Current Affairs

Human + AI will define the future of work by 2027: study

• Human + AI will define the future of work and nearly all HR leaders (97%) anticipate that by 2027, the nature of work will be shaped by humans working alongside AI rather than engaging with it only intermittently, showed a Nasscom-Indeed study.
• As per the study, this trend signalled a shift from AI being a supplementary tool to becoming an integral part of everyday roles, workflows and decision-making processes.

Equality in society has to start in school, says Supreme Court

Context: The Supreme Court, in a judgment on Tuesday, said that equality in society had to start in school, where the child of a multi-millionaire or a Supreme Court judge had to sit shoulder-to-shoulder with a child of an autorickshaw driver or a street vendor.

• A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha elaborated that the obligation of the government under the Right to Education Act (RTE) to ensure that neighbourhood schools admit children belonging to weaker and disadvantaged sections has an “extraordinary capacity to transform the social structure of our society”.
• “The statutory design [of the RTE Act] is normatively ambitious. It envisages elementary education for all children, across the spectrum of class, caste, gender and economic position, in a shared institutional space. It makes it possible, normatively and structurally, for the child of a multimillionaire or even of a judge of the Supreme Court of India to sit in the same classroom and at the same bench as the child of an autorickshaw driver or a street vendor,” Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment, wrote.
• The top court’s judgment rose from the bitter experience of the petitioner, Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar, who was quietly snubbed off when he had approached a neighbourhood school to admit his children for free and compulsory elementary education in 2016.
• “It is his case that, even though information through RTI indicated that seats were available, the neighbourhood school did not respond,” Justice Narasimha narrated.
• The judge observed that educating “young India” and achieving “equality of status” demanded an earnest implementation of the constitutional right under Article 21A to free and compulsory education, followed by the statutory mandate of the 2009 Act.

‘National mission’

• “Ensuring admission of such students must be a national mission and an obligation of the appropriate government and the local authority. Equally, courts, be it constitutional or civil, must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and efficient relief to parents who complain of denial of the right,” the Supreme Court declared.

Governor’s Rule in Mizoram tribal council extended

Context: Mizoram Governor Vijay Kumar Singh extended Governor’s Rule in the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) for six more months, citing continuing political uncertainty.

• The Council of Ministers said that there was no justification in extending Governor’s Rule, as the Zoram People’s Movement (ZPM) enjoyed a clear majority.

Treat inclusion of disabled persons as an advantage: SC

Context: The Supreme Court urged corporates and investors to consider the inclusion of persons with disabilities not just as a mere “compliance issue” but also as a “strategic advantage” that would enhance their business performance, resilience, and social impact.

• The judgment, co-authored by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, is the second in two months with which the Supreme Court is stepping in to highlight that business corporations not only do lead a profit-only existence but also have a constitutional duty to contribute to the society and environment.
• The Bench exercised the court’s extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 to direct Coal India Limited to give Sujata Bora, who has multiple disabilities, a supernumerary post with a separate desk and specially-designed computer at its North Eastern Coalfields office in Assam.

Source: The Hindu

SC differs on sanction to try public servants

Context: The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the legality of a provision in an anti-corruption law which mandates prior sanction before prosecuting public servants.

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna concluded that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was plainly unconstitutional, while Justice K.V. Viswanathan, the puisne judge on the Division Bench, said that sanction must be decided by an independent authority such as the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta.

Policy paralysis

• Justice Viswanathan said the mere possibility of abuse of an otherwise valid provision cannot be a ground for declaring it unconstitutional. He compared striking down Section 17A to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.
• “If honest public servants are not given a basic assurance that decisions taken by them will not be subjected to frivolous complaints, it is the nation that will suffer. Public servants will resort to a play-it-safe syndrome, and that will result in policy paralysis. The panacea of striking down will turn out to be worse than the disease,” Justice Viswanathan wrote in his opinion.
• He directed that an independent inquiry of the facts of a corruption complaint would be ideal before a grant of sanction.
• The case will now be referred to the Chief Justice of India to be placed before a Bench of three judges.
• “A fine balance has to be maintained between the need to protect a public servant against mala fide prosecution on the one hand and the object of upholding the probity in public life by prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists, on the other,” Justice Viswanathan observed in his opinion.
• He said the Lokpal had the authority to conduct an inquiry into even an allegation of corruption made against the Prime Minister of the country.
• “If Section 17A is invalidated on the ground that prior approval should not exist at all, the immediate consequence would be that any complaint alleging corruption in official decision-making could straightaway result in a police inquiry or investigation,” Justice Viswanthan reasoned.

Source: The Hindu