Cabinet gives nod for 10 indigenous nuclear reactors
Approval shows strong belief in the capability of Indian scientists, says Centre
•The Union Cabinet on Wednesday cleared the proposal to construct 10 indigenous pressurised heavy water nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 7,000 MWe.
•Briefing the media on the Cabinet decisions, Power Minister Piyush Goyal said each of the reactors would have a capacity of 700 MWe. “We already have 6,780 MWe of operational nuclear power plants and about 6,700 MWe of plants under implementation, which will be set up by 2021-22.”
•The decision comes against the backdrop of recent troubles for India’s international collaborations in nuclear projects. While the U.S. deal, involving Toshiba Westinghouse for six reactors in Andhra Pradesh, is floundering after Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the deal with French company Areva for reactors in Jaitapur remain mired in negotiations over costing.
No timeline
•While the Minister said these 10 plants would create Rs. 70,000 crore worth of business for domestic manufacturers and generate about 33,400 jobs, he did not provide a timeline for their completion, saying the government would update the details when they are clear.
•“The approval also shows our strong belief in the capability of India’s scientific community to build our technological capacities,” an official statement said.
Rapid advances by India
•“The design and development of this project is a testament to the rapid advances achieved by India’s nuclear scientific community and industry. It underscores the mastery our nuclear scientists have attained over all aspects of indigenous PHWR technology,” it added.
•India generated 37,674 million units of nuclear energy in 2016-17, according to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, at a capacity factor of 80%. The two major projects under construction at the moment are located in Rajasthan and Gujarat, of 1,400 MWe each. Both plants, comprising two units of 700 MWe each, are under review.
•“The 10 reactors will be part of India’s latest design of 700 MWe PHWR fleet with state-of-the-art technology meeting the highest standards of safety,” it added.
•The Cabinet also approved a coal linkage policy, called the Scheme for Harnessing and Allocating Koyala Transparently in India (Shakti), that will award fuel supply agreements to coal plants already holding letters of assurance (LoAs). Thermal plants holding LoAs will be eligible to sign fuel supply pacts under the new policy after ensuring that all the conditions are met.
NTRO now under Intelligence Act
Will have same curbs as IB, RAW
•The National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), which reports to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the National Security Advisor (NSA) will now have the same “norms of conduct” as the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW).
•The Home Ministry issued a notification on May 15 listing NTRO under The Intelligence Organisations (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985, a demand being made by the organisation for over a decade now.
Few strictures
•The Act prevents employees of a notified agency from forming unions/associations, puts restrictions on the employee’s freedom of speech, bars any communication with the press, or publishing a book or other document without the permission of the head of the intelligence organisation.
•Both IB and R&AW have on earlier occasions opposed the inclusion of any other organisation in the list of monitoring agencies under the Act.
•In 2012, the Home Ministry under the UPA government had declined to give phone surveillance powers to NTRO arguing that it was not notified under the Act.
•The NTRO was created after the 1999 Kargil conflict as a dedicated technical intelligence agency.
•It has been fighting tooth and nail to get included in the list as it has the right to lawfully intercept and monitor communications externally.
•Many security agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) among others have been asking the Home Ministry to include them under the Intelligence Organisations Act.
•“In the schedule to the Intelligence Organisations (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985 after serial number 3 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be inserted namely-The National Technical Research Organisation,” the notification issued by the Home Ministry said.
Interception powers
•An NTRO official told The Hindu that the amendment had nothing to do with enhanced interception powers but to “bring certain norms of conduct applicable to other intelligence agencies.” The official said the Act does not allow them to intercept phones internally.
•NTRO hires many people from the private sector and the Act means they will have the same safety net and restrictions available to other spy agencies.
•“The Official Secrets Act is already applicable to NTRO employees. We have restrictions about getting involved in political activities in the country among other things. We only make external intrusions,” said the NTRO official.
•Another official said, “We are also working for the country. No one seems to recognise that. The notification will bring that respect and sanctity to our work.”
A great wall of paranoia
As China pushes ahead with B&RI, India must reconcile geopolitical interests with wider developmental goals
•In a consequential development over the past week, India decided to stake out a clear position of defiance against the Belt & Road Initiative (B&RI), an ambitious Chinese idea that seeks to reshape the Eurasian geo-economic space. India’s absence in Beijing’s high-profile summit with representatives from over 100 countries, including 29 heads of state, has evoked surprise and debate. What is the calculus driving India’s China policy? Does India risk isolation as Eurasia moves towards a new chapter of connectivity and interdependence?
•Delhi’s position can be clearly gauged from the Ministry of External Affairs’ May 13 statement. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a flagship project of the B&RI, is seen as a blatant disregard for India’s position on Jammu and Kashmir because it passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. But Delhi’s protest goes beyond the “core concerns” over sovereignty. The objection to the B&RI is actually more deep-rooted, namely, that China’s rise and projection of geo-economic influence is a direct challenge and threat to India’s great power aspirations and traditional position in the subcontinent.
Two contending viewpoints
•One influential strand of Indian thinking is that unless and until India develops its own regional connectivity plans and economic capacities at home, there can be no serious engagement with Chinese-sponsored projects. Any premature engagement is likely to entrap India and stunt its rise. An alternative view is that India’s rise itself needs engagement and connections with the wider Asian and Eurasian economies, especially in the post-2008 crisis world which has reduced the viability of the previous liberalisation model of drawing in western capital and basing India’s growth on a handful of service sectors linked to the West. In these changed circumstances, the B&RI is seen to provide an alternative source of finance capital and manufacturing opportunities to buttress India’s economy.
•The first view is based on an image of intense competition and rivalry and leaves little room for collaboration. The second competing view is based on an image of interdependence where the idea of growth and development cannot occur in isolation from the world’s second-largest economy. Both world views have some merit. The problem really lies in India’s inability to imagine security more holistically and reconcile geopolitical interests with wider developmental goals.
Learning from others
•If we carefully examine the approaches of the major powers and India’s immediate neighbours, we can discern a more sophisticated strategy of dealing with China. Both the U.S. and Russia are proceeding rapidly with their bilateral cooperation with China. Russia, of course, is central to any Chinese trans-Eurasian vision for the most basic reason: geography. Even a cursory glance at a map reveals that any long-range connectivity projects require active cooperation and coordination with Moscow and its Central Asian allies. Three of the six corridors outlined by China as part of the B&RI — the China-Mongolia-Russia corridor, the new Eurasian Land Bridge, the China-Central Asia-Western Asia economic corridor — all imply Russian cooperation. American companies too are deeply interested in opportunities that would accrue from B&RI projects and are scrambling to partner Chinese firms as well as hoping to serve as industrial suppliers in specific infrastructure projects. This is probably why U.S. President Donald Trump sent a senior White House official to Xi Jinping’s summit.
•Clearly, neither of these great powers is, therefore, likely to buy into a zero-sum Indian interpretation of the initiative. This is not to suggest that the U.S. and Russia are unconcerned about their spheres of influence around China’s extended periphery. Rather they have chosen a policy of enhancing interdependence along with pursuing their own geostrategies of upholding traditional political-military alliances. Russia, for example, is developing its own connectivity project called the Eurasian Economic Union, which is actually at a far more advanced stage of institutional development having already established a single market for its five members.
•Even in the subcontinent we can notice clear trends of a complex approach towards China. India’s neighbours such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar are all pursuing economic cooperation with China on a growing scale while also maintaining close connections with India and reassuring Delhi about their foreign policies and geopolitical orientations. It is instructive that all of India’s immediate neighbours, except Bhutan, sent representatives to the Beijing summit. This triangular setting suggests it would be extremely challenging, if not impossible, for Delhi to persuade South Asia to curtail or cut off ties with China. What India can realistically do is shape the type of relationship that its neighbours pursue with China and uphold certain redlines such as coming down heavily on regimes that invite China’s military to establish a foothold in the subcontinent.
Chinese neo-colonialism?
•Finally, the underlying premise in much of the Indian debate that Asia, and South Asia, is ripe for Chinese neocolonialism or imperial expansion can be refuted. Asia’s national identities are much too strong for state agency to be brushed aside. Can anyone, for instance, make a credible argument that Vietnam — a country that has resisted China for a millennia — will fall under the dragon’s sway because of an engagement with the B&RI? What about Russia, one of the world’s strongest military powers with a history of geopolitical experience in Eurasia? Will it fall under China’s spell because a few billion dollars were invested in its economy or on its Central Asian periphery? Of course not! Even closer home, a tiny island state like Sri Lanka has apparently resisted certain provisions for port usage in the Hambantota project with China on sovereignty grounds. Almost every Asian state has a litany of issues with China’s rise but is pursuing a complex strategy of adapting without in any way folding up. There is
little evidence of bandwagoning or the proverbial dominoes toppling into a Chinese sphere of influence.
•The notion that China can literally purchase “regional leadership” by financing infrastructure or lending money is ludicrous. Power stems from something much deeper. It requires consent and an ability to provide public goods. China’s internationalism has, so far, been more materialistic than ideational, relying largely on the lure of capital and commerce. This cannot be an enduring prerequisite for order-building. It is instructive that the Chinese-sponsored or promoted institutions that have gained the most multilateral traction — such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation — are the ones that are perceived to offer public goods and are built around a semblance of democratised norms or rules.
•In short, there’s more room to shape the ongoing power transition towards a multipolar world. Schizophrenia and paranoia cannot be substitutes for smart and sober statecraft, which must include dealing directly with China.
The other debt issue
The deterioration in the finances of the States needs to be urgently addressed
•For the first time in 11 years, in 2015-16 the combined fiscal deficit of India’s 29 States as a proportion of the size of their economies breached the 3% threshold recommended as a fiscally prudent limit by successive Finance Commissions. The Reserve Bank of India has warned that the States’ expectation to revert to the 3% mark in their 2016-17 Budgets may not be realised, based on information from 25 States. While the Central government has projected a fiscal deficit of 3.2% of GDP for this year, States expect to bring theirs down further to 2.6% — still higher than the average of 2.5% clocked between 2011-12 and 2015-16. Whichever way one looks at it, the steady gains made in States’ finances over the past decade seem to be unravelling. Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian has asserted that the 3% of GDP benchmark for the fiscal deficit of the States or the Centre is not a magic number. Yet, it serves as an anchor for fiscal discipline in a country whose two biggest crises in recent decades — the balance of payments trouble in 1991, the currency tumble in 2013 — were precipitated by fiscal irresponsibility.
•Taking on the massive debt of their chronically loss-making power distribution companies, as part of the UDAY restructuring exercise steered by the Centre, has surely dented the States’ fiscal health significantly over the past couple of years. With private investment remaining elusive, the States’ focus on bolstering capital expenditure in sectors such as transport, irrigation and power is welcome (States’ capital expenditure as a proportion of their GDP has been higher than the Centre’s since 2011-12). But it is important that such funding remains sustainable and States stay solvent. Tepid economic growth hasn’t helped, and States have had to resort to higher market borrowings even after the Centre hiked their share from tax inflows to 42% from 32%, starting 2015-16. The Centre has been short-changing States by relying on special levies such as surcharges, cesses and duties that are not considered part of the divisible tax pool. So, instead of a 10% rise in the States’ share of gross tax revenue, the actual hike in 2015-16 was just 7.7%. The forthcoming Goods and Services Tax regime should, it is to be hoped, correct this anomaly to an extent. But there are other potential stress points: Pay Commission hikes, rising interest payments, the unstated risks from guaranteeing proxy off-budget borrowings by State enterprises, and the boisterous clamour for ad hoc loan waivers. The N.K. Singh panel on fiscal consolidation has recommended a focus on overall government debt along with fiscal deficit and a 20% debt-to-GDP ratio for States by 2022-23. Not just the Centre, but States (with outstanding liabilities to GDP of around 24% as of March 2017) also need to tighten their belts considerably from here, even as they await the constitution of the Fifteenth Finance Commission.
Article 142 and the need for judicial restraint
The Supreme Court’s use of its vast powers under the Article has done tremendous good to many deprived sections. However, it is time to institute checks and balances
•For a number of years, it has been my practice not to speak about the cases in which I had appeared as a lawyer, for it had been my view that doing so would not be appropriate. However, I now feel that remaining silent today is not an option. I am having in mind the recent judgments of the Supreme Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to achieve results of a far-reaching nature, outside the laws governing the issues.
•Article 142 provides that “the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it…” Ordinarily, a student of law would not recognise this provision as a potent tool in the hands of the Supreme Court to bring about changes in significant policy issues to affect the public at large.
•In the early years of the evolution of Article 142, the general public and the lawyers both lauded the Supreme Court for its efforts to bring complete justice to various deprived sections of society or to protect the environment.
Constructive application
•We have, for example, the cleansing of the Taj Mahal, whose marble was yellowing on account of sulphur fumes from the surrounding industries. Today, on account of the court’s efforts over a period of years, we have had our heritage restored to its original beauty. Similarly, undertrials were rotting in jails for greater periods than the maximum punishment which could have been inflicted on them, as their very existence was forgotten by the criminal justice system. With a single stroke of the pen, thousands of them were released. Stories of miraculous changes brought about to the lives of ordinary people — especially those who, on account of poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance were unable to seek remedies from the courts — were innumerable.
•One of the important instances of application by the Supreme Court of Article 142 was in the Union Carbide case — relating to the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy — where the Court felt a need to deviate from existing law to bring relief to the thousands of persons affected by the gas leak. In this judgment, the Supreme Court, while awarding compensation of $470 million to the victims, went to the extent of saying that to do complete justice, it could even override the laws made by Parliament by holding that, “prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142.” By this statement the Supreme Court of India placed itself above the laws made by Parliament or the legislatures of the States.
Foraying into forbidden territory
•Fortunately, this statement was toned down later in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India . It was said therein that the said article could not be used to supplant the existing law, but only to supplement the law.
•However, in recent years, one has come across several judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it has been foraying into areas which had long been forbidden to the judiciary by reason of the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
•Unfortunately, these judgments have created an uncertainty about the discretion vested in the court to invoke Article 142 where even fundamental rights of individuals are being ignored. What we have found is that the court, in its anxiety to do justice in a particular case or matter, has failed to account for the far-reaching effects of its judgments, which may result in the deprivation of the rights of a multitude of individuals who are not before the court at that time. Here, I have in mind the following cases:
•The coal block allocation case: Allocation of coal blocks granted from 1993 onwards was cancelled in 2014 without even a single finding that the grantees were guilty of any wrongdoing. The cancellation carried with it a penalty of Rs. 295 per tonne of coal already mined over the years. Article 142 had necessarily to be invoked. The individuals were not heard on their particular facts, but only their associations were heard. The result was devastating, so far as these lessees were concerned.
•The ban on the sale of alcohol along national and State highways: While the notification by the central government prohibited liquor stores along National Highways only — those abutting the National Highways — the Supreme Court put in place a ban of a distance of 500 metres by invoking Article 142. Additionally, and in the absence of any similar notification by any of the State governments, the court extended the ban to State highways as well. As a result of the order, thousands of hotels, restaurants, bars and liquor stores were forced to close down or discontinue the sale of liquor, resulting in lakhs of employees being thrown out of employment. It may be noted that the total percentage of accidental deaths caused due to drunken driving, as found by the court from the statistics of 2015, was only 4.2% as against the 44.2% caused by over-speeding. The Supreme Court had itself held that the right to employment is a basic right traceable to Article 21. However, in its order banning the sale of alcohol along highways, it made no reference to the loss of employment to lakhs of people, a direct consequence of the order.
•The transfer of cases filed against persons accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case: A two-judge bench passed an order which was in the teeth of an earlier three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court, between the same parties, which was binding on it. Despite the decision of the larger bench, the court was prepared to hold, while invoking Article 142, that in view of the long pendency of the case for 25 years, it would direct that the trial would now stand transferred from Rae Bareli to Lucknow. In my view, the judgment did not merely supplement the law but supplanted it by reason of the binding nature of the three-judges bench decision, which was res judicata between the parties. The trial was in fact nearing completion at Rae Bareli; it would now take at least two years for the examination of a few hundred witnesses at Lucknow before conclusion of the trial, as the charge of conspiracy has also to be gone into.
•I must reiterate that I had appeared as a lawyer in all the above cases.
•It is true that Article 142 has been invoked for the purpose of doing tremendous good to large sections of the population and indeed to the nation as a whole. The Supreme Court has perceived its role as one which would require it to ‘wipe away every tear from every eye’, but perhaps it is time that the use of this vast, unlimited power included checks and balances.
Referral to Constitution Bench
•While one ponders over the possible solution to this conundrum, one cannot lose sight of the fact that today, we have a court of 31 judges who sit in thirteen divisions of two or three to deliberate on the seminal legal issues of the day. One would even be compelled to observe that India has thirteen Supreme Courts as each division represents, by itself, the Supreme Court of India, and each bench is independent of the other. I would therefore propose that all cases invoking Article 142 should be referred to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges so that this exercise of discretion may be the outcome of five independent judicial minds operating on matters having such far-reaching impact on the lives of people. I also propose that in all cases where the court invokes Article 142, the government must bring out a white paper to study the beneficial as well as the negative effects of the judgment after a period of six months or so from its date.
•The time has come for the Supreme Court to introspect on whether the use of Article 142 as an independent source of power should be regulated by strict guidelines so that, in the words of Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the judge “is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal…”
‘GST to help cut costs of transport, logistics’
Tax to help formalise the sector: CBEC
•The Goods and Services Tax, set to start on July 1, will pare the cost of transport and logistics, formalise the sector, and could help bring supply chain management to the forefront, according to officials working on the new tax regime.
•Separately, the Goods and Services Tax Network, the company tasked with running the IT infrastructure for GST, has already migrated taxpayer information from State and central tax authorities to its database.
•With the GST Council meeting on Thursday and Friday to finalise the rules pertaining to various aspects of GST, industry leaders and tax experts have raised several issues that the Council must look at.
•“There has been a lot of concern raised regarding the GST rules and whether vendors will be ready by July 1,” Neeraj Prasad, Additional Commissioner, GST Cell, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) said on Wednesday. The Centre was conducting outreach efforts and training programmes, he said.
Supporting SMEs
•Just like the GST Network rates vendors on the basis of their compliance, firms must also internally rate vendors, Mr. Prasad said. “Extending support to SMEs through various forums is also something we must think about,” he said.
•“It is also worth considering about how there might be a position at the high table for supply chain under GST,” Mr. Prasad said. “The cost of logistics is currently very high in India, making up about 14-15% of GDP whereas it is only 7-8% in mature markets. In GST, the curtailment of layers of movement of goods is inevitable. And GST will no doubt bring down the dominance of the unorganised element in logistics.”
