Census 2011Results

India's population has jumped to 1.21 billion, an increase of more than 181 million during 2001-11, according to provisional data of Census 2011 released on Thursday.

Though the population is almost equal to the combined population of the U.S., Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Japan (1,214.3 million), the silver lining is that after 1911-21 the past decade (2001-11) witnessed the addition of smaller population than the previous decade's growth.

Of the total provisional population of 1,210.2 million, the number of males stood at 623.7 million and females at 586.5 million. The percentage growth in 2001-11 was 17.64 — males 17.19 and females 18.12. India's population accounts for 17.5 per cent of the world's.

Registrar-General and Census Commissioner of India C. Chandramouli released the provisional data here, in the presence of Union Home Secretary G.K. Pillai. “Provisional population is arrived at by adding the population as reported by each enumerator, and the final population data is likely to be released next year,” Dr. Chandramouli told journalists.

Among the States and the Union Territories, Uttar Pradesh is the most populous State with 199 million people, followed by Maharashtra with 112 million people. Lakshadweep is the least populated at 64,429 people.

The percentage decadal growth rates of the six most populous States have declined during 2001-11 compared with 1991-2001. The population growth in Uttar Pradesh has declined from 25.85 per cent to 20.09 per cent, in Maharashtra from 22.73 per cent to 15.99 per cent, Bihar from 28.62 per cent to 25.07 per cent, West Bengal from 17.77 per cent to 13.93 per cent, Andhra Pradesh from 14.59 per cent to 11.10 per cent and Madhya Pradesh from 24.26 per cent to 20.30 per cent. “This shows that we have added population, but the growth [rate] has been less,” Dr. Chandramouli said.

The overall sex ratio nationwide has increased by seven percentage points to 940 against 933 in Census 2001. Sex ratio is defined as the number of females per 1,000 males. An increase in sex ratio was observed in 29 States/Union Territories. Kerala with 1,084 has the highest sex ratio followed by Puducherry with 1,038. With 618, Daman and Diu has the lowest ratio.

“This is the highest sex ratio at the national level since Census 1971 and a shade lower than 1961. Three major States — Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar and Gujarat — have shown a decline in sex ratio as compared to Census 2001,” Dr. Chandramouli said. India's skewed sex ratio due to female foeticide and selective sex determination has been a cause for concern.

However, the area of grave concern, Dr. Chandramouli said, remained the lowest ever child sex ratio of 914. The provisional data showed that the child sex ratio [0 to 6 years] came down to 914 females per 1,000 males against 927 in Census 2001. It showed a continuing preference for male children in the last decade.

An increasing trend in the child sex ratio was seen in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Mizoram and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but in the remaining States/UTs, the ratio showed a decline. While the overall sex ratio has improved since 1991, the decline in child sex ratio has been unabated since the 1961Census. The total number of children in the age group of 0-6 is now 158.8 million, less by five million since 2001.

Literacy rate up

The literacy rate has gone up from 64.83 per cent in 2001 to 74.04 per cent, an increase of 9.21 percentage points.

The female literacy in 2001 was 53.67 per cent and it has gone up to 65.46 per cent in 2011. The male literacy, in comparison, rose from 75.26 to 82.14 per cent.

Kerala, with 93.91 per cent, continues to occupy the top position among States as far as literacy is concerned, while Mizoram's Serchhip district (98.76 per cent) and Aizawl (98.50 per cent) recorded the highest literacy rates among districts. Madhya Pradesh's Alirajpur district has the lowest literacy rate of 37.22 per cent as also the naxalite-affected Chhattisgarh's Bijapur district, where the literacy rate is 41.58 per cent.

Lakshadweep followed Kerala with a literacy level of 92.28 per cent, while Bihar remained at the bottom of the ladder at 63.82 per cent, followed by Arunachal Pradesh at 66.95 per cent. Ten States and Union Territories, including Kerala, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu, Puducherry, Chandigarh, NCT of Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands achieved a literacy rate of above 85 per cent, which met the Planning Commission's target set to be achieved by 2011-12.

The gap of 21.59 percentage points recorded between male and female literacy rates in 2001 census has reduced to 16.68 percentage points in 2011.

Judicial Standards & Accountability Bill

Judicial Standards & Accountability Bill

Ajit Prakash Shah

In a system where half the litigants must necessarily lose their cases and where most complaints against judges are frivolous, the Bill, if implemented, would mark the beginning of the end of the judiciary.

The last two decades have marked the extraordinary rise of India. This has however been tinged with cynicism about our major democratic institutions and a pessimism about their future. The judiciary, which till now has been looked upon as the strongest pillar of Indian democracy, has been beset with unprecedented problems. In recent times, the working of the judges of superior courts (High Courts and the Supreme Court) has come in for intense scrutiny and grave doubts have been cast against the conduct of some judges. The pressing call for greater institutional accountability in the Indian judiciary is now stronger than ever. It is in this light that Parliament's proposed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 must be seen.

This Bill appears to be a hurried and knee-jerk reaction to recent events, and has the potential to seriously undermine judicial independence. It seeks to devise a new “complaint procedure” under which any person may be able to file a complaint in writing against any judge of a superior court. Upon such a complaint being filed and examined, the Judicial Oversight Committee (proposed to be constituted under the statute), may either dismiss the complaint or make a reference to Parliament for the removal of the judge, issue advisories, warnings, withdraw judicial work or make a request for voluntary retirement.

The issue of Judicial Standards must be seen in the context of Art 124(4) of the Constitution which provides for the process of impeachment of a judge on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” Art 124(5) empowers Parliament only to make laws to regulate the procedure for presentation of address of impeachment, and for the investigation and proof for the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge.

Cleverly disguised Bill

The present Bill, cleverly disguised as being permissible under Art 124(5), is an example of the most blatant violation of constitutional safeguards and is a cure that is surely worse than the disease. Article 124(5) does not empower Parliament to create any other forum for recommending impeachment proceedings, or allow complaints to be made by any person, or to make a judge liable for minor penalties. What can be done only by a hundred or more members of the Lok Sabha or fifty or more members of the Rajya Sabha (i.e. initiation of impeachment proceedings) can now theoretically be done by only one person.

It is true that judicial commissions exist in other countries like the U.S. and Canada, but their reach does not extend to the apex court. Also, adopting such structures from other countries without having regard to the unique conditions existing in ours, is untenable and fraught with the danger of destabilising our delicate constitutional balance.

Outlined below are some of the other major defects in the Bill:

Definition of misbehaviour: The Bill seeks to provide a straight jacketed definition of misbehaviour in Clause 2(j), but by laying down a strict definition, the concept loses its elasticity and becomes both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. Over-inclusive, that absent a de minimis exception, even a minor breach of judicial standards, say late filing of assets declaration, could constitute misconduct; and under-inclusive that to the extent that the definition is exhaustive (since it uses the word “means”), it is incapable of catching within its fold any “misbehaviour” that might not be covered by this provision. The Constitution framers had been careful not to define the term misbehaviour, let alone define it exhaustively. Implicit in this understanding was the belief that if the power of removal was vested in high constitutional authorities, they would be in the best position to judge when misbehaviour (or incapacity) had been occasioned.

Statutory provision for judicial standards: The Bill also provides a list of standards of judicial conduct to which all judges are expected to adhere. Sixteen of the 18 enumerated standards are derived from the “Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life” adopted at a Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997. However, the very idea of statutorily providing for judicial standards, irrespective of their content, is violative of judicial independence.

A significant portion of litigation before higher courts today is public in nature and involves the State as one of the parties. Laws are also routinely impugned for their unconstitutionality. Given this, investing the legislature with the power to lay down and amend the standards which all sitting judges must adhere to (or risk the proposed penalties), has the potential to severely threaten impartial and effective adjudication.

Scheme of filing complaints: Under the Bill, “any” person may file a complaint in a prescribed format. Further, the proposed Judicial Oversight Committee will just act as a post-office and refer each complaint to a Scrutiny Panel. This is likely to lead to a multiplicity of complaints and even though the Bill proscribes false and vexatious complaints under Clause 53, this is unlikely to prove much of a deterrent, and since each of them will have to be checked by the Scrutiny Panel, it is also likely to result in a colossal waste of time.

Clause 18 provides that the Oversight Committee shall consist of five persons with two serving and one retired judge, an appointed eminent person and the Attorney-General of India. The presence of the Attorney-General on the Oversight Committee is highly suspect. The Attorney-General has the responsibility of regularly appearing on behalf of the government before the court. On occasions, the possibility of his appearing before a judge against whom a complaint has been filed cannot be ruled out. In such a circumstance, there is clearly a conflict of interest since the Attorney-General will be a member of the Oversight Committee to look into the complaints made against the former.

The Scrutiny Panel is to consist of three members, two of whom will be judges sitting in the same court as the judge against whom the complaint is made. Since these judges would be colleagues sitting in the same court, it is likely that this will, either way, influence their conduct. It would be difficult for judges to dispassionately decide a case against one of their own and sitting with them day in and day out.

Furthermore, the composition and tenure of the Investigation Committee which is to be constituted for the purpose of enquiry into misbehaviour by a judge is undefined. Theoretically, therefore, it is possible for a lay person without any knowledge, experience or standing to be a part of an inquiry panel against a sitting judge of a superior Court.

Minor punishments: The idea of “minor” punishments is unworkable and has the potential to seriously undermine judicial status. If sitting judges are issued advisories and warnings and thereby publicly censured, but still continue on the bench and decide cases, this damages the credibility of the entire system.

Atmosphere of secrecy: Through Clause 43, the Bill completely excludes the operation of the RTI. This establishes an atmosphere of total secrecy more regressive than the present system, and for which, there does not appear to be any rational reason to make a change.

Conclusion

It is totally impermissible for the legislature to strike upon the independence and fearlessness of the judiciary. A judge of a superior court cannot be treated as an employee of the government. The present Bill is incapable of salvage and must be rejected in totality. In a system where half the litigants must necessarily lose their cases, and where most of the complaints against judges are frivolous and made by disgruntled litigants, this bill, if implemented, would mark the beginning of the end of the judiciary.

Demands for change to existing systems in the judiciary must be met rationally, bearing in mind the objectives sought to be achieved. The first site of change must be in the process of judicial appointments. The present system where judges of the superior courts are chosen based on undisclosed criterion in largely unknown circumstances reflects an increasing democratic deficit. The legitimacy of the judiciary ultimately flows from public support, which cannot be maintained without a transparent and open selection process.

The guiding principle should always be this: accountability there is and must be, but let it always be commensurate with judicial independence and impartiality. Ultimately, the appropriate balance between competing principles must be found in something that is best suited to our constitutional setup and is, in that sense, uniquely Indian. The citizens of India deserve no less.

(Justice Ajit Prakash Shah is former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts.)

Siesmic Zones in India

Major reason for the high frequency and intensity of the earthquakes is that India is driving into Asia at a rate of appromately 47 mm/year. The India Meteorological Department divides India into 4 seismic zones (Zone 2, 3, 4 and 5). The MSK (Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik) intensity broadly associated with the various seismic zones is VI (or less), VII, VIII and IX (and above) for Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, corresponding to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE).

Zone 5

Zone 5 covers the areas with the highest risks zone that suffers earthquakes of intensity MSK IX or greater. The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.36 for Zone 5. Structural designers use this factor for earthquake resistant design of structures in Zone 5. The zone factor of 0.36 is indicative of effective (zero period) peak horizontal ground accelerations of 0.36 g (36 % of gravity) that may be generated during MCE level earthquake in this zone. It is referred to as the Very High Damage Risk Zone.

The state of Kashmir, Punjab,the western and centralHimalayas, the North-East Indian region and the Rann of Kutch fall in this zone.

Generally, the areas having trap or basaltic rock are prone to earthquakes.

Zone 4

This zone is called the High Damage Risk Zone and covers areas liable to MSK VIII. The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.24 for Zone 4. The Indo-Gangetic basin and the capital of the country (Delhi), Jammu and Bihar fall in Zone 4. In Maharashtra Patan area(Koyananager) also in zone 4.

[edit]Zone 3

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, parts of Kashmir, Western Himalayas fall under this zone. This zone is classified as Moderate Damage Risk Zone which is liable to MSK VII. and also 7.8 The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.16 for Zone 3.

[edit]Zone 2

This region is liable to MSK VI or less and is classified as the Low Damage Risk Zone. The IS code assigns zone factor of 0.10 (maximum horizontal acceleration that can be experienced by a structure in this zone is 10 % of gravitational acceleration) for Zone 2.

Note:The Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik scale is somewhat similar to the Modified Mercalli (MM) scale used in the United States.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) or Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG)

Created on May 25, 1981, the original Council comprised the Persian Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait. The unified economic agreement between the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council was signed on November 11, 1981 in Abu Dhabi. These countries are often referred to as The GCC States.

[edit]Objectives

Among the stated objectives are:

• formulating similar regulations in various fields such as economy, finance, trade, customs, tourism, legislation, and administration;
• fostering scientific and technical progress in industry, mining, agriculture, water and animal resources;
• establishing scientific research centers;
• setting up joint ventures;
• unified military presence (Peninsula Shield Force)
• encouraging cooperation of the private sector;
• strengthening ties between their peoples; and
• establishing a common currency by 2010;^[2][3][4][5]

Note on Commom Currency: However, Oman announced in December 2006 it would not be able to meet the target date. Following the announcement that the central bank for the monetary union would be located in Riyadh and not in the UAE, the UAE announced their withdrawal from the monetary union project in May 2009. The name Khaleeji has been proposed as a name for this currency. If realised, the GCC monetary union would be the second most important supranational monetary union in the world in terms of GDP, after the euro area.^[3]

This area has some of the fastest growing economies in the world, mostly due to a boom in oil and natural gas revenues coupled with a building and investment boom backed by decades of saved petroleum revenues.

The region is also an emerging hotspot for events, including the 2006 Asian Games in Doha, Qatar. Doha also submitted an unsuccessful application for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. However, Qatar was later chosen to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

Qatar is expected to overtake top ranked Luxembourg in GDP (nominal) per capita next year for the world's top spot. See List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita.

[edit]Logo

The logo of the GCC consists of two concentric circles. On the upper part of the larger circle, the Bismillah phrase is written in Arabic. On the lower part of that circle, the Council's full name is written in Arabic. The inner circle contains an embossed hexagonal shape representing the Council's six member countries. The inside of the hexagon is filled by a map encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, on which the areas of the member countries are colored brown. No borders are shown.

[edit]Organizations

The GCC Patent Office was approved in 1992 and established soon after in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.^[8] Applications are filed and prosecuted in the Arabic language before the GCC Patent Office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which is a separate office from the Saudi Arabian Patent Office. A GCC Patent cannot co-exist with a national application in any of the member states, therefore, a national application must be relinquished within 90 days of filing the GCC Patent Application.

A GCC common market was launched on January 1, 2008.^[9] The common market grants national treatment to all GCC firms and citizens in any other GCC country, and in doing so removes all barriers to cross country investment and services trade. A customs union was declared in 2003, but practical implementation has lagged behind. Indeed, shortly afterwards, Bahrain concluded a separate Free Trade Agreement with the USA, in effect cutting through the GCC's agreement, and causing much friction.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar on December 15, 2009 announced the creation of a Monetary Council, a step toward establishing a shared currency. The board of the council, which will set a timetable for establishing a joint central bank and choose a currency regime, will meet for the first time on March 30, 2010. Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al-Salem al- Sabah said on December 8, 2009 that a single currency may take up to 10 years to establish. The original target was in 2010. Oman and the UAE later announced their withdrawal of the proposed currency until further notice.

[edit]Peninsula Shield Force

Main article: Peninsula Shield Force

Amidst the 2011 Bahraini protests, Gulf Cooperation Council forces from Saudi Arabia and the UAE were sent to Bahrain in March 2011.^[10][11][12] Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi dubbed the council as "Gulf Uncooperative Council" for its actions.^[13][14][15]

[edit]Secretaries-General

• Abdullah Bishara,^[16] Kuwait, 26 May 1981 — April 1993
• Fahim bin Sultan al-Qasimi, United Arab Emirates, April 1993 — April 1996
• Jamil bin Ibrahim al-Hujailan, Saudi Arabia, April 1996 — 31 March 2002
• AbdulRahman bin Hamad al-Attiyah, Qatar, 1 April 2002 to date

[edit]Member States

There are six member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) or Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Flag	Common name	Official name (English)	Official name (Arabic)
	Bahrain	Kingdom of Bahrain	Mamlakat al-Baḥrayn
	Kuwait	State of Kuwait	Dawlat al-Kuwayt
	Oman	Sultanate of Oman	Salṭanat ʻUmān
	Qatar	State of Qatar	Dawlat Qaṭar
	Saudi Arabia	Kingdom of Saudi Arabia	al-Mamlaka al-ʻArabiyya as-Suʻūdiyya
	United Arab Emirates	State of the United Arab Emirates	Dawlat al-Imārāt al-‘Arabīyah al-Muttaḥidah

[edit]Related states

Not all of the countries neighbouring the Persian Gulf are members of the council; Iran and Iraq are currently excluded, although both nations have a coastline on the Gulf. The associate membership of Iraq in certain GCC-related institutions was discontinued after the invasion of Kuwait.^[17]

[edit]Iraq

The associate membership of Iraq in certain GCC-related institutions was discontinued after the invasion of Kuwait.

[edit]Yemen

Yemen is (currently) in negotiations for GCC membership, and hopes to join by 2016, despite the fact that it has no coastline on the Gulf.^[20]There is, however, some resistance to full Yemeni membership amongst most GCC states, due to the country's poverty, different system of government, and the legality of qat in the country.

[edit]Related organizations

The GCC members and Yemen are also members of the Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA).