THE HINDU – CURRENT NOTE 01 APRIL
SC: Ban on liquor sale covers hotels, bars too
“Exempting such establishments near National Highways will dilute objective”
•Confirming its verdict on making National and State highways liquor-free zones, the Supreme Court clarified on Friday that its prohibition on the sale of liquor within a distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of these main thoroughfares is not restricted to liquor shops alone but also includes other larger establishments.
•The court said exempting establishments other than “shops involved in sale of liquor”, which includes bar-attached hotels, wine and beer parlours dotting highways, would amount to dilution of the objective of its December 15 judgment to prevent drunk driving, one of the major killers plaguing Indian roads.
Constitutional value
•“The pernicious nature of the sale of liquor along the National and State highways cannot be ignored. Drunken driving is a potent source of fatalities and injuries in road accidents. The Constitution preserves and protects the right to life as an over-arching constitutional value,” the 32-page clarification order observed.
•The court said its duty to protect public health and safety clearly overrides the interests of liquor traders.
•The order was authored by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud for a Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao. The Bench had heard 68 applications over two days. They all wanted the court to modify its December judgment.
•The December verdict had directed States and Union Territories to stop the grant of licences to establishments located within 500 metres of national and State highways. April 1, 2017 was fixed as the date for phasing out existing liquor licences.
Counters AG’s opinion
•The clarification runs completely counter to a legal opinion given recently by Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi to the Kerala government that the December 15 judgment’s ambit was confined only to retail liquor outlets and not bigger establishments like bar-attached hotels and wine-beer parlours along highways in the State.
•A petition filed by former Kerala Assembly Speaker V.M. Sudheeran, represented by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, had alleged that a Cabinet decision had already been taken to extend the liquor licences on the basis of the A-G's opinion.
•The court however, reduced the liquor-free zone along highways from 500m to 220m in areas with a population of 20,000 or less. The court reiterated that liquor vends should neither be accessible nor visible from the highways. So in areas in Himachal Pradesh, liquor can be sold beyond outside 220m from the highways.
•In a further partial relief, the court took note of the fact that excise licence period varies in different States and extends beyond April 1, 2017. In such States, the court extended the deadline for phasing out the licences to September 30, 2017.
•So, in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, where the excise licences are valid till October 1 and June 30, respectively, there will be no ban on highway liquor sales till September 30, 2017.
•However, the court denied Tamil Nadu any relief. It dismissed the State's request to reduce the no-liquor zone from 500 m to 100 m and held that the ban will start from April 1 itself.
•Yet north-eastern States of Sikkim and Meghalaya got a full exemption from the 500-m no-liquor zone ban after the court took into consideration their hilly terrain and also the fact that 82 percent of its area was forest land and over 90 percent of its liquor shops would be closed if the ban was imposed strictly in its original form.
Can’t ban MPs from other professions: SC
Says conflict of interest argument makes sense but court cannot frame policy
•“There are doctors who became IAS officials and engineers who are diplomats,” Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar said, finding no merit in a petition to ban legislators from practising other professions, especially law. A Bench, led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar, dismissed a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay despite strong arguments raised by the latter that beedi or liquor barons eventually become MPs and sit on committees to influence the destiny of their businesses.
•“This is a serious conflict of interest... There are politicians who sign at Parliament and come here to appear for private clients... is that not conflict of interest? They get salaries as parliamentarians, why should they come as lawyers,” Mr. Upadhyay argued. The Chief Justice said he had a valid point, but the court could not frame policies.
•“Principally your arguments make sense, but how can we frame policy? If there is a law, we will support it,” Chief Justice Khehar said.
•Mr. Upadhyay said in his petition that the restriction imposed on public servants and judges against engaging in other professions should apply to lawmakers.
•Many legislators who doubled up as advocates were even retainers of big corporate bodies’ entities, thus giving rise to a situation of conflict of interest between their constitutional duties as legislator and lawyer meant to vouchsafe the private interests of their clients.
Call for uniform policy
•“We cannot curb corruption without having a uniform policy relating to conflict of interest and restricting our legislators from practising other professions as similar to the restriction imposed on public servants and members of the judiciary ... many lawmakers hold corporate retainership and defend their lawbreaker clients in courts. It is not only immoral, unethical, but also a violation of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules,” Mr. Upadhyay contended.
Primary role
•“With 543 Lok Sabha MPs representing more than 1.3 billion people, a Member of Parliament on an average represents more than 2.25 million people. Similarly, a Rajya Sabha MP is the voice of his State in Parliament and, as such, has a very important role in our federal political system. The primary role of an MP is as a legislator.
•“Thus, MPs must attend Parliament every day and dedicate themselves full-time for the welfare of people,” the petition said.
1,900 Indians under probe for links to Panama firms
They control or have financial interests in 3,000 companies incorporated there
•The Income-Tax Department has launched a probe into the suspected undisclosed foreign assets held by more than 1,900 persons of Indian origin, who either control or have financial interests in close to 3,000 companies incorporated in Panama.
•A scrutiny of the data, provided by the Enforcement Directorate, revealed that several high net-worth individuals had interests in as many as 20 companies.
•Among the prominent names in the list is that of Vijay Mallya, said to be linked to Panama-based Vee Tee International Inc, set up in August 1992. Incidentally, the company’s name had earlier surfaced during the probe into the offshore business interests and assets of Mr. Mallya.
•The list of 1,900 is in addition to the over 400 individuals already being examined by the I-T Department after their names surfaced in papers leaked from a Panama law firm last year.
Registered in tax haven
•In the Panama Papers case, almost 90% of the companies were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and the rest were in Switzerland and the U.K. jurisdictions. However, these companies were set up in Panama itself.
Notify HIV-hit children as disadvantaged group: SC
This will enable them access to free education
•In a significant step, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered State governments to consider issuing a notification under the Right to Education law, declaring children living with/affected by HIV as a ‘disadvantaged group’ deserving additional rights to help them gain free and compulsory education, a fundamental right under the Constitution.
•A Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and D.Y. Chandrachud gave States four weeks to issue the notification under Section 2 (d) of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009, which mandates the State governments concerned to issue a notification that a child belongs to a disadvantaged group based on reasons ranging from caste, social, cultural, linguistic, geographical, gender, etc. The Act makes education compulsory for children between six and 14 years of age.
•The Bench ordered that those States which are “unwilling” to issue a notification under Section 2 (d) should file an affidavit “explaining why they consider it unnecessary” to inform that children living with HIV do not belong to a disadvantaged group. The court however noted that at least 11 States have already issued the notification.
•The order was based on a petition filed by NGO Naz Foundation (India) Trust, represented by senior advocate Anand Grover, which pointed out that HIV-hit children face denial of admission, outright expulsion, segregation, breach of confidentiality to being given chores like cleaning toilets. According to NACO estimates in 2012-2013, around 20.9 lakh people were living with HIV in 2011. Children less than 15 years of age account for seven percent (1.45 lakh) of all infections.
Connected by air: Udan to tap on India’s civil aviation opportunities
Udan has started the process of tapping India’s civil aviation opportunities fully
•Six months from now, 43 cities will be mainstreamed on India’s flight connectivity grid, an outcome of the Udan scheme launched to spur regional flights covering distances up to 800 km. These include a dozen airports where limited but irregular flights operate, and as many as 31 destinations that are not connected at all despite the existence of airport facilities. The scale of India’s untapped civil aviation opportunities can be gauged by the fact that these constitute less than 10% of India’s inactive airports/airstrips — 394 out of 450 are dormant currently. The Udan scheme is a critical component of the national civil aviation policy unveiled last June. It offers viability gap funding to operators to fly smaller aircraft to such airports with a commitment to price tickets for at least half of the seats at ₹2,500 for an hour-long flight. In the first round of bids, 11 new or existing airline operators pitched for more than 200 routes. The Centre has approved 27 proposals from five players, adding 128 routes to India’s aviation map. The estimate is that this will add 6.5 lakh new seats with a subsidy of ₹200 crore.
•The most heartening aspect is that these include six proposals for 11 routes that don’t seek any subsidy under the scheme, proving there is an untapped economic potential. The benefits for tourist hotspots such as Agra, Shimla, Diu, Pathankot, Mysuru and Jaisalmer — that would now be just a short flight away, replacing cumbersome road or rail journeys — are obvious. But the significant multiplier effects of aviation activity, including new investments and employment creation for the local economies of other destinations could be equally profound. Provided this model is sustainable and more regional flights come up under the scheme, the availability of slots at larger airports that would emerge as hubs could become an issue — particularly at capacity-constrained airports such as Mumbai. The second airport at Navi Mumbai may help ease congestion, but that is still years away. In cities where new airports have been developed, such as Bengaluru, abandoned old facilities could be revived as dedicated terminals for low-cost and regional flights. Separately, new no-frills airports must be encouraged where traffic is expected to hit saturation point in coming years. Recently, four new foreign investors and a few domestic players have expressed interest in managing operations at state-run airports such as Jaipur and Ahmedabad. This marks a revival in investor interest after a long lull. It is time to revisit provisions that offer existing private operators of large airports (burdened by debt) the right of first refusal on any new airport proposed within 150 km. Most interested bidders for the Navi Mumbai airport stayed away over this clause. Last but not the least, this development must start a rethink within the Indian Railways, as it could now lose traffic on some routes.
Sharpening a pro-choice debate
The Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients Bill is a good point to take the euthanasia-related debate forward
•The introduction of a Bill in Parliament to govern end-of-life medical care appears to have been missed in all the din of political developments. Tabled by MP Baijayant Panda, the Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients Bill, 2016 contains several prominent features: it recognises the validity of advance medical directives by terminally-ill patients, which physicians will be bound to respect while treating them, and it also emphasises the need to account for palliative care when making end-of-life-care decisions. However, the provisions most likely to attract popular attention are those permitting physician-assisted suicide for terminally-ill patients.
•In its judgments in the Aruna Shanbaug and Gian Kaur cases, the Supreme Court has stated that the law currently only permits passive euthanasia, i.e. withdrawal of life-saving treatment. The administration of a lethal drug dose by a physician (active euthanasia) or by the patient herself (assisted suicide) would constitute attempts to commit or abet suicide under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, in both these judgments, the court stated explicitly that assisted suicide was only illegal in the absence of a law permitting it. Therefore, assisted suicide could be legalised if legislation was passed by Parliament to that effect.
Right to assisted suicide
•The first efforts have been made in this direction through this Bill, which recognises the right of terminally-ill patients to withhold and refuse medical treatment, and to express their desire to a medical practitioner to assist them in committing suicide. It does not permit active euthanasia. Once the practitioner is satisfied that the patient is competent and has taken an informed decision, the decision will be confirmed by a panel of three independent medical practitioners. This Bill is a bold and welcome step in many respects, and is a significant improvement over the draft Ministry Bill that it is based on. It moves away from decision-making based on the ‘best interests’ of the patient and recognises the right to die with dignity. However, there is need to clearly think through some of the provisions in this Bill and the procedures it sets out.
•This Bill adopts a modified definition of “terminal illness” from a draft Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients Bill, which was released by the Ministry of Health in May last year. However, like the draft Bill it is based on, it defines the term as a persistent and irreversible vegetative condition under which it is not possible for the patient to lead a “meaningful life”. The use of this subjective phrase would require second parties to decide whether a person in a permanent vegetative state is living a life that is meaningful. Persons with disabilities, in particular, are likely to be disadvantaged by such an understanding of “terminal illness”. It also gives rise to the practical question of how a person in a permanent vegetative state will be able to self-administer the lethal dosage of drugs to commit suicide.
•In the case of incompetent patients, or competent patients who have not taken an informed decision about their medical treatment, the Bill lays down a lengthy and cumbersome process before any action can be taken for the cessation of life. Once the medical practitioner and independent panel are satisfied that euthanasia is medically advisable, permission would have to be sought from the High Court. The practitioner would then have to receive clearance from the Medical Council of India (MCI). Such a procedure is advisable for an act like assisted suicide which might be prone to abuse. However, it would be a violation of patient autonomy if it were applied to instances of merely withholding or withdrawing medical treatment. Decisions on such withdrawal are made often and on a regular basis, and the procedure prescribed must not tie up the medical practitioner and family of the patient in litigation. Further, given that the MCI has been affected by corruption and institutional incompetence, and likely to be overhauled completely, it is not advisable to place complete reliance on it. Ideally, its role should ideally be limited to framing guidelines and providing guidance when requested.
The way ahead
•Efforts to allow assisted suicide have gained traction around the world in the recent past, with Albania, Colombia and Germany and Switzerland having legalised it in various forms. Even in India, the debate over euthanasia, patient autonomy and the interests of the state in preserving the life of persons is currently playing out in various fora, including the courts and the executive. While the ethical implications of these acts have been debated endlessly, there is a need to debate how such a law would be operationalised. This will help to ensure the constitutionally guaranteed right to bodily integrity and autonomy, and to minimise misuse of the law. This Bill acts as a great starting point, and must take these debates into account to be implemented effectively.
India to support resistance to protectionism at G20 meet
•Despite a formal statement by the world’s largest economies being silent on concerns over protectionist measures, India — which was a part of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting on March 17-18 — said Friday that it strongly supported ‘resistance’ to all forms of protectionism.
•“India strongly supports resistance to all forms of protectionism, and is fully with Germany (which is holding the G20 Presidency) on measures to open up trade in goods and services,” said Jayant Narlikar, Deputy Secretary, Finance Ministry and a member of the G20 India Secretariat, at an event organised by the German Embassy.
•Meanwhile, Andreas Lux, Head of G20 Presidency team (global economy / framework for growth), German Federal Ministry of Finance, said the failure to incorporate the sentence — “we will resist all forms of protectionism” — in the March 17-18 meeting communique was a “major setback for us (Germany) and India.”
•A communique issued at an earlier meeting in 2016 had included that phrase. Reports had said the phrase was dropped from the March communique as it did not receive U.S. support. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was quoted as having said the new administration considered that “the historical language was not relevant.”
•Referring to the March 17-18 meeting communique, which had only stated “We are working to strengthen the contribution of trade to our economies”, Mr. Lux said, “We hope for a much more positive language against protectionism at the Hamburg meeting (G20 leaders summit in July).”
‘Ability to survive’
•Mr. Lux said G20 had the ability to cope with setbacks and survive them, adding that: “Lots of people in the new U.S. administration may not be used to (working on ) international cooperation... we will learn from them and they will learn from us... we are still quite optimistic (on ensuring resistance to protectionism),” he added.
•On expansion of the G20, he said there were no such plans currently, adding, however, that the G20 had been conducting a lot of outreach activities in countries, especially in Africa.
•Mr. Narlikar said issues of interest to India included ensuring ease of mobility of skilled professionals across the world. “There is a lot of talk about ‘free movement of capital’. We (India) are keen on free movement of labour, especially high-skilled labour, and we are ready to work with other G20 members on that.”
•India is also keen on ensuring energy access. “Every household needs to be given some kind of energy access. We know that eliminating (fossil fuel) subsidies which are inefficient and promoting wasteful consumption is important, and we even have direct benefit transfer scheme. However, we cannot agree to any timeline to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies,” Mr. Narlikar said.
