Most Important Current Affairs For UPSC Prelims Exam 2022

Table of Contents

POLITY

Current Affairs

National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK)

The Union Cabinet has approved the extension of the tenure of the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK) for three years beyond 31.3.2022.

About NCSK

Establishment: 1993
Act: NCSK Act 1993
Body: Statutory
Objective: To give its recommendations to the Government regarding specific programmes for welfare of Safai Karamcharis, study and evaluate the existing welfare programmes for Safai Karamcharis, investigate cases of specific grievances etc.
Work assigned under Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013

to monitor the implementation of the Act
tender advice for its effective implementation to the Centre and State Governments
enquire into complaints regarding contravention / non-implementation of the provisions of the Act

2019 saw the highest number of manual scavenging deaths
2018, 29,923 people were engaged in manual scavenging in Uttar Pradesh, making it the highest in any State in India.

As part of the ‘World toilet Day’ (Nov 19) celebrations, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is launching a week long awareness campaign on Safai Mitra Suraksha Challenge (SSC) from November 14th to 20th November 2021
to run up to the ‘Swachh Amrit Diwas’, an award ceremony to recognize the role and efforts of the states, cities, ULBs and Cantonment Board in Swachh Survekshan 2021, and Garbage Free Star Rating certification on 20th November, 2021
Under Safaimitra Suraksha Challenge (SSC), Call Centre and Helpline number for safe cleaning have been operationalized in 345 cities with ‘14420’ helpline number till date for safe cleaning of septic tanks/sewers & registering complaints on hazardous cleaning.
31 States/UTs have established with Responsible Sanitation Authority (RSA) and 210 cities are having the Sanitation Response Units (SRU).
All 246 participating cities have already notified ban on single-use plastic (SUP).
MoHUA has also designed standard uniform designs for different categories of sanitation workers across urban India.
These include Swachhata Commandos (sanitation workers engaged in underground cleaning of sewers and septic tanks), Safaimitras (engaged in road sweeping and waste collection) and Swachhata Supervisors/ Operators.
The designs have been developed with support from NIIFT, Mohali and NIFT Gandhinagar and specifications have been rolled out to States and ULBs to prepare and distribute the uniforms as per the approved designs.

Garbage Free Star Rating certification

This self-declaration will be further verified through an independent third-party agency appointed by MoHUA for
1-star, 3-star, 5-star and 7-star garbage free ratings.

What is manual scavenging

Manual scavenging is the practice of removing human excreta by hand from sewers or septic tanks. India banned the practice under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSR).
The Act bans the use of any individual for manually cleaning, carrying, disposing of or otherwise handling in any manner, human excreta till its disposal.
In 2013, the definition of manual scavengers was also broadened to include people employed to clean septic tanks, ditches, or railway tracks.
The Act recognizes manual scavenging as a “dehumanizing practice,” and cites a need to “correct the historical injustice and indignity suffered by the manual scavengers.”

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)

Why in News?

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) wrote to the States that the Union government proposes to amend Rule 6 (deputation of cadre officers) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules 1954.

It’s Impact:

The Union government will acquire for itself overriding powers to transfer IAS and IPS officers through Central deputation, doing away with the requirement of taking the approval of the State governments.

What is the rule for Central Deputation?

Before any officer of the AIS is called for deputation to the Centre, his or her concurrence is required.
The Establishment Officer in the DoPT invites nominations from the State governments.
Once the nomination is received, their eligibility is scrutinised by a panel and then an offer list is prepared, usually with the State government on board.
Data
As per the latest offer list on the MHA’s website, only 10 IPS officers from States have offered themselves to be available for Central deputation, including four Director General rank officers and only two Superintendent of Police rank officers.
All India Services
The Constitution provides for the creation of All India Services (AIS) common to the Union and the States. (Article 312)
The All India Services Act, 1951 provides that the Central Government may make rules for regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the All India Services.
Presently only the IAS, the IPS and the IFS have been constituted as All India Services.

What are West Bengal’s objections?

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is the Minister for DoPT, that the proposals are “against the spirit of cooperative federalism” and “will affect administration of the state”.
“By insisting on officers to be made available for deputation through the proposed amendment, not only will the administration of States be affected but also it would become impossible to assess and plan the administration of a State – by engaging such officers who form part of the Central Deputation Reserve, fraught with the uncertainty of their sudden deputation by the Centre,”
How are officers sent on central deputation today, and how could the amendments affect it?
The Centre asks every year for an “offer list” of officers of the All India Services (IAS, IPS and Indian Forest Service) willing to go on central deputation, from which it selects officers.
While Rule 6(1) says that in case of disagreement, the state shall give effect to the decision of the Centre, this has not been possible in several cases of conflict.
Even the proposed amendment leaves the state with an escape route by stating that the number of officers to be sent on deputation shall be decided by the central government “in consultation with the State Government concerned”.
And while the Centre mandates the state governments to provide a list of officers, the officer too must be willing, with Rule 6(2) stating: “no cadre officer shall be deputed to any organisation or body of the type referred to in item (ii), except with his consent”. Item (ii) covers certain kinds of organisations.
In January 2021, a West Bengal-based lawyer, Abu Sohel, filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking Rule 6(1) be struck down.
He contended that because of the rule, states have to bear the brunt of arbitrary actions taken by the Centre, while the rule makes it difficult for the Centre to enforce its will on a state that refuses to back down.
The court, ruling on March 1, did not find any merit in the petition.

In cases of tussle, how often has the Centre has its way?

Usually, the states have had their way. Among the latest examples was a tussle involving Alapan Bandyopadhyay, an IAS officer of the 1987 batch, now retired and serving as Chief Adviser to West Bengal CM Banerjee.
Last year, when he was due to begin an extension of three months after retiring as Chief Secretary, the Centre asked him to report on the day of his retirement. Bandyopadhyay did not do so, and the Chief Minister did not relieve him either.
In December 2020, the Centre asked that three IPS officers, who were in charge of security when BJPpresident J P Nadda’s motorcade was attacked outside Kolkata on December 10, allegedly by supporters of the Trinamool Congress, be sent on deputation to the Centre.
The state refused, citing a shortage of IPS officers, and the Centre did not insist either.

3. National Lok Adalat

Why in News?

National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is committed to deliver prompt and inexpensive justice to the citizens.
Recently, it has decided to lay more emphasis on contribution of National Lok Adalat in effectively reducing the number of pending cases through Alternative Dispute Mechanisms.
Across the country, a total number of 1,27,87,329 cases were disposed of in four National Lok Adalats, which included a huge number of pending cases i.e., 55,81,117 and a record number of pre-litigation cases i.e., 72,06,212.

About Lok Adalat

Lok Adalat is one of the alternative dispute redressal mechanisms.
It is a forum where disputes/cases pending in the court of law or at pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably.
Lok Adalats have been given statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Provisions of the Act

Under the said Act, the award (decision) made by the Lok Adalats is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties.
No appeal against such an award lies before any court of law.
If the parties are not satisfied with the award of the Lok Adalat though there is no provision for an appeal against such an award.
However, they are free to initiate litigation by approaching the court of appropriate jurisdiction by filing a case by following the required procedure, in exercise of their right to litigate.

Fees

There is no court fee payable when a matter is filed in a Lok Adalat.
If a matter pending in the court of law is referred to the Lok Adalat and is settled subsequently, the court fee originally paid in the court on the complaints/petition is also refunded back to the parties.

Deciding Authority

The persons deciding the cases in the Lok Adalats are called the Members of the Lok Adalats.
They have the role of statutory conciliators only and do not have any judicial role; therefore they can only persuade the parties to come to a conclusion for settling the dispute outside the court in the Lok Adalat.
They should not pressurize or coerce any of the parties to compromise or settle cases or matters either directly or indirectly.

Members

The Lok Adalat is presided over by a
sitting or retired judicial officer as the chairman,
with two other members, usually a lawyer and a social worker
The Lok Adalat shall not decide the matter so referred at its own instance, instead the same would be decided on the basis of the compromise or settlement between the parties.
The members shall assist the parties in an independent and impartial manner in their attempt to reach amicable settlement of their dispute.

Nature of Cases to be Referred to Lok Adalat

Any case pending before any court.
Any dispute which has not been brought before any court and is likely to be filed before the court.
Provided that any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under the law shall not be settled in Lok Adalat.

Mobile Lok Adalatsare also organized in various parts of the country which travel from one location to another to resolve disputes in order to facilitate the resolution of disputes through this mechanism.

4. Right to Privacy

Why in News?

Recently, a Judge of the Madras High Court has said that a recent order passed by another judge of the same court, mandating the installation of CCTV cameras inside spas [massage and therapy centres], appears to run counter to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017).

About Right to Privacy:

The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21
It is a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
Related Articles: Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India:
S. Puttaswamy case (2017):
The Supreme Court described privacy and its importance in the landmark decision of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017.
The Puttaswamy judgement holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Various Forms of Right to Privacy:

A right to bodily autonomy
A right to informational privacy
A right to privacy of choice
The right to go abroad
The right to privacy
The right to education
The right against solitary confinement
The right against hand cuffing
The right against delayed execution
The right to shelter
Right to livelihood
Right to health and medical aid
The right against custodial death
The right against public hanging
Doctors assistance
Right to internet
Right to Marriage

The doctrine of Separation of Powers:

The reach of fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by any judicial measure.
It held that, though no right can be absolute, restrictions can be put in place only by the legislature or the executive.
Apart from it, the Supreme Court alone can do so in the exercise of its power under Article 142.

5. Right to be Forgotten

Why in News?

The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019, contains provisions related to the ‘right to be forgotten’.

What is Right to be Forgotten?

‘Right to be forgotten’ is a fairly new concept in India where an individual could seek to remove or delete online posts which may contain an embarrassing picture, video or news articles mentioning them.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), in an affidavit, stated that the international legal concept of ‘right to be forgotten’ is evolving in India. “The right to privacy (Article 21) is a fundamental right and it also includes the right to be forgotten.”

Personal Data Protection Bill 2019:

This Bill contains provisions related to the doctrine of ‘right to be forgotten’.
The Bill seeks to provide for protection of personal data of individuals, and establishes a Data Protection Authority for the same.
The Bill governs the processing of personal data by:
1. i) government,
2. ii) companies incorporated in India

iii) foreign companies dealing with personal data of individuals in India

Definition of Personal Data: Personal data is data which pertains to characteristics, traits or attributes of identity, which can be used to identify an individual.
The Bill categorises certain personal data as sensitive personal data. This includes financial data, biometric data, caste, religious or political beliefs, or any other category of data specified by the government, in consultation with the Authority and the concerned sectoral regulator.

So, what is the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in the Indian context?

The Right to be Forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by Parliament.
In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.
The court said at the time that, “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.

What does the Personal Data Protection Bill say about this?

The Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019 and it aims to set out provisions meant for the protection of the personal data of individuals.
Clause 20 under Chapter V of this draft bill titled “Rights of Data Principal” mentions the “Right to be Forgotten.”
It states that the “data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by a data fiduciary”.
Therefore, broadly, under the Right to be forgotten, users can de-link, limit, delete or correct the disclosure of their personal information held by data fiduciaries.
A data fiduciary means any person, including the State, a company, any juristic entity or any individual who alone or in conjunction with others determines the purpose and means of processing of personal data.
Even so, the sensitivity of the personal data and information cannot be determined independently by the person concerned, but will be overseen by the Data Protection Authority (DPA).
This means that while the draft bill gives some provisions under which a data principal can seek that his data be removed, but his or her rights are subject to authorisation by the Adjudicating Officer who works for the DPA.
While assessing the data principal’s request,
this officer will need to examine the sensitivity of the personal data,
the scale of disclosure, degree of accessibility sought to be restricted,
role of the data principal in public life and the nature of the disclosure among some other variables.

Do other countries recognise this right?

The Center for Internet and Society notes that the “right to be forgotten” gained prominence when the matter was referred to the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEC) in 2014 by a Spanish Court.
In this case, one Mario Costeja González disputed that the Googlesearch results for his name continued to show results leading to an auction notice of his reposed home.
González said that the fact that Google continued to show these in its search results related to him was a breach of his privacy, given that the matter was resolved, the center notes.
In the European Union (EU), the right to be forgotten empowers individuals to ask organisations to delete their personal data.
It is provided by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a law passed by the 28-member bloc in 2018.
According to the EU GDPR’s website, the right to be forgotten appears in Recitals 65 and 66 and in Article 17 of the regulation, which states,
“The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay” (if one of a number of conditions applies).
In its landmark ruling, the EU’s highest court ruled in 2019 that the ‘right to be forgotten’ under European law would not apply beyond the borders of EU member states.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favour of the search engine giant Google, which was contesting a French regulatory authority’s order to have web addresses removed from its global database.
This ruling was considered an important victory for Google, and laid down that the online privacy law cannot be used to regulate the internet in countries such as India, which are outside the EU.

International Jurisprudence

United Kingdom Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974) and the ‘Spent Conviction Scheme’ have the effect of limiting the disclosure of certain offences
RTBF took shape largely from the 1995 Directive of the European Union on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
established in the European Union General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) 2016, which came into force on the 25th May 2018.