BLOGS
The Supreme Court allows women to take the NDA exam
More than a year after its landmark verdict granting permanent commission to Indian military women serving on the short-duty commission, the Supreme Court, in an interim order allowed female candidates to appear Entrance to the National Defense Academy (NDA) exam scheduled for September 5.
In declaring that the “political decision” to prohibit women from being admitted to the NDA “is based on discrimination based on sex”, a court of judges SK Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy asked the government “to have a constructive opinion on the matter”, and He referred to the judicial ruling of February 17 of last year that authorized a permanent commission of women officers.
The court heard a petition from attorney Kush Kalra, requesting instructions to allow eligible female candidates to sit for the NDA and Naval Academy exams conducted by the Union Civil Service Commission (UPSC).
The Judicial Branch asked the UPSC to issue a correction in accordance with its provisional directive and to “make it known so that the intention of the order is fulfilled.” He said, however, that the admission of candidates will be subject to the final outcome of the petition.
“Why are you continuing in this direction? Even after Judge Chandrachud’s trial broadened the horizons and extended the permanent commission in the army to women? That seems absurd to us,” the judiciary told Attorney General Aishwarya Bhati , who was presented by the Ministry of Defense.
On February 17 last year, a court of judges DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi asked the government to ensure that female Short Service Commission officers receive a permanent commission in the military, including command posts.
“Will the military act only when a court order is issued and not otherwise?” Judge Kaul asked. He said his impression of his time in Superior Court was that the military does not believe in doing things voluntarily, but only acts after a sentence is passed.
Judge Kaul said that even in the case of the standing committee, the military “continued to oppose it” and did not act until the orders were issued. He said that “the navy and air force are more open,” while “the military seems to have a bias not to implement.”
Denying any bias, the ASG said that there are three ways to recruit officers into the military: NDA, Officer Training Academy (OTA) and Indian Military Academy (IMA), and women are eligible to enter through IMA and OTA.
“Why is gender diversity a problem?” Judge Kaul asked, adding that “the effort is to persuade the military to do things themselves rather than give us orders.”
When the ASG said it was part of a “political decision”, Judge Kaul noted that “the political decision is based on discrimination based on sex.”
“Although it is a matter of politics, women are allowed in through two sources. Why should I say that an additional source of entry is closed to women? It is not only a gender principle, but also discrimination in other places, ”Judge Roy said.
The ASG said the NDA involved a different type of training, but the bank noted that women can now take on combat roles as well. Bhati said that while female fighter pilots were allowed into the air force, only ten branches of the army had been opened to them.
Stating that the Navy and Air Force seemed more liberal about it, the court said: “The mindset is not just changing. The attorney general who appeared before the Superior Court in the standing committee case was unable to persuade the military. Subsequently, the Supreme Court also provided many opportunities but this did not materialize. Also in law it has not regularized them. He kept them for many years and never gave a permanent commission ”.
The court asked the government to “start with some symbolic measure” and not force judicial intervention at all times. In stating that the court “may not understand all the complex technical aspects of your structure,” the court said that “you are in a better position to appreciate it.” Recruiters “must understand” the general principle of gender neutrality “and adapt it according to their particularities,” she said.
Meanwhile, sources in the Army said discussions to allow women into the NDA were on even before the Supreme Court’s interim order today.
The Spialia zebra butterfly
A winged “Pakistani” became the 1328th Indian of his kind around the time another winged creature from China gained similar status. Both were recorded by citizen scientists, non-professionals who contribute to scientific research and data collection, for the first time in the country, more than 1,100 km from their known ranges.
- The Spialia zebra butterfly was found in the Dungarpur district of Rajasthan, miles south of its known home which comprises Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and the Punjab province of Pakistan.
- The dragonfly Atratothemis reelsi has been reported in the Namdapha Tiger Reserve in southern Arunachal Pradesh, about 1,170 km west of its previously known closest locality, Xiaoqikong Park, in China’s Guizhou province.
- The sighting of the two insects was published in the latest issue of Bionotes, a quarterly research bulletin on life forms.
“The zebra pattern or Spialia zebra has added to the richness of the Rajasthan orchid belt that comprises the Phulwari ki Nal Wildlife Sanctuary and the Sita Mata Wildlife Sanctuary,”
Mukesh Panwar of Sagwara in the district of Dungarpur told.
- He collected a specimen of the zebra pattern and provided photographs to the Bhimtal Butterfly Research Center in Uttarakhand to register it as the first of its kind in the country.
“India now has 1,328 species of butterflies. The zebra pattern is difficult to observe as it is quite small and flies quickly above the ground, ”
said Peter Smetacek of the Bhimtal center.
- In Pakistan, the butterfly has been observed in areas where plants need very little water and in cultivated areas in lowlands or arid foothills.
“Error bonus”
- Minom Pertin, Roshan Upadhaya, Tajum Yomcha and Arajush Payra embarked on a butterfly-watching trip on May 19 along the Miao-Vijaynagar highway through the Namdapha tiger reserve in Changlang district, Arunachal Pradesh.
- They ended up recording a dragonfly that represents the westernmost range of its species and joins the indigenous Odonata fauna.
- Odonata is an order of predatory insects that includes dragonflies and damselflies.
“It was an additional discovery, never before recorded in the eastern Himalayas. This bodes well for the biodiversity of this region, ”
said Mr. Pertin.
- The quartet’s discovery was reviewed by Parag Rangnekar, a Goa-based entomologist who specializes in butterflies and dragonflies.
- Atratothemis reelsi was found to resemble other blackish dragonflies, one of which was confined to Australia. His genital section distinguishes him from the rest.
The SOFI report 2020 in Indian context
The SOFI report and lockdown anxiety have renewed attention to what is also the world’s largest food insecure population
Data from the latest edition of the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. World (SOFI) show that India retains the dubious distinction of being the country with the largest population of food insecure people.
- Estimates presented in the report published by various United Nations organizations show that the prevalence of food insecurity increased by 3.8 percentage points in India between 2014 and 2019, the first term of Narendra Modi government. In 2019, 6.2 million more were food insecure than in 2014.
Authoritative indicators
- The SOFI report, published annually, presents the most reliable assessment of hunger and food insecurity in the world.
- Since 2017, SOFI has presented two key measures of food insecurity; the conventional measure called Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) and a new measure called Prevalence of Moderate and Severe Food Insecurity (PMSFI).
- Both are globally accepted indicators of progress towards target 2.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to end hunger and food insecurity.
- While the PoU focuses on estimating the proportion of the population that is chronically calorie deficient, the PMSFI is a more comprehensive measure of lack of access to adequate and nutritious food.
- PoU estimates are based on food balance sheets and national consumption surveys.
- Since consumer surveys are rarely conducted in most countries, these estimates are often based on outdated data and are revised when better data becomes available.
- In contrast, the PMSFI relies on annual surveys that collect information on experiences of food insecurity (such as food shortages, skipping meals and changes in dietary diversity due to lack of resources).
- PMSFI uses the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), a gold standard for measuring food security developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), to estimate rates of globally comparable prevalence.
- Due to the strong conceptual foundations of this methodology and the ease of data collection, the FIES and PMFSI have been widely adopted by countries around the world.
- FAO mandates Gallup to include FIES questions in the Gallup®World Poll (FAO-GWP) survey conducted in more than 140 countries around the world.
- Many countries have also started to conduct their own FIES surveys. Unlike most other countries, the government of India does not conduct official FIES surveys or accept estimates based on FAO-GWP surveys.
- Although the FAO-GWP surveys are carried out in India, India is one of the few countries that does not allow the publication of estimates based on these surveys.
- Therefore, as in recent years, PMSFI estimates for India are not published on SOFI.
National data
It is interesting to note, however, that these estimates can be derived for India from the information provided in the report. The report provides three-year average estimates of the number of food insecure people in South Asia as a whole and South Asia (excluding India).
- By taking a difference between the two, the estimates for India can be obtained.
- These estimates show that while 27.8% of the Indian population was moderately or severely food insecure in 2014-2016, the proportion increased to 31.6% in 2017-2019.
- The number of food insecure people increased from Rs 42.65 million in 2014-16 to Rs 48.86 million in 2017-19.
- India accounted for 22% of the global burden of food insecurity, the highest of any country, in 2017-2019.
- It should also be noted that while the PMSFI increased in India by 3.7 percentage points during this period, it decreased by 0.5 percentage point in the rest of South Asia.
- India has not released the latest National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) consumer expenditure survey data for 2017-2018.
- As a result, conventional measures of poverty and food consumption have not been available in recent years.
- The unavailability of data from this consumption survey also has implications for the FAO UDP estimates for India.
- Due to the unavailability of regular consumption survey data in most countries, FAO uses data from Data by country; However, it is interesting to note that these estimates can be derived for India from the information provided in the report.
- The report provides three-year average estimates of the number of people who are food insecure in South Asia as a whole and in South Asia (excluding India).
- Taking a difference between the two, we can derive the estimates for India.
- These estimates show that while 27.8% of India’s population was moderately or severely food insecure in 2014-2016, this proportion increased to 31.6% in 2017-2019.
- The number of food insecure people increased from 42.65 crore in 2014-16 to 48.86 crore in 2017-19.
- India accounted for 22% of the global burden of food insecurity, the highest of any country, in 2017-2019.
- It should also be noted that while the PMSFI increased in India by 3.7 percentage points during this period, it decreased by 0.5 percentage points in the rest of South Asia.
- India has not released the latest data from the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) consumer spending survey for 2017-18. As a result, conventional measures of poverty and food consumption have not been available in recent years.
- The unavailability of data from this consumption survey also has implications for the FAO PoU estimates for India.
- Due to the lack of regular availability of data from consumption surveys in most countries, FAO uses supply data on per capita food availability to measure changes in average per capita calorie intake.
- While this approach is reasonable, it has become unsustainable for India due to a large and growing disparity between supply-side data and consumer survey data.
- Not only does the supply data show a much higher level of per capita food availability than the amount of food that is caught as consumed in surveys, but even the direction of change between the two does not appear to be consistent.
- While the per capita dietary energy supply in India increased by 3.8% between 2011-13 and 2015-17, consumption survey data made available thanks to a media leak showed that spending is average consumption ( covering food and other expenses) decreased by 3.7% between 2011-12 and 2017-18.
- Overall, the government’s retention of consumer survey data has meant that SOFI continues to use outdated data for food intake variability, making PoU estimates for India unsustainable.
- In light of this, the PMSFI estimates for India have become particularly valuable.
Causes of suffering
- The significant increase in food insecurity, as shown by these data, is a clear manifestation of the general economic distress during this period marked by an increasingly serious agrarian crisis, declining investments in all sectors and opportunities reduced employment.
- The latest PLFS data showed that unemployment rates in recent years have been higher than in the past four decades.
- It is widely accepted that demonetization and the introduction of the goods and services tax were the two main causes of economic difficulties during this period.
- The sudden imposition of a prolonged and unprecedented lockdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn renewed attention to the problems of hunger and food insecurity.
- With a sudden loss of their livelihoods, a vast majority of India’s poor face increased food insecurity, hunger and famine.
- The media have also reported several deaths from famine. In light of this, these PMSFI estimates provide an important baseline estimate of the situation prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- It is critical that India conduct a national survey on food insecurity to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food security of different segments of the population.
The Ram temple in Ayodhya
The foundation stone laying ceremony for the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya on Wednesday, August 5, here’s the chronology of events in the land dispute case that led to this occasion.
- 1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur.
- 1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. Court rejects plea.
- 1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure.
- 1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla.
- 1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols.
- 1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site.
- 1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.
- Feb 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers.
- Aug 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.
- Dec 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished.
- Apr 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area.
- 1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act. – Supreme Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139A transferred the writ petitions, which were pending in the High Court.
- Oct 24, 1994: SC says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
- Apr, 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.
- Mar 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.
- Mar 14: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.
- Sep 30, 2010: HC, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
- May 9, 2011: SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.
- Feb 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.
- Mar 21, 2017: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.
- Aug 7: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
- Aug 8: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.
- Sep 11: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.
- Nov 20: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.
- Dec 1: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC. – Feb 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.
- Mar 14: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.
- Apr 6: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.
- Jul 6: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.
- Jul 20: SC reserves verdict.
- Sep 27: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.
- Oct 29: SC fixes the case for the first week of January next year before an appropriate bench, which will decide the schedule of hearing.
- Nov 12: SC declines early hearing of petitions in the case requested by Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
- Nov 22: SC dismisses PIL seeking direction to organisations and public at large to “behave” and not air their views that can spoil the atmosphere till it decides the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case.
- Dec 24: SC to take up petitions on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case for hearing on January 4.
- Jan 4: SC says an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the title case.
- Jan 8: SC sets up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the case headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.
- Jan 10: SC reschedules the hearing for January 29 before a new bench after Justice U U recused himself.
- March 2019: The Supreme Court appoints a mediation panel headed by Judge (retd) FMI Kallifulla for an out-of-court settlement on March 8.
- August 2019: The mediation panel fails to reach an amicable settlement. The Supreme Court begins hearing on August 6.
- Oct 2019: After hearing the case on a day-to-day basis for 40 days, the court reserves its order on October 15.
- October 16: After a marathon 40-day daily hearing, the SC concludes hearing in the case. It says that a verdict will be delivered by CJI Gogoi before his retirement on November 17, 2019.
- November 8: The Supreme Court lists Ayodhya title suit judgment for November 9.
- November 9, 2019: In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi orders that the disputed land in Ayodhya should be given to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas for construction of a temple, and the Muslim side should be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya for a mosque. The court also orders the central government to formulate a scheme within three months to implement the order
- December 12: The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging the November 9 verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute. “Applications for listing of review petitions in open Court are dismissed. We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers filed therewith. We do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed,” said the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde.
- August 3, 2020: As the countdown for the grand ceremony of ‘Bhoomi Pujan’ for the construction of the Ram temple began, Ayodhya District Magistrate Anuj Kumar Jha handed over the five acre land to the Sunni Waqf Board at Dhannipur village in Faizabad, as mandated by the Supreme Court in lieu of the Babri mosque.
- August 4: The ‘Ramarcha’ puja began in Ayodhya, a day ahead of the ‘bhumi pujan’. The entire Ram Janmabhoomi area has been decorated with saffron marigolds.
- All invitees to the August 5 foundation stone-laying function for the new Ram temple in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh will have to carry a mandatory coronavirus-negative certificate
- Every guest who is invited for the ‘bhumi pujan’ ceremony, will be gifted a silver coin as ‘prasad’.
- According to sources, over 1.25 lakh laddoos, called ‘Raghupati laddoos’ will be distributed to guests, residents of Ayodhya and others on August 5.
- All the guests who are coming from other districts or state, have been asked to reach Ayodhya by Tuesday evening because the borders of the district will be sealed in the evening.
- A total of 175 people have been invited to the Sri Ram Temple Trust for bhumi pujan, including about 135 saints who will come from different parts of the country. There is a code on every invitation card, which is designed for security.
The Next Generation Anti-Radiation Missile (NGRAM) also
Carrying out another test of a locally developed weapons system, the Defense Research and Development Organization on Friday conducted a successful test of the Next Generation Anti-Radiation Missile (NGRAM) also known as Rudram-1 on the integrated test range ITR) at Balasore.
- The missile was designed to be launched from various fighter jets currently in the inventory of the Indian Air Force.
“The New Generation Anti-Radiation Missile (Rudram-1), which is India’s first indigenous anti-radiation missile developed by DRDO for the Indian Air Force , has been successfully tested today in ITR, Balasore. Congratulations to DRDO and the other stakeholders for this remarkable achievement. “
Defense Minister Rajnath Singh tweeted
- DRDO scientists said the missile was designed to further enhance the IAF’s Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) suppression capability.
- Anti-radiation missiles are primarily designed to track and neutralize the adversary’s radar and communications assets.
- Officials said the development of anti-radiation missiles of this type was initiated by the DRDO about eight years ago and has been a collaborative effort of several DRDO facilities in India.
- Equipped with a state-of-the-art radiation guidance and tracking system, the missile system has undergone preliminary tests in the past with the assistance of an operational combat squad of the Indian Air Force.
- This is another test of locally developed weapon systems, in addition to recent tests of the Shaurya missile or the Hypersonic Technology Demonstration Vehicle (HSTDV), which is an unmanned jet vehicle, or the test in flight of an assisted torpedo launch. by the supersonic missile system (SMART).
The new flexibilities allow H-1B and L-1 visa holders
On Wednesday, the US State Department authorized certain exemptions from President Donald Trump’s June 22 announcement in which he indicated that the entry of foreign and non-immigrant workers with visas would be prohibited until the end of 2020. The new flexibilities allow H-1B and L-1 visa holders to return to the United States to continue working with the same employer.
What does the new travel advisory say?
In its latest travel advisory, the State Department said it had decided to allow certain categories of workers and nonimmigrant visa holders in the “national interest”. For those categories of workers who are not covered by the Presidential Proclamation of June 22, neither they nor their spouses or children will be prevented from obtaining a visa to travel to the United States.
- Under the new notice, H-1B visa holders who are public or private health professionals or who are engaged in medical research “in an area of substantial public health interest” will be allowed to travel.
- Additionally, H-1B visa holders whose services have been requested by a US government agency, such as those working in information technology and support services, will be able to return to the United States.
- Non-government IT organizations will be able to travel to the United States if they return to resume employment with the same organization they were in before the June 22 proclamation.
- Travel will also be permitted for technical specialists, senior managers and other workers whose “travel is necessary to facilitate the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States.”
Why has the United States changed its stance on nonimmigrant visas?
In his June 22 proclamation, U.S. President Trump said he was barring entry for non-immigrant visa workers because companies were using the program to cut jobs available to them. American workers, as foreign workers, were willing to work for less than the average price. wages paid to the American worker.
- However, global IT companies, industry bodies, and other global technology captains such as Alphabet and Google Inc CEO Sundar Pichai, Tesla CEO Elon Musk have condemned the move, claiming that the H visa regimes -1B had a net positive impact on the US economy.
- “Immigration has contributed immensely to the economic success of the United States, making it a global leader in technology and also of Google, the company it is today.
- Disappointed by today’s proclamation, we will continue to support immigrants and work to expand opportunities for all, ”Pichai said at the time on the microblogging site Twitter.
- In its new opinion, the US State Department said some of the IT workers and other H-1B and L-1 visa holders could return because “forcing employers to replace employees in this situation can lead to hardship. financial ” for them.
Help Indian H-1B workers?
With the exception of new H-1B visa holders who reportedly got their visas approved this year after April and traveled to the U.S. At one point in September, IT workers with old H-1B visas issued earlier may have the option to return to NOS.
- This means that companies that need skilled Indian IT workers will be able to hire H-1B workers from the talent pool of visa holders already residing in the United States or those who have returned to India and are ready to return.
- In 2018-2019 alone, for example, tech giants Google, Facebook and Apple hired more than 13,000 highly skilled IT workers with H-1B work visas, either directly or with H-visa holders. Existing 1Bs looking to change jobs and continue your stay in the United States, according to data available from the US Department of Labor.
- Apart from that, companies like Wipro, TCS and Infosys, which have large contracts with US federal agencies, could also benefit, as the new notice allows workers whose travel request is “supported by an agency request. or US government entity “critical US foreign policy objectives or to meet contractual or treaty obligations” in the areas of technical and IT support.
The National Institutes Of Food Technology,
Parliament has passed National Institutes of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management Bill 2021, with this NIFTEM in Haryana and the IIFPT in Tamil Nadu, they have become institutions of national importance (INI).
Parliament has passed the National Institutes of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management Bill, 2021. The Bill was unanimously passed by the Loksabha today, which was earlier cleared by the Rajya Sabha on 15th March this year.
Reporting to the media after the bill was passed in parliament, Union Food Processing Industries Minister Shri Pashupati Kumar Paras said it was a historic day, because with the approval of this bill, our two educational institutes, the National Institute of Entrepreneurship and Food Technology Management (NIFTEM) Kundali (Haryana) and the Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology (IIFPT) Thanjabur (Tamil Nadu) under the Ministry of Food Processing Industries have become Institutions of National Importance (INI).
The Minister indicated that these institutes will have a curriculum provision related to the fields of food processing, supply chain technology, food biotechnology that can help bridge the technology gap. He said, now they can open new centers anywhere in the country and abroad. At the same time, granting them the status of Institute of National Importance (INI) will also pave the way for the creation of a skilled workforce.
The Institute of National Importance (INI) is a recognition given by the central government to prominent institutes in the country.
The Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology (IIFPT) is a pioneering research and development and educational institution under the Ministry of Food Processing Industries of the Government of India. It started as an R&D laboratory in the modern rice mill complex of the Thanjavur Cooperative Marketing Federation (TCMF) in Tiruvarur. Its objective is to serve as a national institution for research, education and training in the field of post-harvest treatment of crops in wetlands and regions prone to storms.
Some of the benefits that INIs enjoy are listed below:
- Functional autonomy to improve efficiency, quality and accountability.
- More funding.
- Have better quality education and better research facilities.
- Faster decision-making skills.
- Minimal interference from the political executive.
- Such institutions could offer more scholarships to students.
- They can also offer more sports equipment, seminars, etc.
The National Institute of Entrepreneurship and Food Technology Management (NIFTEM) is a public university, located in the district of Sonepat in Haryana, for research, education and attention to the needs of agrifood industries, entrepreneurs, exporters, legislators and government. The University offers undergraduate and graduate courses in engineering and research in food technology and management.
The Law Commission of India offers internships for law
This internship is only open to law students at recognized colleges/schools/universities.
The Law Commission of India invites applications from LLB/LLM/research students to assist the commission in its legal/research/legal reform projects. The Law Commission runs three internship programs: summer internships (May-June), winter internships (November-December), and mid-term internship programs. This internship is only open to law students at recognized colleges/schools/universities.
The duration of the internship is four weeks, which can be extended for an additional two weeks at the request of the apprentice by the competent authority. The Law Commission will not pay any remuneration/expense.
Eligibility criteria:
- the internship is only available to LLB/LLM/Research students.
- student pursuing a three-year law degree or a five-year law degree must be in the second, third, fourth, and fifth year.
Internship:
- Interns would be needed to assist the commission in its legal research/law reform projects.
- Interns will be required to submit a research paper at the end of their internship on a chosen topic.
How to register:
- The application should reach the Deputy Legal Adviser of the Law Commission of India, either by courier/courier or by hand.
Important Dates:
- Deadline for summer internships – April 1
- Deadline for winter internships – October 1
- Mid-Term Internship: Applications must arrive 30 days prior to the scheduled date to join the internship.
Application form:
- Interested candidates can fill the application through the given link https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/09/202209134
- For further details, interested candidates can log onto – https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/09/202209134
Read Also:
The latest Ease of Doing Business ranking for Indian States
The latest Ease of Doing Business for Indian States ranking, published by the Department of Industry and Domestic Trade Promotion (DPIIT), yielded some interesting results. The absence of more industrialized states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra in the upper echelons and the presence of states like Uttar Pradesh (which was far behind in the past but has now reached number 2 throughout India) in the first rows, this surprised many. An overview of what was used to calculate the final ranking.
How to access the ranking?
The aim of the DPIIT reform exercise is to create a conducive business environment, for which state regulation should be simplified. Therefore, he devised a methodology to rank states based on the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) within a state.
- The DPIIT provides a set of recommendations aimed at reducing the time and effort that businesses invest in complying with the regulation called the Business Reform Action Plan (BRAP).
- BRAP 2019 is a list of 80 recommended reform points to simplify, streamline and digitize the regulatory framework in a state.
- The reforms are grouped into 12 major areas such as land administration, labor regulations, obtaining permits for the supply of electricity and water, environmental regulations, etc.
- States must submit proof of implementation of each reform to the DPIIT EoDB portal and submit a list of users of these. reforms.
- A sample of these users is then interviewed to determine the effectiveness of these reforms.
- Each question is given a weight. The final score is a weighted average of all responses applicable to a state.
What reforms does DPIIT recommend?
DPIIT recommends that all states have a one-stop-shop system that provides all the necessary information on permits and licenses needed to start a business. Authorizations required from government agencies or municipal or village police for activities such as making films should also be explicitly mentioned.
- To further reduce delays, DPIIT recommends that licenses be extended or automatically renewed on the basis of self-certification or third-party verification. A state is also rewarded if a set of regulations (such as labor or environmental laws) do not apply to it.
Are these scores and ranges comparable to previous years?
For the first time since its creation in 2015, BRAP’s ratings were based entirely on feedback from the companies targeted by these reforms. Previous editions calculated scores based on responses from relevant government departments. The 2017-2018 edition used a combination of state government and user feedback to calculate the score. Therefore, strictly speaking, the 2019 ranking is not comparable to last year.
How have states performed?
Andhra Pradesh took first place for the third time since the ranking was first published in 2015 (Table 1). UP jumped ten places to number two and Telangana slipped to three. Gujarat, which was first in the first edition of the ranking, was ranked 11th this year; Haryana slipped to 17th.
Why have these rankings been criticized?
The DPIIT methodology does not take into account the actual number of reforms implemented by states, as shown in Table 2. States such as Haryana and Gujarat have implemented all of the reforms recommended by DPIIT, but they ranked at the bottom of the EoDB list.
- Gujarat reportedly attributed this to the poor response of respondents. The methodology used by DPIIT only awards points in a reform to a state if there has been an adequate response from users of that response.
- Ideally, the number of respondents for each state should be decided on the basis of population or number of business clusters to ensure that the sample is representative of the state. It is not clear whether DPIIT used representative samples.
- In addition, business owners’ expectations of governments may differ. A business owner in Tamil Nadu may rate their state government’s IT portal differently than that of the UP.
Are these scores and rankings comparable to previous years?
For the first time since its creation in 2015, the BRAP ranking was entirely based on feedback from the companies targeted by these reforms. Previous editions calculated scores based on responses from relevant ministries. The 2017-2018 edition used a combination of state government and user feedback to calculate the score. Therefore, strictly speaking, the 2019 ranking is not comparable to last year.
How have states behaved?
Andhra Pradesh ranked first for the third time since the ranking was published in 2015 (Table 1). UP jumped ten places to number two and Telangana slipped to three. Gujarat, which was first in the first edition of the ranking, was ranked 11th this year; Haryana slipped until she was 17.
Why have these rankings been criticized?
The DPIIT methodology does not take into account the actual number of reforms implemented by states, as shown in Table 2. States like Haryana and Gujarat have implemented all of the reforms recommended by DPIIT, but they have been placed at the bottom of the BDD list. .
- Gujarat reportedly attributed this to the poor response of respondents. The methodology used by DPIIT only awards points in a reform to a state if there has been an adequate response from users of that response.
- Ideally, the number of respondents for each state should be decided based on the population or the number of business groups to ensure that the sample is representative of the state. It is not clear whether DPIIT used representative samples.
- In addition, business leaders’ expectations of governments may differ. A business owner in Tamil Nadu may rate their state government’s IT portal differently than that of the UP.
Are these scores and rankings comparable to previous years?
For the first time since its creation in 2015, the BRAP ranking was entirely based on feedback from the companies targeted by these reforms. Previous editions calculated scores based on responses from relevant ministries. The 2017-2018 edition used a combination of state government and user feedback to calculate the score. Therefore, strictly speaking, the 2019 ranking is not comparable to last year.
How have states behaved?
Andhra Pradesh ranked first for the third time since the ranking was published in 2015 (Table 1). UP jumped ten places to number two and Telangana slipped to three. Gujarat, which was the first in the first edition of the ranking, was ranked 11th this year; Haryana slipped until she was 17.
Why have these rankings been criticized?
The DPIIT methodology does not take into account the actual number of reforms implemented by states, as shown in Table 2. States such as Haryana and Gujarat have implemented all of the reforms recommended by DPIIT, but they were placed at the bottom of the database list.
- Gujarat reportedly attributed this to the poor response of respondents. The methodology used by DPIIT only awards points in a reform to a state if there has been an adequate response from users of that response.
- Ideally, the number of respondents for each state should be decided based on the population or the number of business groups to ensure that the sample is representative of the state. It is not clear whether DPIIT used representative samples.
- In addition, business leaders’ expectations of governments may differ. A Tamil Nadu business owner may rate their state government IT portal differently from the UP.
How do these reforms affect investment?
CARE Ratings analysis shows that “the top-ranked states for ease of doing business were not necessarily associated with a higher proportion of new investments announced during the year.”
- As Table 3 shows, with the exception of Andhra Pradesh, the top-ranked states in this ranking do not have a high share of the total investment during the year. Indeed, companies meet other conditions such as the availability of skilled labor, infrastructure, financing, etc.
- Plus, these rankings don’t take into account the cost of doing business, which is what businesses ultimately care about.
- Your Comprehensive Guide to the Common University Entrance Exam LLB (CUET LLB)
- Delhi University to Launch One-Year Postgraduate Programme in 2026
- CLAT 2025 Counselling Registration Window Closes Today
- The Surge in Indian Students Studying Abroad | A Five-Year Analysis
- IIM CAT Result 2024 | 14 Candidates Score Perfect 100 Percentile
