The social, economic, and environmental indicators of Rajasthan and compares them with other states. It provides insights into the progress and challenges faced by the state in various areas such as health, education, women empowerment, and economic development.
Rajasthan Assembly elections scheduled for November 25
Rajasthan improved its rankings in some social indicators between 2015-16 and 2019-21
Notable improvements include the share of households with health insurance/financing scheme and infant mortality rate rankings
However, Rajasthan still lags behind in indicators such as female education and child marriage rates
Rajasthan's rankings in women empowerment indicators have not improved since 2005-06.
The state's ranking in the Human Development Index (HDI) improved by 7 spots from 27th to 20th between 1990 and 2021.
Rajasthan's economic performance is middling, with over 40% of the population belonging to the lowest two wealth quintiles.
The manufacturing sector in Rajasthan employs only 10% of the state's workforce and contributes to about 7.5% of the total Gross Value Added.
In educational indicators, the state shows mixed progress, ranking in the top half for average annual dropout rate at the secondary level and Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher secondary, but in the bottom half for Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio in elementary education and Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education.
Rajasthan has mixed progress in environment-related indicators, generating a relatively lower amount of plastic waste but a relatively higher amount of hazardous waste.
The Supreme Court on same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. It analyzes the court's interpretation of the Constitution and its impact on the right to equality.
The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples do not have the right to marry under the Special Marriage Act.
The court's decision is seen as a wrong interpretation of the Constitution and disregards its own precedents.
The petitioner argued that the exclusion of same-sex marriages violates the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.
The court justifies the exclusion by stating that the statute's object was not to discriminate against same-sex persons and that the absence of a law does not amount to discrimination.
The arguments made by the court are misplaced as the doctrine of indirect discrimination and the impact of the law on a particular group should be considered.
The court fails to address the claim that the state has chosen to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages based solely on sexual orientation.
The judgment raises concerns about the separation of powers.
The minority judgment does not address the issue of the constitutional validity of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) or the court's role in examining its constitutionality.
The minority judgment's position goes against the established system of constitutional adjudication and could allow Parliament to avoid constitutional scrutiny by drafting complex laws.
The court's observation that the issue of equal rights associated with marriage is solely a policy issue is problematic.
The court has previously issued guidelines and engaged in judicial legislation in other cases, so stopping short of constitutional examination is inconsistent with its constitutional history.
The court could have creatively interpreted the law to include marriages of queer persons without needing to legislate, but this suggestion was overlooked.
Constitutional courts are important in a democracy for holding the executive and legislature accountable
The court's role is to adjudicate instances of rights violations, not make suggestions to Parliament
The court abdicates its role by delegating the decision on entitlements of queer persons to a committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary
Referring the question back to the alleged discriminator turns a question of rights into one of benevolence
The United States Supreme Court corrected its mistake in Obergefell v. Hodges by recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry
The Indian Supreme Court made a mistake in the Supriyo case and needs its own Obergefell moment