📰 India, Denmark to strengthen Green Strategic Partnership
Focus to be on green hydrogen, renewable energy and wastewater management
•India and Denmark on Tuesday agreed to further strengthen the Green Strategic Partnership with a focus on green hydrogen, renewable energy and wastewater management.
•“During our discussions, we reviewed the joint work plan for the Green Strategic Partnership. I am happy that significant progress has been made in various fields, especially in the areas of renewable energy, health, ports, shipping, circular economy and water management,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi told reporters here after talks with his Danish counterpart, Mette Frederiksen.
•A number of agreements covering sectors such as green shipping, animal husbandry and dairying, water management, energy, cultural exchange were inked after the bilateral talks.
•In a joint statement issued here, the two Prime Ministers welcomed the intention of both countries to deepen and expand the existing cooperation in the field of safe and secure water to meet present and future demand through a holistic and sustainable approach.
•“They looked forward to the early signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Jal Shakti and the Danish Environment Ministry as a broad-based framework to enhance the existing cooperation and to launch new initiatives, including a Smart Laboratory on Clean River Water in Varanasi and a Centre of Excellence on Smart Water Resources Management,” it said.
•The two Prime Ministers welcomed the Letter of Intent on the establishment of a Centre of Excellence on Green Shipping, which will further strengthen bilateral maritime cooperation.
•The two leaders also agreed to expand the cooperation on agriculture by a Joint Declaration of Intent establishing among others a Centre of Excellence on Dairy.
•India and Denmark also confirmed their continued collaboration in the field of antimicrobial resistance. India conveyed its acceptance of the Danish invitation to join the International Center for Antimicrobial Resistance Solutions (ICARS) as Mission Partner, the joint statement said.
•The Danish Prime Minister confirmed Danish accession to the Global Digital Health Partnership on India’s invitation to improve public health and well-being through evidence-based digital technologies.
•Mr. Modi and Ms. Frederiksen welcomed the international agreement at COP26 on the need for accelerated climate action for holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degree above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial level.
•“The two sides confirmed the aspirations — through the Green Strategic Partnership — to take global leadership in pushing for ambitious green energy transition and demonstrate the pathways to achieving it, focusing both on energy efficiency and renewable energy,” the joint statement said.
•“India’s Green Strategic Partnership with Denmark is deeply valued. PM Frederiksen and I discussed how we can make this partnership even more effective. We also discussed cooperation in sectors such as renewable energy, ports, shipping, water management and more,” Mr. Modi said in a tweet.
•Ms. Frederiksen stressed Denmark’s commitment to speed up the phase out of fossil fuels and the deployment of renewable energy in Denmark to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 70% by 2030.
India is in the throes of a widening joblessness crisis and misinformation does not help
•After many years of refusing to recognise there is a jobs crisis in India, the government of India, faced with relentless data to the contrary, has now resorted to misinformation. Scholars associated with the government have contributed to this effort. Two pieces — “Here’s why it’s V not K”, March 3, 2022 in The Times of India and “A hazy picture on employment in India”, February 1, 2022 in The Hindu are cases in point and are examined here. Regrettably, both pieces show an inadequacy in understanding the jobs situation.
•As compared to the 8% per annum GDP growth in the period 200414, and 7.5 million new non-farm jobs created each year over 2005 to 2012 (NSO’s employment-unemployment survey), the number of new nonfarm jobs generated between 20132019 was only 2.9 million, when at least 5 million were joining the labour force annually (NSO’s Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS)). The NSO itself states clearly that the two surveys provide comparable data; the claim that those two surveys are not comparable is not correct.
Unpaid family labour
•A claim is made that between 2017-18 and 2019-20, the worker participation rate (WPR) and labour force participation rate (LFPR) was rising, showing improvement in the labour market. The next question is: how come these rates were rising, exactly when the economy was slowing down sharply from 2017 to 2020? The reality is that this rise in WPR and LFPR is misleading. It was caused mostly by increasing unpaid family labour, mostly by women.
•The claim that manufacturing employment increased between 2017-18 and 2019-20 by 1.8 million is correct (based on PLFS). What this ignores is that between 2011-12 and 2017-18, manufacturing employment fell in absolute terms by 3 million, so a recovery is hardly any consolation. Manufacturing as a share of GDP fell from 17% in 2016 to 15%, then 13% in 2020, despite ‘Make in India’.
•Meanwhile, another argument offered is that GDP in FY22 “could not have returned to pre-COVID FY20 level without workers returning to work and MSMEs recovering too”. Clearly, this fails to recognise that organised economic activity could recover without a corresponding increase in unorganised activities, thus cancelling each other out, and still leave the jobless without work, or even less work. Second, a fall in urban unemployment after July 2020 to January-March 2021 has now been reversed, with urban unemployment rate rising in April-June 2021 back to mid-2020 level, and labour force participation falling again. This is a K-shaped recovery.
•In any case, the authors provide no evidence that MSMEs, that provide most of the non-farm employment, have recovered to pre-COVID levels. Meanwhile, here is the evidence. The Consortium of Indian Association (CIA) conducted a survey of over 81,000 micro businesses across Indian in June 2021, two months after the second wave was over. Of them 59% reduced their staff compared to pre-COVID levels; 88% respondents had not availed of any government stimulus packages; 28% reported they were unable to get payment dues from their customers from private or government; 64% reported banks were not giving loans.
Farm employment
•In any case, the recovery of urban employment till March 2021 clearly ignores that urban employment barely captures a third of total employment. Besides, agriculture output may have performed well during COVID, and free rations may have alleviated acute distress. This completely ignores that between 2019 and 2020, the absolute number of workers in agriculture increased from 200 million to 232 million, depressing rural wages — a reversal of the absolute fall in farm employment of 37 million between 2005-2012, when non-farm jobs were growing 7.5 million annually, real wages were rising, and number of poor falling. Rising farm employment is a reversal of the structural change underway until 2014.
•Finally, another dubious argument is offered to supplement the claim that organised formal employment is rising, because new registration in employment provident fund rose in the last two years. One limitation of EPFO-based payroll data is the absence of data on unique existing contributors. Employees join, leave and then rejoin leading to continuous revisions in EPFO enrolment.
•There has been a massive increase in joblessness of at least 10 million due to COVID-19, on top of the 30 million already unemployed in 2019. This happened while the CMIE is reporting the employment rate has fallen from nearly 43% in 2016 to 37% in just four years. Poverty had already increased during pre-COVID times, and increased further post-COVID by all estimates.
📰 The court’s burden
A national body may be better placed to plan upgradation of judicial infrastructure
•It is unfortunate that the proposal by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for a national judicial infrastructure corporation with corresponding bodies at the State level, did not find favour with many Chief Ministers at the recent joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers. A special purpose vehicle, vested with statutory powers to plan and implement infrastructure projects for the judiciary, would have been immensely helpful in augmenting facilities for the judiciary, given the inadequacies in court complexes across the country. However, it is a matter of relief that there was agreement on the idea of State-level bodies for the same purpose, with representation to the Chief Ministers so that they are fully involved in the implementation. The CJI, N.V. Ramana, who had mooted the proposal some months ago, sought to dispel the impression that a national body would usurp the powers of the executive, and underscored that it could have adequate representation of the Union/States. He had flagged the gulf between the available infrastructure and the justice needs of the people. If his proposal had been accepted, the available funding as a centrally sponsored scheme, with the Centre and States sharing the burden on a 60:40 ratio, could have been gone to the national authority, which would allocate the funds through high courts based on need. It is likely that Chief Ministers did not favour the idea as they wanted a greater say in the matter.
•Given the experience of allocated funds for judicial infrastructure going unspent in many States, it remains to be seen how far the proposed State-level bodies would be successful in identifying needs and speeding up implementation. It will naturally require greater coordination between States and the respective High Courts. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has promised assistance from the Centre to the States for creating the required infrastructure, especially for the lower judiciary. While it is a welcome sign that the focus is on infrastructure, unmitigated pendency, chronic shortage of judges and the burgeoning docket size remain major challenges. CJI Ramana flagged some aspects of the Government’s contribution to the burden of the judiciary — the failure or unwillingness to implement court orders, leaving crucial questions to be decided by the courts and the absence of forethought and broad-based consultation before passing legislation. While this may be unpalatable to the executive, it is quite true that litigation spawned by government action or inaction constitutes a huge part of the courts’ case burden. The conversation between the judiciary and the executive at the level of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers may help bring about an atmosphere of cooperation so that judicial appointments, infrastructure upgradation and downsizing pendency are seen as common concerns.
📰 Bill assent, a delay and the Governor’s options
With its provision for definite choices, the Constitution makes it obligatory for the Governor to act without a wait
•The State of Tamil Nadu has been witnessing a confrontation between the elected government and the State Governor on the question of giving assent to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) Bill (linked to an all India pre-medical entrance test) passed by the State Assembly. Giving assent to a Bill passed by the legislature is a normal constitutional act performed by the Governor. But of late, even such normal acts have become a source of confrontation between State governments and the Governors. The conduct of Governors in certain States follows a definite pattern which causes a great deal of disquiet to elected governments as well as to those who have faith in the constitutional order.
On the advice of Ministers
•The position of a Governor in the constitutional setup in India needs to be clearly understood in order to grasp the significance of the actions as well as responses of Governors in the politico-administrative contexts emerging from time to time in States. The Governor is an appointee of the President, which means the Union government. Although Article 154(1) of the Constitution vests in the Governor the executive power of the State, he is required to exercise that power in accordance with the Constitution. In other words, the Governor can act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Though there is not much deviation from the language used in the Government of India Act of 1935 in the context of the powers of the British-era Governors, it is a settled constitutional position that the Governor is only a constitutional head and the executive power of the State is exercised by the Council of Ministers. In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court had clearly affirmed this position in the following words: “We declare the law of this branch of our Constitution to be that the President and Governor, custodians of all executives and other powers under various Articles, shall, by virtue of these provisions, exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers save in a few well known exceptional situations”.
•Dr. Ambedkar explained the position of the Governor in the Constituent Assembly as follows: “The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself: no functions at all.” The Sarkaria Commission restates this position in its report, “it is a well-recognized principle that so long as the council of ministers enjoys [the] confidence of the Assembly its advice in these matters, unless patently unconstitutional, must be deemed as binding on the governor”. In 2016, a five-judge constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (the Nabam Rebia case) reaffirmed the above position on the governors’ powers in our constitutional setup.
The pathways available
•It may be stated here that this analysis of the Governor’s powers is meant to enable readers to have a perspective on the issue of the Governor of Tamil Nadu not deciding on the request for assent to the NEET Bill passed by the Assembly even after the passage of more than two months. What exactly are the options before the Governor in the matter of giving assent to a Bill passed by the Assembly?
•Article 200 of the Constitution provides for four alternative courses of action for a Governor when a Bill after being passed by the legislature is presented to him for his assent. Assent of the Governor or the President is necessary for a Bill to become law. The Governor can give his assent straightaway or withhold his assent. He may also reserve it for the consideration of the President, in which case the assent is given or withheld by the President. The fourth option is to return the Bill to the legislature with the request that it may reconsider the Bill or any particular provision of the Bill. The Governor can also suggest any new amendment to the Bill. When such a message is received from the Governor, the legislature is required to reconsider his recommendations quickly. However, if the legislature again passes the Bill without accepting any of the amendments suggested by the Governor he is constitutionally bound to give assent to the Bill.
•The Governor of Tamil Nadu returned the NEET Bill to the Assembly for reconsideration of the Bill. Accordingly, the Assembly held a special session in the first week of February and passed it again and presented it to the Governor for his assent. He has not assented to the Bill so far.
A wrong view
•In the meantime, some sources in the Raj Bhavan have reportedly said that the Constitution has not fixed any time line within which to act. This, then, is the crux of the issue. The point that is made by these sources is that since the Constitution has not fixed any time frame, the Governor can postpone a decision indefinitely. Needless to say, it is a very wrong view.
•While it is true that Article 200 does not lay down any time frame for the Governor to take action under this Article, it is imperative on the part of the Governor to exercise one of the options contained therein. A constitutional authority cannot circumvent a provision of the Constitution by taking advantage of an omission. The option mentioned in Article 200 is meant to be exercised by the Governor without delay. The context of Article 200 needs to be understood to be able to take the correct decision. After a Bill is passed by the legislature, it is sent to the Governor immediately. Although Article 200 does not say by what time the Governor should take the next step, it clearly and unambiguously states the options for him to exercise. It is obvious that if the Governor does not exercise any of those options he will not be acting in conformity with the Constitution because non-action is not an option contained in Article 200.
•But sitting on the Bill after the Assembly has passed it again and sent it to him is impermissible under the Constitution. Article 200 (proviso) clearly says that when the Assembly reconsiders the Bill on the recommendations of the Governor and presents it to him, he shall not withhold assent. The Constitution makers could never have intended that the Governor could sit on a Bill passed by the legislature for as long as he wants and take advantage of the absence of any specific time frame.
•In fact, the words used in Article 200 “... it shall be presented to the governor and the governor shall declare….” indicates that the Constitution requires the Governor to act without delay upon the presentation of the Bill. The reason is obvious. The legislature passes a Bill because there is an urgency about it. But if the Governor does not act, the will of the legislature is frustrated. It is not the constitutional policy to frustrate the legislative will as expressed through the Bill. Therefore, in view of the mandatory provision in the proviso to Article 200, it is clear that the Constitution does not permit the Governor to sit on a Bill after the Assembly re-submits it to him after reconsideration.
An undemocratic option
•Giving assent to a Bill passed by the legislature is a part of the legislative process and not of the executive power. But the Constitution has by providing for definite options made it obligatory for the Governor to exercise any of those options without delay. Withholding of assent, though an option, is not normally exercised by Governors because it will be an extremely unpopular step. Besides, withholding assent to a Bill by the Governor, an appointee of the President, neutralises the entire legislative exercise by an elected legislature enjoying the support of the people. In the opinion of this writer, this option is undemocratic and essentially against federalism. In the United Kingdom it is unconstitutional for the monarch to refuse to assent to a Bill passed by Parliament. Similarly, in Australia, refusal of assent to a Bill by the crown is considered repugnant to the federal system.
•In our constitutional system, the Governor or the President is not personally responsible for their acts. It is the elected government that is responsible. Under Article 361, the President or a Governor is not answerable to any court for anything done in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties. But when a Governor does not take any decision on a Bill which is put up for his assent, he is not acting in exercise and performance of the duties cast upon him.
