IASbaba's Flagship Course: Integrated Learning Programme (ILP) - 2024 Read Details
TOPIC
General studies 1:
General studies 2:
In news:
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly struck down discriminatory religious practices, the latest of which is the triple talaq (in Shayara Bano v. Union of India , 2017). Recently the Supreme Court referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench the question whether the fundamental right of women to pray at the place of their choice can be discriminated against solely based “on a biological factor exclusive to the female gender.”
Background:
The Sabarimala temple restricts women aged between 10 and 50 from taking the pilgrimage to Sabarimala – which means women are banned from even making the arduous trek to the shrine. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will scrutinise the age-old practice. The Constitution Bench will decide whether Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 allows a ‘religious denomination’ to ban entry of women between the age of 10 to 50 years. If so, does this amount to discrimination and violation of the fundamental rights to equality and gender justice. It will decide whether Rule 3(b) is ultra vires the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 and violative of the fundamental rights. The restriction finds its source in the legend that the Sabarimala temple deity – Swami Ayyappa – is a 'Naishtika Brahmachari' – and should not be disturbed. A 1991 Kerala High Court judgment supports the restriction imposed on women devotees. It had found that the restriction was in place since time immemorial and not discriminatory to the Constitution.
Tradition in conflict with the constitution:
A fragile judgment:
There is no unanimity on whether the Sabarimala temple bar is ‘age-old.’ The practice rests on a fragile rule and an equally fragile judgment of the Kerala High Court ( S. Mahendran v. The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board , 1991). The very purpose of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 is to ensure entry of all Hindus to temples without being discriminatory. The High Court, in its verdict, relied too much on the T antri’s (chief priest) opinion without a deeper analysis of the competing claims.
Individual liberty at stake:
It is erroneous to conceive of the issue only as one involving a fissure between individual freedom and gender justice on the one hand and religious practice on the other. It also reflects a conflict among believers themselves. Therefore, it is essential to prevent monopolisation of religious rights by a few under the guise of management of religious institutions. Those at the helm of affairs can only manage the institutions in a lawful and fair manner and they cannot be permitted to manage others’ freedom. Any other interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 would damage the very idea of individual liberty.
Conclusion:
Article 25(2)(b) enables the state “(to provide) for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of the Hindus.” Viewed so, a legislation to put an end to the objectionable practice must be brought in.
Connecting the dots:
TOPIC:
General Studies 2:
General Studies 3:
In news:
The Centre recently enlarged the definition of what constitutes a startup venture from five to seven years old. The Government has also eased norms for companies to avail themselves of income tax benefits under the Startup India programme. While these initiatives have been welcomed, the traditional sector which largely comes under the purview of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) is yet to be rescued from a decade-old definition which is stunting its growth.
The importance of MSMEs:
In 2016, there were more than 36 million such units providing employment to over 80 million persons, whilst contributing about 8 per cent to GDP, 45 per cent to the total manufacturing output, and 40 per cent to the exports from the country. The sector has thus played an important role in India’s economic growth.
Issues:
Definition of MSMEs:
Investment levels required to be classified as an MSME: Prescribed limit
Manufacturing sector-
The above limits were set in 2006.
Factoring the inflation: Ideal limit
However, factoring the inflation since 2006, the ideal investment limits for micro enterprises should stand at Rs. 43 lakh; for small enterprises the upper limit should be Rs. 8.75 crore; whereas for medium enterprises it should be around Rs. 17.51 crore. The estimated difference between the prescribed investment limit and ideal investment on an average across all the three segments of MSMEs stands at 85 per cent. The MSMEs in the services sector have also been experiencing a similar fate.
Global comparison:
Globally, medium-size enterprises in the manufacturing industry differ by definition. In China it is defined as those having investment ceiling of 300 million yuan (at the current price level $44 million); in Thailand it is with a ceiling on investment capital of up to 200 million Thai bahts ($6 million); and EU defines medium enterprises as those of having turnover of €50 million, which is approximately $58 million. In comparison, the investment limits for medium enterprises in the manufacturing sector in India as defined in 2006 was Rs. 10 crore, which was equivalent to $2.3 million then. Factoring for inflation, this figure stood at just Rs. 5.28 crore in 2016, or $0.8 million at the current exchange rate. This anomaly is a huge deterrent for enterprises in this sector to grow and participate in the value chain. With such a low investment ceiling, Indian MSMEs are either expanding laterally or engaging themselves at the lower end of the value chain.
Way forward:
Redefine MSMEs:
Connecting the dots:
Back to the future
A separate peace
A first step
Bans and the livelihood debate
Why higher education is devoid of quality