GS Paper: GS2
-
I-T searches, a form of extra-constitutional power
Central Idea:
The article critiques the persistent judicial deference in interpreting statutes related to privacy rights in India, despite a significant Supreme Court decision in 2017. It focuses on the unchecked power granted to tax authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, highlighting the need for proportionality and stricter judicial review in executive actions.
Key Highlights:
- The 2017 Supreme Court decision affirmed the fundamental right to privacy but hasn’t significantly impacted the interpretation of related statutes.
- Section 132 of the Income Tax Act grants broad powers to tax authorities, allowing searches without judicial warrants.
- Recent incidents, like a lawyer’s raid, raise concerns about the abuse of these powers and the lack of safeguards.
Key Challenges:
- The persistence of a culture of judicial deference to executive authority in interpreting statutes.
- The broad and unchecked powers granted to tax authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
- Lack of proportionality and strict judicial review in executive actions, risking potential abuse of power.
Key Terms:
- Judicial Deference
- Section 132 of the Income Tax Act
- Proportionality
- Fundamental Right to Privacy
- Executive Authority
Key Phrases:
- “Culture of justification”
- “Judicial Deference”
- “Doctrine of proportionality”
- “Wednesbury rule”
Key Quotes:
- “The promised culture of justification is rarely on show, replaced by a culture of judicial deference.”
- “Search and seizure powers must adhere to the doctrine of proportionality, ensuring a balance between means and violated rights.”
Key Examples and References:
- The Gujarat High Court questioning income-tax authorities on a lawyer’s raid.
- The evolution of income-tax laws, especially the 1961 legislation and the subsequent Supreme Court cases.
Key Statements:
- “Post-Puttaswamy, there ought to be no place for the Wednesbury rule, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.”
- “The state’s power to search and seize must be subject to the doctrine of proportionality.”
Critical Analysis:
The article critically examines the inconsistency in judicial interpretation post the Puttaswamy case, emphasizing the need for a more stringent review of executive actions, particularly in cases involving privacy rights. It questions the application of the Wednesbury rule and advocates for a proportional and justifiable approach.
Way Forward:
- Advocate for a reevaluation of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act in light of the Puttaswamy judgment.
- Emphasize the importance of proportionality and judicial scrutiny in executive actions, especially those involving fundamental rights.
- Call for a more comprehensive and balanced approach to interpreting statutes, ensuring protection against arbitrary executive excesses.
-
Nationwide Transportation Strike: Protests against Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Central Idea
- The nationwide transportation strike entered its second day, causing huge disruptions across the country.
- The strike, involving truck, bus, and tanker drivers, is a protest against stringent regulations under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) for hit-and-run cases.
Background of the Strike: BNS Provisions
- Implementation of BNS: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which introduces tougher penalties for hit-and-run cases, has not yet been implemented.
- Comparison with IPC: The new law replaces Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, which had a lesser punishment for causing death by negligence.
- Section 106 Controversy: Transporters are protesting Section 106 of the BNS, which increases punishment for rash and negligent driving to a maximum of 10 years.
- Section 106(1) and 106(2): These sections provide for punishments in hit-and-run cases, with Section 106(1) offering a lesser sentence for those who report accidents.
- Abiding to Supreme Court Observations: The increase in sentence duration to 10 years is based on the Supreme Court’s recommendations for stricter actions against reckless drivers who flee accident scenes.
Protesters’ Concerns and Demands
- Fear of Unjust Punishments: Transport operators argue that the new law could lead to unfair punishments and expose drivers to mob violence.
- Lack of Stakeholder Consultation: There is a sentiment that the law was passed without adequate discussion with relevant stakeholders.
- Skepticism about Government Promises: All India Motor Transport Congress expressed doubts about the government’s assurances, predicting fuel shortages and driver protests.
Impact of the Strike
- Widespread Disruptions: The strike has significantly impacted transportation, especially in northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and others, as well as West Bengal, Odisha, and southern states.
- Fuel Shortages: Long queues at petrol pumps have been reported, indicating a hit to fuel supply.
Conclusion
- Continued Protests: Despite some transport bodies calling off the strike, others continue to protest, affecting transportation and fuel supply.
- Need for Dialogue: The situation underscores the need for further dialogue between the government and transport stakeholders to address concerns and find a resolution.
-
Suspending the Free Movement Regime: India’s Border Policy with Myanmar
Central Idea
- On January 2, the Indian government announced plans to scrap the Free Movement Regime (FMR) along the Myanmar border.
- Residents in border areas, previously able to cross freely, will now require visas.
About Free Movement Regime
- Initiated in the 1970s, the FMR allowed people living within 16 km of the India-Myanmar border to travel up to 16 km into the other country without a visa.
- India shares a 1,643 km-long border with Myanmar, which passes through the States of Arunachal Pradesh (520 km), Nagaland (215 km), Manipur (398 km), and Mizoram (510 km).
- This regime recognized the deep-rooted familial and ethnic connections between communities on either side of the unfenced border.
- The FMR was last revised in 2016, aligning with India’s Act East policy. However, it was suspended in Manipur since 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reasons for the Policy Shift
- Security and Illegal Activities: The FMR has been under scrutiny for facilitating illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and insurgency.
- Refugee Influx Post-Coup: Following Myanmar’s military coup in February 2021, over 40,000 refugees entered Mizoram, and around 4,000 entered Manipur, exacerbating security concerns.
- Local Government Stance: Manipur’s Chief Minister urged the Ministry of Home Affairs to cancel the FMR and complete border fencing, linking ethnic violence in the state to the free movement across the border.
Implications of Scrapping the FMR
- Impact on Local Communities: Ending the FMR could significantly affect the daily lives of border residents, who depend on cross-border access for various needs.
- Cultural and Social Disruption: The policy change might strain the cultural and social fabric of communities with shared ethnicities across the border.
Way forward
- Border Fencing: The government plans to fence about 300 km of the border, with a tender expected soon.
- Regulatory Revisions: Experts suggest refining the FMR to better regulate movement while maintaining cross-border ties.
- Infrastructure and Trade: Enhancing infrastructure and formalizing trade at designated entry points could mitigate some negative impacts.
- Community Engagement: Involving border communities in decision-making is crucial for effective and sensitive border management.
Conclusion
- Balancing Security and Community Needs: The decision to end the FMR requires a nuanced approach that considers both national security and the rights of border communities.
- Diplomatic Engagement: Strengthening diplomatic relations with Myanmar is key to managing this transition effectively.
- Future Challenges: As India navigates this policy change, it faces the challenge of securing its borders while respecting the socio-economic realities of border populations.
-
Kapil Sibal writes: The Collegium system has failed India
![Burning Issue] Judiciary in Times of COVID-19 Outbreak - Civilsdaily](https://d18x2uyjeekruj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/jud-300x188.jpg)
Central Idea:
The author highlights the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary, emphasizing the need for unbiased judges and a political system that separates religion from politics. The use of religious sentiments for divisive purposes is criticized, calling for a transparent and merit-based judicial appointment system.
Key Highlights:
- Judicial challenges in handling a growing population and increasing litigations.
- Delayed justice in the Supreme Court, impacting the relevance of decisions.
- Concerns about the quality of judges and perceived ideological alignments in appointments.
- Critique of the current collegium system and its lack of transparency.
Key Challenges:
- Overburdened judiciary with a rising number of cases.
- Delayed justice affecting the effectiveness of legal decisions.
- Perceived ideological biases in judicial appointments.
- Lack of a transparent and merit-oriented system for judge selection.
Key Terms:
- Collegium System: The system of appointing judges through a committee of senior judges.
- Ideological Alignment: Alleged connections between judges and specific political or religious ideologies.
- Judicial Hierarchy: The levels of the judicial system, with the Supreme Court being the highest.
Key Phrases:
- “Bedevilled with challenges”: Describing the complex issues faced by the judiciary.
- “Divide and rule”: Criticizing the use of religious emotions for political manipulation.
- “Seminal issues”: Highlighting the critical issues decided by the Supreme Court.
Key Quotes:
- “India needs judges who deliver justice unconcerned with majoritarian sentiments.”
- “The collegium system has failed us.”
- “For the judiciary to regain its glory, it needs to do more than just decide on cases.”
Key Examples and References:
- Reference to the Chief Justice addressing dormant cases but acknowledging the urgency needed.
- Critique of the appointment of judges based on perceived proximity to political power.
Key Facts and Data:
- Increase in litigants seeking justice due to a burgeoning population.
- Delayed hearings and decisions in the Supreme Court.
- Issues with the current system of appointing judges.
Critical Analysis:
The author criticizes the judiciary’s current state, highlighting issues of delayed justice, ideological biases, and the failure of the collegium system. Emphasis is placed on the need for transparency and merit in the appointment process.
Way Forward:
- Reforming the judicial appointment process to ensure transparency and meritocracy.
- Addressing the backlog of cases to expedite justice delivery.
- Advocating for a political system that separates religion from politics to avoid divisive agendas.
-
Raj Bhavan needs radical reforms
Central Idea:
The conduct of Governors in Opposition-ruled States, exemplified by the recent actions of Kerala’s Governor, raises concerns about adherence to constitutional morality, necessitating a reevaluation of their roles and legal consequences.
Key Highlights:
- Kerala’s Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan, faced criticism for instructing the removal of posters and accusing the Chief Minister of supporting activists against him.
- Breaches of protocol, such as an unannounced tour of Kozhikode, added to the growing trend of Governors’ controversial actions.
- While the Constitution outlines functions, powers, and duties of Governors, the concept of constitutional morality should guide their public behavior.
- Reference to NCT of Delhi v. Union of India highlights the responsibility of individuals occupying constitutional offices.
- Article 361 provides limited immunity for Governors, exempting them from court scrutiny for official acts.
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India establishes judicial review for cases of Governor’s motivated and whimsical conduct, suggesting accountability.
- Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies that public functionaries’ freedom of expression is subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Ministers can be held personally liable for statements inconsistent with government views, emphasizing personal responsibility.
- Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) criticized Governors for lacking impartiality and becoming agents of the Union, emphasizing the need for detachment.
- Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended restricting Governors from roles not envisaged by the Constitution, citing potential controversies.
Key Challenges:
- Governors’ failure to display impartiality and sagacity, engaging in local politics and controversies.
- Lack of adherence to recommendations for detached roles and limitations on Governors’ powers.
Key Terms and Phrases:
- Constitutional morality
- Limited immunity (Article 361)
- Judicial review
- Chancellorship of universities
- Sarkaria Commission
- Punchhi Commission
- Democratic legitimacy
- Raj Bhavans
Key Quotes:
- “Constitutional morality places responsibilities and duties on individuals who occupy constitutional institutions and offices.” – NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018)
- “Some Governors have failed to display the qualities of impartiality and sagacity expected of them.” – Sarkaria Commission Report (1988)
- “The Governor should be a detached figure and not too intimately connected with the local politics of the State.” – Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission report (2010)
Key Statements:
- Judicial review possible for Governor’s misbehavior unconnected with official duty.
- Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission reports emphasize the need for Governors’ impartiality and limited involvement in local politics.
- Kerala Assembly’s attempt to abolish Governor’s chancellorship raises concerns about democratic legitimacy.
Critical Analysis:
- The Governor’s actions in Kerala highlight a deviation from democratic norms and raise questions about the democratic legitimacy of gubernatorial decisions.
- Commission reports expose longstanding issues with Governor appointments and their roles, calling for systemic changes.
Way Forward:
- Future regimes should consider amending Article 155 to ensure Chief Minister consultation in Governor appointments, addressing recommendations from the Sarkaria report.
- Establishment of an independent body for Governor selection, with input from the Chief Justice of India, may enhance the quality of the selection process.
- Legal prohibitions against Governors’ further rehabilitation in official capacities could contribute to improving the functioning of Raj Bhavans.
-
In news: Electoral Bond Scheme
Central Idea
- The government has announced a fresh tranche of electoral bond sales for a 10-day period starting through the authorised branches of State Bank of India across the country.
About the Electoral Bond Scheme
Definition Banking instruments for political party donations with donor anonymity. Launch 2017-18 Union Budget Purchase Method Available to Indian citizens and Indian-incorporated companies from select State Bank of India branches. Can be bought digitally or via cheque. Donation Process Purchasers can donate these bonds to eligible political parties of their choice. Denominations Available in multiples of ₹1,000, ₹10,000, ₹10 lakh, and ₹1 crore. KYC Requirements Purchasers must fulfill existing KYC norms and pay from a bank account. Lifespan of Bonds Bonds have a 15-day life to prevent them from becoming a parallel currency. Identity Disclosure Donors contributing less than ₹20,000 need not provide identity details like PAN. Redemption Electoral Bonds can be encashed only by eligible political parties through an Authorized Bank. Eligibility of Parties Only parties meeting specific criteria, including securing at least 1% of votes in the last General Election, can receive Electoral Bonds. Restrictions Lifted Foreign and Indian companies can now donate without disclosing contributions as per the Companies Act. Objective To enhance transparency in political funding and ensure funds collected by political parties are accounted or clean money. Also read:
-
India, Pakistan conduct Annual Exchange of List of Nuclear Installations
Central Idea
- India and Pakistan has exchanged a list of their nuclear installations that cannot be attacked in case of an escalation in hostilities.
Non-Nuclear Aggression Agreement
- The Non-nuclear aggression agreement is a bilateral and nuclear weapons control treaty between India and Pakistan, on the reduction (or limitation) of nuclear arms.
- Both pledged not to attack or assist foreign powers to attack on each others nuclear installations and facilities.
- The treaty was drafted in 1988, and signed by PM Rajiv Gandhi and his counterpart Benazir Bhutto on 21 December 1988; it entered into force on January 1991.
- The treaty barred its signatories from carrying out a surprise attack (or to assist foreign powers to attack) on each other’s nuclear installations and facilities.
- Starting in January 1992, India and Pakistan have annually exchanged lists of their respective military and civilian nuclear-related facilities.
Need for the treaty
- In 1986-87, the massive exercise, ‘Brasstacks’ was carried out by the Indian Army, raising fears of an Indian attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.
- Since then, the Foreign ministries of both countries have been negotiating to reach an understanding towards the control of nuclear weapons.
Significance of the agreement
- The treaty barred its signatories from carrying out a surprise attack (or to assist foreign powers to attack) on each other’s nuclear installations and facilities.
- The treaty provides a confidence-building security measure environment.
Other: Sharing of Prisoners information
- Both nations simultaneously share the list of prisoners in each other’s custody.
- These lists are exchanged under the provisions of the Agreement on Consular Access signed in May 2008.
- Under this pact, the two countries should exchange comprehensive lists on January 1 and July 1 every year (i.e. twice a year).
-
The woes of pensioners and PF members
Central idea
The EPFO’s recent clarification on the 2022 Supreme Court verdict regarding higher PF pension has sparked concerns among pensioners due to ambiguity in pension computation methods. Challenges include discrepancies for pre-2014 and post-2014 retirees, with a demand for increased minimum monthly pension.
Key Highlights:
- The EPFO’s clarification on the 2022 Supreme Court verdict on higher PF pension has raised concerns among pensioners and PF members.
- The Court approved higher pension payments with certain conditions, including amendments to the pensionable salary cap and contribution rules.
- The clarification introduces ambiguity by tying pension computation to the “date of commencement of pension.”
Key Challenges:
- Pre-2014 retirees choosing pension post-amendments receive lower pensions due to the calculation based on the average pay of 60 months.
- Post-2014 retirees face ambiguity and discrepancies in the revised pension amounts, seeking clarity through a worksheet.
- Lack of incorporation of interest rate component in pension calculations.
- Long-standing demand to increase the minimum monthly pension beyond ₹1,000, with calls for linking it to the cost of living index.
Key Terms:
- EPFO: Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation
- EPS: Employees’ Pension Scheme
- Pensionable salary cap: ₹15,000/month
- Amendments (2014): Raised pensionable salary cap, altered contribution rules, and changed computation basis.
- Date of commencement of pension: Controversial factor in pension calculation.
Key Quotes:
- “There is also a demand for incorporating the component of interest rate… the pension amount would at least see a rise of ₹2,300 per month.” – MP M. Shanmugam
- “The government’s contributions should increase… to achieve a durable social security system for contributors to the economy.”
Key Statements:
- The clarification’s reliance on the “date of commencement of pension” has created confusion and dissatisfaction among pensioners.
- Ambiguity in post-2014 retirees’ pension calculations prompts the need for a clearer worksheet.
Way Forward:
- Address concerns by revisiting the pension computation methodology.
- Consider increasing the minimum monthly pension, as demanded by various stakeholders.
- Enhance government contributions to ensure a robust social security system.
- Provide clear guidelines and a comprehensive worksheet for post-2014 retirees to understand and verify their pension calculations.
-
Responding to the new COVID-19 sub-variants
Central idea
Dr. Chandrakant Lahariya discusses the emergence of the JN.1 sub-variant of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting its classification as a Variant of Interest (VoI). He emphasizes the need for ongoing genomic sequencing and data tracking while reassuring that, as of now, there’s no evidence of increased severity or immune escape. The central idea is to approach COVID-19 like any respiratory illness, maintaining standard preventive measures and avoiding unnecessary concerns.
Key Highlights:
- Dr. Chandrakant Lahariya, a medical doctor with extensive WHO experience, addresses the emergence of the JN.1 sub-variant of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.
- Over 1,000 subvariants have been reported since the novel coronavirus outbreak in 2019.
- The designation of JN.1 as a Variant of Interest (VoI) prompts increased genomic sequencing for monitoring.
Key Challenges:
- Continuous tracking of virus variants is challenging due to the unpredictable nature of genetic changes.
- Distinguishing between inconsequential and significant genetic alterations requires careful assessment by international agencies and experts.
Key Terms:
- SARS-CoV-2: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2.
- VoI: Variant of Interest.
- VoC: Variant of Concern.
- Hybrid Immunity: Combined immunity from natural infection and vaccination.
Key Phrases:
- “Silent wave”: JN.1 circulated without causing a significant increase in reported or clinical cases.
- “Genetic material changes”: Variants and subvariants result from alterations in the virus’s genetic structure.
Key Quotes:
- “Designating a variant as VoI does not automatically mean there is a reason to worry.”
- “JN.1 is not a new virus but a sub-variant of BA.2.86, itself a subvariant of Omicron.”
- “There is no scientific evidence to support having a fourth shot of COVID-19 vaccines.”
Key Statements:
- WHO declared the end of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2023 but emphasized the need for ongoing virus and variant tracking.
- JN.1, as a VoI, requires heightened genomic sequencing and data tracking but doesn’t indicate an immediate cause for concern.
Key Examples and References:
- JN.1 is a subvariant of BA.2.86, part of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.
- Waste-water surveillance in some Indian cities suggested JN.1 circulated widely without a significant increase in reported cases.
Key Facts:
- Since 2019, more than 1,000 subvariants and recombinant sub-lineages of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported.
- Immunologically, current evidence supports continued protection from COVID-19 vaccines against subvariants.
Key Data:
- Average daily deaths due to respiratory diseases and tuberculosis in India are 50 to 60 times higher than COVID-19 deaths.
Critical Analysis:
- Dr. Lahariya emphasizes the need for nuanced government responses, responsible citizen behavior, and clear science communication.
- The spike in COVID-19 cases may be due to increased testing, and deaths attributed to COVID-19 might be incidental in already sick individuals.
Way Forward:
- Handle SARS-CoV-2 like any other respiratory illness, focusing on standard public health measures.
- Individual and community levels should maintain routine activities, and school closure should not be considered in response to a COVID-19 case surge.
- Continuous surveillance, waste-water monitoring, and improved health facility services are essential for effective response.