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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Social Empowerment, The Mandal Way

    mandal

    Context

    • The social justice discourse in modern India can be traced to the initiatives of social revolutionaries such as Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule, Shahu Maharaj and Periyar, B.R. Ambedkar during colonial rule. But the Mandal politics completely changed the social empowerment of depressed classes.

    What is the Mandal way?

    • The Mandal Commission: The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission (SEBC), was established in India in 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai with a mandate to “identify the socially or educationally backward classes” of India.
    • To address Caste based discrimination: It was headed by B.P. Mandal, an Indian parliamentarian, to consider the question of reservations for people to redress caste discrimination, and used eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness.
    • Recommendation of Other backward classes: In 1980, based on its rationale that OBCs (“Other backward classes”) identified on the basis of caste, social, economic indicators made up 52% of India’s population, the commission’s report recommended that members of Other Backward Classes (OBC) be granted reservations to 27% of jobs under the Central government and public sector undertakings, thus making the total number of reservations for SC, ST and OBC to 49%.
    • What Constitution of India says: As per the Constitution of India, Article 15 (4) states, “Nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes”. Hence the Mandal Commission created a report using the data of 1931 census which was last caste wise census and extrapolating same with some sample studies.
    • Affirmative action taken: VP Singh was accused of using the Mandal Report which was ignored by the Janta government. It was a social revolution and affirmative action. Earlier 25% population of India which is SC ST was covered and now more than 50% of Other Backward Class came under reservation.
    • Witnessed violent protest: The youth went for massive protest in large numbers in the nation’s campuses, resulting in many self-immolations by students.
    • What is Mandal 2.0: In 2006, reservations were extended to OBC candidates in institutionsof higher learning popularly known as MandalII.

    mandal

    How mandal politics empowering the social groups?

    • Helped to ensure the brotherhood: “Fraternity” as enshrined in the ‘Preamble’ of the Constitution, entails instilling confidence and camaraderie in the all communities. Reservations raised the hope of OBC communities to actively become the part of Government functionaries.
    • Increased spending on socially backward group: Public spending is considered a reliable way to measure development. Governments can choose to distribute their limited resources in either economic or social sectors. Economic sectors, like industry, ports, highways, etc., generally support economic growth by attracting private investment. Social sectors like education, healthcare, and social security promote the welfare of the masses. Influential theories in social science argue that working-class coalitions support social welfare (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006, Rueschemeyer et al. 1992). In the Indian context, OBC and SC politicians should be expected to support social spending.
    • Increased sensitivity towards backward classes: It is found that places with higher OBC political representation in combination with higher OBC reservation in the bureaucracy are more likely to spend more in social sectors.
    • Removing the elite culture: Appointment of lower caste officials at the local level can help in breaking down long-established upper-caste patronage networks and hence potentially reduce ‘elite capture’ of government programmes.
    • Built confidence and empowerment: According to IAS officer from Bihar cadre Lower castes would not have dared to enter the office of the DM (district magistrate) or BDO (block development officer). They thought that if they said something, they would be punished. That changed. Now they have the confidence to raise their voice against the DM. They don’t know if their job will get done, but they can enter his office without fear.”

    mandal

    What are the issues with reservation?

    • Statistics: The central list of OBC has 2,633 entries. According to the commission, many of the 2,633 entries comprise several classes, communities and sub-communities, etc, which means the total number of individually named classes/castes in the central list is between 5,000 and 6,000.
    • Skewed benefits: 25 per cent of the reservation benefits were availed of by communities listed in 10 entries of the central list. Another 25 per cent were availed of by communities listed in another 38 entries.
    • Few communities never got the benefit: The commission also found that 20 per cent of the communities, listed in 983 entries, could not avail of any benefits. Those in another 994 had a share of just 2.68 per cent.
    • 1% but 50% reservation: Just about 40 of 5,000-6,000 castes/communities among the OBCs (other backward classes) — which constitute less than 1 per cent — have cornered 50 per cent of the reservation benefits in admissions to central educational institutions and recruitment to central services, a panel constituted by the government has found.

    mandal

    Conclusion

    • Reservation is definitely an affirmative action to end the social discrimination. But it cannot continue forever. It’s high time that we should strictly enforce the creamy layer categorisation both in OBC and SC, ST reservations.

    Mains Question

    Q.How reservation helps in social empowerment of backward class? Describe the powers and functions of National Commission for backward class in India.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Regulating online speech

    Online Speech

    Context

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) has mooted two proposals for governance of online speech government appointed grievance appellate committees (GAC) and the industry self-regulatory body (SRB) seek to preclude this contest in favour of a unilateral government and industry agenda.

    What is an online speech?

    • A recorded online speech is delivered, recorded, and then uploaded to the Internet for later viewing. Examples are TED Talks and presentations in online or blended speech classes.
    • Such speech are recorded or sometimes made in real time using various social media platforms.

    Online Speech

    How unregulated online speech is becoming dangerous day by day?

    • Gendered disinformation and harassment campaigns: Impacting the mental health, job performance, and if and how they engage with online spaces.
    • GLAAD’s 2021 Social Media Safety Index says: 64% of LGBTQ social media users reported experiencing harassment and hate speech, including on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok.
    • Contributing to communal violence: In countries like India and Sri Lanka, failure to remove and prevent the amplification of harmful content can contribute to profound offline consequences, including violence and death.

    What are the proposals for the regulation of online speech?

    • Setting up Grievance appellate committees (GAC): The GACs, as per the draft issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), will be constituted by the central government and will serve as an appellate body against decisions of various social media platforms.
    • Appointing Self-regulatory body by social Media platforms(SRB)?: As the name suggests, industries such as twitter, meta etc will appoint their own personnel and constitute the self-regulatory body to hear the grievances against the social media posts.

    Online Speech

    What are the Criticism over GAC and SRB?

    • Lack of substantive framework: Not only has the government not laid down a substantive policy with objectively defined contours of forbidden speech, the government wants the right to apply this highly subjective criteria on individual pieces of content and/or users.
    • Unreasonable removal of content: It is notable that the government has already arrogated this right and routinely issues take down orders (without providing rationale) to social media platforms to take down or block content with minimal pushback from platforms.
    • Serving the Governments agenda: However, the national security, public order logic of takedowns does not apply to reinstatement of content/users proactively blocked by the platforms and it is likely that an additional purpose of the GACs is to provide an institutional avenue for the ruling government machinery to get a set of aligned accounts/content reinstated instead of just takedowns.
    • Such regulations are said to be Non-democratic: It is evident that the GAC doesn’t meet even minimal standards of democratic legitimacy and should be scrapped. The industry SRB proposal too lack democratic legitimacy.
    • Profit before public interest: Platforms have repeatedly shown themselves to be driven by profit motives, which are often at odds with public interest. It is thus likely that such a platform-led body will try and maximise the interests of the industry and individual platforms as opposed to the interests of the Indian people.
    • It will increase Government’s unrestrained powers: Notwithstanding Twitter’s plea in Karnataka High Court against Centre’s “disproportionate use of power” to issue “overbroad and arbitrary” content-blocking orders, the track record of platforms in India of resisting government pressure has been very poor.
    • For example recent Twitter episode: For instance, a former safety head with Twitter reportedly told US regulators that Twitter put a government agent on its payroll under duress.
    • High Chances of Government’s pressure: The SRB may act as a rubber stamp providing false legitimacy for covert government pressure while the binding nature of SRB orders will make it easier for the government to exercise pressure on a single lever to ensure compliance across all platforms.
    • Lack of consensus in SRB: The other real possibility is that such a body will be a non-starter, wracked by internal dissensions or non-compliance and thus pave the way for the government GAC. This possibility is indicated by the divergent views of the constituent platforms.

    Online Speech

    What are the Suggestions?

    • Relooking the proposals: It is evident that neither of the two proposals meet the minimum standards of democratic legitimacy and need to be rethought.
    • Follow the democratic way: Given the centrality of free speech in a democracy, no government or private body can have unmitigated right to make decisions regarding the contours of acceptable speech. The argument that an elected government has earned the executive right to determine standards of speech like other policy decisions is fallacious because speech is the only democratic way to contest the government itself.
    • Least government interference: The governance of speech, including setting standards and implementation, must thus sit squarely outside the ambit of government.
    • Independent body answerable to parliament: This can be achieved through a statutory regulator answerable to Parliament.
    • Standard operating procedure to remove content: In the meantime, there has to be transparency in the manner content moderation decisions are taken, including the takedown orders issued by the government.

    Conclusion

    • The current proposals are preoccupied with policing individual pieces of content whereas the impact of social media platforms on our information ecosystems is fundamental. Social media platforms now play an increasingly interventionist role in amplifying certain voices and our public debate must move forward to review structural issues affecting information ecosystems.

    Mains Question

    Q.What are the perils of unrestrained online speech? Critically analyse the recent proposals by government to regulate the free speech.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Split Verdict on Hijab Row

    hijab

    The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict in the Karnataka hijab ban case with one of the two judges on the Bench upholding the March 15 order of the Karnataka HC validating the government’s ban, and the other set aside the HC ruling.

    What lies next?

    • With the divided bench, the matter has now been directed to be placed before Chief Justice of India (CJI).

    What is a Split Verdict?

    • A split verdict is passed when the Bench cannot decide one way or the other in a case, either by a unanimous decision or by a majority verdict.
    • Split verdicts can only happen when the Bench has an even number of judges.
    • This is why judges usually sit in Benches of odd numbers (three, five, seven, etc.) for important cases, even though two-judge Benches — known as Division Benches — are not uncommon.

    After the verdict

    • In case of a split verdict, the case is heard by a larger Bench.
    • The larger Bench to which a split verdict goes can be a three-judge Bench of the High Court, or an appeal can be preferred before the Supreme Court.
    • In the case of the hijab verdict, the CJI, who is the ‘master of the roster’, will constitute a new, larger Bench to hear the matter.

    Earlier cases with a split verdict

    • In May, a two-judge Bench of the Delhi HC delivered a split verdict in a batch of petitions challenging the exception provided to marital rape in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
    • Justice Rajiv Shakdher held that the exception under Section 375 (which deals with rape) of the IPC is unconstitutional, while Justice C Hari Shankar held that the provision is valid.

    About the ‘split’ ruling

    • While Justice Hemant Gupta dismissed the appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court order, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed them.
    • In his judgment, Justice Dhulia referred to the Bijoe Emmanuel case, saying it “squarely covers the issue”.

    What is the Bijoe Emmanuel verdict?

    • The Bijoe Emmanuel case came before up a Bench comprising Justices O. Chinnappa Reddy and M M Dutt in 1986.
    • The court granted protection to three children of the Jehovah’s Witness sect who did not join in singing the national anthem at their school.
    • The court held that forcing the children to sing the national anthem violated their fundamental right to religion.
    • V J Emmanuel, the father of the children pleaded with the court that for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, only Jehovah should be worshipped.
    • Since the anthem is a prayer, the children would stand up in respect when it was playing. However, their faith did not allow them to sing it.
    • The Supreme Court had said that while the Kerala HC had examined whether or not the national anthem contained any word or thought, which could offend anyone’s religious susceptibilities, it had misdirected itself as that was not the question at all.

    Why the hijab case should be heard by a larger Bench?

    First and foremost, the matter should be heard by a larger Bench preferably 5 judges as-

    • It has to be decided whether the right to practice religion can intertwine with the right and autonomy of educational institutions to decide their uniform.
    • While private institutions have the autonomy to decide on the uniform, the court needs to study and decide whether such issues should be looked at in a uniform manner.
    • Considering the complexities of the matter which also involves several issues such as female dignity, freedom of expression, and the school’s right to decide on the uniform.
    • A Constitution Bench would also have the right to re-examine the Emmanuel verdict which was delivered by a two-judge Bench.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Vacancy, Pendency and Ineffectiveness of RTI Act

    RTI

    Context

    • The number of information officers and first appellate authorities in the Central government has remained stagnant in the last few years. In contrast, the new Right to Information (RTI) applications filed as well as pending applications are increasing every year. Worryingly, the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions, the final recourse in matters concerning RTI, also face manpower shortage. As a result, appeals and complaints are piling up.

    What is Right to Information Act (RTI)?

    • RTI is an act of the parliament that sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens’ right to information.It replaced the former Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
    • Time bound response: Under the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a “public authority” (a body of Government or “instrumentality of State”) which is required to reply expeditiously or within 30.
    • Immediate Information in an urgent petition: In case of a matter involving a petitioner’s life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours.
    • Digitization of records: The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally.

    RTI

    Implementation of RTI

    • The RTI Act is implemented using a three-level structure.
    1. Public Information Officer: At the first level is the Central Assistant Public Information Officer/Central Public Information Officer (CAPIO/CPIO). Once an RTI query reaches the CAPIO/CPIO, they are expected to reply within 30 days.
    2. First Appellate Authority (FAA): If the reply is not satisfactory or does not arrive on time, a first appeal can be made to the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
    3. Central Information and State Information Commissions: If the FAA does not answer or if its answer is not satisfactory, the Central Information and State Information Commissions can be approached.

    What are the vacancy related issues?

    • Low Performance of Information Commissions: A report released in October by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan, titled ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India,2021-22’,states that the number of appeals and complaints pending before the Central and State Information Commissions as of June 30, 2022 was 3,14,323. The figure is based on data gathered from 26 Information Commissions obtained through 145 RTI applications.
    • Increase in the pending appeals: There is an Increase in the number of pending appeals and complaints from 2.18 lakh to3.14 lakh in the last three years.
    • Leading states in pending complaints: Maharashtra tops the list with nearly 1 lakh appeals and complaints pending followed by Uttar Pradesh (44,482) and Karnataka (30,358). Data were not available for Tamil Nadu State Information Commission. The Commissions in Jharkhand and Tripura were defunct.
    • Substantial delay in reply: The Sangathan assumed that appeals and complaints would be disposed of in a chronological order. It would take the West Bengal State Information Commission 24 years and 3 months to dispose of a complaint filed on July 1, 2022. A similar analysis in Odisha and Maharashtra showed that it would take five years. Only Meghalaya and Mizoram showed no waiting time(not plotted on the tree map).

    RTI

    What is the recent amendment?

    • Parity with CEC broken: So far, the CIC received the same salary and perks as that of the Chief Election Commissioner or a judge of the Supreme Court.
    • Now on par with Cabinet Secretary: The new rules make the CIC an equivalent of the cabinet secretary and central information commissioners the same as secretary to the government in terms of salary. In the states, the downgrading will be to the level of a secretary to the government, and additional secretary respectively.
    • Tenure: The tenure has been reduced from 5 years to 3.
    • Power of ICs undermined: The CICs and ICs at both the Centre and the states have the power to review the functioning of government public information officials, and intervene on behalf of citizens seeking information about decisions of the government. This stands undermined.
    • Lack of enforcing powers: these officials have zero powers to enforce their orders, except the imposition of a fine for non-compliance.
    • Authority exercised: Over the years, government departments coughed out information because they were seen in the same league and of the same authority as the CEC and Supreme Court judges.

    RTI

    Conclusion

    • The RTI has unquestionably proved to be one of the significant milestones and a major step towards ensuring the participatory and transparent development process in the country. Dilution of RTI is like downgrading the participation of citizens in public affairs. Government should strengthen the RTI instead of weakening.

    Mains Question

    Q. Discuss the dilution of RTI through 2019 amendments. How vacancies affect the time bound replies under the RTI Act 2005?

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Non-Transparent Collegium, Is there any Alternative?

    Collegium

    Context

    • Once again, the Collegium of the Supreme Court of India is in the news, and once again for the wrong reasons. This time, it is because of the difficulty hat its five judges have in getting together for one meeting. Justice Chandrachud and Justice Nazeer withhold approval.Apparently, they do not object to the names but object to the procedure of circulation.

    What is Collegium system?

    • The Collegium of judges is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
    • It does not figure in the Constitution, which says judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President and speaks of a process of consultation.
    • In effect, it is a system under which judges are appointed by an institution comprising judges.

    • After some judges were superseded in the appointment of the CJI in the 1970s, and attempts made subsequently to affect a mass transfer of High Court judges across the country.

    Collegium

    What was the perception around Independence of judiciary under threat?

    • There was a perception that the independence of the judiciary was under threat. This resulted in a series of cases over the years.
    1. First Judges Case (1981): SC ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective. However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
    2. Second Judges Case (1993): Introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”. It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the Supreme Court.
    3. Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    What are the problems associated with collegium system?

    • Emphasis on Seniority principle: Collegium system emphasizes excessively on seniority.
    • No discussion on merit and objectivity: However, following the seniority convention offers a semblance of certainty and transparency, even though it takes away from selecting judges on other objective criteria such as merit and competence.
    • Collegium changes its own decision: At times, the sanctity of Collegium’s own decisions no longer stands. Its own previous decision to appoint other persons to the Supreme Court was reversed, without any explanation or justification.
    • Lack of procedure: Besides this, no one knows how judges are selected, and the appointments made reek of biases of self-selection and in-breeding.
    • Widely known Nepotism: Sons and nephews of previous judges or senior lawyers tend to be popular choices for judicial roles.
    • Lack of checks and balances: With its ad hoc informal consultations with other judges, which do not significantly investigate criteria such as work, standing integrity and so on, the Collegium remains outside the sphere of legitimate checks and balances.
    • Opaque system: The lack of a written manual for functioning, the absence of selection criteria, the arbitrary reversal of decisions already taken, the selective publication of records of meetings.

    Collegium

    Collegium system is blessing in disguise

    • Protect independence of judiciary: The framers of the Constitution were alive to the likely erosion of judicial independence.
    • On May 23, 1949, K T Shah stated that the Judiciary, which is the main bulwark of civil liberties, should be completely separate from and independent of the Executive, whether by direct or by indirect influence.
    • NJAC Declared unconstitutional: In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment for creating the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
    • Distrust on political executive: The SC strongly disapproved of any role for the political executive in the final selection and appointment of judges. The SC said that “reciprocity and feelings of payback to the political executive” would be disastrous to the independence of the judiciary.

    What is National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC)?

    • What is NJAC?
    • guarantee the independence of the system from inappropriate politicisation,
    • Strengthen the quality of appointments,
    • Enhances the fairness of the selection process,
    • Promotes diversity in the composition of the judiciary, and
    • Rebuilds public confidence in the system.
    • NJAC was missed opportunity of reforms: The SC in its majority decision declared the NJAC unconstitutional and missed an opportunity to introduce important reformatory changes in the functioning of the judiciary.
    • Judicial majority could have been discussed: According to the experts, the Supreme Court could have read down the law, and reorganised the NJAC to ensure that the judiciary retained majority control in its decisions. However, it did not amend the NJAC Act to have safeguards that would have made it constitutionally valid.
    • No reforms in the collegium system: It also did not reform the Collegium in any way to address the various concerns voiced by one and all, including the Court itself, Instead, to the disappointment of all those who hoped for a strong, independent and transparent judiciary, it reverted to the old Collegium based appointments mechanism.

    Collegium

    Conclusion

    • Appointments to the top court seem to be the preserve of judges from the High Court with a handful of appointments from the Bar. Surely some nodding acknowledgement should be given to a specific provision made by the founding fathers in the Constitution. Judges appointing the judges is not a sustainable practice for future of judiciary.

    Mains Question

    Q.What is NJAC? Why Collegium system is blessings in disguise? Explain the Collegium system of appointments.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

     

  • Section 66A of IT Act

    66a

    The Supreme Court has ordered States and their police forces to stop prosecuting free speech on social media under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which was declared unconstitutional by the court in a judgment seven years ago.

    What did Section 66A do?

    • Introduced in 2008, the amendment to the IT Act, 2000, gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly “offensive and menacing” online posts, and was passed without discussion in Parliament.
    • Section 66A empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.
    • It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.
    • In 2015, the apex court struck down the law in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague”, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet.

    Why was the law criticized?

    • The problem was with the vagueness about what is “offensive”.
    • The word having a very wide connotation was open to distinctive, varied interpretations.
    • It was seen as subjective, and what might have been innocuous for one person, could lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest arbitrarily.

    So, how did 66A come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

    • The first petition came up in the court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post.
    • The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a political leader.
    • The arrests triggered outrage from all quarters over the manner in which the cyber law was used.
    • The petition was filed by Shreya Singhal, then a 21-year-old law student.

    What were the grounds for the challenge?

    • The objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of information technology, particularly through social media.
    • The petitioners argued that Section 66A came with extremely wide parameters, which allowed whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.
    • Most of the terms used in the section had not been specifically defined under the Act.
    • The law was a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online and to curtail freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution, going far beyond the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom.

    What did the Supreme Court decide?

    • In March 2015, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman ruled in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India declared Section 66A unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”
    • Article 19(1)(a) gives people the right to speech and expression whereas 19(2) accords the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.
    • The decision was considered a landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.
    • The bench also read down Section 79– now at the centre of the ongoing “intermediary liability” battle between the Centre and micro-blogging platform Twitter– defining key rules for the relationship between governments and commercial internet platforms.
    • Section 79 says that any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • 3 Lakh RTI Pleas pile up across India

    rti

    A good 17 years after India got the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the transparency regime in the country remains a mirage with nearly 3.15 lakh complaints and appeals pending with 26 information commissions across India.

    RTI Pendency in India

    • According to a report by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, the backlog of appeals or complaints is increasing in commissions every year.
    • The number of appeals and complaints pending in 2021 was 2,86,325 with data from 26 commissions and in 2022, it was 3,14,323.
    • The highest number of pending cases was in Maharashtra at 99,722, followed by UP at 44,482, Karnataka at 30,358, the Central Information Commission at 26,724 and Bihar at 21,346.

    What is the Right to Information?

    • RTI is an act of the parliament that sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens’ right to information.
    • It replaced the former Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
    • Under the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a “public authority” (a body of Government or “instrumentality of State”) which is required to reply expeditiously or within 30.
    • In case of a matter involving a petitioner’s life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours.
    • The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally.

    What led to the introduction of RTI in India?

    There has been a variety of internal and external pressures on governments to adopt RTI.

    • Corruption and scandals: The crisis was brought into force due to a lack of transparency in the working of the government.
    • Modernization and the Information Society: The expansion of the Internet into everyday life has increased the demand for more information by the public, businesses and civil society groups.
    • International pressure: The World Bank, the IMF and others have pressed countries to adopt laws to reduce corruption and to make financial systems more accountable.
    • Wider recognition of Public Interest: Public interest is a nebulous concept, not defined in any freedom of information laws, understandably so, as it is a very subjective concept.

    Governing of the RTI

    The Right to information in India is governed by two major bodies:

    1. Central Information Commission (CIC) – Chief Information commissioner who heads all the central departments and ministries- with their own public information officers (PIO)s. CICs are directly under the President of India.
    2. State Information Commissions (SIC)– State Public Information Officers or SPIOs head over all the state department and ministries. The SPIO office is directly under the corresponding State Governor.

    State and CIC are independent bodies and CIC has no jurisdiction over the SIC.

    (1) Central Information Commission

    • The Commission consists of a Chief Information Commissioner and not more than ten Information Commissioners.
    • At present (2019), the Commission has six Information Commissioners apart from the Chief Information Commissioner.
    • They are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the PM as Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.
    • The CIC/IC shall hold office for such term as prescribed by the Central Government or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. They are not eligible for reappointment.

    Power and functions

    • It is the duty of the Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person regarding information request under RTI, 2005.
    • The Commission can order an inquiry into any matter if there are reasonable grounds (suo-moto power).
    • While inquiring, the Commission has the powers of a civil court in respect of summoning, requiring documents etc.

    (2) State Information Commission

    • The Commission consists of a State Chief Information Commissioner and ten State Information Commissioners.
    • They are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the committee consisting of the CM as Chairperson, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and a state Cabinet Minister nominated by the CM.
    • They should be a person of eminence in public life and should not hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.
    • Terms of service are similar to that of CIC.

    Constitutional backing of the RTI

    • The Indian constitution has an impressive array of basic and inalienable rights termed as fundamental rights contained in part-III.
    • These include the right to equal protection of the laws and the right to equality before the law, the right to freedom of speech and expression also the right to life and personal liberty.
    • Since RTI, is implicit in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, it is an implied FR.
    • These are backed by the right to constitutional remedies that is, the right to approach the supreme court and high court under Article 32 and 226 respectively in case of infringement of any of FRs.
    • The state is not only under an obligation to respect the FRs of the citizens but also equally under an obligation to ensure conditions under which the right can be exercised.
    • The objective of the right to information act is to protect these constitutional rights.

    Benefits of RTI

    • Greater accessibility of information: A person can seek information from any public authority in the form of copies, floppy disks, sample material etc under RTI.
    • Efficient governance: RTI Act helps us in knowing the efficiency of the government functioning.RTI has become a reality consistent with the objectives of having a stable, honest, transparent and efficient government.
    • Citizen’s participation: Information under RTI can be sought easily by requesting the public officer and assistant public officer in any public authority.
    • Government obligation: Obtaining information from any public authority is obligatory for them.
    • Maintenance of public record: Under RTI Act, it is the duty of public authorities to maintain records for easy access and to publish within 120 days the name of the particular officers who should give the information and in regard to the framing of the rules, regulations etc.
    • Empowerment of Citizens: Every citizen has been empowered to be informed about anything that affects their life directly or indirectly.

    Limitations to the RTI

    • Not an absolute right:  The RTI and Right to Privacy are not absolute rights, both the rights, one of which falls under Article 19(l)(a) and the other under Article 21 can obviously be regulated, restricted and curtailed in the larger public interest.
    • Subjected to restrictions: The RTI, being integral part of the right to freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions that can be imposed upon that right under Article 19 (2).
    • Limitations under the rules: Rule 4 of RTI Act puts word limit (No. of words needed in different language is different to express the same idea) as 250 words.  Word Limit, The Hidden power of Information Officer, is the cause of rejection of an application.
    • Only information already available on record is accessible: The RTI Act provides access only to that information that existent and is available in records of the public authorities.
    • Certain information may constitute contempt of court: Any information, the disclosure of which is expressly barred by any Court of law or tribunal or, which may constitute contempt of Court under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, cannot be released.
    • Information causes a breach of privilege: The Constitution of India provides some privileges to the Parliament and the State Legislature, so it is clear that such information cannot be issued by the public authority.
    • Information relating to Intellectual Property and trade secrets: Any information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property cannot be disclosed.

    Challenges in exercising RTI

    • Information explosion: Different types of information is sought which has no public interest and sometimes can be used to misuse the law and harass the public authorities e.g. asking for desperate and voluminous information.
    • Popular (mis)use: Some chauvinists file RTI to attain publicity. It is often used as a vindictive tool to harass or pressurize the already burdened public authorities.
    • Rising cases of non-disclosure: Some provisions of Indian Evidence Act provide to hold the disclosure of documents.  Similar is the case with the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
    • Limited ambit of RTI: While the office of the CJI is now under the RTI’s ambit, the CBI is exempt.
    • Threats to whistleblowers: There are rising cases of intimidation, threat and murders of RTI activists. There are no safeguards against the victimisation of the person who makes the complaint.

    Significance of RTI

    • The RTI Act, 2005 did not create a new bureaucracy for implementing the law. Instead, it tasked and mandated officials in every office to change their attitude and duty from one of secrecy to one of sharing and openness.
    • RTI has been seen as the key to strengthening participatory democracy and ushering in people-centred governance.
    • Access to information has empowered the poor and the weaker sections of society to demand and get information about public policies and actions, thereby leading to their welfare.
    • It showed an early promise by exposing wrongdoings at high places, such as in the organisation of the Commonwealth Games, and the allocation of 2G spectrum and coal blocks.

    Way Forward

    It is well recognized that RTI is pathbreaking, but has not proved sufficient, to improve governance in its capacity due to various shortcomings.  We need to improvise a lot on various parameters as discussed under:

    • Speedy disposal: The increasing backlog of cases is exacerbated by the fact that most Commissions are functioning at reduced capacity. The government must ensure the timely appointment of chiefs and members of ICs.
    • Prioritization of cases: There should be a prioritization of cases dealing with information related to life and liberty. Information regarding matters like food distribution, social security, health and other priority issues should be proactively disclosed.
    • Digitalization: Governments should put in place a mechanism for online filing of RTI applications and bring all authorities under one platform.
    • Reducing technicalities: The technicalities of filing an RTI application should be more simplified. The literacy rate of rural India is quite low and thus they find it quite difficult to comply with the procedural.
    • Protecting whistleblowers: There is an urgent need to protect the whistle blowers who are targeted or attacked so easily. The impending bill should be passed or else an ancillary strict measure should be taken in this regard.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Bringing Business friendly Industrial Laws

    Business

    Context

    • The government’s proposal to bring a “holistic decriminalisation” bill in the Winter Session of Parliament, If gets enacted into law, it will be one of India’s greatest reforms since 1991. One of the objectives of this proposed law is to “end harassment and reduce compliance burden on businesses.

     What is Holistic decriminalisation Bill?

    • A new holistic decriminalisation bill is set to amend burdensome provisions in laws related to businesses.
    • Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal said that the Decriminalising sections of various laws will end the harassment faced by businesses and reduce compliance burden. Seeking quick industry feedback on problematic areas that can be covered in the proposed Bill.

    What is the status of existing laws in India?

    • Burden of Imprisonment clauses: Business regulatory universe comprises 1,536 laws, of which more than half, or 843 laws, carry imprisonment clauses. Under these laws, there are 69,233 compliances businesses face as an aggregate, of which almost two out of five, or 26,134, carry imprisonment clauses.
    • Union and state legislations on the compliance: Of the 843 laws with imprisonment clauses, 28.9 percent, or 244 laws, have been enacted by Parliament; the rest by State legislatures and rules. Of the 26,134 compliances that carry imprisonment clauses, a fifth, or 5,239 clauses are situated in Union laws.
    • No institutional support for informal sector: Of the 69 million enterprises in India, only 1 million are formal employers; as a result, the remaining informal enterprises get no access to institutional capital, talent, or supply chains.
    • Smaller the better attitude: India’s predatory and rent-seeking policy infrastructure ensures that businesses choose to remain under the regulatory radar—small may not be beautiful but it is certainly safe. For instance, a small business with 150 employees or more has to deal with 500 to 900 compliances a year, on which it can end up spending up to INR 12-18 lakhs by hiring consultants to be compliant with labour laws, taxes, factories, and so on.
    • Burden of compliance is cost-effective: Creating a regulatory bias against small businesses once a line of scale is crossed, managing a compliance department becomes cost-effective; until then, for the small business owner-manager, compliances becomes a risk-management strategy, almost an economic activity.

    Business

    Why such reforms in business laws are necessary?

    • To attract more investment: When viewed through the lens of the government’s intention to make India an investment destination for global and domestic capital, it would be a reform that should end the endemic of harassment, corruption, and rent-seeking by officials of the Union government.
    • To end corruption at state level: Corruption by officials of state governments will end when criminal provisions in State laws and rules get similarly rationalised; some of these will get rationalised with amendments to Union laws that are enforced by state governments.
    • Encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit: Regulatory framework is cumulative policy actions of the three arms of the State the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary using instruments of legislations, rules, regulations, or orders, to create or raise barriers to a smooth flow of ideas, organisation, money, and, most importantly, the flow of the entrepreneurial spirit.

    Business

    What are the recommendations for Holistic decriminalization?

    • Amend the overreaching laws: Reform all compliances with overarching legislation, across ministries and departments. Smaller steps being taken to ease doing business in India, such as shifting the responsibility under the Legal Metrology Rules from directors to executives, should converge into this single bill.
    • There should be Justifiable imprisonment: Use criminal penalties in business laws with extreme restraint the idea of using a criminal clause as a default option should be done away with and replaced by a justification for imprisonment, including the term in jail.
    • Ending the criminalisation: End the criminalisation of all compliance procedures such as filing on a wrong form or mislabelling.
    • Introducing new laws: Introduce sunset clauses for all imprisonment clauses this needs a new enabling law as a precursor.
    • Bringing extensive Digitisation: Digitise all compliance filings, as has been done by the income tax department.
    • Focus on paperless work: Convert every department that acts as a regulatory body to go paperless and faceless. This should look beyond merely creating a website and uploading records. This will enable automated record reconciliation, identify leakages, detect frauds, and flag discrepancies.
    • More such steps in the right direction: By reducing the compliance burden such that it ends harassment, the government is moving in the right direction. To prevent any policy holes left after the passage of the bill into an act, this is a law that needs to be studied hard, debated well, and only then enacted. Of course, there will be political opposition. It is up to the government to ignore the rhetoric and embrace the solutions for the greater good of the country.

    BusinessConclusion

    • The country is getting ready for third-generation reforms. Among them are reforms that rationalise compliances and imprisonment clauses—retain a handful, reduce or remove most, compound the rest and turn physical imprisonment into financial penalties. The Inspector Raj, expressed through the colonial, corrupt, and rent-seeking policy infrastructure, must be disassembled and jobs, wealth, and large enterprises created.

    Mains Question

    Q. Why current industrial policy and laws are causing the harassment of entreprenuers? Discuss the reforms needed in the light of proposed “ Holistic Discrimination” Bill.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Justice DY Chandrachud nominated as next CJI

    cji

    Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit nominated Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as his successor. He will be 50th CJI.

    How is CJI selected?

    • Justice U.U. Lalit is the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court now.
    • The ‘Memorandum of Procedure of Appointment of Supreme Court Judges’ says “appointment to the office of the CJI should be of the seniormost Judge of the SC considered fit to hold the office”.
    • The process begins with the Union Law Minister seeking the recommendation of the outgoing CJI about the next appointment.

    What is the time frame?

    • The Minister has to seek the CJI’s recommendation at the “appropriate time”.
    • The Memorandum does NOT elaborate or specify a timeline.

    Making final appointment

    The Memorandum says:

    1. Receipt of the recommendation of the CJI
    2. The Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs will put up the recommendation to the PM
    3. PM will advise the President in the matter of appointment
    4. The President of India appoints the CJI

    Chief Justice of India: A brief background

    • The CJI is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of India as well as the highest-ranking officer of the Indian federal judiciary.

    Appointment

    • The Constitution of India grants power to the President to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Parliament, appoint a chief justice, who serves until they reach the age of 65 or until removed by impeachment.
    • Earlier, it was a convention to appoint seniormost judges.
    • However, this has been broken twice. In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding 3 senior judges.
    • Also, in 1977 Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna.

    Qualifications

    The Indian Constitution says in Article 124 (3) that in order to be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court of India, the person has to fit in the following criteria:

    • He/She is a citizen of India and
    • has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
    • has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or
    • is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist

    Functions

    • As head of the Supreme Court, the CJI is responsible for the allocation of cases and appointment of constitutional benches which deal with important matters of law.
    • In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules of Procedure of 1966, the chief justice allocates all work to the other judges.

    On the administrative side, the CJI carries out the following functions:

    • maintenance of the roster; appointment of court officials and general and miscellaneous matters relating to the supervision and functioning of the Supreme Court

    Removal

    • Article 124(4) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court which is applicable to chief justices as well.
    • Once appointed, the chief justice remains in the office until the age of 65 years. He can be removed only through a process of removal by Parliament as follows:
    • He/She can be removed by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present.
    • The voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proven misbehavior or incapacity.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Israel and Lebanon reach an Agreement on Maritime Border

    israel

    Israel has reached a US-brokered agreement with Lebanon to settle their long-disputed maritime border. This has been seen as a historic deal.

    Israel-Lebanon Boundary Issue

    • The draft agreement aims to settle Israel and Lebanon’s competing claims over offshore gas fields in the region.
    • A major source of friction was the Karish gas field, which Israel insisted fell entirely within its waters and was not a subject of negotiation.
    • The issue is a little over a decade old, after the two countries declared overlapping boundaries in 2011 in the Mediterranean Sea.
    • Since both countries have been technically at war, the United Nations was asked to mediate.
    • The issue gained significance after Israel discovered two gas fields off its coast a decade ago, which experts had believed could help turn it into an energy exporter.

    Key terms of the Agreement

    • The agreement seeks to resolve a territorial dispute in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, in an area that Lebanon wants to explore for natural gas.
    • The gas field in question is located on the maritime boundary between the two countries and this agreement would allow both countries to get royalties from the gas.
    • It also sets a border between the maritime waters of Lebanon and Israel for the first time.

    Why is this agreement signed?

    • Averting terror threats: The agreement is expected to avert the immediate threat of conflict between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, after fears of escalation if negotiations fell apart.
    • Energy exploitation: The agreement will create new sources of energy and income for both countries, particularly important for Lebanon, which is facing a crippling energy and financial crises.
    • Alternative energy for Europe: It could also have a potentially wider impact: it would likely provide Europe with a potential new source of gas amid energy shortages caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    What the agreement does not address?

    Ans. Blue Line Issue

    • The agreement does not touch on the shared land border between Israel and Lebanon, which is still disputed, but where both countries are committed to a ceasefire.
    • This border is also called the Blue Line, a boundary that was drawn up by the UN after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.
    • This land border is currently patrolled by the United Nations forces.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)