UPSC Exam Current Affairs and News Analysis (07-10-2019)

upsc exam current affairs 07-10-2019

Highlights |UPSC Exam Current Affairs 07-10-2019

Current Affairs and News (07-10-2019)- The following article contains all the updated events and news for IAS Preparation. Our daily IAS Current Affairs and News cover the most important topics to give precise information to the reader and IAS Aspirants.

  • Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition
  • NATIONAL e-ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NeAC)
  • Information Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR)
  • Citizenship amendment bill 
  • Section 124-A (Sedition law)

Importance of Current Affairs in IAS Coaching


Watch Video – UPSC Exam Current Affairs 07-10-2019

YouTube video

Video Source – Shankar IAS Academy

find top institutes for IAS coaching

UPSC Exam Current Affairs 07-10-2019 are followed in the part below:

UPSC Exam Current Affairs and News Analysis (07-10-2019)


Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition

Part of: GS Prelims and Mains GS-III –Environment Conservation

In News

  • Vishnu Nandan, a 32-year-old polar analyst from Kerala, will be the main Indian among 300 researchers from over the world onboard the MOSAiC undertaking
  • The point of the campaign will be to parameterize the climatic, geophysical, oceanographic and all other potential factors in the Arctic, and use it to all the more precisely gauge the adjustments in our climate frameworks.
  • MOSAiC, the biggest ever Arctic campaign ever, will be the first to lead an investigation of the North Pole for a whole year. Past investigations have been of shorter periods as the thicker ocean ice sheets forestall access in winter.
  • Under it, the German research vessel Polarstern has secured itself in an enormous ocean ice sheet, before the winter, and will float alongside it
  • Initiated by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, researchers from 17 countries will partake in the year-long crucial.

NATIONAL e-ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NeAC)

Part of: GS Prelims and GS-III- Economy

In News

  • Association Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman initiated National e-Assessment Center (NeAC) in New Delhi.
  • With this, the Income Tax Department is acquainting unremarkable re-evaluation with bestowing more noteworthy proficiency, straightforwardness, and responsibility in the appraisal procedure. There would be no physical interface among citizens and expense officials.
  • Under the new framework, citizens have gotten sees on their enrolled messages just as on enlisted accounts on the online interface, with ongoing by method for SMS on their enrolled versatile number, specifying the issues for which their cases have been chosen for investigation.
  • Answers to the notification can be set up calm by citizens at their very own home or office and sent by email to the National e-Assessment Center by transferring the equivalent on the assigned online interface.

Information Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR)

Part of: GS Prelims and GS Mains III – Security

In News

  • The Navy’s IFC-IOR is a solitary point focus connecting all beachfront radar chain organizes along the 7500km Indian coastline and in some neighboring nations
  • The FC-IOR was introduced in December 2018 at Gurugramand has now begun working as a data-sharing center of oceanic information and “prompting occurrence reactions” to sea security circumstances through a community-oriented methodology
  • The IFC tracks and screens 75,000-1.5 lakh shipping vessels in genuine time round the clock
  • The IFC effectively associates with oceanic network and has just fabricated linkages with 18 nations and 15 worldwide and sea security focuses
  • India has requested that neighbors draw upon it and consider it as their very own facility rather than copying it. This announcement is significant with regards to reports that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are thinking about setting up comparable combination focuses.

(MAINS FOCUS)


CITIZENSHIP

TOPIC: General Studies 2:

  • Indian Constitution-authentic underpinnings, development, highlights, alterations, huge arrangements, and essential structure

Citizenship amendment bill 

Context:

  • Mr. Amit Shah as of late stated, that the new government would re-present, and pass, the citizenship alteration bill in the following parliamentary session, or before long.

How is citizenship determined?

  • Citizenship means the connection between individual and state. It starts and finishes with state and law, and is in this way about the state, not individuals. Citizenship is a thought of avoidance as it rejects non-residents.
  • There are two understood standards for the award of citizenship. While jus soli gives citizenship based on spot of birth, jus sanguinis offers acknowledgment to blood ties. From the hour of the Motilal Nehru Committee (1928), the Indian initiative was agreeable to the illuminated idea of jus soli. The racial thought of jus sanguis was dismissed by the Constituent Assembly as it was against the Indian ethos.
  • Citizenship is in the Union List under the Constitution and in this way under the restrictive purview of Parliament.
  • The Constitution doesn’t characterize the term ‘resident’ yet gives, in Articles 5 to 11, subtleties of different classes of people who are qualified for citizenship.
  • In contrast to different arrangements of the Constitution, which appeared on January 26, 1950, these articles were implemented on November 26, 1949, when the Constitution was embraced. Be that as it may, Article 11 itself gives wide powers on Parliament by setting out that “nothing in the previous arrangements will disparage from the intensity of Parliament to make any arrangement regarding the obtaining and end of citizenship and all issues identifying with citizenship”. Along these lines, Parliament can conflict with the citizenship arrangements of the Constitution.
  • The Citizenship Act, 1955 was passed and has been changed multiple times — in 1986, 2003, 2005, and 2015. The Act engages the legislature to decide the citizenship of people for whose situation it is in question.  
  • Nonetheless, throughout the decades, Parliament has limited the more extensive and all-inclusive standards of citizenship dependent on the reality of birth. In addition, the Foreigners Act puts substantial weight on the person to demonstrate that he is certifiably not an outsider.

So who is, or is not, a citizen of India?

  • Article 5: It was given to citizenship at the beginning of the Constitution. Every one of those domiciled and conceived in India were given citizenship. Indeed, even the individuals who were domiciled however not conceived in India, yet both of whose guardians were conceived in India, were viewed as residents. Any individual who had been a conventional occupant for over five years, as well, was qualified to apply for citizenship.
  • Article 6: Since Independence was gone before by Partition and relocation, Article 6 set out that any individual who moved to India before July 19, 1949, would consequently turn into an Indian resident if both of his folks or grandparents was conceived in India. Be that as it may, the individuals who entered India after this date expected to enroll themselves.
  • Article 7: Even the individuals who had relocated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947, however in this way returned on resettlement licenses were incorporated inside the citizenship net. The law was increasingly thoughtful to the individuals who relocated from Pakistan and called them exiles than to the individuals who, in a mess, were stranded in Pakistan or went there however chose to return soon.
  • Article 8: Any Person of Indian Origin dwelling outside India who, or both of whose guardians or grandparents, was conceived in India could enlist oneself as stomach muscle Indian resident with Indian Diplomatic Mission.
  • 1986 change: Unlike the protected arrangement and the first Citizenship Act that gave citizenship on the standard of jus soli to everybody conceived in India, the 1986 alteration to Section 3 was less comprehensive as it included the condition that the individuals who were conceived in India on or after January 26, 1950, however before July 1, 1987, will be Indian resident. Those brought into the world after July 1, 1987, and before December 4, 2003, notwithstanding one’s own introduction to the world in India, can get citizenship just if both of his folks was an Indian resident at the hour of birth.
  • 2003 alteration: The then NDA government made the above condition progressively stringent, keeping in see invasion from Bangladesh. Presently the law requires that for those conceived on or after December 4, 2004, notwithstanding the reality of their own introduction to the world, the two guardians ought to be Indian residents or one parent must be Indian resident and other ought not to be an illicit vagrant. With these prohibitive alterations, India has nearly moved towards the restricted standard of jus sanguinis or blood relationship. This sets out that an unlawful vagrant can’t guarantee citizenship by naturalization or enlistment regardless of whether he has been an inhabitant of India for a long time.
  • Citizenship (Amendment) Bill: The revision proposes to allow individuals from six networks — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan — to keep on living in India in the event that they entered India before December 14, 2014. It additionally diminishes the necessity for citizenship from 11 years out of the first 14 years, to only 6 years. Two notices additionally absolved these vagrants from the Passport Act and Foreigner Act. An enormous number of associations in Assam challenged this Bill as it might give citizenship to Bangladeshi Hindu illicit vagrants

Logic behind this:

  • Both the content of the Bill and its ‘Announcement of Objects and Reasons’ alludes to “minority networks” from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
  • The rationale seems, by all accounts, to be that as these three nations are Muslim-lion’s share, they might be dependent upon oppression because of their confidence, and, along these lines, need asylum in a nation, for example, India.

Crux:

Citizenship Amendment Bill does two things:

  • it shields a lot of people from being proclaimed illicit vagrants (and, by expansion, shields them from confinement or expelling);
  • It makes the most optimized plan of attack to citizenship for these people.
  • It does as such on an expressly public premise: it completely prohibits Muslims from its ambit.

Implication:

On the off chance that the administration proceeds with its arrangement of actualizing an across the nation National Register of Citizens, at that point the individuals who wind up prohibited from it will be partitioned into two classifications:

  • (transcendently) Muslims, who will currently be considered illicit transients,
  • all others, who might have been considered illicit transients, yet are presently vaccinated by the Citizenship Amendment Bill, in the event that they can show that their nation of cause is Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan.

Criticism:

  • The Citizenship Amendment Bill expressly, and conspicuously tries to revere strict separation into law, as opposed to our long-standing, common sacred ethos.  
  • In the event that the goal is the assurance of minorities, at that point there is no clarification for why Jews and skeptics (to take only two models) have been forgotten about.
  • There are Muslim strict minorities inside these nations who are exposed to grave and genuine abuse: Ex: Ahmadis in Pakistan.
  • Recently, the Rohingya people group in Myanmar, another neighboring nation, has been exposed to delayed abuse, ethnic purifying, and conceivably destruction. Be that as it may, the legislature has been transparently unfriendly towards the Rohingyas and has even contended for their extradition under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court.
  • The Bill will be the first occasion when that religion or ethnicity will be made the premise of citizenship. That would do grave harm to the general concept of India as a comprehensive and differing nation, where religion makes little difference to who can turn into a full individual from society.

Hence it is religious discrimination, plain and simple.

Constitutionality:

  • Article 15 of the Constitution — that bars strict segregation — applies just to residents.
  • Yet, Article 14 of a similar Constitution, which certifications to all people correspondence under the steady gaze of the law, and the equivalent insurance of law.
  • Biased treatment and particularly, separation that is self-assertive, and arrangements that are absurd abuse the pith of the equivalent treatment proviso.

Conclusion:

  • An across the country NRC will duplicate the imperfections of the Assam NRC on a lot bigger scale; and for the individuals who end up on its off-base side, the unfair Citizenship Amendment Bill will secure a few — yet just a few — in view of their religion.

Connecting the dots:

  • During the confining of the Indian Constitution, it has concurred that the essential reason for Indian citizenship would be jus soli — or, citizenship by birth (in the domain of India). Throughout the years this standard has been weakened. Investigate.

LAW

TOPIC: General Studies 2:

  • Indian Constitution-chronicled underpinnings, development, highlights, changes, critical arrangements and essential structure.

Section 124-A (Sedition law)

  • An FIR has been stopped in Bihar’s Muzaffarpur against a gathering of famous characters, including the student of history Ramchandra Guha, producers Shyam Benegal and Aparna Sen among others, who had composed an open letter to PM Narendra Modi against the occurrences of lynching in the nation.
  • The FIR recorded under different areas of IPC identified with rebellion, break of harmony and harming strict conclusions

History:

  • Rebellion laws were ordered in seventeenth-century England when administrators accepted that lone great assessments of the legislature ought to make due, as terrible feelings were hindering to the administration and government. This feeling (and law) was obtained and embedded into the IPC in 1870.
  • The law was first used to arraign Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897. That case prompted Section 124A of the IPC (which manages rebellion) being changed, to include the words “scorn” and “disdain” to “antagonism”, which was characterized to incorporate traitorousness and sentiments of hatred.
  • In 1908, upon conviction for rebellion for another situation, and detainment, Tilak supposedly stated, “The administration has changed over the whole country into jail and we are for the most part detainees.” Gandhi, as well, was later pursued subversion for his articles in Young India, and broadly confessed.
  • The Supreme Court featured these discussions in 1950 in its choices in Brij Bhushan v the State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar v. the State of Madras.
  • These choices provoked the First Constitution Amendment, where Article 19(2) was revised to supplant “undermining the security of the State” with “in light of a legitimate concern for open request”.
  • In 1962, the Supreme Court chose the lawfulness of Section 124A in Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar. It maintained the legality of rebellion, however, restricted its application to “acts including aim or inclination to make the issue, or unsettling influence of lawfulness, or affectation to brutality”
  • In 1995, the Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh v State of Punjab, vindicated people from charges of dissidence for yelling mottos, for example, “Khalistan Zindabaad” and “Raj Karega Khalsa” outside a film after Indira Gandhi’s death. Rather than taking a gander at the “propensity” of the words to cause the open issue, the Court held that minor sloganeering which evoked no open reaction didn’t add up to rebellion

About Section 124-A and Criticism on it

  • Rulers wherever will, in general, treat trenchant analysis as endeavors to energize irritation and unfaithfulness.
  • That is maybe the main explanation that Section 124-An of the Indian Penal Code, sanctioned under pilgrim rule, stays on the resolution book.
  • The first issue with the arrangement on subversion is that its definition remains excessively wide. ‘Overbroad’ definitions normally spread both what is harmless and what is destructive.
  • Under the present law, solid analysis against government arrangements and characters, trademarks voicing objection to pioneers and stinging portrayals of a lethargic or harsh system are altogether liable to be treated as ‘dissident’, and not simply those that clearly undermine open request or establish genuine impelling to savagery.
  • Truth be told, so thoughtless have a few arraignments been as of late that the center standard articulated by the Supreme Court — that the affectation to savagery or inclination to make open issues are the fundamental elements of the offense — has been overlooked.
  • Notwithstanding, as long as subversion is viewed as a sensible limitation on free discourse on the ground of saving open request, it will be hard to contain its naughtiness.

Misuse of Section 124-A

  • There have been rehashed examples of its abuse. Systems at the Center and the States have regularly appeared in poor light after they summoned the area against activists, depreciators, essayists, and even visual artists.
  • Since Independence, many have seen the incongruity of holding an arrangement that was utilized widely to smother the opportunity battle.  
  • In spite of this, Section 124-A has steadily endure all endeavors by progressive ages to reevaluate it, if not nullify it inside and out.
  • Specifically, it has brought up the appropriate issue: how far is it defended for India to hold an offense acquainted by the British with stifling the opportunity battle, when Britain itself abrogated it 10 years prior?

Law Commissions’ observations

  • The Law Commission, for the third time in five decades, is currently during the time spent returning to the segment.
  • Its conference paper requires a careful reevaluation and presents the different issues identified with it before people in general for a national discussion.
  • In a prior report in 1968, the Law Commission had dismissed canceling the segment.
  • In 1971, the board needed the extent of the area to be extended to cover the Constitution, the lawmaking body and the legal executive, notwithstanding the administration to be built up by law, as establishments against which ‘antagonism’ ought not to go on without serious consequences.
  • The main weakening it mooted was to change the wide hole between the two prison terms recommended in the area (either three years of life) and fix the most extreme approval at seven years’ thorough detainment with fine.

Way forward:

  • The law and its application obviously recognize solid analysis of the legislature and induction of brutality.
  • Regardless of whether the letter is viewed as scornful, or derisive and hateful of the administration, on the off chance that it didn’t affect brutality, it isn’t rebellious

Conclusion:

  • The wide extent of Section 124A implies that the state can utilize it to pursue the individuals who challenge its capacity, and the negligible squeezing of rebellion energizes closes going about as an obstruction against any voice of difference or analysis.

Connecting the dots:

  • The risk of rebellion prompts a kind of unapproved self-oversight. Examine
  • We should ensure our entitlement to disagree as savagely as we secure our entitlement to live. On the off chance that we neglect to do as such, our reality as a gladly fair country is in danger. Legitimize

(TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE)


Model questions: (You can now post your answers in the comment section)

Note: 

  • Featured Comments and comments Up-voted by whataftercollege are the “correct answers”.

Q.1) Consider the following statements about Multidisciplinary drifting observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition

  1. MOSAiC is the largest ever Arctic expedition in history which will be the first to conduct a study of the North Pole for an entire year.
  2. The MOSAiC mission is being spearheaded by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with scientists from 17 nations (including India) taking part in the year-long mission.

Which of the statement(s) given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2

Q.2) Consider the following statements about NATIONAL e-ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NeAC)

  1. NeAC center has been set up in Mumbai
  2. With this, the Income Tax Department is introducing faceless e-assessment to impart greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the assessment process

Which of the statement(s) given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2

Q.3) Consider the following statements about Information Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR)

  1. It was set up by Ministry of Home Affairs in Gurugram in 2018
  2. It is a single point center linking all coastal radar chain networks along the 7500km Indian coastline and in some neighboring countries

Which of the statement(s) given above is/are correct?

  1. 1 only
  2. 2 only
  3. Both 1 and 2
  4. Neither 1 nor 2


Importance of Current Affairs in IAS Coaching

Check out more IAS Coaching Current Affairs

Also, Check Out the All the Details about the IAS Exam

ias exam details

Explore List of Top IAS Coaching Institutes in Different Cities –

Best IAS Coaching in Delhi Top IAS Coaching In Jaipur
Best IAS Coaching in Kolkata Top IAS Coaching In Chennai
Best IAS Coaching In BangaloreTop IAS Coaching In Chandigarh
Best IAS Coaching In BhopalTop IAS Coaching In Allahabad
Best IAS Coaching In KanpurTop IAS Coaching In Indore
Best IAS Coaching in AhmedabadTop IAS Coaching In Trivandrum
Best IAS Coaching In PatnaTop IAS Coaching In Vijayawada
Best IAS Coaching In NagpurTop IAS Coaching In Pune
Best IAS Coaching In BhubaneswarTop IAS Coaching In Coimbatore
Best IAS Coaching In RaipurTop IAS Coaching In Ranchi
Best IAS Coaching In Dehradun