📰 SPG Bill passed amid Opposition walkout
Former PMs to get cover for 5 years
•The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the Special Protection Group (Amendment) Bill, 2019 which will now protect only the Prime Minister and members of his immediate family residing with him at his official residence.
•It will also provide security to former Prime Ministers and their immediate family members staying with them at the residence allotted for a period of five years from the date on which they cease to hold office.
•The Opposition walked out during the voting on the Bill.
•Replying to the debate in the Lower House, Home Minister Amit Shah said that with this amendment, his government would restore the original intent of the Act, which was to provide security for the Prime Minister.
•He said: “The people of the country should know that the security of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her children Rahul and Priyanka has not been withdrawn but changed to ‘Z-plus’ with advance security liaison and ambulance that will be given across the country.”
•Refuting any charges of the move being a “political vendetta”, Mr. Shah said: “The BJP does not carry out any action with a vindictive approach. It was the Congress which took many such decisions in the past. The term ‘special’ indicates its [the Special Protection Group’s] special purpose. Many countries have such elite and compact cover exclusively for their respective heads of state.”
•He said that when the SPG cover of former Prime Ministers Chandra Shekhar, I.K. Gujral and Manmohan Singh was withdrawn, “no one uttered a word”.
•Opposing the Bill, MP N. K. Premachandran said: “If there is any security threat, they [former PMs] have to be protected. Kindly don’t play politics in this issue.”
•Raja of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam claimed that the amendment was being undertaken for political reasons.
•Replying to the debate in the Lower House, Home Minister Amit Shah said that with this amendment, his government would restore the original intent of the Act, which was to provide security for the Prime Minister.
•He said: “The people of the country should know that the security of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and her children Rahul and Priyanka has not been withdrawn but changed to ‘Z-plus’ with advance security liaison and ambulance that will be given across the country.”
•Refuting any charges of the move being a “political vendetta”, Mr. Shah said: “The BJP does not carry out any action with a vindictive approach. It was the Congress which took many such decisions in the past. The term ‘special’ indicates its [the Special Protection Group’s] special purpose. Many countries have such elite and compact cover exclusively for their respective heads of state.”
•He said that when the SPG cover of former Prime Ministers Chandra Shekhar, I.K. Gujral and Manmohan Singh was withdrawn, “no one uttered a word”.
•Opposing the Bill, MP N. K. Premachandran said: “If there is any security threat, they [former PMs] have to be protected. Kindly don’t play politics in this issue.”
•Raja of the DMK claimed that the amendment was being undertaken for political reasons.
The Transgender Persons Act should have factored in suggestions from the community
•It is inconceivable that any effort to ostensibly ameliorate the fortunes of a particular group should be completely impervious to the entreaties of intended beneficiaries. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, passed in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, and seeking to ensure the fundamental rights of those who do not conform to the binary notions of gender identity, has disappointed the community. The Act’s long history traces back to the judgment in NALSA vs Union of India of April 2014, which directed the Centre and State to grant legal recognition for the third gender, ensure there is no discrimination against them, and construct specific social welfare programmes. In August 2016, the government introduced the Transgender Bill in the Lok Sabha and this was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment, which submitted its report in less than a year. But that Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. The current Act arose out of a Bill that the government introduced in the Lok Sabha in July 2019, and was passed there on August 5 this year, the same day the Centre revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. In its passage through the Upper House, more recently, a motion to refer it to a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha was defeated. The Act is progressive in that it allows self perception of gender identity, but regresses by mandating that each person would have to be recognised as ‘transgender’ on the basis of a certificate of identity issued by a district magistrate, rejecting the recommendation from the 2016 Standing Committee to have a screening committee. There are no avenues open either for appeal in the event a magistrate refuses to hand out such a certificate.
•India’s vocal LGBTQI community had problems with the Bill’s basics — right from the nomenclature. Calling it a ‘Transgender Persons’ Bill would not give adequate play to the diversity the non-binaries included, it argued, instead calling for a more broad-based definition. Activists have slammed it for its ‘narrow understanding’ of gender identities and for offering woefully inadequate mainstreaming opportunities. They remain unhappy with the silence on unnecessary and non-consensual sex selective or reassignment surgeries, despite the plea that it be made an offence. Elaborate detailing of the anti-discriminatory clause in the Bill might have gone a long way in ensuring implementation and legal recourse, they argue. With the Bill becoming law, unaltered in any significant form, in the face of such strident opposition, the community is seething at being ignored. Its only hope is that the National Council for Transgender Persons, which is supposed to provide the institutional framework for implementing the Act, might allow more latitude for incorporating genuine demands. Otherwise, this Act might well be a glove that ill fits the hand it was tailored for.
📰 Gubernatorial restructuring
The appointment and tenure of Governors need to undergo radical reform
•The actions of the Maharashtra Governor over the last few days have invited scrutiny. From the early morning swearing-in ceremony to the unceremonious pre-floor test resignation of Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar, Raj Bhavan has found itself in the centre of controversy.
•Soon after the Karnataka Assembly elections earlier this year, the actions of the Karnataka Governor were also subjected to judicial scrutiny on aspects of the discretionary powers of the Governor with regard to formation of government. Nevertheless, this week, the Supreme Court had another occasion to reaffirm the law. However, it is unlikely that these controversies will be resolved until there is a constitutional restructuring of the office of the Governor.
The Centre and its Governor
•In April 1948, the Drafting Committee of the Constitution insisted on omitting all references to the discretionary powers of the Governor. On May 31, 1949, B.R. Ambedkar said in unequivocal terms that the Governor “is required to follow the advice of his Ministry in all matters”. However, it is trite that the Governor is required to exercise discretion in deciding the formation of government when there is no clear post-poll majority. Here, the cases of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, and Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker provide unambiguous judicial guidance to how the office of the Governor must encounter tricky post-poll claims to form government and stay immune to political bias.
•Unfortunately, the appointment process of Governors has made the office vulnerable to the influence of the Union government. Over the years, occupants of this office have continued to look towards New Delhi for guidance. The dangers of this habit are cautioned by lawyer and constitutional expert A.G. Noorani, who argued that a “state’s autonomy comes to naught if its people’s mandate can be defied or ignored by a central appointee.”
•In the Karnataka and Maharashtra cases, it is evident that the Governors invited the leader of the BJP when they did not have the support of the majority in the respective Legislative Assemblies. It begs the question what claims of support were made by the BJP leaders to the Governors and how the Governors satisfied themselves of these claims when there was verifiable, adverse information available in public. The Raj Bhavan in Mumbai also witnessed a curious swearing-in ceremony which happened with little or no public notice. Such actions create a reasonable apprehension that the office of the Governor is open to be manipulated and misused in furtherance of political partisanship. This strengthens a call to review and restructure the office of the Governor if its constitutional values are to be safeguarded.
Constitutional correction
•There is little doubt that the appointment and tenure of Governors need to undergo radical reform. The Justice P.V. Rajamannar Committee, which was tasked by the Tamil Nadu government to look into Centre-State relations in 1969, recommended that State governments be included in the appointment process of Governors to drastically reduce their discretionary powers. The call to rectify the imbalance in Centre-State equations must begin with such a reform.
•Furthermore, for too long, Governors have enjoyed a legal immunity, granted by the Constitution, on account of their sovereign functions. Over the years, the Supreme Court has confirmed its powers to review the actions of the Governors. Any decision of the Governor can be subjected to judicial scrutiny, including the materials placed to arrive at that decision. However, there is a compelling case that the Westminster model of sovereign and symbolic head of state is past its expiry date. The powers and privileges that are attached to the office of the Governor must be accompanied by answerability, transparency and accountability. Governors and their offices must be scrutinised as much as any other public office. The court must lay down guidelines in this regard.
📰 A blow to disclosure norms
The apex court’s recent verdict makes several categories of information inaccessible to the public under RTI
•The Supreme Court’s November 13 judgment on Right to Information (RTI) reduced the scope of ‘information’ and widened that of ‘restrictions’. The RTI Act would never be the same after this verdict. Deviating from earlier decisions that said that ‘restrictions’ should be interpreted strictly and ‘information’ liberally, the five-judge Bench expanded the power, length and depth of exceptions under Section 8 of the Act. The verdict also restricted the understanding of the terms ‘held by’ and ‘under the control’ of a public authority, making several classes of information inaccessible to the public. If the Chief Information Commissioner’s stature and autonomy were reduced by the recent parliamentary amendment to the Act, the Supreme Court judgment amounted to a direct instruction to the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) on how not to give information on various counts.
The ‘indicative’ paragraph
•However, the real issue with the verdict lies in the carefully worded paragraph 59, which could potentially be used by bureaucrats to shoot down many RTI applications during the first request. Instead of empowering citizens with greater access to information, the court has instead armed public servants to kill access requests.
•Here, it needs to be recalled that the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner was hitherto being used as a precedent by the Department of Personnel and Training and various CPIOs to deny information on records of public servants. The case pertained to a Special Leave Petition on an RTI request related to the service record and assets of a serving bureaucrat. The Supreme Court held that such information could not be revealed unless there was a larger public interest demonstrated. In this case, the court held that the applicant was not able to show a bona fide public interest element and hence denied information to the person. The November 13 verdict could in effect supersede the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande verdict.
•To cite paragraph 59 of the recent decision: “Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents... would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status... are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including... evaluation reports, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records... information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns... are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.”
•The last sentence of this paragraph, which makes the restrictions “indicative”, could become another tool in the hands of public servants to deny access requests.
Restrictions under Section 8
•The Bench’s long list contradicts the provisions for disclosure available under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(2) of the RTI Act. One, personal information can be disclosed if it has any relationship with public activity or interest. Two, even if such details have no relationship with public interest, they can be given if the disclosure does not cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Three, even if the information causes unwarranted invasion of privacy, it could still be given if the larger public interest justifies the act. Finally, even if there is no larger public interest, it could still be shared if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in its protection.
•The only points the Supreme Court Bench was asked to consider pertained to assets report and appointment criteria of public servants. Its declaration in the form of the above-cited paragraph was uncalled for. For instance, how can the court declare educational qualifications, performance report or disciplinary proceedings pertaining to public servants as being outside the ambit of disclosure? If a specific educational degree is ‘qualification’ for a post, is it not related to public activity? Similarly, if the cost of medical treatment is reimbursed by the state, how can medical record become personal information?
•Every time, the applicant will now be made to prove public interest, a concept which has been made further complex and ambiguous by the court.
📰 India’s Cartosat-3 plus 13 nano satellites put in orbit
The apex court’s recent verdict makes several categories of information inaccessible to the public under RTI
•The Supreme Court’s November 13 judgment on Right to Information (RTI) reduced the scope of ‘information’ and widened that of ‘restrictions’. The RTI Act would never be the same after this verdict. Deviating from earlier decisions that said that ‘restrictions’ should be interpreted strictly and ‘information’ liberally, the five-judge Bench expanded the power, length and depth of exceptions under Section 8 of the Act. The verdict also restricted the understanding of the terms ‘held by’ and ‘under the control’ of a public authority, making several classes of information inaccessible to the public. If the Chief Information Commissioner’s stature and autonomy were reduced by the recent parliamentary amendment to the Act, the Supreme Court judgment amounted to a direct instruction to the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) on how not to give information on various counts.
The ‘indicative’ paragraph
•However, the real issue with the verdict lies in the carefully worded paragraph 59, which could potentially be used by bureaucrats to shoot down many RTI applications during the first request. Instead of empowering citizens with greater access to information, the court has instead armed public servants to kill access requests.
•Here, it needs to be recalled that the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner was hitherto being used as a precedent by the Department of Personnel and Training and various CPIOs to deny information on records of public servants. The case pertained to a Special Leave Petition on an RTI request related to the service record and assets of a serving bureaucrat. The Supreme Court held that such information could not be revealed unless there was a larger public interest demonstrated. In this case, the court held that the applicant was not able to show a bona fide public interest element and hence denied information to the person. The November 13 verdict could in effect supersede the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande verdict.
•To cite paragraph 59 of the recent decision: “Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents... would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status... are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including... evaluation reports, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records... information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns... are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.”
•The last sentence of this paragraph, which makes the restrictions “indicative”, could become another tool in the hands of public servants to deny access requests.
Restrictions under Section 8
•The Bench’s long list contradicts the provisions for disclosure available under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(2) of the RTI Act. One, personal information can be disclosed if it has any relationship with public activity or interest. Two, even if such details have no relationship with public interest, they can be given if the disclosure does not cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Three, even if the information causes unwarranted invasion of privacy, it could still be given if the larger public interest justifies the act. Finally, even if there is no larger public interest, it could still be shared if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in its protection.
•The only points the Supreme Court Bench was asked to consider pertained to assets report and appointment criteria of public servants. Its declaration in the form of the above-cited paragraph was uncalled for. For instance, how can the court declare educational qualifications, performance report or disciplinary proceedings pertaining to public servants as being outside the ambit of disclosure? If a specific educational degree is ‘qualification’ for a post, is it not related to public activity? Similarly, if the cost of medical treatment is reimbursed by the state, how can medical record become personal information?
•Every time, the applicant will now be made to prove public interest, a concept which has been made further complex and ambiguous by the court.
📰 Stubble burning is not the only culprit
A solution to Delhi’s air pollution problem must look at farmers’ economic conditions, science and policy change
•Air pollution in Delhi has always been a topic of discussion during Deepavali. Almost everyone gets into the “act”, the Supreme Court of India and top echelons of the Government not excluded, while children are forced to breathe polluted air. Airwaves are filled with immediate “band-aid” type solutions and television experts finally come around to just one issue — stubble burning by farmers in Punjab. Therefore, the solution also gets simplified; prosecute those who burn stubble (the stick) give them happy seeders by the thousands (the carrot). All is well till the next Deepavali.
An oversimplification
•If the problem was that simple, it would have been solved long ago. The intention is not to justify stubble burning, but to point out that it is not the only culprit (though it is an important one) and other factors need to be attended to as well. The simplification of the narrative to stubble burning and the argument that all that smoke that comes out of Punjab’s paddy fields lands in the National Capital Region (NCR), particularly in the capital city of Delhi, may not stand scientific scrutiny considering the fact that wind speeds, dispersal rates and settling down of particles are governed by laws of science.
•Recently, there was a reference in a television programme about satellite observations on stubble burning from 2002-17. Reportedly, there has been an increase of 3% in aerosol loading attributable to crop residue burning during October and November every year. However, no data was presented on the impact of burning of biomass in urban Delhi, coal fired ovens (tandoors) and coal-based industries, coal-based power plants in the outskirts of Delhi, the exponential increase in sport utility vehicles, or SUVs, in the NCR and so forth.
•As for stubble burning, we need to stop this practice for sure. But how do we do it? Farmers do it out of economic compulsion. The “city centric” argument is that Punjab now produces 25% more rice than what it did 15 years ago, which is good for the country, but bad for Delhi. Others argue that the Punjab Preservation of Sub-soil Water Act 2009 is the main culprit. There are many who believe that a generous distribution of direct seeders (or “Happy Seeders” as they are called) should make the difference.
Three ways out
•Essentially, we come to three options: Reduce paddy area/production, allow farmers to plant/transplant paddy before June and distribute “happy seeders”. This will, according to many, address the problem of air pollution in Delhi during October and November.
•Let us start with reduction in production of paddy. Punjab was never a traditional rice cultivator. It took up rice cultivation in response to the national policy of food self-sufficiency. They achieved the highest productivity in the country and contributed maximum among all States to the central pool of rice procurement. In the process, the area went up from 2.6 million hectares in 2001 to 3 million hectares in 2017; production went up from 9 million tonnes to 12.5 million tonnes. Punjab dug deeper to get groundwater and caused long-term damage to itself.
•Attempts at diversification did not take off because of the difference in net farm returns and market risks. A rice farmer earns about ₹57,000 per hectare whereas maize in a maize-wheat combination would set them back by about ₹15,000-17,000. The farmer will not bear this burden. An estimate by agricultural economist Ashok Gulati suggests ₹12,000 per hectare (keeping power saving in mind) as an acceptable compensation. If the idea is to reduce area of common paddy by half a million hectares, resulting in a reduction of output of 2 million tonnes, the Central government has to step in and support this change for the next five years. This half-a-million hectare should be in water-stressed blocks and can be encouraged to shift to maize or any other crop. Another one lakh hectare can shift to basmati production.
Falling water levels
•Coming to the more controversial argument about the Punjab Preservation of Sub-soil Water Act 2009, there exist strong arguments to prevent over exploitation of groundwater especially if farmers cultivate rice in April/May. Though strong evidence is necessary to establish improvement in groundwater levels, there is some evidence to show that the rate of deterioration has slowed down.
•If farmers are allowed to go back to the pre-2009 regime, what will happen to the groundwater in Punjab is anyone’s guess. The elephant in the room, however, is free power to tube wells. Can this amount of about ₹6,000 crore be shifted to a direct benefit transfer as has been suggested by policy experts? Is there a political will? Are the large farmers the real opposition here? This shift could be a game changer. A bigger game changer will be a shift to cash transfer in lieu of grains in the public distribution system by the Centre.
•The “happy seeder” is the most talked about solution. Direct seeders do help but have limitations. First, the seeder has to operate within about 4-5 days of the harvest. The effectiveness depends on the moisture (not too moist, not too dry) present in the soil at the time of seeding . This requires a good understanding of soil conditions. The agronomic practices need to change particularly with regard to application of fertilizer and irrigation. These machines may be used only during the 15-day window in a whole year. They will remain idle for the remaining 350 days. My reckoning is that Punjab will need about 20,000 of these machines if basmati areas (about 6 lakh ha) and rice-potato areas are excluded from the calculation.
•The problem is complex and needs a solution. But the solution should take into consideration the economic condition of farmers, the scientific options available and the willingness of the Central government to change policy and fund a major part of the expenditure. Blaming the farmers alone will not do; citizens need to put in their bit too. We owe it to the children.
📰 More bang for the buck: On why ISRO should go commercial
ISRO should collaborate with the private sector to aid high-technology manufacturing
•The Indian Space Research Organisation’s successful launch on Wednesday of Cartosat-3, along with 13 other small U.S. satellites, marks a major technological milestone for India. Cartosat-3 is capable of unprecedented image resolution of nearly 25 cm on the ground as against the best global military-grade satellites that can provide a 10 cm resolution. The best satellite images commercially available are between 25-30 cm. Thus, as a commercial satellite, Cartosat-3 creates a wealth of applications. Military espionage is the lowest hanging fruit. It is believed that surveillance by the earlier Cartosat-2 satellite series — with a resolution, though coarser, of about 65 cm — was used to plan and execute military operations such as ‘surgical strikes’ across the Line of Control in 2016 and the Manipur-Myanmar border in 2015. For the government, such resolution can help monitor progress of road construction, coastal land-erosion, forest conservation, oceanic changes and infrastructure development. Image resolution is good to have but secondary to image processing. That means unless and until there is sophisticated technology available to analyse the generated images, it will forever be inferior, and less valued, than coarser images scanned by better processing-software.
•While satellite launches make for a good spectacle, they are meaningful only in so far as they aid commerce and generate revenue and jobs. Indian regulations restrict access to satellite images sharper than one metre to the government. Other than for transponders, there is a long way to go for Indian private companies sending innovative payloads aboard ISRO launch vehicles. ISRO recently launched a company called New Space India Limited (NSIL), a competitor to Antrix, but like it, is another public enterprise meant to commercialise space products and satellite development deals with private entities. The deal for the U.S. satellites launched along with Cartosat-3 was formally inked by the NSIL. A good beginning, it should not be shackled by bureaucratic encumbrances, à la Antrix. The host of interesting electronics aboard Cartosat-3 should ideally inspire ISRO to explore collaboration with the private sector in improving high-technology manufacturing. While ISRO’s key capability still lies in developing and launching small- and medium-sized satellites, it ought to be able to market the technology aboard Cartosat-3 globally and induce the farming out of satellite development projects to ISRO or its subsidiaries. While ISRO’s credentials as a poster child for India’s technological abilities have been fortified, it still has a long way to go in terms of its reputation as an enabler of local business.
📰 Govt. extends 15th finance panel term
Commission to submit two reports; recommendations will be applicable for six years
•The Union Cabinet on Wednesday approved the extension of the term of the 15th Finance Commission, which will now submit two reports.
•The term had been extended till October 30. The first report, for financial year 2020-21, will be submitted in the coming months before the Union Budget, and the second report for the period 2021-26 will be presented by October 30, 2020.
•This will effectively mean the 15th Finance Commission’s recommendations will be applicable for six years and not the conventional five-year period.
•“The extension of the term will enable the Commission to examine various comparable estimates for financial projections in view of reforms and the new realities to finalise its recommendations for the period 2020-2026,” the government said in a release.
•“The Commission, on account of the restrictions imposed by the model code of conduct, completed its visit to States only recently,” the release added. “This has had a bearing on the detailed assessments of States’ requirements.”
•According to a former chairman of a previous Finance Commission, it is not unprecedented for the term of a Commission to be extended when there is a restructuring of States, or if the terms of reference for the Commission have been significantly expanded.
•“This Commission has seen its terms of reference expanded and the reorganisation of J&K, and so, an extension of the term is not unusual,” the former chairman said. “It happened before in the 14th Finance Commission when Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were split.”
•In a situation where the number of States has changed, the former chairman explained, the Commission then has to alter its calculations for every State and this takes time.
•“The report for the year 2020-21 will be submitted soon, before the presentation of the Budget,” the office of 15th Finance Commission Chairman N.K. Singh told The Hindu. “The formula for the first year (2020-21) will not be carried forward for the next five years in a mechanical way, but will be subject to any changes that the Finance Commission may consider appropriate based on the circumstances at that time.”
•The 9th Finance Commission under the chairmanship of N.K.P. Salve also saw its recommendation period extended to six years from the conventional five.
•“The proposed increase in coverage of the period for which the Commission’s recommendations are applicable will help medium-term resource planning for the State governments and the Central government,” the government release said.
