📰 People are free to choose religion: Supreme Court
Court refuses to entertain petition on conversions.
•The Supreme Court on Friday said people are free to choose their own religion, even as it lashed out at a “very, very harmful kind” of “public interest” petition claiming there is mass religious conversion happening “by hook or by crook” across the country.
•Instead, a Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman said people have a right under the Constitution to profess, practise and propagate religion.
•“Why should a person above 18 years not choose his religion? What kind of a writ petition is this? We will impose heavy costs on you... Withdraw it or argue and risk the consequences,” Justice Nariman asked petitioner-advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
•Justice Nariman reminded Mr. Upadhyay of the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. “Why do you think there is the word ‘propagate’?’” Justice Nariman asked the petitioner.
•Religious conversion is being done through a “carrot-and-stick” approach, Mr. Uapdhyay had claimed in his petition.
•Justice Nariman said every person is the final judge of their own choice of religion or who their life partner should be. Courts cannot sit in judgment of a person’s choice of religion or life partner.
•Religious faith is a part of the fundamental right to privacy.
•Justice Nariman reminded Mr. Upadhyay of the Constitution Bench judgment which upheld inviolability of the right to privacy, equating it with the rights to life, of dignity and liberty.
•Mr. Upadhyay’s petition was dismissed as withdrawn. His pleas to approach the Law Commission or the High Court with the plea was not expressly allowed by the Bench.
•The petition alleged that the court should direct the Centre and the States to control black magic, superstition and religious conversion being done through threats, intimidation or bribes.
•“There is not even one district which is free of black magic, superstition and religious conversion... Incidents are reported every week throughout the country where conversion is done by intimidating, threatening, luring through gifts and monetary benefits,” the petition had alleged.
•Further, the petition said the Centre and States were obligated under Article 46 to protect the SC/ST community from social injustice and other forms of exploitation.
Justice Chandrachud says idea behind virtual court system is not to replace physical courts
•Supreme Court judge and chairperson of its e-committee, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on Friday said live-streaming of court proceedings was on the brink of becoming a reality.
•The judge was speaking at the inauguration of a new website for judgments and e-filing.
•Justice Chandrachud used the occasion to clear the air on whether or not virtual courts had actually replaced physical courts.
•The judge said the idea behind virtual court system was not to replace physical courts, but, instead, to show the “flexibility” of the Indian judicial system to ensure that access to justice was not denied even during the hardest of times.
•Justice Chandrachud emphasised that the judiciary’s shift to virtual courts was primarily to protect the health and lives of judges, lawyers, court staff and litigants.
•“The idea is to show the flexibility of the Indian Judicial system. Not for a moment do we want to replace the physical hearing. But we are conscious of the need to protect the public health of our lawyers, litigants who come to our country or across the country,” Justice Chandrachud said in his address.
•Speaking about the new e-filing process, Justice Chandrachud said there were videos to train the lawyers.
•“We don’t put the burden of obtaining access to justice on citizens and lawyers. We take that burden and responsibility on ourselves. The idea is that every court complex must have infrastructurally provided and duly manned e-seva kendra,” Justice Chandrachud said.
📰 India protests against U.S. naval exercise sans consent
U.S. defends its actions saying they were in compliance with international laws.
•India said on Friday it has protested the U.S. decision to conduct a patrol in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the western Indian Ocean, rejecting the U.S.’s claim that its domestic maritime law was in violation of international law.
•Defending its actions, the Pentagon said it was in compliance with the international law. "I can tell you that the USS John Paul Jones, a Navy destroyer, asserted navigational rights and freedoms in the vicinity of the Republic of the Maldives by conducting innocent passage through its territorial sea in normal operations within its exclusive economic zone without requesting prior permission," Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told reporters on Friday.
•"That's consistent with international law. Again, we continue to maintain the right, indeed the responsibility, to fly, sail, and operate in accordance with international law," Mr. Kirby said in response to a question from reporters at a Pentagon news conference.
U.S. issues statement
•Earlier, in a rare and unusual public statement, the U.S. Navy announced that its ship the USS John Paul Jones had carried out Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) in the Indian EEZ, adding that its operations had “challenged” what the U.S. called India’s “excessive maritime claims.”
•“USS John Paul Jones asserted navigational rights and freedoms approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent, consistent with international law,” the U.S. Navy’s 7th fleet said in a statement on April 7. “India requires prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, a claim inconsistent with international law.”
•This FONOP upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognised in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims, the statement said.
•“We conduct routine and regular FONOPs, as we have done in the past and will continue to in the future. FONOPs are not about one country, nor are they about making political statements,” it added.
MEA response
•Responding to the statement, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement that the Government of India’s stated position on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is that the Convention “does not authorise other States to carry out in the EEZ and on the continental shelf, military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal state.”
•Stating that the USS John Paul Jones was “continuously monitored” transiting from the Persian Gulf towards the Malacca Straits, the MEA added, “We have conveyed our concerns regarding this passage through our EEZ to the Government of U.S.A through diplomatic channels.”
•The incident is a rare falling out between the two partners in the Quadrilateral Grouping that had recently committed to upholding freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific together.
•As per the annual FONOP reports released by the U.S. Department of Defence for each fiscal year, the U.S. has been regularly conducting FONOPs in Indian EEZ. The U.S. similarly carries out FONOPs against several other countries including its allies and partners. From 2007 onwards till 2017, the U.S. carried out multiple FONOPs every year challenging “excessive” Indian maritime claims. No FONOP was carried out in 2018 and 2020 and one FONOP in 2019, according to the annual reports.
•A South Block official on condition of anonymity said that, it is only when it is “military manoeuvres” in our EEZ that we need nations to seek our permission and not if you are simply transiting through. And, the term military manoeuvres is not defined anywhere, the official added.
•A second official also on condition of anonymity said it was the statement issued on the FONOP which was surprising more than the FONOP itself while questioning its timing.
'Ironical'
•Commenting on the development, former Navy Chief Adm Arun Prakash said on Twitter that there was an “irony” in this.
•“While India ratified UNCLOS in 1995, the U.S. has failed to do it so far. For the 7th Fleet to carry out FoNOPs missions in Indian EEZ in violation of our domestic law is bad enough. But publicising it? USN please switch on IFF (Identification, friend or foe)!,” he said in a tweet.
•Raising an important issue, Adm. Prakash said FONOPs by U.S. Navy ships, “ineffective as they may be,” in South China Sea (SCS), are meant to “convey a message to China that the putative EEZ” around the artificial SCS islands is an “excessive maritime claim.” “But what is the 7th Fleet message for India?” he asked.
•Congress leaders also voiced surprise at the U.S. move. In a tweet, Manish Tewari said, “This never happened in the 10 years of UPA or perhaps even before that as far as I can recall . The last time I remember it being so rather in your face was 1971 - Task Force 74 - 7 th Fleet. What then happened is History. Hope the NDA/BJP shows some Oomph?”
•Echoing the surprise, former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh, said, “And this happened when the former U.S. Secretary of State and Climate Envoy, John Kerry, was meeting Ministers in New Delhi.”
📰 Second wave poses increased risks for fragile recovery, banks: Fitch
Firm sees stress in MSME, retail loans
•Fitch Ratings on Friday said the second COVID-19 wave poses increased risks for India’s fragile economic recovery and its banks.
•The rating agency expects a moderately worse environment for the Indian banking sector in 2021, but headwinds would intensify if rising infections and follow-up measures to contain the virus further affect business and economic activity.
•India’s active COVID-19 infections have been increasing at a rapid pace with new infections exceeding 1 lakh a day in early April.
•“The government’s more accommodative fiscal stance may also mitigate some short-term growth pressures,” Fitch said. “However, inoculating India’s large population in a fast and effective way will be important to avoid repeated disruptions,” it said.
•Fitch forecasts India’s GDP growth at 12.8% for the current financial year and this incorporates expectations of a slowdown in the April-June quarter due to the flare-up in new coronavirus cases. But the rising pace of infections poses renewed risks to the forecast.
Infections concentrated
•“Over 80% of the new infections are in six prominent States, which combined account for roughly 45% of total banking sector loans. Any further disruption in economic activity in these States would pose a setback for fragile business sentiment, even though a stringent pan-India lockdown like the one in 2020 is unlikely,” Fitch Ratings said in a statement.
•The operating environment for banks will most likely remain challenging. The second wave could dent the sluggish recovery in consumer and corporate confidence, and further, suppress banks’ prospects for new business.
•There are also asset quality concerns since banks’ financial results are yet to fully factor in the first wave’s impact and the stringent 2020 lockdown due to the forbearance in place.
•“We consider the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) and retail loans to be most at risk. Retail loans have been performing better than our expectations, but might see increased stress if renewed restrictions impinge further on individual incomes and savings.
•“MSMEs, however, benefited from state-guaranteed refinancing schemes that prevented stressed exposures from souring,” the ratings agency noted.
•It said the extension of the MSME refinancing scheme until June 30, will alleviate short-term pain, but potentially add to the sector’s exposure to stressed MSMEs, which was around 8.5% of loans at the end of December, as per Fitch’s estimate.
📰 A disturbing order: ASI survey in Gyanvapi mosque
ASI survey in Gyanvapi mosque should not be allowed to resurrect disputes buried by law
•The order of a civil court in Varanasi that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) should conduct a survey to ascertain whether the Gyanvapi mosque was built over a demolished Hindu temple is an unconscionable intervention that will open the floodgates for another protracted religious dispute. The order, apparently in gross violation of the explicit legislative prohibition on any litigation over the status of places of worship, is likely to give a fillip to majoritarian and revanchist forces that earlier carried on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement over a site in Ayodhya. That dispute culminated in the country’s highest court handing over the site to the very forces that conspired to illegally demolish the Babri Masjid. The plaintiffs, who have filed a suit as representatives of Hindu faith to reclaim the land on which the mosque stands, have now succeeded in getting the court to commission an ASI survey to look for the sort of evidence that they would never have been able to adduce on their own. The order has been issued despite the fact that the Allahabad High Court reserved its order on the maintainability of the suit on March 15 and is yet to pronounce its ruling. It is not clear why the civil judge did not wait for the ruling and went ahead with his directive to the ASI.
•By an order in 1997, the civil court had decided that the suit was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which said all pending suits concerning the status of places of worship will abate and that none can be instituted. The 1991 Act also froze the status of all places of worship, barring the then disputed site in Ayodhya, as on August 15, 1947. There was another exception — any place of worship that was an archaeological site or ancient monument covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. On a revision application, another court had asked the trial court to decide afresh the question whether the suit was barred afresh “after taking evidence”. Presumably, the latest application seeking a survey by the ASI as an expert body is aimed at providing that “evidence”. Regardless of the merits of either side’s case, it ought to be clear to anyone concerned with peace and harmony in the country that the attempt to resurrect disputes buried by law is a serious setback to the cause of secularism and peaceful coexistence. That new challenges are emerging to the wisdom of Parliament in giving a statutory quietus to squabbles over religious sites is deeply disturbing.
📰 Time tests ties: On India-Russia relations
India and Russia must ensure their relationship is not strained by changed reality
•Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s visit to Delhi this week, saw both he and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reaffirming traditional India-Russia ties, but there were signs that those ties are being tested. Mr. Lavrov’s trip was to make preparations for the upcoming visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the annual summit — it was postponed last year due to the coronavirus pandemic. On the bilateral front, both sides appeared to make progress on strategic cooperation, cooperation in energy, nuclear and space sectors, and on talks on a free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Also discussed were more agreements on military-technical cooperation for the joint production of India-made Russian weapons, with Mr. Lavrov highlighting Russia being the only partner supplying India “cutting-edge military technology”. While neither side referred to the upcoming delivery of the $5 billion S-400 missile defence system directly, they reaffirmed their commitment to their defence partnership, as well as avenues for more investment in connectivity including the International North-South Transport Corridor and the Chennai-Vladivostok Eastern Maritime Corridor. The areas of divergence over their worldview seemed to emerge during their public remarks, which were prefaced by Mr. Jaishankar’s reference to the “rebalanced nature” of international relations. Mr. Lavrov’s praise of Russia-China ties was clearly not shared by Mr. Jaishankar. While he referred repeatedly to India’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy, Mr. Lavrov preferred the more continental reference to the “Asia-Pacific” region. Mr. Lavrov’s derisive indirect reference to the Quad as an “Asian NATO” was significant, although he said both sides agreed that military alliances in Asia were inadvisable and counterproductive. On Afghanistan as well, the Russian push for bringing the Taliban into a power-sharing arrangement in Kabul seemed to come up against India’s consistent push for a “democratic Afghanistan”.
•Beyond those divergences, it was the optics of Mr. Lavrov’s brief visit that fuelled the impression that New Delhi and Moscow are not as much on the same page as they have traditionally been; it did not include a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, unlike earlier. The absence of a meeting at the highest level seemed more in focus, as Mr. Modi met with U.S. Special Envoy John Kerry just a day later, and at his next stop, in Islamabad, Mr. Lavrov was received by Prime Minister Imran Khan and Pakistan Army Chief General Bajwa. This was Mr. Lavrov’s first visit to Pakistan in nine years, and was a clear message of deepening ties. Unlike in 2012, Mr. Lavrov this time said that Russia was ready to strengthen Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts with the supply of “relevant equipment”, which will raise eyebrows in Delhi. While India and Russia have successfully addressed divergences between them, even deep, traditional and “time-tested relations” of the kind they have shared for decades cannot be taken for granted, and the two sides should move quickly, if they desire to dispel the notion that those ties are under any strain.
📰 India does have a refugee problem
It needs to clinically address the issue of refugee protection and introduce appropriate legal and institutional measures
•The heart-wrenching scenes of Myanmarese citizens, including little children — fleeing from a junta bent on killing its way into power in Myanmar — being turned away at the Indian border in the Northeast has once again revived the domestic debate about refugee protection in India. The current plight of the Myanmarese has been preceded by that of another group of Myanmarese, the Rohingya. And not too long ago, the debate was dominated by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and its impact on those seeking refuge in India, even though new refugees would not be benefited by the law since the cut-off year of the CAA is 2014. In any case, refugee flows to India are unlikely to end any time soon given the geopolitical, economic, ethnic and religious contexts of the region. There is, therefore, an urgent need today to clinically address the issue of refugee protection in India and put in place appropriate legal and institutional measures.
Refugees versus immigrants
•India has emphatically argued over time, particularly in the recent past, that illegal immigration from the neighbouring countries to India must come to an end. There is little doubt that illegal immigration is a threat to the socio-political fabric of any country, including India, with potential security implications. And yet, in this growing debate about the sources and implications of illegal immigration into the country, the issue of refugees tends to get subsumed under it or at best relegated to the backburner, neither of which do justice to the helpless people fleeing from persecution at home. While the reality is that much of the debate in the country is about the illegal immigrants, not refugees, the two categories tend to get bunched together. And because we have jumbled up the two issues over time, our policies and remedies to deal with these issues suffer from a lack of clarity as well as policy utility.
Ambiguity in the framework
•The main reason why our policies towards illegal immigrants and refugees is confused is because as per Indian law, both categories of people are viewed as one and the same and are covered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 which offers a simple definition of a foreigner — “foreigner” means “a person who is not a citizen of India”. Needless to say that there are fundamental differences between illegal immigrants and refugees, but India is legally ill-equipped to deal with them separately due to a lack of legal provisions. Recall that India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the key legal documents pertaining to refugee protection.
•The absence of such a legal framework also leads to policy ambiguity whereby India’s refugee policy is guided primarily by ad hocism which, of course, often has its own ‘political utility’. Ad hoc measures enable the government in office to pick and choose ‘what kind’ of refugees it wants to admit for whatever political or geopolitical reasons, and what kind of refugees it wants to avoid giving shelter, for similar reasons. At the same time, the absence of a legal framework increases the possibility of the domestic politicisation of refugee protection and complicates its geopolitical faultlines.
•The absence of a clearly laid down refugee protection law also opens the door for geopolitical considerations while deciding to admit refugees or not. Consider the most recent case of Myanmarese refugees fleeing to India for protection from the junta at home. New Delhi’s concern is that if it takes a decision that irks the Generals in Naypyitaw, Beijing would get closer to the junta and use the opportunity to hurt India’s interests in Myanmar. This fear, at least partly, is what has prompted India’s decision not to admit the refugees. However, hypothetically speaking, if New Delhi had a domestic legislation regarding refugees, despite not being a signatory to the relevant international conventions, it could have tempered the expectations of the junta to return the fleeing Myanmarese.
Legal, moral complexities
•India, for the most part, has had a stellar record on the issue of refugee protection, a moral tradition that has come under great stress of late. New Delhi has been one of the largest recipients of refugees in the world in spite of not being a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Whether or not India should be a party to these international legal instruments has been a matter of some debate in the country. A proper interpretation of the text of the 1951 Convention and the less-than-perfect western practice of refugee protection could lead one to conclude that a country like India, given its track record of refugee protection as well as a vulnerable geopolitical and socio-economic situation, need not unreservedly accede to the convention and the protocol in the way they currently stand.
•For one, as is often discussed in India, the definition of refugees in the 1951 convention only pertains to the violation of civil and political rights, but not economic rights, of individuals, for instance. Put differently, a person, under the definition of the convention, could be considered if he/she is deprived of political rights, but not if he/she is deprived of economic rights. If the violation of economic rights were to be included in the definition of a refugee, it would clearly pose a major burden on the developed world. On the other hand, however, this argument, if used in the South Asian context, could be a problematic proposition for India too. And yet, this lop-sidedness is something New Delhi has traditionally highlighted, and justifiably so, as a reason for its non-accession to the treaty. The West’s lopsided obsession with civil and political rights at the cost of economic rights is a convenient excuse with little moral backing.
•Second, as scholar B.S. Chimni has argued, “India should not accede to the 1951 convention at a time when the North is violating it in both letter and spirit… India should argue that their accession is conditional on the Western States rolling back the non-entrée (no entry) regime they have established over the past two decades. The non-entrée regime is constituted by a range of legal and administrative measures that include visa restrictions, carrier sanctions, interdictions, third safe-country rule, restrictive interpretations of the definition of ‘refugee’, withdrawal of social welfare benefits to asylum seekers, and widespread practices of detention.” In other words, India must use its exemplary, though less than perfect, history of refugee protection to begin a global conversation on the issue.
•Let us return to the Indian context. So if we have a refugee problem, as we do, and the accession to the refugee convention, in the manner it exists today, is neither desirable nor pragmatic, what other options do we have to respond to the refugee situation we are faced with and which is increasingly getting mixed up with the raging political debate on illegal immigration into the country?
New domestic law needed
•The answer perhaps lies in a new domestic law aimed at refugees. The CAA, however, is not the answer to this problem primarily because of its deeply discriminatory nature: it is morally untenable to have a discriminatory law to address the concerns of refugees who are fleeing their home country due to such discrimination in the first place. More fundamentally, perhaps, the CAA is an act in refugee avoidance, not refugee protection.
•What is perhaps equally important is that such a domestic refugee law should allow for temporary shelter and work permit for refugees. This is crucial because in the absence of proper legal measures, refugee documentation, and work permit, refugees may end up becoming illegal immigrants using illicit means. Put differently, the absence of a refugee law incentivises illegal immigration into the country. New Delhi must also make a distinction between temporary migrant workers, illegal immigrants and refugees and deal with each of them differently through proper legal and institutional mechanisms. Our traditional practice of managing these issues with ambiguity and political expediency has become deeply counterproductive: It neither protects the refugees nor helps stop illegal immigration into the country.
