📰 Religious mutts and their temples may come within govt. purview
7-member panel, working on comprehensive amendment to Muzrai Act, is considering the provision
•Religious mutts and temples under their control that have so far remained outside the ambit of the government could come within it’s purview if changes being considered for the ‘Muzrai’ Act is any indication.
•A seven-member committee, currently in the process of suggesting comprehensive changes in the Act, is considering inclusion of mutts and temples controlled by mutts under the purview of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, popularly known as ‘Muzrai’ Act. The committee — headed by advocate and Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishad member N.K. Jagannivas Rao — has already met thrice and is likely to come up with the draft in a month’s time.
•In fact, non-inclusion of mutts and temples run by them, and keeping away Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs from the definition of “Hindus” had led a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to strike down the 2011 and 2012 Amendments brought to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. Terming the exclusion as “illegal and discriminatory”, the high court had struck down amendments in 2015.
•Even the 1997 Act was stuck down by the High Court in 2006 on the same grounds that mutts have been kept outside the purview, but the Supreme Court stayed a portion of the High Court’s ruling.
•“We got a stay from the Supreme Court over the High Court judgment. However, in the light of the High Court’s observations on the current Act, we want to bring a uniform and comprehensive Act that will overcome loopholes. We will incorporate suggestions, observations and the order issued by the High Court,” Minister for Muzrai Rudrappa Lamani confirmed.
•According to Mr. Jagannivas Rao, the draft for new amendments was in the preliminary stage. “We will get clarity after the draft is completed.”
•On what was being considered for overhauling the 1997 Act, he said: “The High Court’s observation on the Amendments to the Act when it was stuck down had raised issues pertaining to Article 14, 25 and 26 of Indian constitution that refer to fundamental rights of the citizens. These included how the mutts had been kept away from the Act and how Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs were not brought under the Act. These observations of the court are being considered. Apart from this, there are Supreme Court observations too that will be incorporated,” he said, adding that some Sections of the Act are not clear, and some rules are also missing.
•Mr. Jagannivas Rao said the committee is seeking the views of temple administrators, staff, archakas, and devotees as well. “We will also study how the issue is being handled smoothly in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. We want to reduce interference of the government by empowering local committees,” he added.
Dept. to return gadduge to mutts
•The Muzrai Department has received 70 applications after it decided to let go of “C” category temples to families where priests have hereditarily performed duties. The department also intends to let go of gadduges (seats) of seers of various mutts that are currently under its supervision.
•According to Mr. Lamani, most ‘C’ category temples have been identified in Uttara Kannada, Udupi and Karwar, and Deputy Commissioners of all districts have been asked to draw up a list of such temples in their jurisdiction. “There is shortage of fund and staff. We want to return the maintenance of gadduge to respective mutts, and also hand over temples to families that have looked after them,” he added.
Agama schools in six temple towns
•In a bid to create access to learning of Agama, Sanskrit and vedas to aspiring priests, a proposal has been mooted to start Agama schools from the next academic year in six temple towns across the State. The temples at Kukke Subramanya, Kollur, Devarayanadurga, and Yellamma Gudda are among those identified to start the schools, which will train aspirants and issue certificates. Currently, there are 32 Agama schools run by the government.
•At a recent meeting of the Rajya Dharmika Parishath, the proposal was mooted and administering temples have been asked to come up with proposals. “These schools will be funded from the temple revenue and will help the interested access religious knowledge,” Mr. Lamani told The Hindu.
📰 Rape of minors to attract death in M.P.
All parties support Bill in Assembly
•The Madhya Pradesh Assembly on Monday unanimously passed a Bill awarding death to those found guilty of raping girls aged 12 and below. With this, Madhya Pradesh becomes the first State where those convicted of such rapes will face the gallows.
•Introduced in the House by Law and Legislative Affairs Minister Rampal Singh, the Bill was discussed in detail and then passed by all parties, including the ruling BJP and the Opposition Congress. The Bill will now be sent to the President for his assent, after which it will become a law, Home Minister Bhupendra Singh told reporters outside the Assembly.
‘Historic day’
•“It was a historic day for Madhya Pradesh as the Assembly, as per the wish of Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, passed a Bill making a provision to award the capital punishment to those indulging in such crimes [raping girls aged 12 or younger],” Mr. Bhupendra Singh said.
•Capital punishment would be awarded to convicts under Section 376 (A), which is related to rape, and Section 376 (D, A), pertaining to gang-rape.
•Welcoming the Bill, Mr. Chouhan said: “There are people in society who can be set right only by severe punishments. It [the legislation] will deal with them. We will also raise awareness in society against such crimes.”
📰 21st century India cannot shun leprosy patients, says Supreme Court
Centre told to respond in eight weeks to a call to repeal 119 laws that discriminate against leprosy patients
•Twenty-first century society cannot justify shunning persons affected by leprosy or keeping them hidden in homes and away from the mainstream, the Supreme Court declared in an order on Monday.
•The court asked the Centre to respond in eight weeks to a call to repeal 119 Central and State laws in practice since the 1950s that discriminate against leprosy patients, stigmatise and isolate them despite the fact that modern medicine completely cures the disease.
•A bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, acting on a PIL filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, found that these statutory laws continue to recognise superstitions that leprosy is “infectious and has something to do with genetics”.
•The court has asked the government to explain the continued existence of these laws, which, in a way, deny the truth that modern medicine cures leprosy. The petition has urged the court to intervene and pave the way for recognising the fundamental right to equality, dignity and equal opportunity of persons affected by leprosy.
•“There are 119 laws that discriminate against persons affected by leprosy in broadly the following five ways: (i) cause stigmatisation and indignity to persons affected by leprosy, (ii) isolate/segregate persons affected by leprosy, (iii) deny them access to public services, (iv) impose disqualifications on them under personal laws, or (v) bar them from occupying or standing for public posts or office,” Vidhi, represented by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, said.
•These laws rob persons affected by leprosy by denying them equal treatment under personal laws, in matters of employment and appointment or election to public office, as well as access to and free movement in public places, it said.
•“This unequal treatment irrationally treats persons affected by leprosy as a separate class... the impugned provisions stigmatise and isolate persons affected by leprosy, even though with the latest medical advancements, leprosy is rendered non-infectious after the very first dose of Multi-Drug Therapy (MDT), the World Health Organisation-recommended treatment regime for leprosy,” the petition said.
•Some of the discriminatory provisions are part of laws named in the petition, which include the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, Puducherry Municipalities Act, 1973 Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Chennai Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Act of 1957, Andhra Pradesh Public Libraries Act of 1969, which bans membership to persons affected by leprosy.
📰 Centre prepares to redefine ‘employment’
Panel to bat for ‘pragmatic’ approach to classify formal work
•For the past three and half years, the NDA government has had a battle on its hands when it came to providing an enabling ecosystem for adequate job creation.
•The government’s own data showed that job creation in the formal sector was slowest in almost a decade, but it has said that it felt the ground reality on jobs was not being ‘properly’ captured as the existing system takes into account only the formal sector.
•However, this situation could change soon. Speaking to The Hindu , commerce and industry minister Suresh Prabhu said “all the economic activity in India, including in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) and informal sectors, will soon get properly captured.” He said this was in line with international practices.
•Incidentally, on the directions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a task force was set up in May this year under the chairmanship of the then Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog, Arvind Panagariya.
Data capture
•The panel’s terms of reference included assessing the existing data systems and sources that provide information on jobs and job creation and then identifying alternate sources that could provide such data. The terms also included recommending mechanisms for capturing information on jobs and job creation on a regular basis for both the informal and formal sectors.
•The ‘Task Force on Improving Employment Data’, which had sought comments from stakeholders by July 23 on its draft report, will by September 2018 submit its final report, the current Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog, Rajiv Kumar said.
•Among the main recommendations could be a change in the definition of employment/workers as well as ways to include and measure employment in the informal sector as well, he indicated.
•According to the draft report, there is no fixed definition of formal workers currently in India.
•It said all definitions were highly restrictive, and exclude many workers who have decent and steady jobs but either do not work in large enough enterprises or do not have written contracts. The task force said it was desirable to adopt a new, more ‘pragmatic’ definition of formal workers.
•The plan now is to include workers covered the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (or other similar insurance), Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (or other similar social security scheme), workers having coverage under private insurance or pension schemes or provident funds as well as workers subject to tax deduction at source on their income through submission of Form 16 or similar Income Tax form.
•The panel had identified the Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency (MUDRA) scheme, which provides small, unsecured loans to enterprises, as an important source of job creation.
•According to a report by the SKOCH Group on September 6, the MUDRA scheme had led to a total of 54,479,763 jobs being generated in just over two years. These included 37,753,217 direct jobs and 16,726,545 indirect jobs.
📰 Bail-in doubts — on financial resolution legislation
The government needs to re-examine the proposed financial resolution legislation
•Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has wisely sought to allay fears about a “bail-in” clause in the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017. Introduced in Parliament this August, it has caused great anxiety about the safety of funds parked by millions of households in bank deposits — fears that it will enable banks to be ‘bailed in’ by depositors’ funds rather than being ‘bailed out’ by taxpayers (or potential buyers). The government has promised a ₹2.11-lakh crore recapitalisation plan for public sector banks that are now taking haircuts on defaulted loans being put through the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. When banks, in turn, face collapse, the fear is that depositors could face similar haircuts or write-downs on the value of their savings in the bank and perhaps be issued securities instead. This provision in the FRDI Bill is purportedly with an eye on resolving bankruptcy scenarios among financial entities, some of which could be too big to fail or systemically important. On Friday, Mr. Jaitley said a ‘lot of corrections’ could still take place; the Bill is currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee whose report will be considered by the Cabinet. The Bill proposes the scrapping of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (set up in the early 1960s in the aftermath of the collapse of two banks), which guarantees repayment of bank deposits up to ₹1 lakh in case a bank is liquidated. A new Resolution Corporation under the Finance Ministry will steer financial entities out of the woods and offer a similar cover for deposits. The silence of the Bill on the extent of deposits to be guaranteed is a key source of concern, and may necessitate the need to revisit the existing ₹1 lakh deposit guarantee, which hasn’t been revised since 1993.
•The need for a specialised regime to cope with large financial firms on the verge of going bust is well-understood especially since the global financial crisis of 2008. As a resolution tool for stressed financial firms, the bail-in clause has been the subject of much debate, but it remains the least well-established across the world. Even the committee framing the FRDI law has noted that it should typically be used where continuing a firm’s services is considered vital but its sale is unviable — not as a lazy default option. If lenders don’t believe that a bail-in plan would salvage a firm, triggering the clause could end up causing a run on the bank instead of preventing one. With its thrust on initiatives such as the Jan Dhan Yojana and demonetisation, the government has nudged more people towards the formal banking system. To ensure that those gains are not lost, the government must communicate more clearly the rationale behind the bail-in provision, and the circumstances in which it may ultimately be used, if at all. Most importantly, it must enhance the amount of bank deposits that will remain safe under the new dispensation.
📰 Stand up against torture
India has undermined its prestige by repeatedly promising — and failing — to ratify the Convention Against Torture
•The Convention Against Torture (CAT) came into force in 1987 and India signed it in 1997. Today, the CAT has 162 state parties; 83 are signatories. In refusing to ratify the CAT, India is in the inglorious company of Angola, the Bahamas, Brunei, Gambia, Haiti, Palau, and Sudan. In 2008, at the universal periodical review by the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the UN, country after country recommended that India expedite ratification. India’s response was that ratification was “being processed”.
Promises to keep
•In 2011, desiring to be appointed on the HRC of the UN, India took the extraordinary step of voluntarily “pledging” to ratify the CAT. The pledge stated: “India has been a consistent supporter of the UN human rights system” and “remains committed to ratifying the CAT”. Once on the Council, India forgot its commitment. In the 2012 review, once again countries overwhelmingly recommended that India “promptly” ratify the CAT to which India responded “supported”, which indicates agreement. The review said: “India’s NHRC had reported a significant number of torture cases involving police and security organisations.” The concluding recommendation of the Working Group was that India ought to expeditiously ratify the CAT and enact a Prevention Against Torture Act. Again this year, at the universal periodical review, India reiterated “its commitment to ratify the CAT”. India has been making promises but doesn’t seem intent on keeping them, much to the dismay of the countries attending the review proceedings.
•Meanwhile, torture cases have escalated in India. In Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980), the Supreme Court said it was “deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture.” “Police lock-ups,” it said, “are becoming more awesome cells.” In Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble (2003), the Supreme Court said that “torture is assuming alarming proportions... on account of the devilish devices adopted. The concern which was shown in Raghubir’s case has fallen on deaf ears”. In Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. (2004), the Supreme Court said: “Civilisation itself would risk the consequence of heading towards total decay resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism reminiscent of barbarism.”
•In response to India’s pathetic excuse that it was necessary for Parliament to enact anti-torture legislation prior to ratification, a fitting answer was given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who said that it was “an erroneous idea” and “a misconception” that the state must enact legislation first and ratify later. Ratification only signals the beginning of a process to amend national laws so that they conform to international human rights standards. It demonstrates goodwill and political intention to comply with international norms and standards.
A step forward
•The Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010 was an excellent attempt by Parliament to draft new legislation. Unlike Indian law, which focusses on murder and broken bones (grievous hurt), torture was expanded to include food deprivation, forcible feeding, sleep deprivation, sound bombardment, electric shocks, cigarette burning, and other forms. The Indian police force uses these techniques. In the same year, a Select Committee of Parliament endorsed the Bill and made some positive recommendations for rehabilitation, compensation and witness protection. The Select Committee noted that an overwhelming number of States and Union Territories were in favour of the Bill. The Bill was allowed to lapse.
•A petition was then filed in the Supreme Court in 2016, seeking a direction to the Union government to ratify the CAT. Despite its numerous promises to the UN bodies, the government opposed the petition saying that the Law Commission of India was considering the issue. This excuse was also rendered useless by the prompt production of a report by the Law Commission strongly recommending ratification and the drafting of comprehensive legislation instead of ad hoc amendments in the Indian Penal Code. The Centre remains adamant to not ratify as it is deeply apprehensive of transparency and the involvement of the comity of nations in the post-ratification processes.
•In showing the world that India has no intention of combating the terror of its own forces and of implementing its promises made to the UN, the government has undermined India’s prestige. To be a world power, India must act like one.
📰 The one-election idea is a farce
The case for holding simultaneous elections in the diverse, federal Indian polity is weak
•In his address on National Law Day 2017, Prime Minister Narendra Modi once again sounded the bugle for simultaneous elections to Parliament and all State Assemblies, under the banner of “one nation one election”. Mr. Modi also cited four reasons: massive expenditure; diversion of security and civil staff from primary duties; impact on governance due to the model code of conduct, and disruption to normal public life. The case is weak and the reasons are a mere alibi.
The cost factor
•The Election Commission incurs a total cost of roughly ₹8,000 crore to conduct all State and federal elections in a span of five years, or roughly ₹1,500 crore every year. Nearly 600 million Indians vote in India’s elections, which means, it costs ₹27 per voter per year to keep India an electoral democracy. Is this a “massive” expense? To put this in context, all the States and the Centre combined incurred an expenditure of nearly ₹30 lakh crore in FY2014. Surely, 0.05% of India’s total annual expenditure is not a large price to pay for the pride of being the world’s largest and most vibrant electoral democracy. The notion that elections are prohibitively expensive is false and misleading.
Code of conduct and polls
•The model code of conduct for elections was agreed to by political parties in 1979, and prohibits the ruling party from incurring capital expenditure for certain projects after elections are announced. If India is indeed embarking on a path of “cooperative federalism” as the Prime Minister also claims, then more such projects will be undertaken by each State and not by the Centre. So, why should elections in one State hinder governance in the rest of the States? And if all political parties still feel the need to reform the code, they are free to do so. The solution is to reform the code and not the electoral cycle.
•Governance paralysis due to State elections is a mere alibi. The real reason is that the two national parties are excessively dependent on their national leaders’ campaigns in State elections, as seen in Gujarat. This is certainly a drain on the Prime Minister’s time and a distraction from governance. Depending on their national leaders is the problem and the prerogative of the national parties. It is not the fault of the electoral system. In the elections in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, in 2016, and where the two national parties and their leaders had a minimal role, nothing stopped the Union government from continuing its governance for the rest of India. Thus it is wrong to conflate the interests of the national parties with those of the “flaws” of the electoral system.
•Diversion of civil staff and disruption of public life were the two other reasons cited, but these sound more like reasons against holding elections in general. Surely, a disruption to public life twice in five years is not a binding constraint in the larger interests of interim accountability. The right of a voter to exercise her choice twice in a span of five years and hold governments accountable is much more important than just casting her vote once and having no option to express her opinion for the next five years. These two reasons are very weak when measured against the costs of limiting electoral opportunities for citizens.
Voter behaviour
•My research on all simultaneous elections to State Assemblies and Parliament between 1999 and 2014 shows that simultaneous elections do have an impact on voter behaviour. These elections comprised 513 million voter choices. In 77% of these constituencies, voters chose the same political party for both State and Centre. When elections were held even six months apart, only 61% chose the same political party. When elections became disparate, there was no evidence of the voter choosing the same party. This analysis is not based on mere headline victory in a State but on vote shares and the winners in each constituency. There is clear empirical evidence that most Indian voters tend to choose the same party when elections are held simultaneously to both Centre and State, with the relationship diminishing as elections are held farther away.
Political autonomy
•Further, simultaneous elections impinge on the political autonomy of States. Today, any elected State government can choose to dissolve its Assembly and call for fresh elections. If elections are to be held simultaneously, States will have to give up this power and wait for a national election schedule. There can be legitimate reasons for State governments to dissolve their Assemblies and call for fresh elections, as should be the case in Tamil Nadu. Under a simultaneous elections regime, the State will be beholden to the Union government for elections to its State, which goes against the very grain of political autonomy under our federal structure.
•There is still much that is wrong with our nation in its governance and elections. But disparate elections to States and Parliament are not one of them. There is much to improve in terms of efficiency of our governance. But “oneness” is not the desired path to efficiency in a diverse polity such as India.
