📰 Set procedure to vet NRC claims: Supreme Court
Court asks authorities not to act against 40 lakh people left out of draft
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed authorities to not initiate any ‘action’ against 40 lakh persons left out of the draft Assam National Register of Citizens (NRC) published on July 30.
•The Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman ordered the government, in consultation with State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela, to frame a ‘fair’ standard operating procedure (SOP) to deal with the claims and objections of those who did not find their names in the draft NRC.
•Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal informed the court that the Ministry concerned is working out the modalities of the SOP, which would “deal with the different dimensions of the exercise of hearing the claims and objections to ensure that the process is fair.”
•Mr. Venugopal submitted that once the modalities are worked out, the SOP would be placed before the court by mid-August.
•The AG submitted that the government is developing biometrics so that even if a declared foreigner escapes to another State, he or she would be caught there.
•“We do not want to say anything about all that now. Now, we want everybody to get a fair opportunity, considering the complexities and numbers, etc, involved. You (government) place it before us. If it is fair, we will approve. If not, we will disapprove. If there is anything missing, we will fill it,” Justice Gogoi told Mr. Venugopal.
•At one point, Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Hajela about “reading somewhere that the date for publishing the final NRC is December 31” this year. But Mr. Hajela denied this. “We have not fixed any date. It is for the court to fix a date. It (December 31) was only for the purpose of budgeting,” he said.
•When asked ‘what ahead’, Mr. Hajela said time has been given till August 7 for people to ascertain their names in the NRC. From August 8, those excluded can approach the Local Registrar or the NRC Sewa Kendras to find out the reasons for their non-inclusion. Their claims and objections would be heard from August 30 to September 28.
•Mr. Venugopal submitted that the government is “extremely concerned” about the next few days. He submitted that no coercive action would be taken against persons who have not figured in the draft NRC. The government attempted to even seek some assurance from the court.
•“Well, we do not give assurances to anyone, we only pass orders. But we want fair opportunity for all,” Justice Gogoi observed.
•The Bench said, at the moment, it would prefer to refrain from commenting on the draft NRC and wait for the government to submit its SOP for vetting.
•“Our silence now is neither consent nor objection nor assurance,” Justice Gogoi observed.
Case posted for Aug. 16
•The court posted the case for August 16 for further orders on timelines leading to the publication of the final NRC. The much-anticipated second and final draft of the NRC shows 2.9 crore names out of the total 3.29 crore who applied in Assam.
•The names of 40.07 lakh applicants were not included in the historic document, considered proof of Assamese identity. The first draft NRC was published in the intervening night of December 31 and January 1 and showed the names of 1.9 crore people.
📰 Numbing numbers: on draft NRC
To begin with, the claims of those left out in the NRC must be heard carefully, humanely
•At upwards of four million, the number of those excluded from the second draft of the National Register of Citizens published on Monday has sparked great anxiety about the legal status of so many individuals. As with the first list published on December 31, 2017, the publication of the final draft before the Supreme Court-mandated and monitored exercise moves to the next phase of claims and objections wasn’t accompanied by major turbulence. And this despite lingering doubts over whether the process was indeed foolproof, or even warranted. Causes for concern have been aplenty, from the frenetic pace to meet deadlines in the face of an unrelenting apex court to the omission in July of 1,50,000 names from the 19 million that had made it to the first draft. Monday’s list again had its share of notable omissions, including serving and former legislators. Given such a gargantuan exercise, it is to the credit of the NRC bureaucracy and its 55,000-odd workforce that timelines have been adhered to. But even a skilfully devised system of digitised mapping of family trees is subject to human interface, subjective bias, and the inherent flaws in the NRC of 1951 and the electoral rolls of 1961 and 1971 that make up the core of the ‘legacy data’.
•The state owes it to those now left out, a staggering 40,07,707 persons, to ensure that their claim to citizenship is exhausted in its procedural entirety. But it also has a larger responsibility — to ensure that people who have lived here a long time, or those who know no other home, are not left high and dry in any eventuality. On that front, the Central and State governments must step up their assurances that there is no need for panic. While the modalities of a standard operating procedure for claims and objections are being worked out, to be placed before the Supreme Court by mid-August, the window for contestation could be extended by a month beyond September 28. The Union Home Ministry has also tweaked rules to enable applicants to move the Foreigners’ Tribunal, where earlier only the state could haul up a suspected alien before it. Bigger challenges lie ahead, especially after the final NRC list determines the precise number of deemed illegal immigrants; the state then has to grapple with what to do next. How India addresses the fate of those eventually left off the list will ascertain whether its democracy can lay claim to being humane or not. It is one thing to detain and deport illegal immigrants instantly when they cross the border. But when people have been allowed (or they have managed) to be in India for so long, when they have built their lives and become part of local economies and communities, they cannot and must not be rendered state-less on the basis of a list.
📰 Friends or Seoul-mates?
With the U.S. and China playing power politics, South Korea looks to India as a viable alternative partner
•South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s four-day state visit to India early last month came at a time when Mr. Moon’s administration is seeking to upgrade India-South Korea relations.
•It was evident when Mr. Moon launched a foreign initiative called New Southern Policy last year that he had decided to step up Seoul’s engagement with India and the ASEAN countries. That this new engagement had a strategic element was seen when he sent a special envoy to India immediately after assuming office. That step was a first in the annals of South Korea’s diplomatic history, and it demonstrated its desire to shape a new paradigm of Seoul-New Delhi relations.
•Additionally, this year, South Korea set up a state-run research centre on India and ASEAN under the Korea National Diplomacy Academy, which is tasked with establishing a theoretical foundation for the Moon administration’s vision to diversify strategic partnerships across the Asian region.
•What lies behind Seoul’s reimagined diplomatic posture towards India? In recent times, South Korea has been heavily impacted by power politics between the U.S. and China. The clash between the two countries over the deployment of the U.S. Thaad missile defence system in the Korean Peninsula set off an economic retaliation by China against South Korea, whose economy is highly dependent on the Chinese market. Further, the ongoing U.S.-China trade war has heightened uncertainty surrounding South Korea’s core economic interests. This has led to Seoul reassessing risks associated with economic turbulence stemming from Chinese policies, which is a threat to the national security of South Korea in some cases.
•To escape the power politics in Northeast Asia, South Korean policymakers believe that Seoul should diversify its relations with other major powers in the region, including India which they see as a viable alternative partner. During his meeting with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Mr. Moon pointed out that his government wished to elevate relations with India to the same level as with other major powers in the world — namely, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia.
•There are multiple dimensions to the uptick in India-South Korea strategic ties, including working together on ensuring freedom of navigation, overflight and unimpeded lawful commerce in the Indo-Pacific region; South Korea backing India’s bid for Nuclear Suppliers Group membership, especially when New Delhi has faced sustained opposition from China; and both nations working with third countries on a tripartite basis for regional development, exemplified by plans for capacity-building programmes in Afghanistan. Given the immense potential for cooperation to bring about real change that could benefit India, South Korea and the broader region, Mr. Moon’s visit signals a deepening of bilateral ties driven by mutual strategic interest.
📰 Rajasthan first State to implement biofuel policy
Will lay emphasis on increasing production of oilseeds
•Rajasthan has become the first State in the country to implement the national policy on biofuels unveiled by the Centre in May this year. The desert State will lay emphasis on increasing production of oilseeds and establish a Centre for Excellence in Udaipur to promote research in the fields of alternative fuels and energy resources.
•The policy on biofuels seeks to help farmers dispose of their surplus stock in an economic manner and reduce the country’s oil import dependence. It has expanded the scope of raw material for ethanol production by allowing use of sugarcane juice, sugar containing materials, starch containing materials and damaged foodgrains like wheat, broken rice and rotten potatoes for ethanol production.
•Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Minister Rajendra Rathore said here on Tuesday that a biodiesel plant of the capacity of 8 tonnes a day had already been installed in the State with the financial assistance of the Indian Railways. The State government would promote marketing of biofuels and generate awareness about them, he said.
•While approving the policy on biofuels for implementation in the State at a meeting of the high-power Biofuel Authority, Mr. Rathore said the Biofuel Rules, 2018, would shortly be brought into effect.
•The Minister said the State Rural Livelihood Development Council would also encourage women’s self help groups to explore the scope for additional income through the supply of biodiesel.
📰 A fundamental error
The Srikrishna report on data protection misinterprets the Supreme Court’s right to privacy judgment
•Anniversaries can be reasons to celebrate the present or reminisce about our past. When we do the latter, it is a call to memory, often signifying an unfulfilled promise and a preference for nostalgia. August 24 will mark the first anniversary of the unanimous affirmation of the right to privacy by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The court imposed upon the government a clear obligation to make a law safeguarding a person’s informational privacy, commonly referred to as data protection. The right to privacy judgment, which had six separate opinions that converge into a unanimous decision, noted in the words of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul that the Union government had tasked a committee headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna to formulate such a law in July last year. This committee has produced a set of recommendations that run into 213 pages, and a draft law titled the “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018” running into 112 sections. Despite being formed within the ambit of, and even being bound by, the Right to Privacy judgment, the recommendations do not only undermine the legal principles within it but also re-interpret them.
Two key points
•While this claim may seem provocative, it is based on a reading of the privacy judgment. First, it expressly stated the primacy of the individual as the beneficiary of fundamental rights. Second, it rejected the argument that the right to privacy dissolves in the face of amorphous collective notions of economic development. The priorities of the Srikrishna committee stray from these two basic points. Its report, titled “A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians”, keeps to the apparent pecking order that its title signals: the common good and the economy come first and individuals second. In justifying this framework, the report runs into tremendous difficulties as it attempts to put together a regulatory agenda that reconciles the expansion of the digital economy and state control with the principles of the right to privacy judgment.
•These difficulties reveal themselves in a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of constitutional law. These are made all the more difficult to follow by the heavy use of jargon and a reliance on foreign and academic authorities, which are often cited without proper context. The trouble begins with the report’s conception of the state. The state’s purpose under the Constitution, says the report, is “based on two planks”. First and foremost, “the state is a facilitator of human progress” and is “commanded” by the Directive Principles of State Policy “to serve the common good”. Here, Fundamental Rights, which help protect against a state “prone to excess”, come “second”. This ignores the very structure of the Constitution in which the chapter guaranteeing enforceable Fundamental Rights stands on its own, preceding the one setting out unenforceable Directive Principles of State Policy.
•In doing the so, the report attempts to open the right to privacy to allow the state the most convenient means by which to realise its regulatory agenda. Enabling the government’s convenience is not an objective laid out by the right to privacy judgment. Constitutional guarantees of rights do not automatically bend even to the pursuit of constitutionally legitimate aims. Instead, a rigorous three-part test set out in the right to privacy judgment makes clear that it is for the government to measure and justify its actions at every point that it seeks to make inroads into our privacy.
•To justify its priorities, the report proceeds on the premise that upends the historical consensus of what Constitutions and rights exist to do: protect every citizen of the republic against incursions into the vast repository of freedoms that exist naturally. The report says that “to see the individual as an atomised unit, standing apart from the collective, neither flows from our constitutional framework nor accurately grasps the true nature of rights litigations. Rights (of which the right to privacy is an example) are not deontological categories that protect interests of atomised individuals.” Then, it proceeds to conclude, “Thus the construction of a right itself is not because it translates into an individual good, be it autonomy, speech, etc. but because such good creates a collective culture where certain reasons for state action are unacceptable.” Much of this language is inscrutable to even the legally trained mind.
•To the extent that its import can be made out, the argument seems to be a strained, convoluted and ultimately unconvincing attempt to re-litigate the case of the government in the right to privacy issue. To the report’s view that the individual ought not to be the spotlighted while making a law, the right to privacy judgment is in stark contrast. In Justice S.A. Bobde’s words, “Constitutions like our own are means by which individuals – the Preambular ‘people of India’ – create ‘the state’, a new entity to serve their interests and be accountable to them.” Moreover, in Justice Chandrachud’s words: “The individual is the focal point of the Constitution because it is in the realisation of individual rights that the collective well being of the community is determined.”
Too much jargon
•It is the report’s approach to rights that is perhaps of most concern for the health of our democracy. Its statement that rights are not “deontological categories” is both unnecessarily complicated in its wording and patently untrue in its content. By using language like this, the report, already a technical document published only in English, alienates ordinary Indians from engaging with a subject of real significance to each of us. Our fundamental rights, whether to speech, equality or practice our religion or profession, are all essential facets that make life worth living and are held up by the right to privacy with regard to information about us. In stating that rights are not things which are essential in themselves is an unacceptable position to take under our Constitution. In fact, in the right to privacy judgment, Justice J. Chelameswar approves of the principle that liberty — which is the family to which the right to privacy belongs — is valuable in a democracy not only as a means but as an end in itself.
Reframing the right
•It is not often that nine judges of the Supreme Court assemble and pronounce a unanimous judgment without dissent. The promise of such a holding becomes more critical when it concerns the liberty of individuals and an attempt to correct an imbalance of power which exists against them. This is why the right to privacy judgment was celebrated last year. It signified hope that things could get better, that values of freedom, autonomy and dignity would be realised. However, the Srikrishna Report shows that the danger to a high constitutional principle may more often be that it is disregarded, rather than that it is disobeyed. By re-framing and re-interpreting the right to privacy, the report entrenches the positions of the two entities which already wield the most power over ordinary Indians: corporations and the government. As time passes, we will have many opportunities to look back to the day when the Supreme Court declared the fundamental right to privacy. When we do, we should feel relief rather than regret.
📰 The public-private gap in health care
Policymakers have shown no inclination to provide equitable medical care
•The recent controversy about transparency in the working of the cadaver transplant programme in Tamil Nadu has provided an opportunity to revisit the vexed question of medical rationing in India.
•It is a hard reality that not all medical interventions are available to every citizen who may need it. The gap between what is technologically possible and what government hospitals generally provide widened appreciably after the technological leaps in medical care began, starting in the 1980s.
Covert medical rationing
•The NITI Aayog’s document, ‘Three Year Action Agenda, 2017-18 to 2019-20’, has a section on health care. One of the recommendations is for the government to prioritise preventive care rather than provide curative care. The document also advises the government to pay attention to stewardship of the health sector in its entirety rather than focussing on provision of health care. Therefore, the system of private health care for those who can afford it and government care for those who cannot will continue in the foreseeable future.
•Every government since Independence has stated egalitarianism as its goal in health care. The policies, however, have not matched the statements. Many interventions, especially those which are very expensive, continue to be provided only to those who can pay for them. This is medical rationing of the covert kind. Token provision of these interventions in a few government hospitals is merely an attempt by governments to appear fair.
•The new Ayushman Bharat health scheme to provide secondary and tertiary care to those who are socio-economically deprived has a cap of ₹5 lakh per family per year. It is quite obvious that many interventions cannot be accessed for this amount, certainly not human organ transplants.
•Transplanting a human organ is not a single event, but a life-long process. The actual act of transplantation itself needs expensive infrastructure and trained human resources. For the continuing success of the transplanted organ, expensive medication is needed. It is a sad truth that in India, out-of-pocket expenses for medical care are about 70% of all medical expenditure, and this particular intervention is only going to be available to those who can pay.
Inequitable medical rationing
•Health care in India is obviously not egalitarian, but is it at least equitable? The evidence suggests otherwise. Governments have been giving subsidies to private players, especially to corporate hospitals. The repeated boast that India can offer advanced interventions at a fraction of the costs in the West does not take into account the cost of the subsidies that makes this possible. Since it is all taxpayers’ money, it is a clear case of taking from the poor to give to the rich. In an illuminating article, “Investing in health”, in the Economic and Political Weekly (November 11, 2017), Indira Chakravarthi and others pointed out that private hospital chains in India have entered every segment of medical care, including primary and secondary care and diagnostics. Most have large investors from abroad and some are effectively controlled by foreign investors. In short, taxpayers’ money is being used to ensure profits for foreigners.
•Successive governments have been increasingly dependent on the private sector to deliver health care. The Ayushman Bharat scheme is a further step in this process. The benefit to patients is questionable but private players will see a large jump in profits. It will further institutionalise medical rationing by explicitly denying certain interventions — a “negative list” presumably of procedures which will not be covered, which is not yet in the public domain.
The problem of distrust
•Besides being inequitable, medical rationing has other detrimental effects. One is a distrust of the public in government hospitals. The poor expect to get from them what the rich get in private hospitals. With present policies, this is simply not possible. Without a clearly defined mandate, morale among medical personnel in public hospitals is low. The perception that doctors in the private sector are much better than those in the public sector has a severe debilitating effect on the professional image of medical personnel in public hospitals. Attempts by doctors to provide these high technology interventions in public hospitals is bound to fail without continuing commitment from policymakers; it is quite clear from policy documents, which doctors and the public do not read, that such commitment will not be forthcoming.
•Our hearts tell us that every possible medical intervention should be available to every citizen. Our minds tell us that the government is not committed to this. The only pressure group which can ensure at least equitable medical care is the electorate. Until such time as it demands this from governments, we will continue to witness the tragic drama of two levels of medical care in India.
📰 Centre imposes 25% safeguard duty on import of solar cells
New tariff applicable to shipments from China, Malaysia; effective till July 29, 2019
•The Centre on Monday issued a notification putting into effect a safeguard duty of 25% on import of solar cells from China and Malaysia between July 30, 2018, and July 29, 2019.
•The duty reduces to 20% for six months from July 30, 2019, and further to 15% in the subsequent half year.
•The decision by the government follows a long deliberation by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies, which recommended the safeguard duty structure after considering an application by Indian solar cell manufacturers.
•The subsequent 20% duty on “solar cells whether or not assembled in modules or panels” will apply on imports from China and Malaysia during the period July 30, 2019, to January 29, 2020, (both days inclusive), and the 15% duty will kick in during the period from January 30, 2020, to July 29, 2020 (both days inclusive).
•While the move is aimed at helping the domestic solar cell manufacturing sector, it could affect existing projects dependent on cheap imports, said analysts.
₹3 per unit
•“The solar bid tariffs largely remained below ₹3 per unit in calendar year 2018 varying between ₹2.44 per unit and ₹2.75 per unit, with expectation of favourable price movement in PV modules following the policy changes in China,” Sabyasachi Majumdar, group head — corporate ratings, ICRA, wrote in a note to clients.
•“The imposition of safeguard duty is likely to increase the bid tariffs to ₹2.9-3.1 per unit for the upcoming bids,” he wrote.
