Q.

A. Rough framework Primary Answer

Intro he Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has
lifted millions out of poverty since its inception
in 2005. It created more than two billion
person-days of employment in 2016-17 alone,
states the VNR report. However, budgetary
allocation to the scheme has slowed down in
recent years, resulting in pending payments of
Rs. 7,000 crore, according to the Centre for
Policy Research. To reduce hunger and
malnutrition, the National Food Security Act
aims to provide foodgrains to 66% of the
population, covering about 800 million people.
To ensure transparency, 77% of the ration
cards have been linked to Aadhaar. But field
evidence suggests that mandatory linkage
with Aadhaar is excluding the most-needy in
interior tribal areas, points out Rajkishor
Mishra of Right to Food Campaign.

Main body

Conclusion

Final Answer

Intro

Main body
Conclusion

Remarks Aadhar mandatory- http://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-aadhaar-

card-and-where-is-it-mandatory-4587547/

Tabulate it.
Q.

A. Rough framework Primary Answer

Intro

Main body Role of technology

What underlies the scepticism expressed

regarding a revival of global trade?

The view is based on the observation that

especially 19th century globalisation was
underpinned by technological advances that
facilitated trade. The advent of the
telegraph is alluded to along with the
invention of the internal combustion
engine. The former enabled the
communications infrastructure intrinsic to
trade and the latter enabled the fast, reliable
and cheap transportation of goods across
seas. These advances, we are told, dwarf
anything since, including the Internet, in
terms of their capacity to expand trade.
And, none is foreseen in the immediate future.

In the short run or the present, when the

global economy is sluggish, only domestic
investment can move demand.

On public investment

Independently of the twin balance sheet

problem, Keynesian economics has long
recognised that lowering the rate of interest
may not do much for private investment if the
expected rate of return is depressed.

Conclusion

How to raise demand?

We do, however, know how to buoy up

flagging demand. You do this through public
investment. In response to the argument
heard at the highest level of policymaking that
there are no viable projects to be had, one
 need only refer to a recent news report on the
state of our roads and bridges. It is reported
that 23 bridges and tunnels on Indias national
highways are over 100 years old, of which 17
require rehabilitation or major maintenance.
As many as 123 other bridges in the country
require immediate attention and 6,000 are
structurally distressed. Infrastructure is
unique in that spending on it raises aggregate
demand and when it actually comes on
stream, it raises the productivity of
investment elsewhere in the economy. Roads
and bridges are a metaphor for the public
infrastructure that the Indian economy can
fruitfully absorb today.

Final Answer

Intro

Main body

Conclusion

Remarks Twin balance sheet problem (TBS),

Twin balance sheet problem (TBS): Firms are highly leveraged, took a lot of loans
during the 2000 onward growth era, but growth slowed down, now they cant even
pay the interest on their loans from the generated revenues=stressed assets.
Q.

A. Rough framework Primary Answer

Intro Live broadcast of testimonials of public

officials in front of parliamentary committessd

Urjit Patel (failed to apprise of the value of

notes returned post demonetisation)

James Comey, former FBI director, live before

the Senate hearing

Televised Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch

before British parliamentary committee

German Bundestag has a glass dome, where

people can peep in from above, symbolically
conveying that people are above the
parliament.

The UK parliament keeps some of its select

committee meetings open to the public and
publishes a calendar of such meetings in
advance. The meetings of both the Senate
and the House of Representatives in the US
are open to public except in a few
circumstances when the matter being
discussed requires confidentiality owing to
reasons of national security, prosecution of a
criminal offence, trade secrets, etc. The
committees of the European Union Parliament
are open to the public and the proceedings
are broadcast live. In South Africa, the
constitution itself provides that the legislature
cannot exclude the public and the media
from a sitting of a committee unless it is
reasonable and justifiable to do so in an open
and democratic society.

Main body

Conclusion

Final Answer
Intro

Main body

Conclusion

Remarks
Q. http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/RNcufKfrRXehYaj2af1mfN/GST-impact-on-the-
infrastructure-sector.html

A. Rough framework Primary Answer

Intro The infrastructure sector is the backbone of

the Indian economy. The government has
been making efforts to boost the sector
through various schemes and incentives.

According to the government, total

infrastructure spending is expected to be
about 10% of GDP (gross domestic product)
during the 12th Five-Year Plan (201217), up
from 7.6% during the previous Plan.

A total of 6,604km has been constructed out

of the 15,000km target set for national
highways in 2016-17, says the ministry of
road transport and highways. The Airports
Authority of India plans to develop city-side
infrastructure at 13 regional airports, with
help from private entities for building of
hotels, car parks and other facilities.

Significant allocations have been made to

power, urban development and inland
waterways sectors. The above initiatives show
the firm commitment of the government to
infrastructure.

Main body

Conclusion

Final Answer

Intro
Main body

Conclusion

Remarks
Q.

A. Rough framework Primary Answer

Intro

Main body

Conclusion

Final Answer

Intro

Main body

Conclusion

Remarks
Q.

A. Rough framework Primary Answer

Intro SC indeed has jurisdiction over water

dispute matters

The Cauvery river water dispute gives

rise to whether and to what extent the
Supreme Court have jurisdiction to deal
with such matters. This question
assumes significance due to the spate of
orders passed over the last two months
and the perceived conflict between the
constitutional provisions and statutory
enactments.

Although the Inter-State River Water Disputes

Act, 1956 (ISRWDA), has worked
satisfactorily, problems over the Ravi-Beas
Rivers and the Cauvery disputes persist.
However, the Cauvery river dispute proves
more complex owing to its historical, legal and
political dimensions.

The ISRWDA was enacted under Article 262 of

Constitution of India on the eve of the
reorganisation of states on linguistic basis to
resolve the water disputes that would arise in
the use, control and distribution of an inter-
state river or river valley. Article 262 of the
Constitution provides a role for Parliament to
adjudicate conflicts over inter-state rivers that
arise among two or more state governments.
This Act further has undergone amendments
subsequently and its most significant one was
in 2002.

For instance, Article 262 read in isolation,

constrains the Supreme Court jurisdiction over
such disputes. Similarly, Section 11 of the
ISRWD Act says that neither the Supreme
Court nor any other court shall have or
exercise jurisdiction in respect to any water
dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal
under this Act. The award of the Tribunal is
equated with a decree or an order passed by
the Supreme Court. Therefore, the argument
arises that the Supreme Court cannot sit in
appeal over its own deemed order.

The Supreme Court in the 1950s ruled that

although tribunals have all the trappings of a
court, they are not courts. The underlying
meaning is very clear that though the
tribunals are vested with the analogous
judicial powers and are quasi judicial bodies,
they can never be equated with courts.

Even in the L Chandrakumar case, the

Supreme Court clearly stated that the High
Courts have the power of judicial review over
the orders and awards passed by
Administrative Tribunals. Hence, it is difficult
to comprehend how the river water tribunals
can be placed at a different, if not higher or
equal pedestal, with that of the Supreme
Court.

In view of this to opine that the Supreme

Court lacks jurisdiction is incorrect. The
Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the
Constitution. More than a court of law, it is a
court of justice and has an inherent authority
to right a wrong. Its responsibility is not akin
to that of dispensation of justice in accordance
with law alone but extends beyond the realms
of ordinary law and into the noble notions of
justice, fairness and equitability. This explains
why the Constitution itself acknowledges that
the law laid down by the Supreme Court
amounts to the law of the land.

Some jurists support the primacy of the

judiciary, the Constitution and the law, but
opine that Article 262 and the ISRWDA
restrains the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Other legal thinkers contend that the
Constituent Assembly conceived some special
machinery, sans judicial review, to deal with
extraordinary circumstances like river water
disputes.

Yet some scholars posit that states possess

autonomy in a federation and therefore inter-
state rivers do not have rights like Article 131
which flow from the Constitution. Under
Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute
between the Government of India and one or
more states or between two or more states.
This provision empowers the apex court to
deal with the disputes like civil suits.

Power over tribunals

Importantly, Article 136 of the Constitution
empowers the Supreme Court to grant special
leave to appeal from any order etc, passed or
made by any court or tribunal. This power is a
plenary or comprehensive one and the
Supreme Court invokes the same in cases
where a substantial question of law is
involved. This provision alone is enough to
conclude both jurisprudentially and
 constitutionally that the apex court has
jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals in the
territory of India.

The Supreme Court in the exercise of its

jurisdiction may, under Article 142, make
orders for doing complete justice. It, as a
guardian of the Constitution, enjoys a
comprehensive jurisdiction to uphold the
values enshrined in it.

A combined reading of Article 262 and the

relevant provisions of ISRWD Act, apparently
tend to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to some extent. As such, Article 262 is
only an enabling one.

But to contend that the Supreme Court has no

jurisdiction whatsoever over the river water
disputes is to stretch constitutional
jurisprudence a bit too far that verges on an
attempt to stifle the independence of judiciary
which is the basic structure of the
Constitution. The other provisions and values
discussed certainly have an over-powering
force.

That apart, it should be remembered that

there is virtually no appeal against an award
passed by a river water tribunal and thus the
aggrieved party lacks recourse to have the
final word by the topmost court of the
country.

Perhaps, Karnataka counsel Fali S Nariman

argues in view of the primacy of the Supreme
Court that such disputes should in fact be
handed over to it and the ISRWDA should be
repealed. It is appropriate to note that in the
United States of America, the Supreme Court
adjudicates river water disputes.

Main body 2nd article:

Under article 136, the SC has to decide

whether it should grant or deny the requested
Special Leave Petition.

But it has accepted the SLP against Cauvery

Tribunals order by three states: Kerala,
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu without any
discussion.

This, despite the fact that article 262 is an

enabling provision for the ISWD Act, 1956,
amended in 2002, that the SCs jurisdiction
does not apply to ISWDs.
What are the ways in which the bar can be
overcome? Among the possible routes are
Articles 32, 131, and 136 of the Constitution.

Article 32 relates to fundamental rights, and it

does not seem easy to invoke it in the context
of river water sharing. That Article was, in
fact, invoked in a petition by the Bangalore
Water Users' Association. Among the BWUA's
arguments was the one that the Tribunal's
allocation to Karnataka did not make an
adequate provision for Bangalore's drinking
water needs and that this constituted a
violation of a fundamental right. It is not clear
whether the fundamental right to drinking
water implies a fundamental right to drinking
water from a particular source, namely the
Cauvery. There are other related issues,
including above all the question whether any
individual or organisation other than a State
Government had any locus standi in relation
to adjudication under the ISWD Act. In the
event, the Supreme Court dismissed the
BWUA's petition on the ground of absence of
locus standi. The question of fundamental
rights, etc., did not come up at all.

Article 131 is about Centre-State or inter-

State disputes in general, whereas Article 262
is specifically about inter-State river water
disputes. It is not clear to this writer how a
general provision can be invoked in a case
covered by a specific provision. Besides,
clause (2) of Article 262 that enables the
barring of the jurisdiction of the courts begins
with the words "Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution": that does not seem to
leave recourse to Article 131 open. However,
the question whether Article 131 provides a
route for an appeal to the Supreme Court
against an ISWD Tribunal's Order has not
come up for consideration.

Article 136 is the actual route taken by the

three petitioner States in this case. The
wording of the Article, and in particular the
reference to "any Court or tribunal in the
territory of India," seems to bring the ISWD
Tribunals within the purview of the Article, but
we cannot forget the specific bar in the ISWD
Act in pursuance of Article 262; and, as
mentioned above, that Article begins with a
"notwithstanding anything in this Constitution"
clause. Is that clause over-ridden by Article
136? That question was not discussed before
the petitions were admitted. Perhaps it will
come up at a later stage.
 In conclusion, we must take note of an
alternative suggestion made by the National
Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution. This was to the effect that the
ISWD Act should be repealed and that inter-
State river water disputes should be brought
within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, as is the case in the United States

Conclusion

Final Answer

Intro The key similarities and differences between President and Governor are given
below:

Contents [hide]

Similarities

Differences

Similarities

Both the President and Governor have the status of Constitutional Heads.

All executive decisions are taken in their name but actual power is
exercised by Council of Ministers

All ordinary / money bills passed must get their assent before they become
an act.

Both of them have powers to promulgate ordinances

All Money bills can be introduced with prior recommendation of President in

the Lok Sabha and Governor in the state legislature.

Differences

The discretionary powers of Governor are with wider scope in the

state than the President in the Union.

Governor cannot grant pardon to somebody convicted and sentenced to

death, although he can commute such sentence. Only president has power
to pardon someone sentenced to death.

President can nominate two members of Anglo-Indian Community in Lok

Sabha, Governor can nominate one member of Anglo-Indian Community in
State Legislature.

President nominates 12 members in Rajya Sabha. Governor nominates

1/6th members of State Legislative Council wherever bicameral
legislatures exist in states.
 Only President can declare war or peace.

Only President can pardon a person punished under Martial law.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-case-that-saved-indian-
democracy/article4647800.ece

Main body

Conclusion

Remarks