JIGYASA” – a student- scientist connect programme

Jigyasa, a student- scientist connect programme has been launched by the government in NewDelhi. The programme would be implemented by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in collaboration with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS).

Salient Facts The main focus of the programme is to connect school students and scientists as well as to extend student’s classroom learning to a very well-planned research laboratory based learning.

The programme has been inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of a new India and “Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR)” of scientific community and institutions.

The JIGYASA programme is expected to inculcate the culture of inquisitiveness and scientific temper on the minds of children and school teachers. The programme will connect 1151 Kendriya Vidyalayas with 38 National Laboratories of CSIR and will target 100,000 students and 1000 teachers every year.

Under this programme, the CSIR would launch a talent hunt among the visiting students for furthering the cause of scientific development. “JIGYASA” programme would be one of the major initiatives of the CSIR at the national level during its Platinum Jubilee Celebration Year.

The model of engagement under JIGYASA between the CSIR and the KVS will include Student Residential Programmes; Scientists as Teachers and Teachers as Scientists; Lab-specific activities / Onsite Experiments;Visits of Scientists to Schools/Outreach Programmes; Science and Maths Clubs; Popular Lecture Series/ demonstration programme at Schools; Student Apprenticeship Programmes; Science Exhibitions; Projects of National Children’s Science Congress; Teacher Workshops; and Tinkering Laboratories.

Source: xaam.in

GST – Mains 2017 Special


Source: xaam.in

Important Constitutional JUDGMENTs Compiled – Mains 2017 Special


Source: xaam.in

Ram Nath Kovind, India's 14th President: All You Need To Know About Him

Kovind, 71, was a Dalit leader from Kanpur. He was previously elected to the Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh. He used to practice as a Supreme Court lawyer.
Here is all that you need to know about him.
Kovind was elected to Rajya Sabha from the state of Uttar Pradesh for two terms—1994 to 2000 and 2000 to 2006. 
 He is a former president of the BJP Dalit Morcha (1998-2002) and President of the All-India Koli Samaj.
 He also served as the national spokesperson of the BJP, which appointed him the governor of Bihar on August 8, 2015.
Kovind served as member of the board of management of BR Ambedkar University, Lucknow. He also worked as a member of board of governors of Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata.  
Kovind represented India in United Nations (New York) and addressed the UN General Assembly in October, 2002.
Kovind married Savita Kovind on May 30, 1974 and has two children, a son Prashant Kumar and a daughter Swati.

Source: xaam.in

What is Maharashtra’s new social boycott law? Why it was brought, what will it do?(Polity,GS 2)

The Maharashtra Prohibition of Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) act 2016, received assent from the president, this paved the way for its implementation. The law disallows social boycott in the name of caste, community, religion, rituals or customs.

What constitutes social boycott under the new law:

  • If any individual or group tries to prevent another member or group from taking part in a social, religious or community function or ceremony
  • If the freedom of individuals is challenged in the name of jati panchayats, religion, customs, or denying them the right to practice a profession of their choice. Freedom means to marry outside one’s caste, visit places of worship, wear clothes of one’s choice and use any specific language
  • Discrimination based on morality, political inclination or sexuality also qualifies as social boycott
  • Preventing children from playing in a particular space, or restricting access to crematoria, burial grounds, community halls or educational institutions with mala fide intentions also

Provisions of the act that seek to prevent social boycott:

  • A district magistrate can prohibit an unlawful assembly for imposition of social boycott
  • Conviction will attract a prison term of up to three years or a fine up to Rs 1 lakh, or both
  • It is a cognizable or bailable offense
  • To ensure speedy justice, trial would have to be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing the charge sheet

Rationale behind such a law in Maharashtra:

  • Incidents of atrocities on individuals by jati panchayats or gavkis wielding extra-judicial powers have increased in recent times
  • Prevailing laws are frequently challenged in the court and loopholes used to escape punishment
  • The largest number of cases of social boycott were provoked by inter-caste marriages

Source: xaam.in

IAS Toppers Strategy: Rank 9 Suman Saurav Mohanty, 480 Marks in GS, answ…

Source: xaam.in

Privacy is not absolute, says Supreme Court

Court notes that an attempt to define the right to privacy might cause more harm than good.

Privacy is not absolute and cannot prevent the State from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday. It noted that ‘right to privacy’ was in fact too “amorphous” a term.

The court said to recognise privacy as a definite right, it had to first define it. But this would be nearly impossible as an element of privacy pervaded all the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

“How do we define privacy? What are it contents? Its contours? How can the State regulate privacy? What obligations do the State have to protect a person’s privacy?” Justice Chandrachud asked the petitioners who have challenged the Aadhaar law on the ground that it affects the privacy of citizens.

The court said that an attempt to define the right to privacy may cause more harm than good.

An exhaustive cataloguing by the court of what all constitutes privacy may limit the right itself, Justice Chandrachud observed.
Nine-judge bench

Justice Chandrachud is part of a nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar, examining a reference on the question whether privacy is sacred, fundamental and an inviolable right under the Constitution.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had submitted in the court that right to privacy is merely a common law right and the Constitution makers “consciously avoided” making it a part of the fundamental rights.

The decision of the nine-judge Bench on whether privacy is a fundamental right or not will be pivotal to the petitioners’ challenge that Aadhaar, which mandates citizens to part with their biometrics, is unconstitutional.

In the day-long hearing before a packed courtroom, the Bench questioned the petitioners’ plea that right to privacy is non-negotiable.

“If people have put themselves in the public realm using technology, is that not a surrender of their right to privacy” Justice Chandrachud asked.
Jaitley’s statement

The court’s questions came even as the petitioners banked on Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s statement in Parliament that privacy is “probably” a fundamental right and a “part of individual liberty”.

The statement was made on March 16, 2016 during the presentation of the Aadhaar Bill in Parliament.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that a person should have the right to “informational self-determination”.

“In the Internet age, a person should have control on how much he should put forward and not be compelled,” Mr. Divan submitted.

He said there was hardly any data protection in this digital age, inevitably leading to a compromise in privacy.

But Justice Chandrachud observed that right to privacy cannot be linked to data protection. He said this is the age of “big data”, and instead of focussing on privacy, steps need to be taken to give statutory recognition to data protection.
On right to make personal choices

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who opened the arguments for the petitioners, responded that the constitutional right to privacy does not mean mere protection from the State’s ingress.

“The right to liberty means the right to make personal choices, the right to develop one’s personality, one’s aura, one’s thinking and actions, the freedom of religion and conscience, the freedom to believe or not believe. For all this, one needs privacy. So the right to liberty and lead a life of dignity includes the right to privacy,” he submitted.

“Your argument is that the constitutional right to privacy is much larger in dimension from the common law right to privacy, which is only confined to be left alone in my home, which is my castle?” Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman asked Mr. Subramanium.

“You are saying liberty, which includes privacy, is the bedrock of all rights,” Justice S.A. Bobde asked.

Mr. Subramanium said liberty is a “pre-existing natural and inherent value”, which was recognised by the Constitution.

“Liberty and dignity are enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Liberty, dignity and privacy are inalienable rights necessary to truly understand the Constitution… Liberty is even the basis of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,” Mr. Subramanium submitted.

Countering Mr. Venugopal’s submission that right to privacy is not a fundamental right as it is not expressedly mentioned in the Constitution, senior advocate Soli Sorabjee said so is “Freedom of Press”.

“The cherished right of Freedom of Press is not expressedly set down in Article 19 (1). But it is deduced. Like that, privacy can also be deduced from other fundamental rights,” he said.

“Privacy is not a twilight right in the Constitution. There is no grey. In fact, is it possible for citizens to exercise liberty and dignity without privacy,” Mr. Subramanium seconded Mr. Sorabjee.

Mr. Divan, speaking in the context of Aadhaar demanding biometric details of citizens to grant them access to government welfare and benefits, said it is a violation of bodily integrity. “A person’s body belongs to the State only in a totalitarian State,” he submitted.

Source: xaam.in

Presidential election 2017: How are the votes calculated?

Number theory

A look at the total value of the votes for this Presidential poll
The electoral college comprises all Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs and all the members of the 31 legislative assemblies. 

Total electors for the Presidential election, 2017

Total electors (MLAs + MPs) = 4896050010001500200025003000350040004500


Value of an MLA vote

(Total population of State or UT) / (Total number of MLAs) x 1000

Value of an MP vote

Total value of MLA votes / Total number of MPs ( 549495/776) 

Total value of MLA votes

The sum of elected members of both the Houses of Parliament 
Lok Sabha (543) + Rajya Sabha (233) 

Total value of votes of 776 members of the Parliament


One MP vote x Total number of MPs

Total value of votes of all the 4896 electors


Total value of MLA votes
Total value of votes of 776 MPs

549495 + 549408

Source: xaam.in

Current Affairs June, 2017 (Shankar Ias)


35 Questions From Our 2017 Test Series

Join Our Prelims 2018 Online Test Series : Click Here
150 Tests| Instant Result|All India Ranking|2 Years Current Affairs covered

Source: xaam.in

Social Issues Part I (UPSC CSE Mains GS paper 1 ,Shankarias )


35 Questions From Our 2017 Test Series

Join Our Prelims 2018 Online Test Series : Click Here
150 Tests| Instant Result|All India Ranking|2 Years Current Affairs covered

Source: xaam.in