aditya
13:40
📰 Why do you need the ‘colonial law’ of sedition after 75 years of Independence, CJI asks govt.
The law, used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, is prone to misuse by the government, says Chief Justice N.V. Ramana
•Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, in what may be an unprecedented judicial criticism of the way the sedition law is used by the government to crush liberties, asked why a colonial law used against Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak continued to survive in the law book after 75 years of Independence.
•“Sedition is a colonial law. It suppresses freedoms. It was used against Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak... Is this law necessary after 75 years of Independence?” Chief Justice Ramana, heading a three-judge Bench, orally addressed Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
•The CJI said sedition or Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code was prone to misuse by the government.
•“The use of sedition is like giving a saw to the carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself,” Chief Justice Ramana lashed out.
•The CJI’s oral statement in open court takes a significant note amidst rising public denouncement of Central and State law enforcement agencies using the sedition law to silence dissent, muffle free expression and for denying bail to incarcerated activists, journalists, students and civil society members. A number of petitions have been filed highlighting the “chilling effect” sedition has on the fundamental right of free speech. The CJI’s remarks has also opened the floor for debate and introspection on the court’s own judgment in 1962, in the Kedar Nath case, which upheld Section 124A.
•The CJI drew the attention of the Attorney General to the conviction rates under sedition.
•“If you look at the history of use of this Section 124A of IPC, you will find that the conviction rate is very low. There is misuse of power by executive agencies,” the Chief Justice said.
‘Stale laws’
•The CJI asked the government why it did not throw out the sedition law along with the hundreds of “stale laws” it had expunged from the statute books.
•“Your government is taking out a lot of stale laws from the law books, why have they not looked into this,” Chief Justice Ramana asked Mr. Venugopal.
•People had suffered and were scared of the misuse of the sedition law, Chief Justice Ramana said.
•“We are not blaming any particular government or State. But do look at how Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is continuing to be used... How many unfortunate people have suffered? And there is no accountability for all this...” he noted.
•The CJI said the sweeping powers of Section 124A gives even a village police officer carte blanche to trample on the right to liberty and free speech of ordinary citizens.
•“If a police officer wants to fix anybody in a village for something, he can use Section 124A... People are scared. Our concern is misuse of the law and the lack of accountability. Why has it continued in the statute book even after 75 years of our Independence,” Chief Justice Ramana asked the government’s law officers repeatedly.
•The Chief Justice said the Supreme Court would “definitely look into this Section 124A”.
‘Grave situation’
•“The situation on the ground is grave... If one party does not like what the other is saying, Section 124A is used... It is a serious threat to the functioning of individuals and parties,” Chief Justice Ramana noted.
•Mr. Venugopal submitted that the court need not strike down Section 124A.
•“It is enough to see if there were any excesses in its use and limit the Section to its real purpose… That would be enough,” Mr. Venugopal said.
•The Bench issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by retired Army General S.G. Vombatkere, represented by advocates P.B. Suresh and Prasanna S., to quash Section 124A.
•In its order, the court has also issued notice to the government on a writ petition filed jointly by the Editors Guild of India and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi. The Bench noted that two other petitions filed by Kishore Chandra Wangkemcha and M/s Aamoda Broadcasting Company Private Limited, the latter against the Andhra Pradesh government, is pending before the Supreme Court. Both cases concern sedition charges.
•A Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit had issued notice in the Wangkemcha case. The Aamoda petition is before a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The CJI Bench on Thursday said all these petitions posed "similar questions of law". The Bench ordered the cases to be listed before an appropriate Bench for hearing.
•Meanwhile, senior journalist Arun Shourie and NGO Common Cause, both represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, has moved the Supreme Cour to quash Section 124A. Their petition contended that a "presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or body".
📰 Centre proposes simpler drone rules
Fresh regulations abolish need for large number of approvals
•NEW DELHI: Simplified drone rules, which abolish the need for a large number of approvals, are in the offing in the country.
•The Ministry of Civil Aviation on Wednesday released Draft Drone Rules, 2021, for public consultation until August 5.
•The rules will replace the Unmanned Aircraft System Rules, 2021, notified on March 12, 2021.
•The number of forms to be filled to seek authorisation before operating a drone has been reduced from 25 to six, according to a statement issued by the Ministry.
•While most drones will need a unique identification number, a certificate of airworthiness, a remote pilot licence for the person controlling the drone and prior permission, no such approvals will be required for drones used for research and development by entities and educational institutions recognised by the Central government, State governments or Union Territory Administrations, start-ups recognised by Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade and drone manufacturers having a Goods and Service Tax Identification Number.
•Unlike the previous rules, which required drone operators to have a principal place of business within India, and the chairman and at least two-thirds of its directors were required to be citizens of India, in the new proposed rules there are no such restrictions for foreign-owned companies registered in India.
•However, import of drones and drone components will be regulated by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade.
•Drones will also not need security clearance before registration or licence issuance.
📰 Financial inclusion is a policy priority: Shaktikanta Das
‘Inclusivity bolsters financial stability’
•To make the post-pandemic recovery more inclusive and sustainable, financial inclusion would continue to be a policy priority for the RBI, Governor Shaktikanta Das said at The Economic Times Financial Inclusion Summit on Thursday.
•Considering the role played by microfinance in bridging gaps in the last mile, a consultative document for harmonising regulatory frameworks for various regulated lenders in microfinance had been issued recently, he said.
•“The primary objective is to address the concerns relating to over-indebtedness of microfinance borrowers; enable market mechanism to rationalise the interest rates; and empower the borrowers to make an informed decision by enhancing transparency of loan pricing,” Mr. Das said.
•Stating that financial inclusion promoted inclusive growth by making financial services, including credit and other safety nets, available to the bottom of the pyramid, he said lessons from the past and experiences gained during the COVID-19 pandemic clearly indicated that financial inclusion and inclusive growth reinforce financial stability.
•Greater financial literacy would enable banks, NBFCs, and MFIs to enhance their customer base and products and diversify their balance sheets, he added.
•Mr. Das said payment systems were seen as the lifeline of an economy. They were increasingly being recognised as a means of achieving financial inclusion and ensuring that economic benefits reach the bottom of the pyramid, the RBI Governor added.
Digital adoption
•Highlighting the rapid adoption of digital payments in the country, he said the number of Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPI) had increased at a compounded annual growth rate of 53% from 41 crore in May 2017, to 226 crore in May 2021.
•“The trends indicate that such instruments have become immensely popular for making small-value payments,” he said.
•The extent of digital penetration, he said, could be gauged from the fact that, each day on an average during June 2021, payment systems in India had processed more than 15 crore transactions amounting to almost ₹4.5 lakh crore per day.
•The UPI platform facilitating payment transactions through smartphones had revolutionised the payments landscape in India, he said. “UPI has witnessed over 280 crore transactions in June 2021. Globally, there has been a lot of interest in UPI,” Mr. Das added.
📰 Ending the impasse: On India-China ties
India, China cannot put the distrust of the past behind without resolving the border issue
•India’s relations with China have been in deep freeze for over a year. The crisis on the LAC remains unresolved, and tens of thousands of soldiers from both sides still remain deployed in forward areas. Against this backdrop, Wednesday’s meeting between External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Dushanbe assumes significance. Their last meeting in Moscow, in September 2020, took place in the aftermath of the Galwan Valley clash and at a time of a tinderbox-like situation south of Pangong Lake, with troops and artillery dangerously close to each other on the heights of the Kailash Range. A political agreement then paved the way for both sides to disengage in February, but the agreements in Galwan and Pangong Lake, where both sides have put in place no-patrolling zones, have not been followed at other disputed sites, in Depsang, Demchok, Gogra and Hot Springs.
•Will the Dushanbe meeting similarly break the impasse? The initial readouts from both sides do not inspire confidence. Mr. Jaishankar said the unresolved situation was “visibly impacting the relationship in a negative manner” and “assessing the overall relationship”, it was peace on the border that provided “the foundation for the development of ties since 1988” when the post-1962 freeze ended. Mr. Wang did not appear to view the boundary dispute with the same seriousness, instead calling for it to be kept “in an appropriate place” while “expanding the positive momentum of bilateral cooperation”. Where both sides did agree is in their assessment, as Mr. Jaishankar put it, that “a prolongation of the existing situation was not in the interest of either side”. The difference from Moscow to Dushanbe is that China, which last year was equally concerned after India’s counter-deployments to take the heights of the Kailash Range where even shots were fired in warning — the first firing since 1975 — now appears to be in no hurry to restore the status quo elsewhere. India, having declared that normalcy cannot be possible without disengagement and de-escalation and signalled its intent with measures including scrutiny on Chinese investments — bilateral trade, however, is still booming beyond pre-pandemic levels thanks to huge imports of medical supplies — will now have to stay the course to underline its resolve on restoring the status quo. Mr. Wang also said that Beijing’s “strategic judgment on China-India relations remains unchanged”. Whether China’s PLA, which has been dragging its feet on negotiations to restore the LAC status quo since February, shares that judgement remains to be seen. The only way for Beijing to demonstrate that is indeed the case will be to resume negotiations on the LAC at the earliest. Unless a full restoration of peace and a de-escalation on the borders happen, the relations in all other spheres will remain cloaked in distrust.
📰 Growing precarity: On fuel prices and rising inflation
Fuel levies must be cut to ease the burden on consumers reeling under rising inflation
•The latest inflation data based on retail and wholesale prices are yet again flashing cautionary signals as spiralling costs continue to dog the pandemic-hit economy. CPI-based inflation stayed stuck above the RBI’s 6% upper bound for the second straight month, with June’s provisional annualised 6.26% only a touch slower than the six-month high pace of 6.3% registered in May. Inflation at the retail level was largely propelled by sharp increases in key food item prices including oils and fats, which surged almost 35% from a year earlier and gained 2.9% from May’s levels, as also egg, which jumped 19.4% year-on-year and 6.2% from the preceding month, and pulses and products, which climbed 10% from June 2020. As RBI officials reviewing the State of the Economy in the central bank’s monthly Bulletin released on Thursday observed, fuel inflation, which excludes petrol and diesel, surged to a record 12.7% in June driven by LPG, kerosene and the rural poor’s mainstay, firewood and dung-cake. And, disconcertingly, LPG and kerosene prices have also registered increases so far in July. Transport costs remain persistently high as both petrol and diesel prices continue to rise, with the former now averaging ₹102.92 a litre in the four major metros as on July 12, and diesel at almost ₹94, according to the Bulletin article. With global crude oil trending higher, the unabated rise in domestic transportation costs is bound to reflect in retail prices of farm produce and products shipped from factories.
•Wholesale price inflation also stayed stubbornly high at 12.07% in June, after May’s record 12.94%, as price gains in the fuel and power category soared 32.8% annually, and those of manufactured products edged up to 10.88%. Medium and small-scale industrial units, already struggling to cope with the pandemic’s impact on demand and overall finances, now face rising raw material and input costs. With manufacturing activity contracting in June for the first time in 11 months as per IHS Markit’s PMI, the economy is visibly struggling to regain traction in the wake of the second wave, which has eroded demand and consumptive capacity in both urban and rural markets. Add to this the looming possibility that this year’s monsoon rains may be less than adequate, either temporally or spatially, disrupting agricultural output and the outlook for both inflation and growth gets significantly clouded. With cumulative rainfall since June 1 being 5% below average and 12 weather subdivisions spanning 37% of the country’s area experiencing deficient rainfall as on July 15, and the pandemic still nowhere near under control, the risk of precarity and hardship rising in the rural hinterland is very real. The Government must, at the very least, cut fuel taxes to ease the burden on consumers.
📰 A strong Indian state must be humane too
Having an audit system to review cases such as Fr. Stan Swamy’s will also help reassure international liberal opinion
•Father Stan Swamy passed away in a Mumbai hospital last week, on July 5, while his case for bail was going on in the Bombay High Court. On being informed of his death, the Bench hearing his case is reported to have observed, “with all humility at our command, this is a shocking news. We passed that order, to take him to the hospital of his choice. We have no words to express our condolences....” Fr. Swamy, 84, was suffering from Parkinson’s disease, bilateral hearing loss, back pain and “generalised weakness”. His health had begun to deteriorate since his incarceration in Mumbai, after his arrest on October 8, 2020, by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), in the Bhima Koregaon case. On May 28 he was moved to a private hospital, following a court order, but his condition had worsened. Meanwhile the court had continued hearing his bail application but not arrived at a decision.
Global criticism
•Like the Bombay High Court Bench, Fr. Swamy’s many admirers in India and abroad would have been “shocked” at his death while still in custody. This important fact — that he continued to be in custody in Mumbai — will not be missed by those who followed the case, including human rights organisations abroad, for Fr. Swamy had wished to be allowed to return to Jharkhand, but tragically that was not to be. Naturally, even then the law would have taken its course in respect of the trial.
•The Indian system’s treatment of Fr. Swamy has attracted substantial and pointed criticism from significant international quarters. Mary Lawlor, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders, after his death, plainly made the accusation that he was arrested on “false charges of terrorism”. The European Union’s Special Representative for Human Rights, Eamon Gilmore, did not go so far, but said that the European Union had been “raising his case repeatedly with the [Indian] authorities”. In a statement on July 6 on Fr. Swamy’s death, Liz Throssell, the spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, stated, “We are deeply saddened and disturbed” and went on to describe him as a “long standing activist, particularly on the rights of indigenous peoples and other marginalised groups”. The United States State Department expressed sadness at his death and called him a “Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist”. And, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom “condemned in the strongest terms the deliberate neglect and targeting by the government of India that led to the death of Father Stan Swamy… long-time human rights defender”.
A defence that is wooden
•While denying him bail, a special NIA court concluded that the “material placed on record thus prima facie denote[d]” that Stan Swamy “was not only the member of the banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist) but he was carrying out activities further in the objective of the organisation which is nothing but to overthrow the democracy of the nation”. This opinion clearly has not been taken into consideration nor has it been found to be credible by international observers. Fr. Swamy has continued to be described as a human rights activist.
•It is also doubtful that the defence of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), that “Authorities in India act against violations of law and not against legitimate exercise of rights. All such actions are strictly in accordance with the law”, will find many takers in respect of the Fr. Swamy case, both with regard to his arrest as well as denial of bail.
•In response to criticism in the case, the MEA, on July 6, also noted that “India’s democratic and constitutional polity is complemented by an independent judiciary, a range of national and state level Human Rights Commissions that monitor violations, a free media and a vibrant and vocal civil society. India remains committed to promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens (https://bit.ly/3kh4CCN)”.
•This, no doubt, is true as a general proposition. However, these words will inevitably be refracted through the prism of denial of bail to an ailing, very old man who was considered by influential sections of international opinion to have been an activist for the tribal people, assisting them in the preservation of their rights and their way of life. Also, inevitably, they will not be able to forget that it took almost a month for the jail authorities to provide a straw, sipper and winter clothes to Fr. Swamy, as Parkinson’s disease made it difficult for him to hold cups or glasses. The ‘straw and sipper’ may become a visual metaphor, for words too paint pictures. These aspects, among others, will raise questions about the MEA’s statement especially among Christian church groups abroad because Fr. Swamy was a Jesuit priest and it will not be unnatural for them to take some interest in the matter.
Perceived path of the state
•All this will also be viewed in the context of the events of the past few years, when international liberal opinion has been deeply concerned by what it perceives as the direction taken by Indian society and polity. There is of course no question of pandering to such opinion on India’s core security interests in issues relating to terrorism from abroad and indiscriminate violence driven by ideology-driven direct perpetrators of violence against the state causing, inter alia, the loss of innocent lives. However, diplomacy requires engagement with international liberal opinion, not wooden and inflexible assertions of general principles only. The Government has refused to engage with either domestic or global liberal opinion.
•What has to be realised is that even as the national public culture and mores seek to shed the vestiges of both their anglicised and Persianate past, it needs to retain the old value of caring. Indeed, a strong and effective state can and must also be a humane state, which it hardly was in the case of Fr. Swamy. When India embarked on the great national enterprise after Independence, it did so on the principle that it would achieve development not through an authoritarian polity but a democratic and liberal one, despite the obstacles and challenges that lay in the way.
For the superior judiciary
•Yes, special laws were, and continue to be required to meet the challenges that arise from violence that cannot be confronted under the ordinary criminal statute. Their application, however, requires constant review. As jail is the rule and bail the exception for those charged under special laws, there should be very strong evidence to substantiate these charges. But in some cases, this is obviously not so. Consequently, the accused while languishing in jail for many years are acquitted during trials indicating that there was insufficient evidence ab initio to lock them up. This is unacceptable and the superior judiciary needs to redress the situation through an audit of such cases. Fr. Stan Swamy’s case should provide an impetus to put such an audit machinery in place as India approaches the 75th year of its Independence. It will also reassure international opinion that India is a responsive state.
📰 Interference an investigating officer can do without
Growing instances of judicial interference in an investigation are not only undesirable but also not sanctioned by law
•It is an accepted axiom in a democracy such as India that the Executive shall abide by the Constitution. By the same logic, the bureaucracy is answerable to the lawfully elected government. It is this unassailable legal position which keeps a check on police conduct in a democratic nation.
•Writing just after a Minneapolis police officer was sentenced in the United States, on June 25, to 22-and-a-half years in prison for the horrific murder of a hapless citizen, George Floyd, and the enormous media publicity it has received the world over — Floyd was videotaped in May 2020, that showed him dying as the officer was kneeling on his neck — my uneasy feeling is that government and public distrust of the police will further widen. Even a straightforward and law-abiding policeman will hardly be believed. The onus will be on him to prove that he is honest and humane.
•The Minneapolis court verdict will no doubt receive support from everyone who believes in a system of checks and balances. My question, however, is whether happenings of this kind and our own horrific episode in Sattankulam, Tamil Nadu, when in June 2020, a 58-year-old father and his 31-year-old son were subject to police brutality and died, justify further curbs on the police authority to investigate an established crime. I know well that I will be in the minority when I plead for at least a slightly kindlier view of police conduct and more latitude to them in the standard operating procedures which they follow, especially when they investigate a complicated crime.
Top court’s observation
•It is in this context that I cite a recent Supreme Court of India observation that courts have no authority to direct an investigating officer to in turn direct the arrest of any particular individual connected with a crime. This view should be examined in the background of growing instances of subordinate judicial officers, and even High Courts sometimes, directing the investigating officer to effect the arrest of a particular individual who has come to adverse notice as a suspect in the commission of a crime.
•I am happy that the highest court of the land has intervened in the matter. I have come across many instances of courts bullying police officers, asking why ‘x’ has been arrested and not ‘y’. Such directions cut at the roots of criminal justice ethics, because the bedrock of English jurisprudence that we have adopted with some modifications is the principle that anyone hauled up by law should be considered innocent unless he is proved guilty The direction to the police with regard to arrests during a criminal investigation is harmful to police morale and cuts at the roots of field policing. Court observations that smack of a lack of faith in police ability and integrity will make grass-root level policemen even more arbitrary than now and force them into carrying out questionable actions that will cast aspersions on an officer’s ability to think for himself.
•I strongly believe that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) vests sufficient discretion in the investigating officer to take such decisions as arrests and searches, and even the dropping of further action after registering a first information report
•Court interference — mind you, it is not intervention — in the day-to-day investigation is not only undesirable but is also not sanctioned by law. I am of the view that except for the Supreme Court, in whom the Constitution vests enormous authority and discretion which are not questionable, the lesser courts shall not give directions in the matter of arrests and searches.
•Courts should remember that the police are a well-established hierarchy that is obligated to ensure objectivity during a criminal investigation. Every investigation is supervised by at least two immediate senior officers. In the more important cases, there are a few more levels. It is their duty to ensure that every investigation is handled lawfully and impartially. Where supervisory officers fail in their duty because of sheer indolence or buckle under external pressure, they deserve to be pulled up by courts. But not before they are found guilty of indifference or malfeasance.
FIR is mandatory
•We need to educate the Executive and the common man that it is now well-established law that a first information report is not an act of charity to the aggrieved complainant. It is mandatory that every police station in the land should register a complaint under the relevant sections of a statute the moment a cognisable offence is made out in the complaint. The complaint may be false or frivolous in order to settle personal scores. But the basic requirement is registration.
•There is another safeguard against police misconduct. The CrPC makes it obligatory for the investigating officer to write a diary that details the action taken every day following registration. To such a diary are attached witness statements. When in doubt, the competent court, which already has a copy of the first information report, can demand to see the case diary. If the content of such a diary establishes the complicity of an individual, the court can question an investigating officer as to what he proposed to do on the basis of such evidence. Directing an investigating officer to go ahead with an arrest even before he has scrutinised the evidence collected is unsustainable in law.
Holding up a mirror
•I am not pleading the cause of police officers, many of whom are burdened with the task of unravelling the truth in a complicated occurrence. I also concede that there are many dishonest police officers at all levels who work overtime to sabotage an investigation with a view to saving an offender or are waiting to please a rank outsider for monetary consideration. To paint all police officers with the same brush is hugely unfair to a majority of investigators.
•To sum up, I would place the blame for the ills that affect the police, particularly in the area of criminal investigation, squarely at the door of many senior officers who are waiting to be browbeaten by outsiders or are looking for unethical avenues to aggrandise themselves.
