📰 India’s EV ambition rides on three wheels
The EV policies put in place by some States as part of FAME-II have been instrumental in driving this growth
•India’s push for electric vehicles (EVs) was renewed when phase-II of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid and) Electric (FAME) Vehicles scheme in India, with an outlay of ₹10,000 crore, was approved in 2019. This was significant since phase-I, launched in 2015, was approved with an outlay of ₹895 crore. India was doubling down on its EV ambitions, focusing on cultivating demand for EVs at home while also developing its own indigenous EV manufacturing industry which could cater to this demand.
•Initially envisioned for three years, FAME-II got a two-year extension in June 2021 owing to a number of factors including the pandemic. It aims to support 10 lakh e-two-wheelers, 5 lakh e-three-wheelers, 55,000 e-four-wheeler passenger cars and 7,000 e-buses. Three years into FAME-II, the numbers have been lagging far behind the original three-year target. As a part of FAME-II, the government has made a push for indigenous manufacturing with a number of automakers answering the call. Legacy auto manufacturers such as Tata Motors, Mahindra & Mahindra, Hero Electric, and TVS unveiled their EV offerings. New EV players also emerged on the scene with the likes of Ola and Bounce entering the e-two-wheeler segment. While e-two-wheelers and e-four-wheelers receive significant coverage, a three-wheeled underdog has been quietly dominating the Indian EV space.
The dominance of e-3-wheelers
•Three-wheeler EVs like e-autos and e-rickshaws account for close to 65% of all EVs registered in India. In contrast, two-wheeler EVs come at a distant second with over 30% of registrations and passenger four-wheeler EVs at a meagre 2.5%. Under the targets for FAME-II, e-three-wheelers have crossed over 4 lakh vehicles of the 5-lakh target since 2019. The numbers are expected to be higher given the prevalence of unregistered vehicles in India. At the current rate, e-three-wheelers are expected to breach the 5-lakh target by 2023. Given the success of e-three-wheelers, it is worth taking a closer look at their dominant position, how they got here, and what India’s EV policy can do to sustain their success and extend it to the other categories.
•The EV registrations data show that Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal account for close to 80% of all e-three-wheeler registrations, with U.P. accounting for close to 40% of all registrations. Of these five States, Assam, Delhi, U.P., and West Bengal have formalised EV policies while Bihar has a draft policy with a final policy due to be introduced later in 2022. Incidentally, these five States are characterised by high population density and shortage of affordable public transport. Indigenously designed and produced, e-three-wheelers like e-rickshaws have become a common sight in these States. Costing between ₹1 lakh and ₹1.5 lakh, these vehicles are produced by scores of local workshops and small enterprises and have come to dominate the e-three-wheeler market. With financial assistance from FAME-II, local manufacturers have built a truly Indian EV with its unique design catering to Indian commuter needs. Legacy automakers with their own e-three-wheeler offerings have been struggling to compete with these local producers. The EV policies put in place by these States as part of FAME-II have been instrumental in driving this growth.
•The focus of the EV policies of these five States is on accelerating adoption of EVs among consumers and promoting local manufacturing. All five States provide road tax exemption of 100% and on registration fees. Assam, Delhi and West Bengal have linked incentives to the battery size (in kWh) with additional benefits on interest rate on loans and scrappage incentives in some cases. U.P. has gone a different way with its subsidies, offering 100% interest-free loans to State government employees for purchasing EVs in the State and 30% subsidy on the road price of EVs to families with a single girl child. To promote sales of EVs manufactured within the State, U.P. exempts SGST on all such vehicles. It has outlined incentives to promote EV manufacturing in the State. Bihar’s draft EV policy too has been drafted along similar lines: it focuses on adoption and manufacturing. These States have performed exceptionally well in the FAME-II scheme and are on their way to achieve the target of 5 lakh e-three-wheelers.
•The success India has experienced in the e-three-wheeler space has come from developing both the demand and supply sides. Subsidies, tax exemptions, and interest-free loans have successfully rallied demand for these vehicles. These vehicles provide for inexpensive means of transport for millions, are easy to maintain, and have relatively low operating costs, making them immensely popular among operators. The indigenous design allows for easy local manufacturing in workshops and small enterprises and makes them relatively easy to charge and maintain compared to their two-wheeler and four-wheeler counterparts. This success in the e-three-wheeler space has been difficult to replicate in the e-two-wheeler and e-four-wheeler space, which have problems both on the demand and supply side. Since two-wheelers and four-wheelers are essentially associated with personal use, consumers are justifiably apprehensive in adopting such vehicles given the host of issues which come with it. The recent incidents of fires in e-scooters have added to the apprehension. Reliable manufacturers with proven track records in the two-wheeler and four-wheeler EV space in India are hard to come by. This further adds to the supply side crunch and there are very few affordable offerings for the consumer.
Issues to be addressed
•The current policies in place at the State level, which are focused on accelerating adoption of EVs among consumers, have spurred an e-three-wheeler dominance. However, this has come at some costs. A major one is adequate passenger safety. Subsequent EV policies must therefore pay special attention to this issue. Local manufacturing enterprises often lack the necessary resources or the motivation to invest in design developments focusing on safety. Lack of proper oversight from regulatory bodies over these manufacturers add to the woes. Future policies must therefore incorporate appropriate design and passenger safety standards. While the current State-level policies have been instrumental in increasing local e-three-wheeler manufacturing, they have led to an increasingly fragmented manufacturing industry with non-uniform standards akin to the formative years of motor vehicles in the early 20th century. This fragmentation has led to legacy automakers struggling to compete with the large number of manufacturers in every State. EV policies must address this issue so that legacy automakers are not demotivated from competing in the e-three-wheeler space. Their resources are necessary for designing and manufacturing more advanced and safer e-three-wheelers. Future EV policies must therefore take into account the existing and emerging stakeholders on the demand and supply sides for effective implementation. With the prevailing trajectory of EVs, India must take lessons from its e-three-wheeler success story to sustain its EV ambitions.
On a constitutional plane, the verdict in ‘Perarivalan’ deserves a re-look or review as it stands on wobbly foundations
•The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of A.G. Perarivalan and the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case has stirred up a hornet’s nest for its constitutional righteousness and establishing its supremacy as the final arbiter of enforcing constitutional discipline. The decision has been hailed by some major political parties as a blow for federalism.
Court’s extraordinary route
•The Court has treaded the extraordinary constitutional route under Article 142. The power to do ‘complete justice’, for grant of remission and consequent premature release. The Bench decided to exercise the power of grant of pardon, remission et al., exclusively conferred on the President of India and State Governors under Articles 72 and 161. In the teeth of foundational bedrock and cornerstone of separation of powers viz. Parliament/Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, whether the course adopted by the Bench to do expedient justice is constitutional calls for introspection.
•The predominant purpose of this article is not Perarivalan-centric, as a convict, or whether the cry of an agonising mother deserved relief or not. The focus is only to evaluate the constitutionality of the decision in the context of Article 142.
•The power under Article 161 is exercisable in relation to matters to which the executive power of the state extends. While the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163), the binding nature of such advice will depend on the constitutionality of the same. Article 161 consciously provides a ‘discretion’ to the Governor in taking a final call, even if it was not wide enough to overrule the advice, but it certainly provides latitude to send back any resolution for reconsideration, if, in his opinion, the resolution conflicted with constitutional ends. In M.P. Special Police Establishment (2004 (8) SCC P.788) a Constitution Bench had held that the “Concept of Governor acting in his discretion or exercising independent judgment is not alien to the constitution”.
Implication of ‘consultation’
•In the other Constitution Bench judgment in Sriharan’s case (2016 (7) SCC P.1), arising out of the core of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination itself, one of the references placed for consideration was whether the term ‘consultation’ stipulated in Section 435 Cr.P.C. implies ‘concurrence’. It was held that the word ‘consultation’ means ‘concurrence’ of the Central government. The Constitution Bench highlighted that there are situations where consideration of remission would have trans-border ramifications and wherever a central agency was involved, the opinion of the Central government must prevail.
•Basing its conclusion on the legal position that the subject matter (Section 302 in the Indian Penal Code) murder, falls within Lists II and III (State and Concurrent lists) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the learned judges concluded that the State was fully empowered to take a call and recommend remission in this case.
•If it is a simple case of being a Section 302 crime, the reason for finding fault with the Governor’s decision to forward the recommendation to the President may be constitutionally correct. But the larger controversy as to whether the Governor in his exercise of power under Article 161 is competent at all, to grant pardon or remission in respect of the offences committed by the convicts under the Arms Act, 1959, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Passports Act, 1967, the Foreigners Act, 1946, etc., besides Section 302, is in wobbly terrain.
•According to the decision, it is a simple murder attracting Section 302 of the IPC and therefore the Governor’s decision to forward the recommendation to the President is against the letter and spirit of Article 161 — meaning it is against the spirit of federalism envisaged in the Constitution. Such reasoning, with respect, amounted to reductionism, oversimplification of the commission of heinous offence against the Indian state by the convict as co-conspirator, viewing it as an ordinary crime clothing the executive of the state with the power of pardon, remission regardless of its trans-border repercussions and the integrity/security of the country. Surprisingly, nothing has been said on this vital aspect in the order.
Article and issues
•Having unprecedentedly concluded that the executive of the state is competent to decide, the Bench invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to usurp the power of the Governor of the State under Article 161. There are momentous issues that are flagged on the exercise of the power of remission under Article 142, by the Supreme Court in the present factual context.
•The first is whether Article 142 could be invoked by the Court in the circumstances of the case when the Constitution conferred express power on the Governor alone, for grant of pardon, remission, etc., under Article 161. In the case on hand, the Bench found fault with the Governor not having taken a decision on the recommendation of remission by the State Cabinet for a long time. The fault of the Governor became more intense in the opinion of the Bench, when the Governor eventually referred the matter to the President of India for his decision, after sitting over the recommendation for more than two years.
Deeper examination needed
•The entire investigation of the crime was by the Central Bureau of Investigation alone. In the teeth of the specific ruling in Sriharan, with reference to the invocation of power by the State government in terms of Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C, the power exercisable by the Governor under Article 161 in respect of the subject matter is not so clear and obvious as ruled by the Bench. Whether what the State government could not achieve directly by invoking Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C, without concurrence of Centre could be allowed to take a contrived route vide Article 161 and achieve its objectives is a pertinent issue. This aspect requires deeper judicial examination for the sake of constitutional clarity.
•The second aspect is the delay in taking a decision by the Governor in the matter. The Constitution does not lay down any timeframe for the Governor to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
•In a case like the present one, a long consultative process was imperative due to several litigations repeatedly being pursued at the instance of the convicts, under one legal pretext or the other.
•In any event, even if the delay was constitutionally inexcusable or was vulnerable to challenge, the final arbiter of the Constitution (Article 245) could not have trumped Article 161 with Article 142, which is constitutionally jarring. It is usurpation of power of another pillar of democracy. With utmost respect, the constitutional course, if at all, may have been to put it back in the lap of the Governor with a nudge and a wink to ‘decide’ within a reasonable timeline.
Forgotten sentiments
•The Tamil Nadu State Assembly resolution dated September 9, 2018 and the consequent Cabinet recommendation was to ‘respect Tamil sentiments’. What of the sentiments of the victims of the crime? An oft forgotten genre, as Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer pithily put it in his purple prose, “It is a weakness of our jurisprudence that the victims of crime and the distress of the dependents of the prisoners do not attract the attention of law” (1980 (SCR)(1) P.846). The Bench has regretfully bid farewell to such humane inputs.
•To portray the remission as to what it was not in the State is a sad fallout the lawlords on the pulpit may not have bargained for. And on the constitutional plane, this verdict deserves a relook, even a review, as it stands on wobbly foundations built with creaky credence.
•In 2016 (1) SCC P.463 (Rajbala vs State of Haryana), the top court presciently wrote, “A judge should always bear in mind that erroneous and fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective.” — the visible collective being We The People.
•The evolving principle of constitutional moralism and justice dispensation by the constitutional courts may as well heed the distressed cries of the real and imperceptible victims before showering their grace on the perceptible offenders.
📰 Caution first: On the Aadhaar advisory
The UIDAI should not downplay the possibility of leaked Aadhaar numbers being misused
•In a bizarre reversal on Sunday, the Union government withdrew a notification from a Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) office cautioning people against sharing photocopies of their Aadhaar card, just two days after the advisory was issued, claiming that it would be “misinterpreted”. The May 27 notification that was issued by the Bengaluru Regional Office of the UIDAI urged people to use the masked Aadhaar number facility — that can be downloaded from the UIDAI website — and which displays only the last four digits of the Aadhaar number. This was a sensible advisory. The masked Aadhaar facility has been in place since 2018 and this came about following a report by the Centre for Internet and Society that publicly available datasets had sensitive details such as full Aadhaar number details and also included bank account details of individuals. The dangers of providing the full Aadhaar number to several agencies — the use of the Aadhaar card and the number for various purposes today has only multiplied exponentially — are evident in the way these numbers have been used by fraudsters for criminal purposes such as identity theft, Know Your Customer (KYC)-related fraud among others in recent years, and which have been documented in news reports. The UIDAI has itself registered far more potential fraud cases related to the issue highlighted above in recent years compared to the past. Other scams that are of a higher order have also been revealed recently, related to biometrics theft that have allowed scamsters to steal welfare benefits at the expense of genuine beneficiaries. The Internet is rife with leaked data and this poses a major threat to user privacy.
•The UIDAI has, however, been ambivalent about the inherent dangers in the indiscriminate use of the Aadhaar number or the Aadhaar card by citizens, as evidenced in its series of flip-flops on the issue even before this latest withdrawal notice. There seems to be a contradiction of views within the authority on the issue of potential misuse of the Aadhaar number. On the one hand, in statements advising caution and user discretion in revealing one’s Aadhaar number, it is seeking to treat these as sensitive information just like the biometrics provided by citizens to the authority. Yet, on the other, it has sought to universalise the open use of the Aadhaar as an identity document with missionary zeal and has downplayed the risks of doing so. This ambivalence does not help at all. The UIDAI must popularise the use of the masked Aadhaar facility as a start and rethink ways to tighten the scrutiny over how Aadhaar numbers are issued and utilised even as law enforcement agencies crack down on data leaks and websites carrying unmasked Aadhaar-related information.
📰 Questioning the safety of Aadhaar
Can Aadhaar be the one-stop solution for all identification requirements? Does it safeguard the privacy of its various beneficiaries?
•The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 states that Aadhaar authentication is necessary for availing subsidies and services that are financed from the Consolidated Fund of India. However, confidentiality needs to be maintained and the authenticated information cannot be used for anything other than the specified purpose.
•The NPCI’s Aadhaar Payments Bridge (APB) and the Aadhaar Enabled Payment System (AEPS) facilitate direct benefit transfer (DBT) and allow individuals to use Aadhaar for payments. This requires bank accounts to be linked to Aadhaar.
•But more than 200 central and State government websites publicly displayed details of some Aadhaar beneficiaries such as their names and addresses. This means that this data could be potentially used to fraudulently link the rightful beneficiary’s Aadhaar with a distinct bank account, embezzling the beneficiary by impersonation.
•The story so far: Two days after issuing an advisory asking people to refrain from sharing photocopies of their Aadhaar Card, the Unique Identification Development Authority of India (UIDAI) opted to withdraw the notification. It stated that the action was to avert any possibility of ‘misinterpretation’ of the (withdrawn) press release, asking people to exercise “normal prudence” in using/sharing their Aadhaar numbers.
What did the UIDAI advisory say?
•The withdrawn notice had suggested holders use a masked Aadhaar card instead of the conventional photocopy, adding that the document must not be downloaded from a cybercafé or public computer and if done for some reason, must be permanently deleted from the system. ‘Masked Aadhaar’ veils the first eight digits of the twelve-digit ID with ‘XXXX’ characters. The notice informed that only entities possessing a ‘User Licence’ are permitted to seek Aadhaar for authentication purposes. Private entities like hotels or film halls cannot collect or keep copies of the identification document.
•In July 2018, Telecom Regulatory of India’s Chairman R.S. Sharma tweeted his Aadhaar number challenging users to “cause him any harm”. In response, users dug up his mobile number, PAN number, photographs, residential address and date of birth. It could not be ascertained if the PAN number was actually correct. UIDAI dismissed assertions of any data leak, arguing that most of the data was publicly available. It did however caution users from publicly sharing their Aadhaar numbers.
What does the law say?
•The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 makes it clear that Aadhaar authentication is necessary for availing subsidies, benefits and services that are financed from the Consolidated Fund of India. In the absence of Aadhaar, the individual is to be offered an alternate and viable means of identification to ensure she/he is not deprived of the same.
•Separately, Aadhaar has been described as a preferred KYC (Know Your Customer) document but not mandatory for opening bank accounts, acquiring a new SIM or school admissions.
•The requesting entity would have to obtain the consent of the individual before collecting his/her identity and ensure that the information is only used for authentication purposes on the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR). This centralised database contains all Aadhaar numbers and holder’s corresponding demographic and biometric information. UIDAI responds to authentication queries with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. In some cases, basic KYC details (as name, address, photograph etc) accompany the verification answer ‘Yes’. The regulator does not receive or collect the holder’s bank, investment or insurance details. Additionally, the Aadhaar Act forbids sharing Core Biometric Information (such as finger print, iris scan, among other biometric attributes) for any purpose other than Aadhaar number generation and authentication.
•The Act makes it clear that confidentiality needs to be maintained and the authenticated information cannot be used for anything other than the specified purpose. More importantly, no Aadhaar number (or enclosed personal information) collected from the holder can be published, displayed or posted publicly. Identity information or authentication records would only be liable to be produced pursuant to an order of the High Court or Supreme Court, or by someone of the Secretary rank or above in the interest of national security.
Is identity theft via Aadhaar possible?
•As per the National Payment Corporation of India’s (NCPI) data, ₹6.48 crore worth of financial frauds through 8,739 transactions involving 2,391 unique users took place in FY 2021-22.
•Since the inception of the UID project, institutions and organisations have endowed greater focus on linking their databases with Aadhaar numbers, including for bank accounts especially in light of the compulsory linkage for direct benefit transfer schemes. The NPCI’s Aadhaar Payments Bridge (APB) and the Aadhaar Enabled Payment System (AEPS) facilitate direct benefit transfer (DBT) and allow individuals to use Aadhaar for payments. This requires bank accounts to be linked to Aadhaar. In 2017, researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) acquired information of various beneficiaries of such social security and employment schemes such as their Aadhaar numbers, bank account details, job card status, mobile number etc. The same year, the UIDAI in response to an RTI stated that more than 200 central and State government websites publicly displayed details of some Aadhaar beneficiaries such as their names and addresses. Both were made possible by the lack of robust encryption. This data could be potentially used to fraudulently link the rightful beneficiary’s Aadhaar with a distinct bank account, embezzling the beneficiary by impersonation, made possible by the sizeable identity documents available.
•The UIDAI maintains that merely knowing the bank account number would not be enough to withdraw money from the bank, stating that the individual’s fingerprint, iris data or OTP to a registered mobile number would be required. CIS states that brokers are known to buy tonnes of Aadhaar documents from mobile shops and other places where the identification document is shared. Additionally, there have been instances where employees of service providers were caught stealing biometric information collected solely for Aadhaar authentication. A far-stretch means for acquiring biometrics would involve collecting fingerprints from varied places that an individual might touch unknowingly in a certain space (such as a railing of a staircase) with iris data being acquired from high-resolution cameras.
•As for mobile verification, phone users in India are known to carry two or more phone numbers at one time. There could be a possibility that the number linked to the Aadhaar is not prominently used. Fraudsters could use this as an opportunity to link their phone numbers instead, update it in the bank using the available information (of the individual) and deprive them of benefits or embezzle funds.
What are some of the structural problems that the UIDAI faces?
•The Aadhaar Data Vault is where all numbers collected by authentication agencies are centrally stored. Its objective is to provide a dedicated facility for the agencies to access details only on a need-to-know basis. Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s (CAG) latest report stipulated that UIDAI neither specified any encryption algorithm (as of October 2020) to secure the same nor a mechanism to illustrate that the entities were adhering to appropriate procedures. It relied solely on audit reports provided to them by the entities themselves. Further, UIDAI’s unstable record with biometric authentication has not helped it with de-duplication efforts, the process that ensures that each Aadhaar Number generated is unique. The CAG’s reported stated that apart from the issue of multiple Aadhaars to the same resident, there have been instances of the same biometric data being accorded to multiple residents.As per UIDAI’s Tech Centre, nearly 4.75 lakh duplicate Aadhaar numbers were cancelled as of November 2019. The regulator relies on Automated Biometric Identification Systems for taking corrective actions. The CAG concluded it was “not effective enough” in detecting the leakages and plugging them. Biometric authentications can be a cause of worry, especially for disabled and senior citizens with both the iris and fingerprints dilapidating. Though the UIDAI has assured that no one would be deprived of any benefits due to biometric authentication failures, the absence of an efficient technology could serve as poignant premise for frauds to make use of their ‘databases’.
📰 Ministry brings out guidelines to manage monkey pox cases
Surveillance and rapid identification of cases suggested
•India needs to be prepared to tackle cases of monkey pox in view of the increasing reports of cases in non-endemic countries, the Union Health Ministry said on Tuesday while issuing “Guidelines on management of monkey pox disease”.
•The Ministery confirmed that there are no reported cases of the infection in India.
•“We are maintaining a close watch on the situation. Monkey pox (MPX) is a viral zoonotic disease with symptoms similar to smallpox, although with less clinical severity,” a Health Ministry official said.
Natural reservoir
•Stating that the natural reservoir of the virus is yet unknown, the Ministry has said that certain rodents (including rope squirrels, tree squirrels, Gambian-pouched rats, dormice) and non-human primates are known to be naturally susceptible to the virus. The incubation period of monkey pox is usually from six to 13 days, but can range from five to 21 days, and the period of communicability a day or two before the rash until all the scabs fall off or subside.
•Suspected cases will include a person of any age having a history of travel to affected countries within the last 21 days presenting with an unexplained acute rash and one or more of symptoms, including swollen lymph nodes, fever, head/body ache and profound weakness. As per the guidelines, contacts should be monitored at least daily for the onset of signs/symptoms for a period of 21 days from the last contact during the infectious period.
•The guidelines stress surveillance and rapid identification of new cases as key public health measures for outbreak containment, mandating need to reduce the risk of human-to-human transmission.
Products to avoid
•Products derived from wild animals from Africa should be avoided, the Ministrysaid. It said travellers should refrain from close contact with sick people, including those with skin or genital lesions, contact with dead or live wild animals such as small mammals including rodents (rats, squirrels) and non-human primates (monkeys, apes) and also eating or preparing meat from wild game (bushmeat).
