EducatorIAS

Introduction: The article "Justice is not blind, just a tad tongue-tied" by K. Chandru delves into the linguistic challenges within India's judicial system. It critiques the reliance on English in legal proceedings and judgments, which often alienates non-English-speaking citizens, thereby questioning the accessibility and inclusivity of the justice system. Key Points: 1. Constitutional Provisions on Language: .Article 343 designates Hindi as the official language of the Union. Article 345 allows states to adopt their own official languages. Article 348 mandates that laws made by Parliament and judgments of the Supreme Court be in English. 2. Judicial Language Practices: The Supreme Court and High Courts predominantly use English Some states have introduced regional languages in their High Courts, but judgments are still required to be in English. 3. Historical and Legislative Developments: In 1986, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi proposed introducing Tamil in th...

  The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the principle of linguistic secularism, ensuring that no language is given preferential treatment over others. This approach is evident in its rulings and interpretations, which emphasize the importance of linguistic equality in a diverse nation like India. One significant instance is the Court's interpretation of Article 343 of the Constitution, which designates Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union. The Court has clarified that while Hindi is the official language, it does not diminish the status of other languages. This interpretation aligns with the Constitution's spirit, promoting linguistic diversity and inclusivity. Furthermore, the Court has addressed issues related to the imposition of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking states. In such cases, the Court has ruled that the central government must respect the linguistic preferences of states, ensuring that no language is imposed upon the people. ...

  The Supreme Court of India has consistently played a pivotal role in safeguarding individual rights and reinforcing democratic values. Through its landmark judgments, the Court has ensured that the Constitution's principles are upheld, even in the face of challenges. One notable example is the Court's stance on the Right to Privacy. In the 2017 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India case, the Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment emphasized that personal autonomy and informational privacy are essential components of individual liberty, thereby protecting citizens from unwarranted state intrusion. Another significant instance is the decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that consensual homosexual acts between adults are not criminal offenses. This decision was a monumental step towards equality, affirming that the law should not discriminate...

  The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in protecting individual rights and upholding democratic values, often acting as a check on executive and legislative overreach. In recent years, several landmark judgments have reaffirmed its commitment to constitutional principles. 1. Upholding the Right to Privacy in Bail Conditions (2024) In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that bail conditions must not violate the accused’s right to privacy. It stated that continuous surveillance or intrusive conditions such as sharing social media passwords cannot be imposed arbitrarily. Significance: Protects individual liberty and ensures fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. Firm Stand on POCSO Implementation (2024) The Court asserted that no personal opinions or “sympathetic exceptions” can override the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Example: In cases where courts tried to justify exceptions in consensual relationships involving minors, th...

  Key Features of the Hiroshima AI Process Comprehensive Policy Framework : Human-Centered Approach The framework emphasizes that AI should prioritize human welfare , and its development must ensure that people’s rights and dignity are respected. Example : AI applications in healthcare should focus on improving patient outcomes, ensuring privacy, and maintaining fairness in diagnosis and treatment. Accountability and Transparency AI systems must be transparent , meaning that their decision-making processes should be understandable and accessible to users. This allows for accountability in cases of errors or unintended consequences. Example : A company developing AI for hiring should provide transparency into how its algorithm evaluates candidates, allowing users to understand how decisions are made. Global Collaboration The framework promotes international collaboration among governments, industries, and research organizations to develop harmonized s...

OECD Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence   Principle : AI should be used to benefit people, society, and the environment, contributing to economic growth and sustainable development . Example : AI in healthcare : AI systems like IBM Watson for healthcare are used to enhance diagnosis accuracy, making healthcare more accessible and efficient, which contributes to better well-being. AI in agriculture : AI systems help farmers increase crop yield using smart irrigation systems and predictive analytics that assist in sustainable farming practices. 2. Human-Centered Values and Fairness Principle : AI should respect human rights, be fair, and ensure it doesn’t discriminate against people based on gender, race, or other factors. Example : Bias detection in hiring : AI-based tools like HireVue aim to reduce human biases in the recruitment process by analyzing candidate interviews with algorithms designed to ensure fairness, minimizing discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, or ot...