30th 7th 29th 8th 10th & 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th February, January, 2019 February, 2019
1. 2019 Pulwama attack :All you need to know (Relevant for GS Prelims and GS Mains Paper III; Internal Security) On 14 February 2019, a convoy of 78 vehicles transporting more than 2,500 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel from Jammu to Srinagar was traveling on National Highway 44. The convoy had left Jammu around 3:30 IST and was carrying a large number of personnel due to the highway having been shut down for two days prior. The convoy was scheduled to reach the destination before sunset. At Lethapora near Awantipora, around 15:15 IST,[6] a bus carrying security personnel was rammed by a Mahindra Scorpio SUV carrying explosives. It caused a blast which killed at least 46 CRPF personnel of the 76th Battalion and injured many others. The injured were moved to the army base hospital in Srinagar.[1] Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the attack. They also released a video of the assailant Adil Ahmad Dar alias Adil Ahmad Gaadi Takranewala alias Waqas Commando, a 22-year old high school dropout from Kakapora who had joined the group a year ago. Pakistan denied any involvement and Jaish-e- Mohammed leader, Masood Azhar, roams free in that country. It is the deadliest terror attack on state security personnel since 1989. Investigation The 12-member National Investigation Agency team will probe the attack along with the Jammu and Kashmir Police. Initial investigations suggested the car was carrying more than 300 kilograms (660 lb) of explosives, including 80 kilograms (180 lb) of RDX, a high explosive. Reactions India India: Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted: "The attack on CRPF personnel in Pulwama is despicable. I strongly condemn this dastardly attack. The sacrifices of our brave security personnel shall not go in vain. The entire nation stands shoulder to shoulder with the families of the brave martyrs. May the injured recover quickly," he said. He also said, "I pay tribute to soldiers who lost their lives in Pulwama attack. Our security forces have been given full freedom. We have full faith in their bravery. Terrorists will pay a heavy price." Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh assured that a strong response will be given to the terror attack. International Nepal: Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli telephoned Prime Minister Narendra Modi to condole the deaths of the security personnel.
Pakistan: In a press release by the foreign office, Pakistan officially denied the allegation of a link to the attack. Russia: The Russian embassy in India issued a statement saying: "We denounce terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and reiterate the need to combat these inhuman acts with decisive and collective response without any double standards. May we express sincere condolences to the grieving families of the deceased and wish a speedy recovery to those injured." Singapore: Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan said, "I am saddened to hear of the brutal terror attack in Pulwama that has resulted in the tragic loss of life and injury. Please accept my heartfelt condolences for the victims and families who have lost their loved ones. Singapore strongly condemns such senseless acts of terror and our thoughts and prayers are with the people of India at this time. We also hope for a speedy recovery for those who have been injured." Sri Lanka: President Maithripala Sirisena condemned the attack saying, "extremely saddened about dastardly terror attack killing 40 Central Reserve Police Force Jawans in Balawanapur, South Kashmir. The world must condemn such brutal terrorist attacks and take effective action to prevent such incidents in future."[15] Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, calls it the worst since 1989. UAE: The United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the terrorist attack, offered condolences, and called on the international community to unify efforts in confronting extremism and terrorism that pose a threat to global security and stability. USA: The United States Ambassador to India Kenneth Juster tweeted: "The U.S. Mission in India strongly condemns today s terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir. We send our heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims. The United States stands alongside India in confronting terror and defeating it." France, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China and Maldives have also condemned the terror attack. International organizations United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres's spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said at the daily press briefing: "We strongly condemn today's attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama district and express our deepest condolences to the families of those who lost their lives and to the Government and people of India." 2. SC verdict on Delhi power tussle (Relevant for GS Prelims & GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)
Supreme Court verdict A two-judge Bench of the apex court gave its decision in the Delhi government vs Centre case, with one judge saying that the elected government had no powers over services matters and the other saying that the files regarding DANICS officers could be routed through the Council of Ministers to the Lieutenant-Governor. However, for a final call, the matter was referred to a three-judge Bench. Reaction of Mr. Kejriwal Reacting to the development, Mr. Kejriwal said at a press conference at his residence: We respect the Supreme Court, but the judgment is injustice with Delhi and the people of Delhi.
Delhiites elected a government by giving one party 67 out of 70 seats. Today s judgment says that the elected government does not have power to transfer officers. The Chief Minister added that the judgment led to the question: If a government cannot even transfer its officers, then how will that government function? (Adapted from The Hindu) 3. Pulwama attack: How China blocked India from listing JeM chief Azhar as global terrorist (Relevant for GS Prelims & GS Mains Paper II; IOBR) Pulwama terror attack: India has always raised the issue of listing of Maulana Masood Azhar as a logical conclusion since Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been designated. With Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad having claimed responsibility for the Pulwama terrorist attack Thursday, the focus is back on Jaish chief Maulana Masood Azhar and Delhi s failed attempt to list him as a global terrorist at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Azhar was released by the A B Vajpayee government in December 1999, along with Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh, in exchange for the release of the passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines flight IC-814. The most recent effort began after India blamed Jaish for the attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot on January 2, 2016. India put forward a proposal in February 2016 to designate Azhar as a terrorist under the aegis of the UNSC 1267 committee. China intervened at Pakistan s behest and placed a technical hold on India s move in March 2016, and again in October 2016. It subsequently used its veto power to block the proposal in December 2016, a day before the technical hold ended. China again employed a technical hold and blocked a proposal put forward by the US, the UK and France on January 19, 2017 to designate Azhar as a terrorist. India had started pushing for Azhar s listing since 2008-09, after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, and even then China had put a technical hold. Vivek Katju, former India diplomat who dealt with Pakistan and was one of the negotiators during the IC-814 hijack, told The Indian Express, After today s attack, the Chinese prevarication on Masood Azhar reveals their dichotomous approach on terrorism, and it once again demonstrates that when it comes to terrorism, the Pakistani tail wags the Chinese dog. India has always raised the issue of listing of Azhar as a logical conclusion since JeM has already been designated. In fact, that has been one of the major items on the agenda with China during bilateral talks from the level of PM to those of External Affairs Minister, Foreign Secretary and Joint Secretary.
With India and China agreeing on a reset of the relationship at the Wuhan summit in April 2018, there has not been any headway in the Chinese roadblock to Azhar s listing over the last 10 months. After the summit, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale had been asked about the Chinese position on Azhar, and he had said, As far as terrorism is concerned, it was discussed on a general level because as I mentioned earlier that at this level specifics are not discussed. India and China, both sides maintain that there will be no tolerance for terrorism and that it is in the interest of both countries to collaborate. As I said, beyond that it is a matter of discussion and there is continuing discussion between both countries on how to collaborate in this area. (Adapted from The Indian Express) 4. What SC said on key aspects of power tussle between Delhi and Centre (Relevant for GS Prelims and GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance) Here's what the Supreme Court observed on five key aspects of power tussle between Delhi and the Centre. In June last year, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that decisions of the Delhi government will not require the concurrence of the Lieutenant-Governor, except in matters relating to Land, Home and Public Order. That judgment was silent on matters relating to services and other issues. On Thursday, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on five crucial issues. 1. Exclusion of Services (Entry 41 of List II of Seventh Schedule) from the legislative and executive domain of NCTD (National Capital Territory of Delhi) Entry 41 of List II deals with State Public Services and State Public Service Commission. The two-judge Bench was split in its verdict on this aspect. Justice A K Sikri: He said that it is undisputed that the State PSC does not exist in NCTD, and that it is also doubtful to note All India Services and DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service) as State Public Services. He referred to Rule 2(c) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 ( State includes a Union Territory); Rule 7 (in the case of joint cadre, as in NCTD, posting shall be by the State Government concerned ); and Rule 11 of DANICS Rules, 2003, which empowers Administrator of the administration concerned to make these postings. Justice Sikri also referred to the Constitution Bench s observation that in the context of NCTD, the Administrator, namely LG, is supposed to function in this behalf on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. He observed that it becomes equally doubtful as to whether services falls within the discretionary powers of the LG, and that, in the view of the Constitution Bench, it cannot be said that once the manpower is allocated to Union Territory of Delhi, the GNCTD (Government of NCTD) should not have any power to deal with such employees.
To avoid any conflict of exercise of powers between the LG and the Council of Ministers with Chief Minister, Justice Sikri expressed the opinion that it is necessary to carve out a just and fair mechanism. He made some suggestions : transfers and postings of Secretaries, Heads of Departments and other officers at the level of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above can be done by the Lieutenant Governor ; at other levels, including DANICS officers, the files can be routed through the Chief Minister to Lieutenant Governor. In case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister, the view of the Lieutenant Governor should prevail and the Ministry of Home Affairs can issue a suitable notification in this regard, he suggests. Justice Ashok Bhushan: He did not entirely agree with Justice Sikri on Services, but agreed that Entry 41 is not available to the Delhi Legislative Assembly. Justice Bhushan cited extensively from the Balakrishnan Committee Report (1987) on the status of Delhi that led to the 69th Constitution (Amendment) Act. Balakrishnan Committee Report categorically has accepted the position that Entry 41 of List II shall not be within the Legislative competence of Delhi Legislature, which conclusion was plausible, since the Legislative power of the Delhi Legislative Assembly was circumscribed by the expression insofar as any such matter is applicable in relation to Union Territories as occurring in Article 239AA(3), he observed. Referred to a Constitution Bench verdict in Bir Singh (2018), Justice Bhushan observed that services in the National Capital Territory are clearly Central Civil Services. With regard to Services, NCTD can exercise only those Executive powers, which can be exercised by it under any law framed by the Parliament or it may exercise those Executive powers, which have been delegated to it, he ruled. 2. Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the NCTD to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by officials of the Central Government, limiting the jurisdiction of the ACB to GNCTD employees alone Justice Sikri stressed that police and public order stand excluded from the purview of GNCTD and is the exclusive domain of the Parliament/ Central Executive. The term police as in Entry 2 of List II cannot be artificially restricted or limited to only constitution of the police force; the entry would also include the determination as to the nature and scope of investigations to be done by the Police. And therefore, he observed, while establishing the ACB as a Police Station, it would be permissible to circumscribe and limit the investigation sphere of the ACB. Noting that parallel jurisdiction to investigate would result in chaos and anarchy and would frustrate the very purpose of investigation, he ruled: This leads us to hold that the Government which has competence over Entry 2 List II would have power to segregate and demarcate the jurisdiction to investigate as between two police forces. Hence the impugned notifications are valid.
The rationale in excluding Entry 2 from GNCTD s jurisdiction is so that there is no confusion or overlap of the jurisdiction in regard to the focal point of control and coordination, he observed. The only effect is that the ACB is not empowered to investigate into the offences of Central Government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, this investigation is carried out by the CBI. Therefore, it obviates the duality and conflict of jurisdiction as well. 3. Is GNCTD an appropriate Government under the Commission Of Inquiry Act? Justice Sikri, relying on the Constitution Bench verdict, said he is unable to accept the stand of the Delhi government that the expression State Government occurring in Section 2(a) of the COI Act would mean GNCTD, a Union Territory. It is not for us to deal with the argument that Entry 45 of List III confers legislative and executive competence on GNCTD and, therefore, GNCTD can pass an appropriate order appointing a Commission of Inquiry in exercise of its executive power. In the instant case, we are concerned with notification dated August 11, 2015 which is passed under the COI Act. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the High Court on this aspect, Sikri ruled. 4. Whether, under Section 108 of Electricity Act, 2003, the power to issue directions with the State Commission is with GNCTD Justice Sikri said the Delhi government has power to issue directions to the DERC in matters of policies involving public interest. When such powers are conferred specifically to Delhi Government under DER Act, it cannot be said that insofar as Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is concerned, the expression State Government therein would mean the Central Government, Justice Sikri ruled. 5. The power to appoint the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of CrPC L- G or state government? Justice Sikri said the High Court has rightly held that in respect of these entries, the Government of NCT of Delhi has legislative competence under Article 239AA of the Constitution and that the LG under Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This conclusion of the High Court is in tune with the judgment of the Constitution Bench. We, therefore, hold that Lieutenant Governor, while appointing the Special Public Prosecutor, is to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. (Adapted from The Indian Express)