Tuesday, 22 May 2018


Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue. The purpose of Talanoa is to share stories and build empathy in order to make wise decisions that are for the collective good. The process of Talanoa involves the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.
During the process of the Talanoa Dialogue, Parties will build trust and advance knowledge through empathy and understanding. Blaming others and making critical observations is inconsistent with the building of mutual trust and respect, and therefore inconsistent with the methodology of the Talanoa Dialogue. The spirit of talanoa acknowledges that no-one, no matter how powerful, can solve the climate challenge on their own.
The Talanoa Dialogue is designed to take stock of collective efforts to reduce emissions in line with the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement and to inform the preparation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Ultimately, the goal is to help countries increase the ambition of their NDCs by 2020. However, the specific outcome will be determined by Parties during the political phase at COP24.
The Presidencies have released guidance for submissions from Parties, similar to that issued for non-Party stakeholders (NPS). Although not mandatory, we hope that it will help Parties shape their submissions. The process is designed to allow Parties and NPS take stock of where they currently are in the climate journeys (i.e. actions and commitments) and where they need to go.
This is a useful opportunity to reflect on the progress and achievements that have been made so far, as well as on the reforms, incentives, technologies, business models and new forms of collaboration that still need to be developed, undertaken or adopted.
We are requesting that submissions be clear, concise and constructive to allow important information and innovation to be shared, and to foster knowledge transfer and best practices among stakeholders. This will also help us ensure accurate translation when summarising all submissions for the final synthesis report.
We encourage Parties to take the time they need to prepare their inputs, but the sooner Parties can submit them, the more time the inputs will have help shape the ongoing dialogue.
The Talanoa Dialogue is ultimately designed to help the world achieve the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement by encouraging Parties to submit more ambitious NDCs. Adaptation and resilience are important components in the NDCs of developing of countries and are critical for achieving the overarching goals of the Paris Agreement, including promoting sustainable development. Even if all countries were to immediately enact the most ambitious mitigation efforts possible, the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would still cause the impacts of climate change to worsen for some time, putting the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable communities under threat.
So whilst the 1.5/2 degrees target is critically important, strengthening the capacity of vulnerable societies to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change is necessary to ensure a sustainable transition towards a net-zero emission society as early as possible. This makes the discussion on adaptation and resilience relevant to the Talanoa Dialogue. We encourage you in particular to share experiences and lessons on actions and initiatives that address both adaption and mitigation.
Consideration of “cross-cutting” issues like health and gender can also be included in submissions where it is relevant to the climate action or initiative that is being discussed in the context of the three core questions.
Yes, individuals can contribute to the Talanoa Dialogue. However, individuals thinking about submitting an input are encouraged to consider how they can join efforts with others to prepare a joint input. This will help the Presidencies and secretariat in their work to consolidate the submissions.
Yes, however the submission should clearly indicate the entity(-ies) making the submission. We want to hear as many and as diverse a range of stories as possible. In order to address the great climate change challenge, we need to reach a new level of global collaboration between governments, cities, businesses, investors, civil society, the scientific community and ordinary men and women. No one actor can solve this problem alone and so Parties are encouraged to collaborate with NPS in their submissions or to encourage them to submit their own inputs.
We encourage all stakeholders to consider ways to consolidate inputs or prepare joint inputs where appropriate, in order to aid in the production of the synthesis report.
It would be helpful to include these but it is not mandatory. However, remember that the Dialogue is designed to promote the sharing of stories, ideas and information that the world can learn from, both in terms of what has worked and what hasn’t worked in terms of mitigation and adaptation initiatives and related enabling mechanisms like policy, governance, regulation, financing and institutional structures. Information should be relevant for enhancing the next round of NDCs and concrete examples, lessons and experiences will help achieve this.
Any input received later to that deadline will still appear on the Talanoa Dialogue Online Platform and will be included in the final synthesis report, but will not be part of the materials that the secretariat will produce in time for the May sessions.
The outcomes of the May Sessions will be summarised in a report that will also include the summary of the portal submissions received up to 2 April 2018 as well as the outputs of the technical expert meetings (TEMs). This summary report will provide early signals on the elements to need to be discussed in the political phase at COP24. The summary report, along with other submissions and inputs during the rest of the year, will be fed into the final synthesis report that will be discussed at the political phase.
The preparatory phase is expected to run throughout the year and until COP24. Additional information on the conduct of the preparatory phase will be provided after the May sessions. The Presidencies further encourage Parties and non-Party stakeholders to continue to cooperate in convening local, national, regional or global events in support of the Talanoa Dialogue.
A second deadline for inputs has been set for 29 October 2018. Any input received later to that deadline will still appear on the Online Platform, but will not be part of the materials that the secretariat produce in time for COP24.
We must ensure that the report accurately reflects the submissions and serves as a useful tool for political leaders a view of where we are in terms of current mitigation and adaptation efforts; goals and visions; and clear directions on how to get there.
The Presidencies will assess how best to accomplish this as submissions are reviewed. At this stage, it is already clear that the synthesis report will need to be succinct, credible, easy to access and organised in a clear and logical fashion. It will be informed by science and present clear directions and messages for how to enhance and implement NDCs.

Ratchet Mechanism

The Paris Ratchat Mechanism is designed to steady increase ambition over the time , Ensuring that world reaches net zero emission in the second half of the century and keeps temperature 'well below 2 C '.

Stage one: NDCs 1.0
Even though the agreement has not yet come into force, this cyclical process is already underway.
In the nine months before Paris, countries submitted their “intended nationally determined contributions”, which are regularly abbreviated to INDCs.
Each of these contains the country’s intended domestic target for reducing or slowing its greenhouse gas emissions. Others contained information on topics, such as adaptation, loss and damage and financial need, according to individual preference.
The 160 submissions received by the UN remain “intended”, and are not set in stone until the country in question ratifies the agreement. Indeed, many countries stressed that their contribution was contingent upon the outcome of the UN deal struck in Paris.
Countries are not legally bound to meet the targets in their nationally determined contribution (NDC), but they must take action “with the aim of achieving” their goals.
However, the current policies do not collectively achieve the agreement’s aim to keep temperature rise to below 2C — and are even further from its aspirational target of limiting it to 1.5C.
Stage two: Facilitative dialogue
The ratcheting up of ambition really begins in 2018, when countries have agreed to convene a “facilitative dialogue”.
This is a chance for countries to take stock of how close they are to achieving the long-term goals of the agreement to peak emissions as soon as possible and achieve net zero emissions in the second half of the century.
This dialogue is designed to inform the next round of NDCs, so that countries have a clearer idea of the direction of travel.
Stage three: NDCs 2.0
With the outcome of the facilitative dialogue in mind, countries have to either update or communicate a new NDC by 2020.
Due to the flimsy set of rules guiding the first round of NDCs, the submissions cover various timeframes. Some set a target for 2030, such as the EU. Others have a target for 2025, such as the US.
For countries with a target covering the period up to 2025, they must communicate a new NDC by 2020. For those with 2030 targets, they must “communicate or update” these by 2020.
The agreement says that the efforts of each country will “represent a progression over time”, and reflect its “highest possible ambition”. For developed countries, these should be economy-wide, absolute emission targets, while developing countries are encouraged to move towards this kind of target over time. The division between developed and developing countries is now more fluid than it was before the agreement.
This does not mean that the ambition contained within each country’s current NDC is frozen in place. The agreement says that a country can adjust its contribution “at any time…with a view to enhancing its level of ambition” — but there is no strict obligation to undertake such improvements.
Once the agreement has come into force, countries will agree a common timeframe for their future contributions. This means that future cycles will eventually fall into line, with every country setting targets covering the same time period.
Countries must thereafter continue to submit new NDCs every five years. Alongside these, they are also encouraged to submit an “adaptation communication”, which includes its priorities, plans and needs. Every two years, developed countries also have to communicate how much climate finance they will provide to developing countries.
Stage four: Global stocktake
In 2023, just before the third round of NDCs are due to be submitted, the UN has agreed there will be a “global stocktake”.

Saturday, 12 May 2018

Sargeant plan of Education 1944

The Sergeant Plan was worked out by the Central advisory board of education in 1944 

Recommendation of Sargeant plan of Education 1944               
  1. Pre primary education for the 3-6 age group , free , universal and compulsory elementary education for 6-11 year age , high school education for 11-17 year age group for selected children , and a university course of 3 year after the higher secondary high schools to be of two types 
1) Academic 
2) Technical and Vocational 

  1. adequate technical , commercial and Arts education.
  2. abolition of intermediate course .
  3. Liquidation of adult illiteracy in 20 year.
  4. stress on teacher training , physical education , education for the physically and mentally handicapped .

the objective was to create within 40 Years the same levels of educational attainment as prevailed in England. although a bold and comprehensive scheme , it proposed no methodology for implementation . Also the ideal of England's achievement may not have suited  Indian conditions.

Hartog Committee ,1929

An increase in number of schools and college had led to deterioration of education standards. The Hartog Committee was set up to report on development of education .

Main Recommendation                                                                     
  1. Emphasis should be on primary education but there need be no hasty expansion or compulsion in education.
  2. Only deserving students should go in for high school and intermediate stage , while average students should be diverted to vocational course after VIII standards.
  3. For Improvements in standards of University education , admission should be Restricted.

Sunday, 15 April 2018

Sun Temple In India

Sun has been revered since Vedic age with many hymns written for the celestial Body, it is worshipped as Aditya or Surya. There are many rituals in practice for worshipping the deity. Many temples have also been constructed with Sun as the chief deity. Sun temples are even found in Japan, Egypt, China, etc. Some of the Rajput cans, namely "Suryavanshi", worship Sun and claim themselves to be the descendants of the deity. 

Some of the major temples in India are: 

  1. Modhera Sun Temple, Gujarat. It was built in 11 th century.

  2.  Konark Sun temple, Odisha. It was made by Narasimhadeva I, the Eastern Ganga king in 13th century. It is in a shape of Rath ( Chariat) with mandapa on a raised platform.

  3. Brahmanya Dev Temple, Unao (Madhya rradesh)

  4. Suryanaar Kovil, Kumbakonam (Tamil Nadu) was built in 11th century in Dravidian style. It also has shrines of eight celestial bodies, together called Navagraha's It has beautiful five-layered Gopuram.

  5. Suryanarayana Swamy temple, Arasavalli (Andhra Pradesh)  It is said to be made by a Kalinga king in 7th century. The idol is made of granite and holds a lotus.
  6.  Dakshinaarka Temple, Gaya (Bihar) is said to be built by King Prataparuda of Warangal in 13th century AD. The deity is made in granite and the idol wears Persian attire like waist girdle, boots and a jacket. it has a Surya Kund (water reservoir) nearby.

  7. Navalakha Temple, Ghumb (Gujarat) was made in 11th century.it is build in Solanki and Maru-Gurjara style.

  8. Surya Pahar Temple, Goalpara (Assam)

  9. Martand Sun Temple Kashmir

  10. Sun Temple, Gwalior

    Sun Temple of Gwalior is dedicated to the Sun god and one of the must see tourist attractions Of Gallant Gwalior. This holy temple is similar to the Sun temple of Konark and among the famous pilgrimage centres in the city.

  11. Sun Temple in Ranchi

    It one of the must visit place in Ranchi and among the top tourist attractions of Jharkhand. The temple is situated about 39 km from Ranchi on Tata-Ranchi road.

  12. Surya Narayana Temple, Domlu
  13. Surya Narayana Temple in Domlu is located in Bangalore city and amongst the top 12 famous Sun God Temples in India. The Surya temple is situated in Domlur, 8 Km from center of Bangalore city.
  14. Sun Temple, Katarmal

    Katarmal Surya Temple is situated inside the the thick deodars forest of Kumaon hills near Almora. Surya temple of Katarmal is an monument of national importance and noted for its magnificent carved pillars and wooden doors.

Thursday, 8 March 2018

Constitutional Amendment By Special Majority of Parliament

The majority of the provisions in the Constitution need to be amended by a special majority of the Parliament, that is, a majority (that is, more than 50 per cent) of the total membership of each House and a majority of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting. 

The expression ‘total membership’ means the total number of members comprising the House
irrespective of fact whether there are vacancies or absentees. ‘Strictly speaking, the special majority is required only for voting at the third reading stage of the bill but by way of abundant caution the requirement for special majority has been provided for in the rules of the Houses in respect of all the effective stages of the bill’3.

The provisions which can be amended by this way includes: 

(i) Fundamental Rights

(ii) Directive Principles of State Policy

(iii) All other provisions which are not covered by the first and third categories.

Constitution amendment by Simple Majority

A number of provisions in the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority of the two Houses of Parliament outside the scope of Article 368.

These provisions include:

1. Admission or establishment of new states.

2. Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of
existing states.

3. Abolition or creation of legislative councils in states.

4. Second Schedule—emoluments, allowances, privileges and so on of the
president, the governors, the Speakers, judges, etc.

5. Quorum in Parliament.

6. Salaries and allowances of the members of Parliament.

7. Rules of procedure in Parliament.

8. Privileges of the Parliament, its members and its committees.

9. Use of English language in Parliament.

10. Number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court.

11. Conferment of more jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.

12. Use of official language.

13. Citizenship—acquisition and termination.

14. Elections to Parliament and state legislatures.

15. Delimitation of constituencies.

16. Union territories.

17. Fifth Schedule—administration of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes.

18. Sixth Schedule—administration of tribal areas.

Wednesday, 7 March 2018


The Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the high courts (under Article 226) can issue the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto. Further, the Parliament (under Article 32) can empower any other court to issue these writs. Since no such provision has been made
 so far, only the Supreme Court and the high courts can issue the writs and not any other court. Before 1950, only the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras had the power to issue the writs. Article 226 now empowers all the high courts to issue the writs.

These writs are borrowed from English law where they are known as ‘prerogative writs’. They are so called in England as they were issued in the exercise of the prerogative of the King who was, and is still, described as the ‘fountain of justice’. Later, the high court started issuing these writs as extraordinary remedies to uphold the rights and liberties of the British people. The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court differs from that of a high court in three respects:

1. The Supreme Court can issue writs only for the enforcement of fundamental rights whereas a high court can issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. The expression ‘for any other purpose’ refers to the enforcement of an ordinary legal right. Thus, the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in this respect, is narrower than that of high court.

2. The Supreme Court can issue writs against a person or government throughout the territory of India whereas a high court can issue writs against a person residing or against a government or authority located within its territorial jurisdiction only or outside its territorial jurisdiction only if the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.15 Thus, the territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the purpose of issuing writs is wider than that of a high court.

3. A remedy under Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and hence, the Supreme Court may not refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, a remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and hence, a high court may refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Supreme Court as Article 226 does on a high court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or other rights as part of its general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is thus constituted as a defender and guarantor of the fundamental rights.

Now, we will proceed to understand the meaning and scope of different kinds of writs mentioned in Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution:

Habeas Corpus

It is a Latin term which literally means ‘to have the body of’. It is an order issued by the court to a person who has detained another person, to produce the body of the latter before it. The court then examines the cause and legality of detention. It would set the detained person free, if the detention is found to be illegal. Thus, this writ is a bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention.

The writ of habeas corpus can be issued against both public authorities as well as private individuals. The writ, on the other hand, is not issued where the (a) detention is lawful, (b) the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court, (c) detention is by a competent court, and (d) detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court.


It literally means ‘we command’. It is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform. It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal or government for the same purpose.

The writ of mandamus cannot be issued (a) against a private individual or body; (b) to enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force; (c) when the duty is discretionary and not mandatory; (d) to enforce a contractual obligation; (e) against the president of India or the state governors; and (f) against the chief justice of a high court acting in judicial capacity.


Literally, it means ‘to forbid’. It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction or usurping a jurisdiction that it does not possess. Thus, unlike mandamus that directs activity, the prohibition directs inactivity.

The writ of prohibition can be issued only against judicial and quasi judicial authorities. It is not available against administrative authorities, legislative bodies, and private individuals or bodies.


In the literal sense, it means ‘to be certified’ or ‘to be informed’. It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to squash the order of the latter in a case. It is issued on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction or error of law. Thus, unlike prohibition, which is only preventive, certiorari is both preventive as well as curative.

Previously, the writ of certiorari could be issued only against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and not against administrative authorities. However, in 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the certiorari can be issued even against administrative authorities affecting rights of individuals.

Like prohibition, certiorari is also not available against legislative bodies and private individuals or bodies.


In the literal sense, it means ‘by what authority or warrant’. It is issued by the court to enquire into the legality of claim of a person to a public office.

Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person.

The writ can be issued only in case of a substantive public office of a permanent character created by a statute or by the Constitution. It cannot be issued in cases of ministerial office or private office.

Unlike the other four writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person.

Thursday, 1 March 2018

Tuesday, 27 February 2018