Current Affairs 21 February 2025

Content:

1. SC stays Lokpal order on power over judges
2. I&B Ministry warns OTTs against ‘obscene content’
3. The silent victims of cancer: the indirect consequences on children
4. AI-powered tools generate real-time insights into antibiotic resistance
5. Is there a right to take offence?

SC stays Lokpal order on power over judges

Background:

• On January 27, the Lokpal passed an order claiming jurisdiction to investigate High Court judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
• The order was based on a complaint alleging that an Additional High Court judge influenced judicial decisions in favor of a private company.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)

Supreme Court’s Response:

• A Special Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and A.S. Oka stayed the Lokpal order.
• The Court termed the Lokpal’s interpretation as “very disturbing” and noted that it could undermine judicial independence.
• Issued notices to:
  • Union Government
  • Registrar of Lokpal
  • The complainant (with an injunction to maintain confidentiality).
• Next hearing scheduled for March 18, 2025.

Lokpal’s Reasoning:

• Declared High Court judges as“public servants“ under Section 14(1)(f) of the 2013 Act.
• Argued that High Courts were established under British Parliamentary Acts (Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Government of India Act, 1935) and not directly by the Constitution.
• Distinguished High Courts from the Supreme Court, which is solely a creation of the Constitution (Article 124).

Contrasting Orders by Lokpal:

• January 3, 2025: Lokpal stated it had no jurisdiction over Supreme Court judges, including the CJI.
• January 27, 2025: Asserted jurisdiction over High Court judges, deeming the contrary argument“too naive.”

Judicial Independence vs. Accountability:

• The Supreme Court’s concern centers on safeguarding judicial independence from external oversight that could threaten impartiality.
• Lokpal’s stance focuses on accountability under anti-corruption laws.

Constitutional & Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 214: Establishes High Courts for each state.
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – Section 14(1)(f): Defines jurisdiction over public servants.
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Considers judges as public servants but doesn’t extend Lokpal’s jurisdiction to them.

Implications:

• Raises constitutional questions regarding checks and balances between the judiciary and statutory bodies.
• Outcome may set a precedent for future oversight mechanisms concerning the judiciary.

I&B Ministry warns OTTs against ‘obscene content’

Reason for Advisory:

• Based on complaints from the general public, Members of Parliament (MPs), and statutory bodies.
• Cited concerns about “obscene and vulgar content” on OTT platforms.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance )

Ministry’s Directives:

• OTT platforms must enforce age-based classification as per the IT (Intermediary Liability and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• Mandatory age-gating for mature content to prevent underage access.
• Streaming services must have a three-tier grievance redress mechanism:
  • User complaint to platform
  • Self-regulatory body
  • Inter-departmental government committee

Context & Background:

• In December 2024, the I&B Ministry flagged shows allegedly glamorizing drug use.
• Supreme Court (SC) recently sought government action against obscene content on social media platforms.

Scope of Advisory:

• Targets online curated content platforms (e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime).
• Excludes user-generated content platforms like YouTube.

Relevant Legal Framework:

• IT Rules, 2021: Allows mature content but requires proper classification.
• Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: Restricts derogatory portrayal of women.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Penalizes obscenity.
• POCSO Act: Safeguards children from exposure to inappropriate content.
• IT Act, 2000: Criminalizes publication of obscene material online.

Key Takeaway:

• OTT platforms are not banned from showing mature content but must ensure responsible access and compliance with legal norms.

The silent victims of cancer: the indirect consequences on children

Impact on Children:

• Childhood cancers (0-14 years) account for 4% of all cancer cases in India.
• Children are indirect victims, either battling cancer themselves or being affected by a parent’s illness.

Relevance : GS 2((Health, Social Issues)

Education Disruption:

• Cancer leads to loss of educational opportunities, especially in low-income families.
• Children may be pulled out of school; older siblings often become caregivers or start working.
• Example: Meena from Pune had to drop out of school after her mother’s cancer diagnosis.
• Long-term effects: Dropouts face lower lifetime earnings and increased economic instability.

Indirect Costs of Cancer:

• Non-medical expenses: Travel, accommodation, special diets, and household help.
• Loss of income: Patients and caregivers often lose jobs or reduce work hours.
• Mental health impact: Emotional strain on both patients and family members.

Insurance & Government Schemes:

• Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY: Reduces direct medical costs; indirect costs remain largely unaddressed.
• Insurance Riders: Provide income replacement but are often costly and have strict criteria.
• Other Supports:
  • Discounted travel for patients (Indian Railways, Air India).
  • Free bus travel in states like Himachal Pradesh and Haryana.
  • Monthly pension schemes in states like Haryana and Tripura.

Way Forward:

• Policy Focus: Move beyond direct costs; address indirect burdens through:
  • Caregiver aid, educational support, and employment protection.
• Educational Interventions:
  • Use of calculators, extra coaching, free school meals, and mental health support.
• Holistic Approach:
  • Empathetic action at government, school, and community levels.
  • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and state support are essential.

Significance:

• Cancer’s indirect costs can trap families in poverty across generations.
• Ensuring education and economic opportunities for affected children safeguards the nation’s future.

AI-powered tools generate real time insights into antibiotic resistance

• Research Collaboration:
  • Conducted by IIIT-Delhi, CHRI-PATH, Tata 1mg, and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).
  • Focus on developing AI-driven tools for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance.

Relevance : GS 2(Health ) , GS 3(Technology)

• Key Tool Developed – AMRSense:
  • Utilizes routine hospital data (blood, sputum, urine cultures) for real-time AMR insights.
  • Provides global, national, and hospital-level AMR trends.
  • Cost-effective alternative to expensive genomic approaches.

• Findings from Six-Year Study (Published in The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia):
  • Analyzed data from 21 tertiary care centers under ICMR’s AMR surveillance network.
  • Identified directional relationships between antibiotic pairs and resistance patterns.
  • Rising resistance to one antibiotic can predict increased resistance to another over time.

• Innovations in AMR Surveillance:
  • AMROrbit Scorecard:
    • Visualizes hospital/department resistance trends against global medians and rates.
    • Facilitates timely interventions by showing ideal resistance quadrants (low baseline, low rate of change).
    • Awarded at the 2024 AMR Surveillance Data Challenge.

• AI’s Role in Public Health and Clinical Settings:
  • Enhances antimicrobial stewardship through data-driven decisions.
  • Compares AMR rates across hospitals, cities, and departments.
  • Augments traditional surveillance systems with real-time data visualizations.

• Challenges & Limitations:
  • AI models rely on consistent, digital surveillance data; limited in data-deficient regions.
  • Environmental factors (e.g., antibiotic use in poultry, soil contamination) also influence AMR but are not fully integrated yet.

• Future Directions:
  • Plan to integrate hospital data with antibiotic sales and environmental data for comprehensive AMR analysis.
  • Aim to improve public health decision-making and policy formulation through expanded data integration.

• Reliability of Models:
  • Models validated against historical data show accuracy in detecting AMR trends.
  • Global studies confirm the increasing rate of AMR captured by the AI models.

This development aligns with global health goals to combat antimicrobial resistance through timely data-driven interventions and improved public health strategies.

Is there a right to take offence?

Context :Right to Take Offence & Constitutional Framework:

• The Indian Constitution does not explicitly recognize a “right to take offence.”
  • Restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) are narrowly defined (security of the state, public order, decency, morality, etc.).
  • Offensive speech, unless falling within these categories, cannot be criminalized.

Relevance : GS 1(Society ) , GS 2(Social Justice)

• Balancing Free Speech & Restrictions:
  • Free speech is expansive but must respect defined constitutional limits.
  • Restrictions can only be imposed through enacted legislation, not executive actions.
  • Laws should not be paternalistic; only speech posing imminent threats (e.g., incitement to violence) justifies curbs.

• Constitutional Morality vs. Majority Morality:
  • Constitutional morality focuses on principles like equality and justice, preventing the tyranny of majority sentiments.
  • Societal disapproval can be expressed through criticism or boycotts, not criminal prosecution.
  • Filing multiple FIRs for the same speech incident is harassment and undermines fair trial rights.

• Profane vs. Obscene Speech:
  • Profanity does not automatically equate to obscenity.
  • Obscenity standards have evolved from the Hicklin test (1964) to the community standards test (2014).
  • Evolving social norms make defining obscenity subjective and context-dependent.

• Regulation of Digital Content:
  • Over-regulation risks homogenizing information, curbing dissent, and stifling diversity of opinion.
  • Laws must be applied impartially; selective censorship undermines democratic fairness.

Key Takeaway:
A robust democracy thrives on diverse opinions and satire, even if uncomfortable. Offence should be met with dialogue, not criminalization. Balancing free speech with constitutional morality ensures both freedom and responsibility in public discourse.