📰 No centralised list under cybercrime volunteer programme: Home Ministry
In response to RTI application, Ministry says info can be sought directly from States, Union Territories
•The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has said it does not maintain a centralised list of volunteers enrolled under the cybercrime volunteer programme since police is a “State subject” under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
•The MHA, through its cybercrime grievance portal, cybercrime.gov.in, aims to raise a group of “cybercrime volunteers” to flag “unlawful content” on the Internet. Digital rights group, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), has said the programme enables a culture of surveillance and could create potential social distrust by encouraging civilians to report the online activities of other citizens.
•In response to a Right to Information Act (RTI) application by The Hindu on the total number of volunteers who have applied under the Cyber Crime Volunteer Program of the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, the Ministry stated that the information can be sought directly from the respective States and Union Territories.
•The Ministry said in the RTI reply that ‘police’ and ‘public order’ are State subjects as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and States were primarily responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes through their law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
•“The Cyber Crime Volunteer Framework has been rolled out as a part of cyber hygiene promotion to bring together citizens to contribute in the fight against cybercrime in the country and assist State/UT LEAs in their endeavour to curb cybercrimes. The volunteers are registered, and their services utilised, by the respective State/UT LEAs as per their requirement. It is requested to kindly seek the information directly from the respective State/UT LEAs. The detailed programme document is available at www.cybercrime.gov.in,” the MHA said in the RTI reply.
•Though the Ministry did not provide information in the RTI reply, according to its output outcome monitoring framework of budget 2021-22, the programme is expected to include 500 volunteers, 200 “cyber awareness promoters” and 50 “cyber experts.”
MP’s poser
•In March, Biju Janta Dal MP Pinaki Misra had asked whether “concerns of infringement of privacy due to surreptitious and mala fide intrusion into an individual’s online activities are addressed in this programme and its operating protocol.”
•The National Cybercrime Ecosystem Management Unit, of which the cyber crime volunteer programme is a constituent, is part of the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) scheme launched by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in January 2020. The project was approved in October 2018 at an estimated cost of ₹415.86 crore. The I4C scheme that includes other components also has been allocated ₹69.80 crore in the 2021-22 budget.
It’s pursuing options to generate oxygen on an ‘urgent basis’.
•The U.S will immediately deploy supplies and other assistance to India, the White House said, following a Sunday call between the National Security Advisers of two countries, Ajit Doval and Jake Sullivan. The U.S.’s assistance will include making raw materials for COVID-19 vaccine ‘Covishield’ immediately accessible and pursuing options to generate oxygen “on an urgent basis.” However, there was no mention of the U.S. shipping ready-to-use vaccines from its stockpiles. Over the past week, the Biden administration had faced growing criticism for not doing and saying enough about the situation in India.
•The U.S. was “working around the clock” to deploy “available resources and supplies,” a statement released by NSC spokesperson Emily Horne on Sunday said. “Mr. Sullivan affirmed America’s solidarity with India, the two countries with the greatest number of COVID-19 cases in the world,” Ms. Horne said.
•The U.S. had identified sources of raw materials needed to manufacture Covishield and will make them “immediately” available for India, she said. Earlier in April, Adar Poonawalla, whose company Serum Institute of India (SII) manufactures the vaccine, had publicly appealed to U.S. President Joe Biden to lift export embargoes on raw materials. The administration denied that outright embargoes exist. However, as a consequence of the U.S.’s Defense Production Act (emergency powers that allow the government to control private sector production decisions) federal government purchase orders have to be prioritised over foreign orders, resulting in shortages for export.
•Sunday’s statement from Ms. Horne detailed other forms of immediate assistance to India.
•“To help treat COVID-19 patients and protect front-line health workers in India, the United States has identified supplies of therapeutics, rapid diagnostic test kits, ventilators, and Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] that will immediately be made available for India. The United States also is pursuing options to provide oxygen generation and related supplies on an urgent basis,” Ms. Horne’s statement said.
Financing for BioE
•The U.S. will also expand financing for BioE, a Hyderabad-based firm, to ramp up production to meet requirements of a vaccine supply programme that is being rolled out by the Quad (India, the U.S. , Australia and Japan). It will also deploy a team of experts to work with the U.S. Embassy in India to fastback support.
•“The U.S. Development Finance Corporation [DFC] is funding a substantial expansion of manufacturing capability for BioE, the vaccine manufacturer in India, enabling BioE to ramp up to produce at least 1 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines by the end of 2022. Additionally, the United States is deploying an expert team of public health advisers from the Center for Disease Control [CDC] and USAID to work in close collaboration with the U.S. Embassy, India’s health ministries, and India’s epidemic intelligence service staff. USAID will also quickly work with the CDC to support and fast-track the mobilisation of emergency resources available to India through the Global Fund,” Ms. Horne said.
•“Just as India sent assistance to the United States as our hospitals were strained early in the pandemic, the United States is determined to help India in its time of need,” the statement said.
Blinken’s reaction
•U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had reacted publicly to the COVID-19 wave ravaging India on Saturday night, saying the U.S. would “rapidly deploy additional support.”
•“Our hearts go out to the Indian people in the midst of the horrific COVID-19 outbreak. We are working closely with our partners in the Indian government, and we will rapidly deploy additional support to the people of India and India’s health care heroes,” Mr. Blinken had tweeted.
•External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Mr. Blinken spoke last week and discussed the COVID-19 situation but the State Department was unwilling to get into any details of the call beyond the readout.
•The Biden administration has been under growing pressure this past week to send oxygen and spare vaccines to India: supplies that are of use now, as opposed to meeting global future demand (such as the Quad initiative and global vaccine distribution facility Covax do).
•The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful trade body, Asia policy specialists and lawmakers, called on the U.S. to donate vaccines — such as from its stockpile of 30-40 million doses of unused AstraZeneca shots.
•“We are currently sitting on close to 40 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the U.S. stockpile, a stockpile which we’re not using … I respectfully but strongly call on the Biden Administration to release millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses to countries hardest hit by the spread of COVID-19, including India, Argentina, and potentially others,” Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat, said on Saturday.
•In March, a deal was struck in which 4 million of these would be shared with Canada and Mexico. The administration has not announced plans since to send more such vaccines abroad.
•“@POTUS please speak to @PMOIndia and see if we can lend 10M doses of AZ vaccine like tomorrow. We must help now!” tweeted Shekar Narasimhan, founder Super PAC (Political Action Committee) Asian American Pacific Islander Victory Fund.
•Some Democrats — including Democratic primary candidates, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — had asked Mr. Biden to support a waiver of intellectual property rights to facilitate the production of COVID-19 therapeutics globally.
•India has begun receiving supplies from other countries. Singapore sent oxygen cylinders on Saturday and the UAE , Russia and the EU are in the process of sending medical supplies. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan had tweeted a message of “solidarity with the people of India” on Saturday.
📰 Indian Railways offer sops for ‘Oxygen Express’
Tamil Nadu currently doesn’t figure in the routes planned
•With the demand for liquid oxygen on the rise from major hospitals across the country, the Indian Railways has decided to waive certain charges on ‘Oxygen Express’ trains. Though sources said the Centre had decided to divert 80 MT of liquid oxygen from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the State does not figure in the list of originating points in the routes mapped for operating the special trains.
•The Ministry of Railways has exempted the ‘Oxygen Express’ trains transporting liquid medical oxygen in cryogenic tankers from the levy of ‘Over-Dimensional Consignment’ charges as a special case. Replying to a query flagged by the Container Corporation of India, the Railways waived the ‘Busy Season Charge’ and ‘Development Charge’ levies. It was also decided not to levy ‘Terminal Access Charges’ for the rakes at the container Rail Terminal.
Haulage charge
•The Railways has decided to levy haulage charges per 20-foot length container. Though no charges would be made on empty flats in the rake, the operator was requested to mobilise additional liquid medical oxygen from other consignors so as to obviate any empty flat movement. The operator was also advised to ensure necessary precaution for the same movement of liquid oxygen.
•While oxygen consignments to the tune of 150 MT in 10 tankers have already been delivered and nine are on the move, the Railways have planned to operate Oxygen Express trains to destinations in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Delhi, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.
•In view of the rapid rise in COVID-19 cases and a significant surge in the demand for liquid medical oxygen in all parts of the country, the Ministry of Home Affairs had written to all States a couple of days ago to map all oxygen manufacturing units. Where such facilities were closed, the MHA called for necessary action to revive the plants, considering the urgent requirement of liquid medical oxygen.
📰 A green partnership: On U.S.-India climate pact
The U.S.-India climate pact has the potential to aid sustainable post-pandemic development
•The U.S.-India Climate and Clean Energy Agenda 2030 Partnership raises expectations that the coming decade will see sustained financial and technological cooperation between the two countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the Leaders Summit on Climate organised by U.S. President Joe Biden, the world’s attention was focused on countries responsible for the highest carbon emissions. India ranks third, behind the U.S. and China, although its per capita CO2 emissions are less than 60% of the global average, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi pointed out. There is little confidence in a pandemic-stricken world, however, that future growth pathways will be aligned away from fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency, in fact, expects a dramatic rise in emissions as countries race to shake off the impact of the coronavirus, as they did after the 2008 financial crisis. Yet, the years to 2030, as President Biden put it, are part of a “decisive decade”, and action to scale up funding and innovation can help all countries move closer to keeping global warming well below 2°C or even 1.5°C, as the Paris Agreement envisages. There are many aspects to the bilateral pact that could be transformative for energy-intensive sectors in India, starting with renewable power expansion to 450 GW. With open source technologies, India could incorporate innovative materials and processes to decarbonise industry, transport and buildings, the biggest emitters, apart from power.
•Many developed countries tend to view India’s reluctance to commit to a net zero emissions target as recalcitrance, but the climate change crisis originated not here but in the industrialised world, which has used up much of the world’s carbon space. A forward-looking policy should, therefore, envision green development anew, providing funding and green technologies as compensation for the emissions space lost by poorer countries. This is a win-win game, since it would aid sustainable development, boost employment, clean up the environment and, crucially, help all countries emerge healthier from the pandemic. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who announced enhanced ambition at the summit for Britain to cut carbon emissions by 78% by 2035 over 1990 levels, advanced the agenda by calling for climate funding by rich nations to exceed the decade-old goal of $100 billion. For the India-U.S. agreement to yield results, Mr. Biden would have to persuade industry and research institutions at home to share knowledge and subsidise transfer of technologies. He has won commendations for steering America around from the science-deprived Trump years and announcing enhanced ambition: cuts in emissions by 50% to 52% by 2030 over 2005 levels. But much of his climate effort will rely on executive authority, rather than bipartisan support. With political will on both sides, the engagement with India can become a model.
📰 A case for judicial federalism
The need for a uniform judicial order across India is unwarranted in COVID-19-related cases
•In comparison to the legislature and the executive, what the judiciary can deliver in the realm of socio-economic rights is limited. Courts cannot build better health infrastructure or directly supply oxygen; neither are they functionally bound to. Courts often lack the expertise and resources to decide social rights issues. What they can do is to ask tough questions to the executive, implement existing laws and regulations, and hold the executive accountable in various aspects of healthcare allocation. In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), the Supreme Court underlined the value of human lives and said that the right to emergency medical treatment is part of the citizen’s fundamental rights. As such, constitutional courts owe a duty to protect this right.
•In the face of a de facto COVID-19 health emergency, the High Courts of Delhi, Gujarat, Madras and Bombay, among others, have done exactly that. They considered the pleas of various hospitals for oxygen supply. The Gujarat High Court issued a series of directions, including for laboratory testing and procurement of oxygen. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court was constrained to hold night sittings to consider the issue of oxygen supply. It directed immediate restoration of oxygen supply that had been reduced from the Bhilai steel plant in Chhattisgarh. The Delhi High Court directed the Central government to ensure adequate measures for the supply of oxygen. It cautioned that we might lose thousands of lives due to lack of oxygen.
Transfer of cases
•On April 22, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue in ‘Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic’. It said, “Prima facie, we are inclined to take the view that the distribution of these essential services and supplies must be done in an even-handed manner according to the advice of the health authorities” and asked the Central government to present a national plan. In addition, it issued an order asking the State governments and the Union Territories to “show cause why uniform orders” should not be passed by the Supreme Court. The court thus indicated the possibility of transfer of cases to the Supreme Court, which it has done on various occasions before.
•Under Article 139A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does have the power to transfer cases from the High Courts to itself if cases involve the same questions of law. However, what make the court’s usurpation disturbing are two well-founded observations regarding its contemporary conduct. One, the court has been indifferent to the actions and inactions of the executive even in cases where interference was warranted, such as the Internet ban in Kashmir. Two, where effective remedies were sought, when activists and journalists were arrested and detained, the court categorically stayed aloof. It acted as if its hands were tied. Lawyers will find it difficult to recall a significant recent case of civil liberty from the court where tangible relief was granted against the executive, except for rhetorical statements on personal liberty.
•These features, coupled with the unhealthy characteristics of an executive judiciary, makes the court’s indication for a takeover disturbing. On April 23, presumably due to widespread criticism of the court’s move, especially from a section of the legal fraternity, the court backtracked and simply adjourned the case.
•The matter might be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming days. Significantly, the developments so far offer some crucial lessons for judicial federalism in India. The very fact that many from different High Court Bar Associations spoke up against the move to transfer the cases from the High Courts to the Supreme Court is a positive signal that underlines re-emergence of internal democracy within the Bar. Navroz Seervai, a noted lawyer from the Bombay High Court, critiqued the views of the top court saying that they reflected “arrogance of power” and “rank contempt for and disregard of the High Courts in the country, and the extremely important and vital role they play in the constitutional scheme”.
•In the Supreme Court, the judges sit in Benches of two or more. The purpose of this practice is to encourage deliberation on the Bench to have a higher level of deliberative justice. This necessarily presupposes dissent. A characteristic feature of the apex court in the recent years is general lack of dissent in issues that have serious political ramifications. This deficit occurs not only in the formally pronounced judgments and orders; dissenting judges on the Bench are rare, and the hearing on the COVID-19 case was no exception.
•According to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, public health and hospitals come under the State List as Item No. 6. There could be related subjects coming under the Union List or Concurrent List. Also, there may be areas of inter-State conflicts. But as of now, the respective High Courts have been dealing with specific challenges at the regional level, the resolution of which does not warrant the top court’s interference.
•In addition to the geographical reasons, the constitutional scheme of the Indian judiciary is pertinent. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court itself said that the High Courts are “institutions endowed with glorious judicial traditions” since they “had been in existence since the 19th century and were possessed of a hoary past enabling them to win the confidence of the people”. Even otherwise, in a way, the power of the High Court under Article 226 is wider than the Supreme Court’s under Article 32, for in the former, a writ can be issued not only in cases of violation of fundamental rights but also “for any other purpose”. This position was reiterated by the court soon after its inception in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (1951).
Autonomy is the rule
•Judicial federalism has intrinsic and instrumental benefits which are essentially political. The United States is an illustrative case. Scholar G. Alan Tarr of Rutgers University hinted, “Despite the existence of some endemic and periodical problems, the American system of judicial federalism has largely succeeded in promoting national uniformity and subnational diversity in the administration of justice”. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rightly said in a 1984 paper that the U.S. Supreme Court reviews “only a relative handful of cases from state courts” which ensures “a large measure of autonomy in the application of federal law” for the State courts.
•This basic tenet of judicial democracy is well accepted across the courts in the modern federal systems. The need for a uniform judicial order across India is warranted only when it is unavoidable — for example, in cases of an apparent conflict of laws or judgments on legal interpretation. Otherwise, autonomy, not uniformity, is the rule. Decentralisation, not centrism, is the principle. In the COVID-19-related cases, High Courts across the country have acted with an immense sense of judicial responsibility. This is a legal landscape that deserves to be encouraged. To do this, the Supreme Court must simply stay away.
📰 The road ahead in India’s augmented vaccination drive
Flattening the COVID-19 curve eventually rests on judicious vaccination deployment plans and the pace of vaccination
•India is presently battling an aggressive second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. India launched its vaccination drive in mid-January, starting with the vaccination of priority groups. The central government has announced a slew of policy measures to expand the eligibility bracket of vaccinees and to deploy more vaccines for domestic use. These policy interventions coupled with the availability of vaccines in the open market are expected to further intensify India’s anti-COVID-19 battle.
Interventions into action
•The decision to open up vaccination for all individuals above 18 years of age and to make available vaccines in the open market and vaccines approved in other countries is a welcome move, especially when the country is facing a surge in COVID-19 cases. With more than 300,000 cases being reported across the country on a daily basis over the last three to four days, with health facilities getting overwhelmed, and with vaccine shortages, the new policy interventions for accelerating the vaccination drive need to be quickly translated into action.
•India is presently vaccinating more than three million people per day and has administered more than 140 million doses of the vaccine as of April 25, 2021. What is important, however, is the vaccinated versus total population ratio. Only about 22.3 million people, which is roughly 1.63% of India’s population, have been fully vaccinated, against a requirement of 70%-75% for achieving herd immunity. The corresponding figures for the United States and the United Kingdom are 28% and 18%, respectively, while it is 55% for Israel (https://bit.ly/3aEPVDP). By realistic estimates, India may need to administer about two billion doses of vaccines to reach herd immunity levels. India’s current daily vaccination figure, although impressive in itself, may not be adequate to reach the target in the quickest possible time. The need of the hour is, therefore, an uninterrupted supply of vaccines for the proposed accelerated and augmented vaccination drive.
•The import relaxations announced for COVID-19 vaccines and the recent guidelines issued by India’s drug regulatory authority for restricted use in emergency situation of vaccines which are already approved for restricted use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the European Medicines Agency, and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency Japan have eased the introduction into India of the newer generation mRNA vaccines and other vaccines effective against the variants and mutant strains of the virus. Despite the regulatory nod, the full-fledged roll-out of these vaccines may be delayed in view of the time requirements for the mandatory bridging trials and safety assessments of the first 100 recipients of these vaccines. As time is of the essence, can some of these requirements be short-circuited, with weightage given to data from the trials conducted abroad? Would it not be possible to extrapolate data pertaining to Indian-origin recipients of the Pfizer or Moderna or other vaccines and determine the suitability of these vaccines for domestic use in India?
Issue of ethics
•The ethics in prioritising target populations for vaccination were hotly debated globally, prior to the launch of the vaccination campaign. Prioritisation was done based on the number of infections that could be prevented, the number of lives that could be saved, the probability of survival, the length of survival and the ‘utility’ of the lives saved (in terms of life years gained and in quality of life improved). Top priority was assigned to health care and other front-line health workers, which satisfied the doctrine of benefit maximisation. While choosing 60-plus and those with co-morbidities as the third priority group, the guiding principle was the protection of the most vulnerable.
•Relaxation of age-limit for deciding on the eligibility for vaccination has twin advantages, the first being the expansion of the vaccination net and the second being the freedom of the individual to exercise options for selecting the vaccine of her choice. The younger lot of the economically active population group and students attending college and university can get themselves vaccinated from May 1. This has the widest impact from the health economics point of view, as the Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) saved through vaccination of the 18-plus age-group would be the highest.
•Allowing students of the outgoing and incoming Class XII into the vaccination net, sooner than later, seems prudent, although with DALY as the sole criterion, they may not qualify. Class XII is the gateway to higher education. These students have already had one academic year of online studies, which too had been dogged by equity and accessibility concerns, besides psychological stress and tensions. A comprehensive strategy to vaccinate students in the 16-plus age-group, in the next phase merits consideration, as has been approved by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Vaccine pricing
•The decision to keep the 18 to 44-year age-bracket under the ‘other than Government of India channel’ may discourage the socially and economically disadvantaged people such as labourers and daily wage workers from seeking vaccination, as they may not be able to procure the vaccines at determined prices.
•The silver lining, nevertheless, is that State governments can take a call on providing the vaccine to this age-group free of cost. This may perhaps be a financial strain on cash-strapped State governments. Despite the financial burden, States such as Kerala have already committed to providing vaccines free of charge to all eligible people. The differential pricing regime announced by the Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech for supply of their vaccines to the central government and State governments and the private sector is, however, a matter of concern. A rethink on the pricing strategies of these companies is called for. Furthermore, it would be equitable if those who can afford to pay for their own doses opt to do so.
•Flattening the COVID-19-curve and its downward trajectory eventually rest on judicious vaccination deployment plans and the pace of vaccination. The proposed augmented and fast-tracked vaccination drive with a wider population base and a bigger basket of vaccines should facilitate the health system in this ongoing battle against COVID-19.
