 Good evening, aspirants. Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankarayase Academy for the date 15th January 2020. These are the list of articles chosen for today's analysis. It has been provided along with the page numbers of different editions of Hindu newspaper. The link for the handwritten notes in the PDF format and the time-stamping for the displayed articles is provided in the description box below and for the benefit of smartphone users. The time-stamping is also provided in the comments section. Now let us start the first news article analysis. This discussion is about the blue flag certification. The syllabus that can be linked to this discussion is given here for your reference. This news article mentions that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has relaxed the coastal regulation zone rules. This relaxation is to help the states to construct infrastructure and to enable the states to receive the blue flag certification. So what is this blue flag certification? This certification is an eco-label that is awarded to beaches, marinas and it is also awarded to sustainable boating tourism operators. So there are prescribed standards to get this certification. So to be certified as a blue flag beach or marina or as a blue flag boat tourism operator, the beaches, marinas and the boats have to be environment friendly and then they have to meet 33 standards in four areas. The four areas are environmental management which includes the cleanliness factor and the solid waste management system. Then the second one is environment education, then thirdly safety and security of beach goers and then finally bathing water quality standards. So in these four areas there are 33 standards that needs to be fulfilled to get this blue flag certification. Now with respect to these standards, they see how the infrastructure development projects are planned and executed in the beaches. Then they see the cleanliness and safety and security services, waste disposal facilities and how far the beaches disabled friendly beach. Then they also see the presence of first aid equipment in the beach. Now here we mentioned that they will also see how far the beaches disabled friendly beach. The beaches has to be disabled friendly so that the differently abled people can also enjoy the way how others are enjoying nature. So if a beach has to be disabled friendly then it requires facilities such as mats, wheelchairs that can be pushed through the sand and also disabled friendly chairs that can float in water. Then one another standard or criteria is that a person is not allowed to have access to pet animals in the main areas of the beach. Like this there are 33 standards and criteria. So what does this blue flag certification actually mean? This certification earns an international reputation for that particular country. So if beaches in a particular country earn this international reputation then it means that beaches of that country are environment friendly. They are free from pollution and the beaches of the country are safe and they are apt for tourists. So this can contribute to the local economy and the tourism sector of the country will be benefited because of this certification. So how can we know whether a beach is blue flag certified or not? If a particular beach marina or a boat is given the blue flag certification then they will be flying the blue flag. For example if a beach is given the certification then the beaches will be flying the given blue flag in the particular locations. And also remember that this certification is not for eternity. That means it is not that if you once get this certification and then it will not be taken away. It is not so. This certification has to be reapplied annually to continue the right to fly the blue flag. If they fly the blue flag it means they have the blue flag certification so it will attract more tourists to that place. So this annual reapplication for the certification process will make the administrators to maintain the beaches, marinas and boats consistently and sustainably to adapt to the 33 standards. But if they do not maintain such standards then they may not receive the certification during the next annual application. So now there may be a question that who establishes the blue flag certification standards and the blue flag international certification. The standards and the certification both are established by an international non-governmental nonprofit organization which is called as foundation on environmental education or in short FEE. This organization FEE is based at Copenhagen in Denmark. Initially these blue flag standards were popularized by FEE in France and then in all over Europe. Then in 2001 it was extended to other parts of the world when South Africa joined the international blue flag beach program. So currently if you see at the global level Spain is the nation that has highest number of beaches that are certified as blue flag beaches. And not only that Spain is the country which has got the highest aggregate number of certification in the world in three categories. That is in the category of beaches, marinas and boats and this is followed by Greece and France. But if we see within the region of South and Southeast Asia only two countries have blue flag certified beaches. These countries are Japan and South Korea. So as of now no beach in India has been certified as a blue flag beach and even none of our neighboring countries have blue flag certified beaches or marinas. So to get this certification only the Union Ministry of Environment has been taking the required steps and one of such steps is today's news. So for getting this certification stringent standards have to be adhered to as we saw above. So with the view to protect and conserve the environment and to control and abate pollution in coastal beaches and in seawaters. The Ministry of Environment has decided to identify beaches for the purpose of internationally recognized blue flag certification. And as we saw above the certification standards call for responsible and sustainable amenities and infrastructure development. It calls for cleanliness, safety and security services etc. But if you see the existing coastal regulation zone rules of our country there are certain restrictions on the construction near beaches. Now we know that with the objective of conservation and protection of the coastal environment the Ministry of Environment notified the coastal regulation zone notification in 1991 and this notification was subsequently revised in 2011. And then later it was amended from time to time and recently it was amended in 2018. And this 2018 notification provided relaxation to the construction in the coastal areas. So some of the relaxation mentioned in this notification includes the promotion of basic amenities under the tourism infrastructure. So temporary tourism facilities such as shacks, toilet blocks, changing rooms, drinking water facilities etc. have now been permitted in beaches. And these temporary tourism facilities are also now permissible in the no development zone of the CRZ-3 areas as per this 2018 notification. See actually under this CRZ notification there are four areas CRZ-1, 2, 3 and 4. And under this CRZ-3 area there is an area known as no development zone in which the developments in this particular zone have been restricted. We will see about these coastal regulation zone areas some other day. Now just know that there is a no development zone under this coastal regulation zone 3 area. And as per this 2018 notification a minimum distance of 10 meter from the high tide line should be maintained for setting up such facilities in this no development zone. Here the high tide line means the line on the land up to which the highest water line reaches during the spring tide. And this 2018 notification also stipulated a no development zone of 20 meters for the islands. So for the islands which are close to the mainland coast and for all the backwater islands in the mainland the 20 meter no development zone was stipulated. This is because of the space limitations and unique geography of such regions. So this was the scenario until now that is a minimum distance of 10 meter from the high tide line should be maintained for setting up of the facilities in the no development zone of CRZ-3 areas. And this distance is 20 meters for the islands. But now the recent notification has relaxed this for the purpose of blue flag certification. According to the notification in the identified beaches certain activities and facilities have been permitted in the coastal regulation zones including islands. And these activities and facilities are subjected to maintaining a minimum distance of 10 meters from the high tide line. So that means the 20 meters distance prescribed by the 2018 notification has been relaxed by this notification by Ministry of Environment for the purpose of blue flag certification. So beyond these 10 meters certain activities and facilities have been permitted. So what are these activities and facilities? As you can see in this list the facilities such as portable toilet blocks, changing rooms and shower panels can be installed. And then there can be a solar power plant also in that area. And there can be first aid station and there should be parking facilities. And also other facilities or infrastructure can be installed or constructed as per the requirements of the blue flag certification. Now normally if you see for carrying out these activities in a coastal regulation zone clearance have to be obtained from respective authorities in the Ministry of Environment. But now due to the relaxation of the norms under coastal regulation zone for the purpose of blue flag certification. These activities and facilities are exempted from prior clearance under the provisions of CRZ notification, island protection zone notification and island coastal regulation zone notifications. So this means if originally these notifications mentioned that prior clearance have to be obtained for these activities and facilities then they are relaxed for the purpose of blue flag certification. So now there is no need for prior clearance. Now we saw that these activities and facilities have been permitted in the identified beaches. So what are these identified beaches? See in July 2019 the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change identified beaches for the purpose of this blue flag certification. And these beaches belong to different states and union territories. So the identified beaches are Shivrajpur, Bogaave, Gogla, Miramar, Kasarkot, Padubidri, Kappad, Idan, Mahabalipuram, Rushikonda, Golden Beach, Radhanagar Beach and Bangaram Beach. So totally 13 beaches from 9 states and 4 union territories have been identified for the purpose of blue flag certification. So these are the information that you should know with respect to the international blue flag certification. Now with respect to this program you should also know that there is an initiative of Government of India. This initiative is the Integrated Coastal Management Scheme which is named as BEAMS. BEAMS stands for Beach Environment and Aesthetic Management System. The main objective of this BEAMS program is to promote sustainable development in coastal regions with respect to beach management. And the main focus is given to attract domestic and international tourists. So the agency that develops the beaches under this program is the Society of Integrated Coastal Management which is shortly called as SICOM. This society is established under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. And it is SICOM that has commenced the pilot project of blue flag beach program in December 2017 in India. And under this BEAMS program SICOM has been identifying beaches in all the 9 coastal states and 4 coastal union territories of our country. So in total 13 beaches were identified by SICOM to work for getting the blue flag certification and these 13 beaches we just saw now. So just remember that the blue flag certification is an international program. A similar program under the BEAMS scheme in which beaches are identified for getting that international certification. So that is all about this news article discussion. In this discussion we discussed about the blue flag international certification. We discussed about the standards for this certification. And we also saw about the initiative of Government of India in this regard. Whether we come to the end of this news article discussion, the split practice question will be discussed in the last session. This discussion is based on the curative petitions filed by the convicts of the Nirbhaya case. This discussion can be linked to the syllabus that is given here for your reference. The news article mentions that the curative petitions of the convicts of the Nirbhaya case were rejected by a 5 judge Supreme Court bench. Recently you would have heard that the convicts of the Nirbhaya case were sentenced to death by Supreme Court. So regarding this sentence the convicts filed a curative petition. And the Supreme Court rejected their petition stating that there was no merit in their pleas to spare them from the gallows. Here gallows is the structure which is for hanging the criminals who were sentenced to death. So Supreme Court rejected their petition saying that they cannot spare from the gallows. So now in this context it becomes important from the examination point of view to know about this curative petition. As we know the Supreme Court of India has always contributed in innovating and developing the constitutional jurisprudence. As a result of this the order of the Supreme Court is amenable for rectification if the order results in miscarriage of justice. That is the orders of the Supreme Court are vulnerable for rectification if the order results in a miscarriage of justice. So what do we mean by miscarriage of justice? Miscarriage of justice is a failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice. There is a miscarriage of justice when the justice results in the conviction of an innocent person. So to substitute the problem of miscarriage of justice a process has been conceived by the apex court. This process is what is termed as curative petition. Under this petition an aggrieved person may request the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment by showing gross miscarriage of justice and by showing violation of principles of natural justice. Here we should note one point that this can be filed even after the final verdict of the Supreme Court like in the case of Nirbaya convicts and the curative petition can be filed only after the dismissal of review petition and more importantly the curative petition cannot be allowed for reapplication of evidence. That is it should not be allowed for reconsideration or re-examination of the evidences. So the Supreme Court itself evolved the concept of curative petition through a judicial pronouncement Rupa Hurra case in which the court reconsidered its judgment after it was referred to it by a three judge bench. So the landmark case which we are talking about is the Rupa Ashok Hurra versus Ashok Hurra and another. In this case it was held by the Supreme Court that so as to prevent abuse of process as well as to cure miscarriage of justice it may reconsider its judgments. That is why the court devised the term curative for this purpose. And you should note that reviewing of judgments and orders by the Supreme Court is guaranteed under article 137 of Indian Constitution. This article especially deals with review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court which states that the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced by it or any order made by it. Based on this only the Supreme Court devised this process of curative petition. Here you should be confused with another petition which is called as the review petition. See a review petition can be filed by the parties who are aggrieved by the decisions of Supreme Court and as per the Supreme Court rules such review petition has to be filed within 30 days of pronouncement of judgment or order. Now you may think that the curative petition also looks like a review petition. Even some experts agree with this. They say there is no substantive difference between a second review petition and a curative petition. Because as we saw earlier a curative petition has to be filed after the dismissal of review petition. So when a review petition is dismissed a second review petition can be made or a curative petition can be made. In simple words the experts are saying that as long as the Supreme Court is reconsidering its earlier judgments it amounts to review only. So in this way according to experts the review petition and the curative petition are distinct from each other only merely in terms of their modalities. Otherwise a curative petition is fulfilling the same objective as addressed by a review petition. That is a curative petition also reconsiders a judgment but it is for a second time. So in this manner you should be clear that according to Supreme Court review petition is different. A curative petition is different though they seem similar. And even the Supreme Court has laid down specific conditions in order to entertain curative petitions. These specific conditions have been mentioned in the Supreme Court rules of 2013. First condition is that it has to be established by the petitioner that there was a genuine violation of principles of natural justice. And the second one is that it shall be specifically stated in the petition that the grounds mentioned had been taken in the petition and it was dismissed by circulation. In this condition they are talking about the review petition. That is the grounds were taken in the petition and then it was dismissed by circulation. See normally and ordinarily a review petition will be disposed of by the Supreme Court by circulation. Which means it will be disposed of by the judges by themselves without the presence of any lawyers. So this is what is called as disposed of by circulation. So while filing a curative petition it should be stated that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. Then the third condition is that the curative petition is required to be certified by a senior advocate. And then it is circulated to the three senior most judges and also it should be circulated to the judges who delivered the impute judgment or the disputed judgment. And then another condition or a positive thing you can say in this curative petition process is that there is no specific time limit for filing a curative petition. Because the rules of Supreme Court state that the curative petition shall be filed within reasonable time from the date of judgment or order passed in the review petition. So there is no specific time they have just mentioned within reasonable time. And then next condition in the process is that if majority of the judges agree that the matter needs hearing then it would be sent to the same bench who delivered the disputed judgment. And another condition is that exemplary costs would be imposed by the court to the petitioner if his plea lacks merit in the curative petition. This condition is just to deter the petitioner if there is no actual ground for the curative petition so that the time of the Supreme Court will not be wasted. And you should note that the last legal avenue which is open for the convicts in the Supreme Court is this curative petition or curative plea. Now as in the Nirbhaya case the convicts curative petition have been rejected by the Supreme Court after this they have filed a mercy plea before the president. And this is as per the constitutional provision of article 72 which is about the power of president to grant pardons etc. So these are the information that you should know about curative petition. And also remember that curative petition is the last legal avenue open for the convicts in the Supreme Court and mercy petition is the last resort for the convicts. So with this we come to the end of this news article discussion the split practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next discussion this discussion is based on the annual status of education report of 2019. The syllabus that can be linked to this discussion is provided here for your reference. Now we know that the RTE Act of 2009 that is the right to education act of 2009 mandates that children should enter first standard at the age of 6. The act also recommends states to provide free preschool education to children who belong to the age 3 to 6. However existing data and studies show that ground realities are different from the mandated policy mainly if we consider the age of entry of the children to standard 1. The concern is that either too many children enter formal schooling before age 6 or too many children enter formal schooling without exposure to early childhood education. That is without exposure to preschool early childhood education is important because it is what makes the children ready for primary school of learning. And skipping the preschool results in learning crisis in primary school as the children find it hard to catch up the school curriculum. So this is a serious concern but these concerns are neglected at large as no large scale representative data is available on children in the age group of 4 to 8 years. So in this way the ASIR 2019 early years survey focuses on children in the age group of 4 to 8 years. So what is this ASIR? ASIR is the acronym for annual status of education report. It is a nationwide household survey which is released by an NGO Pratham. The NGO has been conducting the survey since 2005. ASIR provides data on children's schooling and their learning for a representative sample of children across rural India. ASIR generates district, state and national estimates of foundational reading and also estimates of arithmetic abilities. And when the estimates are for children in the age group of 5 to 16 and when it is based on basic reading and arithmetic abilities it is termed as basic ASIR. And this basic ASIR is conducted every alternate year since 2016. And then during the other alternate year beyond basic ASIR is conducted. It is conducted for children in the age group of 14 to 18. So as the name suggests beyond basics is beyond the reading and arithmetic survey. And particularly this year that is the 2019 ASIR report focuses on children's early years that is 4 to 8 years of age of children. So why ASIR focuses on children of early years? Early years of a child is the most important stage of cognitive, motor, social and emotional development in the human life cycle. For a child to have a firm foundation both in school as well as in life, access to appropriate inputs and environment during the early years is crucial. And the early years which we mentioned here is the 0 to 8 years of age of the child. However studies show that in India access to pre-primary facilities and the foundational skills for early years of children are not adequate. And this was clearly captured by the ASIR 2019 survey as this survey was conducted in 26 districts across 24 states in India. And under this ASIR early years survey children were assessed on 4 key domains of development. The first one is cognitive development in which it was assessed that whether the children can do simple problem solving tasks. Now cognitive development is important because it helps to build many abilities such as it helps to build problem solving ability, to build memory, logical reasoning ability and creative thinking ability. And the second domain is the early language. In this it was assessed that the children have early language skills. Now language is important because it helps to communicate thoughts, feelings and needs and language is also the foundation for literacy. So it is a key domain of development. Then the next domain is the early numeracy. In this it is assessed that whether the children have a sense of numbers and quantity. And the final domain is the social and emotional development. And in this it is assessed that whether children are able to identify emotions or not. So these were the 4 key domains under which children were assessed in this ASIR early years survey. So let us see the key findings of this survey based on these key domains. The survey found that more than 90% of children belonging to the 4 to 8 years of age group are enrolled in some type of educational institutions. It may be Anganwadi's government pre-primary classes, private pre-primary classes or any other kind of school. It was found that 90% of children are enrolled in some type of educational institutions. And the next finding is that boys and girls have different enrollment patterns. Even among these young children it was seen that a higher proportion of girls enrolled in government institutions and a higher proportion of boys enrolled in private institutions. Then the survey also found that children with mothers who had completed 8 or fewer years of schooling are more likely to be attending Anganwadi's or government pre-primary classes. That is if the mother of the child has completed 8 years of schooling or more then her child or children are likely to attend Anganwadi's or government pre-primary classes. Then it was also found that the mothers who studied beyond the elementary stage are more likely to enroll their children in private LKG or UKG classes in which LKG is the lower kindergarten and UKG is the upper kindergarten. And then it was found that the 5 year old children in private schools performed better in learning tasks as compared to the 5 year old children in the government schools and Anganwadi's. In this picture you can clearly see the percentage of students who successfully completed the tasks in private schools and in government schools. And you can see that the children studying in private schools have performed better. Then next finding is that 4 out of every 10 children in standard 1 are younger than 5 years or they are older than 6 years. Now standard 1 is a critical year because it is the period when children transition into formal schooling which expects formal subject specific learning and age makes a substantial difference in learning. And even if you see the RT Act of 2009 as we saw earlier it mandates the entry of children at standard 1 at age 6. But if you see in reality many states allow entry to standard 1 at age 5 plus itself. So in this manner it was found that older children in the standard 1 perform better on all tasks than the younger children. And then it was also found that children in standard 1 in government schools are younger than those in the same grade in the private schools. Now this point is an important point keep this in mind. This will help us in the analysis of the editorial. So on a whole we can say that as per the ASR report the factors which determine the quality of education received at early years are the child's home background, the mother's education level, the type of school, the child's age in class 1. So these factors play a crucial role in shaping the fundamental abilities of learning in the children. So in this manner ASR even suggests that focusing on play-based activities is more productive than an early focus on content knowledge or subject learning. Because play-based activities help the child to build memory to build the reasoning ability and problem solving abilities. So it can make big difference to children's basic literacy and numeracy abilities. So these are the information that you should know with respect to this ASR report. With this we come to the end of this discussion. Now this next discussion is also based on the ASR report only. In this discussion we will discuss about this editorial which is authored by the director of ASR Centre. In this editorial the author gives reasons behind the fact that children in private schools perform better than those in government schools. The first reason is that as we saw earlier in the previous discussion age distribution on standard one of government schools is very different from that of private schools. It is because the number of children belonging to less than six years in standard one is very high in government schools than in private schools. So comparing the learning levels in standard one between government and private schools is problematic. Because if you see the higher learning levels in private schools in standard one is due to the fact that it has higher proportion of older children. Hence this comparison is not a fair comparison. So that is why the ASR report has shown that the children belonging to the government school performed less than the children belonging to private school. Then the second reason is that children going to private schools relatively have a affluent background and they have educated parents when compared to the less advantaged families of government school children. And also in this manner mother's education also plays a crucial role in the selection of government or private school for their children. So if the mother is not educated well then she will not know which school is better for her child or children. This was also clearly mentioned by the ASR report as the children who belong to the educated mother were attending the pre-primary classes. Then the next reason is that early childhood education exposes the children to cognitive and early language skills as we saw in the last discussion. So children who enter standard one after acquiring these skills are likely to perform better. So that means pre-primary education plays an important role in performing better in schools. And even the ASR report showed that 43.1 percentage of private school children could do all cognitive tasks while only 23.8 percentage of government school children of standard one could do the cognitive tasks. So all these factors implied only one thing that is private schools still have a learning advantage over government schools. That doesn't mean they are better than government schools. And the advantage here is that private schools keep children longer in preschool and they expose them to school like curriculum even before they have entered the formal schooling. So this is what makes the private school children to perform better in actual school. But this process is absent in the government schools which is a disadvantage for the government school children. So for this purpose as a conclusion the author is suggesting that India already has a huge investment in its early childhood program and India should invest more. As we know that in our country the early childhood program is administered through the 1.2 million Anganwadi's which were established under the integrated child development scheme. So if the scheme can be enhanced and if the Anganwadi's under the scheme could adapt to a process like private schools then the disadvantage which the government schools have now will disappear soon. So this was the conclusion given by the author of this editorial. Now from the ASR early years findings we can say that three key implications emerge. First implication is that the 1.2 million Anganwadi's which are established under the ICDS scheme should be strengthened further to implement appropriate school readiness activities for three year olds and four year olds. And the second implication is that older children are doing better than younger children. So permitting underage children into primary grades puts the younger children at a learning disadvantage which is very difficult to overcome. And the third main implication is that the focus should be on strengthening the cognitive skills of the child rather than focusing on strengthening the subject learning in the early years of schooling. So keeping these implications in mind the school curriculum must be designed accordingly so that children's can be benefited. So that is all about this ASR 2019 early years report. With this we come to the end of this news article discussion. The displayed practice question will be discussed moving on to the next discussion. This discussion is based on this editorial which discusses about the balancing of religious freedom with fundamental rights. The syllabus that can be linked to this discussion is given here for your reference. Recently we have been hearing news about balancing religious freedom versus fundamental rights. There have been several cases coming up in which one party upholds right to religion while the other one favors fundamental rights especially they favor right to equality. And the most recent example of this is the Sabarimala women entry case. We know that there were several review petitions in the Supreme Court to reconsider the judgment of Supreme Court allowing entry of women into the Sabarimala Ayyappan temple. So for this purpose the Supreme Court formed a five judge review bench and this review bench had framed several questions for consideration by a larger bench. And these several questions were based on the relationship between article 25 and 26 and article 14 of Indian constitution. As we know article 25 ensures freedom of consigns and free profession, freedom to practice and propagation of religion and this is subject to the public order, morality and health. And then article 26 provides for every religious denomination the freedom to manage religious affairs and this is also subject to public order, morality and health. Hence we can say that these two fundamental rights uphold religious freedom. Then when we talk about article 14 this article states that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. So this article provides equality to everyone and it prohibits any discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. So based on these articles of Indian constitution several questions were framed by the five judge review bench. Then after this a larger bench was formed to consider the review petitions that is a nine judge constitution bench was formed under the chief justice of India to hear several issues relating to faith versus rights. So in this manner the CJI has said that the objective of nine judge bench is not to review the Sabarimala women entry case instead the bench would examine larger issues such as the legality and essentiality of religious beliefs which prohibit women from entering into mosques and temples and they will examine the beliefs which allow genital mutilation that is carried out by Dawoodi Bohara community and they will examine the beliefs which ban entry of women into temples such as the ban imposed on the Parsi woman from entering the fire temple who had a interfaith marriage. That is why we are saying that the bench would examine larger issues. So in this manner this editorial is in the light of the recent developments that is happening in the Supreme Court. So recently the nine judge bench headed by the CJI said that it will consider reframing the issues put forward by the five judge bench. So according to the author of this editorial the nine judge bench had admitted that the questions framed by a bench of five judges were too broad. So the author notes that the larger questions that were considered by the nine judge bench are related to essential religious practices. They are related to the interplay between faith and fundamental rights and they relate to the extent of judicial review on religious practices. So this means that the bench will not be looking into individual facts of the cases before it such as it will not be looking into the Sabramala case, the customs of the temple etc. But it will consider the core issues of every case which is the balancing of religious faith and fundamental rights. So in this regard the author is of the opinion that this approach by the bench will be effective only if it succeeds to set the limits of the freedom of religion first. It means that first the bench should define the extent of religious freedom and then it can test the legality and essentiality of religious practices. So what author is trying to say here is that the Supreme Court first should simply check whether the practices can be curbed on the grounds of public order, morality and health. Otherwise every discriminative practice will become a fresh subject which needs fresh interpretation of articles 25, 26 and article 14. Hence every time the court will have to get into the theological ticket and they have to analyze customs, practices etc. which are being questioned. Here the theological ticket indicates a dense area of religious beliefs practices and customs and as we know our country is known as religious diversity. These diverse religions all together have thousands of beliefs, practices and customs. Many of them are regressive or they are against a particular gender. So in the future each and every one of this practice could be questioned in the court. So this would complicate things further and it will increase the burden of judiciary. That is why the author is noting that the Supreme Court should first check whether the practices can be curbed on the grounds of public order, morality and health. Then author discusses about the moral issue in reframing the questions raised by the 5 judge bench. According to the author there is a fundamental flaw in reframing of the questions posed by the 5 judge bench because the present 9 judge bench does not have any of the judges from the former 5 judge Sabarimala bench. See according to the author normally the issues are referred to a larger bench only if the court is faced with apparently contradictory incidents or if the court feels that the settled law requires reconsideration. That is why in this case also the 5 judge bench while hearing the Sabarimala review petitions had referred a set of questions to a larger bench. So the author is not in favor of the move to reframe the referred questions without the presence of the judges who put the questions in the first place. And there is also a positive with this 9 judge bench which is the strength of the bench because this gives a scope for the 9 judge supreme court bench to revisit its judgment in the Shreerur mud case of 1954. The 1954 judgment was given by a 7 judge bench which said that religious denominations had the autonomy to decide what religious practices were essential to them. So now the 9 judge bench can revisit this judgment and say whether the religious denominations had the autonomy or not. And further the present bench is trying to define what an essential religious doctrine is. So we can conclude by saying that this would be helpful only if it helps the supreme court to get rid of the burden of entering the theological ticket. It simply means that by setting a precedent on larger questions such as religious freedom versus equality the court can escape from analyzing individual religious practices in the future cases. If the court does not do so then the court can simply tell whether practice which is under question is essential or not. So this was the opinion of the author. So on a whole the author is trying to say that the supreme court should not enter into the theological ticket rather it should provide a precedent on larger questions such as religious freedom versus equality. With this we come to the end of this editorial discussion. Moving on to the last discussion for the day which is based on this news article. This news article mentions that Kerala government has filed a suit against the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019. Already we know that the Kerala government has passed a resolution in its assembly against this amendment act of 2019. Now in addition to this the Kerala government also filed a suit in the supreme court and this plea was filed in the supreme court under article 131. So in this news article what you should focus is this article 131 only. We discussed about this article 131 some few days back let us revise it now. This article 131 deals with the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. Here the term original refers to the first instance and it does not refer by the way of appeal. That is for the matters mentioned in this particular article a party can take the matter directly to the supreme court and this particular article also mentions that for the matters mentioned in this article the supreme court has the exclusive jurisdiction that is no other court can hear these matters other than the supreme court. So in particular this article 131 states that supreme court shall to the exclusion of any other court have original jurisdiction in any dispute that is between the government of India and one or more states or the dispute that is between the government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more states on the other side and any dispute between two or more states. So we can say that based on the original jurisdiction of supreme court the supreme court decides the disputes between different units of the Indian federation. Now with regard to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the supreme court two points should be noted. One is that the dispute must involve a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends on. Thus the questions of political nature are excluded from it. Second any suit that is brought before the supreme court by a private citizen against the center or a state cannot be entertained under this. So these two are the two important points with respect to the exclusive original jurisdiction of supreme court. Further this original jurisdiction of supreme court does not extend to any dispute that arises out of any pre-constitution treaty or that arises out of any agreement covenant engagement or other similar instruments and it also does not extend to any dispute that is arising out of any treaty agreement etc which specifically provides that the said jurisdiction does not extend to such a dispute. Then this original jurisdiction of supreme court does not extend to interstate water disputes and then it does not extend to the matters referred to the finance commission and it does not extend to the adjustment of certain expenses and pensions between the center and the states etc. And you should also know that the first suit under the original jurisdiction of supreme court was brought in 1961 by the west Bengal state government against the center. The state government challenged the constitutional validity of the coal bearing areas acquisition and development act of 1957 which was passed by the parliament. But however this suit was dismissed by the supreme court as it upholded the validity of the mentioned act. So these are the some of the facts that you should know with respect to this article 131 of Indian constitution. Now also you should know that the Kerala state government has filed the suit against the citizenship amendment act on the grounds that the amended provisions violate article 14, 21 and 25 of Indian constitution. In the last discussion we saw about article 14 and 25. This article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty. And this article declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. So based on the provisions of these fundamental rights the Kerala government has sought directions from the supreme court for the act and it has asked the supreme court to declare the constitutional amendment act as violation of constitution and basic structure of secularism in India. So from this news article you should just know under which article the Kerala government has filed the suit and on what grounds the Kerala government has filed the suit. We will know more about this case once supreme court takes this case and pronounces the judgment. With this we come to the end of this news article discussion and we have come to the end of news article discussion sessions. The split practice question will be discussed in the next session which is the practice questions discussion session. In this question four statements are given and we have to choose the incorrect statement and this question is about curative petition. First statement is a curative petition is filed by an aggrieved person requesting the supreme court to reconsider its judgment by showing gross miscarriage of justice and violation of principles of justice. This statement is correct because when we say miscarriage of justice it means failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice and it especially means that the justice has resulted in the conviction of an innocent person. So this statement is correct now since the question asks for the incorrect statement. If you know this statement is correct then simply you can arrive at the answer which is option C 2 and 3 and you can eliminate all the other options. So at least try to know some basics about each and every term which you regularly see in newspaper. Now here if option C is correct that means the statement 2 and 3 are wrong let us see why it is wrong it is because the statement 2 states a curative petition cannot be filed after final verdict of supreme court. Now this statement is wrong because it can be filed after the final verdict of supreme court even in the nirbhaya case the convicts filed the curative petition after their verdict in which they were sentenced to death by the supreme court. Now the third statement is wrong because a curative petition cannot be allowed for reapplication of evidence but here the question says allows so that is why it is wrong. Reapplication of evidence means reconsideration or re-examination of evidence. Now the fourth statement is correct because a curative petition can be filed after dismissal of review petition this is one of the main criteria to file a curative petition so the correct answer is option C 2 and 3. Now this next question is based on blue flag certification first statement it is awarded to beaches only. Now this statement is wrong because this certification is given to beaches, marinas and also to the sustainable boating tourism operators so it is not confined to beaches only. Here the question asks for the correct statement since statement 1 is incorrect it should not be in the final answer so you can eliminate option B and D. Now let us see whether the second statement is correct or not. India is among the countries in the South Asia and Southeast Asia which has been granted the certification. Now this statement is wrong because until now from India none of the beaches or marinas or boards have got this certification so that means statement 3 is also automatically wrong because the Miramar beach of Goa did not get certification yet but it is among the 13 beaches which has been chosen or which has been identified by the ministry for the purpose of blue flag certification. So here that means all the statements are incorrect so the correct answer to this question is option A none of the above. Now this next question is based on the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court the question asks as per article 131 the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court deals with any dispute between the government of India and one or more states between the government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more states on the other between two or more states and then all the above. Now know that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any of the disputes in these three categories so all the three are correct so the final correct answer to this option D all the above. Now let us see one main question based on GS paper 2 comparing children from private school with children from government school and Angan Vadis is not fair examine the above statement with respect to the findings of Assar 2019 early years report. Now today we discussed about this report in detail you can take points from the discussion and you can write your answer and post it in the comment section we will review your answer and we will give appropriate suggestions to improve the answer writing. With this we come to the end of today's Hindi news analysis if you like the video don't forget to like comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar Ayesh Academy YouTube channel for more updates related to civil service examination preparation.