📰 Why has the Supreme Court relaxed the ban on iron ore mining in Karnataka?
Why did the Court go back on its own order? What does this mean for mining operations in the State?
•In 2012, the SC banned export of iron ore pellets from Karnataka with an aim to prevent environmental degradation.
•Following the ban, the Supreme Court directed the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) to draw up a reclamation and rehabilitation plan to reverse the environmental damage caused by illegal mining.
•Taking cognisance of the course correction by the government, it relaxed its 2011 order since the situation had now “changed for the better”.
•The story so far: On August 26, 2022, the Supreme Court raised the ceiling limit of iron ore mining for Ballari (from 28 MMT to 35 MMT), Chitradurga and Tumakuru districts (from 7 MMT to 15 MMT collectively) in Karnataka, saying that the conservation of ecology and environment must go hand in hand with the spirit of economic development. Earlier, on May 20, 2022, the apex court had relaxed the ban on sale outside the State and export of already excavated iron ore from mines in these three districts. Ten years after it clamped down on production and sale of iron ore in Karnataka, the Court has relaxed its own orders.
How did the illegal mining start?
•Karnataka’s mining story is closely linked to the notorious Reddy brothers of Ballari. In 2002, Gali Janardhan Reddy incorporated the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) in Andhra Pradesh’s Anantapur district. Eight years later, in 2010, it was shut down by the Court, after a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe was initiated against Mr. Reddy in 2009 for illegal mining. The unprecedented illegal mining left in its wake a plunder of public wealth, massive losses to the exchequer, encroached forest land, a ravaged environment and large-scale health issues among the local population.
•The two Lokayukta Reports of 2008 and 2011 exposed over 700 government officials in the mining scandal, including three Chief Ministers, laying bare the nexus between the political class and the mining and steel industries. After the Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report brought to light accounts of rampant violations, the apex court passed an order on September 23, 2011 to stop mining operations in Ballari.
•Furthermore, in 2012, the SC banned export of iron ore pellets from Karnataka with an aim to prevent environmental degradation. It fixed maximum permissible annual production limit at 35 MMT for A and B category mines.
What were the Court’s directions?
•Following the ban, the Court directed the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) to draw up a reclamation and rehabilitation plan to reverse the environmental damage caused by illegal mining.
•A year later, in September 2012, the SC allowed 18 “category A” mines to resume operations. Subsequently, the ore was sold through e-auctions. In December 2017, the Court permitted increasing the cumulative ceiling cap to 35 MMT based on a CEC report.
Why has the issue resurfaced?
•In May this year, The Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, Southern Chapter — which includes Vedanta Limited — had asked the SC to scrap e-auction norms in the export or sale of iron ore for mining lessees in the state.
•The mining firms claimed that they were facing closure as steel plants and other related industries were not willing to purchase stocks in the e-auction or above the prevailing market price. This application by mining firms was supported by the Union ministries of Steel and Mines.
•The CEC also gave in, adding that the demand and supply and price of iron ore are best left to be determined by market forces.
•As opposed to 2017, when Karnataka was in support of a gradual increase in the ceiling limit, the Basavaraj Bommai-led government has changed its stance and is now in favour of a complete removal of the ceiling limit. However, it has opposed lifting of the decade-old ban on iron ore export from the State.
What did the Supreme Court rule?
•Through its two orders this year, the top Court ruled that it was necessary to create a level playing field for the mines situated in the three districts with those in the rest of the country.
•Taking cognisance of the course correction by the government, it relaxed its 2011 order since the situation had now “changed for the better”. However, the Court has reserved its judgment on the complete removal of ceiling limits on iron ore mining.
•‘The original petitioner, NGO Samaj Parivartan Samudaya led by activist S.R. Hiremath, has opposed any exports on the grounds that minerals are national assets that need to be preserved and only finished steel should be exported.
What are the implications?
•India’s efforts to clean up illegal mining and export of iron ore, left steel producers in the lurch after 2011. With closure of mines, steel mills faced raw material shortages forcing them to import, thereby opening up the country to business for iron ore giants from outside India.
•India exports its low-grade ore mainly to China. Hence, resuming exports in Karnataka would lower supplies to the local market and benefit Chinese steelmakers, the Indian Steel Association has argued.
•The restrictions on production and sale had also affected lakhs of mining dependants in Karnataka making their livelihood uncertain. The Court order may offer them some respite.
📰 Academia, research and the glass ceiling in India
True gender parity is when institutions consider women as assets rather than it being just a diversity rectification issue
•Gender issues, particularly gender inequality and discrimination in academia relating to higher education, perhaps came under the spotlight for the first time in India in 1933 when Kamala Sohonie approached Sir C.V. Raman to pursue research in physics under his guidance. The Nobel Laureate and illustrious director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, turned the request down on the ground that ‘she was a woman’.
•Sohonie ignored the refusal which was based on gender discrimination and went on a satyagraha in front of the director’s office. She was then admitted for one year on condition that her work for the year would not be recognised till the director was satisfied with the quality of her research and that her presence did not distract her male colleagues pursuing research. Similarly, in 1937, Professor D.M. Bose, then Palit Professor of physics at Calcutta University, was reluctant to include Bibha Chowdhuri in his research group on the ground that he did not have suitable research projects to assign to women. Chowdhuri was unfazed and had her way. She joined D.M. Bose’s research group. Her work on cosmic rays in determining the mass of mesons is legendary.
•These are only two well-known examples of gender discrimination in academics and there are many more such examples. In 2018, Prof. Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University, a theoretical physicist who regularly works at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Switzerland, claimed at a workshop organised by CERN that “physics was invented and built by men, it’s not by invitation” and that ‘male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit’ implying that women are less capable than men in physics research. CERN called the presentation “highly offensive” and suspended him pending an investigation. Ironically, a day later, Donna Strickland was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, for her work on lasers, and became the third woman to win a physics Nobel, after Marie Curie in 1903 and Maria Goeppert Mayer in 1963.
•The general bias against women which arose out of suspected capability of their intelligence and their mettle in undertaking the arduous task of research was quite common in the 20th century. Things have changed and the glass ceiling has been broken. But how far have we progressed in the last 100 years in shedding this bias and ensuring that women are on a par with men in academic institutions?
Government’s incentives
•Despite the remarkable improvement in the participation of women in higher education and participation in the workforce over the past decades, progress has still been quite uneven. The Government of India has been ramping up efforts to remove gender inequality by providing incentives for women’s higher education. Some of these initiatives such as the Gender Advancement for Transforming Institutions (GATI), i.e., a pilot project under the Department of Science and Technology to promote gender equity in science and technology, and Knowledge Involvement in Research Advancement through Nurturing (KIRAN), i.e., a plan under the Department of Science and Technology again to encourage women scientists in science and technology and also preventing women scientists from giving up research due to family reasons, are noteworthy. Some institutions are setting up creches so that the scientist mothers can carry on with their research work uninterrupted. Universities too are trying their best to be equal opportunity employers.
•However, despite all these endeavours, there is still a gender bias that persists and which has not been removed fully. Women are still an under-represented population globally in hardcore science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
Women and STEM
•In this respect, India’s position in academia is disappointing. According to available UNESCO data on some selected countries, India is at the lowest position, having only 14% female researchers working in STEM areas. But India is not very far behind many advanced countries in this aspect. For example, Japan has only 16% female researchers, the Netherlands 26%, the United States 27% and the United Kingdom 39%. Countries with a fairly good ratio in terms of an equal number of female and male researchers are South Africa and Egypt, with 45% female researchers each, and Cuba, at 49%. The highest number of female researchers are in Tunisia, Africa (55%) followed by Argentina (53%) and New Zealand (52%).
•In India, about 43% of women constitute the graduate population in STEM, which is one of the highest in the world, but there is a downside to this; only 14% of women join academic institutions and universities. Although male and female participation in graduate studies is comparable, the participation of women in research has dropped significantly (27% female as compared to 73% male). Thus, the visibility of female faculty in universities and research institutes is significantly lower. But what is bothersome is that the percentage of women in faculty positions begins to shrink with each step up the ladder. The number decreases when it comes to a position involving decision-making. Even recognition of merit when it comes to women is sluggish when it comes to the total number of women fellows in the three science academies of India — 7% for the Indian Academy of Sciences (IAS), which was founded in 1934; 5% for the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), which was established in 1935, and 8% for the National Academy of Sciences India (NASI), which was founded in 1930.
•According to a report published recently, at most STEM institutes, women occupy 20% of all professorial positions. The more prestigious the institute, the lower the number of women employees. For example, in IIT Madras only 31 out of 314 professors (10.2%) and in IIT Bombay only 25 out of 143 professors (17.5%) are women. Analysis of a few leading private universities does not reflect any significant difference. The number of female participants in decision-making bodies such as the board of governors or council of institutes of higher education of repute is abysmally low.
•According to a survey by the University Grants Commission (UGC), seven (13%) of the 54 central universities; 52 (~11%) of the 456 State universities; 10 (8%) of the 126 deemed universities; and 23 (~ 6%) of the 419 private universities have female vice-chancellors. Out of the six Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) established in the 20th century, only IIT Kharagpur and IIT Delhi have women members on their governing body. As Anita Bhogle in her recent book, Equal, Yet Different – Career Catalysts for the Professional Woman has reasoned, a lot of this is because women are wired differently, and their challenges are different.
In the corporate world
•On the contrary, participation of women in leadership and decision-making positions in private enterprises (the corporate sector) is startling when compared to the reality in academics. The number of women in senior management positions in the corporate sector in India is 39%, which is higher than the global average. Number of women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies is 15% while female board members in the management of private enterprises has been growing from 15% (2016), 16.9% (2018) to 19.7% in 2022. If this trend continues, near parity will be reached by 2045, according to a forecast made by Deloitte.
•It is worth reflecting on the reasons for this discrepancy in female participation in higher positions in these two sectors. The mechanism of selection and promoting personnel in the private sector is mostly based on competence or merit because it is more result (market) oriented with a definite matrix than what it is in the academic institutes. A professor at Cambridge once remarked that the marketplace does not worship false idols and, therefore, makes empirically correct judgements.
•Second, encouraging the participation of women in the workforce in the private sector with the adoption of various schemes for women began long ago when compared to the initiatives taken by the Government of India in recent years. Various schemes such as flexi-hour worktime, rejoining the workforce after an interim break, sections operated only by women, etc. were introduced in private enterprises as early as the 1990s with the benefits being reaped now.
•It is hoped the programmes that have been initiated by the Government to empower women in the workforce will usher in gender parity by 2047, which would mark the centenary of India’s Independence. Most importantly, gender equality or parity will happen only when there is a change in mindset and institutions consider women as assets rather than simply a diversity rectification issue.
📰 UGC proposes clustering of colleges
It finalises norms for transforming universities into multidisciplinary bodies, a key NEP suggestion
•The University Grants Commission (UGC) has finalised guidelines for transforming colleges and universities into multidisciplinary institutions and has prescribed three different approaches which include “clustering” of establishments located in proximity to each other.
•The UGC will make public its “Guidelines for transforming higher educational institutions into multidisciplinary institutions” on Friday. These aim to help State governments and universities frame appropriate rules and policies. Promoting multidisciplinary institutions was a key recommendation of the National Education Policy, 2020.
•The UGC has suggested academic collaboration between institutions through “clusters” of higher education institutions (HEIs) in order to promote multidisciplinary education and research in online and offline modes.
•The cluster system will help single-stream institutions with poor enrolment due to lack of employment-oriented, innovative multidisciplinary courses and lack of financial resources and help such centres improve their grades in National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) accreditation, say the guidelines. They will have to design their timetable in consultation with partner institutions so that students can register for courses offered by them without facing scheduling clashes.
•The member colleges in a cluster will continue to function as affiliated colleges under the university in the initial phase during which they will share their resources to offer programmes and guide student research projects. After the initial years, the affiliating university may affiliate the cluster of colleges as a single unit during which they will pass through graded autonomy before developing into an autonomous degree-granting cluster of college. These can then later evolve into research or teaching universities.
•The UGC has also prescribed two other approaches for existing colleges and universities to become multidisciplinary. These include merger of single-stream institutions with other multidisciplinary institutions under the same management or different managements, as well as expanding the number of departments in a college or university by adding new subjects such as languages, literature, music, Indology, sports, etc.
•Students opting for courses offered as a result of collaborations and mergers can also avail credit mobility between partnering institutions as the National e-Governance Division of the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology has developed the ABC platform which allows students to open an academic account and add HEIs of interest and store credits earned from them for receiving degrees and diplomas.
•The guidelines also identify student orientation programmes as an important element to familiarise them with the new options available to them.
•The UGC also suggests capacity-building for faculty so that they can teach, train and research in multidisciplinary academic programmes such as through initiatives like Annual Refresher Programme in Teaching as well as investment in learning assessment tools. It has also harped on setting up Education Departments in universities and colleges that will teach curriculum design, pedagogy, communication and writing to future teachers.
📰 A revert to the mean
Increase in violent crimes, suicides in 2021 points to indirect consequences of pandemic
•In a worrying trend, the registration in violent crimes such as rape, kidnapping, atrocities against children, robberies and murders increased in 2021 to levels set before the pandemic, in comparison to the drop in 2020, according to the annual report, “Crime in India” released by the NCRB earlier this week. The drop, in 2020, seemed to, therefore, be an anomaly, either due to lowered registration or a partial decrease in occurrence as there were extensive lockdowns and office shutdowns. While there was an increase in violent crimes in 2021, the overall crime rate (per one lakh people) decreased from 487.8 in 2020 to 445.9 in 2021, largely due to a decrease in cases registered under disobedience to a public servant’s order, relating to the lockdowns. If 2020 was the year when India faced the first COVID-19 wave, 2021 was equally a fraught year because of the effect of the Delta variant of the novel coronavirus; the frequency and intensity of the lockdowns were relatively lower in comparison to 2020. “Cruelty by husband or his relatives” constituted 31.8% of crimes against women, up from 30.2% in 2020 and 30.9% in 2019, indicating that domestic violence continued to be a major issue. While violent crimes increased, the chargesheeting rate fell from 75.8% in 2020 to 72.3% in 2021, as did the conviction rate (57% from 59.2% in 2020). So, law enforcement was less responsive in a year with more violent crimes. Again these trends have to be read State-wise — Assam (76.6 violent crimes per one lakh people), Delhi (57) and West Bengal (48.7) had the highest numbers while Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu registered the lowest numbers.
•The report also revealed that the suicide rate in the population in 2021 — 12 per one lakh people was the highest in the last five years. Domestic problems (33.2%) and illnesses (18.6%) were reported as the main reasons, with most victims being daily wage earners (25.6%) and housewives (14.1%), revealing the severity of the pandemic and its indirect consequences on people. With India registering the highest excess deaths during the pandemic, in particular during the Delta wave according to the World Health Organization, these figures are not surprising. The 5.9% jump in cases registered as cyber crimes over 2020, also indicates the increasing use of digital devices and the related challenges. This increase was more so in rural areas as cyber crime in metropolitan cities (with population more than two million people) registered a decline of 8.3% compared to 2020. With more people in rural areas utilising digital devices, including for financial purposes, the increase in cybercrimes should warrant an effort by the Government to educate people about risks in cyber activities and to ensure better law enforcement.
📰 Can civil servants express their views on law, governance?
The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules could distinguish between government policy and action
•On India’s 76th Independence Day, the Gujarat government released 11 men convicted on charges of gang-raping Bilkis Bano, who was 21 years old and five months pregnant at that time, and murdering seven members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, during the 2002 riots. The convicts, once released, were felicitated with garlands and sweets. Two days later, Ms. Bano issued a statement saying, “the trauma of the past 20 years washed over me again.” Soon thereafter, a senior IAS officer, Smita Sabharwal from Telangana, tweeted from her personal account in support of Ms. Bano and questioned the Gujarat government’s decision, sparking off a row over whether she was in breach of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules of 1964 and reviving the debate on the freedom of civil servants to express their personal views on matters of law and governance. In an interview moderated by Sonam Saigal, Justice B.N. Srikrishna and K. Sujatha Rao discuss the issue. Edited excerpts:
•On August 17, Ms. Sabharwal quoted Ms. Bano’s statement and tweeted, “As a woman and a civil servant I sit in disbelief, on reading the news on the #BilkisBanoCase. We cannot snuff out her Right to breathe free without fear, again and call ourselves a free nation. #JusticeForBilkisBano”. As a bureaucrat, was she wrong in tweeting this?
•B.N. Srikrishna: The citizens of this country have the fundamental right of free speech guaranteed to them under the Constitution, which is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of securing the state’s sovereignty, international relations, health, morality, etc. She has the right to tweet. But when you undertake a government service, you subject yourself to certain disciplinary rules. That prevents a government servant from becoming a member of a political organisation, or any organisation of such a nature, or expressing herself freely with regard to anything that has to do with the governance of the country.
•This rule is of the British era. There is no doubt that the British were very, very strict and didn’t want their officers to be talking about how bad the governance was. But in a democracy, the right to criticise the government is a fundamental right and nobody can muzzle that. Unfortunately, I didn’t have an opportunity to express myself by sitting on the bench either in Bombay or in Kerala or in the Supreme Court, but I would have said this very loudly and without hesitation.
•There is a recent judgment of then Tripura High Court Chief Justice Akil Kureshi, one of the best judges I have come across, who did not get enough due because of obvious reasons. He said something very interesting in a (2020) judgment (Lipika Paul v. The State Of Tripura), “As a Government servant the petitioner is not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law.” She (the petitioner) was entitled to hold her own beliefs and express them in the manner she desired, subject to not crossing the borders laid down in the Conduct Rules which were applicable in Tripura. A fundamental right cannot be curtailed except by a valid law made by a legislature. In 2018, the Kerala High Court had said, “One cannot be prevented from expressing his views merely because he is an employee. In a democratic society, every institution is governed by democratic norms. Healthy criticism is a better way to govern a public institution.” I think the trend is that judges are taking the view that IAS officers have a right to express themselves in a legitimate and decent manner.
•Today, things are very bad. I must confess, if I were to stand in a public square and say I don’t like the face of the Prime Minister, somebody might raid me, arrest me, throw me in jail without giving me any reason. Now that is something that all of us should oppose as citizens.
•Sujatha Rao: There are two views in this case. Most colleagues, particularly those who are serving in the government, would take exception and not be very supportive — because the general belief is that as IAS officers, we should not talk against government actions or government policies in public fora. And if at all we feel very strongly about something that is being done or acted upon, we can at best, if it is such a serious situation, approach the associations.
•The Bilkis case was a travesty of justice. It crossed all borders of fairness and humanism. The gang rape and the murder of the child were horrific. Despite that, you find the convicts are not even in jail for life. A committee was constituted so casually and a 1992 [remission] policy was invoked even though there are new laws. And the committee had five members of the ruling party. They just released them and there was a celebration about it — it’s a mockery [of justice].
•In such a situation, Smita tweeted as a woman. There was anger. Why she added the words ‘civil servant’ is because the dharma of the civil servant is to uphold constitutional principles in letter and in spirit, and the rule of law. In this case, both the spirit of the Constitution and the rule of law were being subverted. This could be a very dangerous precedent, as we saw recently [when] the Andhra Pradesh government released eight murder convicts (on remission, despite them not completing the mandatory 14 years in jail). If murderers are going to be released by executive action, what is the point of having courts? Wind up the courts and let just the collector, the ruling party, decide who should be in jail and who should not be in jail. For some actions if civil servants, whether retired or in service, speak up, that would have some kind of a deterrent [effect] on the arbitrary abuse of bureaucratic power.
Rule 9 of the Rules of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules states, “No Government servant shall... make any statement of fact or opinion... which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government.” Isn’t this in violation of Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution?
•BNS: The courts are now veering towards the view that this rule is too stringent and cannot be applied in this manner. I agree that once you take up government service, you surrender and allow some restrictions on your fundamental rights. You are to operate within bounds. The rule says you cannot criticise a policy judgment. This is a very vague expression and needs to be carefully scrutinised. Releasing criminals who had committed heinous crimes prematurely, without application of mind… is that a policy? I hope that someday the Supreme Court will sit down and thrash out these issues carefully.
•SR: No, I don’t think the rules violate Article 19. It is a rule, it’s not the law. It’s not in the Constitution. Freedom of speech is given in the Constitution, but these are Conduct Rules and they are imposed because there has to be some discipline in an organisation for that organisation to function. There is a process of decision-making. Right from below, the matter is examined, the pros and cons are taken up, the bureaucracy is given an opportunity to examine all the aspects, write their notes of objection or support, and finally it reaches the political executive. When a policy is decided, it has to be obeyed and complied with by the bureaucracy.
So, do you think that there was a problem with the medium through which the officer shared her opinion? Would it have been better if she had simply done it behind closed doors?
•BNS: Whether she had written an op-ed in The Hindu or tweeted or posted about it on Facebook, the bounds are the same, the bounds don’t change the game, the rules of the game remain the same. Ultimately, it’s your fundamental right which has to be reasonably restricted. The reasonableness of the restriction is not in the medium, it is in the manner in which you’re restricted, the purpose for which your right is restricted and the method by which it is restricted, namely, by legislation made in accordance with the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case (which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under the Constitution) in connection with data protection law. I think it is time that this country encourages its democratic principles.
•SR: No, she (Ms. Sabharwal) has no authority to express her opinion behind closed doors. What authority does she have? This is happening in Gujarat. She is not a stakeholder in the decision-making process. These rules were made way back during the British time. The scene has changed today. We have social media and there are no laws that say that because I am serving the government, I cannot use Twitter. If I can tweet about my holidays, I can also share my views with my followers saying, ‘I’m very pained by what’s happened today.’ She has not given a speech about it; it is just a private communication on Twitter. She chose to express her anguish.
Nowadays, many government officers and ministers are encouraged to communicate government policies to the general public through social media. So, isn’t it time to ‘un-gag’ civil servants when it comes to commenting on such decisions?
•BNS: Unfortunately, government officers are given only one way of encouragement: say good things in the media. Do they have the liberty as of today to say what is bad? The only problem I see is, if you are going to implement a policy, let’s understand one thing: in democracy, everybody has a right to express his or her opinion, a right to object, a right to dissent. The same thing could be said for an IAS officer; he or she may have a right to dissent. Once a resolution has been adopted, it’s your job to implement it. If you don’t implement it, you are not being true to yourself. That is the problem that arises. That is a very, very thin line, and also a question of how to balance the two interests.
•SR: Creating more transparency about policies through social media is the duty of a government officer. This has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I have supported Smita only because it was the Bilkis case. We need to make a differentiation between what is something that’s going to hurt society, hurt the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is not a government policy (decision to release convicts on remission). This is an action, which is ordained by the Supreme Court, executed by the government of Gujarat, and the (question is over the) manner in which it has been done. This was an exception.
Do you then think that we need to challenge these rules?
•BNS: Yes, somebody could challenge it as offending constitutional fundamental rights; then the Supreme Court would be forced to come down and say either it is good, or it is bad, and give good reasons for that.
Fiscal authorities should spur consumption and investment to aid faster recovery
•The latest official GDP estimates would in normal circumstances be a cause for cheer, pointing as they ostensibly do to a double-digit expansion in economic output in the first quarter. The NSO’s projection of 13.5% growth in gross domestic product from the year-earlier April-June period, however, is disconcertingly slower than the 16.2% pace that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had projected just last month and points to an economy that is still in search of a firmer footing. Faced with headwinds — signs of a global recession and the Ukraine war — the first-quarter’s underwhelming momentum may pitch the economy into a far shallower growth trajectory even as faster-than-acceptable inflation erodes consumer confidence. Output in the eight broad sectors that combine to provide the Gross Value Added (GVA) shows that while year-on-year all sectors expanded, with public administration, defence and other services growing 26.3%, six of these sectors posted sequential contractions. Only two services sectors — electricity, gas, water and other utility services, and financial and professional services — logged expansions from the January-March quarter, growing by 12.6% and 23.7%, respectively. The major employment-providing sectors of agriculture, manufacturing, construction and the contact-intensive trade, hotels and transport services sector suffered quarter-on-quarter contractions of 13.3%, 10.5%, 22.3% and 24.6%, respectively.
•The demand side has flattered to deceive. Private final consumption expenditure, the essential bulwark of the economy, appeared to have revived with a year-on-year expansion of 25.9% lifting its share in the GDP to just shy of 60%. However, when viewed sequentially, the estimated ₹22.08 lakh crore of private consumption spending in April-June 2022 was a not insignificant ₹54,000 crore, or 2.4%, less than what was spent in the preceding quarter. And both government spending and gross fixed capital formation, which is viewed as a proxy for private investment, shrank quarter-on-quarter by 10.4% and 6.8%, respectively, undermining overall output. That GDP, in fact, contracted 9.6% sequentially should be a cause for concern among policymakers. Given that this year’s monsoon has distributed rains in an erratic scattershot pattern that has caused disruptive flooding in some parts while leaving key paddy and pulses growing areas in northern and eastern India moisture deficient, both farm output and consumer spending in the rural hinterland are likely to take a hit. And with global trade also becalmed amid the sharp slowdown in advanced economies, India’s merchandise exports are sure to weaken in momentum, any benefits from the rupee’s depreciation against the dollar notwithstanding. With the RBI needing to stay laser focused on taming inflation, the onus is on fiscal authorities to spur consumption and investment.
📰 Effecting the ban on single-use plastics
What are single-use plastics and how do they impact the environment? What are the amended rules and are alternatives available?
•The purpose of single-use plastics is to use them once or for a short period of time before disposing of them. There is a greater likelihood of single-use plastic products ending up in the sea than reusable ones.
•The Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021, prohibited the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale, and use of plastic carry bags whose thickness is less than 75 microns.
•To ensure the effective enforcement of the ban, national and State-level control rooms will be established, as well as special enforcement teams for the purpose of checking the illegal manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale and use of single-use plastics.
•The story so far: The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, notified the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021 on August 12, 2021. In keeping with the spirit of the ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav’, the country is taking steps to curb littered and unmanaged plastic waste pollution. Since July 1, 2022, India has banned the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale, and use of single-use plastic (SUP) items with low utility and high littering potential. India is a party to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). In all, 124 nations are party to the UNEA, and India has signed a resolution to draw up an agreement in the future that will make it legally binding for signatories to address the full life cycle of plastics, from production to disposal.
Why are single-use plastics harmful?
•The purpose of single-use plastics is to use them once or for a short period of time before disposing of them. Plastic waste has drastic impacts on the environment and human health. There is a greater likelihood of single-use plastic products ending up in the sea than reusable ones.
•India has taken resolute steps to mitigate pollution caused by littered single-use plastics. A number of items are banned, including earbuds with plastic sticks, balloon sticks, plastic flags, candy sticks, ice cream sticks, polystyrene (thermocol) for decorations, plates, cups, glasses, cutlery such as forks, spoons, knives, straws, trays, wrapping or packing films around sweet boxes, invitation cards, cigarette packets, plastic or PVC banners less than 100 micron, stirrers, etc.
What is the impact on the environment?
•Littered single-use plastic items have an adverse effect on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. All countries face a major environmental challenge due to pollution caused by single-use plastic items. India piloted a resolution on single-use plastics pollution at the 4th United Nations Environment Assembly in 2019, recognising the urgent need for the global community to address this issue. This resolution was adopted at the UN Environment Assembly as an important step forward. In the recently concluded 5th session of the United Nations Environment Assembly in March 2022, India engaged constructively with all member states to develop a consensus on a resolution to drive global action against plastic pollution.
•However, India is not the first country to ban single-use plastics. Bangladesh became the first country to ban thin plastic bags in 2002; New Zealand banned plastic bags in July 2019. China had issued a ban on plastic bags in 2020 with a phased implementation.
•As of July 2019, 68 countries have plastic bag bans with varying degrees of enforcement.
What are the plastic waste management rules in India?
•With effect from September 30, 2021, the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2021, prohibited the manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale, and use of plastic carry bags whose thickness is less than 75 microns. From December 31, 2022, plastic carry bags whose thickness is less than 120 microns will be banned.
•It means that the ban does not cover all plastic bags; however, it requires the manufacturers to produce plastic bags thicker than 75 microns which was earlier 50 microns. As per the notification, the standard shall be increased to 120 microns in December this year.
•The notification clearly mentioned that plastic or PVC banners/ hoardings should have more than 100 microns in thickness, and non-woven plastic (polypropylene) must be more than 60 GSM (grams per square metre). Non-woven plastic bags have a cloth-like texture but are counted among plastics. Still, plastic or PET bottles, counted among the most recyclable types of plastic, have been left out of the scope of the ban.
•In addition, the Indian government has taken steps to promote innovation and create an ecosystem for accelerated adoption and availability of alternatives across the country. To ensure the effective enforcement of the ban, national and State-level control rooms will be established, as well as special enforcement teams for the purpose of checking the illegal sale and use of single-use plastics. To prevent the movement of banned single-use plastic items between States and Union Territories, border checkpoints have been established.
•In an effort to empower citizens to help curb the plastic menace, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has launched a grievance redressal application.
•The Government has been taking measures for awareness generation towards the elimination of single-use plastics The awareness campaign has brought together entrepreneurs and start-ups, industry, Central, State and local Governments, regulatory bodies, experts, citizen organisations, R&D and academic institutions.
What is the role of the manufacturer?
•In addition, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change notified the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2022 on February 16, 2022. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is the responsibility of a producer for the environmentally sound management of the product until the end of its life. The guidelines provide a framework to strengthen the circular economy of plastic packaging waste, promote the development of new alternatives to plastic packaging and provide the next steps for moving towards sustainable plastic packaging by businesses.
What are the challenges?
•The ban will succeed only if all stakeholders participate enthusiastically and engage in effective engagement and concerted actions.
•However, if we look back at our past, almost 25 Indian States previously banned plastic at the state level. However, these bans had a very limited impact in reality because of the widespread use of these items.
•Now the challenge is to see how the local level authorities will enforce the ban in accordance with the guidelines. Banned items such as earbuds with plastic sticks, plastic sticks for balloons, etc., are non-branded items and it is difficult to find out who the manufacturer is and who is accountable for selling because these items will be available in the market even after the issuing of guidelines.
What’s happening on the research and development front?
•The consumer needs to be informed about the ban through advertisements, newspaper or TV commercials, or on social media. In order to find sustainable alternatives, companies need to invest in research and development. The solution to the plastic pollution problem is not the responsibility of the government alone, but of industries, brands, manufacturers and most importantly consumers. Finding alternatives to plastic seems a little difficult, however, greener alternatives to plastic may be considered a sustainable option. For example, compostable and bio-degradable plastic, etc., may be considered as an option.
•While the total ban on the use of plastic sounds a great idea, its feasibility seems difficult at this hour, especially in the absence of workable alternatives.
