 Good evening aspirants. Welcome to the Hindu news analysis by Shankar Ayes academy. The list of articles that has been chosen for today's analysis are provided here. The link for the handwritten notes in the PDF format and the time stamping for the given articles is provided in the description box below and for the benefit of smartphone users the time stamping is also provided in the comment section. Let's move on to the first article analysis. The first discussion for today is based on this editorial and this editorial is with respect to the criminalization of politics. The syllabus that is relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. We are continuously hearing news that our parliament and state legislative assemblies are being filled with persons who are having pending criminal cases but politics is supposed to be done by educated and enlightened minds of high integrity and morality. It is found that polity and political institutions are unfortunately in the hands of criminals. So when these criminals take the place of parliament or state legislature the governance in the country will be controlled by criminals only. This is what supreme court observed when one of its constitutional benches was delivering verdict in the case law of public interest foundation and others versus union of India and another. So what do we mean when we say criminalization of politics? When we say this we are referring to two things. One at the political party level the politics are done by those who had or having criminal cases against them. Here we are mainly worried about serious offenses such as murder, sexual assaults, kidnapping, extortion, criminal intimidation, corruption, sexual harassment etc. So these are the people who were convicted in their criminal cases by the courts or these are the people against whom the cases are still going on in court of law or these are the people against whom cases are registered in the police station or it is registered at appropriate enforcement authority. So this is one meaning of criminalization of politics. Then the second meaning is that persons with criminal antecedents are contesting in an election, they are winning the elections and they are becoming legislators or ministers of various departments or ministries. But here you should note one point that as of now a person who is convicted of any offense and who is sentenced to imprisonment for two or more years shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and the convicted person shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his or her release. Now this provision is as per section 8 clause 3 of representation of People's Act of 1951. But however there are certain offenses for which just a fine or imprisonment of any time period would mean disqualification. Now this provision is as per the offenses under various legislations which are mentioned in section 8 clause 1 of RPA Act of 1951. Now for such offenses if a person is punished only with fine then that person is disqualified for a period of six years from the date of such conviction. If a person is punished with imprisonment then the person is disqualified from the date of such conviction and the person shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his or her release. In addition to this you have to note one another important thing which is the election commission of India has an extraordinary power with respect to the disqualification. We have been discussing this power since August 2019 where we discussed this power of election commission with respect to the reduction of period of disqualification of present Sikkim chief minister. Now this power is the election commission can remove or reduce the period of disqualification. Now this is as per section 11 of the representation of People's Act of 1951 and based on this provision for the present chief minister of Sikkim the election commission has reduced the period of disqualification from six years since the date of release to one year and one month and this is not the first time that the election commission has reduced such period of disqualification. Once even the election commission reduced the period of disqualification of a convict named Mitrasen Yadu. He was punished with life imprisonment for double murder but even though his period of disqualification was reduced by the election commission of India. So this is the system rules law and the extraordinary power of election commission with respect to the disqualification and criminalization of politics. Here you should note that disqualification at present is applied only for those who were convicted for an offense and what about those who are facing serious criminal offenses such as murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, extortion etc. For these kinds of person they are not prevented by law or rules from contesting the elections that is they can contest the elections. You may think that only if convicted a person can be barred but this is serious if you look at the statement made by the Vohara committee report on criminalization of politics. This committee was appointed by the government. This committee has concluded that the nexus between the criminal gangs, police, bureaucracy and politicians has come out clearly in various parts of the country and that some political leaders become the leaders of these criminal gangs or armed senas and over the years they get themselves elected to local bodies, state assemblies and national parliament. So this was the conclusion given by the Vohara committee on criminalization of politics. But now we have arrived at a time where there is a need to bar or prevent those who have serious criminal cases pending against them from contesting elections. So why are we calling for such a prevention? Why this criminalization of politics is a problem? See as we already saw criminalization of politics leads to the facts that the legislature and the governance of the country is at the hands of criminals or it is controlled by the criminals. Secondly it affects the enjoyment of political justice by citizens. This is because when criminals are at legislature and they are at executive positions then one cannot secure the promise of political justice which is enshrined in the preamble of the Indian constitution. And thirdly because of criminalization of politics the state institutions and their powers will be diluted and they will be weakened. It is because the criminals will modify these institutions in such a way so that it will suit their interests. For example they may dilute important provisions of accountability and transparency and they may even dilute the independence of important institutions in a democracy. And moreover a weakened state of institution is a breeding ground for correct practices that will be carried out by such elected persons who have criminal track record. And also as long as there is criminalization of politics money power is expected to play a major role in the elections. This means that criminalization is a threat to free and fair elections. It is because in a constitutional democracy the government is expected to be comprising of a polity whose members are men and women of high integrity and high morality. Now this composition is said to be the hallmark of any free and fair democracy. When this hallmark is threatened then free and fair democracy is also threatened. Also in such situations one cannot expect that there will be intra-party democracy as well. So these are some of the reasons why criminalization of politics is a problem. Now based on this criminalization of politics only this editorial has been written by the author and this editorial mentions that several measures have been taken by the supreme court to curb the criminalization of politics but things have not changed or they have not improved yet. It is because according to this editorial at present around 29 percentage of members of Lok Sabha face declared criminal cases of serious nature. That is why the author of this editorial is saying that nothing has changed or nothing has improved. So what are the measures taken by the supreme court to curb this criminalization of politics? Some important judgments have been delivered by the supreme court to address this issue. Now before these judgments if you see in 2013 there was a statutory protection for these convicted persons. This protection was provided in the representation of people act of 1951 and it was provided under the provision section 8 clause 4. This section allowed those convicted persons to remain in the office if they filed an appeal within three months from the date of conviction and they can remain in office till the disposal of the appeal is done by a higher court. So when this provision existed what happened was the convicted persons will file the appeal then for the appeal to be heard and to be concluded by the higher court it took years and meanwhile the convict will complete the part of 5 year tenure as a legislator. So that is why we say that this section 8 clause 4 provided a statutory protection for the convicted persons but this statutory protection was struck down by supreme court in 2013. So as a result of this if a person is convicted whether they appeal or not they will be immediately disqualified from the office. So this measure by the supreme court put an end to the convicted criminals remaining in the public office using this section 8 clause 4. Then after this in 2014 in one of its judgments the supreme court directed lower courts to complete trials within one year in cases where elected representatives are involved and further in 2017 the supreme court also asked the center to frame a scheme to appoint special courts to exclusively try the cases against politicians. Then in 2018 the apex court also asked political parties to publicize pending criminals cases that are faced by their candidates. In this regard the supreme court stated that the concerned political party shall be obliged to put up information pertaining to the candidates who are having criminal antecedents. This information shall be put on the party's official website. In addition to this the supreme court also obligated the political parties to issue a declaration about the antecedents of the candidate. This declaration shall be publicized in the widely circulated newspapers in the locality and it should also be publicized in the electronic media. So these are some of the important measures and important judgments of supreme court for addressing the issue of criminalization of politics. In this regard the author has observed that all these interventions by the supreme court has not created deterrence or fear to the legislators who are having criminal antecedents. So the author has prescribed few suggestions. The first suggestion is to amend the representation of People Act of 1951 and this amendment should prohibit candidates from contesting. And these are the candidates against whom charges have been framed in court for serious offenses. And the second suggestion is to create enhanced awareness on electoral processes, democracy, integrity of the candidates etc. For this we can even take the example of SWEEP where SWEEP is the acronym for Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation Program. This program is the flagship program of Election Commission of India. It was started in 2009 and this program aims to build a truly participative democracy in India by encouraging all eligible citizens to vote and to make an informed decision during the elections. And this has to be done by voter education by spreading voter awareness and by promoting voter literacy in India. So as suggested by the author under this program Election Commission can create enhanced awareness on electoral process, democracy, integrity of candidates etc. In addition to this author also called for increased democratic participation to create right conditions for the decriminalization of politics. And the democratic participation here includes the participation of the people, participation of civil society organizations in ensuring the government and the election commission and various stakeholders to take effective action against the criminalization of politics. So these are some of the suggestions that is provided by the author of this editorial to address the problem of criminalization of politics. So in this discussion we saw about criminalization of politics and we also saw about the disruptive impacts of criminalization of politics. And finally we also saw some of the suggestion given by the author to address this issue. With this we come to the end of this discussion that is split practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion which is based on this news article. This news article is about the historic agreement that is signed between the government of India, the state government of Assam and various Bodo groups. The syllabus that is relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. So in the context of this news article let us first see the background of the Bodo issue that resulted in this historic agreement. See the Bodo's are the earliest settlers in the present state of Assam and according to some sources they are present in large populations in the districts of Kokrajar, Bongaigong, Barpeta, Nalbari, Kamroop, Dharang and Sonitpur. And the Bodo's are also listed as scheduled tribes in the state of Assam. So what is the background of this Bodo issue? If you see in 1960s and 1970s there were demands for the creation of a separate union territory for the plains tribals of Assam and this territory was to be called as Uddhyaachal. So this demand is also known as Uddhyaachal movement in Assam. Now this separate union territory was demanded because Bodo's were frustrated as they felt they were not supported by the government in their socioeconomic development and they also accused that immigrants illegally encroached the Bodo inhabited lands. So because of these issues they demanded a separate territory. After this in early 1980s an Assam movement was also going in full swing in the state of Assam to protect the indigenous people of Assam against the influx of illegal immigrants to Assam. Now this movement led to the signing of Assam Accord of 1985 as we know and as per this Assam Accord it was agreed that foreigners who came to Assam on and after 1st January of 1966 and up to 24th March of 1971 they shall be detected in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act of 1946 and the foreigners tribunals order of 1964 and then necessary measures shall be taken. So after seeing the success of this Assam movement Bodo's also launched movements to protect their own identity. So in late 1980s Bodo's demanded a separate state. They demanded that Assam has to be divided into 50-50 and they wanted to create a new state of Bodo land and in this movement some representations of Bodo's like the All Bodo Students Union adopted a peaceful approach but it is at that time the armed separatist groups were also founded. These separatist groups are the Bodo land liberation tigers and the national democratic front of Bodo land and with respect to these armed separatist groups you should remember that as of 30th December 2019 the national democratic front of Bodo land is a banned organization in India. It is listed as a terrorist organization in the first schedule of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. Now coming back to the Bodo issue after the late 1980s in the February 1993 a Bodo land autonomous council was constituted. It was constituted after the central government, state government of Assam and the All Bodo Students Union signed a tripartite agreement. Tripartite means involving three parties. Now this Bodo land autonomous council was formed after the parliament enacted Bodo land autonomous council act of 1993 and this act provided maximum autonomy to Bodo's within the framework of Indian constitution. Even after this if you see militancy was still high in Bodo living areas. A lot of people were either killed or displaced because of these militancy and at that time the Bodo's main aim was to preserve their cultural identity, language and fulfill their aspirations related to education and economic development. So in order to address these demands the government of India, government of Assam and Bodo liberation tigers which was then a banned organization started the peace negotiations in 2000. Now the peace negotiations led to the signing of a memorandum of settlement of Bodo land territorial council and this was signed in 2003. After this agreement the Bodo liberation tigers gave up their arms so after that there were no more a banned organization. Now based on this 2003 agreement Bodo land territorial council was created. This Bodo land territorial council was created as an autonomous self-governing body within the state of Assam. It was provided constitutional protection under sixth schedule of the Indian constitution and this agreement aimed to fulfill the economic, educational and linguistic aspirations of the Bodo's and it also aimed at the preservation of the land rights, socio-cultural identity and ethnic identity of the Bodo's. In addition to this the agreement also aimed to speed up the infrastructure development in the Bodo land territorial council and as per this agreement many states subjects under the seventh schedule of Indian constitution were transferred to this Bodo land territorial council and the council was given more executive, financial, legislative and administrative powers in the Bodo land territorial area districts. Now this Bodo land territorial area districts comprises so four administrative districts. They are Udalguri, Baksa, Chirang, Kokrajhar and also as per this 2003 agreement Bodo language was included in the eighth schedule of Indian constitution. Now we saw that because of this agreement the Bodo liberation tigers gave up their arms and there were no more a banned organization. But if you see still the national democratic front of Bodo land or NDFB in Assam was continued to be listed as a banned organization by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. It is because they were involved in militancy and also there were reports that this NDFB has links with another banned organization in Assam which is ULFA that is United Liberation Front of Assam. So because of the militancy by NDFB in 2005 a tripartite ceasefire agreement was signed between the central government, government of Assam and NDFB and this ceasefire agreement had been periodically extended from time to time. Meanwhile several factions of this national democratic front of Bodo land also came up and many of these factions were reported to have involved in sporadic militant activities in Assam. Apart from these issues in general if you see the Bodo's were not satisfied with the agreements of 1993 and 2003. So they have been consistently demanding more powers and they demand to include more areas under the Bodo land territorial council where Bodo's are present. So this is about the background of this Bodo issue. Now today's news is that on 27 January 2020 that is yesterday an accord that is an agreement has been signed between the central government, the state government of Assam and representatives of Bodo land territorial council. All Bodo students union united Bodo peoples organization and between various factions of NDFB. This agreement has been signed with all of these organizations for a permanent resolution of the Bodo issue. Now let us see the objectives of this agreement. The first objective of this agreement is to increase the scope and powers of the Bodo land territorial council and also to streamline its functioning and then to resolve the issues related to Bodo people who are residing outside the Bodo land territorial area districts. So as a part of this objective the Bodo land territorial area district will be redrawn and they will be renamed as Bodo land territorial region. Now currently this district is spread over the four districts of Kokrajar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri and as per this agreement villages which are dominated by Bodo's that are presently outside this Bodo land territorial area district will be included and the villages which do not have Bodo population will be excluded from the district. In addition to this based on this objective Bodo's living in the hill areas will be granted the scheduled hill tribe status. Now the next objective is to promote and protect the Bodo's social, cultural, linguistic and ethnic identities then to provide for the legislative protection for the land rights of the tribals then also to ensure quick development of Bodo tribal areas. As a part of this special development package of rupees 1500 crores will be given by the central government over three years. This development package is to undertake specific projects for the development of Bodo areas. Also this agreement aims to rehabilitate members of NDFP factions and the union home minister has said that around 1500 cadres of NDFP progressive, NDFP Ranjan Daimari and NDFP Saurai Grah will be rehabilitated by the center and the Assam government. The union home minister also said that these cadres will be assimilated in the mainstream and for that they will surrender on January 30th which is the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. So with this agreement over 1500 armed cadres will reject violence and they will join the mainstream. Now initially we saw that as on 30th December 2019 the NDFP is a banned organization in India. So based on this agreement and based on the rehabilitation process we may expect that NDFP will be removed from the list of banned organization which are listed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. As every single Bodo group has come on board to sign this accord the union home minister has said that the signing of the agreement will end the 50 year old Bodo crisis and with this agreement Assam's territorial integrity is also assured. So we can see that this agreement is a win-win situation for both the government and the Bodo's because the Bodo's expectations are met by this agreement and at the same time Assam's territorial integrity is also assured and if you remember in our 17th January Hindi news analysis we saw that a quadripartite agreement was signed between the government of India the state government of Tripura and Vizoram and the Brooryank representatives it was signed to end the humanitarian crisis in Tripura and now this agreement is signed by the central government with the Bodo groups. So measures like these by the central government and the respective state governments will ease the ethnic tensions and militancy in the northeast and this will help in the overall development of the northeast in the future. So we can see development in terms of infrastructure connectivity economic growth tourism which all will lead to overall social development that is all about this news article. In this discussion we saw about the Bodo issue and we also saw about the objectives of the Bodo agreement that is signed by the central government with the Bodo groups. With this we come to the end of this discussion the respective practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion this discussion is with respect to the abolition of legislative council of Andhra Pradesh. The syllabus that can be linked to this discussion is given here for your reference. Yesterday we discussed that the AP government that is the Andhra Pradesh government has decided to abolish the legislative council. In that context we also discussed about the creation and abolition of legislative council and the procedure behind it and then we also saw the advantages and disadvantages of having a legislative council and today's news articles are the further developments in the decision of the Andhra Pradesh government. Today's news article mentions that Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly has adopted a statutory resolution for the abolition of the legislative council and this resolution was adopted yesterday. This resolution has been moved by the Andhra Pradesh government as per article 169 clause one of the constitution. Now we discussed yesterday that this article 169 deals with the abolition or creation of legislative councils in states. This article states that parliament may by law provide for the abolition of the legislative council of a state that is having such a council if the legislative assembly of the state passes a resolution to that effect by a majority of the total membership of the assembly and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the assembly present in voting and this majority is nothing but the special majority. Now based on this provision the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly has passed the resolution yesterday. Now here you should be clear about one point the constitution provides for the abolition or creation of legislative councils in states and accordingly the parliament can abolish a legislative council or it can also create it if the legislative assembly of the concerned state passes a resolution to that effect. So by this we can say that the power to abolish or create a legislative council lies with the parliament and for creating or abolishing a legislative council the parliament has to amend the constitution but remember that this act of parliament is not to be deemed as an amendment of the constitution for the purposes of article 368 rather this act is passed like an ordinary piece of legislation by simple majority of the parliament. Here you should be clear that the power to initiate an amendment to the constitution lies with the parliament hence the state legislatures cannot initiate any bill or proposal for amending the constitution except in one case and that one case is passing a resolution which requests the parliament for the creation or abolition of legislative councils in the states. Here the parliament can either approve or even disapprove such a resolution or the parliament even may not take any action on the resolution but if the parliament approves the resolution then based on the resolution the parliament makes an act for amending the constitution but however the power to initiate the process of amendment of the constitution lies exclusively in the hands of the parliament and not with the state legislature the state legislature can only request. So these are the constitutional facts that you should know with respect to the abolition or creation of a legislative council. Now what is the reason for the abolition decision of legislative council by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Some reasons are given by the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. According to the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh the council had lost its public utility so spending even a single rupee on the council from the treasury would be a waste of public money according to the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh. According to the CM of Andhra Pradesh currently they are spending 60 crore per year for the legislative council so based on that he added that there was no point in spending a huge amount of money on the council if it comes in the way of important government business in the legislature. The CM of AP also added that the assembly was under no obligation to accommodate the amendments to the bills which was proposed by the council. He even accused the legislative council of obstructing the passage of two bills. The two bills which we are discussing now is the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Repeal Bill of 2020 and the Andhra Pradesh Decentralization and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill of 2020. So this contention created a deadlock between the houses of the state legislature. Normally a deadlock between the two houses of a legislature takes place when the legislative council after receiving a bill passed by the legislative assembly either rejects the bill or proposes amendments to that bill that are not acceptable to the legislative assembly or even when it does not pass the bill within three months then it amounts to deadlock between the houses of the state legislature and in the current scenario the legislative council of Andhra Pradesh proposed some amendments to the bills which we just saw and these amendments are not acceptable to the legislative assembly of Andhra Pradesh. So to come out of such a deadlock the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly has decided to scrap the legislative council as the ruling party does not have a majority in the legislative council. So these are the information that you should know with respect to the legislative council of Andhra Pradesh and the reason behind the proposed abolition of legislative council of Andhra Pradesh. With this we come to the end of this discussion. Moving on to the next discussion which is based on this editorial in the last discussion we saw the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh government to abolish the legislative council and based on that decision this editorial is written by the author. The author criticizes the abolition and revival of the second chamber in state legislatures which is nothing but the legislative council. It is called as the second chamber of state legislature. The author criticizes by saying that abolition and revival of legislative council has become a matter of political expediency or political benefit that is it is done for the benefit of the political parties and mostly the ruling party. And even if you see in the Andhra Pradesh case the CM of Andhra Pradesh is accusing the legislative council of obstructing the passage of the two bills. So regarding this accusation the author is of the opinion that chief ministers have to bear the possible delay that is caused by the council's opinion or council's course of action and the CMs should seek to build a legislative consensus instead of just pushing their agenda. See here the AP government's agenda is to have three capitals one capital will be a legislative capital another will be a executive capital and the third one will be a judicial capital and the agenda is to locate the state's high court in Karnul and the state's legislature in Amravati and the government's secretariat in Vishakhapatnam. Now these agendas were mentioned in the bills but some amendments were suggested by the legislative council which did not impress the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh and that is why the procedure for abolition of legislative council has been started by the legislative assembly of Andhra Pradesh. Now with respect to this author notes that Andhra Pradesh CM will have to listen to different voices on the proposal made by him regarding the three capitals and he should seek to build a legislative consensus rather than just pushing the agenda. In addition to this author notes that states that are without a legislative council are in favor of the revival of legislative council because according to the author Rajasthan, Assam, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh have passed resolutions for the revival of legislative council but they are yet to get the parliamentary approval. Even if you see in Andhra Pradesh the then government in 1983 sought the abolition of legislative council and this was approved by parliament in 1985 based on which the legislative council of Andhra Pradesh was abolished at that time but later when another party formed the government in Andhra Pradesh the legislative council was revived in 2007. Then again if you see the present scenario the present Andhra Pradesh government is seeking to abolish the legislative council. So based on this abolitions and revivals author notes that there is no consensus for abolition or revival that is why again and again this is repeating. Even if you see in 2010 the MLA's of Assam Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution for the creation of legislative council in their state and followed by this in 2012 the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly also passed a resolution for the creation of legislative council in their state unanimously and the bills for creating these legislative council are still pending in Rajya Sabha but when the Rajasthan's bill for the creation of legislative council was examined by a parliamentary committee the parliamentary committee made some important recommendation with respect to the legislative council. The committee observed that there is a need to evolve a national policy that will be dedicated for the creation or abolition of legislative council. The committee recommended this because of the fact that the status of second chamber or the legislative council cannot be of temporary in nature and it cannot depend on the mood of the government of the day nor it can be abolished once created based on the whims and fancies of the newly elected government in this state because of these reasons the parliamentary committee recommended for a national policy which will be dedicated for the creation or abolition of legislative council. Now with respect to this recommendation author raises a question on whether the councils are serving their intended purpose are they taking considered view on the matters without being influenced or not. Based on this question author is of the opinion that if this is not happening then there may not be much meaning in the existence of legislative council. So author concludes by giving another reason for not needing a legislative council in a state. According to the author there is less justification for having a separate representation in the councils for graduates when democracy has established the same and the assemblies are representative of all the sections of the society. So from this we can say that author is of the opinion that if councils are not serving their intended purpose then there is no need to have them just for the representation of graduates. So these are the comments made by the author based on the decision of Andhra Pradesh government on legislative council. With this we come to the end of this discussion. The respect practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion which is based on this news article. This news article is with respect to the strategic disinvestment of Air India. Various interested bidders have been called to submit the expression of interest and the last date for the submission of this expression of interest to purchase Air India is 17th March 2020. So this news will be the talk of the town in the first half of this year and we will be having many editorials and news articles in this regard. So in the context of analyzing this news article we will see some basic information about the recently issued memorandum for strategic disinvestment of Air India. Then we will see Air India in general and its shareholding in its subsidiaries and we will also see few other information such as FDA policy in civil aviation sector in this analysis. The syllabus that can be linked to this discussion is given here for your reference. Yesterday that is on 27th January 2020 the government of India has issued the preliminary information memorandum for strategic disinvestment of Air India. This memorandum was earlier approved by the Air India specific alternative mechanism. This mechanism was constituted by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in 2017. It was constituted for the purpose of strategic disinvestment of Air India and its subsidiaries. Now this mechanism is headed by the union home minister and it consists of union minister of commerce and industry, union minister of finance and corporate affairs and also the union minister of civil aviation as its members. Now the preliminary information memorandum states that there will be transfer of management control and sale of 100% shares of Air India. But some part of Air India will not be part of this transaction. We will see about this later in the discussion. Now you should note that this transfer of management control and sale of Air India will be made along with the transfer of subsidiary of Air India and a joint venture of Air India. The subsidiary is Air India Express Limited and the joint venture is AI Sats Airport Services Private Limited. AI Sats is a joint venture of Air India with Singapore Airport Terminal Service. This joint venture provides ground handling services and cargo handling services at airports that are situated at Delhi, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Trivandrum and Mangalore. And you should also know that Air India has 100% stake in Air India Express Limited and Air India has 50% stake in its joint venture which is AI Sats. So sale of Air India as committed in the memorandum means that the sale will also include the transfer of 100% stake in Air India Express Limited and 50% stake in AI Sats. So generally you should know that as of now Air India is a central public sector enterprise and it is under the administrative control of Ministry of Civil Aviation Government of India and Air India is completely owned by the Government of India and this Air India has five subsidiaries. In this table you can see the shareholding of Air India in its five subsidiaries along with the nature of business of these five subsidiaries. Now you may be thinking that what about the other four subsidiaries of Air India. For this the preliminary information memorandum has categorically stated that Air India Engineering Services Limited, Air India Air Transport Services Limited, Airline Allied Services Limited and Hotel Corporation of India will not be a part of the proposed transaction under the strategic disinvestment of Air India. So currently these four entities are in the process of being transferred to a separate company called as Air India Assets Holding Limited. So this is the basic information about Air India. Now let us see about the Transaction Advisor for this proposed strategic disinvestment. The Transaction Advisor for this disinvestment is Ernest and Young LLP India. It has been appointed by the Government of India for advising and managing the proposed strategic disinvestment of Air India Limited. So generally you should know that Ernest and Young LLP is a Limiter Liability Partnership and it is registered under the Limiter Liability Partnership Act of 2008 in India and Ernest and Young LLP is one of the member firms of Ernest and Young Global Limited that serves the needs of Indian clients and this global limited company is a UK company and generally this Ernest and Young company is known as a global leader in tax, transaction and advisory services and in this relation the Indian Ernest and Young Limited Liability Partnership has been made as Transaction Advisor for the Strategic Disinvestment of Air India and you should also note that this attempt by the Government for the Strategic Disinvestment of Air India is the second attempt of Government of India. The first attempt was made in March 2018. At that time the Government of India released a preliminary information memorandum but it was reported that no one showed interest to buy Air India at that time and that is why for the second time the preliminary information memorandum has been released by the Government. So in this context it becomes important to know about the FDA policy of Government of India in the civil aviation sector. Now this can be understood in three dimensions. One is for foreign investments that are other than foreign airlines then the other is for foreign investments that come from foreign airlines and thirdly the FDA policy for investments specifically in the Air India Limited. Now for the foreign investments that are other than foreign airlines the FDA cap is 100% that is FDA up to 100% is allowed by the Government but for the foreign investments that come from foreign airlines the FDA cap is 49% only that is the investments can be up to the limit of 49% of paid up capital of the Indian company. Now coming to the Air India Government has made specific FDA policy for Air India in the civil aviation sector and based on this specific FDA policy the foreign direct investment in Air India shall not exceed 49%. So for Air India in general that is any foreign investment whether it is foreign airline or other than foreign airline the FDA or any investment shall not exceed 49%. In addition to this the Government has also stated that substantial ownership and effective control of Air India Limited shall continue to be vested in Indian Nationals. So based on the current policy of the Government Air India can be owned and can be controlled by Indian Nationals only. So these are the information that you should know with respect to the FDA policy of Government of India in civil aviation sector and particularly specific to the Air India Limited. In this discussion we discussed about the strategic disinvestment proposed for Air India and we also saw some basic details about Air India. With this we come to the end of this discussion. The complete practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the last discussion for the day which is based on this news article. This news article is about Coronavirus. This news article reports a research study which was published last week in the Lancet which is a medical journal. On our 19th January Hindu News Analysis we saw about the recently discovered novel Coronavirus in China and during that analysis we also discussed in detail about the symptoms the mode of transmission of this novel Coronavirus. And even after that in the past one week we also saw many news articles about the status of spread of this Coronavirus. In this context today's news article discusses the findings of the research study that is conducted by a group of researchers from Wuhan China. So let us see the research study and its findings now. Before that the syllabus that is relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. This research study is titled as clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel Coronavirus in Wuhan China. This research study reports the various clinical characteristics of the patients who are infected with this novel Coronavirus and it also reports the treatment and clinical outcomes of the infected patients. This study was funded by various government agencies and institutions of China. The patients who were admitted for pneumonia fever among them the body samples were diagnosed for possible source of infection. Apart from this the researchers also directly communicated with patients and their families to ascertain the epidemiological and symptom data. So this is the background of this study. Now let us see the findings of this research study. Based on the diagnosis of the patients it was found that the patients were infected by a novel Beta Coronavirus which is called the 2019 novel Coronavirus. Most of the infected patients were men and less than half of the infected patients had already underlying diseases that is they had other diseases like diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular ailments. And the study also found that almost two-thirds of the infected patients that is around 66 percentage of the infected patients had been exposed to the Huanan seafood market which is located in Wuhan. But still this research study is not able to ascertain the origin of this newly found virus. It acknowledges that there are major gaps in knowing the origin of 2019 novel Coronavirus that is why this news article is titled as major gaps in our knowledge of Coronavirus origin. And the study also found some common symptoms among the patients who were infected with this novel Coronavirus. Some of the common symptoms during the onset of this illness were fever, cough and fatigue. And then less common symptoms were putum production, headache and diarrhea. And it was also found that all the infected patients had pneumonia. And that is why the researchers diagnosed the patients who were admitted for pneumonia fever for the possible source of infection. So these were the symptoms that is reported by this research study. And even on our 19th January in the news analysis we saw that the common symptoms or signs of this Coronavirus infection includes respiratory symptoms, fever, cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. And we saw that in more severe cases the viral infection can cause pneumonia, it can cause severe acute respiratory syndrome that is SARS and it can even cause kidney failure and even death. So you can see that the symptoms of the novel Coronavirus infection match the general symptoms of Coronavirus infection. Then after this the study also notes that this novel Coronavirus infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness which are similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus that is SARS Coronavirus. The study notes that the infected patients were admitted in ICU that is intensive care units and high mortality was reported among them. Then after this the research study has also concluded that no antiviral treatment for Coronavirus infection has been proven to be effective so far. Now since this is an emerging virus an effective treatment has not been developed so far for this disease. So we can see that there is no specific treatment for this disease as of now. And the research study also suggested some precautions to tackle the spread of this 2019 novel Coronavirus. The research study recommends airborne precautions such as a fit tested N95 respirator and other protective equipment. Then it recommends to prevent further spread of this disease in healthcare settings that are caring for the patients who are infected with this virus. And it also suggests to closely monitor the onset of fever and respiratory symptoms among the healthcare workers. Then it also recommends the testing of respiratory specimens as soon as the diagnosis is suspected. So the research study concludes that future studies are required to know more about this disease and it states that most of the Coronavirus cases are mild but so far severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus have caused more than 10,000 cumulative cases in the past two decades. And the mortality rates for SARS Coronavirus was 10% and for MERS Coronavirus it was 37%. But as per this research study mortality rate is high for this 2019 novel Coronavirus because so far 15% mortality rate has been reported. So that is why the report calls for future studies to know more about this disease. So these are the information that are mentioned in the research study. In this discussion we saw the findings of this research study and the suggestions provided by the research study to tackle the spread of 2019 novel Coronavirus. With this we come to the end of this discussion. The next session is the practice questions discussion session. This question is based on legislative council. The first statement states a legislative council can be created by both the parliament and respective state legislative assembly but it can only be abolished by parliament. Now this statement is incorrect as you know the constitution provides for the abolition or creation of legislative councils in states and this is provided under article 169 of Indian constitution. Based on this article the parliament can abolish a legislative council where it already exists or it can create the legislative council where it does not exist. And this can be done if the legislative assembly of the concerned state passes a resolution for the creation or abolition of legislative council. So from this you can easily say that only parliament has the power to create or abolish legislative council but the procedure for it has to be initiated in the state legislative assembly. So this statement is wrong. Now look at the second statement it states for creating or abolishing a legislative council the parliament has to amend the constitution as provided by article 368 of Indian constitution. Now we know that article 368 of Indian constitution is solely for the purpose of amendment to the constitution and this article deals with the powers of parliament to amend the constitution and it also provides procedure for the same and based on this article the parliament may amend the constitution by way of addition variation or repeal of any provision in the constitution. But whether the creation or abolition of legislative council comes under the scope of article 368 no it does not because there are number of provisions in the constitution which can be amended by a simple majority of the two houses of parliament and they are outside the scope of this article 368 and one among them is abolition or creation of legislative councils in states. So this statement is also wrong here the question asks for the correct statement. Here neither first statement is correct nor second statement is correct. So the correct answer to this question is neither one nor two. In this question two statements are given and we have to choose the correct statement. The first statement is the Bodo land territorial council was established by amending the fifth schedule of Indian constitution. Now this statement is incorrect because this council was established by amending the sixth schedule of constitution it was established in 2003 following a peace agreement between the government of India and Bodo liberation tigers. So since 2003 this Bodo land territorial council is functioning under the provisions of the amended sixth schedule of the Indian constitution and this council has legislative power, administrative power, executive power and financial powers in the Bodo land territorial areas district and this district comprises of four administrative districts which are Udalguri, Baksa, Chirang, Kokarajar and also know that this fifth schedule contains provisions related to the administration and control of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes whereas the sixth schedule is related to the provisions as to the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. So this statement is wrong. Now the second statement is Bodo language is listed as a scheduled language under the eighth schedule of Indian constitution. Now this statement is correct Bodo language is listed as a scheduled language under the eighth schedule of Indian constitution and this language was included by the 92nd amendment act of 2003 and in this 92nd constitutional amendment act four languages were included in the schedule. These languages are Bodo, Dogri or Dongri, Mathili or Mythili and then Santhali. After the inclusion of these four languages to the eighth schedule the total number of constitutionally recognized languages was increased to 22 and currently also we have 22 languages as scheduled languages. So these are the four languages that were last included in the eighth schedule. So this statement is correct. Here the question asks for the correct statement. So the correct answer to this question is option B2 only. Now this question is based on civil aviation sector. The first statement is foreign direct investment of 100% is allowed from all sources of foreign investments. Now this statement is incorrect because 100% FDI is not allowed for all sources of foreign investment and if the source of investments is from foreign airlines then only 49% of FDI is allowed. So this statement is wrong. Now the second statement states foreign airlines can invest under FDI route in Air India limited up to the tune of 74%. Now this statement is also wrong because any foreign direct investment in Air India can only be up to 49% which means it is below 50%. And also remember that the substantial ownership and effective control of the Air India limited shall continue to be vested in the Indian nationals as per the FDI policy of government of India in the civil aviation sector. Now before answering this question just to see whether question asks for correct statement or incorrect statement. Here the question asks for incorrect statement and both the statements are incorrect so the correct answer to this question is both 1 and 2. Well let us see one main question based on GS paper 2. Discuss the role played by the Supreme Court in addressing criminalization of politics. What are your suggestions to eradicate the menace of growing threat of criminalization of Indian politics. Now for addressing this question you can mention about what do you mean by criminalization of politics in two lines. Then you can talk about the measures taken by Supreme Court to address this problem in that you can mention the 2014 judgment of Supreme Court in which it directed the lower courts to complete trials within one year in the cases where elected representatives are involved. And then in 2017 the Supreme Court even asked the center to frame a scheme to appoint special courts to exclusively try the cases against politicians. Then after this in 2018 the apex court asked political parties to publicize depending criminal cases that is faced by their candidate. So like this many measures are taken by the Supreme Court to address this problem. Then after this the question also asked for you to give your suggestion to eradicate this problem. You can mention the suggestions which we discussed in the editorial analysis or you can also mention your own suggestions. Now let us see one main question based on GS paper 3. Examine the recent initiatives of the government of India in resolving the concerns of Bodo's. Now this is a very straightforward question or today's discussion was based on this only in which we saw that an historic agreement has been signed between the government of India, the state government of Assam and various Bodo groups. So for answering this question for about 50 words you can mention about the Bodo issue. Then for the remaining 100 words you have to talk about the initiative of the government and the recent initiative was the signing of this agreement and you have to mention the objectives and features of this agreement. You can write the answer and post it in the comment section and we will review and appropriate suggestion will be provided for the answer in 7 to 10 working days. With this we have come to the end of today's sessions. If you like the video don't forget to like comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for more updates on civil service examination preparation.