DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam –7th May 2024
Archives (PRELIMS & MAINS Focus) The question of Article 31C Syllabus Prelims & Mains – Constitution Context: During the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court to decide whether the government can acquire and redistribute private property, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud asked a question of “radical constitutional consequence”: Does Article 31C still exist? Background:- Bench stated that the question of whether Article 31C still lives following the Minerva Mills decision has to be decided to avoid “constitutional uncertainty”. Key Takeaways Article 31C protects laws enacted to ensure the “material resources of the community” are distributed to serve the common good (Article 39(b)) and that wealth and the means of production are not “concentrated” to the “common detriment” (Article 39(c)). Article 39 of the Constitution lists certain directive principles of state policy, which are meant to be guiding principles for the enactment of laws, but are not directly enforceable in any court of law. As per Article 31C, these particular directive principles (Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) cannot be challenged by invoking the right to equality (Article 14) or the rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech, right to assemble peacefully, etc). Article 31C was introduced by The Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment Act, 1971. The 25th amendment was challenged in the seminal Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) in which 13 judges held by a narrow 7-6 majority that the Constitution has a “basic structure” that cannot be altered, even by a constitutional amendment. As a part of this verdict, the court struck down the last portion of Article 31C, i.e., the part that states “…and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy”. In 1976, Parliament enacted The Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, which expanded the protection under Article 31C to “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV of the Constitution”, under clause 4. As a result, every single directive principle (Articles 36-51) was protected from challenges under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Statement of Objects of Reasons for the amendment stated that it was meant to give precedence to the directive principles “over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socio-economic reforms for implementing the directive principles”. In 1980, in its judgment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the SC struck down clauses 4 and 5 of the amendment. The five-judge Bench held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limited, and it could not be used to remove these limitations and grant itself “unlimited” and “absolute” powers of amendment. However, this ruling birthed a conundrum that the apex court must now address. By striking down part of the 25th amendment, did the court strike down Article 31C as a whole, or did it restore the post-Kesavananda Bharati position wherein Articles 39(b) and (c) remained protected? Source:Indian Express The challenge and necessity of ‘balanced’ in use of fertilisers Syllabus Prelims & Mains – Agriculture Context: The fiscal ended March 2024 saw urea consumption hit a record 35.8 million tonnes (mt), 16.9% higher than the 30.6 mt in 2013-14, the year before the Narendra Modi government came to power. Background: In January the government has brought di-ammonium phosphate (DAP), muriate of potash (MOP) and all other such fertilisers that receive nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) support under “reasonable pricing” controls. Key Takeaways The consumption of urea, containing 46% nitrogen (N), actually fell during 2016-17 and 2017-18, which was attributed to the mandatory coating of all urea with neem oil from May 2015. Neem coating was intended to check illegal diversion of the highly-subsidised urea for non-agricultural uses, including by plywood, dye, cattle feed and synthetic milk makers. Neem oil supposedly also acted as a mild nitrification inhibitor, allowing more gradual release of nitrogen. Improved nitrogen use efficiency, in turn, brought down the number of urea bags required per acre. Despite compulsory neem-coating, and the government reducing the bag size from 50 to 45 kg in March 2018, the consumption of urea has only gone up during the last six years. Balanced fertilisation — discouraging farmers from applying too much urea, di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) or muriate of potash (MOP), which only have primary nutrients in high concentrations — is likely to be a key policy goal for the government taking over after the Lok Sabha elections. Balanced fertilisation means supplying these primary (N, phosphorus-P and potassium-K), secondary (sulphur-S, calcium, magnesium) and micro (iron, zinc, copper, manganese, boron, molybdenum) nutrients in the right proportion, based on soil type and the crop’s own requirement at different growth stages. The nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) system, instituted in April 2010 by the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, was expected to promote balanced fertilisation. Here subsidy was linked to nutrient content. Under it, the government fixed a per-kg subsidy for N, P, K and S. The subsidy on any fertiliser was, thereby, linked to its nutrient content. The underlying idea was to induce product innovation and wean away farmers from urea, DAP (18% N and 46% P content) and MOP (60% K), in favour of complex fertilisers containing N, P, K, S and other nutrients in balanced proportions with lower concentrations. NBS achieved its objective initially. But NBS failed simply because it excluded urea. With its maximum retail price (MRP) being controlled, and cumulatively raised by just 16.5 per cent – from Rs 4,830 to Rs 5,628 per tonne – post the introduction of NBS, consumption of urea increased both through the UPA’s 10 years and the 10 years (so far) of the NDA government. The last couple of years have seen even non-urea fertilisers being brought under price control. An immediate challenge that arises is to ensure a proper “price hierarchy” among non-urea fertilisers. That would mean pricing DAP the highest, MOP the lowest and complexes in between. DAP use should be restricted mainly to
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam –7th May 2024 Read More »
