The Uttaramerur inscription

GS Paper - 1 (Art and Culture)

The Prime Minister referred to the Uttaramerur inscription in Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, while discussing India’s democratic history. The inscription found there is like a local constitution for the gram sabha. It tells how the assembly should be run, what should be the qualification of members, what should be the process to elect the members, and how a member would be disqualified.

Where is Uttaramerur?

1. Uttaramerur lies in present-day Kanchipuram district, approximately 90 km southeast of Chennai.
2. Today, it is a small town and had a population of roughly 25,000 in the census of 2011. It is known for its historic temples built during Pallava and Chola rule.
3. The famous inscription from Parantaka I’s reign is found on the walls of the Vaikunda Perumal Temple.

What does the inscription say?

1. The inscription gives details of the functioning of the local sabha, i.e. the village assembly.
2. A sabha was an assembly exclusively of brahmans and had specialised committees tasked with different things.
3. The Uttaramerur inscription details how members were selected, the required qualifications, their roles and responsibilities, and even the circumstances in which they could be removed.

Is this an example of a democracy?

1. While the Uttaramerur inscription gives details of local self-governance, on closer inspection, it is far from a truly democratic system.
2. Not only does it restrict sabha membership to a tiny subsection of land-owning brahmans, it also does not have true elections. Rather, it chooses members from the eligible pool of candidates through a draw of lots.
3. That being said, this does not mean that this inscription should not be cited as a precedent for democratic functioning. The idea of a democracy, as understood today, is a fairly recent phenomenon.
4. The United States, often hailed as the epitome of a liberal democracy, only gave universal adult franchise to its population in 1965.
5. What the Uttaramerur inscription details is a system of local self-government, outside the direct authority of the king.
6. Furthermore, for all intents and purposes, the inscription is like a constitution – it describes both the responsibilities of members of the sabha as well as the limitations to the authority of these members.
7. If the rule of law (rather than rule by personal diktat) is an essential component of a democracy, the Uttaramerur inscription describes a system of government which follows just that.

North Korea to develop solid-fuel technology

GS Paper - 3 (Defence Technology)

North Korea says it has tested a new solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), its first known use of the propellant in a longer-range projectile, as it seeks the capability to launch with little preparation.

What is Solid-fuel technology?

1. Solid propellants are a mixture of fuel and oxidiser. Metallic powders such as aluminium often serve as the fuel, and ammonium perchlorate, which is the salt of perchloric acid and ammonia, is the most common oxidiser.
2. The fuel and oxidiser are bound together by a hard rubbery material and packed into a metal casing.
3. When solid propellant burns, oxygen from the ammonium perchlorate combines with aluminium to generate enormous amounts of energy and temperatures of more than 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,760 degrees Celsius), creating thrust and lifting the missile from the launch pad.

Who has that technology?

1. Solid fuel dates back to fireworks developed by the Chinese centuries ago, but made dramatic progress in the mid-20th century, when the U.S. developed more powerful propellants.
2. The Soviet Union fielded its first solid-fuel ICBM, the RT-2, in the early 1970s, followed by France's development of its S3, also known as SSBS, a medium-range ballistic missile.
3. China started testing solid-fuel ICBMs in the late 1990s. South Korea said on 14 April 2023 it had already secured "efficient and advanced" solid-propellant ballistic missile technology.

SOLID VS LIQUID

1. Liquid propellants provide greater propulsive thrust and power, but require more complex technology and extra weight.
2. Solid fuel is dense and burns quite quickly, generating thrust over a short time. Solid fuel can remain in storage for an extended period without degrading or breaking down - a common issue with liquid fuel.
3. U.S. government weapons expert who now works with the 38 North project, said solid-fuel missiles are easier and safer to operate, and require less logistical support, making them harder to detect and more survivable than liquid-fuel weapons.
4. Any country that operates large scale, missile-based nuclear forces would seek solid-propellant missiles, which do not need to be fuelled immediately ahead of launch. "These capabilities are much more responsive in a time of crisis.

SC ruling on Agnipath scheme

GS Paper -2 (Judiciary)

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgment which upheld the Agnipath scheme for recruitment to the armed forces. Some of the petitioners included candidates who were shortlisted in the earlier recruitment process to Army and Air Force.

More about the news:

v  Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the apex court that their names appeared in a provisional list for recruitment to Air Force but the recruitment process was cancelled when Agnipath scheme was notified.

v  It was argued that the government must be directed to complete the old process citing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

v  He added that these candidates had got jobs in BSF and other paramilitary organisations, but had refused as they were told that Air Force recruitment letters will be issued.

v  It was not told thatthe issuing of letters was postponed due to Agnipath,” adding there was the issue of promissory estoppel.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel:

Ø  Promissory estoppel is a concept developed in contractual laws.A valid contract under law requires an agreement to be made with sufficient consideration.

Ø  A claim of doctrine of promissory estoppel essentially prevents a “promisor” from backing out of an agreement on the grounds that there is no “consideration.”

Ø  The doctrine is invoked in court by a plaintiff (the party moving court in a civil action) against the defendant to ensure execution of a contract or seek compensation for failure to perform the contract.

In the 1981, decision in Chhaganlal Keshavalal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai, the SC lists out a checklist for when the doctrine can be applied.

• First, there must be a clear and unambiguous promise.
• Second, the plaintiff must have acted relying reasonably on that promise.
• Third, the plaintiff must have suffered a loss.

Its relation to the Agnipath case:

Ø  Bhushan’s argument invoking the doctrine essentially means that the government’s actions of putting up a shortlist etc.would be a “promise” made by it.

Ø  The other party here, the candidates acted based on that promise;they refused other jobs in CRPF, BSF etc. and now must be compensated for their loss.

SC views on this case:

The judges quickly refused this argument:

ü  CJI DY Chandrachud pointed out that “promissory estoppel is always subject to overarching public interest”.

ü  Justice PS Narasimha added that “this is not a contract matter where promissory estoppel in public law was applied, it is a public employment” and that “the question of applying this principle will not arise in this case”.

SC, NHRC views on encounters

GS Paper -2 (Judiciary)

Extra-judicial killings, popularly known as “encounters”, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and subsequently, the Supreme Court have laid down proper guidelines and procedures to be followed to prevent any misuse of power by the law enforcement agencies.

More about the news:

Supreme Court views on “encounters”:

On September 23, 2014, a bench of then CJI RM Lodha and Rohinton Fali Nariman issued detailed guidelines enumerating 16 points to be followed “in the matters of investigating police encounters in the cases of death as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation.”

The guidelines came in the case “People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra:

v  It included the registration of a first information report (FIR) as mandatory along with provisions for magisterial inquiry, keeping written records of intelligence inputs and independent investigation by bodies such as the CID.

v  A Magisterial Inquiry must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police action. The next of kin of the deceased must invariably be associated in such inquiry.

v  In every case when a complaint is made against the police alleging commission of a criminal act on their part, which makes out a cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate sections of the IPC.

v  The court further said that such an inquiry made under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must show “whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful.”

v  After an inquiry, a report must be sent to the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdictionunder Section 190 of the Code.

v  The guidelines also stated that whenever the police receives any intelligence or tip-off on criminal movements or activities relating to the commission of grave criminal offence, “it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form.”

v  Following such tip-off or intelligence, if an encounter takes place and a firearm is used by the police party, resulting in death, then an FIR to that effect has to be registered and forwarded to the court under Section 157 without delay.

v  Provisions for an independent investigation into the encounter are also listed which “shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter).”

v  Further, the court directed that these “requirements/norms must be strictly observed in all cases of death and grievous injury in police encounters by treating them as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India”.

NHRC guidelines on encounters:

• In March 1997, former CJI Justice M N Venkatachaliah wrote to all Chief Ministers saying that the NHRC was receiving complaints from the general public and NGOsthat instance of fake encounters by the police were on the rise, and that the police kills accused(s) instead of subjecting them to the due process of law.
• “Under our laws the police have not been conferred any right to take away the life of another person”, and “if, by his act, the policeman kills a person, he commits the offence of culpable homicide whether amounting to the offence of murder or not unless it is proved that such killing was not an offence under the law.
• NHRC asked all states and Union Territories to ensure that police follow a set of guidelines in cases where death is caused in police encounters. These included the police’s duty to enter all information received about encounter deaths in an “appropriate register” and provisions for investigation by independent agencies like the State CID.
• The guidelines also said that the grant of compensation to the deceased’s dependents may be considered where police officers may be convicted and prosecuted after investigation.
• In 2010, these were amended under the then NHRC chief Justice GP Mathur, to include provisions for registration of an FIR, magisterial inquiry and reporting of all death cases to the NHRC by a Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police of the District within 48 hours of such death.
• Three months after the encounter, a second report must be sent to the NHRC, providing information, inclusive of the post mortem report, inquest report and the enquiry findings.