Catalyst Edge

NTA CSIR NET Life Sciences Coaching on Google New CSIR NET Life Sciences Morning & Evening batch starting soon. Add open

https://youtu.be/9OyWPJOBUhA

Introduction to catalyst edge

Bhilwara model

The "ruthless" Covid-19 containment model adopted by Rajasthan's Bhilwara since detecting the first of its 27 positive cases on March 19. It has largely been successful in keeping infection spread to very low.
The strategy to combat a cluster spread was three-pronged.
“The first step was effective implementation of the curfew, sealing the borders of containment zones and ensuring zero vehicular movement,.
Second, we set out to identify potential clusters and carry out intensive mapping of contacts, besides isolating high-risk people and collecting samples for tests quickly.
The third step was a massive screening exercise covering the entire population to detect influenza-like symptoms."

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission

Date sheet of UP PCS 2017.

http://uppsc.up.nic.in/View_Notices.aspx?ID=news&N=988

uppsc.up.nic.in Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission

Congratulations Priyanka Diwakar and Sandhya mishra for qualifying IAS prelims 2017.

Timeline Photos

CLIMATOLOGY:
Temperature and pressure belts of the world;
Heat budget of the earth;
Atmospheric circulation; atmospheric stability and instability. Planetary and local winds; Monsoons and jet streams;
Air masses and fronto genesis,
Temperate and tropical cyclones;
Types and distribution of precipitation;
Weather and Climate; Koppen’s, Thornthwaite’s and Trewartha’s classification of world climates;
Hydrological cycle;
Global climatic change and role and response of man in climatic changes,
Applied climatology and Urban climate.

Recommended books:
Introducing Physical Geography - Alan Strahler
Weather and Climate - Edward Aguado & James Burt
The Atmosphere - Lutgens & Tarbuck
Climates & Weather Explained - Linarc and Geerts
Atmosphere, Weather and Climate - Roger G. Barry, Richard J Chorley
Climatology - D. S. Lal

GEOMORPHOLOGY:-
Factors controlling landform development;
Endogenetic and exogenetic forces;
Origin and evolution of the earth’s crust;
Fundamentals of geomagnetism;
Physical conditions of the earth’s interior;
Geosynclines;
Continental drift;
Isostasy;
Plate tectonics;
Recent views on mountain building;
Vulcanicity;
Earthquakes and Tsunamis;
Concepts of geomorphic cycles and Landscape development ; Denudation chronology; Channel morphology; Erosion surfaces; Slope development;
Applied Geomorphology : Geohydrology, economic geology and environment.

Recommended books:

1. Introducing Physical Geography - Alan Strahler
2.Physical Geology- Carlson
3.Earth, An Introducing Physical Geology - Tarbuck & Lutgens
4. Principles of Geomorphology - W.D. Thornbury
5.Physical Geography - Savindra Singh
6. A Textbook Of Geomorphology- P. Dayal
3. NCERT Fundamentals of Physical
Geography Text book for class XI

Catalyst Edge's cover photo

Catalyst Edge

What is a Ponzi scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator promises and pays initial investors short-term returns that are far higher or unusually consistent compared to other investment options available in the market — not from profit earned from legitimate business, but from new capital collected from newer investors, enticed by the promise of high returns.

It's named after Charles Ponzi, who became notorious for using the technique in the US in 1920, borrowing from an idea present in novels such as Charles Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit and Little Dorrit.

Congratulations Priyanka Diwakar for qualifying IAS Prelims 2016. God bless you.

Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a group of nuclear supplier countries that seeks to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the implementation of two sets of Guidelines for nuclear exports and nuclear-related exports.

The NSG Guidelines also contain the so-called “Non-Proliferation Principle,” adopted in 1994, whereby a supplier, notwithstanding other provisions in the NSG Guidelines, authorises a transfer only when satisfied that the transfer would not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Principle seeks to cover the rare but important cases where adherence to the NPT or to a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty may not by itself be a guarantee that a State will consistently share the objectives of the Treaty or that it will remain in compliance with its Treaty obligations.

The NSG Guidelines are consistent with, and complement, the various international, legally binding instruments in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba), the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Treaty of Bangkok), and the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Semipalatinsk).

The NSG Guidelines are implemented by each Participating Government (PG) in accordance with its national laws and practices.
Decisions on export applications are taken at the national level in accordance with national export licensing requirements.

1. What is the MTCR?

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an informal political understanding among states that seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and missile technology.

2. When was the MTCR established?

The regime was formed in 1987 by the G-7 industrialized countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the United States).

3. Who belongs to the MTCR?

There are currently 34 countries that are members (Partners) of the MTCR: Argentina (1993); Australia (1990); Austria (1991); Belgium (1990); Brazil (1995); Bulgaria (2004); Canada (1987); Czech Republic (1998); Denmark (1990); Finland (1991); France (1987); Germany (1987); Greece 1992); Hungary (1993); Iceland (1993); Ireland (1992); Italy (1987); Japan (1987); Luxemburg (1990); Netherlands (1990); New Zealand (1991); Norway (1990); Poland (1998); Portugal (1992); Republic of Korea (2001); Russian Federation (1995); South Africa (1995); Spain (1990); Sweden (1991); Switzerland (1992); Turkey (1997); Ukraine (1998); United Kingdom (1987); United States of America (1987). The date in brackets represents the initial year of membership.

4. What is the purpose of the MTCR?

The MTCR was initiated by like-minded countries to address the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons by addressing the most destabilizing delivery system for such weapons. In 1992, the MTCR’s original focus on missiles for nuclear weapons delivery was extended to a focus on the proliferation of missiles for the delivery of all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), i.e., nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Such proliferation has been identified as a threat to international peace and security. One way to counter this threat is to maintain vigilance over the transfer of missile equipment, material, and related technologies usable for systems capable of delivering WMD.

5. What is the relationship between the MTCR and the UN?

While there is no formal linkage, the activities of the MTCR are consistent with the UN’s non-proliferation and export control efforts. For example, applying the MTCR Guidelines and Annex on a national basis helps countries to meet their export control obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1540.

6. Is the MTCR a treaty?

No. The MTCR is not a treaty and does not impose any legally binding obligations on Partners (members). Rather, it is an informal political understanding among states that seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and missile technology.

7. What are the main objectives of the MTCR?

The MTCR seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by controlling exports of goods and technologies that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. In this context, the Regime places particular focus on rockets and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering a payload of at least 500 kg to a range of at least 300 km and on equipment, software, and technology for such systems.

8. How does the MTCR achieve its objectives?

Export Controls The Regime rests on adherence to common export policy (the Guidelines) applied to an integral common list of items (the MTCR Equipment, Software, and Technology Annex.)
Meetings MTCR Partners regularly exchange information about relevant missile non-proliferation issues in the context of the Regime’s overall aims.
Dialogue and Outreach The MTCR Chair and MTCR Partners undertake outreach activities to non-Partners in order to keep them informed about the group's activities and to provide practical assistance regarding efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD delivery systems.

9. What are the MTCR Guidelines?

The MTCR Guidelines are the common export control policy adhered to by the MTCR Partners, and to which all countries are encouraged to adhere unilaterally. The Guidelines define the purpose of the MTCR and provide the overall structure and rules to guide the member countries and those adhering unilaterally to the Guidelines.

THE COST OF NUCLEAR DIPLOMACY

The government’s decision to let Westinghouse build six nuclear reactors in India smacks not only of arbitrary use of executive authority but is also financially imprudent
In their recent joint statement, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama “welcomed the start of preparatory work… in India for six AP1000 reactors to be built by Westinghouse…” Judging by the cost of similar reactors under construction in the U.S., these six reactors may cost as much as Rs.4 lakh crore. This makes the deal potentially the largest commercial contract in the offing between the two countries.

There are several disturbing aspects to this agreement that deserve close public scrutiny. These include the arbitrary use of executive authority in selecting Westinghouse as a supplier, the international legal commitment made by the government to indemnify Westinghouse in the event of an accident, and the high expected cost of electricity from these reactors.

Economically unviable

When the United Progressive Alliance government announced its intention to start work on two reactors each from Westinghouse and General Electric (GE) in the 12th Plan period (2012-2017), it did little to pretend that these contracts made sense on their own merits. Instead, as the former chairperson of the Atomic Energy Commission, Anil Kakodkar, explained, India had “to keep in mind the commercial interests of foreign countries and of the companies there” and was obliged to purchase these reactors in return for U.S. diplomatic support on other issues.

Last year, GE backed out of this arrangement citing concerns about India’s liability law. This was good riddance; GE was offering India an untested design that it has not yet managed to sell anywhere in the world. But the government’s decision to deepen India’s investment in Westinghouse — even as negative news about the company has accumulated — makes little sense.

In April, Toshiba, which acquired Westinghouse in 2006, announced a $2.3 billion write-down in its value, largely because of persistent concerns about the economic viability of Westinghouse’s AP1000 design. Of more than a dozen orders that Westinghouse expected from within the U.S. a decade ago, only four have materialised. Just last month, a utility called Florida Power and Light postponed its plans for two AP1000 reactors by at least four years. And in February, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a U.S. government company, cancelled its plans for two AP1000 reactors explaining that this was “the fiscally responsible action”.

Likewise, the fiscally responsible action for India would be to cancel this deal. The two AP1000 reactors being built in the U.S. state of Georgia are now projected to cost Rs.1.4 lakh crore, which translates into a capital cost of about Rs.70 crore per megawatt of capacity. Even indigenous Indian nuclear reactors, which have struggled to be economically competitive, have capital costs that are seven times lower at about Rs.10 crore per megawatt.

A more detailed calculation indicates that with these capital costs, the first year tariff on electricity from these reactors could be as high as Rs.25 per unit. In contrast, recent winning bids for solar power have projected tariffs of about Rs.5 per unit. The government claims that it can reduce construction costs in India by 25-30 per cent, but this is far from sufficient to make the AP1000 reactors cost-competitive.

The green ruse

The joint statement suggested that these reactors would help India meet its commitments on climate change but this is misleading. Economists use a “price on carbon” to determine whether a given technology provides a cost-effective method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; a commonly used European figure is about Rs.2 (0.03 euros) per kg of carbon dioxide. Since coal plants, which produce most of India’s electricity, emit about 1 kg of carbon dioxide per unit of electricity, the AP1000 reactors may have been attractive from this point of view if their tariffs had been within Rs.2 of the tariffs from coal-based plants. Since their projected tariffs are much higher than this, India could reduce greenhouse gas emissions more efficiently by investing the same resources in other green technologies.

Nevertheless, the government has persisted in making concessions to Westinghouse. In February, it ratified the “Convention on Supplementary Compensation” (CSC) for Nuclear Damage that contradicts India’s domestic liability law and protects nuclear suppliers from liability for an accident. Now, in the event of a disaster, Indian courts may find it difficult to exercise jurisdiction over Westinghouse that is not based in India and could point to India’s international commitments under the CSC to block any potential claims against it.

For example, Dow Chemicals has rebuffed attempts to make it contribute to a clean-up in Bhopal by arguing that Indian courts have “no jurisdiction over it”. And in a cautionary tale about how flawed international agreements can subvert the domestic legal system, in 2011, an international arbitration tribunal awarded White Industries Australia Ltd. AU$4 million under a bilateral investment treaty even as its dispute with the Indian government was sub judice in India’s Supreme Court.

In the joint statement, Mr. Obama “re-affirmed that India is ready for membership” of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). But India’s engagement with the NSG is irrelevant for its energy problems. A 2008 NSG waiver allowed India to purchase uranium for its indigenous civilian reactors but these account for less than 1 per cent of the country’s total electricity generating capacity. NSG membership may additionally allow India to acquire enrichment and reprocessing technology. However, since India’s indigenous heavy water reactors do not use enriched uranium and imported light water reactors come with associated fuel contracts, this technology has little significance for India’s electricity sector.

In his address to the U.S. Congress, Mr. Modi explained that the Indo-U.S. “relationship has overcome the hesitations of history”. In light of this, it is important to take a sober look at the recent nuclear deal. The Indian government has offered to spend lakhs of crores of public money on a loss-making American corporation, and has put its citizens in a position where they might have to pay high costs for electricity and will not be able to hold this corporation accountable for an accident. In return, the U.S. President said some nice words about India. Is this the shape of the Indo-U.S. alliance to come?

Controversy regarding office of profit.
Various petitions in the High Court have challenged the appointment of Parliament Secretary, arguing that the post is in contradiction to Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution which provides for limiting the number of Ministers in the State Cabinets to 15 per cent of the total number of members of the State Legislative Assembly. Because a Parliament Secretary often holds the rank of Minister of State, the Calcutta High Court, in June 2015, quashed the appointment of 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in West Bengal dubbing it unconstitutional. Similar action was taken by the Bombay High Court in 2009 for the appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries in Goa and by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2005 for the appointment of eight Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and four Parliamentary Secretaries in the State. In May 2015, the Hyderabad High Court stayed the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries in Telangana. The matter is sub judice in Punjab and Haryana.

The number of Cabinet Ministers in Delhi cannot exceed 10 per cent of the total 70 seats — that is seven — as per Article 239(A) of Constitution. As of now, only one Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister is authorised.

The ongoing debate around Delhi is whether the post of ‘Parliamentary Secretary’ is an ‘office of profit.’

‘Office of profit’ is not defined in the Constitution. However, in past judgments, the Election Commission has noted “what constitutes an office of profit under the Government is now well established by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court.”

Five tests have been laid down: (i) whether the government makes the appointment; (ii) whether the government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder; (iii) whether the government pays remuneration; (iv) what the functions of the holder are; and (v) does the government exercise any control over the performance of these functions.

The Delhi government argues that as Parliamentary Secretaries are not eligible for any remuneration or perks from the government the post should be exempt from the office of profit.

But, in the case where Jaya Bachchan was disqualified as Rajya Sabha member for simultaneously holding the post of Chairperson of Uttar Pradesh Film Development Corporation, EC noted that the Supreme Court, in various cases has held that all the five tests “need not co-exist conjointly for determining whether an office is an office of profit under the government.” Hence, the fact that no remuneration is being provided to Parliamentary Secretaries may not be a sufficient argument to exempt the post from being considered an ‘office of profit’, as the party argues. But the judicial decisions vary depending on the facts of each case and no generalisations can be made. EC has issued notices to the 21 MLAs asking them to explain why their assembly membership should not be cancelled.

In the Jaya Bachchan case, EC has noted that this provision is in place is to keep the legislatures independent of the executive. “It was felt desirable that members of legislatures should not feel themselves beholden to the executive government and lose their independence of thought and action in the discharge of their public duties as representatives of the people,” notes the EC.

Congratulations Priyanka Diwakar for qualifying UPPCS 2016 prelims exam.

UPSC challenge
Several myths surround the UPSC examination, but here is what you need to do to succeed.
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is the central authority that conducts various examinations to recruit candidates for various government services such as civil services, engineering services, defence services and so on. The civil services, however, have always had an added allure. Hence, the selection process is much more competitive.

Let us first try to understand the importance of civil services in a democracy such as India. For effective administration, it is vital that our political leaders are given non-partisan advice. Effective co-ordination is required between the various institutions of governance. Policy-making must be effective and regulated and able leaders are required at every level of administration. In addition to this, civil services executives must offer free, frank and unbiased advice to the government (irrespective of who is in power) to fulfil their responsibility to the public who elected the government.

Different options
Given the significance of the role played by civil service executives, it is only fair that recruitment to these services is done in a conservative manner. As of today, there are nearly 25 different services in the government that recruit their workforce based on the civil services exam conducted by the UPSC. This includes Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Police Services (IPS), Indian Foreign Services (IFS), Indian Revenue Services (IRS), Indian Postal Services, Indian Railway Services, Indian Trade Services, among others.

More often than not, we hear about how difficult it is to crack the civil services exams. Is it for the highly intelligent only? Or for those with excellent academic records? Do people from engineering or medical background find it easier? Does one have to choose their graduation subject carefully to gain an upper hand? Does one need to study 16 hours a day every day for a year? Does one need to relocate to Delhi to find good coaching classes? The answer to all the above questions is a big NO.

In reality, clearing the civil services exam (CSE) has no shortcuts and there are no magic tricks. Students have to plan their study and work accordingly. Previous-year toppers have all come from various backgrounds and some of them hadn’t even scored a second class in their degrees prior to CSE. All toppers have had access to the same books that lakhs of other students did. The only thing they did differently was that they practised writing, took mock tests, were confident, and, of course, had a dash of good luck as well!

Anyone with a valid undergraduate degree and between 21 and 32 years of age (as of August 1 every year) is eligible to appear for the civil services exam. The upper limit for age is relaxed for people from certain categories (SC/ST, OBC, Disabled etc). General category candidates are allowed, maximum of six attempts at the exam while special category students are given more leniency.

There are several challenges before the UPSC aspirants — fear of exam, fear of unemployment, fear of failure, lack of information, lack of proper guidance and right resources to prepare for the exam. But one of the biggest challenges faced by students is the choice that they have to make — whether to move to Delhi and study there, or do self-study at home. This is a big decision and one that is often made without proper research. These days, there are several options available at home or online for UPSC coaching. Students, however, fear the new ways and tend to adhere to the tested ways, even if they are not convenient or fruitful.

Interview
Clearing the interview is the final hurdle in the civil services exams. The following guidelines are generally believed to be useful for tackling it:

Dos:

Be polite and greet all five members on the interview board confidently.

Do not take a seat untill you’re asked to do so.

Maintain eye contact with your interviewer(s)

Before answering a question, take a few seconds to think through your answer and keep it short and to the point.

If you do not know the answer to a particular answer, it is better to admit it openly.

It is quite possible that interviewers may not agree with your opinions. Do not get very defensive.

Don’ts

Avoid fidgeting. Maintain a dignified posture and keep your hands and head steady.

Never resort to wild guesses or speculation.

While answering questions, do not give away your lack of confidence through your expressions or body gestures.

You should not come across as being arrogant or overconfident. That is a big minus.

Avoid unnecessary humour. Do not try to get overly friendly with the interviewers.

Do not leave the interview hall unless you’re asked to do so.

In summary, to become a civil service executive is a matter of great prestige. In order to be successful, one needs to be methodical and systematic about their study plan. It is extremely important to turn a deaf ear to myths and focus on what is real. Practice is of course vital.

Mobile Uploads

Congratulations Priyanka and Garima for qualifying UPPCS Prelims 2015 exam.

No photos of politicians on govt ads.

The apex court, however, permitted the use of photographs of the President, Prime Minister and CJI in the advertisements.
In a historic judgment holding that taxpayers' money cannot be spent to build "personality cults" of political leaders, the Supreme Court on Wednesday restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders or prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.

The apex court said such photos divert attention from the policy of the government, unnecessarily associate an individual with a government project and pave the way for cultivating a "personality cult".

As an exception to this general rule, the court held that the photos of only three constitutional authorities - Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India - can be used in such ads. But for that too, the personal approval of these three authorities need to be got before publication.

The judgment by a bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana came on the basis of a series of recommendations given by its own committee led by noted legal academcian N.S. Madhava Menon on introducing checks on government-funded ads.

The committee was formed in April 2014 on a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause had argued that ruling party leaders and ministers were taking undue advantage at public expenses.

The Menon panel had recommended a complete ban on publishing of photos in the ads. It had further said that no ads should be allowed on election eve.

In his verdict, Justice Gogoi modifies the recommendation on four counts.

One, instead of a complete ban on publishing of photos of all individuals, it departs to the extent of saying that pictures of PM, President and CJI can be used provided they personally clear it - thus, in a way, making them also accountable for the publication.

Two, the court improvises on the Menon committee recommendations to direct the government to appoint a three-member Ombudsman body of persons with "unimpeachable integrity".

Three, the bench disagrees with the Menon panel's suggestion for a performance audit on such government ads.

Four, the court said there was no need for a curb on government ads on election eve. However, it said such ads should be given with fairness and even dispensation to the media.

The greatness of a landmark judgment
The supporting props offered for the striking down of Section 66A diminish the arrogance of government and reinstate the genuine rule of law.
Reading the judgment, one is tempted to ask this question: Is it a landmark judgment or just a great one? To appreciate the difference between great and landmark, it is necessary to begin with some very fine distinctions. A great judgment is one that restores the constitutional values of a polity from the waywardness into which it may have fallen, while a landmark judgment is one which opens up new directions in our constitutional thinking and, in the process, adds new dimensions to what are regarded as established constitutional principles. If great restores the centrality of constitutional values, landmark revitalises them. For many commentators, the judgment striking down as unconstitutional Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000 by the Supreme Court Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman in the Shreya Singhal case, is seen as a landmark judgment. It is regarded as heralding the birth of new free speech jurisprudence and restoring the public space for dissent in India.

A distinction

With respect to the judgments comments on free speech, I plan here to go against the current. It is a great judgment, not a landmark one. These are my reasons. I see the analytical distinction made in the judgment of three forms of free speech and expression, i.e., discussion, advocacy and incitement, as preliminary to a fine distinction being worked out but one which was not done. The distinction is inadequately executed since it does not provide for the societal dynamics of each form. Hence, the distinction, while a good starting point, does not protect free speech enough since it allows for situations where the discussion entered into by one can be used by another to incite simply by quoting the discussion and saying this is what he has said. Repeating a discussion, in another context, is enough to bring the wrath of the mob on the unsuspecting persons head. Writer Perumal Murugan had to face such ire in January 2015 in Tamil Nadu because of a novel he wrote as did T.J. Joseph, a lecturer in Kerala, who had his hand cut off in 2010 for a question he had set in an examination.

Second, the judgment does not make the important distinction between speech and expression and, therefore, while it elaborates on the need to protect speech and the written word, it has little to say on expression especially in its many forms of photographs, paintings, films, cartoons, etc. So, while a Facebook post gets protection, a painting does not. The third infirmity is the judgments acceptance of the distinction between the print and digital media, or rather between the old mainstream and the new social media. It appears to accept this distinction on quantitative grounds, i.e., how many people can be reached and how fast, rather than on qualitative grounds, i.e., what is being said. This is an untenable distinction especially in the digital age when we have e-papers, e-books, e-lectures, etc. These few areas of weakness should not, however, detract from the judgments significant contribution to free speech especially in these dark times of censorship. It is without doubt a great judgment and will soon become the touchstone for new free speech jurisprudence in India. The hecklers will be in retreat.

As landmark judgment

I do consider it a landmark judgment, however, but for its other sections and not those specifically relating to free speech. The implications of these sections are that they give powerful legal weapons to those fighting the tyranny of the state. So, what were offered by the honourable Justices as supporting props for the main issue, i.e., the striking down of Section 66A, have, I believe, become key clauses in my reading of the landmark judgment. They diminish the arrogance of government, resurrect the principle of limited government, and reinstate the genuine rule of law. After a long time, the government and this is cause for celebration has again become subject to the rule of law.

There are three manoeuvres performed by the Honourable Justices that have produced this splendid outcome. The first is their dismissal of the assurances given by government on the ground that the law cannot be based on the assurances of any regime in power. The law cannot be based on even the bona fide intentions of a government and has to exist independent of these intentions. The second is the role the judgment performs in educating the public about the governments mind by placing the key aspects of the governments submission in the public domain. And the third relates to their observation that vagueness in the formulation of laws produces a tyranny of power. This has chilling (their word) consequences for civil liberties.

When the Additional Solicitor General sought to assure the court that even if certain portions of the law 66A were vague, the government, being committed to free speech, would not use the section to curb free speech. The Justices wrote in response: Governments may come and Governments may go but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government even if carried out faithfully would not bind any successor government. It must, therefore, be held that Section 66A must be judged on its own merits without any reference to how well it may be administered (paragraph 92). Assurance from the government is not enough. The law must stand on its own. Similarly, when the Additional Solicitor General asked that parts of Section 66A be saved under the Doctrine of Severability, the Honourable Judges held that no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be declared unconstitutional (paragraph 96). By dismissing both requests of the government, the Court achieved two major outcomes. It established the fact that the law must be delinked from the agency and intentions of the government. It must be read independently of the intentions of those who administer it. And, second, the court distanced itself from the common perception that it normally acts in a government-friendly manner. The court is friendly only to the Constitution.

As public educator

On its role as a public educator, the Court chose to place at great length the written submission of the Additional Solicitor General with the following words: It was argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General that a relaxed standard of reasonableness of restriction (emphasis mine) should apply regard being had to the fact that the medium of speech being the Internet differs from other mediums on several grounds. To appreciate the width and scope of his submissions we are setting out his written submission verbatim (paragraph 27). This is a brilliant strategy to educate an engaged public on the nature of the governments arguments. Hence, we learn that [point (ii)] the recipient of free speech and expression used in a print media can only be literate persons while internet can be accessed by literate and illiterate both since one click is needed to download an objectionable post or video or [point (v)] by the medium of internet, rumours having a serious potential of creating a serious social disorder can be spread to trillions of people without any check which is not possible in case of other mediums.

Such pop sociology continues through the 11 points made by the government. If we overlook the trillions of people whom the government is concerned about, the word comes again twice in point 11, then we can focus on the empirical claims made with respect to literacy, rumour, and privacy. These are in fact only the opinions of the Additional Solicitor General since no evidence using social science is given for them. Yet, they are offered as the empirical basis for censorship and prosecution under Section 66A. Opinions cannot be the basis of laws. The Honourable Justices, by presenting the submission verbatim, wanted us to see the poor quality of the governments arguments. Such a cavalier attitude must be punctured at least a trillion times.

Vagueness of words

But it is in the discussion on the vagueness of words used in Section 66A(b) i.e., inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, etc., that the Court is at its legal best. It takes each word, examines its dictionary meaning, offers judgments from Indian and American legal history to establish its precise meaning, and then shows why these words in Section 66A have been casually introduced into the law. In a brilliant section on vagueness and overbreadth, the learned Justices state that In point of fact, Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the Section and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total (paragraph 83). It is this vagueness of operative words that must be disallowed because of its chilling effect on free speech. Vague words are vehicles for state tyranny. For freedom, precision is required. This section on the vagueness of words in our laws, especially in government orders, can now be cited by civil libertarians to strike down badly framed laws in lower courts.

All three manoeuvres, I expect, will infuse a new strength in the litigants fight for citizenship rights. It will make those who draft laws cautious and increase parliamentary scrutiny of articles and clauses. It will make law officers realise that their submissions will be subject to public scrutiny. And, finally, it will, I hope, also change the habit of the court, which is normally soft on government. As the custodian of the Constitution, the court has to fight tyranny. The judgment has struck a powerful blow for limiting government. This is what makes it a landmark judgment.