📰 Four SC judges air differences with CJI Misra
CBI judge Loya was hearing the Sohrabuddin encounter case
•In an unprecedented act, four senior judges of the Supreme Court on Friday held a press conference and publicly accused Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra of selectively assigning cases to judges of his choice without any rational basis.
•Transcending judicial protocol that sitting judges should not interact with the media, Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — the senior-most judges after the CJI — accused Justice Misra of assigning cases of “far-reaching consequences to the nation” to junior hand-picked judges against the time-tested convention, practice and tradition of the court.
•In a letter addressed to the CJI and circulated at the press meet, the four said certain Supreme Court judges arrogated to themselves the “authority to deal with and pronounce upon” cases which ought to be heard by other appropriate Benches. The letter is of October 2017 origin.
Efforts at remedy failed
•Justice Chelameswar, speaking for the four, said they had collectively tried to persuade the Chief Justice to take remedial measures but their efforts failed.
•The judges said that with the independence of the judiciary and the future of democracy at stake, they had “no other choice but communicate to the nation to please take care of this institution.”
•Justice Chelameswar said they decided to act now because they did not want “any wise men to say 20 years later that Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Lokur and Kurian sold their souls and did not take care of the interests of this illustrious institution.”
•He said, “The administration of the Supreme Court is not in order. Many things undesirable have happened in the last few months. As senior-most judges of the court and of this country, we hold a responsibility to the institution and to the nation.”
•Justice Chelameswar recounted that the trigger for the press conference was a meeting they held with the Chief Justice on Friday morning regarding the assignment of a petition, seeking an independent probe into the mysterious death of CBI judge B.H. Loya, to a particular Bench. (Loya was the CBI judge hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheik encounter case).
•The four had expressed their reservations to the CJI about the assignation of the Loya case. But the CJI had refused to budge. They had then informed him of their intention to go public.
•Though Justice Chelameswar did not name the Loya petition, Justice Gogoi, who is scheduled to take over as Chief Justice of India after Chief Justice Misra retires on October 2 this year, spoke up to say the petition is indeed regarding judge Loya’s death. “Yes, yes. It was the Loya case,” Justice Gogoi said. “It is the discharge of our debt to the nation that brought us here. We have discharged our debt to the nation by saying what is what,” he said. The revelation at the press conference came a couple of hours after a Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra heard the Loya petition.
•Without naming any, Justice Chelameswar said that several other important cases like this had been assigned to preferred Benches over the past months. The convention of the court demands that important cases of public interest or sensitive matters should be first heard by the CJI. If the CJI is not willing for some reason to hear the case, it should be assigned to the next senior-most judge in the Supreme Court. Instead of that, such cases have been assigned to certain Benches and eventually given a quiet burial.
•“Unless the institution is preserved and allowed to maintain its dignity, democracy will not survive. The hallmark of a good democracy are independent and impartial judges,” Justice Chelameswar said.
•Highly placed sources in the Supreme Court denied that the CJI was taking decisions in a biased manner. “The CJI’s conscience is clear. All high-profile cases are allocated uniformly to the top four judges.”
‘Not breaking ranks, only doing our duty’
•Justice J. Chelameswar of the Supreme Court denied on Friday that the four judges were breaking ranks by going public with the grievances against Chief Justice Dipak Misra. They were only discharging their responsibility to the nation and asking it to decide, he said.
•Asked if CJI Misra should be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, “Let the nation decide.”
•“Tomorrow is Saturday, then it is Sunday, and on Monday we go back to do our job,” Justice Chelameswar said.
•The judges had finished their roster of cases for the day before meeting at Justice Chelameswar’s residence at noon to hold the press meet. Justice Chelameswar, at 10.30 a.m., addressed the courtroom, saying he would only hear urgent matters and finished hearing them before rising for the day. The Bench led by Chief Justice Misra also rose at noon, saying they would re-convene at 2 p.m. to hear the rest of the cases.
•Justice S.A. Bobde, expected to be Chief Justice in November 2019, is said to have met Justice Chelameswar later in the day.
📰 ISRO workhorse PSLV-C40 puts 31 satellites in space
Focus on building capacity to meet country’s needs
•The 42nd Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), PSLV-C40, was launched successfully on Friday by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) from the First Launch Pad of the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC) in Sriharikota and it placed 31 satellites across two orbits.
•The PSLV, launched at 9.29 a.m., had as its primary payload the country's fourth satellite in the remote sensing Cartosat-2 series, weighing 710 kg. The 30 other co-passenger smaller satellites, together weigh 613 kg. Of them, 28 are from other countries.
•The Cartosat-2, whose imagery will be used to develop various land and geographical information system applications, was placed in a circular polar sun synchronous orbit 505 km from the Earth. The satellite's design life is five years.
Two technology demonstrators
•It is the two other Indian satellites in the payload that have generated much excitement. Both are called technology demonstrators, indicating significant strides in miniaturisation.
•Of the two, one is a microsatellite of the 100 kg class. "This is a technology demonstrator and the forerunner for future satellites of this series," the ISRO said.
•The other one, a nanosatellite, named Indian Nano Satellite (INS) - 1C, is the third in its series; its predecessors were part of the PSLV-C37 launch of February 2017. The INS-1C, whose mission life is six months, carries the Miniature Multispectral Technology Demonstration payload from the Space Applications Centre. "With a capability to carry up to 3 kg of payload and a total satellite mass of 11 kg, it offers immense opportunities for future use," the ISRO said.
•Of the 28 foreign satellites, launched as part of deals made by ISRO's commercial arm Antrix Corporation Limited, three were microsatellites and 25 nanosatellites. There were 19 satellites from the United States and five from South Korea. The United Kingdom, France, Canada and Finland had a satellite each.
•The CMD of Antrix had told The Hindu that the PSLV carried three important proof-of-concept microsats.
•The ISRO had seen its launch of August 31, 2017 being recorded as a failure. The heat shield of PSLV-C39 did not separate, resulting in satellite separation occurring within the shield. It was only the second total failure of the PSLV in nearly 24 years: the PSLV-D1, in its maiden flight, failed on September 20, 1993.
📰 Nepal to use Chinese Internet bandwidth
Move ends India’s monopoly in country
•China on Friday became Nepal’s second Internet service provider, breaking India’s monopoly in providing Internet access to the Himalayan country.
•China Telecom Global (CTG), a company formed in 2012, has teamed up with Nepal Telecom to provide alternative cyber connectivity to Nepal.
•So far, Nepal had been linked to the global internet network through Indian telecom operators, using optical fibre connections in Biratnagar, Bhairahawa and Birgunj, among others.
•But a new terrestrial fibre cable launched in 2016 by CTG will now connect Nepal and China through the Jilong (Rasuwagadhi) border gateway. Media reports in Nepal say the new link extends to China’s Hong Kong Data Center, one of Asia’s largest global data centres.
•Last month, CTG paired with Daily-Tech, a developer and operator of data centre infrastructure across China, and Global Switch, a leading data centre in Europe, to launch a state-of-the art data centre in Hong Kong.
•The Chinese side views its Nepal venture as part of a larger digital network of countries along the New Silk Road. “We want to build a grand corridor and a big platform for telecommunication. I’d call this an ‘information-centred high-speed link’ along the Belt and Road routes. This offers our company a great opportunity.
•This opportunity also belongs to all of our partner companies participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. We can develop together,” says Deng Xiaofeng, CTG’s general manager, in an interview with the state-broadcaster China Global Television Network (CGTN).
•Mr. Deng highlighted that following the Nepal project, CTG has expanded Internet services to Pakistan, Laos and Thailand.
📰 India makes push for U.K. immigration reform
Seek ease of getting visas for students, business travellers
•Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu and Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju, both on visits to the U.K., have pressed the need for Britain to review immigration policies relating to India, including on student visas and the extension of a visa system introduced for Chinese visitors to the U.K.
•The visit comes amid the official confirmation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)in London in April.
•The meetings came as India and Britain agreed to the terms of a memorandum of understanding on the swift return of Indian illegal immigrants from the U.K. — an issue that has been repeatedly raised by the British government and cited as an obstacle to immigration reform on the British side.
•The progress on this issue — the MoU will likely be signed during Mr. Modi’s visit — will be seen as a gesture of goodwill on the Indian side and will strengthen their calls for change on the U.K.
•Among the key asks raised by the Ministers is for the introduction of a two-year visa system for business travellers. Britain introduced the system for Chinese visitors in 2016. Mr. Prabhu said he raised issues both around the ease of getting visas and the costs which could prove prohibitive for the services sector. Costs have been rising amid a toughening of the U.K. policy regime in this area.
•Mr. Rijiju raised issues relating to the two-year visa, as well as students and the treatment of women on spousal visas. The last is a growing issue of concern, amid fears that women who had accompanied partners on spousal visas would be deserted in India, had their visas cancelled.
•Both Ministers expressed their satisfaction with the progress of talks on these issues. “Their response was very positive,” said Mr. Rijiju on Friday. He added that another issue raised was the need for visa-free travel for Indian diplomats in the U.K. Britain remained the only major European country not to bring in this policy, he said.
Trade opportunities
•During the course of his visit, Mr. Prabhu held a number of discussions, including taking part in the 12th India-U.K. Joint Economic and Trade Committee (JETCO) meeting, in which the recommendations of the Joint Working Group on trade were discussed. With Britain unable to commence formal discussions on a trade deal with India till it leaves the EU, the two countries have begun informal talks on the scope of potential trade opportunities through this working group.
•Mr. Prabhu welcomed the progress that had been made in this area, highlighting Britain’s more than doubling of the export finance support to U.K. companies trading with India, and also extending it to Indian buyers of goods and services. He also highlighted progress made on cooperation on advanced manufacturing, SMEs, and energy.
•He said India would be working with Britain on cooperation around new technical innovation when it came to the use of wind, tidal and solar energy, as well as the potential for British firms in this area to set up manufacturing facilities in industrial corridors in India.
•The forthcoming CHOGM meeting also played a big part in discussions, as they sought to infuse the Commonwealth with dynamism. “We must first create wealth otherwise what is common?” he said, arguing there had to be a much greater push for intra-Commonwealth trade, which was about new wealth and opportunities.
•“India is the right candidate we must take leadership in doing that along with our host, the U.K.,” he said. He also highlighted the importance of defending the multilateral trading system. “We now want to take stock and revive the spirit of the WTO,” he said warning against the rise of protectionism globally. “we strongly believe we need to promote trade to bring in economic development.”
📰 Judiciary in turmoil
It is a great misfortune that an internal rift has moved inexorably towards a full-blown crisis
•It is a development that is both momentous and unfortunate. The press conference held by four senior judges of the Supreme Court has exposed an unprecedented level of dissension in the top echelons of the judiciary. It is regrettable that the banner of revolt has been raised in such a public way against the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. Regardless of who is right in the current dispute over the administrative functioning of the CJI, the reverberations of what took place on Friday will not easily subside and will be felt for a long time to come. There was ample evidence over the last few months that the highest court was in a state of ferment; the question is whether it could have been handled internally rather than be dragged into the open like this. Although Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — the seniormost judges after the CJI — did not reveal too many details, it is clear that their grievances are rooted in their perception that Justice Misra is misusing his administrative powers to assign cases “selectively”, disregarding conventions on allocation of judicial work. They have added for good measure that cases with far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution are being assigned to junior judges and Benches “of their preferences”, a suggestion that is being read by some as an ominous reference to an unknown external hand. It ought to be underscored here that the Chief Justice is indeed the master of the roster; even the four judges concede that this is a well-settled law, one that is reflected in a Constitution Bench judgment in 1998. While accepting the rule that the Chief Justice alone can decide the composition of Benches and allot judicial work, they allege that Justice Misra is departing so far from set conventions that it would have “unpleasant and undesirable consequences”, ultimately casting a doubt on the integrity of the institution itself. Logically, this is an internal matter of the judiciary, one that is best settled through deliberations in a full court meeting of all the Supreme Court judges themselves.
•The letter written by the four judges to the Chief Justice, which became available to the media, and the manner in which the press conference played out, suggest that the grievances go much deeper than what was written or said. The germ that led to the outbreak of the current conflict could be the controversial Prasad Education Trust case, in which the petitioners alleged that some individuals were plotting to influence the Supreme Court. In an unusual order, a Division Bench headed by Justice Chelameswar went ahead to delineate the composition of the Bench to hear the case, in which charges of judicial corruption were made, coupled with hints that there would be a conflict of interest if Justice Misra were to hear it. Eventually, a five-judge Bench headed by Justice Misra overturned the order and asserted that the CJI was indeed the master of the roster and that he alone could assign cases and decide on the composition of benches. While there is no questioning who has the power to determine the roster, what the four judges are essentially questioning is how this power has been exercised. Judicial work is primarily allocated based on a roster, and individual cases are allotted to Benches based on the category under which they fall. Once the roster is fixed, the CJI should ordinarily see that it is duly followed. Exceptions must be rare, and that too only for compelling reasons. While it is not clear in how many cases such exceptions were made, the four judges seem to have had an issue over the petition that sought an inquiry into the death of special CBI judge B.H. Loya in 2014 being posted before a particular Bench. The deceased judge was hearing the Sohrabuddin ‘fake encounter’ case, in which BJP president Amit Shah was an accused but later discharged. Given the political sensitivity of the matter, the concern expressed over this case is something that must be squarely addressed in a way that dispels any misgivings.
•As for the government of the day, it must stay steadfastly away from the internal conflict in the judiciary — something that it has professed it will do. Rather than be inexplicably silent, it must disclose its position on the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments and communicate this clearly to the Supreme Court. One of the specific issues raised in the letter written by the four judges relates to this issue. They have suggested that since the Centre had not responded to the MoP, effectively it was deemed to have been accepted. Given this, they have questioned why a two-member Bench had reopened the issue when the matter was already decided by a Constitution Bench.
•Rather than brush away the concerns of the four judges, the Chief Justice must convene a meeting of the full court and give them a patient and careful hearing. Disapproval of the form of their protest must not cloud the substance of their grievances. That four senior Supreme Court judges could have been pushed to take such a drastic and unprecedented step suggests that the differences were allowed to fester and divisions allowed to run deep. Also, that they believed, rightly or otherwise, that their options of settling their differences internally were exhausted. It is best that there is no more airing of differences in public and that this incident is regarded by posterity as an aberration rather than a precedent. About a year ago, the nation was discomfited that the executive and the judiciary were publicly, and often very strongly, disagreeing over judicial appointments. An internal rift in the judiciary is far more serious. It poses the risk of diminishing the image of the judiciary and the esteem it enjoys in society. This institution has illumined national life for more than six decades, but a dark shadow hangs over it now. It is a moment for collective introspection.
📰 Rights in the age of big data
Data protection legislation should be about protecting people, not innovation
•“What do judges know that we cannot teach a computer?” There is a substantial public sentiment that distrusts legal rules and state structures and looks to technology for solutions. After all, many trust their smartphones more than they trust their government. But what may seem as a fairly modern libertarian opinion, voiced in pitch decks and technology conferences, and buoyed by the success of the information economy, has much deeper roots. Such ambitions of a technology centric society were voiced more than forty years ago by John McCarthy, an influential computer scientist and professor at Stanford who coined the term, “artificial intelligence”, and nurtured it into a formal field of research. It was not that such assertions were without prominent challengers, noticeably Joseph Weizenbaum whose 1976 book titled Computer Power and Human Reason put people at the centre of technological progress, rather than being its subjects.
Many concerns
•Debates on permission-less innovation, social leapfrogging facilitated by technology, and challenges to the legal order have now acquired greater urgency without losing any of their polemical flavour, shifting from academia to law-making. Concerns are being voiced this month in several Indian cities by members of the public, civil society groups, academic experts and technologists, think tanks, industry associations and technology companies to a committee headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a former Supreme Court judge, tasked with making recommendations and drafting a data protection law. This committee holds immense promise but a white paper it published, the primary public document on the basis of which public comment is solicited, gives reason for concern.
•The white paper, published late last year, extends into 233 pages and poses 233 distinct questions. While the sheer breadth of the paper poses granular choices, the broader framing of the document proceeds from a premise of weighing the scales between individual rights and technological innovation. The first few pages note the rationale of the committee “to harness the benefits of the digital economy and mitigate the harms consequent to it”.
•Subsequent paragraphs provide further explanation: “Since technologies such as Big Data, the Internet of Things, and Artificial Intelligence are here to stay and hold out the promise of welfare and innovation, India will have to develop a data protection law... to ensure a balance between innovation and privacy.” This framing of a trade-off between the demands of technological innovation and individual rights is a terrible bargain for our future. It presumes to hold both fundamental rights and innovation as somewhat equal, or at the very least as competing values. This appears contrary to the context and the mandate of the committee, as well as principles of individual liberty.
The right to privacy
•The formation of the Justice Srikrishna Committee on data protection was cited by government lawyers in the midst of Supreme Court hearings on the fundamental right to privacy in the Puttaswamy case. This submission was taken note by the Supreme Court of India, most prominently in the judgment authored by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud who observed that a “carefully structured regime for the protection of data” may be created, having “due regard to what has been set out in this judgment”. The judgment itself in previous paragraphs proceeded from a premise of asserting that the right to privacy exists as a natural right inherent in all fundamental rights of the Constitution. At the root of this is the liberty of the individual that finds expression through concepts such as autonomy and dignity — choice and freedom. Justice Chandrachud further noted that privacy has positive and negative features, where it restrains “an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen”, and also requires “an obligation on the state to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual”.
•A joint reading of all the six separate opinions which flow into the heart of the judgment lead to a singular inescapable conclusion. The privacy protections that limit state intrusion and data protection laws should shield individuals rather than commercial interests or technological innovation.
•At this point a concern may arise about the dangers of a legal disruption to innovation. But using individual rights as a foundation is not the same as advocacy of Luddism — and may even be its very opposite. By avoiding a binary bargain between the benefits of rights and technology, a sound legislation would further innovation as a social goal that serves human needs. It would make big data subject to greater legality, the Internet of Things best suited to the Internet of people, and artificial intelligence subject to natural rights. To forge such an understanding, a fundamental acknowledgement has to be forthcoming that technology is a means, and not the end in itself. It must exist and work within the framework of the rule of law. While traditional legal systems are slow to adapt and change, the right regulatory design will prevent pure market mechanisms that concentrate power and cause harm to individuals. Doing otherwise would alert us to a danger as forewarned by Weizenbaum, that “technological inevitability can thus be seen to be a mere element of a much larger syndrome. Science promised man power. But, as so often happens when people are seduced by promises of power, the price extracted… is servitude and impotence. Power is nothing if it is not the power to choose.”
•A practical way to operationalise individual choice in a data protection law is for the Srikrishna Committee to take the benefit of past expert efforts. Most noticeably by the Justice A.P. Shah Committee which a little over five years ago proposed nine privacy principles acting on a “fundamental philosophy” of “ensuring that the privacy of the data subject is guaranteed”. To operationalise these principles and account for “innovation” the A.P. Shah Committee among other things recommended, “the Privacy Act should not make any reference to specific technologies and must be generic enough such that the principles and enforcement mechanisms remain adaptable to changes in society, the marketplace, technology, and the government.” However, such existing recommendations proceed from a clear acknowledgement of data protection protecting individuals and not about protecting innovation, state interests for welfare objectives, or commercial interests of technologists and corporations. To ignore them would be to chart a perilous path that has become apparent over the past few months with wider implementation of Aadhaar.
Constitutionalism as guide
•The Aadhaar project, which aims to usher a data-driven revolution in the private sector and at the same time act as a state policy panacea, has become a topic of continuing public concern. Repeated press reports indicate continuing data breaches, exclusion and theft of benefits, lack of legal remedies and the prospect of profiling and surveillance. Sufficient evidence exists today persuading us to honour constitutionalism, privileging individual rights over innovation. In doing so, we must forsake the artificial reasonableness of a balancing exercise between unequals. Such caution was counselled by Justice Srikrishna himself when he quoted the Garuda Purana in an article critiquing judicial activism to state, “He who forsakes that which is stable in favour of something unstable, suffers doubly; he loses that which is stable, and, of course, loses that which is unstable.”
📰 A perfect storm of uncertainty
The Finance Minister will have to work with very rough revenue estimates while finalising this Budget
•Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and other officials of the Finance Ministry would be feeling the pressure right about now. After all, it’s quite a nerve-racking thing to be flying blind. And make no mistake, that’s precisely what the government is doing going into Budget 2018.
The GST factor
•There are several reasons behind this lack of clarity in the run-up to the Budget. As with several of the problems plaguing the economy currently, the biggest issue is the goods and services tax (GST). However, there are other aspects, some unique to this year, and other more normal, that have meant that the uncertainty has been compounded.
•The immediate aftermath of the complexity of complying with the fledgling GST meant that the government had to very early on extend the various return-filing deadlines, and even do away with the need to file some key forms, which skewed its ability to get a proper handle on the expected revenue from the GST.
•The final set of deadlines for GST filing are such that, come Budget time, the government will only have preliminary data to estimate its revenue position. Companies with an annual turnover of less than ₹1.5 crore had to file their returns for July to September by January 10. Larger companies, with a turnover of more than ₹1.5 crore a year, had to file their returns for the July-November period by January 10.
•Now, not only is this deadline uncomfortably close to the Budget presentation date for the revenue figures to be properly incorporated, but the data period itself is too small to estimate the trend for the year. How is the government expected to estimate how much it stands to earn for the year when the only data it has are for the very first few months of GST implementation?
•After all, the GST Council made sweeping cuts to the GST rates that came into effect on November 15 and which seemed to have sharply hit tax collections. But the final data for that period will not be available for the Budget.
•Add to this the fact that January 10 saw a lot of confusion, since a fake notification started doing the rounds that the government had further extended the deadline to January 15, and the fact that the GST Network portal repeatedly crashed on the day. The GSTN hasn’t released any data yet on the quantum of tax filers, but experts say a large proportion of them are likely to have missed their deadline.
Form filing
•Further compounding this issue is the fact that, in order to ease the compliance burden, the government removed the need to file two key forms — GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 — while filing returns. The way these forms work is that a company files GSTR-1 for outward supplies to other companies, and GSTR-2 for inward supplies. It is only after matching the data in the two forms that the quantum of input tax credits to be refunded to the companies can be computed accurately. Doing away with the GSTR-2 form indefinitely means that there is substantial uncertainty surrounding the quantum of input tax credits to be paid, which again puts the government’s revenue estimates on a shaky footing.
•So, not only does the government have data for only the first three or four months of the GST regime, but even that data are unreliable because input tax credits can’t be matched, rates were drastically changed following that period, and the data are unlikely to reflect all the business activity since many likely missed their filing deadline. All of this makes estimating GST revenue for the next financial year that much tougher.
•But the Budget, of course, has to do with more than simply estimating revenue. It also has to do with planning expenditure. It stands to reason that if a government is having trouble estimating its revenue for the coming year, then its expenditure projections are going to be shaky too. This year, 2017-18, was also the first when the Budget was presented on the earlier date of February 1, for the main purpose of smoothening expenditure across the year and not bunching it towards the end. It’s only at the end of the financial year that we’ll know how this has turned out. Previous years’ trends will not work.
The fiscal deficit
•Taken together, this has a bearing on the fiscal deficit as well. For this year, with GDP growth expected to be slower than what was estimated in the previous Budget, the absolute number for the fiscal deficit will also have to be proportionally smaller. This is a natural process. The fiscal deficit target for the year is 3.2% of GDP. So, if GDP is smaller than estimated, then that 3.2% will also work out be smaller. This gives the government less room for manoeuvre, especially since it has repeatedly committed to the fiscal consolidation path. Chief Statistician of India T.C.A. Anant has also indicated that the GDP data stand to be revised significantly once final GST data come in.
•Most of these issues aren’t the government’s fault, they simply have to do with the various reforms initiated this year. But the end result has been a perfect storm of uncertainty.
📰 Benefits of global trade due to WTO, says Prabhu
‘Trade body is democratic. consensus drives decisions’
•Minister for Commerce and Industry Suresh Prabhu made a strong defence of the World Trade Organisation and the multilateral trading system, and expressed his optimism about tackling the issue of food security, following the impasse at the Buenos Aires WTO meeting in December.
•“The benefits of global trade expansion have happened largely because of the WTO,” said Mr. Prabhu, speaking at the London School of Economics during an official visit to the U.K. this week. The WTO was “democratic, rule-based, transparent and something more unique — no decision can be taken without consensus,” he said contrasting it with the United Nations, and the limited ability of countries to exercise their veto to those within the Security Council. This veto was coming under increasing scrutiny globally, he added.
•The WTO, by contrast, gave all members an equally strong voice, which offered the best choice for taking forward the “expansion of global trade” and “bringing more economic prosperity for people at large” as well as dealing with the issues of poverty and the need for inclusive growth.
‘Easy whipping boy’
•Those who questioned the WTO itself had turned it into an ‘easy whipping boy’, he said. “We need to make sure that this organisation is promoted, protected and taken forward.” This did not mean reforms were not necessary to make it more transparent and effective, he said. Moreover, the WTO and constituent countries had to address the issues of economic development and inclusivity, according to him. “The ultimate aim of economic activity and trade must be economic development,” he said. “if you don’t address issues of development that may be social or human in nature you aren’t dealing with the objective,” he said contrasting the rise in global trade and activity with rising levels of income disparity globally that were “unparalleled.” “If you don’t address development as an issue you will be alienating a large number of people.” He also criticised the global trend towards protectionism, and the emphasis on expanding one’s own export markets. “how can we export at all if everyone says only this?,” he said.
•He said that he hoped the trade ministerial meeting due to take place in New Delhi in March – in the wake of the Buenos Aires meet - would help lead to a way forward. “we will try and bring important countries to discuss and find a way forward to take WTO to new level.”
•On the issue of resolving India’s concerns around protecting food security, and the failure of the Buenos Aires round of talks, he expressed optimism on moving forward. “this cant be an issue in which there is any dispute at all… there should be no reason why there is a problem.”
📰 Inflation quickens to 5.21% on food costs
December retail inflation hits 17-month high
•Inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index accelerated to a 17-month high of 5.21% in December, from November’s 4.88% as food, housing and fuel costs continued to strengthen.
•Economists said quickening retail inflation would likely lead the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to retain its cautious monetary stance.
•“Inflation is being largely driven by housing and vegetables,” said DK Srivastava, Chief Policy Advisor at EY India. “Out of these two, vegetables are a seasonal effect and housing has a large weightage in the index. A more sustained influence is that of rising fuel prices. The present indications are that the RBI will go for long pause in its rate policy.”
•The housing segment saw inflation accelerate for the sixth straight month in December to 8.25%, from 7.36% in November. Inflation in the food and beverages segment quickened to 4.85%, from 4.41%. Within this, inflation in the vegetables segment touched 29.1%, the fastest pace of gains among all items in the food groups.
•Inflation in the clothing and footwear segment eased in December to 4.8%, from 5.04% in the previous month.
•“Inflation has risen on the back of a base effect as the overall index has fallen from the previous month’s level,” Richa Gupta, Senior Economist at Deloitte India, wrote in a note. “The current print is unlikely to lead to any major change in the RBI’s stance in the near term as inflation is likely to head downwards in the second half of the year once the unfavourable base effects wane.”
📰 Goa to host science film festival
•The third Science Film Festival of India (SFFI) will be held here from January 16 to 19.
•The film festival is organised by Vidnyan Parishad, Goa, with an aim to boost the science film making culture of India. The event is supported by the State Department of Science & Technology and the State-owned Entertainment Society of Goa in co-operation with other scientific institutions. The festival will include screening of blockbuster films, sessions and workshops with eminent scientists and competitions.
•The goal of these events and activities is to fuse entertainment and scientific learning in one engaging platform, said Mr. Rajendra Talak, CEO of the ESG.
