📰 Reforming the civil services
The lateral entry scheme has the potential to bring fresh talent to the bureaucracy
•A recent move by the Centre seeking applications from ‘outstanding individuals’ to fill in 10 posts of Joint Secretary has caused consternation. A retired bureaucrat has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the decision. The response from applicants, however, has been overwhelming.
Some apprehensions
•Many serving Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers see this move as threatening their hegemony. Some retired officers and political opponents consider this as the beginning of the end of a “neutral and impartial” civil service with the likely induction of loyalists to the current dispensation. It has also been argued that this marks the “privatisation of the IAS”. Doubts have been expressed if private business houses would “plant” their people in order to influence government policies. But the fact remains that most others think this is a bold decision that should be given a fair trial.
•Since criticism is based on perception, a reality check is necessary. In our Cabinet system of government with collective responsibility, the secretariat plays a crucial role. The concept of a ‘generalist’ higher civil service can be contextualised against technical/specialised bodies on one side and the lay political executive on top. Political scientists like Prof. M.A. Muttalib have studied this aspect in their works on public administration.
How the Secretariat functions
•Higher bureaucracy in the secretariat often has to examine proposals received from specialised departments/corporations (say, the Central Public Works Department, Central Water Commission, various Central public sector undertakings, manned largely by technical experts), and in consultation with other ministries/departments like Finance, Personnel and Law prepare a cohesive note to facilitate the Minister concerned or the Cabinet to take a final decision. This is a complex consultative process for which detailed procedures have been formulated. How to steer a proposal through this labyrinth requires both expertise and experience. A final government decision is obtained, after the file moves through this long internal and hierarchical process, when the proposal is approved. The key officials in the secretariat, from the Joint Secretary to the Secretary, are the point persons guiding this consultative process and advising the political executive to take a final call. How an abstract idea is to be given a concrete, implementable shape is one key concern of such officers.
•A Joint Secretary to the government has this crucial “line” function to perform in policy formulation and its implementation. Though the original proposal is often prepared by technical experts and sent to the “government”, the final decision rests with the Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary, the Secretary and finally the Minister/Cabinet. The question often raised, in this context, is whether the higher bureaucracy is equipped to comprehend complex economic and technical issues in order to properly aid and advise the Minister. Can a career civil servant, recruited through a tough competitive examination, cope with the increasingly complex matrix of decision-making at the senior levels of government? Can an IAS officer, however brilliant and diligent she might be, based on her experience at the sub-district and district levels, handle diverse portfolios from civil aviation to power to defence? These are valid questions that have been raised from time to time.
Generalist v. specialist
•Evidently, terms like “professionalism”, “specialisation”, and “technical expertise” are often used vaguely and inter-changeably. Doesn’t an IAS officer, after years of experience at the field level, become an expert in public systems? Can the expertise of a doctor or an engineer be of the same nature as that of a policeman or an auditor? Can a renowned oncologist, for example, be suitable to advise on how the health policy of the nation is to be formulated? How valid is the observation to ‘keep experts on tap, not on top’? Admittedly, concerted efforts should be made to help IAS officers, after their first decade of “immersion” in districts, acquire specialisation in broad sectors like social, infrastructure and financial, based on their qualification, aptitude and preference. This idea had never been pursued seriously.
•Specialists like engineers, doctors, agricultural scientists, lawyers have always had a substantial say in the decision-making process as also in its implementation. Lateral entry at the level of Secretary has met with some success. Besides, Secretaries to the Departments of Atomic Energy, Science & Technology, Scientific and Industrial Research, Health Research, and Agricultural Research have always been scientists of eminence. Similarly, in departments like the Railways, Posts, etc., all senior positions are manned by Indian Railway or Postal Service officers. Therefore, there is nothing very original in the new initiative to allow entry at the level of Joint Secretary.
•However, those inside the system feel threatened that their territory is under assault. One perceived fear is that the number of such lateral entrants may be increased with time and that the political leadership, by creating a ‘divide and rule’ mechanism, would further demoralise the ‘steel frame of governance’. The second related fear is that in the garb of recruiting outstanding individuals, politically indoctrinated persons will be inducted into the system. These fears could have been allayed by letting the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) handle the recruitment process, after defining the job requirements more explicitly.
•The government must ensure that only candidates, the likes of whom are not available in the existing system, are appointed. If they turn out to be truly outstanding, there should be provisions to induct them permanently in the government, with approval of the UPSC, and consider them for higher postings. Ideas have also been advanced for IAS and other officers to gain work experience, for a limited period, in the private sector.
•The government should have the best people at the helm of affairs and if there is a need to supplement the existing stock of talent by attracting fresh blood into the system, the IAS, in fact, should welcome such an inclusionary move. The automatic mode of every member of the higher services reaching the top echelons requires a hard look. In view of this recent move, it is hoped that IAS and other officers will introspect why many of them turn out to be indulgent, self-serving and subservient to the political executive and how the system can be shaken to discourage such officers from ceaselessly moving upward, even after retirement. This move to reform the services should have come from within than from without. The lateral entry scheme, if implemented properly, may foster more competitive spirit, break the complacency of the higher civil servants and eventually prove to be a pioneering initiative in public interest.
📰 ‘Jail term for adultery does not make sense’
•Sending a person to prison for five years for adultery does not appeal to common sense, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra orally observed on Wednesday.
•Adultery does not even qualify as a criminal offence and is, at the most, a civil wrong, he said, heading a five-judge Constitution Bench. He said adultery has a civil remedy: divorce.
•First, an adulterous relationship is carried on with the consent of the woman. “If a third party attacks or molests the wife of another, it amounts to rape. Rape is an offence. But if a relationship is carried with the consent of the woman, how does it amount to an offence? If there is consent [between two adults], why punish the wife’s lover?” Chief Justice Misra asked.
•The Bench was countering submissions by the Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor-General Pinky Anand, that adultery should remain in the Indian Penal Code as it ensures the sanctity of the marriage, and is for public good. “Protecting marriage is the responsibility of the couple involved. If one of them fails, there is a civil remedy available to the other. Where is the question of public good in a broken marriage,” Chief Justice Misra asked Ms. Anand.
•Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that there might be cases in which adultery was a consequence of a broken marriage.
•Justice Indu Malhotra pointed out that there might be cases in which the couple would have been staying separate for decades, waiting for a divorce decree, and the husband could foist a case of adultery on his estranged wife’s paramour to trouble her.
•Section 497 gives a husband the exclusive right to prosecute his wife’s lover. A similar right is not conferred on a wife to prosecute the woman with whom her husband has committed adultery.
•Secondly, the provision does not confer any right on the wife to prosecute her husband for adultery.
•Further, Section 497 does not take into account cases in which the husband has sexual relations with an unmarried woman.
•Ms. Anand said the government was planning to make adultery gender-neutral. But the court countered what good would that do if a consensual relationship, though adulterous, between two adults was still considered a crime.
•Justice Chandrachud asked the Centre why it was always the woman’s burden to maintain the “sanctity of marriage.” “You exact fidelity from the wife, but not from the husband. A woman has to remain loyal, but there is no need for a man to be loyal to his wife. Sexual fidelity applies only to a married woman,” he said.
📰 An Article on J&K
Why Article 35A is in the news
•As the Supreme Court begins looking into the validity of Article 35A, protests erupted in Jammu and Kashmir against the Article being altered. A look at what the Article is about.
What is it?
•Article 35A is a provision incorporated in the Constitution through a Presidential Order, and not by parliamentary debate, giving the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature a complete say in deciding who the ‘permanent residents’ of the State are. The State Legislature can grant its permanent residents special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property, scholarships and other public aid and welfare programmes within the State.
How did the Article come about?
•It was incorporated into the Constitution in 1954 by an order of President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 1954 followed the 1952 Delhi Agreement entered into between Prime Minister Nehru and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah extending Indian citizenship to the ‘State subjects’ of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 35A was added to the Constitution as a testimony of the special consideration the Indian government accorded the ‘permanent residents’ of Jammu and Kashmir.
•The Presidential Order was issued under Article 370(1)(d), which allows the President to make certain “exceptions and modifications” to the Constitution for the benefit of Jammu and Kashmir. However Article 368(i) of the Constitution mandates that only the Parliament can amend the Constitution by introducing a new article.
Why is it in the news?
•Over 60 years after the Article came into existence, the Supreme Court has decided to go into the question whether the provision violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
•Writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court argue that the Article is violative of fundamental rights of equality and equal treatment enshrined in the Constitution as it restricts citizens from other States from getting employment or buying property within Jammu and Kashmir. The writ petitions also point out that any act of the State Legislature made under Article 35A is final and binding.
•A three-judge Bench is currently hearing whether the petitions challenging Article 35A should be referred to a Constitution Bench for an in-depth examination. If referred, the Constitution Bench would look into questions like whether the President acted outside his jurisdiction or whether the fact of non-consultation with the Parliament renders the Article invalid.
•The J&K government banks on a 1961 judgment by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Puranlal Lakhanpal v. The President of India. This verdict concludes that the President has the power to modify the Constitution when making it applicable to Jammu and Kashmir.
📰 New breastfeeding policy comes into effect in Rajasthan
For encouraging its promotion among rural communities
•A new breastfeeding policy has come into effect in Rajasthan for encouraging the rural communities to promote exclusive breastfeeding along with its early initiation. The initiative has been taken as part of the National Nutrition Mission-2022 on conclusion of the World Breastfeeding Week observed between August 1 and 7.
•Releasing the policy at Swasthya Bhavan here on Wednesday, Medical and Health Minister Kali Charan Saraf cited the figures of the National Family Health Survey-4, stating that the early initiation of breastfeeding in the State was only at 28.4%, while only 58% infants were able to exclusively breastfeed during the first six months of their lives.
•Mr. Saraf called upon the mothers, family members, medicos and paramedical staff to contribute for promotion of breastfeeding by adopting the methods laid down in the policy.
•The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which has been working with the State government on the fronts of maternal and child health care, said the initiative should be utilised for reducing infant and neonatal mortality and improving children’s immunity towards infections. The policy is also expected to meet the nutritional needs of young children.
•UNICEF nutrition specialist Minakshi Singh expressed the hope that the policy, jointly developed by the Department of Women and Child Development and National Health Mission, would ensure “more intensive work” towards improving the current breastfeeding rates.
Low percentage
•Ms. Singh said while the State had made an impressive progress in institutional deliveries, which were currently at 86.6%, the early initiation of breastfeeding was low despite having doubled over the last 10 years. Exclusive breastfeeding during the first six months has also doubled during the last decade, as it was only 33.2% in NFHS-3.
•The new policy stipulates initiation of breastfeeding within an hour inside the labour room, supporting mothers to ensure the continued exclusive breastfeeding and counselling till two years of the child's age.
📰 Going by the numbers: shortfall in GST revenue collection
The complexity of the GST process is hindering collections and diminishing potential economic benefits
•A little over a year after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rollout, the revenue collections from the new indirect regime are at the centre of a debate. A member of the GST Council estimates a “shortfall” in the April-June quarter of this year at ₹43,000 crore. The Union Finance Secretary reportedly shot off a missive to Central tax officials over the lower number of returns filed under the Central GST (CGST), compared to the number filed under the State GST (SGST).
Gap in levies
•The collection trends released evidently defy logic. The SGST and the CGST are applied at the same rate on the identical tax base. Logically, the two levies should yield equal revenue collections. But SGST collections over the past several months have been consistently exceeding CGST collections.
•Then, in April, the beginning of this financial year, both CGST and SGST collections dropped and Integrated GST (IGST) collections took off sharply. In each of the months since then, IGST collections have overshot CGST and SGST collections.
•Why is the Centre’s GST collection falling behind that of the States’ and why have the IGST collections shot up? The trends are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. First, let’s understand these distinct levies.
•Insecure over loss of fiscal autonomy, the States succeeded in pressing a GST that is made of two types of levies, the CGST and the SGST. The Constitution empowers the Centre to tax sales anywhere nationally, but it allows a State to collect taxes only on sales within its territory. So, all 29 States and two Union Territories with legislatures have separately enacted their respective SGSTs. The SGSTs have almost identical features and rates — to prevent tax arbitrage across States — but in effect, they are distinct SGSTs. This complicates the collection and refunds processes and system.
•The GST is being levied at the point of consumption, not the factory gate, unlike many of the levies it has subsumed. Given the territorially limited tax jurisdictions of States, the collection of the SGST poses a problem every time goods and services get sold outside the State they were produced in. The solution that has been worked out to overcome this problem is the IGST. It is imposed on inter-State sales.
•Logically, the IGST ought to be imposed as a substitute for the SGST such that the GST equals the SGST plus CGST for intra-State sales and IGST plus the CGST for inter-State sales. In practice, needless complications have been introduced into the IGST.
•On inter-State sales, the IGST, at a rate equal to the applicable CGST and SGST, is levied. This means, despite its national tax jurisdiction, the Centre has confined the levy of the CGST to intra-State sales.
•A selling dealer in an exporting State collects the IGST from the buying dealer. The GSTN credits it to the IGST account. Of this, the part corresponding to the CGST is transferred immediately to the Centre. The balance is not all SGST revenue. It includes amounts to be refunded through a settlement process that can take months.
•Some of the refunds are on account of input tax credits that the purchasing dealer in the importing State draws from this balance. (Tax paid on capital goods that go into making final products is supposed to be fully set off. This is to avoid cascading taxation.)
•Because the IGST collection and refunds system is ungainly, estimating GST revenue cannot be a straightforward exercise. Although it is confused to be so, not all the IGST collected is GST revenue.
•By design, the number of refunds required is more than necessary. Such as in case of exports. To avoid exporting taxes, no GST is to be levied on exports out of India. In practice, despite their GST-exempt status, exporters first pay the IGST and then it is refunded back to them. The excuse for this convoluted system is the need for a way to refund the input taxes exporters pay on components.
•In effect, the GST system processes a whole set of IGST payments only to refund them — not an international best practice. Suppliers to exporters and SEZs are compulsorily required to register in the GST system even if they do not fall in the GST threshold. This has needlessly increased the working capital and compliance costs burden on exports. The systemic loss of export competitiveness is showing up in the country’s trade balance.
•Letters of undertaking or bonds can be submitted in lieu of IGST payments, but they increase exporters’ vulnerability to bureaucratic rent-seeking.
The way out
•The recommendation for introducing a GST had first come in 2004 from a task force formed by the Vajpayee government under economist Vijay Kelkar. The Modi government has consulted Mr. Kelkar on the GST, but has not accepted his recommendations on an alternative IGST system compliant with global norms. By these, the IGST would be simplified as a substitute for SGST in inter-State supplies, and exporters, while not subjected to the IGST, would be truly zero-rated. The NITI Aayog, it seems, concurs with this proposal.
•The focus on GST collections is narrow. Collections are not necessarily proof of the success, or non-success, of an indirect tax. In truth, the complexity of the GST is complicating collections and diminishing the potential benefits. The economic impact of the GST ought to be the focus.
📰 Decoding the DNA Bill
Important safeguards are needed
•The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2018 has been introduced in India’s Parliament this week, with a view to creating a national DNA database for use by the police in solving crimes and identifying missing persons.
•Although DNA can be an important tool here, in solving crimes, it is important that there are safeguards to protect human rights and prevent miscarriages of justice. Further, creating large databases is often not a cost-effective way to solve more crimes, and limited resources must be targeted effectively.
•The Forensic Genetics Policy Initiative published its report, “Establishing Best Practice for Forensic DNA Databases”, last year after extensive consultation and a review of policies worldwide. A comparison with the DNA Bill reveals a number of important issues.
•First, using DNA effectively during criminal investigations requires proper crime scene examination, trained and reliable policing, a trusted chain of custody of samples, reliable analysis, and proper use of expert evidence in court. Without these prerequisites, a DNA database will exacerbate rather than solve problems in the criminal justice system: for example, by leading to miscarriages of justice through (false matches or misinterpretation or planting of evidence, and diverting resources) from more important priorities.
•The Home Ministry circulated a set of guidelines to States in July on how to search crime scenes and collect, store and transport DNA samples in criminal cases. However, it is not yet clear whether these guidelines will be effective. Because many errors occur before samples get to the laboratory, the requirement for laboratory accreditation in the Bill should include quality assurance for crime scene examination. Consideration should be given to an independent forensic science regulator to ensure oversight of both laboratory quality assurance and crime scene examination. There is also a need for elimination databases for police, crime scene examiners and laboratory workers, whose DNA may contaminate the evidence they touch.
•The Bill’s proposed DNA Regulatory Board is still too powerful and insufficiently transparent or accountable. Conflicts-of-interest should be published for each board member when appointed and updated on an ongoing basis and board proceedings should also be published. The Board’s need to review the ethics of its own behaviour may conflict with its other roles: an independent ethics board should be set up. to advise it, and the ethics board’s opinions should be published. Provisions which give the government or the Bboard the power to amend aspects of the safeguards in the Bill, and to avoid accountability in court, should be deleted.
•The Board’s responsibilities for privacy protections need an independent regulator: the easiest way to achieve this would be prior adoption of a privacy or data protection bill (which includes a role for a data protection officer). This would allow individuals some recourse if their rights were not protected. This is particularly important, especially following the Supreme Court’s Right to Privacy judgment.
•A number of other privacy protections are also missing from the Bill. These include the need to restrict DNA profiling so that it uses only non-coding DNA, a commonly used international standard for one, which prevents the use of parts of the DNA which code for personal characteristics, including medical conditions. Rightly, the Bill includes provisions for the destruction of DNA samples and removal of innocent people’s DNA profiles from the database. However, these provisions are currently inadequate because it is unclear how they will operate in practice: currently, the removal of innocent people’s records is not automatic, and some samples will be retained by the police. Any international sharing of DNA profiles should also be covered by a privacy or data protection law, and meet international human rights standards.
Database separation
•Further, it is a best practice to separate the databases for missing persons and for criminals set up by the Bill, so that people who volunteer their DNA to help find their missing relatives are not treated as suspects for criminal offences. Provisions allowing the use of these databases for civil cases, for example to test paternity, should be deleted from the Bill. To maintain trust in the system, people should not be concerned that non-paternity might be revealed if they offer to assist a criminal investigation, or are accused (perhaps falsely) of a crime. This does not prevent DNA being used for such purposes, but this should be done case by case and not included in the system for a criminal database. More detail is also needed to specify that volunteers must be fully informed about future storage and uses of their genetic information before they give consent.
•The Bill allows two categories of persons to have their DNA collected without consent and their DNA profiles added to the database. These are persons suspected of any offence, where an order is made by a magistrate, and persons suspected of more serious offences, where an order from a magistrate is not required. Who should be included in the database, and whether a court should always have a say, is an important matter for national debate. However, there is no attempt to assess the cost effectiveness of these provisions or to estimate the database’s likely size.
•The financial memorandum to the Bill estimates that there will be a one-off cost of ₹20 crore to set up the database, with annual costs of ₹5 crore to maintain it. This is completely unrealistic: for comparison, the U.K. National DNA database cost £3.7 million to run in 2015-16. International evidence shows that the success of a DNA database is driven primarily by the number of crime scene DNA profiles loaded on to it, not by the number of DNA profiles from individuals, so proper crime scene analysis should be the top priority.
•In short, important safeguards and a cost-benefit analysis are still lacking for this Bill. The Bill needs further improvement, and full parliamentary scrutinyshould be utilised to achieve that end.
📰 ICAR sounds alarm with discovery of deadly foreign maize pest in Karnataka
The Karnataka finding is the first report of the pest in Asia.
•The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) has sounded the alarm after the invasive agricultural pest Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) was discovered in Karnataka this July. A major maize pest in North America, the Fall Armyworm arrived in Africa in 2016. Since then, it has threatened the continent’s maize crop, a staple which feeds 300 million people.
•The Karnataka finding is the first report of the pest in Asia. The discovery is more worrisome because the pest feeds on around 100 different crops, such as vegetables, rice, and sugarcane.
•Its discovery in Karnataka means its spread to the rest of the country, as well as neighbouring countries, could be just a matter of time.
•Entomologists C.M. Kalleshwara Swamy and Sharanabasappa from Shivamogga’s University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences first suspected that something was amiss when the pest infestation in maize crops in Shivamogga spiked this year.
•Initially, they suspected it was the Northern Armyworm, or Mythimna separata, a common local pest. But when they examined the moth, they were able to identify it as the Fall Armyworm through its distinctive genitalia. Further confirmation came through DNA barcoding at Bengaluru’s Indian Institute of Horticultural Research.
•The first line of defence against the Fall Armyworm will be insecticides like lambda-cyhalothrin. It’s efficacy is currently being studied in field trials. Also, the researchers have found some natural predators such as coccinellid beetles, that can aid biological control. A fungal species called Nomuraea rileyi also infects the Fall Armyworm. But these natural enemies may not be as effective as insecticides, Prof. Swamy told The Hindu.
•Now, that the pest is here, not much can be done to keep it from spreading elsewhere in the subcontinent, said A.N. Shylesha, an entomologist at Bengaluru’s National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources. Africa’s experience shows how quickly the pest can colonise a new continent. First reported in Central and Western Africa in 2016, it has spread to 44 African countries today and has proved hard to control.
•In India, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are at immediate risk. And even though the pests reported in Shivamogga and Chikballapur, Karnataka, are only feeding on maize and sorghum at the moment, they are likely to spread to other crops.
