MLC Daily Current Affairs – 16 May 2025

Today in History (May 16^th,1975)

On this day, Sikkim became the 22nd state of India, following a referendum and the formalization of the 36th Constitutional Amendment.

Summary of Today’s News

India Urges Global Oversight of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited Jammu and Kashmir for the first time since the launch of Operation Sindoor, addressing troops at the Badami Bagh Cantonment in Srinagar.

• Call for Nuclear Oversight:
  Singh raised concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, labelling the country’s behavior as “irresponsible” and “rogue”. He urged the global community to place Pakistan’s nuclear weapons under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
• India’s Resolve Against Terrorism:
  Emphasizing India’s unwavering stance, Singh stated that nuclear threats from Pakistan will not deter India’s commitment to eradicating terrorism. He said, “We will never yield to nuclear blackmail.”
• Redefined Security Policy:
  Citing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, Singh said India no longer views attacks on its soil as isolated incidents but treats them as acts of war, underscoring a shift in national security and counter-terrorism policy.
• Operation Sindoor – A Decisive Offensive:
  Singh described Operation Sindoor as the largest and most decisive counter-terror action in Indian history. Referring to the Pahalgam attack, he said India’s response was based on the principle of retributive justice — “Our dharma was to eliminate them based on their karma.”
• Message to Terrorists and Their Sponsors:
  The operation was said to have delivered a clear message to terrorist groups and their handlers in Pakistan, showcasing India’s advanced precision strike capabilities.
• Boosting Indigenous Defence Capability:
  Singh highlighted India’s strides in self-reliance, mentioning advancements in missile systems, drones, communication networks, and enhanced logistical access along both the Line of Control (LoC) and Line of Actual Control (LAC).
• Stance on Dialogue with Pakistan:
  Reiterating India’s diplomatic position, Singh stated, “Talks and terrorism cannot go hand in hand.” If any dialogue is to occur, it will focus solely on counter-terrorism and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir.
• Criticism of Pakistan’s Broken Promises:
  Singh recalled past commitments by Pakistan, especially during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s tenure, to cease exporting terrorism. He accused Pakistan of consistently breaking promises and demanded dismantling of terror infrastructure.
• Tribute to Kashmiris:
  Commending the resilience of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, Singh praised their fortitude and courage in enduring the prolonged impact of terrorism.

T.N. CM Criticizes Presidential Reference on Timeline for Assent to State Bills

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin strongly condemned a Presidential Reference made to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. He described it as a “desperate attempt” to erode the powers of democratically elected State governments and place them under the control of centrally appointed Governors.

• Nature of the Presidential Reference:
  The Reference, made by President Droupadi Murmu, sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether judicial directions can prescribe timelines and conduct for the President and Governors when acting on State Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• Context and Legal Background:
  The move was triggered by an April 8 judgment by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, in which the Supreme Court addressed the Tamil Nadu government’s complaint about the Governor delaying assent to 10 re-passed Bills and later reserving them for the President.
• Key Constitutional Questions Raised:
  The Reference asked if:
  • Time limits can be judicially imposed where none exist constitutionally.
  • Judicial directions under Article 142 can override or contradict constitutional provisions.
  • The “deemed assent” concept used by the court aligns with the constitutional scheme.
  • The President’s and Governors’ decisions under Articles 200 and 201 are justiciable before a Bill becomes law.
• Stalin’s Allegations:
  Stalin accused the Centre of subverting the Constitution, asserting that the Reference attempts to dilute the Supreme Court’s settled legal position in Tamil Nadu’s favour, particularly against the Governor’s inaction.
• Challenges to Court Jurisdiction and Bench Composition:
  The Reference also questioned whether a two-judge Bench was competent to decide such substantial constitutional questions without referring the matter to a Constitution Bench (five or more judges), as mandated by Article 145(3).
• Discretion and Immunity Debates:
  It sought clarity on:
  • The scope of discretion available to Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201.
  • Whether Article 361, which gives them immunity while in office, completely bars judicial review of their actions in legislative matters.
• Wider Constitutional Implications:
  The Reference has reopened foundational debates on the balance of power between the judiciary, the executive, and the federal structure of governance—particularly the autonomy of States and the role of Governors as intermediaries.

SC Warns Telangana: Restore Kancha Gachibowli Forest or Face Jail Time for Officials

The Supreme Court warned the State of Telangana to either restore the deforested Kancha Gachibowli forest or face the possibility of imprisonment for the Chief Secretary and several senior officials.

Context:
The case pertains to the illegal felling of trees in the Kancha Gachibowli area of Hyderabad, allegedly to make way for an IT infrastructure project, with the tree cutting carried out during a long weekend when courts were closed.

• Chief Justice Gavai’s Sharp Rebuke:
  Chief Justice B.R. Gavai questioned the timing and intent behind the action, pointing out that tree felling began conveniently during a court holiday, suggesting a deliberate attempt to evade judicial scrutiny.
• State’s Defence and Appeal:
  Representing Telangana, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi argued the State’s commitment to sustainable development, asserting that “IT and ecology can go hand in hand.” He claimed that the action was bona fide and that “thousands of trees” were not actually cut.
• Court’s Pushback and Evidence:
  The Chief Justice rejected the State’s minimization, referring to photographic evidence and a report from the Forest Survey of India (FSI). The report noted that out of 104 acres cleared in just two nights, over 60% comprised moderately to heavily dense forest.
• Disputed Land Classification:
  Telangana authorities previously denied that the land was classified as forest. The claim of it being forest land only emerged after the area was allotted to the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation for development.
• Intent Under Scrutiny:
  The Chief Justice questioned the State’s claimed good faith:
  “If your intention was bona fide, why did you start felling trees during a court holiday?”
• Next Steps in the Case:
  The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for July 23, giving the State time to respond and act, while keeping the threat of imprisonment for officials firmly on the table.

Broader Implication:
The case underscores the Court’s increasing willingness to hold senior government officials personally accountable for environmental violations and emphasizes the principle that development cannot come at the cost of ecological destruction.