{"id":2153,"date":"2024-05-14T10:20:14","date_gmt":"2024-05-14T10:20:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/?p=2153"},"modified":"2024-05-14T10:20:14","modified_gmt":"2024-05-14T10:20:14","slug":"mlc-daily-current-affairs-14-may-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/mlc-daily-current-affairs-14-may-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"MLC Daily Current Affairs – 14 May 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today in History (14th<\/sup> May 1992)<\/strong><\/h1>\n

On May 14, 1992, India issued a ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), commonly known as the Tamil Tigers, a Sri Lankan rebel group.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s revise<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

A) Which one is the correct statement about Indian Politics<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It is free from caste and religious biases<\/li>\n
  2. It is mainly affected by the freebees<\/li>\n
  3. It is not affected by the freebees<\/li>\n
  4. Region, religion, and caste have no role in Indian politics<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Ans. (b)<\/p>\n

    B) Vibrant Village Programme is being implemented by which ministry?<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Ministry of finance<\/li>\n
    2. Ministry of panchayatiraj<\/li>\n
    3. Ministry of Urban affairs<\/li>\n
    4. Ministry of Home affairs<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Ans. (d)<\/p>\n

      C) What is the main objective of Vibran Village Programme?<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. To develop all villages independent for financial resources<\/li>\n
      2. To develop roads in all villages of India<\/li>\n
      3. To develop roads in the villages of border areas along the Chinese border<\/li>\n
      4. To develop basic infrastructure in the villages near National capital<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Ans. (c)<\/p>\n

        D) Recently Web eraser tool was in news. It is associated with which company?<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Samsung<\/li>\n
        2. Apple<\/li>\n
        3. Microsoft<\/li>\n
        4. Tesla<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Ans. (b)<\/p>\n

          E) Two temple boards in Kerala have banned use of ______ flowers in temple offerings. It was due to the death of a 24-year old woman after accidentally chewing some leaves of this plant. Fill in the blank.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Marigold<\/li>\n
          2. Lily<\/li>\n
          3. Lavender<\/li>\n
          4. Oleander<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Ans. (d)<\/p>\n

            F) According to the World Happiness Report 2024 which country is at the bottom?<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Pakistan<\/li>\n
            2. Afghanistan<\/li>\n
            3. Finland<\/li>\n
            4. India<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Ans. (b)<\/p>\n

              G) What is the rank of India in world happiness index 2024?<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. 114<\/li>\n
              2. 126<\/li>\n
              3. 108<\/li>\n
              4. 140<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Ans. (b)<\/p>\n

                Summary of Today’s News<\/h2>\n

                Notice by the Supreme Court on petition questioning collegium for selection of judges for Himachal HC<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

                \u2022 The Supreme Court has asked for a response from the Registrar General of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. This is in regard to a plea by two senior District and Sessions Judges. The judges allege that their merit and seniority were ignored by the HC Collegium in selecting names for HC judgeship.
                \n\u2022 The petitioners are Chirag Bhanu Singh and Arvind Malhotra, judges at Bilaspur and Solan respectively. They claim their names were not considered.<\/p>\n

                An overview of the Smart Cities Mission<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

                \u2022 Smart cities were defined by urban practitioners as new Silicon Valleys built with a strong integration of a network of airports, highways, and other types of communications, a so-called intellectual city with advanced ICT.
                \n\u2022 The Urban Ministry\u2019s dashboard as of April 26, exhibits that 8,033 projects sanctioned under the SCM have seen a fall in the total outlay from the expected \u20b92 lakh crore to \u20b91,67,875 crore, which is 16% less than the projected capital flow in 100 cities.
                \n\u2022 The SCM became an exclusionary scheme wherein not more than 1% of a city\u2019s geographical area was selected for development. The scheme was divorced from ground realities of urban India.
                \nReasons behind non performance of Smart Cities Mission<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 far away from ground realities
                \n\u2022 lack of cooperation with urban government under 74th Constitution Amendment, the SPV model designed for smart cities was not aligned with the 74th Constitutional Amendment
                \n\u2022 became exclusionary for the common people
                \n\u2022 Focused only some selected areas around 1% of the total city. For example Chandigarh- Sector 43 and with few services like wifi zone, solid waste management, smart water meters etc.
                \n\u2022 Urban India, according to the World Bank has more than 49% of the population living in slums. In the name of executing smart city projects, there was displacement of people living in poorer localities. Street vendors, for example, were displaced and urban commons were disrupted.
                \n\u2022 It has led to urban flooding in various cites which never experienced the urban flood.<\/p>\n

                The legal position on live-in relationships<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

                The background story<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court ruled that a Muslim cannot claim rights in a live-in relationship if they have a living spouse. The court declared such relationships against Islamic tenets while hearing a writ petition by Sneha Devi and Mohammed Shadab Khan. This couple sought protection from police action after the woman\u2019s parents filed a kidnapping case against Khan.
                \nWhat Happened?<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 The couple, both adults in a live-in relationship, sought protection under Article 21 of the Constitution (protection of life and personal liberty). The judges stated that Islamic tenets do not permit live-in relationships during a subsisting marriage.
                \n\u2022 Mr. Khan was married to Farida Khatoon since 2020. The court acknowledged constitutional morality might protect an unmarried couple in a live-in relationship but stated that Article 21 does not support a right to such a relationship when one partner is married.
                \nPrevious Orders
                \n\u2022 Live-in relationships with varying marital statuses and faiths have been considered by the judiciary. In November last year, the Supreme Court stayed orders awarding maintenance to a woman from a man she lived with while both were married to others.
                \n\u2022 The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a couple living together without divorcing their previous spouses could not be classified as in a “live-in relationship” and this could amount to bigamy under Sections 494\/495 of the IPC.
                \nWhat Have the Courts Said About Live-In Relationships?<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 India has no laws directly addressing live-in partnerships.
                \n\u2022 The Supreme Court has ruled that living together is part of ‘the right to life’ and is not an offence.
                \n\u2022 In Payal Sharma versus Nari Niketan, the Allahabad High Court recognized that a man and a woman can live together without being married, considering it a legal right despite societal views on morality.<\/p>\n

                GANHRI Defers NHRC Accreditation<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

                \u2022 Deferral of Accreditation: The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) deferred the accreditation of India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for the second consecutive year.
                \n\u2022 Impact: This decision may affect India’s ability to vote at the Human Rights Council and some UN General Assembly bodies.
                \n\u2022 Meeting Details: The decision was made during the Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA) meeting on May 1, which included representatives from New Zealand, South Africa, Honduras, and Greece.
                \nReasons for Deferral<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 Lack of Transparency: Previous reports cited the lack of transparency in appointing NHRC members.
                \n\u2022 Appointment Issues: Concerns about appointing police officers to oversee human rights investigations.
                \n\u2022 Representation Gaps: Lack of gender and minority representation on the NHRC member panel.
                \nOfficial Response<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 Election Constraints: Some demands for structural changes and suggestions from GANHRI were difficult to implement due to the ongoing general elections in India.
                \n\u2022 Review Timeline: The deferral will likely be reviewed in meetings scheduled for September this year or May next year.
                \nHistorical Context<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 Previous Deferral: NHRC’s ‘A-status’ was previously deferred in 2016 but restored in 2017.
                \n\u2022 Current Suspension: This is the first time India’s status has been suspended for two consecutive years (2023 and 2024).
                \nBackground on NHRC<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 Establishment: The NHRC was established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, passed by Parliament in 1993.
                \n\u2022 Accreditation History: Accredited as \u2018A\u2019 Status NHRI since 1999, retained in 2006, 2011, and 2017 after previous deferment. This process was started in 1999.
                \nConcerns Raised<\/strong>
                \n\u2022 Civil Society Input: Deferral followed submissions from civil society organizations and human rights activists about India’s human rights record.
                \n\u2022 SCA Report: The March 2023 six-point submission indicated NHRC’s failure to operate independently of government interference.<\/p>\n

                India, Iran sign Chabahar port operation pact<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

                \"India,<\/p>\n

                India-Iran Chabahar Port Agreement<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

                \u2022 Agreement Signed: India and Iran signed a 10-year contract for the operation of the Chabahar port, eight years after initially concluding the framework for cooperation. The agreement was signed between Indian Ports Global Ltd. (IPGL) and Iran’s Port and Maritime Organisation (PMO).
                \nHistorical Background
                \n\u2022 Initial MoU: A memorandum of understanding for the port’s development was signed in May 2015.
                \n\u2022 Previous Execution: The contract was executed on May 23, 2016, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Iran.
                \nSignificance and Impact
                \n\u2022 Trade and Cooperation: The agreement aims to enhance trade, marine cooperation, and transshipment, boosting trilateral trade between India, Iran, and Afghanistan.
                \n\u2022 Regional Development: India’s continued investment will enhance the port’s efficiency and capacity, supporting regional economic development and humanitarian aid shipments.
                \n\u2022 Strategic Importance: Chabahar port serves as a crucial trade artery connecting India with Afghanistan and Central Asian countries.
                \nLocation
                \n\u2022 Chabahar Port: Located in the Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran, it is a deep-water port significant for regional trade.<\/p>\n