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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Removal of AP State Election Commissioner by ordinance route

    The removal of the SEC by the ordinance route raises the question over the legality of the move. And if it passes the judicial scrutiny it would harm the independence of the body.

    The legality of the removal and its implication for free and fair elections

    • The fact that it was the culmination of an open conflict between the Election Commissioner and Chief Minister makes it a glaring instance of misuse of power.
    • The State government got the Governor to issue an ordinance to cut the SEC’s tenure from five to three years.
    • The ordinance also amended the criterion for holding that office from being an officer of the rank of Principal Secretary and above to one who had served as a High Court judge.
    • This automatically rendered the SEC’s continuance invalid.
    • Last month, just days before the local body polls were to be held, the SEC postponed the elections, citing the COVID-19 outbreak.
    • The State government approached the Supreme Court, but the court declined to interfere.
    • Having exhausted its legal remedy, the government should have waited for the ongoing fight against the disease to be over.
    • The Chief Minister has no legal right to terminate the SEC’s tenure.
    • The Constitution makes the holder of that post removable only in the same manner as a High Court judge.
    • If courts uphold this means of dislodging the head of an independent election body, it would mark the end of free and fair elections.

    Past judgements on the issue

    • The State government seems to have gone by legal opinion that citedAparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007).
    • Cessation of term vs. removal: In that judgement the Allahabad High Court ruled that cessation of tenure does not amount to removal, and upheld the State Election Commissioner’s term being cut short.
    • The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against the order, kept open the legal questions arising from the case.

    UPSC can frame the question based on the judgement in case by the SC and its implication for the independence of the body in conducting the fair, free and impartial election.

    Issues arising out of the past judgements

    • The judgment seems erroneous, as it gives freedom to the State government to remove an inconvenient election authority by merely changing the tenure or retirement age.
    • This was surely not what was envisioned by Parliament, which wrote into the Constitution provisions to safeguard the independence of the State Election Commission.
    • It is a well-settled principle in law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
    • Therefore, the removal of an incumbent SEC through the subterfuge of changing the eligibility norms for an appointment may not survive judicial scrutiny.
    • Prohibition on the variation of condition of service: Further, the Constitution, under Article 243K, prohibits the variation of any condition of service to the detriment of any incumbent.
    • Even if the State government argues that a change of tenure does not amount to varying the conditions of service, the new norm can only apply to the successor SEC, and not the one holding the office now.

    Conclusion

    In order to ensure the independence of the SEC and free and fair elections, legality of the move should not pass the legal scrutiny. Even if it passes the legal scrutiny the government should amend this provision avoid such instances in the future.

     

  • Needed, greater decentralisation of power

    Context

    Even as States have taken up positions of leadership in the pandemic response, federal limitations are becoming hurdles.

    State governments at the position of leadership

    • In the fight against the pandemic, one of the striking features of governance has been the signal role played by State Chief Ministers across India.
    • Proactive measures: Even before the Union government invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005, many State governments triggered the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and installed a series of measures to combat what was then an oncoming onslaught of COVID-19.
    • These actions have not always been perfect. Some of them have even disproportionately trenched upon basic civil liberties.
    • But, by and large, they have been tailored to the reality faced on the ground by the respective governments.
    • Policies to address local concerns: States such as Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, and Karnataka have shaped their policies to address their direct, local concerns.
    • They have communicated these decisions to the public with clarity and consideration, helping, in the process, to lay out a broad framework for the nation.
    • Not just the laboratories of democracy: In doing so, they have acted not merely as “laboratories of democracy”, to paraphrase the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, but also as founts of reasoned authority.

    Federal arrangements placing limitations on the states

    • Equally, though, as much as State governments have taken up positions of leadership, they have repeatedly found themselves throttled by the limitations of the extant federal arrangement.
    • The Centre for Policy Research has pointed out at least three specific limitations.
    • Funds and structuring own package: The inability of States to access funds and thereby structure their own welfare packages.
    • Curbs imposed by PFMS: The curbs imposed by a public finance management system (PFMS) that is mired in officialdom.
    • This has prevented States from easily and swiftly making payments for the purchase of health-care apparatus such as ventilators and personal protective equipment.
    • Disruption of supply chains: Three, the colossal disruption of supply chains not only of essential goods and services but also of other systems of production and distribution, which has placed States in a position of grave economic uncertainty.
    • Need to decentralise: As these limitations demonstrate an urgent need to decentralise administration, where States — and local bodies acting through such governments — are allowed greater managerial freedom.
    • Under such a model, the Union government will command less but coordinate more.

    Indian federalism-two distinct levels

    • There are varying accounts of what Indian federalism truly demands.
    • Two levels: What is manifest from a reading of the Constitution is that it creates two distinct levels of government: one at the Centre and the other at each of the States.
    • The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution divides responsibilities between these two layers.
    • The Union government is tasked with matters of national importance, such as foreign affairs, defence, and airways.
    • But the responsibilities vested with the States are no less important. Issues concerning public health and sanitation, agriculture, public order, and police, among other things, have each been assigned to State governments.
    • In these domains, the States’ power is plenary.
    • This federal architecture is fortified by a bicameral Parliament.
    • Significantly, this bicameralism is not achieved through a simple demarcation of two separate houses, but through a creation of two distinct chambers that choose their members differently-
    • A House of the People [Lok Sabha] comprising directly elected representatives and a Council of States [Rajya Sabha] comprising members elected by the legislatures of the States.

    Financial autonomy of the states

    • Ensuring financial autonomy: In formulating this scheme of equal partnership, the framers were also conscious of a need to make States financially autonomous.
    • No overlap: To that end, when they divided the power to tax between the two layers of government they took care to ensure that the authority of the Union and the States did not overlap.
    • Therefore, while the Centre, for example, was accorded the power to tax all income other than agricultural income and to levy indirect taxes in the form of customs and excise duties, the sole power to tax the sale of goods and the entry of goods into a State was vested in the State governments.
    • The underlying rationale was simple: States had to be guaranteed fiscal dominion to enable them to mould their policies according to the needs of their people.

    History of paradox in federal system of India

    • Despite this plainly drawn arrangement, the history of our constitutional practice has been something of a paradox.
    • It is invariably at the level of the States that real development has fructified.
    • But the Union has repeatedly displayed a desire to treat States, as the Supreme Court said in R. Bommai v. Union of India, as mere “appendages of the Centre”.
    • Time and again, efforts have been made to centralise financial and administrative power, to take away from the States their ability to act independently and freely.
    • Following five examples demonstrated that the point made here.

    1 Matters of finance-what was expected in theory did not realise

    • Consider the widely hailed decision to accept the 14th Finance Commission’s recommendation for an increase in the share of the States in total tax revenues from 32% to 42%.
    • While, in theory, this ought to have enabled the States to significantly increase their own spending, in reality, as a paper authored by Amar Nath H.K. and Alka Singh of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy suggests, this has not happened.
    • What went wrong? Gains made by the States, as the paper underlines, have been entirely offset by a simultaneous decline in share of grants and by a concomitant increase in the States’ own contribution towards expenditures on centrally sponsored schemes.

    2. Goods and Service Tax

    • The decline in the sovereignty of the states: Notably, the creation of a Goods and Services Tax regime, which far from achieving its core purpose of uniformity has rendered nugatory the internal sovereignty vested in the States.
    • By striking at the Constitution’s federal edifice, it has made the very survival of the States dependent on the grace of the Union.
    • The tension today is so palpable that a number of the States are reported to have written to the Union Finance Ministry.
    • More than four months’ worth of Goods and Services Tax compensation to the States — reportedly totalling about a sum of ₹40,000 crore — remains unreleased.

    3. Passing a bill as a money bill

    • The Union government’s centralising instinct, though, has not been restricted to matters of finance.
    • It has also introduced a slew of legislation as money bills, in a bid to bypass the Rajya Sabha’s sanction, even though these laws scarcely fit the constitutional definition.

    4. Role of the Governors

    • Similarly, the role of the Governors has been weaponised to consolidate political power.

    5. Article 370

    • But perhaps most egregious among the moves made is the gutting of Article 370 and the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
    • It was done without securing consent from the State Legislative Assembly.

    Conclusion

    Perhaps a crisis of the kind that COVID-19 has wrought will show us that India needs greater decentralisation of power; that administration through a single central executive unit is unsuited to its diverse and heterogeneous polity. We cannot continue to regard the intricate niceties of our federal structure as a nettlesome trifle. In seeing it thus, we are reducing the promise of Article 1 of the Constitution, of an India that is a Union of States, to an illusory dream.

  • What is Open Court System?

    The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary Constitutional powers under Article 142 to step away from the convention of open court hearings. It deemed all restrictions imposed on people from entering, attending or taking part in court hearings as lawful in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    What are Open Courts?

    • The Open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.
    • Open courts are normal court where proceedings of the court are conducted where every person is allowed to watch the proceedings of the court.
    • There are instances where it is not practical to accommodate persons other than parties to the proceedings. Therefore, such proceedings are held in camera.
    • This means that the proceedings are held in a closed room where the public will not have access to watch the proceedings.
    • In criminal cases like rape, it is necessary to protect the identity and modesty of the victim.

    Why did the Supreme Court deter Open Court’s norm?

    • A Bench led by CJI said these restrictions were in tune with the social distancing norms and best public health practices advocated to contain the contagion.
    • The court made it clear that public health takes precedence over conventions.
    • Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus.
    • Open court hearings would mean a congregation of large number of people. This would prove detrimental to the fight against the virus.

    Conclusion

    • Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the democracy envisaged by the Constitution of India.
    • The challenges occasioned by the outbreak of COVID-19 have to be addressed while preserving the constitutional commitment to ensuring the delivery of and access to justice to those who seek it..

    Way forward

    • Indian courts have been proactive in embracing advancement in technology in judicial proceedings.
    • Judiciary can bank on video-conferencing technologies in the wake of this unprecedented and extraordinary outbreak of a pandemic.

    Back2Basics

    Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

    • Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case.
    • It supplements the powers already conferred upon the Supreme Court under the Constitution to guarantee that justice is done and in doing so the Court is not restrained by lack of jurisdiction or authority of law.
    • The phrase ‘complete justice’ engrafted in Article 142(1) is the word of wide interpretation to meet situations created by legal errors or result of operation of statute law or law.
    • Thus Article 142 is conceived to give the apex court the powers to meet the situations which cannot be effectively tackled by existing provisions of law.

    Also read: 

    Supreme Court Removes Manipur MLA Under The 10th Schedule

  • MPLADS funds suspended over COVID-19 crisis

    The Union Cabinet gave its nod to the temporary suspension of MPLAD Funds during 2020-21 and 2021-22 in view of the adverse impact of the outbreak of COVID-19 in India.

    Why suspend MPLAD?

    • The consolidated amount of MPLAD Funds for 2 years – Rs 7,900 crores – will go to Consolidated Fund of India.
    • The Cabinet has also approved an ordinance to reduce the salaries, allowances and pensions of Members of Parliament (MPs), including the Prime Minister, by 30 per cent for one year.
    • The amount so collected would be utilized in the fight against coronavirus.

    What is the MPLAD scheme?

    • The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) is a programme first launched during the Narasimha Rao Government in 1993.
    • It was aimed towards providing funds for developmental works recommended by individual MPs.

    Funds available

    • The MPs then were entitled to recommend works to the tune of Rs 1 crore annually between 1994-95 and 1997-98, after which the annual entitlement was enhanced to Rs 2 crore.
    • The UPA government in 2011-12 raised the annual entitlement to Rs 5 crore per MP.

    Implementation

    • To implement their plans in an area, MPs have to recommend them to the District Authority of the respective Nodal District.
    • The District Authorities then identify Implementing Agencies which execute the projects.
    • The respective District Authority is supposed to oversee the implementation and has to submit monthly reports, audit reports, and work completion reports to the Nodal District Authority.
    • The MPLADS funds can be merged with other schemes such as MGNREGA and Khelo India.

    Guidelines for MPLADS implementation

    • The document ‘Guidelines on MPLADS’ was published by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in June 2016 in this regard.
    • It stated the objective of the scheme to enable MPs to recommend works of developmental nature with emphasis on the creation of durable community assets based on the locally felt needs in their Constituencies.
    • Right from inception of the Scheme, durable assets of national priorities viz. drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads, etc. should be created.
    • It recommended MPs to works costing at least 15 per cent of their entitlement for the year for areas inhabited by Scheduled Caste population and 7.5 per cent for areas inhabited by ST population.
    • It layy down a number of development works including construction of railway halt stations, providing financial assistance to recognised bodies, cooperative societies, installing CCTV cameras etc.

  • The SC order on migrants labours raises several issues

    Context

    On March 31, the Supreme Court of India (SC), entertaining a writ petition under Article 32, passed an order which raises more questions than it seeks to answer.

    What were the issues involved in the writ petition?

    • The writ petition was purportedly filed in the public interest, “for redressal of grievances of migrant workers in different parts of the country”.
    • Directions which are in favour of the Union government: The Court has proceeded to issue several directions which are clearly in favour of the respondent, the Union of India.
    • The following three directions were uncalled for:

    What were the directions issued by the Supreme Court?

    • One, that under section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, persons can be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or with a fine for making or circulating a false alarm or warning.
    • Disobedience of the order including an advisory by a public servant would result in punishment under section 188 of the IPC.
    • Two, all concerned, that is the state government, public authorities and citizens will faithfully comply with directives, advisory and orders issued by the Union of India in letter and spirit in the interest of public safety.
    • Three, the media should only refer to and publish the official version of the Government of India, publishing a daily bulletin.
    • The SC observations about migrant labourers: After giving substantial reliefs to the Union of India, the SC proceeded to make mere observations about migrant labourers by directing that they should be dealt with “in a humane manner”.
    • And that “trained counsellors, community leaders and volunteers must be engaged along with the police to supervise the welfare activities of migrants”.
    • The SC has virtually absolved the government for its handling of the situation.

    What was the basis for issuing orders and issues with it

    • The basis of the directions is a statement made by the Solicitor General of India and some status reports to the effect that “the exodus of migrant labourers was triggered due to panic created by some fake/misleading news and social media”.
    • What is an issue with basis? The SC has proceeded on assumptions and surmises which were untested and unchallenged.
    • What the court should have done? In a matter of such seriousness, the least it should have done was to have appointed an amicus curiae (a friend of the court) to assist it rather than simply accept the self-serving status reports and statements made before it.
    • The Court overlooked the fact that in India, hundreds of millions of people work during the day and are paid at the end of the day and then go and buy their foodstuffs.
    • They have no savings, nor do they have foodgrains stored.
    • It is surprising that the Court, the custodian of fundamental rights, should be oblivious to this reality.

    Issue of press freedom

    • Citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Press freedom is a part of this. Citizens have the right to receive information as well.
    • Article 13 (2) of the Constitution says that the state cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights.
    • If Parliament cannot do so, the Supreme Court — the upholder of the constitutional rights — surely cannot do so.
    • The SC has itself held in M Nagraj (2006): “A right becomes a fundamental right because it has foundational value. The fundamental right is a limitation on the power of the State. A Constitution, and in particular that part of it which protects and which entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the State are to be entitled, is to be given a generous and purposive construction.”
    • The SC should not have made all media subservient to the government by directing that the former “refer to and publish the official version about the developments”.
    • Such an order could be justified only during an emergency and that too by the executive, subject to challenge before the courts.

    Conclusion

    The SC has given a carte blanche to the authorities, and citizens appear to have no avenues of redress. Most of all, by condemning the media and social media, holding them responsible for fake news, the SC has done a great disservice to the institution which provides information to citizens and upholds democracy.

  • Supreme Court upholds “Right to discuss COVID-19”

    The Supreme Court has upheld the right to free discussion about COVID-19, even as it directed the media to refer to and publish the official version of the developments in order to avoid inaccuracies and large-scale panic.

    Right to Discuss

    • The Right to Discuss falls under the purview of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
    • Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
    • It ensures all citizens the liberty of thought and expression.
    • The exercise of this right is, however, subject to “reasonable restrictions” for certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
    • These restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

    Why such a move?

    • The court was responding to a request from the Central government that media outlets, in the “larger interest of justice”, should only publish or telecast anything on COVID-19 after ascertaining the factual position from the government.
    • Any deliberate or inaccurate reporting by the media, particularly web portals, had the serious and inevitable potential of causing panic in a larger section of the society.
    • Any panic reaction in the midst of an unprecedented situation based on such reporting would harm the entire nation.
    • Creating panic is also a criminal offence under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

  • J&K Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020

    • The Ministry of Home Affairs has promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020, which comes into force with immediate effect.
    • Earlier this month order for an adaptation of Central Laws was also promulgated. It ordered application of 37 central laws envisaged in the Concurrent List to the newly formed UT.

    About the Order

    • Issued by the Department of J&K and Ladakh Affairs, the Order stems from Section 96 of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019.
    • The Act was a consequence of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and it reorganized the State into two UTs.
    • The Order notifies changes in the J&K Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act (hereafter, “Civil Services Act”), which defines “domicile” for employment in the region
    • Domicile Criteria
      Under the newly inserted Section 3A of the Civil Services Act which is regarding domicile for purposes of appointment to any service in UT of J&K.A person will have to fulfill the following conditions to be deemed to be a domicile of the UT of J&K:
    • She/he has to have resided for period of 15 years in the UT of J&K or has studied for a period of 7 years and appeared in Class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the UT of J&K; or
      She/he is registered as a migrant by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants) in the UT of J&K.
    • Scope of Section 3A
    • Children of those fulfilling the aforementioned conditions are also deemed to be included.
    • Section 3A also goes on to include children of those Central Government Officials, All India Services Officers, Officials of PSUs and Autonomous body of Central Government, PSBs, etc. who have served in J&K for a total period of ten years.
    • Additionally, it includes those children of such residents of UT of J&K who reside outside the UT of J&K in connection with their employment or business or other professional and vocational reasons, but the parents fulfill the conditions provided under Section 3A(1).

    Job reservations

    • Section 5A provides for the domicile reservation for the purpose of appointment of any post carrying a pay scale of not more than Level-04 under the UT of J&K or under local or any other (other than cantonment board) within the UT of J&K.
    • Therefore, lowest level of non-gazetted rank jobs would be reserved exclusively for the Jammu and Kashmir domiciles.

  • Ayyappa and the Court

    Context

    In the several cases with potential significance, there was no effective hearing at the interim stages which created fait accompli. And which results in the status quo cementing itself.

    The Sabarimala case and ‘balance of convenience’ principle

    • Review petition pending: Millions of disciples have protested the Court’s 2018 verdict where gender equality was held to trump the tenets of the faith and rejoiced at the November 2019 order of the Chief Justice’s bench granting their cause a fresh lease of life.
    • As things stand, their review petitions are kept pending until the questions of law are determined.
    • Please to enter the temple declined: In December 2019, fervent pleas on behalf of certain women devotees to enter the temple were declined, although the 2018 verdict continued to hold the field.
    • Why declining the plea for entry matters? This was justified by the Court on a “balance of convenience”, thereby laying down a new principle for not directing the implementation of its own judgement.

    Pendency of Article 370 challenge case hearing

    • Nine judge bench: This year it was decided to put together the nine-judge bench to hear the cases on an urgent basis.
    • Kashmir case on the backburner: But with two judges from the ongoing Kashmir/Article 370 challenges also a part of the Sabarimala case, it would mean that the Kashmir issues would be put on the back burner in the middle of its hearing.
    • This is despite the advocates representing the right of women’s entry stating that they had no objection to the Kashmir cases being heard first.
    • Then, barely a day into the hearing, a strain of swine flu reached some of the members of the Bench, leading to a postponement of hearings till the middle of March.
    • Now, with a fierce pandemic enveloping the globe, the case is adjourned indefinitely.

    Criticism of administrative functioning of the SC

    • Over the last few months, the Supreme Court has been besieged by criticism of its administrative functioning.
    • Delay in the hearing of important cases: Cases that have customarily been heard with alacrity, like those concerning personal liberty, law and order and criminal investigation, have been posted after long intervals with the Government being granted the luxury of time to respond.
    • No effective hearing in cases with immediacy: Where immediacy is pre-eminent so that fait accompli may not be created, as with the validity of the Kashmir notifications, the CAA and the electoral bonds, there have been no effective hearings at the interim stage.
    • Thus, the status quo slowly cements itself.

    Reason for problems in administrative functions of the SC

    • Dual role played by the CJI: Since the early years of the judiciary, one person has been given the onerous dual charge of heading both the administrative and judicial functions of the court.
    • As a result, apart from sitting every day, reading briefs, hearing arguments and delivering detailed judgements, the Chief Justice has to also act as the final authority for all service-related matters of the Court’s 2,500 employees, issue office orders to streamline the registry.
    • The CJI also supervise measures for security and infrastructure, chair committees, correspond with and entertain judicial delegations, attend symposia, delegate subject matters among colleagues, constitute benches of varying strengths and interview candidates for the various courts.
    • In the old days, when the burden of cases was modest, these tasks would not have been challenging.
    • But in the present time, not only are they overwhelming, but they also bring in their wake a host of attacks on the person who occupies that high office.

    Need for the Chief Executive Officer in the SC

    • Administrative functioning of the SC: In all the administrative tasks, the Chief Justice is assisted by a team of registrars, who are headed by the secretary-general.
    • As they are junior judicial officers, they neither have the training nor the complete independence to take steps towards course correction.
    • The requirement of CEO: This is why the Supreme Court sorely requires a chief executive officer – an independent professional who is equipped with the day-to-day management of the Court and is not beholden to the judges in any way.
    • How it will help? The CEO will be charged with the entire mission of running the Court so that the judges can concentrate on what they are trained and experienced to do – adjudicate.
    • Operational autonomy: The CEO will, of course, have to be given adequate operational autonomy and be answerable to a committee of the Court, comprising judges and bar representatives, thereby providing for a professional process, much like in the corporate sphere.
    • With this, the judges will at least be spared the charges that they have had to withstand over the last few years.

    Conclusion

    It is only for politicians to concern themselves with public opinion, not for judges. They are weaponised by the Constitution to serve the cause of justice, and in this, as per Article 144, all civil and judicial authorities are enjoined to cooperate. Just a few blows of the gavel to any misadventures would be sufficient to send the message loud and clear: That the Court offers no sanctuary to the executive knaves.

  • After the lockdown

    Context

    Lockdown announcement has not been matched by national strategy — on containing fallout for poor.

    Two arguments advanced against lockdown

    • India’s decision to lock down was necessary. Two arguments are being advanced against it.
    • The first argument: India is a poor economy, with millions at the margins of subsistence, who cannot bear the consequences of a lockdown. The density and living conditions in India make social distancing difficult in many cases.
    • The second argument: It is that the extent of community transmission does not justify such drastic measures.

    What are the justifications for the lockdown?

    • The only hope: Precisely because millions in India are vulnerable and will not later have the possibilities of quarantining or medical care, the only hope we have of securing their lives is to slow down the spread of the virus as much as possible.
    • And the only shot you have at it is when community transmission is possibly still at manageable levels.
    • There is, therefore, a bit of bad faith in using the poor as the basis for expressing scepticism at the need for a lockdown. That is the most insidious form of privilege.
    • The risks of any catastrophic spread will be even more incalculable for the poor.

    Underscoring the importance of federalism and decentralisation

    • States responding in innovative ways: One of the more encouraging things has been the way in which several state governments like Punjab, Odisha, Kerala, Delhi and others have come into their own, innovating under difficult circumstances.
    • Role of panchayat and local officials: The much-neglected panchayat and local officials are key nodes in keeping track of possible cases and the creation of quarantining infrastructure.
    • Role of frontline workers: It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the ways in which most of the frontline workers of the state are responding, learning and innovating in this situation.
    • Federalism and decentralisation: If anything, this crisis is bringing home the importance of both federalism and decentralisation as central to a resilient governance architecture.

    The preparation and follow-up of the lockdown

    • But the national preparation and follow-up to take full advantage of the lockdown do not inspire full confidence.
    • Lack of strategy: The announcement of the lockdown has not been matched by a commensurate national strategy.
    • This is manifest, in the early signals on the following two important aspects:
    • Containing the economic fallout for the poor.
    • Building up the health infrastructure.
    • It is, admittedly, early days; but the signs are not good.

    Economic fallout for the poor

    • Focus is not on the poor: In the entire framing of the problem, the poor have been at best an afterthought, at worst expendable damage.
    • Steps taken not adequate: Steps like health insurance cover for frontline workers, increased food rations, are welcome steps. But a crisis of this magnitude required assurance to the most vulnerable that no stops will be pulled to secure their futures.
    • Instead, what you got was incrementalism of the worst kind, masquerading as a big commitment.
    • Low cash transfer: The cash transfers, in particular, through different schemes, are shockingly low.
    • Need for the unprecedented social security support: This crisis is one of the rare instances where economists and even bankers, from across the political spectrum, have rallied around the intellectual argument for unprecedented levels of social security support.
    • So the government’s “support by stealth” strategy is even more mystifying.
    • Impact of lockdown on migrant labour: The magnitude of the crisis unleashed for migrant labour could have been avoided with a little forethought.
    • What could have been done? Early announcement of cash transfers, shelter and food availability, would have obviated the need for migration.

    Opacity on the health infrastructure side

    • Issue of testing: Opacity is often a consequence of scarcity. And nowhere is this more manifest than in our discussion of testing.
    • Underutilisation of capacity: Everyone understands that India has the scarce testing capacity, though it seems it is also under-utilising what it has.
    • No clear testing strategy: The government is procuring more testing kits. But what is worrying is that there seems to be no publicly articulated statement of what exactly our testing strategy is, given the scarce resources.
    • But there is still no sense of how we plan to put a testing strategy in place (not just numbers of tests, but where can they be optimally deployed), that will minimise the need for future lockdowns.
    • What objectives is it trying to meet? There is more than a whiff of suspicion that there is a view that more testing might spread more panic.
    • Or it might put more pressure on the health care system than it can handle.
    • India has never understood that health expenditure is not an expenditure; it is an investment.
    • Building up of health infrastructure: The success of the lockdown strategy is premised on an unprecedentedly vigorous building up of health infrastructure to fight the pandemic.
    • There is a commitment by the Centre to infuse an extra Rs 15,000 crore in this sector. Some steps are being taken in building up capabilities, including ramping up production of ventilators and masks.
    • Need for warlike mobilisation: This is an area where India needs almost a warlike mobilisation, to make sure we have enough testing, tracking, frontline workers, logistics and equipment in place to make sure that the duration of a lockdown is minimised or a repeat is not necessary.
    • The creation of this kind of infrastructure will pay huge dividends even in non-pandemic times.

    Conclusion

    The prime minister is constantly asking the citizens to mobilise, and most of them respond. But it about time the state mobilises: On an economic stimulus that is truly meaningful and health infrastructure push that inspires confidence.

  • What is Finance Bill?

    The Parliament has passed the Finance Bill 2020 with 40 amendments without any discussion.

    Highlights of the Bill

    • Among the important amendments included was one enabling the government to raise additional excise duty on petrol by up to Rs 18 per litre and diesel by up to Rs 12 per litre when required.
    • Amendments enabling the taxation of NRIs’ India-controlled income above Rs 15 lakh, and another extending the DDT exemption to REITs and Infrastructure Investment trusts were passed.
    • The Bill also changes the definition of ‘Resident’, as stipulated under the Income Tax Act.
    • Presently, a person is considered a resident of India, i.e. their global income is taxable in India if they are in the country for more than 182 days a year. This has now been reduced to 120 days.
    • The amendments also include provisions for levying TDS of 1 per cent on e-commerce transactions.

    What is a Finance Bill?

    • As per Article 110 of the Constitution, the Finance Bill is a Money Bill.
    • The Finance Bill is a part of the Union Budget, stipulating all the legal amendments required for the changes in taxation proposed by the Finance Minister.
    • This Bill encompasses all amendments required in various laws pertaining to tax, in accordance with the tax proposals made in the Union Budget.
    • The Finance Bill, as a Money Bill, needs to be passed by the Lok Sabha — the lower house of the Parliament. Post the Lok Sabha’s approval, the Finance Bill becomes Finance Act.

    Difference between a Money Bill and the Finance Bill

    1) Money Bill

    • A Money Bill has to be introduced in the Lok Sabha as per Section 110 of the Constitution. Then, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations.
    • The Rajya Sabha has to return the Bill with recommendations in 14 days.
    • However, the Lok Sabha can reject all or some of the recommendations.

    2) Finance Bill

    • In a general sense, any Bill that relates to revenue or expenditure is a Financial Bill.
    • The Finance Bill is introduced in Lok Sabha.
    • Rajya Sabha can recommend amendments in the bill. However, the bill has to be passed by the Parliament within 75 days of introduction.

    >Types of Finance Bills

    Type I

    • Financial Bill Cat-1 is a bill which contains any of the matters specified in Article 110 but does not exclusively deal with such matters.
    • For example- a bill which contains a taxation clause, but does not deal solely with taxation under Article 117 (1), has two features in common with a money bill.
    1. It cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It can only be introduced in Lok Sabha with the prior recommendation of the President.(Similarities)
    • But has one feature uncommon that is, not being a Money Bill, the Rajya Sabha has the same power to reject or amend such Financial Bill subject to limitation.

    Type II

    • It is a finance bill which merely involves expenditure and does not include any of the matters specified in Article 110.
    • It is an Ordinary Bill and may be initiated in either House and the Rajya Sabha has full power to reject or ament it.
    • It is thus apparent that all Money Bills are Financial Bills but all Financial Bills are not Money Bills.

    Who decides the Bill is a Finance Bill?

    • The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is authorised to decide whether the Bill is a Money Bill or not.
    • Also, the Speaker’s decision shall be deemed to be final.

    Why Finance Bill is needed?

    • The Union Budget proposes many tax changes for the upcoming financial year, even if not all of those proposed changes find a mention in the Finance Minister’s Budget speech.
    • These proposed changes pertain to several existing laws dealing with various taxes in the country.
    • The Finance Bill seeks to insert amendments into all those laws concerned, without having to bring out a separate amendment law for each of those Acts.
    • For instance, a Union Budget’s proposed tax changes may require amending the various sections of the Income Tax law, Stamp Act, Money Laundering law, etc.
    • The Finance Bill overrides and makes changes in the existing laws wherever required.

    What changes can be made via Finance Bill?

    • The most awaited changes in the tax proposals in the Union Budget usually pertain to personal income tax.
    • For taxpayers across the country, the most awaited moment is when the Finance Minister’s speech announces an increase in minimum income threshold, or declares any changes in income tax slabs to make it less costly, or other exemptions.
    • In addition, there might be changes in the rules, procedures, and deadlines for filing tax returns or the payment of tax itself.
    • For instance, there might be a change in the amount of penalty for missing the deadline. Those proposed changes would typically need to be brought in via amending the Income Tax Act.
    • Among other changes, the FM may propose in the Union Budget with regard to the rates or processes for payment or administration of stamp duty levied on various instruments.
    • Such a change would need to be brought in via an amendment to the Stamp Act.
    • Since the introduction of GST, there is no amendment to indirect taxes in the Union Budget, since that is under the purview of the GST Council.