Content:
- Won’t directing Centre to ‘protect’ Bengal from violence amount to ‘judicial incursion’, asks SC
- A reminder to the President and Governors
- Judiciary’s place atop the pyramid
- Why did China block exports of rare earth elements?
- Two ISRO satellites dock successfully for the second time
Won’t directing Centre to ‘protect’ Bengal from violence amount to ‘judicial incursion’, asks SC
Context and Trigger
- The plea concerns communal violence in West Bengal during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
- Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain urged the SC to direct the Union to invoke Article 355 to intervene in the state.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)
Key Constitutional Provision: Article 355
- Article 355: It is the duty of the Union to:
- Protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance.
- Ensure the state government functions in accordance with the Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Standpoint
- Justice B.R. Gavai raised a constitutional dilemma:
- Would the judiciary be overstepping its limits by directing the Executive to act under Article 355?
- Questioned whether such a directive would amount to judicial encroachment on the Legislative and Executive domains.
Larger Judicial Concerns
- This debate follows criticism of the judiciary’s April 8 verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case:
- The SC had issued timelines to Governors/President for Bill clearance.
- Criticised by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar for acting like a “super-Parliament.”
- Justice Gavai reflected on these critiques, highlighting existing accusations of judicial overreach.
Legal Procedural Developments
- The court asked Mr. Jain to formally file the plea for urgent hearing.
- Justice Gavai declined immediate action, pointing to the delicate separation of powers.
Other Related Legal Proceedings
- A separate oral request to initiate contempt of court against MP Nishikant Dubey was made, post his remarks on the SC and CJI.
- The Bench directed the petitioner to obtain the Attorney-General’s consent, as per law.
- Another petitioner, Shashant Shekhar Jha, withdrew his plea for a court-monitored SIT into the Bengal violence.
Key Issues at Play
- Separation of Powers: Whether judiciary can direct the Union to act under Article 355.
- Federalism: Central intervention in state affairs remains sensitive.
- Judicial Activism vs Overreach: Recent judgments have intensified this debate.
- Contempt Jurisdiction: Importance of legal processes in addressing criticism of judiciary.
A reminder to the President and Governors
Core Argument
- The Supreme Court’s verdict in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) affirms India’s parliamentary democratic structure.
- Criticism of the judgment is misplaced; it reflects the correct constitutional position.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity ,Constitution)
Parliamentary Democracy – Constitutional Foundation
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clearly distinguished India’s system from the American Presidential model.
- The Indian President and Governors:
- Are not executive rulers.
- Are bound by ministerial advice.
- Function as constitutional figureheads, akin to the British monarch.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
- Article 52: Establishes the office of the President.
- Article 153: Establishes the office of the Governor.
- Article 74 & 163: Mandate that both the President and Governors act on the aid and advice of their respective Councils of Ministers.
Constituent Assembly Debates – Strong Reaffirmation
- Ambedkar and T.T. Krishnamachari emphasized that:
- The Governor/President’s discretion is minimal.
- The idea of “Instruments of Instruction” was dropped intentionally, preferring reliance on constitutional conventions.
- Prof. K.T. Shah’s proposal to designate the President as “Chief Executive” was rejected to avoid confusion with presidentialism.
Judicial Precedents Supporting the Position
- Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): President/Governor is the formal head, must act on ministerial advice.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Reinforced the same constitutional norm.
Oaths of Office – Moral and Legal Responsibility
- Article 60 (President) and Article 159 (Governor):
- Require upholding the Constitution and serving the people.
- Violation of these oaths equates to constitutional defiance.
Judiciary’s Role – Upholding Constitutional Functioning
- If the President/Governor fails to act within a reasonable time or purpose, the Writ Court can:
- Step in.
- Mandate action consistent with constitutional duty.
Current Concerns and Critique
- Some Governors have shown partisan behaviour, undermining their constitutional role.
- The Supreme Court’s judgment is a necessary and timely intervention to:
- Reinforce constitutional boundaries.
- Remind constitutional authorities of their duty to the people.
Conclusion
- The President and Governors are not autonomous wielders of executive power.
- Their legitimacy lies in upholding the Constitution, not obstructing democratic governance.
Judiciary’s place atop the pyramid
Context and Key Issues Raised by the Vice-President
- Speech by VP Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about judiciary’s:
- Lack of transparency in internal inquiries (e.g., cash recovery case).
- Judicial overreach via recent SC verdict prescribing timelines for President/Governors to act.
- Lack of accountability to the public, unlike the executive or legislature.
- Overuse of Article 142, potentially undermining democratic processes.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity ,Constitution ,Judiciary)
On Transparency and Accountability
- Public concern is genuine: Lack of visible procedures in judicial inquiries erodes trust.
- Suggested reform: CJI should initiate procedures to ensure transparency and public confidence.
- Root issue: Collegium system lacks transparency → calls for National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) with checks (e.g., CJI veto) for balanced reforms.
Supreme Court’s Powers and Timeline Verdict
- SC verdict on mandamus to President/Governors:
- Within judicial powers of review.
- Based on precedents and Constitution Bench rulings.
- Supported by 2016 Home Ministry guidelines—so not a judicial overreach.
On Use of Article 142 (‘Complete Justice’)
- SC’s use of Article 142 has:
- Enhanced access to justice.
- Held the executive accountable.
- Major interventions include:
- Bhopal gas tragedy compensation (1989),
- Vishaka Guidelines against sexual harassment (1997),
- Coal block license cancellation (2014),
- Permanent Commission for Women Officers (2024),
- Demolition guidelines for public officials (2024).
Constitution Bench Size Debate
- Article 145(3) mandates at least 5 judges on constitutional matters.
- VP questions relevance (1950: 8 judges vs 2024: 34).
- But current size is still suitable, considering:
- Judicial precedents,
- Pendency of cases,
- Efficiency needs.
Balancing Judicial Independence and Democracy
- Judiciary’s role: Upholder of Constitutional Sovereignty and guardian of fundamental rights.
- India’s model blends:
- Parliamentary Sovereignty (UK model),
- Judicial Supremacy (US model),
- Into a balanced separation of powers.
- Judicial review is a basic structure of the Constitution—must be respected.
Conclusion
- While VP’s concerns reflect legitimate democratic anxieties about transparency and overreach, Supreme Court actions so far are mostly within constitutional boundaries.
- The focus should be on constructive reform, institutional accountability, and preserving independence of the judiciary without political confrontation.
Why did China block exports of rare earth elements?
What are Rare Earth Elements (REEs)?
- A group of 17 chemically similar elements found in Earth’s crust.
- Not truly “rare” in availability, but difficult and costly to extract and purify.
- Categorized as Light and Heavy REEs, with the heavy ones being more difficult to process and more valuable.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations) ,GS 3(Critical Minerals)
Industrial Applications of Key REEs (China’s current curbs target these):
- Dysprosium: Used in hard disks, EV motors (due to magnetic properties).
- Gadolinium: Radiation shielding in nuclear reactors, MRI contrast agents.
- Lutetium: PET scanners, petroleum refining.
- Samarium: Strong magnets for electronics.
- Scandium: Alloys for aerospace (e.g., fighter aircraft).
- Terbium: Lighting in consumer electronics.
- Yttrium: Cancer treatments, superconductors.
Why Did China Impose Export Restrictions?
- Part of the U.S.–China trade war and broader geopolitical tensions.
- China holds near-monopoly over REE refining — especially heavy REEs.
- Export controls serve as a strategic leverage tool to pressure other nations.
- The move is not a full ban, but requires special export permits, causing potential delays in global supply chains.
Impact on India:
- Immediate impact limited — India’s high-end manufacturing is not REE-intensive yet.
- India imports modest quantities — 2,270 tonnes in 2023–24.
- Relies heavily on imports for advanced technologies, many of which are still manufactured abroad.
India’s Domestic Capabilities:
- Estimated to have 6% of global REE reserves.
- Light REEs like monazite are extracted from beach sand (especially in Kerala).
- Indian Rare Earths Ltd (state-owned) handles much of this.
- Heavy REE processing infrastructure is minimal.
India’s Strategic Response – NCMM (National Critical Mineral Mission):
- Aims to secure domestic and foreign sources of critical minerals (including REEs).
- Plans to initiate 1,200 exploration projects and auction new mineral blocks.
- Seeks to incentivize private sector exploration and refining.
- Recognizes supply chain fragility from events like Russia–Ukraine war and Chinese export policies.
Geopolitical Implications:
- China’s move underscores the vulnerability of global supply chains.
- Countries like Japan have already stockpiled REEs to mitigate risks.
- India is moving slowly but surely toward strategic mineral security through diversification and exploration.
Two ISRO satellites dock successfully for the second time
What Happened?
- ISRO successfully executed the second docking of satellites SDX01 (Chaser) and SDX02 (Target) under the Space Docking Experiment (SpaDeX).
- The first docking took place on January 16, 2025, and the satellites undocked on March 13, 2025.
- The second docking was confirmed on April 21, 2025; further experiments are scheduled.
Relevance : GS 3(Science and Technology)
Significance of the Docking:
- India becomes the 4th country (after the USA, Russia, China) to demonstrate satellite docking in space.
- A major milestone for India’s ambitions in space station construction and interplanetary missions.
About the SpaDeX Mission:
- Launched by PSLV-C60 on December 30, 2024.
- Goal: To demonstrate autonomous rendezvous, docking, and undocking of two spacecraft in orbit.
- A crucial capability for:
- Human spaceflight missions.
- Lunar sample return missions.
- On-orbit servicing and space station construction.
Key Technological Milestones Achieved:
- Successful autonomous docking between two satellites in orbit.
- Demonstration of electric power transfer between docked spacecraft — vital for:
- In-space robotics.
- Modular spacecraft operations.
- Post-undocking payload management.
Strategic and Future Implications for India:
- A key technology enabler for:
- Gaganyaan (India’s human spaceflight mission).
- Indian space station program.
- Deep space missions involving docking or refueling.
- Boosts India’s credibility in orbital autonomy, space infrastructure, and global space collaboration.
