 A very good evening aspirants. Welcome to the Hindi news analysis brought to you by Shankarai's Academy for the date 22nd December 2021. So this is the list of news articles that I have taken today for discussion and today as you can see we have many topics from Indian polity. So now let us get to the first discussion based on these articles. So our first discussion is going to be based on two articles. One is this front page article and the other one is this editorial. Now both these articles talk about the newly introduced election laws amendment bill of 2021. Now the news is that yesterday this bill has been passed by Rajya Sabha. It was already passed in the Lok Sabha and in Rajya Sabha it has been passed after the motion of opposition was defeated. This motion demanded the legislation to be sent to a select committee for its scrutiny but this motion was defeated and was successfully passed in Rajya Sabha. But there are many concerns regarding this bill and that is why the opposition demanded for sending it to a select committee. So that is why today we are going to discuss about the important provisions of this bill and also the concerns regarding this bill. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. So first note that this election laws amendment bill it implements certain electoral reforms and it mainly amends two election laws which are the representation of the People Act of 1950 and the representation of the People Act of 1951. Now note that both these acts are different. Here the 1950 act provides for allocation of seats and delimitation of constituencies for elections. It provides for qualification of voters and preparation of electoral roles but on the other hand this 1951 act it provides for the conduct of elections and it also talks about the offenses and disputes related to elections. So this 2021 bill aims to amend these two acts. So now let us see the provisions of the bill and what it aims to amend in these acts. Now the first amendment is with respect to applying for inclusion in the electoral role of a constituency. See this is provided under the 1950 act and according to the act a person may apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of their name in the electoral role of a constituency and then after verification if the officer is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to registration then she will direct the applicant's name to be included in the electoral role. This was the process so far. Now in this process an additional requirement is added by the bill. This additional requirement is that the electoral registration officer may require a person to furnish their Adhaar number for establishing their identity and the person may be asked to furnish Adhaar number even if their name is already in the electoral role and in this case Adhaar number is required for authentication of entries in the role but note that according to this amendment provision persons who are unable to furnish Adhaar number due to some sufficient cause they will not be denied inclusion in the electoral role or they will not have their names deleted from the role also but instead of it such persons may be permitted to furnish alternate documents that is prescribed by the central government. Now the reason for this amendment is that it enables for the linking of electoral role data with the Adhaar ecosystem. So the government's argument here is that this linking will curb the menace of multiple enrollment of the same person in different places. So this in turn will eliminate duplicate voting or multiple voting. This is the argument given by the government for demanding Adhaar number during the inclusion of a name in the electoral role. So this was the first amendment. Now the next amendment is about the qualifying date for enrollment in the electoral role. See under 1958 the qualifying date as of now for the enrollment is January 1st of the year that is the January 1st of the year in which such role is being prepared or revised. So this implies that a person who turns 18 that is a person when she is eligible to vote after January 1 can enroll in the electoral role only when the role is prepared or revised in the next year. But the bill aims to amend this provision. It includes additional qualifying dates. It actually includes four dates in the calendar which will be January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st. So that means those who turn 18 and become eligible to vote they do not wait for the next year to get enrolled in the electoral role. This was the second amendment. Now the third important amendment is regarding the requisitioning of premises for election purposes. See actually the 1951 Act permits the state government to requisition or take over premises which are needed or which are likely to be needed for being used as polling stations or which are likely to be needed for storing ballot boxes after a poll has been conducted. So this is the existing provision. Now the bill aims to expand the purposes for which such premises can be requisitioned and these purposes include using the premises for counting of votes or storage of voting machines and also poll related materials. In addition to this accommodation of security forces and polling personnel for these purposes also such premises can be used as per the bill. So this was the third amendment. Therefore so far we saw the provisions of the bill and what are all the amendments it tries to bring. Now let us see some of the apprehensions about these amendments. Now the first and foremost apprehension is regarding the linking of other number of the people who wish to register as voters and mainly this linking is required for the purposes of establishing identity. Now here the apprehension is that the amendment may violate the right to privacy of the voters. How? See we know that other is linked with bank card it is also linked with bank details and in some cases it is also used as proof for availing schemes. So here the apprehension is that if that voter ID details are leaked then that person may lose all the sensitive information. In addition to this other is actually a proof of residency it is not a proof of citizenship. So the bill aims to use it for establishing identity in the electoral role. That means those who have other as a proof of residency can easily get enrolled in the electoral role and this may lead to you know even the non-citizens getting into the electoral role. So this will give voting rights to the non-citizens also. So this was the second problem associated with other linking. Now another problem is also regarding other linking only. Here the opposition parties they argue that the need for other for enrollment will lead to disenfranchisement of the legitimate voters. That is if the voters are unable to submit other details then they might be deprived of their right to vote. Now this fear is due to the ambiguity that is provided in the provisions regarding the other linking in the bill. See the ambiguity is that the choice not to submit the other is linked to a sufficient cause and this sufficient cause will be separately prescribed. So we don't know which are all will be the permissible reasons that will be considered as sufficient cause and who will decide whether that cause is sufficient or not is also not known. And there is also no clarity if an individual refuses to submit their other detail. So if they refuse to submit their detail then what will happen is not mentioned in the bill. So due to this ambiguity oppositions argue that this may result in loss of franchise. Now another concern is the possibility of misusing the demographic details for profiling of voters. So we know that other details include our important demographic details. So oppositions also argue that it could be used for profiling of voters. So what is profiling? See it is any form of automated processing of personal data. Now such personal data is used to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to a natural person. Particularly it is used to analyze or predict aspects that are concerning that natural person's performance at work, their economic situation, health and personal situation and even political preferences, religious inclination, interest, reliability, behavior, location or their movements. So through this profiling it is possible to find political preferences and then the political parties may target those individuals. This is also a cause of concern. So these are all the four main concerns that are cited by the opposition and as you can see all these concerns are related to linking of other number to the voter details. But what does the central government say? See the central government is arguing that these apprehensions are baseless and the amendment is needed to end fake and bogus voting in the country and to make the electoral process credible. So this is the argument given by the central government. So in this regard you should understand that now the bill awaits the assent of the president and the moment the president gives his assent this bill will become an act and it will come into force. So that means if you are going to enroll your name into the electoral role then you will be asked to furnish your other details. So that is all. In this discussion we saw about election laws amendment bill of 2021 and we saw what are all the important provisions in it and what amendments it tries to bring and we also saw what are the apprehensions regarding these amendments. With these points in mind now let us move on to the next discussion. So our next discussion is going to be based on this news article which is about a recent judgment of Supreme Court regarding compassionate employment or compassionate appointment. In a case law Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. See the background of this case is that compassionate appointment was sought for the wife of a late sergeant who was in the Air Force. The sergeant died of cancer in 2008. So after this compassionate appointment was sought for his wife but she was denied the compassionate appointment on the grounds that her merit points did not add up to the required limit. So she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which eventually directed the respective department to consider her compassionate appointment. But an appeal was filed in the High Court regarding this which upheld the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal and also directed to consider compassionate appointment of the wife of the late sergeant. And then again the order of High Court was challenged and appealed in the Supreme Court and now the verdict has been delivered in this case only. So today we are going to understand what is this compassionate appointment and under what grounds it is given and we will also see what are these merit points that we just mentioned. So first what is compassionate appointment. See it is a type of appointment which is made on the basis of compassionate grounds. Here the compassionate ground is the death of a government servant or when the government servant has retired on medical grounds. Now such a death or retirement of the government servant has left her or his family in penury. There is an extreme poverty and it has left their family without any means of livelihood. So that means this compassionate appointment is intended to enable a bereaved family to tide over financial crisis and this financial crisis is caused by the untimely death or retirement of a breadwinner who was in the service. But note that such government servant should have held the job on a regular basis. So the government employees who are on basis of daily wage or casual wage or appearances or on ad hoc basis or who are on contract basis or who are under re-employment they are not considered here. But the member of armed forces they are considered under the scheme. They are considered when the armed forces member dies during service or is killed in action or is medically unfit for civil employment. So the ultimate objective of compassionate appointment is to relieve the family of the concerned government servant from any financial institution and also to help them to get over any emergency. Now on what basis compassionate appointment is made. See here the appointments on compassionate grounds against a post in the central government are regulated in terms of the provisions of a scheme called as scheme for compassionate appointment under central government. Now this scheme was issued under the department of personal and training. So the provisions under this scheme guides the compassionate appointment. But who is given appointment here. See the appointment is given to the eligible dependent family members of that government servant. That is the government servant who had died or who retired. So this includes the spouse their daughter or son which also includes the adopted daughter or son. And if the government servant was unmarried then their brother or sister is also eligible for compassionate appointment. And fortunately the dependence of missing government employees are also eligible for compassionate appointment. And the dependence of a deceased government employee who committed suicide is also eligible for compassionate appointment. But note that the eligibility of all these dependent family members are decided based on certain criteria. This is called as the merit based system. And the department and ministries of the government have devised their own point based merit system for assessing the merit of the claims of compassionate appointments. So what is this point based merit system? See points are given against parameters under this system. So what are these parameters? Let us see them briefly. These parameters include family pension, terminal benefits. That is the lump sum amount received by the family on the death of the government servant. This terminal benefit includes LIC encashments, leave encashments etc. Then the parameters also include annual income of the earning members, then income from property, then the total movable property or immobile property. And it also considers the number of dependents etc. So like this each department or ministry they have their own point based merit system based on these parameters. They have some additional parameters also. And each of these parameters have different levels based on which points are given. For example, if you take the family pension, now in one of the central government departments, family pension is given the 20 points. Now there are different slabs under family pension. So each slab is given different merit points. So after adding all the merit points that are given under each of the parameters, then the eligibility of the dependent is decided. And in the case law which we saw in the beginning, the wife of the late sergeant was denied compassionate appointment on the basis that her merit points did not add up to the required level. So now let us see for which type of posts the dependents can be appointed under the compassionate appointment. See they can get appointed to group C posts including the erstwhile group D posts of central government also and they can be appointed in a recruitment year that is they are considered against the vacancies in a particular recruitment year only. But you note that this compassionate appointment can be made only up to five percentage of the total vacancies which are falling under the direct recruitment quota in these groups that is group C or group D of central government. So that means compassionate appointment cannot be made against group A or group B posts even if the dependent has higher qualifications. Now which authority can make compassionate appointment? It includes these types of authority that is the joint secretary who is in charge of the administration of the department or the ministry then even the head of the department in case of attached officers is also the competent authority to make compassionate appointment. But what about the courts? Can they order appointment on compassionate grounds? Actually no. This is based on the judgment of Supreme Court in a 1995 case. In that case Supreme Court held that the high courts and administrative tribunals they cannot direct for appointment of a person on compassionate grounds but the high courts and administrative tribunals they can direct consideration of claim for such an appointment and that is why in today's case also the high courts and the central administrative tribunal they directed for the consideration of compassionate grounds but they did not direct for appointment of that person. And now in the 2021 case law which is union of India versus Amrita Sinha in this case law Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but it is to enable the family to tide over an immediate crisis which may result from the death of the employee. So remember these facts in mind it is important from the problem's perspective. In this discussion we saw what is a compassionate appointment and on what grounds a compassionate appointment is made, what are the criterias for it and who makes it, who are all eligible etc. So now let us move on to the next discussion. So this news article if you see it mentions about the request of Andhra Pradesh for a special category status. The news article also mentions about various special packages that was given to Andhra Pradesh by the Indian government instead of this special category status. So from an exam perspective it becomes important for us to know about special category status and therefore we'll see when it is granted and why it is granted and what are the benefits which the states get when they are assigned with special category status. Now first of all note that this term special category status is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution rather the constitution provides only for the special provision for the states and it is provided under part 21 which covers from article 371 to article 371 J. So remember the difference here we have two terms one is the special category status and the other one is special provisions and special provisions for states are mentioned in the constitution whereas special category status is not mentioned in the constitution. Now when did this special category status started? See it was first mentioned by the Fifth Finance Commission which was set up for the period of 1969 to 1974. This commission extended this special category status to three states in 1969 these three states are the the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, Assam and Nagaland but later over the years eight more states were added to this list these states are Anachalpadesh, Himachalpadesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Mizoram, Tripura and Uttarakhand. So that means in this special category status we have 11 states in India and among them we have all the northeastern states. Now you should note that at that time these states were chosen using the Gadgil formula now according to the Gadgil formula the states are chosen based on some criteria. So what is this criteria? First these states must have hilly and difficult terrain this is the first criteria. Now second these states must have low population density or a sizable share of the tribal population and third condition is that these states should have strategic location along borders with neighboring countries and the fourth condition is the economic and and infrastructural backwardness of these states and finally the non viable nature of state finances is also a criterion under the Gadgil formula. So that means if the states satisfy these conditions then they are provided with the special category status. But who provides this status? See earlier the decision to grant special category status was given by the erstwhile national development council. If you remember this national development council it existed during the planning commission period and it composed of the prime minister, union ministers, chief ministers and even the members of the planning commission. But now we have the Niti Ayog in place of planning commission therefore after planning commission was replaced by Niti Ayog the decision to grant special category status is now taken by the central government. Now often we see in the news that states are fighting to get this special category status. Why they are fighting? It is because of the benefits that are associated with this status. So that is why now we are going to see the benefits which the states gain after getting this special category status. Now the first benefit is in the case of centrally sponsored schemes. Now in case of centrally sponsored schemes the center pays some amount and the states have to contribute some amount to the scheme. Now when a particular state is given the special category status then in that case the center pays 90 percentage of the funds that is required. But to the other states which are also called as the general category states they are given 60 percentage or 75 percentage center share. And that is why often when we look into some centrally sponsored schemes we can see two split ups in case of devolution of funds. We see 90 is to 10 to some states and we also see 60 to 40 or 75 to 25 for some states. Now the second benefit is in the case of budget. How? See 30 percentage of the center's gross budget allocation actually goes to the special category states. So that means center is spending more on these states. Now the third benefit is in the case of special exemption given to these states in some taxes. See center provides some special concessions in customs duty, corporate tax, income tax and even other taxes to special category status states. Why this exemption is given? It is to attract investment in these special category states. And finally there is also a benefit of carry forward provision. See if the special category states have some unspent money in a financial year then that money does not lapse. Instead this unspent money gets carried forward for the next financial year. So these are some of the special provisions or the special benefits provided to the special category status states. Now based on the benefits itself you can say that these provisions are given to induce development in these states and also to reduce regional disparities. But what is the current scenario regarding special category status? See actually the 14th finance commission which was under Mr. Why We Ready it recommended to do away with the distinction between general category states and special category states. Now for this recommendation for doing away with this distinction the commission gave two important reasons. The first reason is that this distinction increased the states allocation from the divisible tax pool. It argued that it increased the state's allocation to 42 percentage from the divisible tax pool. See as you know the divisible tax pool is the portion of gross tax revenue which is distributed between the center and the states and it includes the taxes except surcharges and says that is levied for specific purposes. It also includes the net collection of charges. I note that as per the recommendation of 15th finance commission for the year 2021 to 26th period the states allocation from the divisible tax pool is fixed at 41 percentage. But during the 14th finance commission it came up to 42 percentage. So the commission argued that it increased the share of the states. Now second argument given by the commission was that there is already horizontal devolution among the states which included the provision for income distance with 50 percentage weight teach. See as you know the finance commission uses certain criteria when deciding the devolution to the states. For example one such criterion is the income distance criterion. This has been used by both 14th and the 15th finance commission. Now under this criterion states that have the lower per capita income they are given a higher share to maintain equity among the states. So it argued that already they are using this provision to provide higher share to the states that have lower per capita income. And that is why it's suggested to do away with the distinction between general category states and special category states. So that means according to the commission these two important provisions it brings more funds to the economically backward states. So there is no need for the distinction. And even the union government accepted this recommendation. So that means presently the special category state is limited to the 11 states which we already saw in the beginning. And also note that right now the Guttgill formula which we saw is no longer valid. But instead of this formula the special status is provided to certain states because of its inherent features. That is it is provided to the states that have a low resource base and which cannot mobilize resources for the development. So in the present scenario after the 14th finance commission it is believed that no more states can be given the status of a special category. But instead of this status it was decided that certain states for which the devolution alone would be insufficient they will be given an additional grant in the form of revenue deficit grant. See this revenue deficit grant is given to eliminate the revenue deficit which is present post devolution. So we can say that the benefits of special category status is being accommodated using this revenue deficit grant. And therefore you should remember that presently 11 states have the special category status and no more states is believed to be given the status again in the future. So in this discussion we saw about the special category status states. What are the benefits which they get. And we also saw the Guttgill formula that was previously used to determine such status. And finally we saw the changes made after the suggestion of 14th finance commission. So with these points in mind let us get to the next discussion. Our next discussion is going to be based on this news article. It talks about the steps taken by the government and judiciary in addressing the hate crimes such as mob lynching. See the news article reports about the response given to a question asked in Lok Sabha regarding mob lynching. And according to the response the National Crime Records Bureau which collects data on various parameters it also collected data on mob lynching hate crimes and cow vigilantism. This was collected in 2017. But it is said that later this task was discontinued because the data were unreliable. This is mainly due to the fact that these crimes that is the mob lynching hate crimes and cow vigilantism they have not yet been defined in any law in our country. So even the data which was collected in 2017 was not published by the NCRB. But here if you look at the news article while discussing the steps taken to address the issue it mentions about the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case law. So today we are only going to focus on this guideline. So basically just understand that this case is regarding a writ petition that was filed under article 32 of Indian Constitution. Now this petition worried about the mob violence that was carried out in the name of cow vigilantism in our country. Now this petition also challenged the cow protection laws of six states. These six states are Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. So this is the background of this case law. Now let us get to the guidelines. Basically Supreme Court has given three kinds of guidelines or the measures under these guidelines. These three kinds are preventive, remedial and punitive. Now under the preventive measures the state governments have to appoint a senior police officer as a nodal officer in each district. Now such senior police officer should not be below the rank of superintendent of police. Now such nodal officer has the task of taking actions to stop the incidents of mob violence and lynching. Now for helping this nodal officer, one of the officers in the rank of deputy superintendent of police shall also be appointed in the district. Now in addition to this a special task force shall also be made to get the intelligence report about such individuals who are likely to indulge in the crimes of mob violence and lynching. Then the guidelines also made it the duty of the state government to point out the districts, subdivisions and villages where cases of mob lynching have been reported recently. Further the nodal officer has the duty to hold regular meetings to identify any chances of mob lynching. And such officer shall also take necessary steps to stop any spread of violent content on different social media platforms also. So according to the guidelines it is the duty of the nodal officer who is not below the rank of superintendent of police to stop the spread of violent content on different social media platforms regarding mob lynching. So these are the preventive measures that is these are the measures that should be taken to prevent mob lynching and mob violence. Now what are all the remedial measures suggested under the guidelines? Firstly if a case of mob lynching comes to the notice of the local police station, then the first information report that is FIR should be immediately lodged without any delay. And this information of mob lynching has to be given to the nodal officer in the district. So after receiving such information the nodal officer shall personally monitor the investigation in such cases. And here the nodal officer has to ensure that the charge sheet is filed within the statutory period. In addition to this for ensuring speedy justice the guidelines also enable to establish fast track codes to deal with the cases of lynching and mob violence. And more importantly steps should also be taken to protect the identity of the witnesses in these violences. And guidelines also mandate that for ensuring accessibility to justice by the victim or the next of kin of the deceased victim they shall receive free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987. So these are some of the remedial measures in the guidelines. That means these measures should be taken when mob violence or lynching happens. Now next comes the punitive measures. First of all if a police officer or an officer of the district administration is found to have failed to follow the directions of the court or if the officer tried to stop the investigation or if the officer did not take steps to facilitate the speedy trial then according to the guidelines that officer has acted out of deliberate negligence and misconduct. And such an act of deliberate negligence and misconduct must be punished by the government according to the guidelines. In addition to this departmental inquiry also should be initiated against that officer. So this is the main punitive measure in the guidelines. Now this will ensure that the nodal officers function effectively. So these are all the measures under the three heads of preventive remedial and punitive measures. So we can just see that whether these measures have been implemented in the recent times in the states where mob violence or mob lynching has happened. And if recently in your state a similar kind of violence have happened you can also follow that case and see whether these guidelines are followed properly or not. So these are some of the points regarding the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the Thessian-Punawala v. Union of India case to reduce mob violence and mob lynching. So with these points in mind now let us move on to the next discussion. Our next discussion is going to be based on this editorial article which talks about bonded labour. Here author of this editorial mainly criticizes the Code on Wages Act of 2019. Author says that this act gives legal sanction to the inhumane practice of bonded labour. So in this discussion let us see the arguments given by the author in this regard and we also see what do we mean by bonded labour. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. See bonded labour is defined as the work that is performed in exchange for a loan, debt or advance. It is the connection between a creditor and a debtor in which the debtor agrees to mortgage her or her family member's services to the creditor for a set amount of time. That is bonded labour happens and people give themselves into slavery as security against a loan or when they inherit a debt from a creditor. So here the worker who borrowed this advance they should work for the employer without any wages for the work done and that is why it is also known as debt bondage and bonded labour is a type of slavery in which a worker is forced to accept advances on wages. Now these wages will be of a size or at a level of interest and here the advances will never be repaid. Rather it will be repaid in terms of work done not in terms of money. Now in our country despite earlier legal protections against this practice of bonded labour many disadvantaged agricultural workers informal sector workers and even migrant workers they are caught in this vicious cycle due to their increasing debt and diminishing income. Now to overcome this deficit they borrow money from lenders who also becomes their employer and asks them to work till their debt is repaid. So this not only deprives the fundamental rights of that individual but it also affects the fundamental rights of the families of that individual and the future generations. So bonded labour is still one of India's most dangerous forms of control and enslavement and it is incompatible with democracy but what is more disturbing is that rather than preventing such enslavement and defending the workers fundamental rights the current administration of India appears to openly support this practice according to the author of the editorial. So this is where author criticizes the Code on Wages Act of 2019. See as you know this act subsumed many acts including the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 and this Code on Wages Act focuses on simplifying the existing labour laws that deal with the payment of wages, overtime, bonus, minimum wages etc. So in this regard author argues that instead of making the labour laws stringent even the most liberal limits imposed in the previous acts have been removed by the government through this Code on Wages Act. Here particularly author talks about the liberal limits imposed by the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 which was also subsumed in the Code on Wages. So here let us take an example of what were the liberal limits imposed by this Minimum Wages Act of 1948. See for example there is a rule 21 that has been framed in the Minimum Wages Central Rules of 1950 which comes under this Minimum Wages Act of 1948. Now this rule 21 specifies various deductions that could be made from workers wages. Now the sub rule 2 clause 6 of this rule 21 allows deductions for recovery of advances or recovery for adjustment of overpayment of wages. And it mentions that provided that such advances do not exceed an amount equal to wages for two calendar months of the employed person. So that means if an advance is given to the worker then the employer may make deductions for the recovery of advances or for adjustment for overpayment of wages. But in both these cases the advances must not be greater than the amount of the employed persons earning for two calendar months. Additionally the sub rule also states that the monthly installment of deduction must not exceed one fourth of the wage earned in that month in any case. So this provides a legal protection against the exploitation of the workers. But this rule has been changed and it has been diluted in the Code on Wages Act. See a similar provision to this rule 21 can be found in Code on Wages Act under section 18. Now particularly section 18 sub section 2 clause fi deals with this deduction for recovery of advances. Now as per this section it permits wage deductions for the recovery of advances of whatever nature so it includes advances for travel allowance or conveyance allowance also. Apart from this in addition to the deduction in case of overpayment of wages and any interest due in this connection here also deduction in advances of any nature is also included. Since minor alteration has introduced huge implications mainly because first it has done away with the cap of not more than two calendar months of a workers wages which was provided in the rule 21. So that means employers can now make unlimited advances to their employees and they can increase their hold on workers. See let us take an example to understand this minor alteration brought by the Code on Wages Act regarding this particular deductions provision. Now according to the 1950 rules and particularly under rule 21 let us see what were the conditions first assume that I am an employee and I earn rupees 20,000 per month. Now according to rule 21 I can get an advance of not more than 40,000 because it mentions that the advance must not be greater than the amount of the employed person's earnings for two calendar months. So for two months my earnings will be 20,000 into two which will be 40,000. So I cannot get advance of more than 40,000. Now assume that I have gotten advance from my employer of 40,000 rupees. Now then I have to repay this advance. Now according to the provisions of rule 21 the employer can deduct amount for this advance but the employer can only deduct up to one fourth of the wage earned in that month in any case. So the normal wage earned by me is 20,000 so one fourth of 20,000 will be 5,000 rupees. So my employer can deduct only up to 5,000 against this 40,000 debt or this or against this 40,000 advance. So that means every month 5,000 can be deducted from my salary and in eight months this advance will be paid to the employer. So here this rule 21 fixes this two months rule and this one by fourth of wages rule. Now let us come to the code on wages. Now here the section 18 is applicable. So as per this section now there is no limit of this two months. So I can get any number of amount from my employer. So assume that I am getting one lakh rupees in advance. Now what about this one by fourth rule whether it is present in code on wages? It is present but now this one fourth rule has been changed into one half of workers monthly wage that is it has been made 50 percentage of my wage. So that means 50 percentage of 20,000 will be 10,000. So every month my employer can deduct maximum of 10,000 from my salary against this advance. So if we assume that the employer deducts 10,000 every month then in the time of 10 months my whole debt will be paid. But here the problem is this one lakh has no limit. There is no limit I can even get more amount. So if there is more amount then the reductions will also increase. But in case of this 1950 rules this two months rule put a cap on the amount that the workers can actually get as an advance. So using this people can be pulled into bonded labor because they can get any amount of money as advance. So against that advance they will be asked to work for unlimited amount of time. But you may say here that we still have this 50 percentage rule no. So the employer may not be able to deduct 100 percentage of the money as repayment for advances. But the problem here is that even when this one by fourth rule was already present it was not followed properly. So in this regard only author has noted that not only the codon wages act but also the previous acts such as the bonded labor system abolition act of 1976 or even different supreme court judgments they have never prevented the bonded labor system from spreading through the industries such as the industries of quarrying, spinning, agriculture etc. Here to make us understand author has taken an example. This example is based on a mining cluster of Nagar district in Rajasthan. In this mining cluster a large scale primary survey was conducted. Now this survey found that one in three workers interviewed had taken advances from their employers. But these advances ranged from 1000 to 1.5 lakhs at the date of joining itself. And many of them got these advances said that they got it to pay off their earlier employer or to pay off their money lender. So that means if they are given advances at the time of joining work itself then to repay that amount they are asked to work here. So this endorsed bonded labor. This was found by the large scale primary survey. So here you can see that even though there was two month rule and even though there was you know one fourth rule which we just saw it was not applied in this case. So the laws and statutes of our country are not properly implemented. This can be found from this survey. Now there is also another dimension to this problem which has been pointed out by the author. See author notes that the changes brought on by codon wages will mainly affect the Dalit people and the landless people. Why because for example in this Nagur study itself it was found that 56 percentage of the workers were Dalits. But only 3 percentage of the mine owners were Dalits. So that means many of the people who got into bonded labor were Dalits. And this mainly happens because they make up the majority of landless agricultural laborers in our country. So here their economic independence is absent and it has been equated to slavery. And we know that economic independence is a component of liberty. So what can be done to ensure this liberty? First of all a person should not be asked to surrender his or her constitutional rights as a precondition just to acquire any privilege. But that is exactly what is happening here because here the unemployed they are asked to surrender their liberty to just get the privilege of working. And that is why government's intervention is crucial here. But as we can see and as also author has pointed out dead bondage and forced labor is flourishing because government has done nothing to ensure the economic security of these laborers. So author is worrying that if the codon wages is not amended properly then this situation will only get worse. Because now there is no upper limit or there is no legal protection provided to the workers. So as a measure author actually suggests abolition of this codon wages act by saying that it is an anti-labor law. But we can also suggest that government can look into this particular provision or the provisions that endorse bonded labor and can bring in amendments so that the economic security of laborers are maintained. So these are some of the points that you can take note from this editorial article. Here author has discussed about bonded labor and mainly how the codon wages act actually legalizes or provides a legal ground to practice this bonded labor. This is just one criticism on this codon wages act. We have seen many criticisms previously so you can add this point to those notes. So with this discussion let us move on to the next one. So our last discussion is going to be based on this news article which mentions about the measures taken by the government to address the cyber crime threats. The news article mentions that as of now the National Cyber Crime Threat Analysis Unit has blocked 266 mobile applications. These applications were considered to be cyber security threats. In addition to this the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal also received over 6,000,000 online complaints and article also mentions that the crime and criminal tracking network and systems has now been implemented in all of 16,000 police stations and in 99% police stations 100% affairs are being registered directly using this CCTNS system. So today we are going to see some of the crucial points relevant for problems examination regarding National Cyber Crime Threat Analysis Unit and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and also about the crime and criminal tracking network and systems. The first comes the National Cyber Crime Threat Analysis Unit. See this unit was set up as a component of Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center. Now this Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Center is in short called as I4C and this I4C is an initiative of the Ministry of Home Affairs to combat cyber crime in our country in a coordinated and effective manner and it has many components and as I just said one of the main components is this National Cyber Crime Threat Analysis Unit. Now this unit provides a platform for the law enforcement personnel and even to the persons from private sector, academia and research organizations to work in a collaborative manner and through this collaboration they analyze all pieces of puzzles of cyber crimes. So the functions of this unit includes producing cyber crime threat intelligence reports and also arranging periodic interaction on cyber crime related topics. So in short this unit creates a multi-stakeholder environment for bringing the law enforcement specialists and industry experts together. Now the next important initiative is the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. See this portal is another initiative of the Government of India and as the name suggests it is a reporting portal. So it facilitates the victims or the complainants to report cyber crime complaints online. So this website only accepts complaints about cyber crime and it has a special focus on cyber crime against women and children. So therefore it is critical to submit complete and accurate information when making a complaint in this portal if you want to receive rapid attention. It is because the law enforcement agencies they deal with complaints only based on the information which is provided in the complaints. So in the recent times if you have witnessed any cyber crime threat you can complain in this portal. Now the next initiative is crime and criminal tracking network and systems insured CCTNS. See it is a mission mode project of Government of India under the National E governance plan. This project was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in 2009. This project aims to develop a comprehensive and integrated system for improving policing efficiency and effectiveness by adopting the E governance principle. That is it establishes a nationwide networking infrastructure for the evolution of an IT-enabled state of the art tracking system and it is centered on the crime investigation and detection of criminals. So as you can see here this picture depicts how it integrates the law enforcement agencies. For example here the state crime records bureau or the higher police officers and the police stations and the citizens they are linked to the state system and then the state system is linked to other departments and other states and it is also linked to the central system and this central system is linked to the ministry of home affairs and the national crime records bureau and these are the main objectives of this project of CCTNS. You can just take note of it. So let us just brush up that in this discussion we saw about the national cyber crime threat analysis unit which was established under the Indian cyber crime coordination center and then we have the national cyber crime reporting portal. It facilitates victims to report cyber crime online and then the CCTNS is a mission mode project which integrates the law enforcement agencies by adopting E governance principle. So with these facts in mind now let us move on to the next discussion which is the practice questions discussion session. So today I have two practice questions for discussion in the previous format. Let us take the first question which among the following states are provided special provision under part 21 of Indian constitution. The options given are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh. Now to answer this question we need to know what are these special provisions. So these are the provisions in part 21 of Indian constitution that are provided from article 371 to article 371 J. Now under these articles states have been given certain special provisions. Now the intention behind such special provision is that first it aims to meet the aspirations of the people of backward regions of these states. Second it aims to protect the cultural and economic interests of tribal people belonging to these states and it also aims to deal with the disturbed law and order conditions in some parts of these states. Along with this it also aims to protect the interests of local people of these states. So the states that are mentioned in these special provisions are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh or Telangana, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arnachal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka. So that means six states from northeast have special provisions under the article 371 series along with other six states in our country. So from the northeastern states we do not have special provisions for Meghalaya and Tripura. Remember this fact. So the correct answer to this question is option C because Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh all of these states have been given special provision under part 21 of Indian constitution. Now this next question is regarding the National Cyber Crime Threat Analysis Unit. First statement is it is set up as a component of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. This statement is correct. We saw this during discussion. It is a component of I4C. Now the second statement it creates a nationwide networking infrastructure for evolution of IT enabled state of the art tracking system around investigation of all kinds of crimes and detection of criminals. Now this statement is only partially correct because here it mentions as all kinds of crimes. But we saw during discussion that this unit focuses only on cyber crime and that is why this statement is incorrect. And here the question asks for the correct statements. So the correct answer to this question is option A, one only. Now along with these practice prudence questions, I have two practice main questions. Interested aspirants can write answers to these main questions and post the answer in the comment section for peer review. And whenever we get time we will also review your answer. So viewers, finally we have come to the end of today's in the news analysis and practice questions discussion session. If you like this video, don't forget to like comment and share and to subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for more updates related to civil services preparation. Thank you.