💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Governance, Transparency & Accountability, Citizens Charters

  • Why draft data accessibility policy is dangerous

    Context

    The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) released the“Draft India Data Accessibility & Use Policy 2022”.

    Objectives of the policy

    •  If passed, it would govern, “all data and information created/generated/collected/archived by the Government of India” as much as, “State Governments [who] will also be free to adopt the provisions of the policy”.
    • The twin purpose to which this data will be put to will be government-to-government sharing and high value datasets for valuation and licensing.

    Issues with the draft policy

    1] Original objective will get dilutes in favour of commercial interests

    • The immediate risk arises when a government starts licensing citizen data.
    • Over the past three years, there has been a rapid expansion in the nature and scope of our most intimate details.
    • While the middle classes faced the mendacity of voluntarily linking their Aadhaar to their bank accounts and mobile connections, today, the digital sweep is all pervasive.
    • For agriculture, there is an Agristack; for unorganised labourers, we have the e-SHRAM portal; in health we have Aarogya Setu and ABHA (Ayushman Bharat Digital Health Mission); and for school children and teachers there is NDEAR (National Digital Education Architecture).
    • For every area of our lives, the government now has a database filled with our personal data.
    • Purpose of data collection: The stated purpose for collection has been improving service delivery, planning and checking leakages.
    • Public data is now being viewed as a prized asset of the Union government that should be freely shared, enriched, valued and licensed to the private sector. 
    • Given that more data means more money, commercial interests will prompt the government to collect granular personal details through greater capture and increased retention periods.
    • Tying government policy determinations with a fiscal potential may also lead to distortion of the aims of data collection — the welfare of farmers, healthcare, unorganised labourers or even schoolchildren.
    • There is no indication that consent will be sought in a meaningful form.
    • Over time, the original objectives for which databases are built will get diluted in favour of commercial interests.

    2] Absence of values and objectives related to transparency

    • The second issue emerges from the disingenuous phrasing of “making data open by default”.
    • Importance of open data: The World Bank notes that one of the first benefits of open data is that it supports “public oversight of governments and helps reduce corruption by enabling greater transparency”.
    • These principles were recognised in past policy pronouncements of the government.
    • Specifically, the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012 and the implementation guidelines formulated in 2017 refer to the Right to Information Act, 2005.
    • However, within the present draft data accessibility policy, while the phrase “open data” has been used, its values and objectives are absent.
    • The primary, overpowering objectives in the draft data accessibility policy and the background note are commercial.

    3] Absence of legal basis

    • The final area for reconsideration is a larger trend of policy-based administration detached from our constitutional framework.
    • Compounding this problem, the present policy, as many others, is untethered to any legislative basis and contains no proposals for the creation of a legal framework.
    • As per the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment on the fundamental right to privacy, the first ingredient to satisfy constitutionality is the existence of a legal, more often a legislative, basis.
    • Without a law, there is absence of defined limits to data sharing that are enforceable and contain remedies.
    • Inadequate provisions for privacy preservation: In this case, the promise of privacy preservation through anonymisation tools holds little promise when it cannot be independently assessed by a body for data protection.
    •  Even heavily sampled anonymised datasets are unlikely to satisfy the modern standards for anonymisation set forth by GDPR and seriously challenge the technical and legal adequacy of the de-identification release-and-forget model.
    • This becomes vital as it is the principal measure suggested in the draft data accessibility policy.

    Suggestions

    • Parliamentary enactments also help bring accountability through deliberation that furthers foresight and contains financial memorandums – given that public money would be spent to enrich datasets of public data.
    • Since the policy contemplates sharing data between databases of the central and state governments as well as through central funded schemes, it may also be prudent to deliberate further in the Rajya Sabha. 
    •  Federalism becomes a relevant issue given that such data, when it is generated, processed and enriched by state governments to comply with interoperability standards, will lead to revenue generation for itself.

    Consider the question “What are the benefits of open data? Why privacy and welfare activists have raised concerns with the Draft India Data Accessibility & Use Policy 2022?”

    Conclusion

    These are the glaring issues in this short,  draft data accessibility policy, which appears to transform the Union government into a data broker.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • What is ‘General Consent’ for CBI?

    Meghalaya has withdrawn consent to the CBI to investigate cases in the state, becoming the ninth state in the country to have taken this step.

    General Consent

    • Unlike the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is governed by its own NIA Act and has jurisdiction across the country, the CBI is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
    • This makes consent of a state government mandatory for conducting an investigation in that state.
    • There are two types of consent: case-specific and general.
    • Given that the CBI has jurisdiction only over central government departments and employees, it can investigate a case involving state government employees or a violent crime in a given state only after that state government gives its consent.

    When is Consent needed?

    • General consent is normally given to help the CBI seamlessly conduct its investigation into cases of corruption against central government employees in the concerned state.
    • Almost all states have given such consent.
    • Otherwise, the CBI would require consent in every case.

    What does the withdrawal of consent mean?

    • It means the CBI will not be able to register any fresh case involving a central government official or a private person stationed in these two states without getting case-specific consent.
    • Withdrawal of consent simply means that CBI officers will lose all powers of a police officer as soon as they enter the state unless the state government has allowed them.

    Under what provision has general consent been withdrawn?

    • In exercise of the power conferred by Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the government can withdraw the general consent to exercise the powers and jurisdiction.
    • Section 6 of the Act says nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or Railway, area, without the consent of the Government of that State.

    Does that mean that the CBI can no longer probe any case in the two states?

    • The CBI would still have the power to investigate old cases registered when general consent existed.
    • Also, cases registered anywhere else in the country, but involving people stationed in that particular state would allow CBI’s jurisdiction to extend to these states.
    • There is ambiguity on whether the agency can carry out a search in either of the two states in connection with an old case without the consent of the state government.

    Why such a move by the States?

    • If a state government believes that the ruling party’s ministers or members could be targeted by CBI on orders of the Centre, and that withdrawal of general consent would protect them.
    • This is a debatable political assumption.
    • CBI could still register cases in Delhi which would require some part of the offence being connected with Delhi and still arrest and prosecute ministers or MPs.
    • The only people it will protect are small central government employees.

    Legal Remedies for CBI

    • The CBI can always get a search warrant from a local court in the state and conduct searches.
    • In case the search requires a surprise element, there is CrPC Section 166, which allows a police officer of one jurisdiction to ask an officer of another to carry out searches on his behalf.
    • And if the first officer feels that the searches by the latter may lead to loss of evidence, the section allows the first officer to conduct searches himself after giving notice to the latter.

    Back2Basics: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

    • The Bureau of Investigation traces its origins to the Delhi Special Police Establishment, a Central Government Police force, which was set up in 1941 by the Government of India.
    • It then aimed to investigate bribery and corruption in transactions with the War and Supply Department of India.
    • It then had its headquarters in Lahore.
    • After the end of the war, there was a continued need for a central governmental agency to investigate bribery and corruption by central-government employees.
    • The DSPE acquired its popular current name, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), through a Home Ministry resolution dated in 1963.

    Mandate of the CBI

    • The CBI is the main investigating agency of the GoI.
    • It is not a statutory body; it derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
    • Its important role is to prevent corruption and maintain integrity in administration.
    • It works under the supervision of the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) in matters pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
    • The CBI is also India’s official representative with the INTERPOL.

    Cases to investigate

    • Cases connected to infringement of economic and fiscal laws
    • Crimes of a serious nature that have national and international ramifications
    • Coordination with the activities of the various state police forces and anti-corruption agencies.
    • It can also take up any case of public importance and investigate it
    • Maintaining crime statistics and disseminating criminal information.

    Issues with CBI

    • Caged parrot: The Supreme Court has criticized the CBI by calling it a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”.
    • Political interference: It has often been used by the government of the day to cover up wrongdoing, keep coalition allies in line and political opponents at bay.
    • Investigation delay: It has been accused of enormous delays in concluding investigations due to political inertia.
    • Loss of Credibility: CBI has been criticised for its mismanagement of several cases involving prominent politicians and mishandling of several sensitive cases like Bofors scandal, Bhopal gas tragedy.
    • Lack of Accountability: CBI is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information Act, thus, lacking public accountability.
    • Acute shortage of personnel: A major cause of the shortfall is the government’s sheer mismanagement of CBI’s workforce.
    • Limited Powers: The powers and jurisdiction of members of the CBI for investigation are subject to the consent of the State Govt., thus limiting the extent of investigation by CBI.
    • Restricted Access: Prior approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation on the employees of the Central Government is a big obstacle in combating corruption at higher levels of bureaucracy.

    Reforming CBI

    • Need for autonomy:   As long as the government of the day has the power to transfer and post officials of its choice in the CBI, the investigating agency will not enjoy autonomy and will be unable to investigate cases freely.
    • Selection of director/ Officers: To ensure that the CBI is a robust, independent and credible investigation agency, there is an urgent need to work out a much more transparent mechanism for selection and induction of officers on deputation.
    • Lokpal scrutiny: The Lokpal Act already calls for a three-member committee made up of the PM, the leader of the opposition and the CJI to select the director.
    • Bifurcation of Cadre: CBI should be bifurcated into an Anti-Corruption Body and a National Crime Bureau.
    • Develop own cadre: One of the demands that have been before Supreme Court, and in line with international best practices, is for the CBI to develop its own dedicated cadre of officers.
    • Annual social audit should be carried out by ten reputed, knowledgeable persons with background of law, justice, public affairs and administration and the audit report should be placed before the parliament.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Untangling Kerala’s Lokayukta controversy

    Context

    The controversy surrounding the amendment to the Lokayukta Act of Kerala — effected through an ordinance —has raised the political temperature in the State.

    The background of the Lokayukta

    • The term Lokpal was first used in a report of the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Morarji Desai as far back as in 1966.
    • The first Bill on Lokpal was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1968 which lapsed with the dissolution of the House.
    • Finally, after 45 years the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill was passed by Parliament in 2013.
    • The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act delegates the power to States to establish by law the Lokayukta to deal with complaints relating to corruption against public functionaries.
    • The Lokpal has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, Group A, B, C and D officers and officials of the central government.
    • After the conclusion of the investigation, the Lokpal may file a case in the special court in case the findings disclose the commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Prime Minister, Ministers or Members of Parliament.
    • Some States already have established Lokayuktas. For example, Maharashtra in 1971, and Kerala in 1999.

    How Lokpal is different from other investigative bodies

    • The Lokpal is no ordinary investigative body.
    • Connection with judiciary: It is headed by the incumbent Chief Justice of of India or a retired judge.
    • It has eight members, four of whom are judicial members.
    • The Lokpal has an inquiry wing and a prosecution wing to deal with investigation and prosecution, respectively.
    • The director of prosecution files the case in the special court based on the findings of the Lokpal.

    Issue in Kerala

    • In order to get a clearer perspective on the Kerala Lokayukta controversy, it is necessary to understand the scheme of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act enacted by Parliament.
    • The long title of the Act says: “An Act to provide for the establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries….”
    • Investigative body: Thus, the Lokpal is conceived of as a body which will inquire into allegations of corruption.
    •  Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act in Kerala which has now been amended said that if  the Lokayukta is satisfied on the complaint against the public servant being substantiated that he should not continue to hold the post held by him.
    • In other words, if the public servant is the Chief Minister or a Minister, he shall forthwith resign his office.
    • It may be noted here that such a provision does not exist in any of the State laws or the Lokpal Act of the Centre.
    •  An investigative body does not have the legal authority to direct the public servant to resign his post on the basis of its findings.
    • The Chief Minister or a Minister holds office during the pleasure of the Governor (Article 164).
    • The Constitution of India does not contemplate any external pressure on the Governor to withdraw his pleasure.
    • The Sarkaria Commission had suggested that the Governor can dismiss a Chief Minister only when he loses his majority in the Assembly and refuses to step down.
    • The Supreme Court has accepted this recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission.
    • No agency created by a law made by the Assembly, particularly an investigative body, can declare that its decision be carried out by the Governor.
    • It would amount to a violation of the Constitution.
    • State law includes the office bearers of political parties within its definition of ‘public servant’. 
    • The Lokayukta law was enacted to inquire into cases of corruption of public functionaries such as Ministers, legislators, etc. who are covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act.
    • This Act does not include office-bearers of political parties in its definition clause.
    • Another problematic provision in this law is the one which deals with the reports of Lokayukta (Section 12).
    • It says that the Lokayukta shall, on the allegation of corruption being substantiated, send the findings along with recommendation of action to the competent authority who is required to take action as recommended by the Lokayukta.
    • It further says that if the Lokayukta is satisfied by the action taken by the competent authority, he shall close the case.
    • There is no provision in the central law under which the Lokpal can close the case before it reaches the court.
    • The Lokayukta not being a court does not have the legal capacity to close the corruption case under any circumstances.

    Conclusion

    The Kerala Lokayukta Act should be re-examined by a committee of the Assembly and should be brought on a par with the Lokpal Act. A legislation which seeks to punish corrupt public functionaries should be placed above controversies.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • A case for specialists

    Context

    Given the fact that political input in economic policymaking is becoming dominant as regional and state-level issues assume overriding significance, it’s perhaps time to consider sheltering economics from politics and vice versa.

    Continuity in policy

    • The sudden withdrawal of farm laws last year and the repeal of the land acquisition ordinance in 2015 are two examples of policy backsliding in an otherwise decent record of policy continuity since 1991.
    • The overall trajectory of tariffs has been downward and average tariffs are now below 10 percent compared to over 400 percent before 1991.
    • As a favored rule, domestic policy priorities should not be held hostage to external pressures, but they can and ought to be used to push through difficult and desirable domestic reform.

    Challenges in achieving high growth

    • Challenges in reforms: Relying on chance events to drive reform might work in rare circumstances, but not when the aspiration is to become a $10 trillion economy by 2030.
    •  Realizing this target or even coming close to it will require sustained growth of over 15 percent per annum in nominal GDP — that’s no mean task.
    • The golden period of India’s growth fetched an 8.1 percent increase in real GDP between 2004 and 2009.
    • Even during this period, the growth story was cut short by the global financial crisis and devilled intermittently by institutional weaknesses.
    • Failure of institutions: The coal scam and the 2G scam are examples of the inability of institutions to keep pace with rapid growth.
    • As growth occurs, institutions also require sophistication, knowledge, and some (not complete) protection from political interference.

    Need for the fiscal council for budget-making process

    • The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in 2016, replaced RBI’s internal decision-making driven by the central bank governor to include three external experts to strengthen and bring transparency into monetary policy decisions. 
    • This can be extended to other important government functions, such as the budgetary process
    • Successive finance commissions and the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Review Committee have recommended the creation of a fiscal council that, like the MPC, will bring transparency in the budget-making process.
    • The idea is simple, moderate the influence of the political agenda and powerful interest groups that could, and often do, capture the process.

    Suggestions on policymaking

    • It is art and science: Policymaking is nothing if not art that invokes science when expedient.
    • Domain experts should be an integral part of the formulation process.
    • Implementation, of course, can be left to the executive.
    • When the TRAI was first set up, it had a healthy combination of domain experts and public policy professionals, resembling a specialized regulatory agency that reflected a serious intent to strengthen capacity.
    • Importance of domain experts: Instead of going down the chosen path, TRAI has reversed gear and today resembles a government department.
    • In fact, this is the same affliction with almost all regulatory and policy institutions that are now a feature of India’s increasingly market-based economy.
    • As more sectors (for example, the Gati Shakti initiative) engage the private sector, lessons from the last quarter-century should not be wasted — domain expertise is conspicuous by its absence in regulatory and policy institutions.

    Way forward

    • Create a cadre of professionals: Commissions tend to be made up of retired civil servants or retired judges.
    • This is worrying and, therefore, it is vital to create a cadre of professionals with technical expertise for the complex tasks of managing the policy processes.
    • Distancing politics from the policy: The net needs to be cast wider so that politics and policy are distanced, not completely but certainly more than it is today.

    Consider the question “Politicians and economists have a love-hate relationship; they can’t do without each other. In context of this examine the issues with policymaking in India and why role of the domain expert is important in policymaking today?”

    Conclusion

    India should not be in a situation in which it is in perpetual hostage to vested interests of politics and business.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • How to prevent another Bulli Bai or Sulli Deals

    Context

    The auctioning of Muslim women first on Sulli Deals and now through Bulli Bai is shocking and it is our collective responsibility to make sure it never happens again.

    How to prevent such incidents from happening?

    • Even a good system of blocking this app from mainstream online platforms is a short-term technical solution.
    • We have on our hands a problem of a few active bad actors and many passive ones.
    • Systems to identify and remove content on Social media: For over a decade, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube have been at the center of controversy.
    • Over time, they have developed elaborate systems through which harmful content can be identified and removed.
    • What is key is that this content is usually legible to a wide range of people. 

    How GitHub is different?

    • GitHub’s content is code.
    • GitHub is a specialist platform that is not accessible or legible to everyone.
    • It is, however, working towards more sophisticated content moderation.
    • There is great value in a platform that shares code.

    Challenges in finding and punishing perpetrators

    • US laws: The United States of America’s laws require companies not to share private information unless the request is made through an onerous process.
    • Delay in sharing information: This is a pre-internet process for law enforcement requests from other countries.
    • After the internet made American platforms intermediaries of communication worldwide, the number of requests for information from these companies escalated dramatically.
    • The system does not have the resources to cope with the increased demand and there is a delay before requests can be processed.
    • This is why it is a waste of time calling for GitHub to hand over the names of the authors of the code.

    Suggestion

    • Automated detection system: To address non-consensual sexual media, platforms maintain a shared database of reported videos and images which they remove the instant they are re-published or shared.
    •  At least in the short term, GitHub needs to work with the group being targeted towards an automated detection system that will restrain this new disturbing trend in targeting Muslim women.

    Conclusion

    Our focus in the short term should be on finding a way to make sure that any recurring versions of this code are blocked proactively by GitHub.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Setting right the focal point of Jammu and Kashmir tribal politics

    Context

    The Jammu and Kashmir Delimitation Commission has recently shared its interim report. One of the salient features of the report is the proposed reservation of nine seats for Scheduled Tribes (ST).

    Reservation for STs in Legislative Assembly

    •  It is for the first time that seats have been reserved for the ST community in the Legislative Assembly of J&K.
    • The commission has also proposed reserving seven seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs).
    • In the erstwhile Legislative Assembly, there were also seven seats reserved for SCs, but there was no such reservation for STs.
    • This denial of constitutionally guaranteed reservation under Article 332 post-1991 when four communities (the Gujjars, Bakerwals, Gaddis and Sippis) were granted ST status is a pointer to the harsh reality that discrimination has largely been deliberate.

    Issue of reservation for STs in J&K

    • No role of Article 370: Nothing in Article 370 has prevented the provision of political reservation to STs or extension of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 to J&K.
    • The presence of Article 370 has often been given as a reason for the absence of reservation for the tribals in J&K though this is untrue.
    • Reservation for SCs: SCs in J&K had reservations even before the dilution of Article 370, and it was provided under the J&K Constitution. 
    • This lack of political will stemmed from an unwillingness to share power with groups ethnically and culturally different from both Dogras and the Kashmiris, the two predominant power groups in J&K.

    What has changed now?

    • The dilution of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, and the subsequent Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 changed political dynamics in the region.
    • As far as tribals are concerned, it promised them political reservation under Article 332 and led to the extension of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
    •  Essentially, it has changed the nature of tribal politics in J&K as well, which had largely centered around these two major objectives.

    Way forward

    • Economic and social empowerment: The focus of tribal politics has to shift toward the economic and social empowerment of tribal communities.
    • Implementation of the Forest Rights Act has to be a major issue as it has the potential to significantly empower these communities.
    • The political mobilization of STs began many years ago, and the interim report has thrown up new challenges before STs than merely empowering them.
    • Awareness: It will not change after reservation unless there is an awareness and conscious attempt by the leadership to prioritize tribal interests over party politics.
    • Political relevance: The tendency to limit tribal politics to Rajouri and Poonch (which the interim report has also done) is the extension of past practice though the reality is that more than 68% of the ST population lives outside these districts.
    • Political relevance is a major challenge that tribal politics in J&K faces.
    • Community leaders, especially tribal youth, need to understand the significance of the tribal vote.
    • Tribal politics also have to address the political, social, and economic empowerment of marginal tribes such as the Bakerwals, Gaddis and Sippis.
    • Women empowerment: Women have to play a major role in tribal politics, and their participation and leadership have to be made feasible and suitably promoted.
    • They have proven their leadership in the District Development Council (DDC) elections, and it needs to be strengthened further.

    Conclusion

    The focus of tribal politics has to shift toward the economic and social empowerment of tribal communities, with a special focus on the effective implementation of welfare schemes and policies for STs in J&K.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Local job laws that raise constitutional questions

    Context

    Last week, the Punjab and Haryana High Court admitted a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Act, and stayed the implementation until it heard the case.

    Laws raises constitutional questions

    • There are at least three important constitutional questions that arise from this Act.

    [1] Violation of Article 19(1)(g)

    • Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees freedom to carry out any occupation, trade or business.
    • There may be reasonable restrictions “in the interests of the general public”, and in particular related to specifying any professional or technical qualifications, or to reserve a sector for government monopoly.
    • This Act, by requiring private businesses to reserve 75% of lower end jobs for locals, encroaches upon their right to carry out any occupation.
    • In 2005, in the P.A. Inamdar case, Supreme Court said that reservation cannot be mandated on educational institutions that do not receive financial aid from the state, as that would affect the freedom of occupation.

    [2] Violation of Article 16

    • The provision of reservation by virtue of domicile or residence may be unconstitutional.
    • Article 16 of the Constitution specifically provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in public employment.
    • It prohibits discrimination on several grounds including place of birth and residence.
    • However, it permits Parliament to make law that requires residence within a State for appointment to a public office.
    • This enabling provision is for public employment and not for private sector jobs.
    • And the law needs to be made by Parliament, and not by a State legislature.

    [3] Breaching of 50% limit

    • In the Indra Sawhney case in 1992, the Supreme Court capped reservations in public services at 50%.
    • It however said that there may be extraordinary situations which may need a relaxation in this rule.
    • It also specified that “in doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out”.
    • That is, the onus is on the State to make a special case of exceptional circumstances, for the 50% upper limit on reservations to be relaxed.
    • It stated that the 50% limit is “to fulfil the objective of equality”, and that to breach the limit “is to have a society which is not founded on equality but on caste rule”.
    • The Haryana Act does not further “caste rule” as it is for all residents of the State irrespective of caste but it breaches the notion of equality of all citizens of India.

    [4] Against the conception of India as a one nation

    •  The Constitution conceptualises India as one nation with all citizens having equal rights to live, travel and work anywhere in the country.
    • These State laws go against this vision by restricting the right of out-of-State citizens to find employment in the State.
    • This restriction may also indirectly affect the right to reside across India as finding employment becomes difficult.
    • If more States follow similar policies, it would be difficult for citizens to migrate from their State to other States to find work.

    [5] Economic implications

    • The move may potentially increase the costs for companies.
    • There may also be an increase in income inequality across States as citizens of poorer States with fewer job opportunities are trapped within their States.

    Conclusion

    The courts, while looking at the narrow questions of whether these laws violate fundamental rights, should also examine whether they breach the basic structure of the Constitution that views India as one nation which is a union of States, and not as a conglomeration of independent States.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Centre extends Police Modernisation Scheme

    The Union government has approved the continuation of a police modernization scheme for five years up to 2025-26 with a financial outlay of ₹26,275 crores.

    What is the Modernization of Police Forces Scheme?

    • Police’ and ‘law and order’ fall under the category of subjects within the domain of the State as per Entry 2 of List II of the VIIth Schedule in the Constitution of India.
    • Thus, the principal responsibility for managing these subjects lies with the State Governments.
    • However, the States have not been able to fully modernize and equip their police forces up to the desired level due to financial constraints.
    • It is in this context that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been supplementing the efforts and resources of the States, from time to time, by implementing the MPF Scheme since 1969-70.

    Objectives:

    • The focus of the scheme is to strengthen police infrastructure at cutting edge level by constructing secure police stations, training centers, police housing (residential), equipping the police stations with the required mobility, modern weaponry, communication equipment, and forensic set-up, etc.

    Components of the scheme

    • The scheme included security-related expenditure in J&K, northeastern States, and Maoist-affected areas, for raising new battalions, developing high-tech forensic laboratories and other investigation tools.
    • Provisions have been made under the scheme for internal security, law and order, and the adoption of modern technology by the police.
    • Assistance will be given to the States for narcotics control and strengthening the criminal justice system by developing a robust forensic setup in the country.

    Funding pattern

    • Under the Scheme, the States are grouped into two categories, namely Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ for the purpose of funding both under ‘Non-Plan’ and Plan.
    • Category ‘A’ States, namely, J&K and 8 North Eastern States including Sikkim will be eligible to receive financial assistance on a 90:10 Centre: State sharing basis.
    • The remaining States will be in Category ‘B’ and will be eligible for financial assistance on a 60:40 Centre: State sharing basis.

     

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), 2021

     

    The 2021 Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International places India 85th on a list of 180 countries, one position above last year.

    Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)

    • The CPI is an index which ranks countries “by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.”
    • The CPI generally defines corruption as an “abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.
    • The index is published annually by the non-governmental organisation Transparency International since 1995.
    • The index ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and business people.
    • It uses a scale of 0 to 100 to rank CPI, where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean.

    What kind of corruption does the CPI measure?

    The data sources used to compile the CPI specifically cover the following manifestations of public sector corruption:

    • Bribery
    • Diversion of public funds
    • Officials using their public office for private gain without facing consequences
    • Ability of governments to contain corruption in the public sector
    • Excessive red tape in the public sector which may increase opportunities for corruption
    • Nepotistic appointments in the civil service
    • Laws ensuring that public officials must disclose their finances and potential conflicts of interest
    • Legal protection for people who report cases of bribery and corruption
    • State capture by narrow vested interests
    • Access to information on public affairs/government activities

    The CPI does NOT cover:

    • Citizens’ direct perceptions or experience of corruption
    • Tax fraud
    • Illicit financial flows
    • Enablers of corruption (lawyers, accountants, financial advisors etc)
    • Money-laundering
    • Private sector corruption
    • Informal economies and markets

    Highlights of the 2021 Report

    • The top-performing countries were Denmark, Finland and New Zealand — all having a corruption perceptions score of 88 — followed by Norway, Singapore and Sweden, all of them scoring 85.
    • In contrast, the worst-performing countries were South Sudan with a corruption perceptions score of 11, followed by Syria (13), Somalia (13, Venezuela (14) and Afghanistan (16).

    India’s performance

    • In 2021, India ranked 86th with the same CPI score of 40.
    • The report highlighted concerns over the risk to journalists and activists who have been victims of attacks by the police, political militants, criminal gangs and corrupt local officials.
    • Civil society organizations that speak up against the government have been targeted with security, defamation, sedition, hate speech and contempt-of-court charges, and with regulations on foreign funding.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • How to deal with hate speech

    Context

    On January 12, 2022 , the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear petitions asking for legal action to be taken against the organisers of, and speakers at, the “Hardwar Dharma Sansad”.

    What constitutes hate speech

    • Hate speech is speech that targets people based on their identity, and calls for violence or discrimination against people because of their identity.
    • There is an absence of any legal or social consensus around what constitutes “hate speech.”
    • As societies around the world have long understood, the harm in hate speech is not restricted to direct and proximate calls to violence.
    • Inciting discrimination is part of hate speech: Hate speech works in more insidious ways, creating a climate that strengthens existing prejudices and entrenches already-existing discrimination.
    • This is why – with the exception of the United States of America – most societies define hate speech in terms of both inciting violence, but also, inciting discrimination.

    Challenges in dealing with hate speech

    • Legal challenge: Our laws – as they stand – are unequipped to deal with the challenges of hate speech.
    • The laws commonly invoked in such cases are section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (blasphemy) and section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (creating enmity between classes of people).
    • Hate speech will not always be self-evident: Hate speech, by its very nature, will not always trumpet itself to be hate speech.
    • Rather, it will often assume plausible deniability – as has been seen in the Hardwar case, where statements, worded with the right degree of ambiguity, are now being defended as calls to self-defence rather than calls to violence.
    • Any comprehensive understanding of hate speech is a matter of judgment, and must take into account its ambiguous and slippery nature.
    • Lack of social consensus against hate speech: No matter how precise and how definite we try to make our concept of hate speech, it will inevitably reflect individual judgment. 
    • If, therefore, social and legal norms against hate speech are to be implemented without descending into pure subjectivity, what is needed – first – is a social consensus about what kind of speech is beyond the pale.
    •  In Europe, for example, holocaust denial is an offence – and is enforced with a degree of success – precisely because there is a pre-existing social consensus about the moral abhorrence of the holocaust.

    Conclusion

    Achieving this social consensus is an immense task, and will require both consistent legal implementation over time, but also daily conversations that we, as a society need to have among ourselves.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)