The modernization of the law is an important step in addressing the issue of domestic violence and abuse, but it is not sufficient on its own. While modern legal frameworks provide a foundation for protecting victims and prosecuting offenders, several challenges remain that limit their effectiveness.

Strengths of Modern Legal Frameworks:

1. Legal Protections:

   Updated laws often include comprehensive definitions of domestic violence, encompassing physical, emotional, psychological, and economic abuse. They provide mechanisms for protective orders, restraining orders, and emergency interventions to safeguard victims.

2. Prosecution and Accountability:

   Modern laws facilitate the prosecution of abusers and impose stricter penalties, thereby deterring potential offenders. Specialized domestic violence courts and trained personnel enhance the justice system’s responsiveness.

3. Support Services:

   Legal frameworks often mandate the provision of support services such as shelters, counselling, and financial aid for victims.

Limitations and Challenges:

1. Implementation Gaps:

   Effective enforcement of laws is often hindered by inadequate training, resources, and coordination among law enforcement, judicial, and social service agencies. Rural and underserved areas may lack access to legal and support services.

2. Cultural and Social Barriers:

   Stigma and fear of retaliation can prevent victims from seeking help or reporting abuse. Societal norms and attitudes may downplay the severity of domestic violence, leading to underreporting and insufficient support for victims.

3. Intersectional Factors:

   Marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and people with disabilities, may face additional barriers in accessing legal protections and services. Economic dependence on the abuser can complicate efforts to leave abusive situations and pursue legal action.

Way Forward:

To effectively address domestic violence and abuse, a holistic approach is required:

• Education and Awareness:

  Public education campaigns to raise awareness about domestic violence and its consequences is needed. Law enforcement, judicial personnel, and healthcare providers must be trained to recognize and respond appropriately.

• Support Systems:

  Enhanced support services, including housing, counselling, and financial assistance for victims must be made available. Additionally, community-based initiatives must be encouraged to provide safe spaces and resources.

• Policy and Advocacy:

  There should be continuous review and improvement of legal frameworks to address emerging challenges and advocacy for policy changes that prioritize victim protection and rehabilitation of offenders.

While the modernism of the law is a crucial element in tackling domestic violence and abuse, it must be complemented by effective implementation, cultural change, and comprehensive support systems to be truly sufficient.

Space debris consist of defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragments from collisions. They poses a significant threat to current and future space missions because these objects travel at very high velocities, which makes even small debris capable of causing catastrophic damage to active spacecrafts.

This risk jeopardizes crewed missions, endangers satellites essential for communication, navigation, and Earth observation, and can lead to a cascading effect known as the Kessler Syndrome, where collisions generate more debris, exponentially increasing the threat.

Mitigation strategies:

Preventive Measures:

• Designing satellites with end-of-life disposal plans:
  • Deorbiting into Earth’s atmosphere
  • Moving to a graveyard orbit
• Enforcing international guidelines and regulations:
  • Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) guidelines must be operationalised

Active Measures:

• Removing existing debris:
  • Deploying space tugs to capture and deorbit large debris
  • Using nets or harpoons to collect fragments
  • Employing lasers to nudge debris into decaying orbits
• Supporting initiatives like:
  • European Space Agency’s ClearSpace-1
  • NASA’s debris-tracking programs

Thus, these efforts highlight the collaborative global approach needed to address the growing challenge of space debris.

Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) lay down the framework for regulating the relationship between the citizen and the state. Fundamental Rights are the most basic rights which the Constitution guarantees to its people by making them justiciable, while DPSPs (which are non-justiciable) act as a guide for law and policy formulation by the government.

The question of reconciling the two arises in the context of several amendments made by the Parliament to override the fundamental rights and the consequent judicial review by the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court, in the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951),held that Fundamental Rights would prevail over the DPSPs in case a conflict arises between the two. However, the Fundamental Rights are amendable.
  • The Parliament enacted the First, Fourth and the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Acts in order to implement some DPSPs which curtailed the Fundamental Rights.
• These amendments were challenged in the IC Golaknath case (1967). The Supreme Court, partly overruling its decision in Champakam Dorairajan, held that Fundamental Rights are ‘transcendental’ and ‘sacrosanct’. They cannot be amended to implement DPSPs even by way of a constitutional amendment act as it would violate Article 13 (which provides that no law shall be made in contravention of the Fundamental Rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution).
  • In order to circumvent the IC Golaknath decision, the Parliament enacted that 24th and the 25th Constitutional Amendment Acts.
• The question was finally settled by the thirteen judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Keshwananda Bharti v State of Kerela case (1973). The Court held that both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs reflect the conscience of the Constitution. There is no antithesis between them and one supplements the other.
• This position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Ashok Kumar Thakur case (2008) wherein it was held that there is no distinction between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. While Fundamental Rights are political and civil rights, DPSPs are social and economic rights. None is subordinate to the other.

Therefore, the present position in law is that both, Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, must be harmoniously construed. No question arises about one prevailing over the other.