DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 17th October 2024
Archives (PRELIMS & MAINS Focus) FIVE EYES Syllabus Prelims & Mains – INTERNATIONAL Context: Five Eyes supports Canada in spat with India. Background: – Citing alleged involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Canada has expelled six Indian diplomats. In a tit-for-tat move, India too expelled six Canadian diplomats. About Fiver Eyes The Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing alliance consisting of five countries: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance was initially formed during World War II for sharing signals intelligence (SIGINT) and has since evolved into a broader intelligence cooperation framework. It is based on the UKUSA Agreement, a multilateral agreement for cooperation in intelligence activities, particularly concerning signals intelligence. Key Features: Intelligence Sharing: The Five Eyes share a wide range of intelligence, including military, political, security, and cyber intelligence. Scope: Initially focused on the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Five Eyes now addresses global security threats such as terrorism, cybercrime, and state-sponsored espionage. Technology and Surveillance: The alliance members operate extensive signals intelligence infrastructure and conduct joint surveillance operations on potential security threats worldwide. Historical Background: The UKUSA Agreement was formalized in 1946, primarily between the United States and the United Kingdom. Over time, the agreement was expanded to include Canada (1948), Australia, and New Zealand (both in 1956). The Five Eyes network became central during the Cold War in monitoring and intercepting Soviet communications. In the post-Cold War period, it expanded its scope to cover threats like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and cybersecurity. Source: The Hindu THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING (TPLF) Syllabus Mains – GS 2 Context: The idea of Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) has quickly emerged as a game-changer, potentially opening courtroom doors for many who felt they had been shut out. Background: – The need for TPLF in India is painfully clear, given the massive pendency and skyrocketing litigation expenses. Justice is increasingly becoming a luxury only a few can afford. Key takeaways Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF), also known as litigation finance, is a financial arrangement where a third party (usually a private firm or investor) provides the funds necessary to pursue a legal case in exchange for a share of the proceeds if the case is successful. The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji cautiously gave green signal to TPLF, viewing it as ‘a potential equaliser in the courtroom’ and categorically holding that TPLF was not off-limits as long as lawyers were not the ones bankrolling such cases. The ripple effects of TPLF could reach every corner of India. In fact, we may witness situations with consumer groups taking on food adulterators, tech startups withstanding pressure against industry giants, tribes supported by NGOs taking on mining mafias without fear of financial ruin. TPLF might breathe new air into Public Interest Litigation, a powerful tool for social change since the 1980s. Key Concerns regarding TPLF Cherry-Picking Profitable Cases: Funders may prioritize profitable cases, potentially neglecting socially important but less lucrative claims. Funder’s Influence on Case Strategy: Questions arise over how much control funders should have in case decisions, emphasizing the need for regulation. Lack of National Framework in India: Although states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Gujarat have amended civil procedure codes to recognize TPLF, there is no comprehensive national regulatory framework. Need for Regulation: A regulatory structure should ensure: Financial soundness and ethical conduct of funders. Transparency in funding agreements. Protection of clients’ decision-making rights. Reasonable caps on funders’ profits. Oversight Body: Establishing a dedicated authority to monitor and regulate TPLF is essential for effective governance. Like Hong Kong’s Code of Practice for Third Party Funding in Arbitration 2019, India must ensure funders disclose financing details, manage adverse costs, and clarify the extent of funder control. TPLF presents both a challenge and an opportunity. By developing targeted and comprehensive regulations tailored to India’s unique legal landscape, the country can foster a thriving ecosystem. In doing so, India might set a new global standard, balancing financial innovation with the fundamental right to justice. Source: The Hindu BENCHMARK DISABILITY PER SE NO BAR FOR ADMISSIONS Syllabus Mains – GS 2 Context: The Supreme Court ruled that only the existence of the benchmark permanent disability of 40 per cent does not bar a candidate from being considered for admission to an educational institution unless a medical assessment board is of the opinion that the disability will come in the way of pursuing the course. Background: – Confirming the admission of a candidate with 45 per cent permanent disability for the MBBS course, SC held that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission. The candidate will be eligible if the Disability Assessment Board opines that notwithstanding the disability the candidate can pursue the course in question. Key take aways from the judgement The Disability Assessment Boards assessing the candidates should positively record whether the disability of the candidate will or will not come in the way of pursuing the course. The Disability Assessment Board should state reasons in the event of concluding that the candidate is not eligible for pursuing the course. Referring to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, the bench underlined the need to follow the principle of reasonable accommodation as laid down in Section 2(y) of the Act. The section defines “reasonable accommodation” as necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others. The court went on to say that the mandate of the law is to ensure full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society. To achieve this, conditions that hinder their equal participation should be excluded. A broad interpretation of “reasonable accommodation” is necessary to fulfill the objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act and Article 41 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. Additional Information December 3 is marked by the UN as International Day of Persons with Disabilities in a bid to promote a more inclusive and accessible world for the differently-abled and to raise awareness for their rights. About 2.2% of India’s population lives with some kind of
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS IAS | UPSC Prelims and Mains Exam – 17th October 2024 Read More »
