India's airlines and the fear of flying. Government of India increase and rebuild new airport and new Airlines but it is important to provide better safety and Quality Services in flying

Imagine your plan is soaring thousands of heat above the ground when you suddenly feel suffocated.

You look around NFC asli that discovered that the flight of your other passengers is no different.

Some of them or coughing while others are feeling suffocated even as some other soil testing for breath.

The passengers hold them with trembling hands.
Visit with NSIT and nervousness they manage to somehow put the mask on their faces.

This is the moment when we expected something from government. Without doubt the government has been launching new airport and route.
But alone this it should involve meaningfulness instrument to protect the rights of consumer.

Things should not reach a point where the person going on a Hawai Yatra wearing a Hawai chappal.

If this happen it will be the death of another dream in independent India..

The political class must be careful. All parties must respect the Babri Masjid and Ram temple verdict

Few issues bring together India's history politics faith lodge public emotions and inter communal reliances as the issue of the Babri Masjid Ram temple.

The Supreme Court has decided that there is no need to refer to a larger bench is the question of whether Moscow was integral to Islam.

Instead the title suit on the land dispute will processed from October 29.

what this mean is that the new chief justice Ranjan Gogoi will first constituted a three member benches on the cases and by the end of this month the argument will kick off then depending on how quickly the bench wants to process the cost will head toward the closer.

The court will confirm in itself to the question of the land but this case is intensely political the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party BJP and its ideological parents Rashtriya samaj sevak sangh.

The very fact that the case will be disclosed in the court and in the public sphere brings the issue back into the discuss in the run up to 2019 elections.

A favourable verdict will undoubtedly help the BJP in the crucial state of UP where is potentially confront United opposition..

The Congress which has quell the charges of minority appeasement made a conscious attempt to so that it is as Hindu as the BJP over the past few years has said it will respect the verdict.

But the political classes must be careful Which ever Away on the verdict goals.

The destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 remains in dark spot in Indian history.

The diode it is PWD atrocities represented a breakdown of Trust between communities and and a symbol culture of law and order machinery.

India cannot afford political mobilization based on religious faith which in turn is based on changing the faith of another community.

All parties and communities will the most respectful the Judiciary verdict.

But this must be done in the spirit of reconcilation not Trump NISM.

It must be done with gesture with enhance Census of belongingness of the Other 5th and not enhance the sense of exclusion.

It must be done with the law of land held supreme.

As the Government of the day and as the party which has been at the forefront of the issues the BJP has a special responsibility to navigate India through this critical case with statements and non partnership.

Compressed bio fuel gas,its advantages.

Compressed Bahubali gas a new revolution in transportation fuel.

A joint initiative of Indian Oil and BPCL HPCL to turn wastagee into green energy.

Inviting expressing of interest to procure compressed biofuel gas for sustainable and affordable transportation.

Benefits of compressed biogas

Cleaner and cheaper auto fuel.

Productive use of agriculture Residue cattle dung and Municipal solid waste.

Enhance farmers income.

Boost organic farming and reduces dependence on chemical fertilizers imports.

Tackles the problems of polluted Urban and carbon emission.

Brings down dependency on crude oil imports..

Think big: on import duty hike

Merely tinkering with import duties will not narrow the current account deficit.

he Centre’s decision to increase customs duty on imports of 19 “non-essential” items amounts to tinkering at the margins to address a structural macro-economic issue. Using tariffs to curb imports of these items will not have a significant impact on narrowing the current account deficit (CAD), which is the Centre’s stated objective. By its own admission, the aggregate value of these imported items in the last fiscal year was just ₹86,000 crore. At that level, these imports constituted a little less than 3% of the country’s merchandise import bill in 2017-18. With the first six months of the current fiscal having elapsed, the impact of this tariff increase in paring the import bill and thus containing the CAD is at best going to be short-term and marginal. On the other hand, the decision to double import duties on a clutch of consumer durables to 20% could dampen consumption of these products, especially at a time when the rupee’s slide against the dollar is already likely to have made these goods costlier. Here, it would be interesting to see if the government’s move turns into a psychological ‘tipping point’ that ends up altering consumption behaviour towards this category of imported merchandise. If it does, that could have the salutary effect of fostering greater investment in the domestic production of some of these goods. The tariff on aviation turbine fuel — which will now attract 5% customs duty instead of nil — may add to the stress of domestic airline operators, the rupee and rising oil prices having already hurt their wafer-thin margins.

A more robust approach in addressing the widening CAD would be to institute wide-ranging measures to boost exports and simultaneously reduce the import-intensity of the economy. Policymakers must renew efforts to ensure that export growth starts outpacing the expansion in merchandise imports. This includes expediting the refunds on GST to exporters — smaller exporters have been badly hit by working capital shortfalls — to working to woo some of the labour-intensive supply chains that are moving out of China to countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. On import substitution, it is an irony that despite the abundance of coal reserves, thermal coal is one of India’s fastest-growing imports. This is a consequence of under-investment in modernising the entire coal production and utilisation chain and must be addressed expeditiously. With global crude oil prices showing no signs of reversing their upward trajectory, and the sanctions on Iran that may force India to look for other suppliers looming, the government will need to act post-haste to address structural imbalances to keep the CAD from widening close to or even exceeding the 3% of GDP level.

The Supreme Court finds a pragmatic middle path between the Aadhaar scheme’s excesses and its benefits to the marginalised

The Aadhaar project has survived a fierce legal challenge. Ever since a nine-judge Bench ruled unanimously last year that privacy is a fundamental right, opinion began to gain ground that the unique identification programme was vulnerable in the face of judicial scrutiny. It was projected by sceptics, detractors and activists as an intrusion on citizens’ privacy, a byword for a purported surveillance system, a grand project to harvest personal data for commercial exploitation by private parties and profiling by the state. But the government has staved off the challenge by successfully arguing that it is essentially a transformative scheme primarily aimed at reaching benefits and subsidies to the poor and the marginalised. Four of the five judges on a Constitution Bench ruled that the law enabling the implementation of the programme does not violate the right to privacy of citizens; instead, the project empowers marginalised sections and procures dignity for them along with services, benefits and subsidies by leveraging the power of technology.

In upholding the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and clarifying areas in which it cannot be made mandatory, the Supreme Court has restored the original intent of the programme: to plug leakages in subsidy schemes and to have better targeting of welfare benefits. Over the years, Aadhaar came to mean much more than this in the lives of ordinary people, acquiring the shape of a basic identity document that was required to access more and more services, such as birth and death certificates, SIM cards, school admissions, property registrations and vehicle purchases. A unique identity number, that could be availed on a voluntary basis and was conceived to eliminate the rampant fraud in the distribution of benefits, had threatened to morph — with the Centre’s tacit acceptance — into something that was mandatory for various aspects of life. The judgment narrows the scope of Aadhaar but provides a framework within which it can work. The majority opinion has sought to limit the import of the scheme to aspects directly related to welfare benefits, subsidies and money spent from the Consolidated Fund of India. Thus, controversial circulars and rules making it mandatory to link mobile phone numbers and bank accounts to Aadhaar numbers have been declared unconstitutional. Section 57 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery Of Financial And Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016, has been struck down to the extent that it authorised body corporates and individuals to use the Aadhaar number to establish someone’s identity. Schools have been barred from making the submission of the Aadhaar number mandatory to enrol children. A few other provisions have been read down or clarified.

Watch | Aadhaar: Where's it required and where's it not?

In upholding Aadhaar, the majority opinion was not oblivious to the impact of disbanding a project that has already completed much ground. For instance, relying on official statistics, the majority favoured the scheme’s continuance for the sake of the 99.76% of people included under it, rather than fret over the 0.24% who were excluded because of authentication failure. “The remedy is to plug the loopholes rather than axe the project,” the Bench said. With enrolment saturation reaching 1.2 billion people, the programme had acquired a scale and momentum that was irreversible. It was perhaps this pragmatic imperative that led the majority to conclude that the government was justified in the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a ‘money bill’, even though under a strict interpretation this is a difficult position to defend, the Centre’s objective being to bypass the Rajya Sabha, where it did not have a majority. The Court has addressed this issue by accepting the government’s argument that Section 7, which enables the use of Aadhaar to avail of any government subsidy, benefit or service for which expenditure is incurred out of the Consolidated Fund of India, is the core provision in the law, and that this makes it a ‘money bill’. It has chosen to accept the technical arguments on the safety of the Aadhaar architecture and the end-to-end encryption that underlies the transmission of captured biometric data to the Unique Identification Authority of India. The majority opinion has looked at the larger picture beyond the merits or demerits of the Aadhaar programme and the arguments for and against it. It held that the Aadhaar Act passes the “triple test” laid down in the ‘Privacy’ judgment under which there ought to be a law, a legitimate state interest and an element of proportionality in any law that seeks to abridge the right of privacy.

In his dissent, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud argued that the Rajya Sabha’s authority has been superseded and that this “constitutes a fraud on the Constitution” — a position that is impossible to fault if one adopts a strict interpretation of what a money bill is. As a result of this “debasement of a democratic institution”, he held the Aadhaar Act unconstitutional. He also expressed his displeasure at the government passing a series of orders making Aadhaar compulsory for various reasons, in defiance of interim orders from the Supreme Court. He highlighted the biometric authentication failures that have led to denial of rights and legal entitlements, and located the reason for such failures in the project’s inability to account for and remedy flaws in its network and design. He ruled that denial of benefits arising out of any social security rights is “violative of human dignity and impermissible under our constitutional scheme”. Few would disagree with him in that “dignity and rights of individuals cannot be made to depend on algorithms and probabilities”. Finally, it was the arguments in favour of benefits to the poor and the practical consequences of abandoning the scheme that won the day. Aadhaar possibly was simply too big to fail.

Not a crime: on Supreme Court's adultery ruling

By decriminalising adultery, the Supreme Court strikes a blow for individual rights

The cleansing of the statute books of provisions that criminalise consensual relations among adults continues, with the Supreme Court finally striking down a colonial-era law that made adultery punishable with a jail term and a fine. In four separate but concurring opinions, a five-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, finally transported India into the company of countries that no longer consider adultery an offence, only a ground for divorce. They have removed provisions related to adultery in the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Section 497 of the IPC, which now stands struck down, a man had the right to initiate criminal proceedings against his wife’s lover. In treating women as their husband’s property, as individuals bereft of agency, the law was blatantly gender-discriminatory; aptly, the Court also struck down Section 198(2) of the CrPC under which which the husband alone could complain against adultery. Till now, only an adulterous woman’s husband could prosecute her lover, though she could not be punished; an adulterous man’s wife had no such right. In a further comment on her lack of sexual freedom and her commodification under the 158-year-old law, her affair with another would not amount to adultery if it had the consent of her husband. “The history of Section 497 reveals that the law on adultery was for the benefit of the husband, for him to secure ownership over the sexuality of his wife,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote. “It was aimed at preventing the woman from exercising her sexual agency.”

But the challenge before the court was not to equalise the right to file a criminal complaint, by allowing a woman to act against her husband’s lover. It was, instead, to give the IPC and the CrPC a good dusting, to rid it of Victorian-era morality. It is only in a progressive legal landscape that individual rights flourish — and with the decriminalisation of adultery India has taken another step towards rights-based social relations, instead of a state-imposed moral order. That the decriminalisation of adultery comes soon after the Supreme Court judgment that read down Section 377 of the IPC to decriminalise homosexuality, thereby enabling diverse gender identities to be unafraid of the law, is heartening. However, it is a matter of concern that refreshing the statute books is being left to the judiciary, without any proactive role of Parliament in amending regressive laws. The shocking message here is not merely that provisions such as Section 497 or 377 remained so long in the IPC, it is also that Parliament failed in its legislative responsibility to address them.