A new study from Wuhan has studied the role of T-Cell Immunity against prolonged and sever COVID-19.
What are T-Cells?
Like B cells, which produce antibodies, T cells are central players in the immune response to viral infection.
For your immune system to fight off any kind of invader, such as a virus, you need a kind of white blood cell called a B cell, which makes antibodies, and a similar-looking white blood cell called a T cell.
T cells can play different roles altogether.
They can act as “killer cells”, attacking cells which have been infected with a virus or another kind of pathogen, or they can act as “helper cells” by supporting B cells to produce antibodies.
How do they function?
Alongside antibodies, the immune system produces a battalion of T cells that can target viruses.
Some of these, known as killer T cells (or CD8+ T cells), seek out and destroy cells that are infected with the virus.
Others, called helper T cells (or CD4+ T cells) are important for various immune functions, including stimulating the production of antibodies and killer T cells.
T cells do not prevent infection, because they kick into action only after a virus has infiltrated the body. But they are important for clearing an infection that has already started.
In the case of COVID-19, killer T cells could mean the difference between a mild infection and a severe one that requires hospital treatment.
What did the latest research find?
The researchers found that neutralising antibodies were detectable even 12 months after infection in “most individuals”.
It remained stable 6-12 months after initial infection in people younger than 60 years.
The researchers found that “multifunctional T cell responses were detected for all SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins tested”.
And most importantly, the magnitude of T cell responses did not show any difference immaterial of how severe the disease was.
While the ability of antibodies to neutralise was nearly absent against the Beta variant, it was reduced in the case of the Delta variant.
Neutralizing antibodies
SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralising antibody and T cell responses were retained 12 months after initial infection.
Neutralising antibodies to the D614G, Beta, and Delta were reduced compared with those for the original strain, and were diminished in general.
Memory T cell responses to the original strain were not disrupted by new variants.
The findings show that robust antibody and T cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is present in majority of recovered patients 12 months after moderate-to-critical infection.
Robustness of antibodies
The study reveals the durability and robustness of the T cell responses against variants, including Delta, even after one year of infection.
Most importantly, the robust and longstanding T cell responses were seen in people who have not been reinfected or vaccinated.
This would mean even in the absence of vaccination, a person who has been infected by the virus even one year ago would have robust immune responses.
It would offer protection against disease progressing to a severe form requiring hospitalization.
About 2.45 lakh Olive Ridley sea turtles crawled ashore on the Nasi-II beach of the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary along the Odisha coast for laying eggs, marking one of the largest opening day arrivals of turtles at the site.
Olive Ridley Turtles
The Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), also known as the Pacific ridley sea turtle, is a medium-sized species of sea turtle found in warm and tropical waters, primarily in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
In the Indian Ocean, the majority of olive ridleys nest in two or three large groups at Rushikulya rookery near Gahirmatha in Odisha.
The coast of Odisha in India is the largest mass nesting site for the olive ridley, followed by the coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica.
The species is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, Appendix 1 in CITES, and Schedule 1 in Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Special feature: Mass nesting
They are best known for their behavior of synchronized nesting in mass numbers, termed Arribadas.
Interestingly, females return to the very same beach from where they first hatched, to lay their eggs.
They lay their eggs in conical nests about one and a half feet deep which they laboriously dig with their hind flippers.
They hatch in 45 to 60 days, depending on the temperature of the sand and atmosphere during the incubation period.
The Draft India Data Accessibility and Use Policy 2022 released in February for public consultation, is silent on the norms, rules, and mechanisms to bring to fruition its vision.
Aims of the policy
The Draft Policy aims for harnessing public sector data for informed decision-making, citizen-centric delivery of public services, and economy-wide digital innovation.
It seeks to maximise access to and use of quality non-personal data (NPD) available with the public sector, overcoming a number of historical bottlenecks.
This GovTech 3.0 approach — to unlock the valuable resource of public sector data — does upgrade the OGD vision of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP), 2012.
It seeks to harness data-based intelligence for governance and economic development.
What is lacking in the draft policy?
Lacking in norms and rules: The Draft Policy is silent on the norms, rules, and mechanisms to bring to fruition its vision of data-supported social transformation.
Ignores the canons of RTI: Any attempt to promote meaningful citizen engagement with data cannot afford to ignore the canons of the Right to Information (RTI), and hence, the need for certain citizen data sets with personal identifiers to be in the public domain, towards making proactive disclosure meaningful.
The unfinished task of the NDSAP in bringing coherence between restrictions on the availability of sensitive personal information in the public domain and India’s RTI, therefore, has been lost sight of.
Risks to group privacy: With respect to government-to-government data sharing for citizen-centric service delivery, the Draft Policy highlights that approved data inventories will be federated into a government-wide, searchable database.
But even in the case of anonymised citizen data sets (that is no longer personal data), downstream processing can pose serious risks to group privacy.
Lack of data trusteeship framework: The Draft Policy adheres to the NDSAP paradigm of treating government agencies as ‘owners’ of the data sets they have collected and compiled instead of shifting to the trusteeship paradigm recommended by the 2020 Report of the MEITY Committee of Experts on non-personal data governance.
The lack of a data trusteeship framework gives government agencies unilateral privileges to determine the terms of data licensing.
Suggestions
Taking on board a trusteeship-based approach, the proposed Draft Policy must pay attention to data quality, and ensure that licensing frameworks and any associated costs do not pose an impediment to data accessibility for non-commercial purposes.
Create common and interoperable data spaces: In the current context, where the most valuable data resources are held by the private sector, it is increasingly evident to policymakers that socioeconomic innovation depends on the state’s ability to catalyse wide-ranging data-sharing from both public and private sector actors across various sectors.
The European Union, for instance, has focused on the creation of common, interoperable data spaces to encourage voluntary data-sharing in specific domains such as health, energy and agriculture.
Mandatory data sharing arrangement: Creating the right conditions for voluntary data-sharing is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for democratising data innovation.
In this regard, the data stewardship model for high-value data sets proposed by the MEITY’s Committee of Experts in their Report on Non-Personal Data Governance (2020) is instructive.
In this model, a government/not-for-profit organisation may request the Non-Personal Data Authority or NPDA for the creation of a high-value data set (only non-personal data) in a particular sector, demonstrating the specific public interest purpose.
Once such a request is approved by the NPDA, the data trustee has the right to request data-sharing from all major custodians of data sets corresponding to the high-value data set category in question – both public and private.
Conclusion
What we need is a new social contract for data whereby:
a) the social commons of data are governed as an inappropriable commons that belong to all citizens;
b) the government is the custodian or trustee with fiduciary responsibility to promote data use for public good; and
c) democratisation of data value is ensured through accountable institutional mechanisms for data governance.
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the killings in West Bengal’s Birbhum district, where eight persons were burnt alive.
About CBI
The Bureau of Investigation traces its origins to the Delhi Special Police Establishment, a Central Government Police force, which was set up in 1941 by the Government of India.
It then aimed to investigate bribery and corruption in transactions with the War and Supply Department of India.
It then had its headquarters in Lahore.
After the end of the war, there was a continued need for a central governmental agency to investigate bribery and corruption by central-government employees.
The DSPE acquired its popular current name, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), through a Home Ministry resolution dated in 1963.
Mandate of the CBI
The CBI is the main investigating agency of the GoI.
It is not a statutory body; it derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Its important role is to prevent corruption and maintain integrity in administration.
It works under the supervision of the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) in matters pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The CBI is also India’s official representative with theINTERPOL.
Cases to investigate
Cases connected to infringement of economic and fiscal laws
Crimes of a serious nature that have national and international ramifications
Coordination with the activities of the various state police forces and anti-corruption agencies.
It can also take up any case of public importance and investigate it
Maintaining crime statistics and disseminating criminal information.
How does the CBI take up cases?
Unlike the NIA, CBI cannot take suo motu cognizance of a case in a state — whether in a matter of corruption involving government officials of the Centre and PSU staff, or an incident of violent crime.
In order to take up corruption cases involving central government staff, it either needs general consent (see last question) of the state government, or specific consent on a case-to-case basis.
For all other cases, whether involving corruption in the state government or an incident of crime, the state has to request an investigation by the CBI, and the Centre has to agree to the same.
In case the state does not make such a request, the CBI can take over a case based on the orders of the High Court concerned or the Supreme Court.
Can the CBI decline to take up a case for investigation?
After a state makes a request for an inquiry by the CBI, the Centre seeks the opinion of the agency.
If the CBI feels that it is not worthwhile for it to expend time and energy on the case, it may decline to take it up.
In the past, the CBI has refused to take over cases citing lack of enough personnel to investigate, and saying it is overburdened.
What is the CBI’s workload currently?
According to the latest Annual Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, the CBI registered 608 FIRs in 2019 and 589 FIRs in 2020.
In 2020, a total 86 cases related to demands for bribes by public servants for showing favour, and 30 cases for possession of disproportionate assets were registered.
Out of 676 cases in the year (including FIRs and Preliminary Enquiries), 107 cases were taken up on the directions of constitutional courts and 39 on requests from state governments/ Union Territories.
Also, there are over 1,300 vacancies in the CBI.
What is the CBI’s progress on cases?
At the end of 2020, the CBI had 1,117 cases (both FIRs and PEs) pending investigation. In 2019, this number stood at 1,239.
During 2020, investigation was finalised in 693 FIRs and 105 PEs.
The conviction rate during the year was 69.83% against 69.19% in 2019.
At the end of 2020, 9,757 cases were pending in various courts.
The conviction rate in corruption cases was slightly lower at 67% in 2020.
Almost 2,000 corruption cases are pending trial for more than 10 years.
What is the role of state consent in an investigation by the CBI?
Since 2015, as many as nine states — Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Mizoram and Meghalaya — have withdrawn general consent to the CBI.
Opposition-ruled states have alleged the CBI has become its master’s voice, and has been unfairly targeting opposition politicians.
Withdrawal of general consent means that to probe any case in these states, CBI would have to take prior permission from the state government.
Recently, the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2022 was introduced in Lok Sabha. The Bill seeks to amend the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 passed by Parliament. The Act was earlier amended in 2011 by Delhi Legislative Assembly to trifurcate the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi into:
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
The Bill seeks to unify the three corporations.
What are the key features of the Bill?
(1) Unification of Municipal Corporations in Delhi:
The Bill replaces the three municipal corporations under the Act with one Corporation named the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(2) Powers of the Delhi government:
The Act as amended in 2011 empowers the Delhi government to decide various matters under the Act.
These include:
Total number of seats of councillors and number of seats reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes,
Division of the area of corporations into zones and wards,
Delimitation of wards,
Matters such as salary and allowances, and leave of absence of the Commissioner,
Sanctioning of consolidation of loans by a corporation, and
Sanctioning suits for compensation against the Commissioner for loss or waste or misapplication of Municipal Fund or property
Similarly, the Act mandates that the Commissioner will exercise his powers regarding building regulations under the general superintendence and directions of Delhi government.
The Bill instead empowers the central government to decide these matters.
(3) Number of councilors:
The Act provides that the number of seats in the three corporations taken together should not be more than 272.
The 14th Schedule to the Act specifies 272 wards across the three Corporations.
The Bill states that the total number of seats in the new Corporation should not be more than 250.
(4) Removal of Director of Local Bodies:
The Act provides for a Director of Local Bodies to assist the Delhi government and discharge certain functions which include:
Coordinating between Corporations,
Framing recruitment Rules for various posts, and
Coordinating the collecting and sharing of toll tax collected by the respective Corporations.
The Bill omits this provision for a Director of Local Bodies.
(5) Special officer to be appointed by the central government:
The Bill provides that the central government may appoint a Special Officer to exercise powers of the Corporation until the first meeting of the Corporation is held after the commencement of the Bill.
(6) E-governance system for citizens:
The Bill adds that obligatory functions of the new Corporation will include establishing an e-governance system for citizen services on anytime-anywhere basis for better, accountable, and transparent administration.
(7) Conditions of service for sweepers:
The Act provides that a sweeper employed for doing house scavenging of a building would be required to give a reasonable cause or a 14 day notice before discontinuing his service.
The Bill seeks to omit this provision.
What is the need for this unification?
Creating compact municipalities in Delhi to provide more efficient civic services to the public has not been achieved.
Instead, owing to inadequacies in resources and uncertainty in fund allocation and release, the three corporations have been facing huge financial hardships.
This was making it difficult for them to maintain the civic services in Delhi at the desired levels.
Trifurcation of the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi was uneven in terms of territorial divisions and revenue generating potential.
As a result, there was a huge gap in the resources available to the three corporations compared to their obligations.
It says that the gap has grown, leading to delay in the payment of salaries and retirement benefits which have resulted in frequent strikes.
What are the concerns, if enacted?
New delimitation exercise: Reducing the number of seats means a new delimitation exercise will have to be conducted, which experts say will take at least three months, but is more likely to take six months.
Bureaucratization: Appointing a Special Officer means that until the elections are concluded, the Centre will likely appoint an officer to run the corporation.
The Bill also does away with the provision of appointing a Director of Local Bodies by the Delhi government.
Central hegemony: The other significant change is the replacement of the word “government” with “Central government” in all places.
The bill hence seeks to curtail the powers of the elected govt of New Delhi by introducing central hegemony.
But this is not the first time that there is a political tussle between the Delhi government and the center. There are various issues earlier which are important from the exam point of view. Let us discuss them.
Jurisdictional conflict in the running of Delhi
Delhi Government had accused Lieutenant Governor (LG) of referring the decisions of an elected government to President and thus causing hurdles in governance
The Centre, which appoints the L-G, contends that “for any Centrally administered territory and especially Delhi responsibility is on the Union Government”.
Also, Delhi, being a Union territory, does not have a cadre of officers of its own and is part of a common cadre shared with other UTs. Thus, the elected government of Delhi has less control over its officers.
Supreme Court on Delhi Governance Structure
Supreme Court view: Delhi Lieutenant Governor cannot act independently and must take the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
All decisions by Delhi’s council of ministers must be communicated to the L-G but that does not mean his concurrence is required.
Except for issues of public order, police and land, the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
TheLG has no independent authority to take decisions except in matters under Article 239 or matters outside the purview of the government.
L-G cannot act as an obstructionist and can refer issues to the President when there is the difference of opinion on any matter(Article 239AA(4)).
This should happen only in exceptional matters and not as a general rule
The government need not obtain LG concurrence in every issue of day-to-day governance. The national capital enjoys a special status and is not a full state.
Government of National Capital Territory (GNCT) of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021
The Act defines the responsibilities of the elected government and the L-G along with the “constitutional scheme of governance of the NCT” interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent judgments regarding the division of powers between the two entities.
Provisions of the GNCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021
It amended the Sections 21, 24, 33 and 44 of the 1991 Act.
States that the “government” in the National Capital Territory of Delhi meant the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi.
It gives discretionary powers to the L-G even in matters where the Legislative Assembly of Delhi is empowered to make laws.
It seeks to ensure that the L-G is “necessarily granted an opportunity” to give her or his opinion before any decision taken by the Council of Ministers (or the Delhi Cabinet) is implemented.
It bars the Assembly or its committees from making rules to take up matters concerning day-to-day administration, or to conduct inquiries in relation to administrative decisions.
Way Forward
Greater transparency, improved governance, and more efficient delivery of civic service
According to Article 239AA of the Constitution of India, the Parliament has the power to amend or form laws on any matter formulated by the Delhi Assembly.
At the time when the MCD was trifurcated, the expectation was that it would lead to Delhi’s progress. It was thought that the services provided by the MCDs will improve and there will be welfare of its workers. But, the result was unsatisfactory in the last 10 years.
The Bill has been introduced for greater transparency, improved governance and more efficient delivery of civic service for the people of Delhi, and also to ease the financial crisis faced by MCDs at present.
Delhi cannot be unitary
What distinguishes Delhi from other federal districts is sheer size. Its population would subsume the populations of the above-mentioned cities.
Its closest peer is Mexico City. In a significant development, Mexico City was upgraded from federal district to the country’s 32nd state in 2016.
This was driven by the desire to provide more responsive government for residents.
Decentralization of decision-making is important
There are alternative ways in which both the central government as well as state authorities can partake jointly in the management of the city.
This might be achieved by a two-tier metropolitan authority.
Control over police
Control over-policing has been a major point of contention in Delhi.
With the lone exception of Abuja, in other federal districts, the local governments have jurisdiction over at least some aspects of policing.
The envoys to India of nine Eastern European countries called Bucharest Nine jointly wrote to acquaint the Indian public with the basic facts on the ground” about the “premeditated, unprovoked and unjustified Russian aggression in Ukraine”.
What is Bucharest Nine?
The “Bucharest Nine” is a group of nine NATO countries in Eastern Europe that became part of the US-led military alliance after the end of the Cold War.
The Bucharest Nine or Bucharest Format, often abbreviated as the B9, was founded on November 4, 2015, and takes its name from Bucharest, the capital of Romania.
The group was created on the initiative of Klaus Iohannis, who has been President of Romania since 2014, and Andrzej Duda, who became President of Poland in August 2015.
Composition
The B9 are, apart from Romania and Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the three Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
All members of the B9 are part of the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
All nine countries were once closely associated with the now dissolved Soviet Union, but later chose the path of democracy.
Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria are former signatories of the now-dissolved Warsaw Pact military alliance led by the Soviet Union.
The other Warsaw Pact countries were the erstwhile Czechoslovakia and East Germany, and Albania. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were part of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
Functions of B9
The B9 offers a platform for deepening the dialogue and consultation among the participant allied states, in order to articulate their specific contribution to the ongoing processes across the North-Atlantic Alliance.
It works in total compliance with the principles of solidarity and indivisibility of the security of the NATO Member States.
Opposition to Russian expansion
The B9 countries have been critical of President Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine since 2014, when the war in the Donbas started and Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the B9 met in Warsaw.
Ukraine’s President has also appealed to the B9 for defense aid, sanctions, pressure on the aggressor Russia and create one anti-war coalition.
The Solomon Islands has defended plans to sign a security deal with Beijing that could allow China to boost its military presence in the South Pacific island nation. This has left Australia very concerned.
Solomon Islands
Solomon Islands is a sovereign country consisting of six major islands and over 900 smaller islands in Oceania, to the east of Papua New Guinea and northwest of Vanuatu.
It has a land area of 28,400 square kilometres and a population of 652,858.[10] Its capital, Honiara, is located on the largest island, Guadalcanal.
The country takes its name from the Solomon Islands archipelago, which is a collection of Melanesian islands.
It also includes the North Solomon Islands (a part of Papua New Guinea), but excludes outlying islands, such as the Santa Cruz Islands and Rennell and Bellona.
The islands have been settled since at least some time between 30,000 and 28,800 BCE, with later waves of migrants, notably the Lapita people, mixing and producing the modern indigenous Solomon Islanders population.
On March 11, speaking at the NCRB Foundation Day, the Union Home Minister remarked that the second phase of the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) is set to be completed by 2026.
Increasing use of technology for policing
the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS), a Rs 3,500 crore project, is set to be completed by 2026 with increased use of artificial intelligence, fingerprint systems and other tools of predictive policing.
One crore fingerprints had already been uploaded and if these were available to all police stations as part of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS), there would no longer be any need to pursue criminals.
The existing systems of ICJS and CCTNS empower the state to cross-reference data between different pillars of the criminal justice system.
Recently, the Indore Police Commissioner unveiled a “fingerprint-based criminal record data fetching system” in which a small thumb impression machine can be added to a phone.
If the fingerprint recorded matches with the police database, all information about a person’s criminal record will be pulled up.
Issues with the use of technologies
Privacy concerns: The enthusiasm for generating and cross-referencing data to make policing more efficient ignores privacy concerns and structural faults of policing.
The Supreme Court in K.S Puttaswamy declared a fundamental right to informational privacy as paramount and noted that any measure that sought to collect information or surveil must be legal, necessary, and proportionate.
Fear of mass surveillance: Integrating “fingerprint-based criminal record data fetching system” to the list of predictive policing practices will give birth to mass surveillance, particularly of certain oppressed caste communities, based on little evidence.
Nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes were ascribed “criminality by birth” and considered as “hereditary criminals addicted to systematic commission of non-bailable offences” under the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871.
It has been replaced with the murky Habitual Offenders (HO) provisions, which have acted as a tool for police to continue to attribute criminality to Vimukta communities, by mandating their surveillance through regular check-ins at police stations.
Mere suspicion or FIRs filed against an individual are sufficient to trigger the discretionary powers of the police.
Consider the question “Use of technology in policing can make it better at the same time run the risk of making it more dangerous.” Critically examine.
Conclusion
With the increasing adoption of technology in policing, we must pay attention to the risks involved and the issue of misuse.
Finance Minister sought to remind Parliament that it was the country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who internationalized the Kashmir issue by taking it to the United Nations.
Kashmir at UN
The United Nations has played an advisory role in maintaining peace and order in the Kashmir region soon after the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947.
India took this matter to the UN Security Council, which passed resolution 39 (1948) and established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the issues and mediate between the two countries.
Following the cease-fire of hostilities, it also established the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire line.
Why did Nehru agree to these terms?
In December 1947, because the British perhaps suggested Nehru that this matter will not be resolved unless you take it to the UN.
British were convinced that an intermediary was needed.
Nehru, a loyalist to the British agreed upon the terms laid by Mountbatten.
It was Nehru who first put forth the idea of a referendum under the aegis of UN soon after independence.
There is evidence to believe Sardar Patel was uncomfortable with Nehru taking the matter to the UN, and thought it was a mistake.
Issue: Adventurism by Pakistan
The discussions in the Security Council on our complaint of aggression by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir took a very unfavourable turn.
Pakistan then succeeded, with the support of the British and American members creating a western bias against India.
Pakistan is misusing this till date paving wave for third-party intervention.
It is an issue which should not have gone to a global forum, it is essentially an Indian issue.
Article 35 of UN Charter
There has been some debate on whether India chose the wrong path to approach the UN.
In 2019, Home Minister said that had Nehru taken the matter to the UN under Article 51 of the UN Charter, instead of Article 35, the outcome could have been different.
India pointed out that J&K had acceded to India, and that the “Government of India considered the giving of this assistance by Pakistan to be an act of aggression against India.
Articles 33-38 of the UN Charter occur in Chapter 6, titled “Pacific (peaceful) Settlement of Disputes” :
These Articles lay out that:
the parties to a dispute that has the potential for endangering international peace and security are not able to resolve the matter through negotiations between them, or by any other peaceful means, or with the help of a “regional agency”
the Security Council may step in, with or without the invitation of one or another of the involved parties, and recommend “appropriate procedures or methods of recommendation”
Article 35 only says that any member of the UN may take a dispute to the Security Council or General Assembly
Article 51, which occurs in Chapter 7, titled “Action With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”
It says that a UN member has the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if attacked
Issues with the internationalization of Kashmir
Kashmir issue no longer remains bilateral; it has thus been internationalized.
However, India has been successful in perhaps internationalizing terrorism but not the Kashmir problem.
But unwarranted statements against India’s sovereign concerns are increasing these days.
Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions told the Lok Sabha that as on January 1, 2021, there were 5,231 IAS officers in the country — 1,515 (22.45 per cent) fewer than the sanctioned strength of 6,746.
About IAS
The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) is the administrative arm of the All India Services of Government of India.
Considered the premier central civil service of India, the IAS is one of the three arms of the All India Services along with the Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest Service.
Members of these three services serve the Government of India as well as the individual states.
IAS officers may also be deployed to various public sector undertakings and international organizations.
Functions of the IAS
Upon confirmation of service, an IAS officer serves a probationary period as a sub-divisional magistrate.
Completion of this probation is followed by an executive administrative role in a district as a district magistrate and collector which lasts several years.
After this tenure, an officer may be promoted to head a whole state administrative division, as a divisional commissioner.
How are officers recruited in the IAS?
Direct recruits are selected through the Civil Service Examination (CSE) every year; the number of recruits is decided by a committee that takes several factors into account.
Since 2012, 180 IAS officers have been recruited every year through the CSE.
A committee has been constituted to arrive at a suitable formula to determine the intake of IAS officers every year from CSE-2022 to 2030.
Some officers are promoted from the State Civil Services (SCS), and a limited number are promoted from among non-SCS officers.
Filling of vacancies through induction from State Services is a continuous process.
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) holds Selection Committee meetings with state governments.
Is the shortage a new trend?
The shortage has been a constant feature ever since — it was the least in 2001 (0.79 per cent), and the most in 2012 (28.87 per cent), as per available data.
How is the sanctioned strength decided?
There is a provision for quinquennial cadre reviews for every cadre of the All India Services under the relevant Cadre Rules.
The Cadre Review Committee (CRC) is headed by the Cabinet Secretary with the Secretary DoPT, Secretary Expenditure, Secretary Administrative Ministry, and the senior-most member of the service/cadre in question as its members.
Cadre review is an ongoing process, and some states are taken up by rotation every year for review — in 2020-21.
For example, it was decided to revise the strength and composition of the IAS in UP and Bihar, and of the IPS in Manipur.
The sanctioned strength, therefore, keeps changing.
What impact can a shortage of IAS officers have?
IAS officers are given a wide range of high-level responsibilities.
In states, their work relates to the collection of revenue, maintenance of law and order, and supervision of policies of the central and state governments.
They function as executive magistrates in revenue matters, and as development commissioners.
They supervise the spending of public funds and, at a senior level, contribute to policy formulation and decision-making in consultation with Ministers.
They serve the central government under deputation.
Other issues
State governments have sometimes refused to send IAS/IPS/Indian Forest Service officers to the Centre saying they are short of officers.
The Centre has recently proposed amendments to the IAS (Cadre) Rules in order to exercise greater control in central deputation of IAS officers.
Why can’t we have more IAS officers?
The B S Baswan Committee, said in its report submitted in 2016 that “any number above 180 would
Compromise quality
Exceed the LBNSAA’s (Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration’s) capacity and
Lead to a distortion in the career pyramid of IAS officers, particularly for senior posts in the Government of India
The Committee recommended that “vacant posts in the Centre and states can be filled by deputation where the number of deputationists would be less than the present.”
Issues with shortage of Officers
Bureaucracy deficit is, perhaps, compelling states to take recourse to such means as appointing non-cadre officers to cadre posts.
States allow them to continue in such posts beyond the permissible time limit besides giving multiple charges to serving officers.
Such measures compromise the efficiency of administration.
Way ahead
The DoPT should increase the annual intake of IAS officers significantly keeping in view the evolving needs of Indian administration.
