review on the Decision
Kihoto Hollohan Case, 1992: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that while giving a decision under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker functions as a 'Tribunal'. Hence, their decision is not final and is subject to Judicial Review.
- Grounds for Review: The court can interfere with the Speaker's decision only if the decision suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, mala fide (bad intention), or violation of constitutional limits.
- Nabam Rebia Case, 2016: The Supreme Court held that if a notice of intention to move a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is pending, the Speaker cannot decide on disqualification petitions under defection law, as it creates a conflict of interest.
Constitutional Provisions Regarding Merger
Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule: According to this, a member of parliament or state legislature cannot be disqualified on grounds of defection if at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of their original political party agree to the merger.
- Reciprocity of Conditions: The petitioner argues that under the constitutional provision, the agreement of 2/3 members of the legislative party alone is not sufficient; the merger of the 'original political party' is also necessary. The final judicial decision on this question is currently pending.
Core Point of Dispute
Petitioner's Argument: The main argument of the petitioner is that a legislative party cannot independently decide on a merger at its own level, as Paragraph 4 contemplates the merger of the 'original political party'. A decision taken solely by a group of MPs without the original organization falls under the category of defection.
- Shinde Faction and Speaker's Stand: Since they possess more than two-thirds strength in the parliamentary party, it has been recognized as a valid process.
Analysis
This case highlights that the constitutional boundaries between the 'original political party' and the 'legislative party' often get blurred in the anti-defection law. If a 2/3 group of MPs is permitted to merge without the organization, it could render the spirit of the 91st Amendment (which made splits illegal) ineffective. This dispute also raises the question of balance between the Tenth Schedule's objective of "political stability" and the constitutional concept of party representation in a parliamentary democracy.
Way Forward
Provision for Binding Advice: As recommended by the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and the 170th Report of the Law Commission, decisions on disqualification cases related to defection should be made by the President/Governor on the binding advice of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
- Time-Bound Disposal: As directed by the Supreme Court in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker case (2020), petitions related to disqualification or merger should strictly be disposed of by the Speaker within a general timeframe of 3 months.
- Constitutional Clarity: The wording of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule should be amended to fully define the roles of the 'original party' and the 'legislative party'.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's refusal to grant an interim stay indicates that the judiciary is prioritizing in-depth constitutional interpretation over procedural haste. This case will serve as a crucial constitutional precedent clarifying the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule, the interrelationship between the 'original political party' and the 'legislative party', the constitutional role of the Lok Sabha Speaker, and the boundaries of judicial review.
Stable India-China Ties: The Foundation for Geopolitical Stability in a Multi-Polar Asia and the Indo-Pacific Region
General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.