📰 Pakistan freezes plan to open imports from India
‘Deferred’ decision links any ‘normalisation’ in ties to moves by New Delhi on Jammu and Kashmir.
•Just a day after announcing plans to open imports of cotton and sugar from India, Pakistan’s government said it was “deferring” the decision and linked any “normalisation” in ties to moves by New Delhi on Jammu and Kashmir. The U-turn was seen as an embarrassment for the Imran Khan government, and in particular for the newly appointed Finance Minister Hammad Azhar, who had addressed a press conference on Wednesday announcing clearances by the Economic Coordination Council (ECC) for imports from India, which have been suspended since August 2019.
•Significantly, Mr. Khan holds the Commerce Ministry portfolio in his Cabinet, which is the Ministry that moved the proposal at the ECC on Wednesday. Speaking to the media earlier, Mr. Azhar had said that the move was a commercially-based need for Indian sugar and cotton due to high prices and low yield in Pakistan last year. The reversal of the ECC’s decision, on Thursday was announced by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who said in a taped video statement, that the matter needed “further debate”.
•“An impression was emerging that ties with India are moving towards normalisation and trade has been opened. We had a discussion on this, and the unanimous view of the Cabinet was that until the unilateral decisions taken by India on August 5, 2019 are not reconsidered, it would be impossible to normalise relations with India,” Mr. Qureshi said.
•According to media reports in Pakistan, Mr. Qureshi, along with Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid and Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari, were most vocal in their opposition to re-opening trade with India. Ms. Mazaari had tweeted against the decision on Indian imports hours before the Cabinet meeting, indicating that there were differences within the Cabinet over the imports.
•“Cabinet stated clearly NO trade with India,” Ms. Mazaari emphasised in a tweet after the meeting on Thursday, referring to India’s “illegal actions” in Jammu and Kashmir. Mr. Rashid told the media that India’s decision to overturn Article 370 of the Constitution was the precondition for any engagement.
•While New Delhi has made it clear it will not reverse decisions on Article 370 from a slew of measures taken in August 2019, both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have publicly said that the Statehood of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been downgraded to a Union Territory at present, would be restored at an “appropriate” time.
•The Ministry of External Affairs declined to comment, both on the earlier decision to open imports, and the latest one to defer any easing of trade ties.
Jaishankar takes part in online meet
•India on Thursday expressed commitment about taking the Bay of Bengal community to “new heights”. The statement was made by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar at the ministerial meet of the BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), which was held virtually. The meeting drew participation from all the seven-member States, including Myanmar which is witnessing a large-scale crackdown against anti-military protesters.
•“Our National Security Advisers have met thrice since 2017. They have been working closely and have moved forward in several aspects of security cooperation including counter terrorism, intelligence sharing, coastal security, cyber security, etc in a tangible manner,” said Dr. Jaishankar highlighting the common security challenges facing the member countries.
•Cohesion among the members has been difficult to achieve mainly because of the Rohingya refugee crisis which created bitterness between Myanmar and Bangladesh. This affected the working of the organisation to some extent as it could not develop a common charter. However, Mr. Jaishankar announced that the organisation will soon have the common set of rules and goals. “I am also delighted to note that the text of the BIMSTEC Charter has been finalised. We hope that all member states will timely complete their internal procedures for its adoption at the fifth BIMSTEC summit,” said Mr. Jaishankar.
•Thursday’s meeting, the 17th BIMSTEC Ministerial, chaired by Sri Lanka, however, avoided any reference to Myanmar’s current crisis.
📰 CDS Rawat launches joint logistics facility in Mumbai
•As part of measures to boost tri-service integration and resource optimisation, Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat on Thursday operationalised the third joint logistics node (JLN) in Mumbai.
•“These JLNs will provide integrated logistics cover to the armed forces for their small arms ammunition, rations, fuel, general stores, civil hired transport, aviation clothing, spares and also engineering support in an effort to synergise their operational efforts,” a Defence Ministry statement said.
•The initiative would accrue advantages in terms of saving of manpower, economise utilisation of resources, besides financial savings.
•“Establishment and operationalisation of JLNs is a very important first step in the direction of logistics integration of our three Services. Acceptance of each other’s limitations and learning from each other’s strengths and best practices is essential to help improve the functioning and efficacy of these nodes,” Gen. Rawat said after inaugurating the node through videoconference. He also released the standing operating procedure of the JLN.
•The government sanction letter for the establishment of the JLNs in Mumbai, Guwahati and Port Blair was signed on October 12, 2020. Subsequently, the JLNs in Guwahati and Tri-Services, Andaman and Nicobar Command, Port Blair, were operationalised on January 01, 2021.
📰 Biden allows H1-B visa ban to expire
Study showed the ban had little impact on reviving domestic employment in the U.S.; Indian IT industry bodies welcome the move.
•The White House has allowed a 2020 ban on H1-B skilled worker and certain other temporary visas to expire on March 31. H1-B visas, used more by Indian professionals than any other nationality, were suspended by U.S. President Donald Trump in June last year, ostensibly to protect American jobs, already reeling under the impact of the pandemic. Visas for intra company transfers (L1), exchange visitors (J1), temporary non-agricultural workers (H-2B) and dependents of H1-B holders (H4) were also impacted by the expiring ban.
•The White House did not make an official statement on the suspension’s expiration, as President Joe Biden traveled to Pittsburgh on Wednesday to unveil his $ 2 trillion American Jobs Plan – a massive, eight year infrastructure plan.
No effect on domestic unemployment
•While the stated reason for Mr. Trump’s suspension was protecting American jobs in the face of unprecedented unemployment last year, the ban did not have its intended impact, according to the preliminary findings of a Wall Street Journal study. The analysis found that businesses employing foreigners “struggled to fill jobs” despite very high domestic unemployment.
•The ban, which was opposed by several prominent industry bodies, was litigated last year. The American Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers had won a preliminary injunction against the ban for their members from a federal court last October ( the start of the U.S. fiscal year).
•Indian IT industry body NASSCOM said it applauded the decision to let the visa ban expire.
•“Allowing the suspension to lapse makes great sense for the United States. As the courts seemed to agree, there was no credible evidence that the visa holders do harm to the U.S. labor market. Quite the contrary, these individuals are a vital part of the U.S. workforce and their presence enhances and helps enable the U.S. economy, innovate, and grow jobs across the country. NASSCOM believes this will help U.S. businesses access talent critical to the economic recovery phase in the post-COVID world,” the NASSCOM statement said.
•The Information Technology Industry Council, an IT and tech industry association with members such as Amazon, Google, Cognizant and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), also said it welcomed the ban expiration.
•“ITI welcomes the expiration of the prior administration's H1-B visa ban today, and we look forward to working with @POTUS and the U.S. Congress on advancing sound immigration reforms moving forward,” a tweet from the organisation read.
Republican wants the move reconsidered
•U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a member of the right flank of the Republican party, wrote to Mr. Biden asking him to consider a ban extension.
•“I urge you to extend the temporary foreign worker entry suspension until the national unemployment rate has meaningfully declined, and until your administration has conducted a thorough review of non-immigrant visa programs to ensure that American workers are fully and effectively protected form harm,” he said. U.S. joblessness claims fell to 6,84,000 in March – the lowest since the pandemic began a year ago.
•While the ban has expired, some workers wanting to travel to the U.S. will not be able to due to pandemic-related U.S. travel restrictions on regions and countries including South Africa, most of Europe and Brazil.
📰 Government withdraws order on rate cut on small savings schemes
This is the first time that the Centre has scrapped the notified interest rates on small savings schemes after switching to a quarterly interest rate setting system in April 2016.
•Hours after notifying significant cuts in small savings instruments’ returns for this quarter, the government has backtracked on these sharp cuts. This is the first time that the Centre has scrapped the notified interest rates on small savings schemes after switching to a quarterly interest rate setting system in April 2016.
•The government appears to have had a rethink owing to a sharp backlash on social media about the middle class being squeezed. Retail inflation has been breaching the 6% mark and the government has also decided to tax Employees PF savings starting this year.
•“Interest rates of small savings schemes of GoI shall continue to be at the rates which existed in the last quarter of 2020-2021, ie, rates that prevailed as of March 2021. Orders issued by oversight shall be withdrawn,” Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said in a tweet early Thursday morning.
•The government resets the interest rate on small savings instruments every quarter, but this round of rate cuts was significant after three quarters of the rates being left untouched. The last round of rate reductions was in the April to June quarter of 2020, when small savings rates had been cut between 0.5% and 1.4%.
•The rates notified on Wednesday night for the April to June 2021 quarter were 40 basis points (0.4%) to 110 basis points (1.1%) lower on various instruments.
•The sharpest cut was proposed in the quarterly interest rate paid on one year term deposits, from 5.5% in the January to March quarter to 4.4% in this quarter. The rate of return on the Senior Citizen Savings’ Scheme was cut from 7.4% to 6.5%, while the Sukanya Samriddhi Account Scheme’s return was reduced from 7.6% to 6.9%.
•The rate of return on the popular Public Provident Fund (PPF) scheme was reduced from 7.9% to 7.1% last April and further slashed to 6.4% for this quarter, before the minister announced the rollback on Thursday morning.
•The interest rate paid on National Savings Certificate and Kisan Vikas Patra were also reduced significantly, from 6.8% to 5.9%, and from 6.9% to 6.2%, respectively. Consequently, the Kisan Vikas Patra, which used to mature in 124 months, was to mature in 138 months.
•It remains to be seen if holding the rates at the same level will hurt the government’s hopes of executing its borrowing plans for the year at lower interest rates and if the same extent of rate cuts will now be effected in the June to September quarter.
📰 Overseeing oversights: On small savings cut
U-turn on the drastic cut in small savings rates deferred the impact, but revealed the intent
•India’s small savings instruments witnessed unprecedented overnight volatility in rates this week. On Wednesday evening, the Budget division in the Department of Economic Affairs revised downwards the interest rates payable on small savings instruments for the April-June 2021 quarter, by 40 basis points (0.4%) to 110 basis points (1.1%). The return on the most popular PPF scheme was pegged at 6.4%, the lowest level in 46 years. The government had refrained from tweaking these rates for the last three quarters after effecting a similarly sharp cut in Q1 of 2020-21, when the PPF interest was pruned from 7.9% to 7.1%. However, by early Thursday, the rate cuts had disappeared and the status quo reinstated, following a tweet by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The only explanation: ‘Orders issued by oversight shall be withdrawn.’ It is not clear whose ‘oversight’ led to the rates being cut. In the process, the intent has been revealed even if the impact is deferred. Surely, Wednesday’s order, approved by the competent authority, was not based on random numbers keyed in and notified inadvertently amidst a flurry of last-minute economy-related government notifications on the last day of the financial year.
•It is difficult to believe that the oversight is on the bureaucracy’s part, for it simply executed the stated policy decision to link small savings rates to the interest paid on government securities of a comparable tenure every quarter. So one must deduce the oversight is on the political executive’s part on the timing and implications of executing the required decision as per the extant policy. The clinching factor — the five Assembly polls. The government, that has brazened it out on Opposition jibes about rising unemployment, high inflation along with soaring fuel prices, could ill afford to yield a fresh talking point — the squeezing of the middle class and senior citizens, even as they brace up for the fresh tax on provident fund incomes. This rollback is not the first instance of post-haste policy ad hocism, but it may make the government’s ₹12.05-lakh crore borrowing plan for the year harder as the central bank has been complaining of high small savings rates as a deterrent to lower interest rates. Another instance is the mysterious practice of oil companies freezing pump prices during electoral campaigns, even though oil prices are deregulated. The PM, as part of his ‘One Nation, One Election’ pitch, has often said that the virtually perennial poll season hits development. On the same note, if governments need permission to announce initiatives while the model code of conduct is in force, any deviation or reversal from routine administrative decisions should also attract the Election Commission’s scrutiny.
📰 An Act of colourable legislation
Enactment of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 in its current format damages the liberty of belief, faith and worship to all
•In his article, The needless resurrection of a buried issue (The Hindu, March 29, 2021), Dushyant Dave, senior advocate of eminence, has articulated why he opposes the challenges on constitutional grounds to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, now before the Supreme Court.
•We have by way of a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court (WP(C) 619 of 2020, which was filed earlier but notice was issued later vide order of the Supreme Court dated March 26, 2021), challenged Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 being unconstitutional, void ab initio, and against the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India.
No precedential value
•Mr. Dave has relied mainly on the Supreme Court’s observation in the Ram Janmabhoomi Case of November 9, 2019 (M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das) with respect to the Places of Worship Act, 1991. However, there was no application of the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 to the case (Shri Ram Janmabhoomi dispute).
•Section 5 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 clearly states that nothing in the Act shall apply to any suit, appeal or other proceedings relating to the said place or place of worship, i.e. the Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thereby, the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court’s (Shri Ram Janmabhoomi dispute (2020 1 SCC 1)) observation(s) with respect to the Places of Worship Act, 1991 lacks any precedential value.
•The pith and substance of the Act of 1991 is that it is ultra vires the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution since it bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and furthermore nullifies the Fundamental Right(s) guaranteed by the Constitution of India as elucidated in Article 32 of “enforcement of fundamental rights” which cannot be suspended except as otherwise stated in the Constitution.
•This importance of Article 32 can be understood by the words of the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, B.R. Ambedkar who asserted, inter alia, that Article 32 is the very soul of the Constitution and the most important Article in the Constitution.
•Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs appropriate for enforcement of all the Fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
•The top court, on various instances, ruled that in view of the constitutional scheme and the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 and on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution that “the power of judicial review being an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights”.
•The Act of 1991, is appropriately called an Act of colourable legislation. As the Courts have held, “you cannot do indirectly which you are prohibited from doing directly”.
A weakening
•The Preamble in the Constitution gives prominent importance to liberty of belief, faith and worship to all citizens, and the same is sought to be weakened and effectively nullified or severely damaged by the enactment of the Act of 1991 in its current format.
•The concepts of faith, belief and worship are the foundations of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, prohibiting citizens from approaching appropriate courts with respect to suit or any other proceedings to handover the land of any temple of certain essential significance (such as being the birthplace of Lord Rama in Ayodhya and Lord Krishna in Mathura or Lord Shiva sending his fiery Jyotirlinga in the Gyanvapi premises of Varanasi), is arbitrary, unreasonable and mala fide in the context of the fundamental rights to pray and perform religious practice as guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The intent of the Act of 1991 under Section 5, i.e. exception extended to the “Ram-Janmbhoomi matter” identifies the need and importance of resolution of such a controversy and settling long on-going disputes before the courts. But such an exception should be made for other two matters of dispute stated above.
Other disputes
•The exclusion of the Mathura and Varanasi disputes as being additional exceptions from the Act of 1991 is wholly unacceptable and against what is given by the people of India to the makers of the Constitution, enshrined in the Preamble, which is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
•Those who rely on the Act of 1991 to avoid the settlement of the dispute in Varanasi Mathura have failed to anticipate the legal principles enunciated in the judgment of the top court (in Ismail Faruqui vs. Union of India (1994 6 SCC 360)), on the religious significance of mosques and temples. Even in countries like Saudia Arabia, only Mecca and Medina have the immutable religious protection from demolition. And only authorised demolition is permitted.
•Section 4 (1) of the Act declaring that religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day, is no longer good law after this Court’s judgment in ((1994) 6 SCC 360) which held that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open maidan, on the road, railway platforms or airports.
•Ultimately, students of law are also students of history and we must not lose sight of the past. We must learn from it. But we accept one sentiment of Mr. Dave — that we cannot open the flood gates of rebuilding all 40,000 temples which were demolished on firmans of the Mughal emperors.
•Yet, where by faith Hindus believe there was a forcible demolition of an irreplaceable non-shiftable temple, it has to be rebuilt. There are only two more such temples in the list of 40,000 — the Gyanvapi Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura.
•Hence, by the doctrine of casus omissus, the Supreme Court can in an appropriate case before it order that the number of exceptions in Section 5 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, be three as an alternative solution. The Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can pass any order to carry out for doing complete justice being in the public interest, while upholding the Constitution of India.
