What’s in Today’s Article?

• Einstein Ring Latest News
• NGC 6505
• Einstein Ring
• Need to Study Einstein Rings
• Einstein Ring FAQs

Einstein Ring Latest News

• The European Space Agency’s (ESA) Euclid space telescope has discovered a rare Einstein ring around the galaxy NGC 6505, located 590 million light-years from Earth. 
• Captured in September 2023 and released recently, the images show a bright central galaxy encircled by a luminous ring. 
• Astronomers have described the find as extraordinary and lucky, highlighting its significance in Euclid’s early data.

NGC 6505

• NGC 6505 is an elliptical galaxy classified as E/S0, located in the Draco constellation in the northern celestial hemisphere. 
  • Draco is a constellation in the northern sky that looks like a dragon. 
  • It's the ninth largest constellation and is visible for most of the year from the Northern Hemisphere. 
• It lies about 608 million light-years from the Milky Way and has a diameter of 190,000 light-years. 
• Discovered by Lewis A. Swift in 1884, it gained significance in 2025 when the Euclid Space Telescope detected a complete Einstein ring surrounding it.

Einstein Ring

• An Einstein ring is a circular ring of light formed around a galaxy, dark matter, or a cluster of galaxies due to gravitational lensing.
  • Gravitational lensing occurs when a massive celestial object, like a galaxy or galaxy cluster, bends and amplifies the light from a more distant object behind it but along the same line of sight. 
  • The object causing the light to bend is called a gravitational lens.

The Recently Discovered Einstein Ring

• In the case of the Einstein ring found by ESA’s Euclid telescope, the galaxy NGC 6505 acted as the gravitational lens, distorting and magnifying the light from a distant unnamed galaxy located 4.42 billion light-years away.

Rarity and Discovery of Einstein Rings

• Einstein rings were predicted by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
• The first one was discovered in 1987, and while several more have been found, their total number remains unknown.
• They are extremely rare, with less than 1% of galaxies having an Einstein ring.
• These rings are not visible to the naked eye and can only be observed through space telescopes like Euclid.

Need to Study Einstein Rings

• Understanding Dark Matter – Einstein rings help study dark matter, which makes up 85% of the universe but cannot be directly detected. Gravitational lensing allows scientists to observe its effects.
• Studying Distant Galaxies – These rings magnify galaxies that would otherwise be invisible, providing insights into their structure and composition.
• Exploring Universe Expansion – By analyzing light from both foreground and background galaxies, Einstein rings help scientists understand how the universe is expanding over time.
• Bridging Science with Everyday Life - The principles of gravitational lensing have applications in medical imaging, optical lens design, and telecommunications. 
  • Computational models used in analyzing cosmic distortions also contribute to AI, machine learning, and big data analytics, influencing diverse fields like finance, climate science, and urban planning.

Einstein Ring FAQs

Q1. What is the Einstein ring?

Ans. An Einstein ring is a circular light pattern formed due to gravitational lensing by a massive celestial object.

Q2. What causes an Einstein ring?

Ans. An Einstein ring occurs when light from a distant galaxy is bent perfectly around a massive foreground object, creating a circular shape.

Q3. What does the Draco constellation represent?

Ans. The Draco constellation represents a dragon and is one of the largest constellations in the northern celestial hemisphere. 

Q4. What is gravitational lensing?

Ans. Gravitational lensing is the bending of light by a massive object, magnifying and distorting the appearance of background celestial bodies.

Q5. Do black holes cause gravitational lensing?

Ans. Yes, black holes can act as gravitational lenses, bending and magnifying light from objects behind them due to their immense gravity.

Source: IE | ESA | Digit

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Obscenity Laws in India Latest News
• Obscenity Under Indian Law
• Evolution of the Court’s Understanding of Obscenity
• Obscenity in Online Content: Court Rulings
• Ranveer Allahbadia controversy
• Obscenity Laws in India FAQs

Obscenity Laws in India Latest News

• Ranveer Allahbadia, founder of Beer Biceps, and comedian Samay Raina are under investigation by Mumbai police for allegedly obscene comments made on the YouTube show India’s Got Latent.
• Various complaints have been filed under Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with “obscene acts.”

Obscenity Under Indian Law

• Section 294: Punishment for Obscene Material
  • Covers the sale, import, export, advertisement, or profit from obscene content, including books, paintings, figures, and electronic content.
  • Defines obscene material as content that is lascivious, excessively sexual, or corrupting to viewers.
  • Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹5,000 for first-time offenders.
• Obscenity in Digital Spaces: Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
  • Punishes publishing or transmitting obscene material online.
  • Uses the same definition of obscenity as Section 294 of BNS (previously IPC Section 292).
  • Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh for a first-time offence

Evolution of the Court’s Understanding of Obscenity

• Early Rulings and the Hicklin Test
  • The first major Indian case on obscenity was Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964), where the Supreme Court held Lady Chatterley’s Lover to be obscene under Section 292 of the IPC.
  • The ruling relied on the Hicklin test (from Queen v. Hicklin, 1868), which defined obscenity based on whether a work had a tendency to “deprave and corrupt” those susceptible to immoral influences.
  • This test judged material from the perspective of the most impressionable readers, including children or those already inclined toward impure thoughts.
• Shifting Standards in the UK and the US
  • The UK moved away from the Hicklin test with the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, requiring works to be judged “as a whole.”
  • The US Supreme Court in Roth v. United States (1957) introduced the community standards test, assessing whether material, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests based on contemporary societal norms.
• India’s Shift to the Community Standards Test
  • The Indian Supreme Court adopted a more progressive approach in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014).
  • It ruled that obscenity must be assessed in context, rejecting the Hicklin test’s approach of isolating specific passages.
  • The case involved a nude photograph of Boris Becker and his fiancée, where the court held that obscenity should be judged by evolving community standards rather than the lowest common denominator.

Obscenity in Online Content: Court Rulings

• Supreme Court’s Ruling on College Romance
  • In March 2024, the Supreme Court quashed obscenity charges against the creators of the YouTube web series College Romance under Section 292 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.
  • The prosecution claimed the show featured vulgar language and sexually explicit discussions among college students.
  • The court differentiated between obscenity and profane, indecent, or foul language, ruling that obscenity must arouse sexual and lustful thoughts, which the show did not.
• Application of the Community Standards Test
  • The court held that while the language used was sexual in nature, it did not provoke lustful feelings in an average viewer but rather reflected emotions like anger, frustration, or excitement.

Ranveer Allahbadia controversy

• Mumbai Police have filed an FIR against YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia, comedian Samay Raina, and YouTuber Apoorva Makhija over controversial remarks made on the show India’s Got Latent.
• Allahbadia’s comments allegedly demeaned the Indian family system and offended religious sentiments.
• The episode featured inappropriate questions about sex and parents, sparking public outrage.

Sections under which Allahbadia and others have been booked

• The YouTubers present on the show were charged under Sections 79, 196, 296, and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Section 79 – Any word or gestures intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Punishment- up to 3 years and fine.
• Section 196 – addresses the promotion of enmity between different groups based on factors such as religion, race, or place of birth, carrying a penalty of up to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.
• Section 296 – deals with the public performance of obscene acts, songs, or words, with offenders facing up to three months in jail, a fine, or both.
• Section 3(5) - If more than one person carries out an act to further a common intention, all involved are liable for punishment.

Obscenity Laws in India FAQs

Q1. What is 292, 293, and 294 of IPC?

Ans. These sections criminalized obscene material, sales to minors, and obscene acts in public, now replaced by similar provisions in BNS.

Q2. What is obscenity under BNS?

Ans. BNS defines obscenity as lascivious, excessively sexual, or corrupting content, punishable under Sections 294, 296, and digital laws.

Q3. Is obscenity a crime in India?

Ans. Yes, obscenity is a punishable offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. 

Q4. What is obscenity in cyberspace?

Ans. Obscenity in cyberspace refers to publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material online, punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act.

Q5. What is Section 67 of the IT Act?

Ans. Section 67 penalizes publishing or transmitting obscene material online with imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to ₹5 lakh.

Source: IE | FE | ToI

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Debate on Allowing Convicted Persons in Elections Latest News
• Introduction
• Legal Framework Governing Convicted Persons in Elections
• Arguments in Favour of Allowing Convicted Persons to Contest Elections
• Arguments Against Allowing Convicted Persons to Contest Elections
• Challenges in Implementation
• Significance of the Debate
• Conclusion
• Convicted Persons Contesting Elections FAQs

Debate on Allowing Convicted Persons in Elections Latest News

• The Supreme Court is hearing petitions filed by Ashwin Upadhyay and others, seeking a lifetime ban on convicted persons from contesting elections.

Introduction

• The question of whether convicted persons should be allowed to contest elections in India has been a subject of debate for years.
• While the Indian Constitution upholds the principles of democracy and representation, it also mandates ethical standards for lawmakers.
• The Supreme Court of India, the Election Commission, and various legal experts have weighed in on this issue, making it a significant topic in electoral reforms.

Legal Framework Governing Convicted Persons in Elections

• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951, lays down the eligibility criteria for candidates contesting elections.
  • Section 8(1) and 8(2): Disqualifies individuals convicted of certain serious offenses such as terrorism, corruption, and sexual crimes from contesting elections for a specified period.
  • Section 8(3): Any individual sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more is disqualified from contesting elections for six years from their release.
• Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
  • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that legislators convicted of a crime with a punishment of two years or more should be immediately disqualified, striking down the provision that allowed them to continue if they appealed within three months.
  • Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018): The court emphasized the need for decriminalization of politics but left it to Parliament to enact a law disqualifying candidates with pending criminal cases.
• Election Commission’s Recommendations
  • The Election Commission of India has proposed barring candidates from contesting elections if they have serious criminal charges against them at the time of filing nominations.

Arguments in Favour of Allowing Convicted Persons to Contest Elections

• Presumption of Innocence:
  • The legal principle "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to democracy. Some argue that disqualification should apply only after all appeals are exhausted.
• Political Vendetta:
  • In a politically charged country like India, opponents may misuse legal provisions to frame and convict rival leaders unfairly.
• Right to Representation:
  • Preventing convicted persons from contesting elections could limit voters’ choices, especially in cases where the individual enjoys strong public support.
• Judicial Delays:
  • Many cases take years, even decades, for final resolution. Banning individuals based on lower court rulings could be unfair if they are eventually acquitted.

Arguments Against Allowing Convicted Persons to Contest Elections

• Moral and Ethical Standards:
  • Leaders must be held to higher moral and ethical standards. Allowing convicted criminals to contest elections weakens democratic integrity.
• Decriminalization of Politics:
  • India has a high number of legislators with criminal records. Barring convicted persons would reduce corruption and criminal influence in governance.
• Erosion of Public Trust:
  • Voters lose faith in the political system when individuals with serious criminal records hold public office.
• Global Democratic Norms:
  • Many democracies impose stricter eligibility criteria for political candidates to maintain public confidence in governance.

Challenges in Implementation

• Misuse of Laws:
  • Political parties may weaponize the judicial process to eliminate rivals through fabricated cases.
• Delay in Electoral Reforms:
  • Despite recommendations from the Election Commission and Law Commission, Parliament has not enacted comprehensive electoral reforms.
• Need for Fast-Track Courts:
  • Speedy trials for politicians facing serious charges would ensure justice while preserving electoral rights.

Significance of the Debate

• The issue of whether convicted persons should be allowed to contest elections is crucial for India's democracy.
• On one hand, it involves safeguarding the constitutional right to participate in elections; on the other, it raises concerns about criminalization in politics.
• While the Supreme Court has taken steps to prevent criminal elements from entering politics, the onus remains on Parliament to enact laws that balance fairness with accountability.
• Electoral reforms, stricter scrutiny of candidates, and fast-tracking cases against politicians could be key solutions.

Conclusion

• The question of whether convicted individuals should be allowed to contest elections remains a contentious issue in Indian democracy.
• While the legal framework disqualifies those convicted of serious crimes, gaps remain regarding candidates with pending cases.
• The need for electoral reforms, judicial efficiency, and stricter eligibility criteria is essential to uphold democratic integrity.
• The decision must strike a balance between protecting electoral rights and ensuring ethical governance.

Convicted Persons Contesting Elections FAQs

Q1. What does the Representation of the People Act say about convicted persons contesting elections?

Ans. Under the Act, individuals sentenced to two years or more in prison are disqualified from contesting elections for six years after their release.

Q2. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lily Thomas case?

Ans. The court ruled that convicted legislators must be immediately disqualified and cannot continue in office if they appeal within three months.

Q3. Why is there opposition to banning convicted persons from elections?

Ans. Some argue that judicial delays, political misuse of laws, and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" should be considered before disqualifying candidates.

Q4. How does criminalization of politics impact democracy?

Ans. It erodes public trust, weakens governance, and increases corruption in political institutions.

Q5. What reforms are suggested to tackle this issue?

Ans. Reforms include fast-tracking trials for politicians, barring candidates with serious criminal charges, and implementing stricter scrutiny during nominations.

Source: TH