Current Affairs for UPSC and PCS exams October 4, 2024
G4 Countries’ Call for UN Security Council Reforms
Why in News?
- The G4 countries (India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan) have renewed their calls for urgent reforms of the UN Security Council (UNSC) ahead of the UN’s 80th anniversary in 2025.
- This push for reforms is supported by other plurilateral groupings like the L69 and C-10, with India addressing the 79th UN General Assembly (UNGA) to share its perspectives.
Key Groupings Advocating for UNSC Reform:
1. G4 Group:
- Formed in 2004 by Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, this group aspires for permanent UNSC membership.
- The G4 supports each other’s bids for UNSC reform, meeting regularly during the UNGA sessions to push for change.
2. L69 Group:
- Consists of 42 developing nations from Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.
- Advocates for expanding both permanent and non-permanent UNSC seats to reflect current global realities and to enhance accountability and representation.
- Calls for reviewing the permanent membership composition every 15 years.
3. C-10 Group:
- A Committee of Ten African nations formed by the African Union, advocating for better representation of Africa in the UNSC.
- The group’s position is based on the Ezulwini Consensus (2005) and the Sirte Declaration (1999), which call for 2 permanent seats with veto power and 5 non-permanent seats for African nations.
Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN):
- The IGN is an informal group working within the UN to advance UNSC reform.
- Members include the African Union, G4 nations, the L69 group, Uniting for Consensus Group (UfC), Arab League, and Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
Procedure for UNSC Reforms:
- Stage 1: The UN General Assembly must approve reforms with a two-thirds majority (128 out of 193 member states), without allowing a veto.
- Stage 2: Once approved, the UN Charter is amended as an international treaty, requiring ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all P5 nations. This stage allows the P5 members to influence the process through their national legislatures.
India’s Key Speech at the 79th UNGA:
1. Reform of Multilateralism:
- India supported the theme “Leaving no one behind,” calling for reforms in international systems to ensure equitable contributions, peace, and prosperity.
2. India’s Initiatives:
- Focused on vulnerable groups such as women, farmers, and youth through targeted policies.
- Expanded employment and entrepreneurship opportunities.
- Promoted replicable governance models and digital infrastructure.
- Hosted Global South Summits to amplify concerns of developing nations.
3. Call for Unity:
- India urged global cooperation and resource-sharing to create positive change.
4. Condemnation of Terrorism:
- India condemned Pakistan’s role in radicalization and terrorism, highlighting the need for UN sanctions against terrorists without political interference, indirectly criticizing China.
5. Critique of Unfair Economic Practices:
- India criticized the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), asserting that projects undermining sovereignty should be approached with caution.
6. Call for Global Solutions:
- India urged the international community to resolve conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and Gaza conflict, emphasizing a need to avoid a fatalistic mindset.
MCQs:
1. Which of the following is a key demand of the L69 Group regarding UN Security Council reforms?
- A) Permanent membership for only developed countries
- B) Expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats
- C) Permanent membership review every 25 years
- D) Abolishment of the UNSC veto power
2. What is the Ezulwini Consensus, as referenced in discussions on UNSC reforms?
- A) A global trade agreement
- B) A UN resolution against terrorism
- C) An African Union framework for UNSC reforms
- D) A climate change treaty
Asset Declaration by Judges
Why in News?
- Recently, an RTI reply revealed that only 13% of High Court judges have declared their assets in the public domain.
Key Facts Regarding Asset Declaration by Judges:
- Low Declarations: Out of 749 High Court judges, only 98 (13%) have disclosed assets publicly.
- Concentration: 80% of these disclosures come from Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, and Delhi High Courts.
- Supreme Court’s Partial Disclosure: 27 of 33 Supreme Court judges declared assets but without details.
- Varied Responses: Different High Courts like Allahabad, Bombay, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana have avoided or restricted disclosures.
Provisions for Declaration of Assets by Judges:
- All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968: Civil servants must declare assets, which applies to judges as well.
- 1997 Restatement of Judicial Values: Judges must declare assets to the Chief Justice.
- 2009 Resolution: Judges voluntarily agreed to declare assets on the Supreme Court’s website.
- Precedents: Other constitutional authorities like the CAG already declare their assets publicly.
- Recommendations: Parliamentary committees have pushed for mandatory judicial asset disclosure.
Need for Asset Declaration by Judges:
- Public Trust and Accountability: Transparency is key as judges review significant public policies.
- Strengthening Confidence: Public trust in the judiciary would increase through regular asset declarations.
- Transparency: The SC recognized the Chief Justice’s office as a public authority under RTI, enhancing the need for transparency.
International Practices:
- United States: Judges disclose income and gifts under the Ethics in Government Act.
- South Korea: Judges must disclose real property and shares under the Public Services Ethics Act.
- Philippines: Judges declare assets under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- Russia: Anti-corruption laws mandate asset and income declarations for judges and their families.
Concerns:
- Privacy and Security: Public disclosure could endanger judges and their families.
- Misuse of Information: Potential for political or personal misuse.
- Judicial Independence: Asset declaration may compromise impartiality and independence.
- Voluntary Nature: Uneven transparency due to voluntary nature of asset disclosures.
Way Forward:
-
- Enact Legislation: A parliamentary committee recommended annual property returns for judges.
- Clear Protocols: SC should set specific protocols for asset declaration.
- Annual Public Reports: Similar to other authorities, annual reports summarizing asset disclosures could be published.
- Balance Privacy and Accountability: Balance must be struck between public accountability and privacy.
MCQs:
1. Which of the following is a major concern regarding public asset disclosure by judges?
- A) Strengthening public trust
- B) Enhancing judicial independence
- C) Compromising privacy and security
- D) Increasing transparency
2. According to the 1997 Restatement of Judicial Values, to whom are judges required to declare their assets?
- A) The Parliament
- B) Chief Justice of India
- C) The President of India
- D) Attorney General
Supreme Court’s Disapproval of Prolonged Detention under PMLA
1. Why in News?
- The Supreme Court (SC) recently criticized the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for being misused to prolong pretrial detention.
- The Court emphasized that indefinite pretrial detention under the PMLA will not be allowed.
2. Key Points of SC’s Ruling on PMLA and Bail
- No Arbitrary Detention: Courts can order the release of an accused if their detention continues without a clear trial timeline, even if a prima facie case exists.
- Section 45 of PMLA: Bail can be granted if the accused proves prima facie innocence and assures the court they won’t commit an offense while on bail.
- Bail Principles Affirmed: The SC reaffirmed the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” and stressed that stringent bail conditions must not lead to indefinite loss of liberty.
- Judicial Concerns on Delayed Trials: Delayed trials and harsh bail conditions under special laws like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act were noted. The SC urged expeditious trial processes.
- Judicial Authority to Grant Bail: Stringent provisions do not prevent constitutional courts from granting bail in cases of excessively delayed trials.
- Impact on Fundamental Rights: Prolonged incarceration infringes on Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Delays may result in unjust deprivation of liberty.
- Potential Claims for Compensation: The SC suggested that wrongful imprisonment may lead to claims for compensation under Article 21.
3. Concerns Regarding India’s Bail System
- High Proportion of Undertrials: 75% of the prison population in India consists of undertrials, highlighting inefficiencies in the bail system.
- Presumption of Innocence: The large number of undertrials undermines the principle of “presumption of innocence.”
- Challenges in Bail Adjudication and Compliance: Bail conditions like cash bonds and surety make it difficult for economically weaker individuals to secure release. Many undertrials remain imprisoned despite being granted bail.
4. Supreme Court Judgments on Bail System
- Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1978): Bail should be granted unless the accused is likely to tamper with evidence or abscond.
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1978): Reinforced that “bail is the rule, and jail is an exception.”
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022): The court must ensure bail conditions do not disproportionately affect the accused.
5. Way Forward
- Simplification of Bail Conditions: Bail conditions need simplification, especially for economically disadvantaged people.
- Safeguards Against Arbitrary Arrests: Guidelines are necessary to protect vulnerable individuals from arbitrary arrests.
- Speedy Trials: Speedy trials are crucial for reducing overcrowding in jails.
- Community-Based Supervision Programs: Programs involving monitoring by local organizations can help reduce reliance on bail.
MCQs:
- What principle did the Supreme Court reaffirm in relation to bail in its ruling on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)?
- a) “Jail is the rule, bail is the exception.”
- b) “Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.”
- c) “Accused must be kept in custody until proven innocent.”
- d) “No bail is allowed under PMLA.”
- According to the SC, prolonged pretrial detention without a clear timeline for the trial may infringe upon which fundamental right?
- a) Right to Equality (Article 14)
- b) Right to Property (Article 19)
- c) Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)
- d) Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25)
