Title: Bifurcation And Blame
(It’s misleading to blame the 14th Finance Commission for
not according special category status)
To be sure, the terms of reference of the FFC did not
require it to deal with the categorisation of States into the “special
category” and “non-special category”. Therefore, it was not required to make
any recommendation on the issue. Nor is the classification of States into
general and special categories the creation of the Constitution and therefore,
the Finance Commission, which was formed under Article 280 of the Constitution,
has no business to make any recommendations on the issue.
ü
The principal task of the Finance Commission
is to assess(calculate) the revenue and cost disabilities of the States and
make recommendations to offset these disabilities through tax devolution and
grants so that all the States are enabled to provide comparable levels of
services at comparable revenue effort.
ü
The only reference to categorisation was
where the report stated, “We did not make a distinction between special and
general category states in determining our norms and recommendations. We
believe that while there are certain common factors that impact cost disability
and fiscal capacity of States, there exist circumstances that are unique to
individual States.
An executive decision
There are asymmetric(विषम) arrangements laid down in
the Constitution, such as Article 370 for Jammu and Kashmir, and in Articles
371A to H for the States in the Northeast, and even these are under the
“temporary, transitional and special provisions” (Part XXI). Asymmetric
arrangements on discretionary (voluntary) and political grounds will only
weaken the fabric of federalism(संघवाद).
Thus, nowhere has the FFC referred to the issue of
desirability or of according special category status in its report. Therefore,
attributing blame to the FFC for the inability to accord special category
status is clearly misleading. The decision to give and not accord special
category status in the past was taken by the erstwhile National Development
Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission based on
aforementioned factors and this was entirely an executive decision. Neither the
Constitution nor the FFC have had anything to do with this.
Title: Under a humane Constitution
(The Supreme Court’s judgment on passive euthanasia must
compel more debate on technological self-determination)
Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled
that every individual has the right to die with dignity. It upheld the practice
of passive euthanasia — the removal of life-support mechanisms.
The individual’s choice
ü
A number of terms have been invoked to
identify the case. It has been called the “living wills case”, the “passive
euthanasia case”, the “right to die with dignity case”, or even simply the
“euthanasia case”.
ü
Each of the four opinions are organised
around the constitutional values of personal autonomy, bodily integrity and
human dignity. And these values, in turn, are expressed in the language of an
individual’s choice to receive or decline medical intervention or medical
treatment.
The primacy of consent (agreement)
ü
Individuals have the right to engage with
technological systems on their own terms, the right to opt into or opt out of
such systems without suffering for it, and the right not to be subjected to
technological intervention without being given meaningful choice.
ü
Let us call this the principle of
technological self-determination: or the right of every individual to determine
how, on what terms, and to what extent, she will engage with technological
systems. This, of course, is closely related to the question of the
relationship between technology and human empowerment.
Judicial legislation
ü
As a final point, it must be noted that the
court — speaking through the Chief Justice — laid down detailed procedures for
the implementation of the advance directives. These safeguards are
quasi-legislative in nature, (having a partly legislative character by
possession of the right to make rules and regulations having the force of law)and
the court justified them by citing the famous Vishaka judgment, which had held
that when there is a legislative vacuum, the court can step in and fill the gap
until a law comes into force.
International Solar Alliance (ISA)
The International Solar Alliance (ISA) is an
alliance of more than 121 countries, most of them being sunshine countries,
which lie either completely or partly between the Tropic of Cancer and the
Tropic of Capricorn.
ü
Objective is to work for efficient
exploitation of solar energy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
ü
This initiative was first proposed by Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a speech in November 2015 at Wembley Stadium,
in which he referred to sunshine countries as Suryaputra ("Sons of the
Sun").
ü
The alliance is a treaty-based
inter-governmental organization. Countries that do not fall within the Tropics
can join the alliance and enjoy all benefits as other members, with the
exception of voting rights.
- Founded at - Paris, France
- Purpose - Bring together a group of nations to endorse clean energy, sustainable environment, public transport and climate
- Headquarters - Gwal Pahari, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
- Region served - Countries between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn
- Fields - Renewable energy
- Membership (As of 2017) - 121 nations
Vocabulary words:
- Evacuate (verb) = Remove, move out (छोड़कर अन्यत्र जाना)
- Besiege (verb) = Surround or harass (घेरना)
- Rebel (noun) = Rioter, insurgent (विद्रोही)
- Regime (noun) = An authoritarian one (शासन)
- Bombardment (noun) = A continuous attack with bombs (बमबारी)
- Apocalypse (noun) = An event involving destruction or damage (कयामत)
- Hostility (noun) = Unfriendliness or opposition (शत्रुता)
- Eerie (adj) = Strange, frightening (भयानक)
- Suburb (noun) = An outlaying district of a city (उपनगर)
- Prolong (verb) = Extend the duration (बढ़ाना)
