1. Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000
- Context: social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has filed a lawsuit against the Central government challenging the use of Section 79 (3) (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to issue blocking orders
- It claims that it leads to creation of a “parallel” and “unlawful” content censorship regime.
Key highlights;
- Use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act: Government departments and agencies are issuing content takedown notices to social media companies like X
- They attempt to bypass the multiple procedural safeguards” prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act, which also allows for content blocking.
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000:
- It empowers the state to issue blocking orders in cases of emergency on the grounds such as:
- “sovereignty and integrity of India
- defense of India
- security of the State
- friendly relations with foreign States
- public order
- for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to the above”.
- The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules) lays down the procedure for any blocking order issued under Section 69A.
Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act:
- online intermediaries like X can lose their safe harbour protections if they fail to block access to content which has been flagged by an “appropriate” government agency
Shreya Singhal judgment(2015):
- It declared that content could only be censored by a court order, or under Section 69A of the IT Act.
Prelims Special:
Q. Which of the following is/are grounds for blocking orders in cases of emergency under Information Technology Act, 2000?
- Defense of India
- Security of the State
- Friendly relations with foreign States
- For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to the above”.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
- 1, 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 4 only
- 1 and 2 only
- 1, 2, 3 and 4
Ans: (d)
2. Town of Walikale
- Context: Rwanda-backed M23 rebels entered the mineral rich strategic town of Walikale in eastern Congo.
Walikale Territory:
- It is a territory located within the Congolese province of North Kivu, in the eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
- Walikale is rich in cassiterite, which is refined elsewhere into tin.
- Walikale has been a part of Kahuzi-Biéga National Park.
Prelims Special:
Q. Consider the following countries: [UPSC 2024]
1. Finland
2. Germany
3. Norway
4. Russia
How many of the above countries have a border with the North Sea?
a) Only one
b) Only two
c) Only three
d) All four
Ans: (b)
3. Unified Pension Scheme (UPS)
- Context: The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) notified the operationalisation of the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS).
Prelims Special:
Q. Who among the following can join the National Pension System (NPS)? (UPSC 2017)
- Resident Indian citizens only
- Persons of age from 21 to 55 only
- All State Government employees joining the services after the date of notification by the respective State Governments
- All Central Government employees including those of Armed Forces joining the services on or after 1st April, 2004
Ans: (c)
4. Collegium system
- Context: The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the transfer of Acting Chief Justice of Orissa High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
Collegium system:
- It is the system of appointment and transfer of judges that has evolved through judgments of the SC.
- The SC collegium: It is headed by the CJI and comprises four other senior most judges of the court.
- HC Collegium: It is led by its Chief Justice and two other senior most judges of that court.
- Ordinarily case:
- one of the four senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court would succeed the Chief Justice of India
- Situational: If the situation is such that the successor Chief Justice is not one of the four senior-most puisne Judges, he must invariably be made part of the collegium.
Issues with Collegium system:
- Extra-constitutional or non-constitutional body: brought in force by judgments of the Supreme Court.
- Non-Judge: There is no seat in the collegium for any non judge neither from the executive, the Bar etc.
- Opaqueness: lack of transparency.
- Nepotism: Scope for nepotism.
- Overlooks talent: Overlooks several talented junior judges and advocates.
Judges case:
- First Judges Case (1981): It declared that the “primacy” of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)’s recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “logical reasons.”
- The ruling gave the Executive primacy over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years.
- Second Judges Case (1993): SC introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
- It was not the CJI’s individual opinion, consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC.
- Third Judges Case (1998): SC on President’s reference expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.
Transfer of judges:
- Article 222: It provides for the transfer of HC judges, including the Chief Justice. The President, after consultation with the CJI, may transfer a judge from one HC to any other HC and a compensatory allowance is provided to the transferred judge.
- Interpretation: The executive could transfer a judge, but only after consulting the CJI.
Prelims Special:
Q. Consider the following statements: (UPSC 2019)
- The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
- The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (b)
5. Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act (AFSPA)
- Context: The Army sought the inclusion of additional police station limits in Manipur Valley under the ambit of the Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act (AFSPA).
Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act (AFSPA):
- Origin: Initially introduced in 1942 by the British to suppress the Quit India movement, it evolved into the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, to address uprisings in Northeast India. A similar law was enacted in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990.
- Powers: The AFSPA gives armed forces the authority to use force, arrest, and search without warrants in “disturbed areas.” They are also granted immunity from prosecution unless sanctioned by the Central Government.
- Disturbed Areas: Areas declared as disturbed due to conflict or unrest are subject to AFSPA. The Central and State governments can declare such areas. The law is reviewed periodically, with current applications in Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
- Current Status:Currently, AFSPA is in effect in parts of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh.
- AFSPA remains in force in Jammu and Kashmir through the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990.
- It was lifted from Tripura in 2015, Meghalaya in 2018 and Mizoram in the 1980s.
- AFSPA remains in force in specific regions, where it is renewed periodically based on security assessments.
Prelims Special:
Q. With reference to AFSPA, consider the following statements:
- The Central and State governments can declare areas as disturbed due to conflict or unrest.
- Currently, AFSPA is in effect in parts of Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh only.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (a)