Higher Education – RUSA, NIRF, HEFA, etc.

[op-ed snap] Inequality of another kind

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level : Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala Judgment

Mains level : Expanded scope of Art. 21

Context     

  • Recently, in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court declared the right to Internet access as a fundamental right forming a part of the right to privacy and the right to education under Article 21.
  • While this is a welcome move, it is important to recognise the right to Internet access as an independent right.

Digital inequality

  • Inequality is a concept that underpins most interventions focussed on social justice and development.
  • It resembles the mythological serpent Hydra in Greek mythology — as the state attempts to deal with one aspect of inequality, many new aspects keep coming up.
  • In recent times, several government and private sector services have become digital. Some of them are only available online.
  • This leads to a new kind of inequality, digital inequality, where social and economic backwardness is exacerbated due to information poverty, lack of infrastructure, and lack of digital literacy.

Indian case

  • According to the Deloitte report, ‘Digital India: Unlocking the Trillion Dollar Opportunity’, in mid-2016, digital literacy in India was less than 10%.
  • We are moving to a global economy where knowledge of digital processes will transform the way in which people work, collaborate, consume information, and entertain themselves.
  • This has been acknowledged in the SDGs as well as by the Indian government and has led to the Digital India mission.

Benefits of Digital Equality

  • Offering services online has cost and efficiency benefits for the government and also allows citizens to bypass lower-level government bureaucracy.
  • However, in the absence of Internet access and digital literacy enabling that access, there will be further exclusion of large parts of the population, exacerbating the already existing digital divide.

The economics behind

  • Moving governance and service delivery online without the requisite progress in Internet access and digital literacy also does not make economic sense.
  • For instance, Common Service Centres, which operate in rural and remote locations, are physical facilities which help in delivering digital government services and informing communities about government initiatives.
  • While the state may be saving resources by moving services online, it also has to spend resources since a large chunk of citizens cannot access these services.
  • The government has acknowledged this and has initiated certain measures in this regard.
  • The Bharat Net programme, aiming to have an optical fibre network in all gram panchayats, is to act as the infrastructural backbone for having Internet access all across the country.

The importance of digital literacy

  • Internet access and digital literacy have implications beyond access to government services.
  • Digital literacy allows people to access information and services, collaborate, and navigate socio-cultural networks.
  • In fact, the definition of literacy today must include the ability to access and act upon resources and information found online.

What’s so special with the recent judgement?

  • The Kerala HC judgment acknowledges the role of the right to access Internet in accessing other fundamental rights.
  • It is imperative that the right to Internet access and digital literacy be recognised as a right in itself.
  • In this framework the state would have-
  1. a positive obligation to create infrastructure for a minimum standard and quality of Internet access as well as capacity-building measures which would allow all citizens to be digitally literate and
  2. a negative obligation prohibiting it from engaging in conduct that impedes, obstructs or violates such a right.

Expanded scope

  • A right to Internet access would also further provisions given under Articles 38(2) [minimising inequalities in income] and 39 [right to an adequate means of livelihood] of the Constitution.
  • It has now become settled judicial practice to read fundamental rights along with DPSP with a view to defining the scope and ambit of the former.

For an ‘information society’

  • Unequal access to the Internet creates and reproduces socio-economic exclusions.
  • It is important to recognise the right to Internet access and digital literacy to alleviate this situation, and allow citizens increased access to information, services, and the creation of better livelihood opportunities.

Conclusion

  • The courts have always interpreted Article 21 as a broad spectrum of rights considered incidental and/or integral to the right to life.
  • Recognising this right will also make it easier to demand accountability from the state, as well as encourage the legislature and the executive to take a more proactive role in furthering this right.
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments