Current Affairs – January 22, 2025

{GS2 – IR – USA} Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

• Context (IE): US President signed an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents in the US.

Birthright Citizenship in the US

• Birthright citizenship (jus soli) grants automatic citizenship to individuals born within country’s territory.
• 14^th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to those “born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Types

• Jus Soli: Citizenship based on place of birth.
• Jus Sanguinis: Citizenship through ancestry or parentage.

Order Details

• Applicable to children born in the US to parents who are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents, including those on temporary visas.
• Exclusions: Children born to foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces; children of unlawful immigrants or temporary visa holders.
• Limitations: Defines “mother” & “father” as the biological progenitors, reinforcing traditional definitions.

Implications

• Affected Population: Immigrants from countries like Mexico, India, and China, where birthright citizenship is most likely to apply.
• Potential Impact: Could lead to the creation of an underclass of children without citizenship, disproportionately affecting communities of color.

Global Context of Birthright Citizenship

• Worldwide Practices: While birthright citizenship is common in the US and some parts of the Western Hemisphere (e.g., Canada, Mexico), it is less widespread globally.
• Exceptions Worldwide: Some countries, including the US territories like American Samoa, do not automatically grant citizenship to children born there.

Comparison between American Citizenship and Indian Citizenship

Way Forward

• Alternative Measures: The administration may focus on restricting visas for pregnant travellers to limit “birth tourism” as a workaround.

{GS2 – Policy – IC – Judiciary} Ad-Hoc Judges

• Context (TH): SC suggested appointing ad-hoc judges in HC to address the backlog of criminal appeals.

• Ad-Hoc Judges are temporary judicial appointees nominated for specific cases, projects, or limited periods, unlike regular judges appointed through standard procedures.
• Appointed when there is a lack of quorum in the Supreme Court.
• Enjoy the salary, powers, and privileges of Supreme Court judges during tenure.

Tenure of Ad Hoc Judges

• Duration: Typically for 2–3 years or as required.
• Renewability: Extended based on judicial needs and case backlogs.

Eligibility Criteria

• Experience: Must have served as a judge in the same or another High Court.
• Age: Retired judges physically and mentally fit for duty.
• Expertise: Specialization in specific areas of law may be required.

Appointment

• Trigger for Appointment: High case pendency (8-10 years delay) or when over 20% of regular judge positions are vacant (2021 Lok Prahari guidelines).
• Appointment of HC Ad-hoc Judges: Chief Justice of the High Court with the President’s consent, Governed by Article 224A of the Indian Constitution.
• Appointment of SC Ad-hoc Judges: CJI with President’s approval after consulting the concerned High Court Chief Justice, Governed by Article 127.

Role and Powers

• Equal Authority: Same powers, responsibilities, and privileges as permanent judges.
• Division Bench Participation: Often included in benches to expedite specific cases, like criminal appeals.

Need for Ad-Hoc Judges

• Alarming Pendency: Over 63,000 criminal appeals pending in Allahabad High Court; other high courts like Jharkhand, Karnataka, Patna, and Punjab & Haryana report over 10,000 pending appeals each.
• Expedited Disposal: Ad-hoc judges ensure quicker adjudication, reducing delays in justice delivery.
• Specialized Expertise: Retired judges with domain expertise contribute to resolving specific categories of cases efficiently.

Issues

• Administrative Constraints: Cumbersome procedures for appointing ad-hoc judges undermine the objective of speedy resolutions.
• Resource Allocation: Challenges in maintaining financial and infrastructural resources for additional judicial appointments.
• Judicial Vacancies: HC often operate below their sanctioned strength, exacerbating pendency issues.
• Temporary Nature: Ad-hoc appointments do not provide a sustainable, long-term solution for systemic issues in the judiciary.

Supreme Court Guidelines

• Trigger Point for Appointment: Appointment initiated only if vacancies exceed 20% of sanctioned strength or pendency crosses a specific threshold (e.g., 8–10 years).
• Eligibility: Only retired judges of High Courts with proven expertise can be considered.
• Role and Function: Ad-hoc judges preside alongside sitting judges in division benches handling criminal appeals.
• Simplified Appointment Process: Revise the process for efficiency and timely implementation.

Advantages

• Reduced Case Backlog: Accelerates resolution of long-pending cases, especially criminal appeals.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Leverages experienced judges without long-term recruitment expenses.
• Enhanced Judicial Capacity: Complements existing judicial infrastructure in managing workload.

{GS2 – Policy – IC – Judiciary} Death Penalty Sentencing

• Context (IE | TH): Sanjoy Roy in RG Kar Case, convicted of raping & murdering a doctor, was sentenced to life imprisonment, following SC’s ‘rarest of rare’ principle, despite the push for the death penalty.

Rarest of Rare Test

• Origin: Introduced in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), restricting death penalty imposition to cases without reform.
• Key Criteria: Courts assess aggravating and mitigating circumstances without fixed standards, relying on outlined guidelines.

Aggravating Factors: Supporting Imposition of Death Penalty

• Premeditation and Brutality: Calculated murders involving extreme cruelty.
• Exceptional Depravity: Actions displaying extraordinary moral corruption.
• Targeting Public Servants: Killing police, armed forces & public officials on duty or due to lawful actions.

Mitigating Factors: Discouraging Death Penalty

• Mental or Emotional Disturbance: Offender acted under extreme stress.
• Age of the Accused: Very young or very old offenders.
• Threat to Society: Low risk of being a continuing danger.
• Possibility of Reform: Potential for rehabilitation.
• Acting Under Influence: Directed by another or believing actions were justified.
• Mental Impairment: Inability to understand the criminality of actions due to mental illness.

Evolving Dimensions of “Rarest of Rare” Principle

Age of the Accused

• Young Age as Mitigation: Highlighted in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) and Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011), indicating reform potential for young offenders.
• Inconsistent Application: The 262^nd Law Commission Report (2015) noted disparity, as in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013), where age was inconsistently considered.

Nature of the Offence

• Established in Shankar Khade, to ensure objective application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
• Collective Conscience: In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), crimes that shock societal conscience warrant the death penalty, though this often neglects reform potential.

Possibility of Reform

• Bachan Singh Principle: Presumes against death penalty unless govt proves no possibility of reform.
• Objectivity in Sentencing: Reinforced in Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), requiring evidence to assess the offender’s capacity for rehabilitation.

Sentencing Process

• Separate Sentencing Hearing: As per Bachan Singh, a separate trial post-conviction ensures fair consideration of mitigating factors.
• Effective Hearing Timing: Same-day hearings often lack meaningful deliberation (Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra, 2020), leading to the SC’s 2022 suo motu proceedings calling for standardised guidelines for death penalty sentencing.

Challenges in Sentencing

• Inconsistent Application: Subjectivity and judge-centric approaches in death penalty cases.
• Weighing Mitigating Factors: Mitigating circumstances often overlooked due to procedural gaps.
• Balancing Crime & Criminal: Overemphasis on crime’s brutality often sidelines the potential for reform.

Way Forward

• Standardized Guidelines: Uniform criteria for assessing mitigating factors to reduce subjectivity.
• Reformative Approach: Emphasizing rehabilitation and societal reintegration over retribution.
• Effective Sentencing Hearings: Ensuring fair and detailed consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors during sentencing.
• Judicial Training: Sensitization of judges to avoid biases and ensure equitable justice delivery.

{GS2 – Polity – IC – Comparison} Executive Orders

• Context (IE): Former US President Donald Trump signed 80 executive orders on his first day back in office, including significant policy directives.

What is an Executive Order?

• Definition: A directive issued by the US President managing federal government operations.
• Authority: Article II of the US Constitution grants the president executive power, including issuing orders.
• Published in the Federal Register, the official journal of federal regulations and actions.

Types

• Executive Orders: Legally binding directives for federal agencies.
• Proclamations: Announcements for observances or trade.
• Administrative Orders: Address specific federal administrative issues.

Historical and Statistical Insights

• Origins: Abraham Lincoln formalised their use in 1862 with a court-establishing order.
• Frequency: Every president except William Henry Harrison has issued executive orders.

{Prelims – PIN World – NA} Renaming of North America’s Highest Peak

• Context (IE): President Trump’s executive order mandates renaming of North America’s highest peak, reversing the Obama-era decision to call it Denali, citing historical significance of President McKinley.
• Denali National Park and Preserve retains its name despite the mountain’s renaming.

Historical Name Changes

• Original Name: Denali, used by indigenous Koyukon people, in their Athabascan language.
• 1897: Named Mount McKinley by a gold prospector to honor President William McKinley.
• 1917: Federal recognition of the name Mount McKinley.
• 1980: Name changed to Denali by Alaska state, but not accepted federally until 2015.
• 2015: Obama administration renamed the peak Denali, honoring indigenous heritage.

Geographical and Ecological Significance

• Location: In the Alaska Range, Alaska, USA.
• Height: Stands at 20,310 feet (6,190 meters) above sea level, the highest point in North America.
• Ecology: The surrounding Denali National Park and Preserve hosts diverse ecosystems, including tundra, glaciers, and mountain forests.

{Prelims – PIN World – NA} Renaming of North America’s Highest Peak

• Context (IE): President Trump’s executive order mandates renaming of North America’s highest peak, reversing the Obama-era decision to call it Denali, citing historical significance of President McKinley.
• Denali National Park and Preserve retains its name despite the mountain’s renaming.

Historical Name Changes

• Original Name: Denali, used by indigenous Koyukon people in their Athabascan language.
• 1897: Named Mount McKinley by a gold prospector to honour President William McKinley.
• 1917: Federal recognition of the name Mount McKinley.
• 1980: Name changed to Denali by Alaska state but not accepted federally until 2015.
• 2015: The Obama administration renamed the peak Denali, honouring Indigenous heritage.

Geographical and Ecological Significance

• Location: In the Alaska Range, Alaska, USA.
• Height: Stands at 20,310 feet (6,190 meters) above sea level, the highest point in North America.
• Ecology: The surrounding Denali National Park and Preserve hosts diverse ecosystems, including tundra, glaciers, and mountain forests.

{Prelims – Sports} India Wins Inaugural Kho Kho World Cup 2025 *

• Context (TH): India’s women’s and men’s teams both claimed the title in the first-ever Kho Kho World Cup, defeating Nepal.

  

Kho Kho World Cup 2025 Tournament

• Venue: Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium, New Delhi, India.
• Organizers: Kho Kho Federation of India and International Kho Kho Federation (IKKF).
• Mascots: Tejas, a blue gazelle for brilliance & energy; Tara, an orange gazelle for guidance & aspiration.

Evolution of Kho Kho

• Ancient Origins: Believed to have evolved from the Mahabharata’s Chakravyuha formation, showcasing defensive and tactical skills.
• Maharashtra Roots: Initially played on chariots, transitioned to foot-based in the early 20^th century.
• Modernisation: Pune’s Deccan Gymkhana Club established formal rules in 1914.
• Global Reach: Demonstrated at the 1936 Berlin Olympics; expanded internationally with the formation of the International Kho Kho Federation in 2018.
• Expansion: Kho Kho will expand from 6 countries in 2020 to 55 countries by 2025.

Different Formats of Kho Kho

• Traditional Format: Played on a 27m x 16m field between two teams of 9 players (3 substitutes). Players alternate between chasing, defending, and tagging.
• Seven-a-Side Fast Format: This is a faster, seven-a-side format of Kho Kho with a reduced team size and faster gameplay that is now internationally recognised.
• Ultimate Kho Kho: Franchise-based league format with powerplays and modern rules for enhanced spectator appeal.
• Mixed Gender Format: Teams of men and women promote inclusivity.
• Relay Kho Kho: Played in schools, focusing on basic skills and team coordination.

IKKF

• Established in 2018 to organise international Kho Kho events, aiming for Olympic inclusion by 2036.
• Headquarters: New Delhi, India.