đŸ’„Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF

Subject: Governance

Important aspects of Society

  • Liquor Policy of States

    Kerala’s Liquor Policy: What’s wrong with it?

    Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the ‘Liquor-Free Kerala’ policy restricting the serving of liquor to five-star hotels in the State. The apex court ruled that the State governments be given a free hand to curtail or ban public consumption of alcohol to protect public health and nutrition.

    Before we go into details, let’s see the time-line of Kerala’s Excise Policy

    2007 – Kerala govt. started tightening its excise policy to make liquor less-freely available in the state, in the interest of public health. It started a policy where only those hotels that were accorded 3-star or more by Union Govt.’s Ministry of Culture will be given new bar licenses.

    2011 – It further tightened the policy by denying licenses to any hotels that were accorded less than 4-star by Union Govt.’s Ministry of Culture. However, those hotels with existing licenses were accorded amnesty, i.e. they were allowed renewal of licenses even if the hotel’s rating was less than 4-star.

    2014 – Only hotels classed as 5-star and above by Union Govt.’s Ministry of Culture, will be allowed to serve liquor.


    What is Liquor-Free Kerala policy?

    The policy seeks to prohibit the sale and service of alcohol in all public places, except bars and restaurants in five-star hotels. To be precise, only five star hotels are now allowed to serve hard liquor. <Something, which is often confused>

    • Other categories of hotels could supply only beer and wine.
    • Govt-run liquor shops are to be phased out at a rate of 10% a year over the next decade.
    • Toddy is exempt from the ban and the drink has long been part of Kerala’s culture.

    Foreign tourists could be satisfied by beer and wine, while the domestic tourism sector will be the most affected as tourists from other states prefer hard liquor.


    What is the need for bringing such a policy?

    • Kerala accounts for 14% of the country’s liquor consumption.
    • Even, the apex court said that it is well established that consumption of liquor is bad for health of humankind.
    • Alcoholism critically impact the household budgets of the poor & may lead to domestic violence.

    DPSP also requires state to endeavour for prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs, due to the well-known ill-effects on standards of living and public health.


    How this ban could impact Kerala’s economy?

    • Kerala earns about $ 3.8 billion/year from tourism, which is likely to be hit by the liquor ban. The state govt. has hiked excise duty on beer to 5% and that on liquor to 8% to offset revenue losses.
    • The job opportunities in the tourism sector will also be get affected because of this policy, as the industry provides one out of four jobs in the state.

    Why there is so much criticism against prohibition?

    • Actually, the policy of prohibition does not encourage the people to quit the habit.
    • It leads to underground trade and creates a market for spurious liquor.
    • As a policy, prohibition has met with little success anywhere in India, due to corruption within enforcement agencies.
    • Even when it has helped bring down overall consumption, prohibition has led to loss of lives in hooch tragedies.

    What is the argument for exempting five-star hotels & why is it criticized?

    • The State govt. has argued that it is in the interest of tourism.
    • However, the Supreme Court’s decision to exempt five-star hotel seems unreasonable and arbitrary.
    • The judgment strikes at the root of non-discriminatory treatment under the constitution.

    Let’s analyse the court verdict vis-a-vis fundamental rights?

    The case is known as The Kerala Bar Hotels Association vs State of Kerala.

    The bar associations have argued that the liquor policy violates Art 19(1)(g) and Art 14.

    Article 19(1)(g) – To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

    • However, the liberty to freely carry on any trade or business is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by state in the interest of general public.
    • This argument fails, since Art 47 requires state to make an endeavour towards improving public health, including to bring about prohibition of the consumption of liquor.

    Art 14 – The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

    • The new excise policy had made an unreasonable classification by separately categorizing hotel of 5-star or more and permitting these hotels to serve liquor in public.
    • Therefore, the policy violates Art 14 of constitution by treating persons on an equal standing unequally.

    What could be the better policy alternative?

    Experts argue that a better idea would be to engage non-state actors to step up the campaign for abstention.

    Suggest some better policy alternatives or share some successful case-studies to curb the consumption of liquor.


     

    Published with inputs from Pushpendra 
  • Pension Reforms

    Everything That You Need to Know on OROP


    • It is a pension scheme for the armed forces personnel which was in existence till 1973.
    • This scheme provided same pension for same rank and for the same length of service irrespective of the date of retirement which was the basis for determining the pension and benefits of the Indian Armed Forces till 1973.
    • OROP was terminated by the government in 1973.

    Which government was in power at that time and who was the PM of India?

    Then came the Koshiyari committee – 

    Bhagat Singh Koshiyari headed a committee which comprised 10 members (an all party parliamentary panel). It was formed in 2011.

    What were the recommendations of the committee?

    1. OROP should be implemented in the defence forces at the earliest and a separate commission should be formed to take decisions on pay allowances, pension, family pension etc. in respect of the defence personnel should be taken into the account by that committee.
    2. The committee recommended to absorb the Armed Forces personnel after their military engagement into other services of government which is a custom in countries like U.S. and China.

    What would be the financial Implications?

    1. Early estimates were around 3000crores for OROP.( by Ministry of Defence)
    2. Revised estimates vary between 8000 to 9000 crores.
    3. According to the Koshiyari committee the estimates for implementation of OROP were around 12000 crores.

    Is OROP expensive for the government?

    1. OROP is affordable by the government as it is a small fraction of the military pension budget.
    2. It includes about 4,00,000 defence civilians.
    3. Defence civilians, which includes the entire civilian bureaucracy in the ministry of defence ,retire at  the age of 60 are mostly based permanently in Delhi and they are not covered by OROP.
    4. It is alleged that they oppose the OROP due to their exclusion from the scheme.

    Government of India on OROP

    1. The government does not subscribe to the definition of Koshiyari committee, but states that there is a need for a new definition of OROP which should be acceptable to all the other ‘stakeholders’.
    2. The stakeholders were neither defined nor identified by the government.
    3. The government stand on the OROP prompted widespread dismay, disappointment and outrage amongst Armed Forces pensioners.
    4. The ministry of defence recommended the proposal for implementation after the approval of the Defence minister.
    5. Now it is with the of the Finance ministry which should make a call on the scheme.
  • BCCI Reforms – Lodha Committee, etc.

    Lodha Committee Report: Restoring the glory of the game

    To put an end to excesses and imbalances, corruption and red tape, all of which have harmed the game, the Lodha committee has examined reforms in the working of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to make its functioning transparent.


     

    What is the Lodha committee?

    The Lodha committee was formed in January, 2015 by the Supreme Court after the Mudgal committee report on IPL.

    In its earlier report in July 2015, the Lodha committee delivered its judgement by banning Meiyappan and Kundra for life and suspending the owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for 2 years.

    Let’s analyse the report under various dimensions

    The Lodha Committee has suggested sweeping reforms in the structuring and governance of cricket in the country.


     

    Structural Reforms: A major overhaul

    • The committee recommended that a 9-member apex council replace the 14-member BCCI working committee.
    • Each of these office-bearers has a three-year term and can contest for a maximum three terms.
    • The Lodha Committee also calls for dividing the governance into two parts: cricketing and non-cricketing.

    The non-cricketing management will be handled by 6 professional managers headed by a CEO, and the cricket matters like selection, coaching and performance evaluation should be left to the players

    Organisation & Office-bearers: Restrictions imposed

    • Each of these office-bearers has a 3-year term and can contest for a maximum three terms.
    • There will be a mandatory cooling off period after each term. Therefore, no office-bearer can hold office consecutively in a row.
    • No BCCI office-bearer can be Minister or government servant.

    State Cricket Associations: One Vote/State

    The Committee recommended that one association should represent an entire state and only one vote per state.

    Indian Premier League: Maintain distance

    • It recommends separate governing bodies for the IPL and BCCI.
    • There should be a 15-day gap between IPL season and national calender.

    Betting: Legalize it

    • It made a strong recommendation to lawmakers to legalise betting in cricket for all except cricket players, officials and administrators.
    • The players and others banned officials should disclose their assets to BCCI in a measure to ensure that they do not bet.

    Betting is a $ 400 billion phenomenon practised across the globe and lawmakers in India should enact laws to legalise it.

    Fixing: Criminalize it

    The committee said that match-and spot-fixing should be made a criminal offence.

    Conflict of Interest & Corruption

    • One individual hold only one post in cricket administration. The office-bearers would have to choose between positions in respective state associations and the parent body.
    • A former High Court judge should be appointed as ethics officer by the BCCI to administer issues relating to conflict of interest, misdemeanour and corruption.
    • A former Supreme Court judge should be appointed ombudsman to resolve internal disputes.

    Transparency: Bringing RTI to BCCI

    It recommended that the Legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act

    Securing player’s interest

    • It recommended the setting up of a Players’ Association to safeguard the interests of the cricketers.
    • The report said players that are the driving force of the game, but they had been reduced to the status of employees and subordinates of those governing the game.
    • The idea is to give players voice, use their expertise and skills for the development and betterment of the game

    Women Cricket: Often ignored by BCCI

    The Women’s Cricket Committee to be formed to exclusively pay attention to this much ignored department, along with Women’s Selection Committee.

    The proposed measures could radically alter the way the BCCI functions as well as vastly improve its public image and impart much-needed credibility.


     

    Published with inputs from Pushpendra 
  • LGBT Rights – Transgender Bill, Sec. 377, etc.

    IPC & the need for modernisation


     

    The promise of criminal law as an instrument of safety is matched only by its power to destroy. It is arguably the most direct expression of the relationship between a state and its citizens.

    Amid the debate on the archaic sedition law that should have no place in democratic India, President Pranab Mukherjee said that the IPC, 1860 requires a thorough revision to meet the needs of the 21st century. Click here to know everything about sedition law

    History:

    • The code was drafted in 1860 on the recommendations of first law commission of India established in 1834 under the Government of India Act 1833 under the Chairmanship of Thomas Babington MacaulayAnswer in comments.>
    • It came into force in British India(but not princely states) during the early British Raj period in 1862
    • After the partition of the British Indian Empire, the Indian Penal Code was inherited by its successor states, the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, where it continues independently as the Pakistan Penal Code and later in B’desh also
    • Jammu and Kashmir does not follow IPC but has enacted a separate code known as Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) which is based on IPC

    Some notable points:

    • The IPC replaced Mohammedan Criminal Law, which had a very close relationship with Islam. Thus, the IPC laid the foundation of secularism
    • It was widely appreciated as a state-of-the-art code and was, indeed, the first codification of criminal law in the British Empire
    • Today, it is the longest serving criminal code in the common-law world
    • Today, most of the commonwealth follows the IPC

    Law Commission on IPC:

    • 42nd Report (1971)– Law Commission of India for the first time had recommended the repeal of Section 309 (criminalization of suicide)
    • 172nd Report (2000)– Recommended deletion of Section 377 (criminalization of unnatural sexual offences)
    • 210th Report (2008)– Recommended Humanization and Decriminalization of Attempt to Suicide under Section 309

    Past attempts at amendment:

    • Even though the IPC has been haphazardly amended more than 75 times, no comprehensive revision has been undertaken in spite of the 42nd report of the Law Commission in 1971 recommending it
    • Also the amendment bills of 1971 and 1978 lapsed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha
    • As a result, largely the courts have had to undertake this task, with unsatisfactory outcomes at times
    • Most amendments have been ad hoc and reactive, in response to immediate circumstances like the 2013 amendment after the Delhi gangrape case

    Why amend IPC?

    • The philosophical stance and fundamental principles of Macaulay’s code were the product of imperialist policy <designed to meet colonial needs to subjugation and exploitation of India and Indians, sedition law for instance>
    • Some of the concepts underlying the code are either problematic or have become obsolete
    • there are many new offences, which have to be properly defined and incorporated in the code
    • Macaulay had himself favoured regular revision of the code whenever gaps or ambiguities were found or experienced
    • In 1860, the IPC was certainly ahead of the times but has been unable to keep pace since then

    Specific cases or problems:

    1. Sedition law, inserted in 1898: It is legitimate to ask whether we need a law on sedition that we ourselves condemned during the Raj. Learn more about sedition law here
    2. Section 295A, The offence of blasphemy: It should have no place in a liberal democracy
    3. Criminal conspiracy: It can be invoked merely when two people agree to commit an offence without any overt act following the agreement.
      It was added in 1913 by the colonial masters to deal with political conspiracies.
      Kehar Singh etc were convicted and sentenced to death under the offence of conspiracy ,, though none of them participated in the actual crime or were present at the scene of the crime.
    4. Section 149, Unlawful assembly: The principle of constructive liability under this law is pushed to unduly harsh lengths.
      Mere membership of the assembly without any participation in the actual crime is sufficient for punishment.
      Several persons have been sentenced to death and hanged though they were not even present near the scene of the actual crime.
    5. The distinction between “culpable homicide” and “murder” is criticised as the “weakest part of the code”, as the definitions are obscure
    6. Sexual offences under the code reveal patriarchal values and Victorian morality.
    7. Section 377:  Unnatural sexual offences (LGBT right). Want to know about argument of Delhi high court in decriminalizing homosexuality, click here to read about Naz Foundation case

     

    Contrarian view point of Justice Hegde

    We should not repeal something just because it’s 150 years old.

    On Sedition: He favours the sedition law as some restrictions are needed to stop people from abusing and talking against the country. “I believe in sedition law. I am a patriot. Any patriot cannot go on abusing the country. There are certain parameters.” He points to distinction b/w criticizing the person (prime minister), policies, system v/s abusing the state

    On IPC:  We can not just scrap Indian Penal Code because somebody is involved in a crime (and wants it to be scrapped)

    We can not just ape west. Ground realities in India and west are very different and they demand different levels of freedom of expression and religious freedom.

  • Aadhaar Card Issues

    Aadhaar Bill 2016, Hopes and Concerns 

    Basics of Aadhaar

    Aadhaar is an ambitious project that seeks to provide unique identification numbers to each individual in a country, collecting demographic and biometric information in the process. Currently, UIDAI has issued over 98 crore Aadhaar numbers.

    Need for Aadhaar: India must use technology in a transformational way to accelerate social and economic justice. It will help in expansion of opportunities for all at scale and speed.

    What is the Aadhaar Bill?

    Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, has been passed by Parliament, to provide for efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services.

    It will enable the govt. to reset the subsidy regime and deliver state benefits directly to their intended beneficiaries, plugging leakages.

    How Aadhar is linked with DBT?

    India spends nearly Rs. 4 lakh crore on subsidies, in order to complement the political democracy with socio-economic democracy.

    On January 1, 2013, the UPA govt launched the Direct Benefit Transfer scheme under which monetary benefits would be transferred directly to the beneficiaries through an Aadhaar-enabled platform.

    The effort to channelize subsidies, benefits and services to through a 12-digit number or to say its biometric alternative can help plug the leakages in the subsidy framework and give a boost to the Jan Dhan Yojna, which remains closely aligned to this scheme.

    Follow our story on Direct Benefits Transfer: The Big Reform.

    Do read the Economic Survey chapter on JAM Trinity.

    What are the concerns on Privacy front?

    There are certain provisions in the Bill, that provide avenues for surveillance of citizens. A person’s Aadhaar number can become a standard data point in all business, banking and legal transactions. Our data systems are not secure and watertight. The people who maintain these systems are vulnerable to pressures and inducements.

    • The issue of privacy vs. security is a hot subject around the world, evident in the current controversy in Apple Inc.’s refusal to break the encryption on an iPhone as demanded by FBI
    • Sceptics argue that no other country, and certainly no democratic country, has ever held its own citizens hostage to such a powerful infrastructure of surveillance
    • Govt. accepts right to privacy as a valuable right, but questions it as a fundamental right
    • In 1954, a 8-judge bench of SC had ruled that right to privacy cannot be a fundamental right. But, some judgments post-1990 noted that right to privacy can be construed as fundamental right, subject to certain restrictions and circumstances

    However, there are other concerns of exclusion, by denying the services to people who didn’t enroll for it or chose not to do it.

    Safeguards

    According to Nandan Nilekani, the Bill had incorporated several safeguards with regard to privacy as highlighted by the A.P. Shah Committee report, on privacy law.

    There are other provisions in this Bill that seem to address the concern:

    • The unique numbers will not be considered as proof of citizenship
    • The Aadhar system ensures privacy through design, as it uses a federated architecture. In other words, as banking data is wholly inside the banking system, similarly, the biometric data is never shared by UIDAI
    • The core bio-metric information cannot be shared with any person even with the consent of the Aadhaar card holder. Even, the general information cannot be unlawfully shared
    • Only a Court of the District Judge or above has been given the power to order disclosure of information excluding core biometrics
    • “National Security” is the only ground on which a Competent Authority can share this information. Every decision of the Competent Authority has to be reviewed by a Committee comprising of the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary, Information Technology before it is given effect

    What was Supreme Court’s stand on Aadhaar?

    In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar could not be made mandatory to receive benefits. No one should be excluded from social welfare scheme, just because of a requirement of Aadhar.

    In 2015, It also prohibited the sharing the Aadhaar information with any agency. The case was referred to a larger bench to decide the question whether Aadhaar infringed the right to privacy.

    What is Aadhaar Bill versus Money Bill controversy?

    According to experts, the Bill was not a money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution because it did not “contain ONLY provisions” dealing with the matters enumerated in that Article. Various Constitutional experts have argued that the Speaker’s decision to certify it as a money Bill was also plainly wrong.

    Do you want to know about Money Bill?

    As per Article 110(1), a bill that contains only provisions dealing with the following qualifies as a money bill:

    1. The imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax
    2. Regulation of borrowing or the giving of any guarantee by the govt of India, or undertaking financial obligation by the government
    3. The custody of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of moneys into or withdrawal from them
    4. The appropriation of moneys out of the CFI
    5. Declaring any expenditure as a charged expenditure on the CFI <can you tell us the difference b/w charged expenditure and non charged expenditure? Also can you tell us one prominent constitution body whose expenditure is not charged? Answer in the comments.>
    6. The receipt of money on account of the CFI or the public account of India or the ambit of accounts of the Union or of a state <can you tell us the difference b/w consolidated fund of India and public accounts of India? Answer in the comments>
    7. Any matter incidental to the above issues

    A money bill cannot be rejected by the Rajya Sabha, which can only suggest changes, the Lok Sabha is free to reject.

    Speaker: Article 110(3) confirms finality on the speaker’s decision on the question of whether a bill is a money bill.

    What were the amendments moved by Rajya Sabha?

    • It wanted to restrict the use of Aadhaar numbers only for targeting of govt benefits or service and not for any other purpose
    • It wanted to replace the term ‘national security’ with ‘public emergency and public safety’, arguing that the term ‘national security’ is very vague
    • It wanted an Oversight Committee to review the Competent Authority’s decision, which should also comprise of either the CVC or the CAG
    • It wanted to delete a section which says that if under any other law the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual is permitted, the same law is not being over-ruled

    Conclusion

    There is little doubt that India needs to streamline the way it delivers benefits, and to empower citizens with a basic identification document. But this cannot be done without ensuring the strictest protection of privacy.

    Follow our story on Aadhaar Cards: The Identity Revolution.

    Published with inputs from Pushpendra