Network of National Laboratories

There are 69 research institutes/laboratories functioning under the Ministry of Science and Technology.  The State-wise list is given in the Annexure.  Further, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) is setting up an Innovation Complex at Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, which would focus on translational research.  The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has also established a national Biotechnology Information Systems Network (BTISNet) with 168 centres at various levels covering all the States.              With the objective of attracting best talents in science, the Government has formulated and initiated aprogramme entitled `Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research(INSPIRE).  It comprises of the following components:  (i)    INSPIRE Awards wherein two lakhs students selected every year from schools are given Rs. 5000 each for making a Science projects/models and exhibiting the same at District, State, Regional and National level. (ii)  INSPIRE Internship wherein every year 50,000 students are provided opportunities for interacting with eminent scientists and academicians including Nobel Laureates through Science Camps organized in various Academic/Research Institutions all over India. (iii) Scholarship for Higher Education which aims to enhance rates of enrollment of talented youth in science intensive higher education programs by providing scholarships and mentorships.  The scheme offers 10,000 Scholarship every year @ Rs.0.80 lakh per year to students who are top 1% in Class XII examinations, for undertaking Bachelor and Masters level education in basic and natural sciences. (iv) Kishore VaigyanikProtsahanYojana (KVPY) implemented by Indian Institute of Science, which alsoencourages students of Basic Sciences to pursue a career in research. (v)  Assured Opportunity for Research Careers (AORC) which aims to attract, retain and nourish talented students.   It has two sub-components, (1) INSPIRE Fellowship (age group of 22-27 years) which offers 1000 fellowships every year to First Rank holders at the Master`s level pursuing doctoral degree in both basic and applied sciences including engineering and medicine and (2) INSPIRE Faculty Award wherein 1000 Tenure-track Research Positions in Universities/Research Labs/Academic Institutions are awarded annually for pursuing an independent research career in basic and applied sciences. The numbers of awardees under each component during the last three years (until March 2014) is given below. Components Scheme under INSPIRE No. of Awardees (during the last three years) INSPIRE Awards 6,64,673 INSPIRE Internship 1,61,872 Scholarship for Higher Education 37,607 Kishore VaigyanikProtsahanYojana 1106 INSPIRE Fellowship 2841 INSPIRE Faculty Award 473          To encourage and attract the best talents to science and engineering research, CSIR also conducts the National Eligibility Test (NET) for awarding Junior Research Fellowships.  These research fellows pursue their doctoral research in R&D organizations and academic institutions.  Besides above, with the objective to nurture young budding scientific talent and to nourish the objective of pursuit of science and engineering research, CSIR has increased the number of prestigious Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Fellowship (SPMF) from 2012-13 onwards.         The number of Junior Research Fellowships (JRF) awarded by CSIR and UGC through CSIR-UGC National Eligibility Test (NET) and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Fellowships (SPMF) during the last three years is given in the table below: Year Number of fellowships awarded JRF-NET SPMF CSIR UGC Total 2011-12 2139 2135 4274 27 2012-13 2468 2400 4868 59 2013-14 2532 2400 4932 65 Total 7139 6935 14074 151          Further in order to enhance creativity, to generate awareness about Intellectual Property and to instill interest in Science amongst school children, CSIR has instituted two invention awards, titled ‘CSIR Diamond Jubilee Invention Award for School Children’, and ‘CSIR Innovation Award for School Children’ which are given annually to school children through selection from the innovations received from them.          The Department of Biotechnology is already implementing several programmes to attract best talent for science. The programmes and the number of students benefited include: post graduate M.Sc. / M.Tech. programmes in 71 universities / institutions benefiting 3000 students in last three years ; Junior Research Fellowship Scheme (300 students); DBT Research Associates Scheme (210 students); Ramalingaswami Re-entry Fellowships (138 researchers) for attracting talent from abroad; Star College Programme benefiting more than 100 colleges; and Innovative Young Biotechnology Award benefiting 93 young scientists.                  This was stated by Union Minister of State for Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth Sciences (Independent Charge) Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply in Lok Sabha today. *****  ST/jk ANNEXURE S.NO. STATE/UT NAME OF THE INSTITUTE UNDER DST 1. 2. ASSAM INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GUWAHATI.  NORTH - EAST INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, JORHAT 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. DELHI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF IMMUNOLOGY, NEW DELHI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PLANT GENOME RESEARCH (NIPGR), NEW DELHI NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY, NEW DELHI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, NEW DELHI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION RESOURCES, NEW DELHI INSTITUTE OF GENOMICS AND INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY, DELHI CENTRAL ROAD RESEARCH INSTITUTE, NEW DELHI 10. GUJARAT CENTRAL SALT & MARINE CHEMICALS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BHAVNAGAR 11. GOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY, GOA 12. 13. 14. HARYANA NATIONAL BRAIN RESEARCH CENTRE (NBRC ), MANESAR TRANSLATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, FARIDABAD UNESCO REGIONAL CENTRE FOR EDUCATION, TRAINING & INNOVATION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, FARIDABAD 15. HIMACHAL PRADESH INSTITUTE OF HIMALAYAN BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, PALAMPUR 16. JHARKHAND NATIONAL METALLURGICAL LABORATORY, JAMSHEDPUR 17 JAMMU & KASHMIR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE(IIIM), JAMMU 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. KARNATAKA CENTRE FOR SOFT MATTER RESEARCH (FORMERLY CENTRE FOR LIQUID CRYSTAL RESEARCH), BANGALORE. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ASTROPHYSICS (IIA) BANGALORE. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CENTRE FOR ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (JNC), BANGALORE 560 012. RAMAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE (RRI), BANGALORE.  INSTITUTE FOR STEM CELL SCIENCE AND REGENERATIVE MEDICINES, BANGALORE CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MYSORE CSIR-FOURTH PARADIGM INSTITUTE (ERSTWHILE CSIR-CMMACS), BENGALURU NATIONAL AEROSPACE LABORATORIES, BANGALORE 26. 27. 28. KERALA SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY (SCT), TRIVANDRUM RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 29. MANIPUR INSTITUTE OF BIORESEARCHES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, IMPHAL 30.    31. 32. 33. 34. 35. MAHARASHTRA AGHARKAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ARI,MACS), PUNE. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF GEOMAGNETISM (IIG), NAVI MUMBAI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR CELL SCIENCES, PUNE CSIR UNIT FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION PRODUCTS,PUNE NATIONAL CHEMICAL LABORATORY, PUNE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, NAGPUR 36. MADHYA PRADESH ADVANCED MATERIALS AND PROCESSES RESEARCH INSTITUTE (AMPRI), BHOPAL 37. 38. ORISSA INSTITUTE OF LIFE SCIENCES, BHUBANESWAR INSTITUTE OF MINERALS AND MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY(IMMT), BHUBANESWAR 39. 40. 41. 42. PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF NANO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (INST), PUNJAB. NATIONAL AGRI FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTION AND BIO-PROCESSING UNIT, MOHALI CENTRAL SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS ORGANISATION, CHANDIGARH INSTITUTE OF MICROBIAL TECHNOLOGY, CHANDIGARH 43. RAJASTHAN CENTRAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PILANI 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. TELANGANA INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED RESEARCH CENTRE FOR   POWDER METALLURGY AND NEW MATERIALS (ARCI), HYDERABAD. CENTRE FOR DNA FIGURE PRINTING AND DIAGNOSTICS, HYDERABAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ANIMAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD CENTRE FOR CELLULAR & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, HYDERABAD INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD NATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, HYDERABAD 50. 51. 52 TAMIL NADU STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTRE, CHENNAI CENTRAL LEATHER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CHENNAI CENTRAL ELECTROCHEMICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KARAIKUDI 53. 54. 55. 56. UTTRAKHAND ARYABHATTA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCES (ARIES), NAINITAL WADIA INSTITUTE OF HIMALAYAN GEOLOGY (WIHG) DEHRADUN. CENTRAL BUILDING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ROORKEE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM, DEHRADUN 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. UTTAR PRADESH BIRBAL SAHNI INSTITUTE OF PALAEOBOTANY LUCKNOW. CENTRAL DRUG RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUCKNOW CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICINAL & AROMATIC PLANTS, LUCKNOW INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH , LUCKNOW NATIONAL BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUCKNOW 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. WEST BENGAL BOSE INSTITUTE (BI), KOLKATA. S.N. BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC SCIENCES (SNB) KOLKATA. INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE CULTIVATION OF SCIENCE (IACS), KOLKATA. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL, GENOMICS IN KALYANI CENTRAL GLASS & CERAMIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOLKATA  CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MINING AND FUEL RESEARCH, DHANBAD CENTRAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, DURGAPUR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, KOLKATA

RGUMY

The Rajiv Gandhi Udyami Mitra Yojana (RGUMY) has been made functional throughout the country.  The scheme is implemented at all India level and not in a state-wise manner.  It seeks to provide handholding support and assistance to the potential first generation entrepreneurs who would have successfully completed mandatory entrepreneurship  development training or skill development training or vocational training ,  through the selected lead agencies i.e. `Udyami Mitras` , in the establishment and management of the new enterprise, in dealing with various procedural and legal hurdles and in completion of various formalities required for setting up and running of the enterprise.                                      The Scheme also provides information, support, guidance and assistance to first generation entrepreneurs as well as other existing entrepreneurs through an ‘Udyami Helpline’ (a Call Centre for MSMEs, 1800-180-6763 Toll Free), to guide them regarding various promotional schemes of the Government, procedural formalities required for setting up and running of the enterprise and help them in accessing Bank credit etc.

Prime Minister Approves the Constitution of the Expenditure Management Commission; Dr. Bimal Jalan, Former Governor, RBI to Head the Commission

The Prime Minister has approved the constitution of the Expenditure Management Commission. This was announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech 2014-15. The Commission will be headed by Dr. Bimal Jalan, former Governor, RBI, with Shri Sumit Bose, former Finance Secretary and Dr. Subir Gokarn, Eminent Economist as members. Additional Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, will be an ex-officio member and a senior officer with finance/expenditure experience will be Member-Secretary. The detailed Terms of Reference of the Expenditure Management Commission will be notified separately. The Commission is expected to submit its interim report before the Budget of 2015-16 and its final report before the Budget of 2016-17.

Seven qualities of highly effective judges

Judicial appointments cannot be left to the preferences of JAC members.

In the wake of recent controversies, the issue of judges’ appointments has resurfaced. Until 1993, the executive had a role in the appointment of judges in India. In fact, since the inception of the system of judicial appointments, it has always remained a prerogative of the sovereign ruler.

In ancient India, kings used to appoint judges (adhikitas) after consulting their social mentors (rishis). The British, after introducing the present judicial system in India, chose judges on the basis of advice from the chief justice of the respective high courts, who were invariably British by birth. During this period, not a single Indian was ever made a chief justice. Thus, British rulers ensured the judiciary remained loyal to the crown.

The present collegium system was introduced following the 1993 second judges’ case and the advisory opinion rendered by a nine-judge bench (decided seven to two) of the Supreme Court in 1998. The Supreme Court effectively “amended” the Constitution through judicial process, as it read “concurrence” into the term “consultation” as laid out in Article 124. The presidential reference to the Supreme Court was meant to review the second judges’ case, but the court refused to do so expressly and went on instead to strengthen judicial “concurrence” by increasing the number from three judges to five.

It failed to bring about much-needed reform by substituting the collegium with a more responsible, transparent and accountable system. The advisory opinion simply shuffled persons/ authorities to fructify individual ambitions and choices. There is now a great opportunity for the legislature to take a comprehensive view and introduce a system that is not only transparent but also ensures quality.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha. Many experts, including Law Commission Chairman A.P. Shah and Press Council of India head Markandey Katju, have advanced their suggestions and innovative arguments on the failure of the current collegium system: ironically, they are the product of that very failed system. Interestingly, they are for the supremacy of judiciary and want a majority say for judges. At the same time, the unusual strength of the present executive has given rise to apprehensions regarding its intervention in judges’ appointments.

Other than Japan, perhaps only in India do judges appoint judges. The present system of appointment suffers from many infirmities. There is neither any scope for scrutiny nor transparency. This method of appointments also does not address the diversity in Indian society. Moreover, it leads to the appointment of judges who hold similar views and have the same broad orientation. It is also prone to encourage nepotism in the judicial system. Theneed of the hour is to strike a balance between the independence of the judiciary and ensuring its impartiality and accountability.

Given the experience of the Emergency — which saw the executive’s assertion of its role in the appointment of judges — and undue interference thereafter (including the latest one involving this government in Gopal Subramanium’s non-appointment), it is imperative to ensure that the executive does not end up with a dominant role. A mere shift of primacy cannot be the way to ensure a transparent and qualitatively sound system of appointments. No objective parameter has been set in the JAC bill to ensure the selection of an able, competent, honest and educated person as a judge. On the contrary, the scope of subjective satisfaction of persons who will recommend judicial appointments is enhanced in the bill. A broad parameter in respect of procedure for the shortlisting of candidates has to be evolved. In this context, the ancient jurist Katyayana’s observation indicating seven qualities to be considered for the appointment of judges is worth noting. Those qualities are akrurha (no ill will), madhura (politeness), snigdha (dispassionate), kshamajuto (forgiveness), bichakshana (educated, having an analytical mind), utsahabana (spirited and hard-working), and nirlobha (without greed). Unfortunately, the present bill has not indicated any such qualities. Besides ensuring fairness and transparency in the appointment of judges to the benches of the higher judiciary, the timely filling up of vacancies in the judiciary is also an important challenge.

We can’t afford to see the appointments of judges in isolation. While making the process more transparent, broad-based and impartial, we must ensure that justice is made available and affordable to the vast population. There is no need for a separate body for judicial standards and accountability. The proposal for a national judicial commission (NJC), with representatives from three organs of the state — the executive, legislature and judiciary — must be acted upon.

It should be vested with powers to conduct inquiries into the misbehaviour of judges and to impose minor punishment. To make it more democratic, transparent and participatory, even representatives from the Bar Association of India and the general public can be inducted. This would facilitate wider consultations on assessing the suitability and integrity of potential appointees.

The NJC should comprise the Chief Justice of India as ex-officio chairperson with one other judge of the Supreme Court, nominated by the collegium of all judges of the Supreme Court, the chief justice of one of the high courts, nominated by the collegium of chief justices of all high courts, the Union minister for law and justice as ex-officio member along with two eminent persons to be nominated by a collegium consisting of the prime minister and leader of the main opposition party in the Lok Sabha and, finally, a nominee of the Bar Association of India. It should be ensured that at least one member is a woman and one eminent person is from the SC/ ST/ OBC/ minority communities, preferably by rotation.

Accountability and independence

Transparency in the appointments of judges can be ensured without government representatives serving as members in the Judicial Appointments Commission

The debates surrounding the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill, 2013 for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, is a critical matter that impinges on the future of the Indian judiciary. Some of the provisions of the draft bill raise serious questions of constitutional importance that must be carefully examined by the government before any constitutional amendment is made.

It will not be in the government's interests if the provisions are taken up for judicial adjudication for potential violation of the Constitution, especially thebasic structure doctrine. It is possible that even after constitutional amendments, there may be a challenge to these provisions. It is important for the government to formulate a more rigorous set of guiding principles on the basis of which a constitutional amendment can be formulated.

It will be a mistake to assume that a replacement and change of the body that is playing a dominant role in this process will ensure fair and transparent appointments. There is enough evidence to suggest that appointments made by governments have been marred by controversies and have been questioned for their lack of transparency, impartiality and integrity. Institutionalised forms of nepotism, and biases and prejudices, have been infused into the appointment process, even when appointment were made by high-powered committees comprising the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Reforms in appointment process

Under these circumstances, it is important for the country to have a genuine debate as to what parameters need to be adopted while seeking reforms in the appointment process. The process of appointments has evolved since the passing of the Constitution. Even though three major decisions by the Supreme Court settled the matter on the primacy of the judiciary in the form of its collegium deciding matters relating to the appointment of judges, there is little doubt that the existing collegium-based system needs reform. Many judges of the higher judiciary have themselves acknowledged that this system needs greater transparency, inclusiveness, participation and consultation at a broader level. But how do we establish a system in which the people who exercise powers do so in a responsible manner?

Before any attempt is made to draft a legislation, there is an urgent need for the government to have a broad-based consultation with lawyers, judges, academics, civil society and the media as to how we can balance judicial accountability on the one hand and the independence of the judiciary as an institution on the other. The following parameters may be considered for this.

Whatever procedures are formulated for the appointment of judges, there must be a broad-based consultative process in which all stakeholders are involved. One of the sharpest criticisms of the existing collegium model is that the entire process of appointments of judges to the Supreme Court is dependent on the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior most judges of the apex Court. In the case of the High Courts, it is the CJI and the collegium comprising two senior most judges of the Supreme Court who decide appointments. Unfortunately, while it is true that this process requires re-examination, the process envisaged in the proposed collegium under the new legislation — that two eminent persons will be selected by the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of the Opposition — is equally arbitrary and lacks transparency.

Further, most appointment processes in India do not have any information on how competence and suitability of candidates is measured, necessitating a need for parameters to measure both.

Nearly a decade ago, the U.K. significantly revamped the process relating to judicial appointments. The JAC was constituted as an independent body which selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales, and for some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The creation of the JAC was one of the significant changes brought about by the Constitutional Reform Act, 2005, which also reformed the office of the Lord Chancellor and established the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary of England and Wales. The qualities and abilities being used by the JAC for selection of judges in the U.K. may be of relevance in the Indian context as well. Intellectual capacity, personal qualities, the ability to understand and deal fairly, authority and communication skills, efficiency, leadership and management skills are the basis on which candidates are selected. There are detailed explanations as to how these qualities will be identified among candidates.

Role of lawyers in appointments

The Bill its current form has not envisaged any role for lawyers who are in many ways important in the process of appointment of judges. In many jurisdictions, lawyers are involved significantly in all stages in the process of appointment. There is a need to reconsider the current provisions to include lawyers and law professors as members of the JAC.

One of the important reforms in the U.K. was to diversify the commission. The JAC in the U.K. is a 15-member commission and the Chairman is always a lay member. Of the 14 other commissioners, it is mandatory that five are judicial members, two are professional members, five are lay members, one is a tribunal judge and another is a non-legally qualified judicial member. The current JAC in the U.K. has two professors in it. The commissioners are appointed in their own right and are not representatives of the professions they come from. The diversity of the commission makes it inclusive and enables each member to bring the knowledge, expertise, and most importantly, the independence of mind and the versatility of experience to the selection process.

Over the last few decades, different forms of biases and prejudices have infused the selection processes and the working of committees. The role of government representatives in the appointment of judges should be eliminated or at least significantly reduced. There are a number of legal, constitutional and policy reasons for this, but the most important is the changing dimensions of constitutional governance. Today, the government is the largest litigant in the courts. Every law, rule, regulation, policy and decision of the government has come into sharper legal and constitutional scrutiny. This change is not just a marginal change in the way India is governed, but a substantive one which has wide-ranging consequences for constitutional governance. The influence of the government in any form in the appointment process of the judges affects the independence of the judiciary. If the purpose of the government and society is to ensure accountability of the judiciary and provide a greater degree of transparency in the appointments of judges, this can be ensured even without government representatives and political actors serving as members in the JAC.

The way forward

There is a great opportunity for the new government to recognise the importance of the judiciary as an institution that safeguards the character of our democracy. If constitutionalism and democratic governance are going to the basis for measuring the effectiveness of institutions, then the JAC should reflect that vision. In its current form in the draft legislation, it does not. Hence, a wider degree of consultation and participation of all stakeholders is needed.

Major mathematics awards to two Indian origin scientists

Manjul Bhargava and Subhash Khot, are among the eight winners of the prestigious International Mathematical Union awards

Two mathematicians of Indian origin, Manjul Bhargava and Subhash Khot, are among the eight winners of the prestigious awards of the International Mathematical Union (IMU) that were announced at the inaugural of the 9-day International Congress of Mathematicians (ICM) which began today at Seoul, Republic of Korea. The President of Korea, Park Geun-hye, gave away the awards.

The ICM is held every four years and, traditionally, the IMU awards are presented at this quadrennial event. The awards include the Fields Medal, the highest award in mathematics, the Rolf Nevanlinna Prize and the Carl Friedrich Gauss Prize. At the last ICM held at Hyderabad, India, two new awards, the Chern Medal and the Leelavati Prize, were added to the existing three awards.

The 40 year-old Canadian-American Manjul Bhargava, a number theorist from Princeton University, is one of the four Fields Medalists chosen for the ICM2014 awards. The Fields Medal is awarded “to recognize outstanding mathematical achievement for existing work and for the promise of future achievement”. A minimum of two and a maximum of four Fields Medals are given to mathematicians under the age of 40 on January 1 of the year of the Congress.

“Manjul Bhargava has developed powerful new methods in the geometry of numbers and applied them to count rings of small rank and to bound the average rank of elliptic curves,” said the IMU citation for the award. More...

The other three Fields Medalists are:

The Brazilian mathematician Arthur Avila (35) of the Paris Diderot University-Paris 7 and Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura e Aplicada, Rio de Janeiro, who has been awarded “for his profound contributions to dynamical systems theory, which have changed the face of the field, using the powerful idea of renormalizations as a unifying principle”; the British mathematician Martin Hairer (39) of the University of Warwick “for his outstanding contributions to stochastic partial differential equations, and in particular for the creation of a theory of regularity structures for such equations”; and, the Iranian mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani (37) of Stanford University “for her outstanding contributions to the dynamics and geometry of Riemann surfaces and their modulii spaces”.

The 36 year-old IIT Bombay alumnus Subhash Khot, an Indian-American theoretical computer scientist at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences of New York University has been chosen for the ICM2014 Rolf Nevanlinna Prize. The Nevanlinna Prize is awarded “for outstanding contributions in mathematical aspects of information sciences”.

“Subhash Khot's prescient definition of the "Unique Games" problem, and his leadership in the effort to understand its complexity and its pivotal role in the study of efficient approximation of optimization problems, have produced breakthroughs in algorithmic design and approximation hardness, and new exciting interactions between computational complexity, analysis and geometry,” the award citation said. More….

The Gauss Prize in Applied Mathematics is awarded “to honor scientists whose mathematical research has had an impact outside mathematics – either in technology, in business, or simply in people's everyday lives”.

The winner of the ICM2014 Gauss Prize is Stanley Osher (72) of University of California, Los Angeles, who has been awarded the Prize “for his influential contributions to several fields in applied mathematics, and for far reaching inventions that have changed our conception of physical, perceptual and mathematical concepts, giving us new tools to apprehend the world.”

The Chern Medal is given “to an individual whose accomplishments warrant the highest level of recognition for outstanding achievements in the field of mathematics”.

The Chern Medal this time goes to the American algebraic geometer Phillip Griffiths (76) “for his groundbreaking and transformative development of transcendental methods in complex geometry, particularly his seminal work in Hodge theory and periods of algebraic varieties”.

Unlike the other awards, the Leelavati Prize is not given for achievements in mathematics research but for outstanding public outreach work in mathematics. Proposed by India, it was originally intended as a one-time award using the grant from the Norwegian Abel Foundation. Thanks to the efforts by Indian mathematicians in finding a sponsor to make it a regular affair, it has now been instituted as a recurring four-yearly award under the IMU charter to be given away at the closing ceremony of the ICM. The award is now being sponsored by Infosys, the Indian IT major.

The ICM2014 Leelavati Prize has been given to the Argentine Adrián Paenza (65) “for his decisive contributions to changing the mind of a whole country about the way it perceives mathematics in daily life, and in particular for his books, his TV programmes, and his unique gift of enthusiasm and passion in communicating the beauty and joy of mathematics”.