📰 CCS okays 83 LCAs worth around ₹47,000 cr. for IAF
Deal will be a game changer for self-reliance in Indian defence manufacturing: Rajnath
•In the biggest indigenous defence deal, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on Wednesday approved the manufacture of 83 Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) at a cost of around ₹47,000 crore.
•“The Cabinet met under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister in New Delhi on January 13 and has approved procurement of 73 LCA Tejas Mk-1A fighter aircraft and 10 LCA Tejas Mk-1 trainer aircraft at the cost of ₹45,696 crore along with design and development of infrastructure sanctions worth ₹1,202 Crore,” the Defence Ministry said in a statement.
•“This deal would be a game changer for self reliance in the Indian defence manufacturing, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said on Twitter.
•The indigenous content of the LCA-Tejas was 50% in the MK1A variant and it would be enhanced to 60% by the end of the programme, he added.
40 modifications
•The MK-1A would have over 40 modifications over the MK1 variant, including some major ones like an Electronic Warfare system, Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and a network warfare system comprising Software Defined Radio (SDR), a defence official said.
•The modifications would be incorporated on the LCA concurrently along with the production once the deal is signed, a defence official said.
•The Cabinet also approved infrastructure development by the IAF under the project to enable them handle repairs or servicing at their base depot so that the turnaround time would get reduced for mission critical systems and lead to increased availability of aircraft for operational exploitation, the statement said. “This would enable the IAF to sustain the fleet more efficiently and effectively due to availability of repair infrastructure at respective bases,” it added.
•The first LCA MK-1A is expected to roll out from 2023-24 onwards, from which HAL plans to ramp up the production rate to 16 aircraft a year. While a second line had been set up, production on both lines has been kept at eight aircraft a year to keep the assembly running due to limited orders. “A third assembly line will also be ready by 2023-24 to further ramp up production,” the official said.
Outsourcing work share
•For the MK-1A, HAL is outsourcing significant work share to the private industry while it will act as a ‘system of systems integrator’. HAL has has over 550 vendors for the LCA, which includes five companies manufacturing the structures.
•The IAF has ordered 40 LCA Tejas in two batches of 20 each in the Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and the Final Operational Clearance (FOC) configurations and has raised two squadrons. Till date, 16 aircraft have been delivered to it in the IOC configuration, which form the first squadron that was operationalised in July 2016. Delivery of the FOC aircraft has also commenced with improved weapons capability, enhanced fight envelope, inflight refuelling capability and advanced features for low-speed handling.
•The 40 jets also include eight trainer variant that are scheduled to be delivered from 2023 onwards.
A ‘high priority’
•In a recent conversation with The Hindu, Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadhauria termed the deal a ‘high priority’. Last May, the IAF formally inducted into service the first FOC standard LCA and operationalised its second LCA squadron N0. 18 'Flying Bullets'.
•The deal once signed will take the order book for the LCA Tejas to 123. There is also a LCA MK-2 under development.
Benefits and risks interwoven in such platforms, need regulation: central bank
•The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has constituted a working group on digital lending — including online platforms and mobile apps — to study all aspects of digital lending activities in the regulated financial sector as well as by unregulated players.
•This is to ensure that an appropriate regulatory approach is put in place.
•“Digital lending has the potential to make access to financial products and services more fair, efficient and inclusive. From a peripheral supporting role a few years ago, FinTech-led innovation is now at the core of the design, pricing and delivery of financial products and services,” the RBI said in a notification. “While penetration of digital methods in the financial sector is a welcome development, the benefits and certain downside risks are often interwoven in such endeavours,” the RBI said.
•“A balanced approach needs to be followed so that the regulatory framework supports innovation while ensuring data security, privacy, confidentiality and consumer protection,” banking regulator added.
•The working group consists of both internal and external members. The internal members include Jayant Kumar Dash, Executive Director, RBI (Chairman); Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Chief General Manager in-charge, Department of Supervision, RBI; S.P. Vasudevan, Chief General Manager, Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, RBI; and Manoranjan Mishra, Chief General Manager, Department of Regulation, RBI (Member Secretary).
•The external members are Vikram Mehta, co-founder, Monexo Fintech; and Rahul Sasi, cyber security expert and founder of CloudSEK.
•The working group will evaluate digital lending activities and assess the penetration and standards of outsourced digital lending activities in RBI regulated entities; identify the risks posed by unregulated digital lending to financial stability, regulated entities and consumers; and suggest regulatory changes to promote orderly growth of digital lending.
•It will also recommend measures for expansion of specific regulatory or statutory perimeter and suggest the role of various regulatory and government agencies. It will also recommend a robust fair practices code for digital lending players.
📰 Farm laws, their constitutional validity, and hope
In the event of further judicial intervention, there are grounds and an opportunity for the government to revisit the laws
•With the Supreme Court of India staying the operation of the farm laws and setting up a committee of experts to negotiate with the government and the farmers, the agitation being carried on by the farmers is entering a new phase. The farmers’ unions have not reacted favourably to the formation of the experts’ committee. As it happens, the committee does not comprise entirely impartial experts. Most of them are well known and strong defenders of the farm laws, and are critical of the agitation.
The situation now
•For conducting negotiations with both the government and the farmers, the members of the committee ought to and should be known to have an open mind on the core issues, which alone will create a necessary confidence in the parties concerned. The farmers have, however, made it clear that they will not agree to anything less than the repeal of these laws. This would mean that the present agitation is likely to continue indefinitely. It is not yet clear what impact the report of this committee will have on the final decision of the Supreme Court on the question of the constitutional validity of the farm laws. That is the real issue before the Supreme Court. So whatever the experts’ committee recommends, the question of the constitutional validity of the farm laws can be decided only after a proper hearing of the matter before the Court. The most curious thing about a decision on this issue by the Supreme Court is that if the Court upholds the validity of the laws, the agitation will not stop because the farmers’ demand is for the repeal of the laws.
•But the government of India seems to have taken a maximalist approach, particularly on the question of a repeal of the farm laws. While the repeal of a law is a simple legislative act, having to repeal a law in which the government has invested a lot of its prestige is not so easy especially for a government which is extremely proud of its numerical majority in the Lok Sabha, which has generated a great deal of hubris. On the other hand, the farmers are unyielding on the demand for a repeal.
Not in accordance with rules
•The constitutional validity of the farm laws has been challenged in the Supreme Court mainly on the ground that Parliament has no legislative competence to enact these laws, the subject matter of which is essentially in the State list. But there is a more fundamental reason to challenge these enactments which will be examined now.
•It is a universally acknowledged fact that the voting on the Farm Bills in the Rajya Sabha was not done in accordance with the rules of the House. These rules require the Chair to order the recording of votes (division) by members even when one member demands it. The Deputy Chairman of the House, who was conducting the proceedings at that time, did not order division although a few members openly and loudly demanded it. It is true that there was disorder in the House but it could have been controlled and a proper voting could have been conducted. Disorder was not taking place for the first time in the House. Thus, there was a violation of the rules of the House in passing the Bills by voice vote when there was a demand for division.
Voice vote is unrecognised
•But the matter goes beyond the violation of the House rules. It involves the violation of the Constitution itself. Article 100 says that all questions at any sitting of either House shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting. Majority can be determined only in terms of number, and therefore what this Article requires is that all questions in the House should be determined by recording the votes of the members present and voting. Majority cannot be determined through voice vote. In fact the Constitution does not recognise voice vote to determine majority in a legislature. However, deciding a question by voice vote is a practice prevailing in all legislatures. This was devised for the sake of convenience and there is always an assumption that since the government of the day has a majority, any proposal before the House has the support of the majority. But that assumption goes when a member demands voting in the House and the Chair has, then, no option but to order the actual voting. Since this was not done and the Bills were all passed by voice vote, there is a violation of the rules as well as the Constitution.
Options before the judiciary
•It is true that Article 122 of the Constitution protects the proceedings of the House from judicial review. But this protection is available only when the proceedings are challenged on irregularity of procedure. Violation of the Constitution is not a mere irregularity of procedure. The Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal’s case had clarified that the proceedings can be challenged on substantive grounds like violation of the Constitutional provisions. Therefore, the Farm Bills were passed in the Rajya Sabha in violation of Article 100 of the Constitution and can be challenged in the Supreme Court on that ground.
•Now what are the options before the Supreme Court if and when such a challenge is made? The Court can strike down the whole laws as the requirement of Article 107 has not been fulfilled. This Article says that a Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed unless it has been agreed to by both Houses. As has been explained above, the Bills have not in fact been passed by the Rajya Sabha because the majority had not been determined in accordance with Article 100. It would mean that the three Bills did not become laws.
•The Court may also invalidate the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha and send the three ‘Acts’ back to that House for further proceedings in accordance with the constitutional provisions. If this happens, it may provide a good opportunity to the government to revisit these laws. These can then be referred to a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha which can invite the farmers and all other stakeholders and finally produce better Bills. Such an opportunity is invaluable in the present circumstances when the government is facing virtually a no-win situation. If, on the other hand, the government decides to withdraw the Bills after these are sent back to the Rajya Sabha on the ground that it wants to bring fresh Bills with altered proposals, it will have that option too under the rules of the House. The possibility of these options can be creatively considered for finding a solution to this problem.
Centrality of Parliament
•We may not forget that the issue that needs to be settled by the top court is only the constitutional validity of the laws. In resolving a problem like the agitation by farmers against the laws, the centrality of Parliament in the legislative process in all its dimensions should not be lost sight of. Once the Court decides the legality or constitutionality of a law, the political and legislative aspects of the issue will have to be dealt with only by Parliament. Parliament and its systems alone can produce a satisfactory solution. The only condition is that the government which is accountable to Parliament should genuinely demonstrate its faith in those systems.
📰 Mediating the farmers’ protests is difficult terrain
If the top court does find itself mandated by a higher public duty to intervene, then it must observe some essentials
•For nearly half a hundred days, the farmers of North India protesting against the recent farm laws have been at the capital’s outskirts, braving the bitter cold, and growing in numbers. They have mostly kept the peace and their dignity, and their communities seem ready to support them for as long as need be. If the authorities had any hopes of the protest petering out by dissonant voices claiming to represent farmers, or labelling them as anti-national and fuelled by pro-Khalistan elements, these do not look like carrying much weight. New Delhi’s mandarins have a first class headache, brought on principally by the way in which they hustled through legislation which affects the lifeline of India’s agrarian sector.
Central issue is about trust
•One thing stands out clearly, and that is the lack of trust the farmers have developed about the designs of the government; the laws, they say, will leave them at the mercy of corporates. Given the imputed closeness of the ruling elite with corporate houses which have ascended to commanding heights of the economy in multiple key sectors, this is not a charge easily to discount. The farmers’ focus is on retention of the MSP, the minimum support price mainly for wheat and rice, and the need to provide a statutory backing for this, in the absence of which a corporate with ready cash will tap into farms in need. And the necessity of continuing with the mandi system which provides the wherewithal for open trade. On its part, the government offers assurances but these fall short of binding legal mandates, in other words asking the farmer to accept on trust that all will be well — and that brings us back to the central problem of lack of trust in the central government.
•Another thing that stands out clearly is the fact that the Prime Minister and the top leadership have been absent from dialogues with the farmers’ representatives, these being helmed by junior Ministers out of the decision-making range. The earnestness of the government in finding a fair solution would have been well demonstrated if its heads lent a willing ear to those who toil on the ground to keep us well fed. For the essence of a hearing is that it may well open out your mind and give you a better perspective. And it brings comfort and confidence to those who are agitating to have their concerns redressed.
Committee and its mandate
•In the encrusted stalemate now comes pitchforked the appointment of a committee by the Supreme Court, before which were petitions calling for removal of protesters and challenging the farm laws, accompanied by a stay of implementation of the laws with observations to the effect that the protesters need not continue on site. This is problematic for several reasons. Staying a law on legal grounds of prima facie force in the constitutional challenge is one thing, holding it in abeyance to facilitate the committee’s work and dispersal of protesters is another. Another is the mandate itself — the committee is supposedly made up of experts to give its recommendations to the Court on the laws; where exactly does a court come into the picture in what seems to be a legislative and executive exercise? It is another matter for a court to undertake legal examination and on finding provisions to be ultra vires, strike them down or declare the entire law void.
•The body has not been termed a mediation committee nor formally tasked with conducting a mediation, but the Court does mention a role in assisting the negotiations between the farmers and the government, and in public discourse this is being talked about. A structured mediation would be approached differently. First, and this is of the essence, all necessary parties must consent to it; mediation’s strength lies in its voluntary aspect. Here, prominent farmer unions held back, perhaps because they perceive that growing public support dictates the choice of the political battleground rather than the mediation table; if so, the Court should be circumspect before entering the arena. The other reason for rejection has to do with the second basic requirement for mediation, that the mediators must be fair and neutral, and seen and perceived by all parties to be such. Appointing persons who have publicly taken strong stands on the merits of the matter is asking for a non-starter.
The pathway to take
•It is a tricky situation and caution would forbear a Court from wading into a political minefield. However, it has repeatedly been said by the Chief Justice of India that the negotiations seem to be going nowhere, and something urgent needs to be done. In times gone by, the Court has utilised its reservoir of public trust to mandate and structure a mediation in public disputes. This is being occasioned because increasingly, current day politicians seem to have lost the willingness and capacity to reach out and build bridges and find solutions. But if the Court does find itself mandated by a higher public duty to intervene, then it must observe some essentials. The first is to offer a committee of such composition that its neutrality, calibre and gravitas command respect and persuade doubters to give the process a try. There are some, but not many, former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of India who will qualify to serve. The second is to obtain from the government the assurance that its highest level will meet the committee and participate in the proceedings. With this on offer, the consent of all parties may be secured.
•Once discussions start and are properly guided, solutions are possible. It may well be that once the important elements get focused upon and the key concerns expressed, approaches will open up which will secure legitimate interests to the maximum extent possible. Right now, parties are log jammed on the demand for immediate repeal, and the counter of focusing on amendments. The Supreme Court order may relegate this obstacle to the background. With all aspects on the table, it may be possible to get agreement and then put forward a law for repeal and reenactment, a known legislative device. All this is however possible if it is mediation on accepted principles and lines, which is not the case now. The Court needs to be careful about further continuance; its reservoir of public trust should not further be diminished.
