📰 Centre to amend Warehousing Act
However, the SKM fears it will help corporate houses gain more control
•The Union Food and Public Distribution Ministry has suggested major amendments to the Warehousing (Development and Regulation) Act of 2007.
•While the Ministry says that the aim is to help farmers get access to the services of quality warehouses, the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) fears that the amendments are for bringing back certain provisions of the repealed Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act through the backdoors.
•An official in the Ministry said the amendment is to make registration of godowns compulsory, to raise the penalty for various offences and to do away the jail term as a punishment for the offences.
•At present, registration with the Warehousing Development and Regulation Authority (WDRA) is optional. After the proposed amendment, which is yet to be cleared by the Cabinet, registration of all third party warehouses throughout the country, will be undertaken in a phased manner.
•“Central government will have powers to exempt any class of warehouses from registration with the Authority. This will ensure a gradual and non-disruptive change to a regulated warehousing system,” the official said on Wednesday.
•The WDRA was established in 2010 to ensure scientific storage by prescribing infrastructural and procedural standards. Captive warehouses such as the FCI are excluded from the ambit of the Act.
•The Act wants to establish a system of negotiable and non-negotiable warehouse receipt (NWR), which is now in electronic form.
•The Samyukt Kisan Morcha said the repealed Act had also talked about similar provisions such as electronic trading in transaction platform and freedom for trading at farmgate, cold storage, warehouse and processing units.
•“This time, too, the purpose should be to help some big corporate houses so that they gain even more control over the warehousing and cold storage sector. The direction of every policy of this government is towards that,” said SKM leader Ashok Dhawale.
📰 ‘Replacement level fertility achieved’
31 States and UTs have reached a Total Fertility Rate of 2.1 or less, says Minister
•India has achieved replacement level fertility, with 31 States and Union Territories reaching a Total Fertility Rate (an average number of children per woman) of 2.1 or less, Union Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare Bharati Pravin Pawar said on Wednesday.
•Speaking at the National Family Planning Summit 2022, the Union Minister said between 2012 and 2020, the country added more than 1.5 crore additional users for modern contraceptives, thereby increasing their use substantially.
•She said government data showed an overall positive shift towards spacing methods that would be instrumental in impacting positively maternal and infant mortality and morbidity.
‘A paradigm shift’
•Union Health Secretary Rajesh Bhushan said the Family Planning Programme in India was now over seven decades old, and in this period, the country had witnessed a paradigm shift from the concept of population control to population stabilisation to interventions being embedded toward ensuring harmony of continuum care.
•“Although India has achieved replacement level fertility, there is still a significant population in the reproductive age group that must remain at the centre of our intervention efforts. India’s focus has traditionally been on the supply side, the providers and delivery systems but now it’s time to focus on the demand side which includes family, community and society. Significant change is possible with this focus, instead of an incremental change,” Mr. Bhushan noted.
Concerns of the founding fathers — addressing socio-economic inequities — are being forgotten in today’s fiscal policy
•In his last speech, in 1949, to the Constituent Assembly, B.R. Ambedkar sounded a note of caution about the Indian republic entering a life of contradictions. “In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. These conflicts demanded attention: fail to do so, and those denied will blow up the structure of political democracy”, he warned, though Jawaharlal Nehru truly believed that inequities could be addressed through his tryst with the planning process. A degree of centralisation in fiscal power was required to address the concerns of socio-economic and regional disparities, he felt. This asymmetric federalism, inherent to the Constitution, was only accelerated and mutually reinforced with political centralisation since 2014, making the Union Government extractive rather than enabling. While States lost their capacity to generate revenue by surrendering their rights in the wake of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, their expenditure pattern too was distorted by the Union’s intrusion, particularly through its centrally sponsored schemes .
A politicised institution
•Historically, India’s fiscal transfer worked through two pillars, i.e., the Planning Commission and the Finance Commission. But the waning of planning since the 1990s, and its abolition in 2014, led to the Finance Commission becoming a major means of fiscal transfer as the commission itself broadened its scope of sharing all taxes since 2000 from its original design of just two taxes — income tax and Union excise duties. Today, the Finance Commission became a politicised institution with arbitrariness and inherent bias towards the Union government. The original intention of addressing inequities, a lofty idea, indeed, was turned on its head as it metamorphosed into one of the world’s most regressive taxation systems due to a centralised fiscal policy.
•So, let us see what has changed since 2014. The concerns of the founding fathers — addressing socio-economic inequities — were forgotten in the process of ushering in an era of political centralisation and cultural nationalism that drive today’s fiscal policy. To be sure, India was never truly federal — it was a ‘holding together federalism’ in contrast to the ‘coming together federalism,’ in which smaller independent entities come together to form a federation (as in the United States of America). In fact, the Government of India Act 1935 was more federal in nature than the Constitution adopted on January 26, 1950 as the first offered more power to its provincial governments.
•Anticipating this threat of centralisation, C.N. Annadurai asserted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly in 1967, ‘I want the centre to be strong enough to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of India…should they have education and health department here... in what way does that strengthen the sovereignty and independence of India?’ Subsequently, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam constituted a committee under Justice P.V. Rajamannar in 1969, the first of its kind by a State government, to look at Centre-State fiscal relations and recommend more transfers and taxation powers for regional governments. It did not cut ice with the rest of India and centralisation, though partly contained in the 1990s and 2000s due to the coalition at the Centre, touched its apogee in 2014.
Hollowing out fiscal capacity
•The ability of States to finance current expenditures from their own revenues has declined from 69% in 1955-56 to less than 38% in 2019-20. While the expenditure of the States has been shooting up, their revenues did not. They still spend 60% of the expenditure in the country — 85% in education and 82% in health. Since States cannot raise tax revenue because of curtailed indirect tax rights — subsumed in GST, except for petroleum products, electricity and alcohol — the revenue has been stagnant at 6% of GDP in the past decade.
•Even the increased share of devolution, mooted by the Fourteenth Finance Commission, from 32% to 42%, was subverted by raising non-divisive cess and surcharges that go directly into the Union kitty. This non-divisive pool in the Centre’s gross tax revenues shot up to 15.7% in 2020 from 9.43% in 2012, shrinking the divisible pool of resources for transfers to States. In addition, the recent drastic cut in corporate tax, with its adverse impact on the divisible pool, and ending GST compensation to States have had huge consequences.
•Besides these, States are forced to pay differential interest — about 10% against 7% — by the Union for market borrowings. It is not just that States are also losing due to gross fiscal mismanagement — increased surplus cash in balance of States that is money borrowed at higher interest rates — the Reserve Bank of India, when there is a surplus in the treasury, typically invests it in short treasury bills issued by the Union at lower interest rate. In sum, the Union gains at the expense of States by exploiting these interest rate differentials.
•By turning States into mere implementing agencies of the Union’s schemes, their autonomy has been curbed. There are 131 centrally sponsored schemes, with a few dozen of them accounting for 90% of the allocation, and States required to share a part of the cost. They spend about 25% to 40% as matching grants at the expense of their priorities. These schemes, driven by the one-size-fits-all approach, are given precedence over State schemes, undermining the electorally mandated democratic politics of States.
•In fact, it is the schemes conceived by States that have proved to be beneficial to the people and that have contributed to social development. Driven by democratic impulses, States have been successful in innovating schemes that were adopted at the national level, for example, employment guarantee in Maharashtra, the noon meals in Tamil Nadu, local governance in Karnataka and Kerala, and school education in Himachal Pradesh.
•The diversion of a State’s own funds to centrally sponsored schemes, thereby depleting resources for its own schemes, violates constitutional provision. Why should there be a centrally sponsored scheme on an item that is in the State list? Similarly, why should the State share the expenditure of a scheme on the Union list? For instance, health is on the State list, so why should the Union thrust this scheme onto States; even on those that are better performing such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala? It only impedes States from charting their own autonomous path of development.
Deepening inequality
•This political centralisation has only deepened inequality. The World Inequality Report estimates ‘that the ratio of private wealth to national income increased from 290% in 1980 to 555% in 2020, one of the fastest such increases in the world. The poorest half of the population has less than 6% of the wealth while the top 10% nearly grab two-third of it’. India has a poor record on taxing its rich. Its tax-GDP ratio has been one of the lowest in the world — 17% of which is well below the average ratios of emerging market economies and OECD countries’ about 21% and 34%, respectively.
•Pavithra Suryanarayan, a political scientist at London School of Economics, demonstrates that the Indian elites historically undermined fiscal capacity as they felt threatened by the political equality offered by the one person-one vote system. That hollowing out of fiscal capacity continued for decades after Independence, resulting in one of the lowest tax bases built on a regressive indirect taxation system in the world. India has simply failed to tax its property classes. If taxing on agriculture income was resisted in the 1970s when the sector prospered, corporate tax has been slashed by successive governments thanks to a pro-business turn in the 1990s. India does not have wealth tax either. Its income tax base has been very narrow. Indirect tax still accounts for about 56% of total taxes. Instead of strengthening direct taxation, the Union government slashed corporate tax from 35% to 25% in 2019 and went on to monetise its public sector assets to finance infrastructure.
•In sum, India’s fiscal federalism driven by political centralisation has deepened socio-economic inequality, belying the dreams of the founding fathers who saw a cure for such inequities in planning. It has not altered inter-state disparities either. If there was anything that alleviated poverty, reduced inequality and improved the well-being of people, these were the time-tested schemes of State governments, but they are now under threat.
📰 Death by hooch
India needs a more honest discussion on the risks and benefits of prohibition
•A hooch tragedy that claimed over 40 lives in Gujarat’s Botad district brings to the fore, yet again, the contentious question of prohibition. Gujarat is one of the four States in India that prohibits alcohol. The victims consumed poisonous methyl alcohol sold in plastic pouches by bootleggers. Twenty-four people have been named as accused in the FIRs and 14 have been arrested. Police action that follows every such tragedy barely inspires public confidence; indeed, it conceals the complicity of the administration in protecting the black market for alcohol, wherever prohibition exists. It is difficult to assume that vast networks of illegal manufacturing and sale of liquor could exist without the patronage of the police and politicians. Reports suggest that in this case, specific complaints were made to the police, who continued to look the other way. Prohibition makes liquor illegal, but it hides in the black market. By driving sales and production underground, the State loses tax revenues while consumers are exposed to huge health risks. Though prohibition is listed among the Directive Principles of state policy in the Constitution, no State has been able to achieve it with any enduring effectiveness. Globally, it is a similar experience.
•Prohibition has, however, remained a potent slogan for some politicians. Alcohol damages health, family finances, and human relationships, and the call to ban it altogether has a certain moral, even if not practical, appeal. But using the sledgehammer of the law to stop alcohol use can be counterproductive, as experience shows. The Gujarat High Court is considering five petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 on grounds that it violates fundamental rights including privacy. The law is being questioned for its alleged arbitrariness as it allows tourists from outside the State to consume alcohol in the State. The prohibition laws give sweeping and intrusive powers to the police, who, at least in one case in the recent past in Gujarat, used them against political protesters. On the one hand, prohibition offers the opportunity for rent collection and on the other it lets the police free to selectively apply the law. There is a moral burden that several political parties in India try to carry on their shoulders to discourage or bar alcohol consumption — several parties bar members from consuming alcohol — but in practice this turns out to be comical hypocrisy. With Gujarat already in campaign mode for the Assembly election that is only months away, the tragedy has prompted the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party to train their guns on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Rather than clinging on to dogmas and impossible goals of social reform through coercive law, there must be a more honest discussion on prohibition.
📰 Thousands of villages set to get 4G coverage
24,680 uncovered areas to get high-speed Internet
•The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on Wednesday approved a project for providing 4G mobile services in uncovered villages across the country at a total cost of ₹26,316 crore.
•Under the project, 4G mobile services, which provide high-speed data, will be provided in 24,680 uncovered villages in remote and difficult areas.
•Additionally, 6,279 villages that currently have only 2G/3G connectivity will also be upgraded to receive 4G connectivity.
•The project has a provision to include 20% additional villages on account of rehabilitation, new-settlements, withdrawal of services by existing operators etc, an official statement said here.
•The project will be executed by the public sector Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) using a Atmanirbhar Bharat (Made in India) 4G technology stack and will be funded through Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF).
•The project cost of ₹26,316 crore includes capital expenditure (capex) and also five-year operating expense (opex), the government said.
•“The project is a significant step towards the vision of the government to provide mobile connectivity in rural areas. This project will promote delivery of various e-governance services, banking services, tele-medicine, tele-education etc. through mobile broadband and generate employment in rural areas,” the government added.
📰 A future free of hepatitis
Early diagnosis is the gateway for both prevention and successful treatment
•On this World Hepatitis Day, the World Health Organization (WHO) is highlighting the need to bring hepatitis care closer to the people in need. This means making hepatitis care available, affordable and accessible to all without discrimination. This is crucial in the quest to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030, a global target. Elimination would translate to 90% reduction in incidence and 65% reduction in mortality by 2030, compared to the corresponding figures of 2015.
It’s time to act
•The action against hepatitis cannot wait any longer. Why is that? First, hepatitis is the only communicable disease where mortality is showing an increasing trend. Globally, approximately 354 million people are suffering from hepatitis B and C. Southeast Asia has 20% of the global morbidity burden of hepatitis. About 95% of all hepatitis-related deaths are due to cirrhosis and liver cancers caused by the hepatitis B and C virus.
•Second, viral hepatis is preventable. Clean food and good personal hygiene, along with access to safe water and sanitation, can protect us from hepatitis A and E. Measures to prevent hepatitis B and C need to focus on full coverage with hepatitis B immunisation including a birth dose, as well as access to safe blood, safe sex and safe needle usage.
•Third, a world free of hepatitis is practical and feasible. We have the tools to diagnose, treat, prevent and therefore eliminate chronic viral hepatitis. Safe and effective vaccines exist to prevent hepatitis B, alongside new and powerful antiviral drugs that can manage chronic hepatitis B and cure most cases of hepatitis C. These interventions together with early diagnosis and awareness campaigns have the potential to prevent 4.5 million premature deaths in low- and middle-income countries by 2030 globally.
•However, access to these services are often out of reach for communities as they are usually available at centralised/specialised hospitals at a cost which cannot be afforded by all. People continue to die because of late diagnosis or lack of appropriate treatment. Early diagnosis is the gateway for both prevention and successful treatment.
•Modest testing and treatment coverage is the most important gap to be addressed. If we look at the treatment cascade of the Southeast Asia region, only about 10% of people with hepatitis know their status; and of them, only 5% are on treatment. Of the estimated 10.5 million people with hepatitis C, just 7% know their status, of which around one in five are on treatment. This gap needs to be patched up. This is what this year’s World Hepatitis Day campaign is all about.
•Amid all the challenges, the region has continued to implement key interventions to prevent, detect and treat hepatitis. Since 2016, when the region launched its Action Plan for viral hepatitis 2016–2021, nine countries have achieved more than 90% coverage of the third dose of hepatitis B vaccine. Four countries have achieved the hepatitis B control target of less than 1% seroprevalence among children over five years of age.
Transitional targets
•En route to the 2030 target of eliminating hepatitis, there are some transitional targets to be achieved. By 2025, we must reduce new infections of hepatitis B and C by half, reduce deaths from liver cancer by 40%, ensure that 60% of people living with hepatitis B and C are diagnosed and that half of those eligible receive appropriate treatment. This can only be achieved if hepatitis care reaches the community. Several priorities must be addressed for this. These include the need to enhance political commitment across all countries of the region and ensure sustained domestic funding for hepatitis; improve access to drugs and diagnostics by further reducing prices; develop communication strategies to increase awareness; and innovate service delivery to maximise the use of differentiated and people-centred service delivery options across HIV, viral hepatitis and STIs to tailor and deliver services according to people’s needs and preferences in line with the primary healthcare approach. Decentralising hepatitis care to peripheral health facilities, community-based venues and locations beyond hospital sites brings care nearer to patients’ homes.
•For the first time, an integrated Regional Action Plan for viral hepatitis, HIV and STIs 2022–2026 is being developed by WHO. This will ensure effective and efficient utilisation of limited resources available for the region and will guide countries to adopt a person-centred approach rather than a disease-specific one.
•As we observe World Hepatitis Day, we must act together with communities and all stakeholders for a future free of hepatitis. This will lay a firm foundation for a healthier, more equitable and more prosperous world.
📰 Supreme Court upholds powers of arrest, raids, seizure under PMLA
Supreme Court called the PMLA a law against the “scourge of money laundering” and not a hatchet wielded against rival politicians and dissenters
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the core amendments made to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which gives the government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) virtually unbridled powers of summons, arrest, and raids, and makes bail nearly impossible while shifting the burden of proof of innocence on to the accused rather than the prosecution.
•The apex court called the PMLA a law against the “scourge of money laundering” and not a hatchet wielded against rival politicians and dissenters.
•“This is a sui generis (unique) legislation… The Parliament enacted the Act as a result of international commitment to sternly deal with the menace of money laundering of proceeds of crime having transnational consequences and on the financial systems of the countries,” a Special Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar observed in a 545-page judgment.
•The verdict came on an extensive challenge raised against the amendments introduced to the 2002 Act by way of Finance Acts. The three-judge Bench said the method of introduction of the amendments through Money Bills would be separately examined by a larger Bench of the apex court.
•Over 240 petitions were filed against the amendments which the challengers claimed to violate personal liberty, procedures of law and the constitutional mandate. Some of the petitioners included former Ministers Mehbooba Mufti, Anil Deshmukh and Karti Chidambaram, who all claimed that the “process itself was the punishment”. The court’s stamp of approval comes at a crucial time when Congress leaders like Sonia Gandhi are being summoned by the ED and faced with several rounds of questioning spanning hours together.
•“Money laundering is an offence against the sovereignty and integrity of the country,” the court noted. It gave an expansive meaning to the offence of “money laundering” to include “every process and activity”, direct or indirect, dealing with the proceeds of the crime.
•“Today, if one dives deep into the financial systems, anywhere in the world, it is seen that once a financial mastermind can integrate the illegitimate money into the bloodstream of an economy, it is almost indistinguishable. In fact, the money can be simply wired abroad at one click of the mouse. It is well known that once this money leaves the country, it is almost impossible to get it back. Hence, a simplistic argument that Section 3 (offence of money laundering) should only find force once the money has been laundered, does not commend to us,” Justice Khanwilkar, who authored the judgment, underscored.
•The court rejected the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the lead lawyer for the petitioners, that the accused are summarily summoned by the ED, and made to sign statements on the pain of threat of arrest. The process was worse than that of drug offences. The ED assumed the powers of a civil court. The process curtailed the liberty of individuals, Mr. Sibal had argued.
•But the court said statements were recorded as part of an “inquiry” into the relevant facts in connection with the proceeds of crime. It cannot be equated to an investigation for prosecution. Such summons could be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry conducted by the authorised officials. “A person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) (fundamental right against self-incrimination) of the Constitution,” Justice Khanwilkar reasoned.
•The petitioners had argued that the ED could arrest a person even without informing him of the charges. This power was violative of the right to ‘due process’ enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Besides, Article 22 mandated that no person can be arrested without informing him or her of the grounds of the arrest, they had contended.
•The court rejected the notion that the ED has been given blanket powers of arrest, search of person and property and seizure. The court said there were “in-built safeguards” within the Act, including the recording of reasons in writing while effecting arrest.
•Besides, the Bench noted that the Special Court could verify using its own discretion if the accused need to be further detained or not.
•The court said not showing the Enforcement Case Investigation Report (ECIR) or not supplying the accused with a copy of the document was a violation of constitutional rights.
•“So long as the person has been informed about grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution,” Justice Khanwilkar observed.
•The court justified that the ECIR was an “internal, departmental document”. Revealing its contents before the completion of inquiry or investigation into the proceeds of the crime would have a “deleterious impact” on the final outcome of the case.
•The petitioners had argued that the “twin conditions” of bail under the PMLA rendered the hope of freedom non-existent for the accused. The two conditions are that there should be “reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence” and the accused “is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”.
•The court replied that money laundering was no ordinary offence. It was an “aggravated form of crime the world over”.
•“The offence of money laundering is no less a heinous offence than the offence of terrorism,” Justice Khanwilkar said. There is a need for “creating a deterrent effect” through a stringent law. Even a plea for anticipatory bail would have to undergo the rigours of the twin conditions under PMLA.
•However, the court said undertrials could seek bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if they had already spent one half of the term of punishment in jail for the offence prescribed in law. But, again, this is not an “absolute right” and would depend from case to case.
•On the issue of burden of proof resting heavily on the shoulders of the accused, Justice Khanwilkar said the provision did not suffer from the “vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness”. “Once the issue of admissibility of materials supporting the factum of grave suspicion about the involvement of the person in the commission of crime under the 2002 Act is accepted, in law, the burden must shift on the person concerned to dispel that suspicion,” Justice Khanwilkar wrote.
•The court rejected objections to the powers bestowed on the ED to attach a property as proceeds of crime. Mr. Sibal had contended that even property which were not proceeds of crime could be attached by the agency.
•The court said Section 5 of the PMLA, which concerns with the provisional attachment of property, cannot be used by the agency “mechanically”.
•“Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum,” Justice Khanwilkar emphasised.
•The court said the provision provided a “balancing arrangement” between the interests of the accused and that of the State. Further, if the accused was eventually absolved of the crime, no further action could be taken against the attached property suspected to have been linked to the crime.
•The petitioners had questioned the inclusion of several offences under the PMLA which bore no rhyme or reason to the objective of the law. They had argued that the punishments prescribed under the Act were far worse than given under the Indian Penal Code to the same offences. The court dismissed this line of argument as “flimsy and tenuous”.
📰 Forest Rights Act: well begun, ready for the home run
While many States are nowhere near completing implementation of the historic Act, Odisha is aiming for a full rollout by 2024
•Tucked away in a forested region of Odisha’s Mayurbhanj district, Juguni Ho had long nursed a dream of owning a piece of land. The resident of Budhabalanga village can now not only boast of possessing 5.15 acres in the forests of the Similipal Biosphere Reserve but also log on to a website and show the land records.
•Jasai Soren and his forefathers have lived in the Khuribhanga forest village in Dhenkanal district from times immemorial, but the village did not exist in government records for years. Khuribhanga is now recognised as a revenue village and government welfare programmes have started to flow seamlessly.
•Pramilla Pradhan of Sinduria village in Nayagarh district always believed the residents had first right to forest resources in the adjoining areas. The village has secured community forest rights on 760 acres of Sulia forest; the villagers’ annual income from cashew harvesting alone now touches ₹4 lakh.
•Juguni Ho, Jasai Soren and Pramilla Pradhan are among the 2.59 lakh beneficiaries of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, which has entered its 16th year of implementation in Odisha.
Tricky affair
•The implementation, which involves raising awareness among the largely uninformed population, rummaging through voluminous government records, ground truthing and further vetting by government departments, has been a knotty affair. But while many States are nowhere near completing implementation of the historic Act, Odisha is aiming for a full rollout by 2024.
•It is the first State in the country to make budgetary provision for implementation of the Central Act – ₹8 crore for 168 FRA cells in 2021-22. Till last year, forest rights committees were functioning in Tribal Sub Plan areas. Now, they have been extended to the entire State. The State is not only ensuring tenurial security and entitlement over land but also addressing livelihood and food security under the Act.
•“We are confident about launching Mission 2024 for FRA by granting all kinds of forest rights whether it is for the individual, community or habitat,” says Odisha’s ST and SC Development Secretary Ranjana Chopra.
•The mission, currently under Finance Department and Planning and Convergence Department scrutiny, aims at granting the tribal people their rightful ownership.
•As of March 2022, a total of 6,27,998 claims had been received by gram sabhas of which 4,52,164 claims were upheld and titles distributed. As many as 1,31,062 claims were rejected. According to the Bhubaneswar-based Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI), Odisha has an estimated 7.32 lakh potential claimants, which indicates that around 3 lakh eligible families are still left out.
•“Though the gap appears to be huge, the platform is ready for the government to expedite FRA implementation on mission mode,” says Y. Giri Rao, who has been involved in the Act’s implementation for over a decade. “Most processes are already halfway through. The government needs to bring all departments on one platform for its completion by 2024,” he adds.
Nodal agency
•While ST and SC Development Department remains the nodal agency for the Act’s implementation, forest rights cells would function from the State level right down to the tahasil level. Besides, district-level nodal officers, civil society organisations, Panchayati Raj Institution members, revenue inspectors and local youth will work in tandem for faster implementation of the Act.
•The State government has also set up a dedicated project management unit only for FRA implementation.
•Empirical studies carried out from time to time by the SCSTRTI have helped the government plug the gaps in implementation of the Act.
•“Granting of habitat rights to Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) has been a non-starter in the entire country. However, habitat right proposals have been duly approved by gram sabhas and many of those proposals are under active consideration of subdivisional-level committees,” says SCSTRTI director A.B. Ota.
•Of the 13 PVTGs identified in Odisha, habitat rights are being processed for 11 groups. Mr. Ota says the Lodhas and Lanjia Sauras, who do not believe in the concept of habitat, and could apply for individual forest rights.
•Mr. Rao says FRA implementation remained virtually static in almost all States except Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh in the past year.
•While neighbouring Chhattisgarh has been in the forefront on reporting and settling individual forest rights and community forest rights claims, Odisha’s new push could close the gap in the months ahead.
