 Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankar Ayes Academy. The list of news articles along with the page numbers of five different editions is given here for your reference. The handwritten notes in PDF format and the timestamping of all the news articles taken up for today's analysis is available in the description section and also in the comment section in the best interest of the viewers. Let us now begin our analysis. This first news article is regarding the State Election Commissioner in the state of Andhra Pradesh. This news article discussion will give you a classic example of how an action of executive acts against the security of tenure as provided in the Indian constitution. So in this analysis, let us discuss about the background of this issue. Then let us know about article 243K from Prillam's perspective and then simultaneously we will also see the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in this particular issue and the recent developments. The syllabus that is relevant to the analysis of this news article is given here for your reference. See in March 2020, just before the country was about to go into complete lockdown, the State Election Commissioner in Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Ramesh Kumar postponed the local body elections due to COVID-19 threat. But if you see this decision was not received well with the ruling party in the Andhra Pradesh state, so in March itself the state government filed a red petition in the Supreme Court where it refused to interfere with the decision of the State Election Commissioner. Then if you see in April 2020, the governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated an ordinance which is called as the Andhra Pradesh Panchayatraj Second Amendment Ordinance 2020. This ordinance amended the Andhra Pradesh Panchayatraj Act of 1994. See this amendment modified the eligibility criterion regarding the appointment of the State Election Commissioner. In perseverance of this ordinance, the governor also issued the Andhra Pradesh Panchayatraj Salaries and Allowances, Conditions of Service and tenure of the State Election Commissioner rules 2020 and these rules replaced the existing 1994 rules in Andhra Pradesh state. See as per 2020 rules, the State Election Commissioner will hold the office for a term of three years and will be entitled to be considered for the appointment for another three years. More importantly, the 2020 rules also prematurely terminated the tenure of the incumbent State Election Commissioner. The tenure started in 2016 which is to end after five years of appointment in 2021 only but due to the ordinance, he was forcefully made to vacate the office through a government order and in this place, another person was appointed as the State Election Commissioner. So this was challenged in the Andhra Pradesh High Court as violating the constitutional procedure. The main provision of dispute was about article 243 K of Indian Constitution. In relation to this matter, the High Court gave a final order on 29 May 2020. This judgment set aside both the ordinance as well as the 2020 rules. We know that during the recess of state legislature, the governor has ordinance making power under article 213 of Indian Constitution. So under this article, if the governor is satisfied that the circumstances exist, which makes him necessary to take immediate action, then he can promulgate an ordinance. But according to the High Court, the existing circumstances at that time when the ordinance was promulgated was not necessary to come up with an ordinance. Therefore, the High Court set aside the ordinance and the High Court also concluded that the promulgated ordinance was activated by fraud and power. That is the ruling party misused its power. Now, if you look at this article 243 K, it states that the State Election Commission consisting of State Election Commissioner is to be appointed by the governor. In clause 2 of this article, it states that, subject to any law made by the state legislature, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be determined by the governor through rules. Now, let us see how the High Court interpreted these provisions. It said that appointment of State Election Commissioner is made by governor under his discretionary power. Then it said that in clause 2, the expression conditions of service and tenure of office does not include appointment. So, remember this, it said that on appointment and holding of the post of State Election Commissioner, the conditions of service and tenure of office may be as per any law made by state legislature or as determined by the rules made by the governor. So, this implies that any law or rule on tenure of office will be applicable from the fresh appointment after the expiry of term of the incumbent State Election Commissioner. And if you see the High Court also concluded that any law or rules under clause 2 cannot prescribe the eligibility and manner of appointment and for this purpose, the state does not have the power to aid and advise the governor to promulgate an ordinance. And more importantly, if you see the High Court also concluded that the State Election Commissioner can be removed by following constitutional procedure prescribed in article 243K21B. That is, the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and in like grounds as high court judge. So, the court upheld the security of tenure of the State Election Commissioner. And if you see the High Court set aside the appointment of the new State Election Commissioner as well and it ordered to restore the position of Mr. Ramesh Kumar until the completion of his tenure. So, based on the order of High Court on 30th July 2020, the governor of Andhra Pradesh restored the position of Mr. Ramesh Kumar as the State Election Commissioner. Now, if you look at this notification, it states that this order is subject to the outcome of special leave petition filed by Andhra Pradesh in Supreme Court. It means that the government of Andhra Pradesh is requesting clarification at the Supreme Court regarding what is the meaning of tenure of office and to whom it will apply etc under this particular article 243K2. So, this is all about the discussion of this news article. So, you can see that this news article has presented you an example of how an action of executive in this case the State Government of Andhra Pradesh is acting against the security of tenure provided in the Indian Constitution. Here we mean the security of tenure provided to the State Election Commissioners under article 243K of Indian Constitution. So, to summarize we saw the background, then we saw about this article 243K and we saw the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which overturned the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the subsequent developments. Now, have a look at this practice question. Let us move on to the next news article. This next discussion is going to be based on these two, three editorials from the editorial page. The theme of discussion in all these editorials is related to the first anniversary of the abrogation of article 370 and the subsequent bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into the union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. So, in this context let us see what are the ground realities. Let us suppose the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019. The syllabus that is relevant to the analysis of all these three editorials is given here for your reference. Before moving on to look at the editorials, let us have a brief background regarding article 370. See, article 370 allowed the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir a certain amount of autonomy to have its own constitution, to have its separate flag and the freedom to make its own laws. At the same time, foreign affairs, defense and communications remain with the central government. So, as a result of all these, the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency, relating to ownership of property and even relating to its own fundamental rights. And it could also bar Indians from outside the state, from purchasing property or even settling there. So, you can see that this article 370 provided a certain amount of autonomy to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. On August 5th, 2019, this article 370 was abrogated and the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two by introducing the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019. And today marks the end of the first anniversary of this abrogation and subsequent bifurcation. So, this is the reason why these editorials and certain news articles related to Jammu and Kashmir have appeared on today's editions. So, let us look at all these three editorials in brief now. If you look at this first editorial, in this editorial, the author is of the opinion that the abrogation of article 370 and the subsequent bifurcation has caused more harm than the intended benefits by breaking up the state. The author explains this by saying that Kashmir has been a favorite site of our national myth-making. Here, the author means that various myths associated with Jammu and Kashmir have made us to believe that ending special status to Jammu and Kashmir will solve all the problems. First, the author talks about a myth according to which articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution were the root cause of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. The constitutional provisions are also held responsible for ruining Jammu and Kashmir and stalling its development and preventing proper health care in blocking industries. Here, the author contradicts with these ideas by saying that the removal of article 370 hasn't reduced terrorism or militancy in Jammu and Kashmir. And in terms of development, the author is of the opinion that Jammu and Kashmir is doing nothing much better than most other Indian states. And one of the reasons for this was the land reforms carried out in the state in the early 1950s. According to the author, the poor presence of private industries in Jammu and Kashmir is because of terrorism and not because of article 370. Next, the author talks another myth according to which the better status of Jammu and Kashmir is because of massive center funding to Jammu and Kashmir. Here, the author is of the opinion that the better performance of Jammu and Kashmir in comparison to most other Indian states is at least partly because of article 370 and its well-being is not necessarily as a result of the funding by the central government. Now, coming to the third myth which the author talks about is development can defeat militancy and insurgency. The author says that the development may not lead to pacification of the conflict in Kashmir. Here, we should note that the Kashmir conflict is function of complex historical grievances, then various political ethnic demands, then increasing religious radicalization and also Pakistan's interference in the Kashmir valley. So, the author tells that it is too simple to imagine that such a multi-layered and complex conflict can be resolved by just bringing a constitutional change and providing an economic package. So, the author says that because of all these myths, India witnessed a rare political unity in the rest of the country supporting the abrogation of article 370. Also, the author says that the popular perception that is present in the mainland India that Kashmiris are troublemakers and sympathizers of terror has led to an increase in the mistreatment of Kashmiri Muslims in rest of the country. In the conclusion, the author of this editorial says that by removing article 370, the very basis of the potential process of conflict resolution in Kashmir has been removed. Now, why the author tells this because he substantiates this fact by telling that the violence in Kashmir post-abrogation is on the rise and this contradicts the popular perception that article 370 is the root cause of violence. Also, the author says that Pakistan is benefited with more discontent in the Kashmiris who are unhappy with the removal of special status of Jammu in Kashmir. So, these are some of the important points from this first editorial. Now, if you look at the second editorial, here the author is of the opinion that without guaranteeing democratic rights to people and federalism for Jammu and Kashmir, peace cannot be achieved. The idea that the presence of article 370, we can the Indian Union is actually not correct and it is contrary to the basic understanding of democracy. So, this is what the author of this editorial tells. He also tells that the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir should have been seen in the context of an urge for recognition of identity within the vast ambit of the liberal and accommodative spirit of the Indian Union. That is to recognize the importance of the federal subjects like Kashmiris, or be it any other region. So, basically here the author focuses on the concept of federalism. Next, if you look at this editorial, the author of this editorial is also of the same opinion similar to the author of the first editorial which we saw. That is both believe that the special status which was given to Jammu and Kashmir earlier strengthened the Indian Union and it led to better policy implementation and participation in the political processes. So, the author of this editorial ends by telling that in order to reach normalcy and peace in Jammu and Kashmir, India requires multi-layer institutionalized decentralization and respect for the democratic rights for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Now, if you look at this third editorial, this third editorial targets the judiciary. It tells that both the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and even the Supreme Court have not taken any measures to settle the constitutional and legal questions that were raised before them after the application of Article 370 and the subsequent bifurcation. Why? Because it's almost a year now and since no decision has been taken in this regard. So, the author tells that the spirit of Indian federalism has been weakened. Also, if you see majority of the mainstream politicians from Jammu and Kashmir have been detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and many of them have not been released so far. So, the author tells that the mainstream politics in Jammu and Kashmir has become impossible now with the leaders in detention. So, the author stresses that all the political prisoners should be released and the statehood should be restored. So, both these measures would bring progress for Jammu and Kashmir. So, you can see that all these three editorials are quite biased to a certain aspect that all of them stressed for the need to reinstate the special status that was given to Jammu and Kashmir. But if you see they have avoided discussion like the recently formed Union Territory of Ladakh and if you see none of the editorials also spoken about the plight of Kashmiri pundits. So, this Article 370 and its abrogation is quite a contentious issue because it existed for 70 years and it was abrogated in 2019 and today it has been one year since its abrogation and there are many pending litigations before the Supreme Court regarding this matter. So, we need to wait and watch how this abrogation will be seen by the Supreme Court. So, from the discussion of all these three editorials, just try to take some of the important points which will be helpful for writing your mains, try to present your answers with a balanced view. Now, have a look at this practice question. Let us move on to the next news article. This news article discusses about the report of a study conducted by Asim Premji Foundation on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Scheme in Country. So, in this context, let us discuss the silent features of this Mandreka scheme and also about the report. See, this scheme aims to enhance the livelihood security of the households in the rural areas of India. This scheme is implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development. All the rural districts are covered under the scheme. First and foremost, the scheme gives legal guarantee of wage employment to the adult members of rural households who are willing to do unskilled manual labour and this is subject to a minimum of 100 days of work in a year per household. Once household is registered to the scheme, job cards are issued to that particular person and if you see the worker has the right to demand and receive work within 15 days of the receipt of application. Now, we will talk regarding the power given to the village community. Know that employments are provided by sanctioning the works which come under the shelf of works that are identified and prioritized by the village community. Know that the village community has the right to choose works under these category of works that come under the Schedule 1 of the Mandreka Act. Know that it includes public works related to water mission like creating water conservation and water harvesting system. Also, if you see the Schedule 1 includes works related to creation of individual assets for the vulnerable sections, then rural infrastructure etc. And most importantly, the works proposed by the village community cannot be altered by anyone unless they are not in conformity with the guidelines of Mandreka. Now, we will talk about the wages under the scheme. Know that wages are paid according to the state minimum wage rate notified under the minimum wages act of 1948 and if the state government fails to provide employment to the worker, it should pay 25% of minimum wage for the first 30 days as compensated daily unemployment allowance. And it will be half of the minimum wage for the remaining period of the year if they are not employed. Next, if you see the scheme provides equal payment for men and women and one third of the beneficiaries of any particular project taken up under Mandreka should consist of women. Next, if you see the worksite facilities like creche, drinking water, shades have to be provided if a project is taken under Mandreka. Now, coming to the execution of the work, at least 50% of the works in terms of cost are to be executed by the grand panchayats. Also note that no contractors and machinery are allowed but in exceptional cases where use of machinery is inevitable, then it can be used. And according to the act, a grievance reversal mechanism should be set up to address the grievances of the workers. Also, social audit is a must for all the works implemented under this Mandreka scheme. Now, we will see the report. This report says that the demand for workers still high despite the ongoing career season agriculture operations. This shows the distress of migrant laborers who return to their villages after losing the jobs because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, regarding the funds dispensed under the scheme, the government has almost used up half of its allocated funds. It has spent more than 48,500 crore out of the budgeted amount of 61,000 for the financial year 2020-2021. Now as a part of the fiscal stimulus recently announced by the union government, additional amount of 40,000 crore has been allocated for this Mandreka scheme. So, you can see that the government is utilizing the funds allocated under the scheme in a faster manner because of the lower employment rates. Next, the report says that new projects should be quickly created since the shelf of projects of Grand Panchayats will likely end by August 2020. And regarding the wages, the report says that wages in the scheme are 25-30% lower than the minimum wages for the agricultural workers in most of the states. It further adds that payments are given more or less in time where banking correspondents are available but payments through banks continue to be inefficient because rural branches of the banks have limited capacity and infrastructure and if you see usually they are overcrowded. So, these are some of the points that has been mentioned in this report which discuss about the status and the concerns related to this Mandreka scheme. To summarize, we have seen about Mandreka scheme in brief and then we saw about the status and the concerns mentioned in the report in a study conducted by Asim Premji Foundation. Now have a look at this practice question. Let us move on to the next news article. This question has been framed based on this news article which talks about protection of livelihood and regulation of state vendors. This news article states that the Puducherry government has notified the amended rules and the scheme under the street vendors protection of livelihood and regulation of street vending act of 2014. So, in this context, let us see some important features of this 2014 legislation. Know that this law gave various arrangements for the protection of livelihood of street vendors and it asked the appropriate governments that is the state and the union territory governments to make a scheme and to make rules to enable functioning of various arrangements mentioned in the law and in case of union territories without legislature, the appropriate government will be the central government. See, one of the important features of this act is that it provides for the constitution of a town vending committee in each local authority. If government considers it necessary, then the government can even constitute more than one town vending committee or it can even constitute a town vending committee for each zone or warden, each local authority. The details about the members of the committee is given here for your reference. So, from this, you can observe that at least 40 percentage of the members of the committee should be street vendors or elected by the street vendors themselves. Know that this committee conducts a survey of all the existing street vendors in its jurisdiction and subsequent survey shall be carried out at least once in every five years. Then it also issues the certificate of vending to street vendors. This act specifies that no street vendor shall be evicted or relocated till the survey has been completed and till the certificate of vending is issued to all the street vendors. Then if you see this town vending committee recommends the local authority to designate a vending zone subject to some nonce, the committee shall ensure that all existing street vendors are accommodated in the vending zones. Then if you see this act provides for both rights and obligations to street vendors. With respect to relocation, this act states that the local authority may declare a zone to be a no vending zone for any public purpose based on the recommendations of the town vending committee. So, what this act suggests for those who are vending in such no vending zones, so that they can carry out vending in other vending zones. In this way, it protects the livelihood in the event of declaring some place as a no vending zone. So, these are some of the important aspects that you need to know from this 2014 Street Vendors Act. With this information, look at this question on Street Vendors Act 2014. It is a two statement question and you need to choose two statement or statements which are correct. Look at the first statement. It tells that the chairperson of the town vending committee is also the chairperson of the dispute resolution committee. This statement is incorrect because one of the features of this act is that it prescribes constitution of committees for dispute resolution as per section 20 of the 2014 act. Civil judge or judicial magistrate will be the chairperson of this dispute resolution committee and there will be two more members in this committee. And know that no employee of the appropriate government or the local authority shall be appointed as members of this dispute resolution committee. So, from this you can tell that the first statement is incorrect. Now, look at the second statement. It tells that every local authority shall in consultation with the planning authority and on the recommendations of the town vending committee once in five years prepare a plan to promote the vocation of the street vendors. Yes, this statement is correct. It is as per section 21 of the act. So, the correct answer to this question is option B 2 only. Now, let us move on to the next news article. Now, have a look at this question which has been framed based on this news article which talks about the plan of wildlife institute of India to release a dedicated report on leopard sightings as a part of its global tiger censors. In this context, let us discuss about this big cat called leopard and we will also discuss on its conservation status in India and the world. Note that the scientific name of leopard is panthera pardus. It is the smallest of the big cats and it has the ability to adapt in a variety of habitats. Now, talking about their habitat, they are usually found in forest, savanna, shrubland, grassland, rocky areas, desert, etc. Nine subspecies of leopard have been recognized till date and they are distributed across Africa and Asia. Note that the last formal census on India's leopards was conducted in 2014 and it was estimated that the population of leopards was around 12,000 to 14,000 and as per the census, Madhya Pradesh had the highest leopard population followed by states of Karnataka and Maharashtra. Here, note that some of the body features vary according to the regions where they live. For example, in tropical regions, the coats of leopards tend to be shorter and slicker whereas in the colder climates, if you see their fur is longer and denser. And one more important body feature is melanism. See, it is a common occurrence in leopards wherein the entire skin of the animal will be black in color including all its spots. Such melanistic leopards are often called as black panthers or jaguar and if you see, they are often mistakenly thought to be a different species but they are actually leopards which are suffering from melanism. And note that they are nocturnal animals which are carnivorous in nature that is they feed on a variety of animals. Now, we will see what are the threats to the habitat of the leopard and we will also see their conservation status in India and the world. See, the biggest threats which the common leopard in India face are increasing conflict with humans, then poaching for illegal trade in their body parts and even loss of habitat. And some leopards also die due to the road accidents. Now, coming to the conservation status, know that leopard is listed in schedule one of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and they are included in appendix one of sites. That is convention on international trade and endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Here appendix one includes species that are threatened with extinction and trade and specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Next, know that leopards are classified as vulnerable under the IUCN red list of threatened species. Then under the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, leopards are listed under appendix two. So, these are some of the conservation status of leopard in India and across the world. This is all about the discussion about leopards. Know that they are also different from cheetah. Now, with this information, look at this question. It is two statement question and you need to choose those statement or statements which are correct. Statement one tells that they are not found in wild in India similar to cheetah and statement two tells that they are listed as near threatened under the IUCN red list. Here, both the statements are incorrect. Know that leopard is widely distributed across India whereas cheetah is not found in India in the wild. The second statement is also incorrect because we saw that leopard is listed as vulnerable in the IUCN red list of threatened species. So, second statement is incorrect. Now, we need to choose those statement or statements which are correct. Here, both the statements are incorrect. So, the correct answer is option D neither one nor two. Let us move on to the practice questions discussion session. Look at this question. It is a pair based question about the article and their purpose. Here, four pairs are given. Look at the first pair article 123 ordinance making power of the president. Second pair article 213 ordinance making power of the governor. Third pair article 214 high quotes for states and fourth pair article 241 high quotes for union territories. See here, all the four pairs are correct. Here, the first two digits are interchanged. If you know that article 123 is related to ordinance making power of president, you can easily remember by jumbling this 12 as 21, 213 ordinance making power of the governor. So, both these articles are related to ordinance making power, one for the president and the other for the governor. Now, look at the third and fourth pairs 214 to 41. Here, the last two digits are interchanged and both speak about high quotes. 214 is related to high quotes for states and article 241 is related to high quotes for union territories. So, this is a simple trick for you to remember the important articles that frequently appear in news. So, here all the four pairs are correct. The correct answer is option D 123 and 4. Now, look at the second question on the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is a two statement question and you need to choose those statement or statements which are correct. Look at the first statement. It tells that Jammu and Kashmir is a union territory with a legislature and with no representation in the council of states. This statement is incorrect because Jammu and Kashmir is a union territory with a legislature. When the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two, two union territories were formed. One is union territory of Jammu and Kashmir with legislature and the second one is union territory of Vladak without legislature. And if you see the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, four persons represented Jammu and Kashmir in the council of states that is Rajasabha and after the bifurcation, all these four persons continue to represent the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in Rajasabha. So, there is representation. Hence, the first statement goes incorrect. Now, look at the second statement. It tells that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir serves as the common High Court for both union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Vladak. Yes, this statement is a correct statement as per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019. So, the correct answer to this question is option B2 only since only the second statement is correct. Now, look at this third question on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. It is a three statement question and you need to choose those statements which are incorrect. Look at the first statement. It tells that the scheme guarantees wage employment to the adult members of rural households, a minimum of 150 days of work in a year per household. This statement is incorrect. It is 100 days of work, minimum 100 days, not 150 days. Now, look at the second statement. It tells that according to the scheme, half of the beneficiaries must be women. It is not half. It should be one-third of the beneficiaries. As per the scheme, one-third of the beneficiaries must be women. Now, look at the third statement. It tells that this scheme is implemented by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. If you remember our discussion, we saw that this scheme is implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development, not Ministry of Labor and Employment. So, here you can see that all the three statements are incorrect. The correct answer to this question is option D, one, two and three, since you need to choose those statements that are incorrect. So, always be careful when you read the question, whether it demands you to choose the correct statement or incorrect statement. With this, we come to the end of the analysis of all the news articles taken up for today's discussion and also the practice questions discussion session. If you like the video, press the like button, comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for latest videos and updates. Thank you.