text:
Review: What are the latest Research Studies about COVID-19 in India saying?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 15, 2020
Ever since the onset of COVID-19 in India, efforts are on to understand the virus and its effects with more clarity. The latest issue of Indian Journal of Medical Research published a few of these studies. Here is a summary of the important ones.
The first COVID-19 case in India was reported on 30 January 2020. With an increase in the number of cases in subsequent months, the country went into a nation-wide lockdown in an attempt to mitigate the spread of virus and to ramp up testing and health care facilities to identify and treat the infection.
These early measures were based on the understanding of COVID-19 at that point of time and experiences from across the world. Over the last few months, India and the world are developing newer understanding of the virus, thanks to the continuous research being carried on varied aspects concerning COVID-19.
In an earlier story, we looked at some important COVID-19 research being carried out in India. We referred to the research articles published on ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research)’s Indian Journal of Medical Research.
In this story, we look at few other research studies undertaken recently and the relevant developments in understanding COVID-19. The latest issue of Indian Journal of Medical Research has published some of these studies.
Analysis of RNA sequences show evolution of Coronavirus spread & rapid spread of one of the types across globe.
The aim of this research study was to investigate the diversification and evolution of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, and its progression over the period of time and across geographical locations.
For this purpose, publicly available data on type definition based on whole-genome sequences of the SARS-CoV-2 between December’19 to March’2020 was considered. These samples were from 3636 patients across 55 countries.  The major findings of this study are:
Based on the results from the research study, it can be understood that :
A recent research study by CCMB (Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology) in Hyderabad has identified that A2a and A3I strains as being wide spread in India. This is based on the study of  more than 1,573 genomes from across India, with around 2,581 variants catalogued.
National Sero-Surveillance to monitor trend & spread of Infection in India
Examples from around the world like in the case of South Korea, New Zealand show that active case finding, testing and contact tracing are key in minimising the spread of COVID-19. There is large uncertainty regarding the extent of the population that is infected by COVID-19 infection, with reports and data suggesting that a significant proportion of the infected population remain asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic.
Hence, surveillance is key in enabling tracing and testing of COVID-19 cases, but the scope would be limited if this is restricted to medical facility-based surveillance, as there are high chances that mild and asymptomatic cases are missed
Surveillance can be made more effective through household-targeted, antibody-based serologic testing, especially regarding the role of asymptomatic infection in driving transmission and would be able to effectively estimate the extant of infection in a given population.
Hence, ICMR has proposed to establish a community-based district-level Sero-surveillance system to monitor SARS-CoV2 infection in general population.
The initial survey would serve as a baseline to determine the sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. The subsequent rounds of survey would help in monitoring the trends of infection.
The protocol for the survey is as follows
Such a Sero-based community survey conducted in Spain was successful in providing insights about the spread of infection, especially asymptomatic cases. Finland, USA, France, Scotland, Sweden, Germany etc are among the countries which conducted serology based community surveys.
The results of the initial survey were recently announced by the government on 11 June 2020. The study found that
Development of indigenous IgG ELISA for the detection of COVID-19 antibodies
Most of the diagnostic tools available for Diagnosis of COVID-19 are mainly based on Molecular assays. WHO has recommended only ‘Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction’ as the diagnostic method to be used for COVID-19.
However, the rapid spread of the COVID-19 has created a need to use other testing methods. Serological assays are also used as a screening tool for surveillance. However, they are not recommended by WHO for case detection and are not part of WHO’s laboratory testing guidelines.
The burden of infection and the spread can be determined by using detection of IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by serological assays like ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay).
Development of such testing kits would be effective in detection and surveillance of COVID-19. ICMR-NIV (Pune) have attempted to develop and evaluate IgG-based ELISA for COVID-19.
After following this method, the developed ELISA was found to be 92.7% sensitive, 97.9% specific, robust and reproducible. The Positive predictive value was 94.44% and Negative predictive value was 98.14%.
As per ICMR Journal, this indigenously developed IgG ELISA was found to be sensitive and specific for the detection of anti-COVID-19 antibodies in serum samples. This can help in determining seroprevalence of the infection in population exposed to the virus.
Suggestions for Ophthalmologists in view of COVID-19 spread
Healthcare professionals are among the high-risk individuals for contacting COVID-19. Among others medical professionals, ophthalmologists are also identified to be at high risk of being infected by COVID-19.  The higher chance of risk is due to :
In view of this scope of risk, guidelines are being issued for Ophthalmologists to continue with their practice during this pandemic.
COVID-19 infection might impact multiple organs in the body
One of the initial assumptions regarding COVID-19 infection was that it effects the lungs and the respiratory system.  However, as more & more COVID-19 cases are being studied, it has been observed that COVID-19 virus does infect multiple other parts in the body.
In an interview given to News agency, the Director of AIIMS has confirmed that COVID-19 does infect multiple body parts. It has been observed that COVID-19 causes inflammation in the inner lining of the blood vessels, which leads to narrowing of their area. This causes clotting and blocking of the blood vessels. In few of the cases,  it has been observed that apart from lungs, kidneys have also been affected. As per a few international research studies, COVID-19 could affect Brain, Lungs, Heart, Blood Vessels, Kidneys  Liver & Gut.
Featured Image: Studies about COVID-19


text:
Review: What Type of Assessments Are Proposed in the National Curriculum Framework For School Education? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 27, 2023
The Union Ministry of Education recently released the Draft National Curriculum Framework for School Education. The draft proposes curricular frameworks in the areas of Early Childhood Care & Education (ECCE), School Education, Teacher Education and Adult Education. Here is a look at the proposed assessment structure for various levels of education.
The Union Ministry of Education recently released the Draft National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE). This is part of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which envisages to develop National Curriculum Frameworks in the areas of Early Childhood Care & Education (ECCE), School Education, Teacher Education and Adult Education.
As per the information provided by the government, the framework was developed through a participatory process of deliberations where in inputs were sought from diverse stake holders including teachers, parents, students, education institutions, scholars etc.
In continuation with this approach, the NCFSE released is only a pre-draft for which feedback is solicited and there are several rounds of discussions to be carried out before we have a finalised draft of the same.
The proposals in the pre-draft do offer a new framework for the school education system in India that emphasizes on a holistic approach with focus on developing critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving abilities among students.
One of the key areas where a new approach is envisaged is “Assessments”. Assessments provide valuable information on the student learning. There are established assessment methods in the current school education system. However, there are multiple apprehensions on the methodology and the viability of the same in ascertaining the true learning progress of the children. In this context, the new draft NCFSE proposes a new approach to conducting assessments. Here is a review of the same.
A new Four-stage schooling structure proposed in NEP 2020
A new Four-stage schooling structure envisaged in NEP 2020 forms the base for developing the National Curriculum Framework for School education. The curricular structure, content, pedagogy, assessments, etc. are defined based on this structure.
The existing schooling structure was a 10+2 system, where there were classes I to X followed by two years of further education before taking up an undergraduate programme. Year-end examinations in mostly written format were the main form of assessment. The Board exams are conducted for Class X and Class XII in the current 10+2 format.
The National Educational Policy (NEP) proposes a new 5+3+3+4 Curricular and Pedagogical structure for the ages 3 to 18 years.
The four stages are:
The NCFSE proposes a different approach for assessment at each of these stages.  NEP 2020 proposes a shift in the assessment of schooling system from a system that is summative and primarily tests rote memorization skills to one that is – regular & formative, competency based, promotes learning and development through analysis, critical thinking, conceptual clarity, etc. NCFSE highlights the challenges with the existing assessment system in place. It recognises that assessments have become mechanical and routinised, at best focussed on measuring rote learning and at worst being an intimidating process creating fear and creating labelling of students based on the marks scored.
As per NCF, written assessments are inappropriate for children up to class 2
Draft NCFSE notes that explicit tests and examinations are completely inappropriate as assessment tools for the foundational stage i.e., Pre-school to Class 2 and emphasises that the assessment methods should not add to any additional burden for the child. It suggests two important assessment methods for the foundation stage in the form of observations of the child and the analysing artifacts that the child has produced as part of their learning experience.
It further states that the assessment should enable recording and documentation and the progress of children should be described and analysed through systematic collection of evidence. A key aspect highlighted by NCF is that at this stage, the assessment tools ought to be a natural extension of the learning experience for the child.
The burden on the teacher is also highlighted, wherein NCF states that the assessment should not overly burden even the teacher and the teacher ought to have the autonomy to judiciously choose the appropriate tool for assessment.
Written tests, projects, presentations among others part of the assessment tools during Preparatory and middle stages
NCF proposes to introduce written tests during the preparatory stage i.e., Classes 3 to 5. However, it also stated that a variety of assessment methods including portfolios and self-assessments should also be used. Portfolios help to capture student progress holistically through their work and provides a reliable picture of their learning. NCF also suggests that Peer & self-assessment can be introduced to help students monitor their own learning.
It suggests for a comprehensive summative assessment at the end of Preparatory Stage which would assess student’s reediness to enter the Middle Stage where several new curricular elements are introduced. During the Middle Stage (Classes 6 to 8), more concepts are introduced in each subject and the focus of the curriculum moves to conceptual understanding and higher order capacities. Hence, NCF suggests classroom assessment techniques like projects, debates, presentations, experiments, investigations, role plays, etc. to be used to assess learning.
It also suggests regular summative assessments at logical intervals – year-end, term-end, or unit of learning-end. The assessments can be in the form of Multiple-choice questions and constructed responses i.e., short and long answers.
NCF also states that by the end of Middle Stage, there should be a comprehensive summative assessment of student achievement of competencies in each curricular area. Another key outcome from the assessment during the Middle Stage is to identify any special interest or inclination in specific curricular area that students may have demonstrated.
Comprehensive & regular assessment to be conducted during Secondary Stage
Developing a greater subject depth is one of the key aims during the secondary stage i.e., from Classes 9-12. Hence, NCF suggests comprehensive classroom assessments and regular summative assessments to be conducted. It also advises that assessments should focus on self-assessment where-in the students are encouraged to monitor their learning and use feedback to adjust, adapt and decide their own learning strategies.
One of the key changes proposed by NCF for the Secondary stage is the introduction of eight curricular areas – Humanities, Mathematics & Computing, Vocational Education, Physical Education, Arts, Social Science, Sciences, and Interdisciplinary. Instead of dividing the students into the traditional 3 streams – Science, commerce and humanities, the students are given an option to select choice-based courses of eight curricular areas.
Board examinations to be offered twice a year
NCF highlights the challenges with the current system of Board exams in Classes 10 and 12. It notes that these two certification examinations are not consistent in ascertaining the extent to which students have achieved competencies across the curricular areas.
It notes that the major challenges include:
Draft NCF has proposed a semester system to be implemented in Class 12 wherein the students have the opportunity to write the board exams twice. The final results will be a cumulative result of each of the disciplines that the student chooses based on the which the final certificate is provided. This approach of Modular Board exams is in contrast to the current single examination at the end of the year.
NCF states that its proposal that Board examinations be offered at least twice a year is to ensure that students have both enough time and opportunity to perform well. This will provide feasibility for the students to appear for a board examination in courses that they completed and feel ready. Meanwhile for Classes 9 & 10, the current structure of exams at the end of a year will be continued. For the Class 10 Board examinations, the students are required to clear eight subject examinations, which assess performance in two essential courses from each curricular area.

source: news-factly

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
WHO calls for building ‘Resilient Health Systems’ for Universal Health Coverage & Security
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 30, 2021
The WHO recently released a position paper titled ‘Building health systems resilience for universal health coverage and health security during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond’. The paper argues that countries must build on investments made and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to create a ‘new normal’ of renewed health policies and systems.
In this article, we look at the major recommendations put forward in World Health Organisation’s (WHO) position paper titled ‘Building health systems resilience for universal health coverage and health security during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond’.
The paper argues that countries must build on investments made and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic to create a ‘new normal’ of renewed health policies and systems.
The paper emphasises universal health coverage (UHC) and health security as being complementary goals. It provides rationale and recommendations for doing the same by the following means:
High non-COVID-19 morbidities due to new barriers, disruptions in essential healthcare
At the onset, the paper acknowledges setbacks in health gains and efforts to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) caused due to the Coronavirus pandemic. Even countries scoring well on traditional health security and universal health coverage (UHC) measures have struggled with responding to and managing the risks of this pandemic. The pandemic hit vulnerable populations particularly hard, and COVID-19 has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities even further.
New barriers to the demand for health care, such as restricted movements, reduced ability to pay and fear of infection, have posed additional and unprecedented challenges in public healthcare. Preliminary estimates suggest the total number of global deaths attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 due to, for example, interrupted vaccination programmes, maternal and child health services and non-communicable disease and mental health programmes are at least 3 million.
A WHO survey reported that 36 out of 70 countries had experienced disruptions in over 50% of their essential health services. As more evidence becomes available, it is probable that excess morbidity and mortality from non-COVID-19 conditions will be found to compare with COVID-19 figures, the paper suggests.
Moreover, the second round of a WHO’s Pulse survey revealed that over one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, substantial disruptions persist, with about 90% of countries still reporting one or more disruptions to essential health services, marking no substantial global change since the first survey conducted in the summer of 2020. Within countries, however, the magnitude and extent of disruptions have generally decreased. In 2020, countries reported that, on average, about half of essential health services were disrupted. In the first 3 months of 2021, however, they reported progress, with just over one-third of services now being disrupted.
To take a case in point, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) conducted surveys to compare the use of public health and nutrition services before, during and after COVID-19 lockdowns in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. The survey states that the pandemic caused disruptions to both the supply of and demand for health services that persisted past the lifting of lockdown measures.
During the lockdown, almost all services ceased. Only 4% of frontline health workers provided services at community health and nutrition events, 29% conducted home visits, 1% continued antenatal care, and 5% monitored child growth, corresponding to reductions in the provision of these services ranging from 50 to 99 percentage points. On the demand side, the study found a substantial reduction between 40 and 80 percentage points in household use of these services during the lockdown—without much improvement after it ended.
By July 2020 (post-lockdown), most services had resumed but their availability was still lower than during the pre-pandemic period. Despite extra efforts from frontline workers during and after lockdowns, beneficiaries remained fearful of COVID-19 infection and used those services at significantly lower rates than before the pandemic.
The resilience of essential healthcare as important as emergency response
In the backdrop of the above observations, a primary strong recommendation of the WHO’s position paper is that maintaining essential health services must be considered just as high a priority as ensuring the emergency response. Initial pandemic preparedness and response strategies gave inadequate attention to the potential consequences of disruption of essential services due to the repurposing of health system capacity and the introduction of new public health and social measures.
COVID-19 has also put a spotlight on chronic foundational gaps in health systems that have made service delivery vulnerable to disruption and a potential risk factor in transmission. It highlighted the weak PHC orientation of many systems including fragmented care, hospital-centric systems, low levels of health literacy, etc.
Thus, as the paper argues, it has become increasingly clear that traditional efforts to strengthen health systems have not ensured adequate investment in common goods for health. The countries that were better able to contain the virus with less collateral economic damage seem to be the ones that could draw on an effective public sector and on a form of governance that emphasized engagement of populations, communities, and civil society.
PCH for UHC Approach
To address the above concerns, the paper urges to adopt the primary health care (PHC) approach in tandem with essential public health functions (EPHFs). A PHC is the first point of contact between individual, community health and national systems; it constitutes a critical interface with health security and a precursor to health emergencies. A PHC-for-UHC approach would support health security by preventing outbreaks through immunization and maintenance of essential health and social care services while hospitals are overwhelmed.
There is a need for more explicit recognition of the role of PHC in all-hazards emergency risk management and the building of resilient health systems and communities. Emerging evidence indicates that PHC and associated hospital reform can contribute significantly to health security, improving the responsiveness of health systems through the provision of integrated public health and primary care capacity in the front line.
The paper argues that countries now have a momentous window of opportunity to do things differently and fulfil their commitment to strengthening health systems, building
on the PHC approach and investing in EPHFs.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought a huge political impetus and grassroots awareness to make health and resilience a top political priority. The global health community’s current challenge is thus to fully leverage this attention to ensure that countries reform, transform and upgrade their health systems and communities.
While chronic underfunding is common in many countries, there are countries where resources are not the only barrier. The cost of ensuring UHC and health security in 67 countries, as calculated by WHO, is extremely low compared with the cost of a crisis such as the current pandemic or future threats, including climate change.
Even the global cost of ensuring UHC and health security, as calculated by WHO, is extremely low compared with the cost of the pandemic and future threats such as climate change. Further, estimates concur that improving emergency preparedness is very affordable, with estimates ranging from less than USD 1 per person per year in low- and middle-income countries to between USD 1 and USD 5 per person per year – considerably less than any health emergency response.
Importance of PHCs in Kerala’s COVID-19 response
To take a case in point in India, Kerala’s success in managing the pandemic has been attributed to three things: an empowered local government system; a well-functioning primary healthcare network; and lessons from the Nipah virus.
Kerala has strengthened its efforts in primary healthcare over the last 15 years. With the Aardram mission, the State focused on preventive, promotive, and rehabilitative healthcare interventions. Over time, the interventions enshrined in the mission such as People-friendly Outpatient Services, re-engineering PHCs into FHCs (family healthcare centres), and standardization of services from primary care settings to tertiary settings played a key role in transforming primary healthcare centres.
In 1996, the Government of Kerala launched the People’s Plan Campaign (PPC), which devolved 35% of the state’s development budget from a centralised bureaucracy to local governments. By bringing primary and secondary healthcare came under the direct purview of local government, these funds helped districts improve the quality of care at primary health centres catering to their respective population’s needs. This system created strong accountability, better facilities over time, and a focus on service delivery at the primary health centre level.
The COVID-19 response plan in Kerala utilised the strong foundations of its PHCs. The PHC network across the state was empowered to:
The state’s efforts and competent COVID-19 response have been noted by various national and international organisations, including WHO. Though Kerala has been reporting a high number of cases over the last few months, the case fatality rate is low.
Address pre-existing inequalities, exacerbated by COVID-19
The pandemic has hit populations in situations of fragility, conflict, violence (FCV) and other vulnerabilities particularly hard. The paper estimates that the pandemic posed a particular threat for the estimated 25% of the global population living in FCV settings, where 60% of preventable maternal deaths, 53% of deaths in children under 5 years and 45% of neonatal deaths occur. While the health systems in these FCV settings were already struggling to meet basic health needs, now, the significant impact of containment measures and barriers has exacerbated the complex social, political and security contexts. It has made disease control, continuity of health service delivery, food security and inclusive governance an even greater challenge.
The paper highlights that all countries, regardless of income group (including those undergoing a chronic economic downturn), have populations with particular socioeconomic and health vulnerabilities, which must be addressed through health and social protection measures.
These measures should include removing financial barriers to high-quality health care (to ensure that people have access to coronavirus testing and treatment and other essential health services), enhancing income and job security, reaching out to those employed in the informal economy, and improving the delivery of social protection, employment, and other interventions.
Leverage tech and maintain consistent reliable healthcare communication
The paper emphasises that COVID-19 has shown how health systems must catch up with society by using innovative methods and new technologies. For instance, the demand for telemedicine existed before the pandemic, but its adoption has been accelerated to reduce health worker and patient contact and interruptions in treatment.
The pandemic has also driven research and innovation opportunities across the life sciences, digital health, medical technologies, vaccine development, therapeutics, and diagnostics and in self-care modalities. The paper suggests that countries will need to maintain an enabling environment to advance these developments, while also managing the evolving risks and challenges associated with them (e.g., privacy and inequity concerns).
For example, India’s Aarogya Setu contact-tracing app developed by a unique public-private partnership was plagued by concerns of data safety and user privacy. Experts in the field pointed out that the application poses serious privacy challenges because India currently lacks a comprehensive data protection law, surveillance, and interception laws.
Social media have been a major source of both credible information and misinformation; governments with community participation must learn to navigate them faster and more effectively. In this context, the paper recommends building and maintaining public trust through community engagement and participation is key.
In the backdrop of this, the report emphasised that clear, consistent, and reliable risk communication and proactive dialogue with communities helped to reduce public dissatisfaction and infodemic and increase their willingness to participate. Longstanding community health worker programmes and initiatives to build community resilience served as reliable platforms to contextualize measures to meet local needs.
Vaccine hesitancy serves as an example of a major mis-information hurdle faced by certain developed as well as developing countries. In India, fear of side-effects from newly developed vaccines, rumours about infertility and death post-vaccination, combined with the initial inconvenience (and also cost) of registration slots, and the absence of incentives for rural and urban poor etc. continue to fuel vaccine hesitancy.
To tackle the problem of health misinformation, Factly’s health microsite is designed to provide comprehensive information on the myths & rumours in various areas of health.
It also hosts well-researched & verified information to tackle health misinformation, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in the form of a Podcast, health misinformation report among other things.
Featured Image: Universal Health Coverage

created: October 30, 2021


text:
Review: WHO issues revised ‘Air Quality Standards’ after 15 years
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 27, 2021
Recently, the WHO released the revised guidelines for the ‘Air Quality Standards’. This is the first revision after the year 2005. The revised standards are stringent and reduce further, the limit of acceptable levels of air pollutants. Here is a review of these revised standards along with a status check of How India fares.
Air pollution has emerged as the single biggest environmental threat to human health as it contributes significantly to the disease burden. The disease burden is the highest in low and middle-income countries. According to WHO’s estimates, over 7 million deaths which mainly occur from non-communicable diseases can be attributed to the combined effects of ambient (outdoor) and household air pollution. Millions more end up being sick. Stroke, heart attacks, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are some diseases caused by exposure to air pollutants. In fact, new research has also indicated the association between prenatal exposure to high levels of air pollution and developmental delay at age three, as well as psychological and behavioural problems later in life such as symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety and depression.
WHO released revised guidelines for ‘Air Quality Standards’ after 15 years
Noting that air pollution can cause harm at much lower levels than previously thought, the WHO recently released revised air quality guidelines. The air quality guidelines are a set of evidence-based recommendations of limit values for specific air pollutants, developed to help countries achieve air quality for public health. Exceeding the stipulated levels will add a risk to public health. The WHO released the first set of guidelines for air quality in 1987 and since then, these have been updated in 1997 and 2005 on the basis of prevalent conditions and health studies, to ensure that the guidelines continue to be relevant. The guidelines also support policy formulation for air quality management across the world. Prior to the 2021 guidelines, the last global revision was released in 2005. The Air quality guidelines serve as a global target for national, regional and city governments to work towards improving their citizen’s health by reducing air pollution.
These guidelines are not legally binding
It should be noted that the guidelines are not legally binding. Governments across the world may use these guidelines as a reference, or in such ways depending on their economic capacity, technical capabilities, prevalent air quality management policies, and other social & political factors. Before adopting the WHO’s guidelines, the local conditions are taken into consideration by respective governments. Such considerations are important in the case of under-developed and developing countries where the technology and resources to fight pollution are less than compared to the developed countries.
Targets have been set for five common pollutants
The WHO’s latest guidelines are applicable worldwide to both outdoor and indoor environments. It recommends permissible pollution levels and interim targets for common air pollutants which not only affect human health but are also responsible for climate change. These are-
Further, the guidelines also include qualitative good practice recommendations for black carbon/elemental carbon, ultrafine particles (<=1um) and particles derived from sand and dust storms.
Short term exposure and long-term exposure targets have been set
The following table compares the 2005 and 2021 recommendations of air quality levels for the above-specified pollutants. These definitions help in understanding the table-
The revised guidelines are stringent in many aspects
According to the latest guidelines, the annual average for PM2.5 should not exceed 5 µg/m of air while the 24-hour average should not exceed 15 µg/mof air. In the 2005 guidelines, the limit for annual average was 10 µg/mand that for 24-hour average was 25µg/ m. Similarly, the annual average of PM10 should not exceed 15 µg/m of air while the 24-hour average should not exceed 45 µg/mof air. The earlier limits were 20 µg/m and 50 µg/m respectively.
Meanwhile, for O, the recommended level for a peak season has been set at 60 µg/ m (the average of daily maximum 8-hour mean ozone concentrations). This was not specified in the previous 2005 guidelines. Further, the average daily 8-hour concentration has not been revised and the limit continues to be 100 µg/m.
The new guidelines have also set levels for 24-hour levels of NOand CO. The 24-hour concentration of NO should not exceed 25 µg/m while of CO should not exceed more than 4 mg/m in the 24-hour period. At the same time, the annual NOlevel limit has been reduced from 40 µg/mto 10 µg/m. However, the 24-hour level of SOhas been increased from 20 µg/mto 40 µg/m.
90% of the World’s population lived in cities where the PM2.5 level was more than WHO’s 2005 limit
As explained previously, the WHO has further reduced levels of key air pollutants in the latest guidelines as compared to the 2005 ones. However, WHO stated that, in 2019, more than 90% of the world’s population lived in places where air quality levels exceed WHO’s 2005 air quality guidelines for annual mean PM2.5 concentration. Since the new guidelines are more rigid, a greater quantum of the population would be living in areas where these standards are not met. The implementation of the new guidelines will also be challenging for countries that adopt these recommendations.
India’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is lenient
India follows the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ambient air quality notified by the Central Pollution Control Board in 2009 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The NAAQS is more lenient and does not meet the WHO’s recommended standards. The levels stipulated by NAAQS exceed even the WHO’s recommended standards from 2005, and farther away from the 2021 guidelines. Even at these lower levels, many cities in India fail to even meet the targets under NAAQS, as per a government response in Lok Sabha in August 2021.  According to NAAQS, the limits set for the six pollutants seen earlier is as follows:
It may be time for India to revise NAAQS
As per estimates, most Indian metros and big cities would have particulate matter levels at more than 5-fold and in some cases more than 15-fold compared to the latest WHO standards. Many Indian cities find their place in the top 100 most polluted cities in the world. Since air pollution has become an important public health concern, it is time to revise the NAAQS.
The government has been implementing the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) since 2019 as a national-level strategy.  The NCAP targets to achieve a 20 to 30% reduction in particulate matter by 2024 across the country. The long-term goal of NCAP is to meet the prescribed annual average ambient air quality standards at all locations in the country. As observed earlier, these targets may not be sufficient to meet the WHO or even the standards set forth in NAAQS. Hence, an aggressive strategy to reduce these levels is the need of the hour in addition to revising the NAAQS.
Featured Image: Air Quality Standards

created: September 27, 2021


text:
WHO report raises concerns about effects of e-waste exposure on Child Health
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 1, 2021
The WHO recently released a report that outlines the link between informal e-waste recycling activities and health outcomes in children. As per this report, 18 million children & 12.9 million women, may be at risk from adverse health outcomes linked to e-waste recycling. Here is a review with a focus on India.
e-waste or electronic waste refers to all the electrical and electronic equipment and their components which have been discarded as waste. With the advancement in technology and the increasing usage of electronic products for multiple needs, it is no surprise that the generation of e-waste is increasing at a rapid pace. Peoples’ insatiable demand, technology uptake and shorter replacement cycles are some of the reasons behind the exponential growth in e-waste. In Europe, USA, and China, the average mobile phone is disposed of in less than two years. Even the United Nations has repeatedly warned that a ‘Tsunami of e-waste’ would hit the world soon.
According to World Economic Forum’s report in 2019, the e-waste produced annually was worth over $ 62.5 billion, more than the GDP of most countries. In addition to being a huge environmental problem, millions of children are affected by the mounting e-waste. This story reviews the recent report on e-waste and child health- ‘Children and digital dumpsites: e-waste exposure and child health’, published by WHO.
Volume of e-waste generated is increasing considerably
In the year 2019 alone, the WHO has estimated that about 53.6 million tonnes (MT) of e-waste was generated globally. Compared to 2014, the year from when the global statistics of e-waste are formally available, the global e-waste generated has increased by 9.3 MT (nearly 21%). In 2014, the total e-waste was 44.4 MT. By 2030, global e-waste is estimated to increase to 74.7 MT. The per capita e-waste has also increased from 6.4 kg in 2014 to 7.3 kg in 2019 and is expected to reach around 9 kg by 2030. One of our earlier stories looks at the trend in the total quantity of e-waste generated, category-wise and regional contributions in detail based on the Global E-waste Monitor- 2020. With the pandemic forcing people to stay and work indoors, the usage of electric & electronic equipment is only going to increase further.
12 countries accounted for nearly 2/3rds of the e-waste generated in 2019
Among all the countries, China produced the most e-waste, accounting for almost 19% (10.12 MT) of the e-waste generated globally. The USA produced the second-highest, followed by India. Overall, 12 countries together produced more than 3.5 million tonnes of e-waste and accounted for more than 65% of the e-waste generated worldwide in 2019. About 166 countries contributed the remaining 35%.
Only 17.4% of the e-waste reached formal waste disposal settings
Of the 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste generated in 2019, only 17.4% (9.3 MT) reached formal management or recycling facilities, according to the most recent estimates of United Nations University. The remaining 82.6% (44.3 MT) was illegally dumped, overwhelmingly in low- or middle-income countries such as areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Advanced economies ship e-waste as ‘second-hand equipment’ to low/middle-income countries
Besides their increasing volume of e-waste, the digital debris of advanced economies is shipped to the countries in East and Southeast Asia to bypass domestic recycling rules. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants are two important global conventions that address the transport and disposal of hazardous chemicals and waste. According to Basel Convention, such illegal movement of hazardous waste is to be prevented and the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes is reduced to the minimum consistent with environmentally sound and efficient management. However, to circumvent this, the waste is shipped to receiving nations as ‘second-hand equipment’. The recipient countries may re-sell some of the most serviceable devices. However, the rest is dumped in informal or formal waste sites.
Health of workers is affected due to exposure to toxic chemicals like lead and mercury
The discarded electronic devices may contain valuable components such as gold, copper, etc. In the informal setting, such equipment is dismantled and recycled through primitive techniques, which may include burning, heating, or soaking in chemical baths. Necessary precautions are not usually taken by the workers, especially in the informal sector, which exposes them to toxic chemicals like mercury, lead, chromium, dioxins, and flame retardants, and air polluted with toxic particles, fumes, and other residues which significantly affects their health. Environmental damage such as air pollution or leaching of hazardous chemicals into soil and water, contaminating entire communities.
Children are at higher risk to exposure
Data on the number of persons engaged in e-waste recycling or the number of dumpsites is not clearly available. Different studies have come up with estimates on the number of persons engaged in the informal waste sector. An assessment ascertained that there were 12.5–56 million people working worldwide in the informal waste sector. Another review by the World Bank estimated 15 million informal waste workers and International Labour Organization’s estimate was 19– 24 million waste workers worldwide with 15–20 million in the informal sector. Considering the proportion of women working in the industrial sector, 2.9–12.9 million women are estimated to be working in the informal waste sector. A significant proportion of them are in childbearing years and are likely to be pregnant during their work, thereby, exposing the unborn child to toxicants directly and by passing on during pregnancy.
Around 152 million children, aged 5 to 17 years, are working as child labour with some 73 million children worldwide working in hazardous labour and more uncounted numbers in the informal waste recycling sector. It is estimated that around 18 million children are employed illegally in various forms of the industry including e-waste and its management.  Children are engaged in e-waste recycling because their small hands are more dexterous than those of adults. Children who go to schools near e-waste recycling centres are also vulnerable as the child’s body is in a developing stage. The hazardous impact of working at such sites is also experienced by families and communities that reside in the vicinity of these e-waste dumpsites. For instance, a child who eats just one chicken egg from ‘Agbogbloshie’, a waste site in Ghana, absorbs 220 times the European Food Safety Authority’s daily limit for intake of chlorinated dioxins.
Children absorb more pollutants relative to their size and hence are not able to metabolize or eradicate toxic substances from their bodies. Children are exposed to e-waste toxicants through skin exposure, inhalation, ingestion, and transplacental exposure. Children’s right to life, survival, and development is compromised in the process.
Severe health complications are caused by exposure to toxicants from e-waste
Impaired neurodevelopment and behaviour, negative birth outcomes like stillbirth and premature births, lung function and respiratory effects, impaired thyroid and cardiovascular system function, DNA damage, impacts on immune system functions, increased risk of some chronic diseases including cancer and cardiovascular diseases later in life, are some of the adverse health impacts of prenatal exposure and childhood e-waste exposure.
Governments must devise and strictly implement necessary policies
As per the report, only about 71% of the global population lives in a country with some form of e-waste management legislation. However, this does not mean that the policy is implemented properly. Only about 77 countries out of 180 have some form of legislation that addresses e-waste management. Despite being party to various international agreements, countries continue to exploit loopholes.
Stringent measures ensuring the protection of health and environment- both for manufacturing and waste management of electronic equipment should be adopted. Formalization of the waste management sector and continuous surveillance will be helpful. Labour laws should be modified to ensure the health of workers is not jeopardized. In addition, the healthcare system should be strengthened, and people should be sensitized about the hazards of e-waste.
Further, the availability of data on the generation of waste, dumping, workers, etc. will help monitor the sector better. All this is possible only when there is proper enforcement of the existing laws.
India is third largest producer of e-waste
India generated 3.2 million tonnes of e-waste in 2019, the third-highest after China and the US. According to the Central Pollution Control Board, India generated more than a million tonnes of e-waste in 2019-20 across the 21 types of electrical and electronic equipment listed in the E-Waste Management Rules, 2016. However, India collected just 3.5% of the e-waste estimated to have been generated in the country in 2017-18 and 10% in 2019-20. The 2016 rules enforce the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) which holds the producer responsible for the collection of a certain percentage of e-waste. State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) are supposed to into authorization for the recovery of materials. SPCBs are also responsible for checking informal trading, dismantling, and recycling of waste.
Despite legislation, Child Labour in e-waste management sector continues in India
95% of e-waste in India is recycled by the informal sector and only 5% is recycled by the formal sector, according to the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) in 2018. Scrap dealers collect the e-waste and dispose of the same in an unscientific manner such as burning, dissolving in acids, and leaching. Around 4.5 lakh children aged 10 to 14 years were engaged in various e-waste activities, without adequate protection and safeguards in 2014. The practice continues to be reported from different parts of India such as Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, as per the 2020-21 report of the National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights. This is despite India’s Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 and its amendment in 2016 which prohibits the engagement of children in hazardous occupations. The Mines Act, 1952, Indian Factories Act, 1948, and The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 also prohibit children from engaging in paid labour.
e-waste disposal is a matter of global concern not only because of its direct environmental and social consequences but also because the health of millions of children is put at risk. Thus, countries across must establish the required infrastructure and formalize the sector.
Featured Image: Effects of e-waste exposure on Child Health


text:
Review: Why is the assurance on 'Pre-Nuptial Agreements' dropped? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 14, 2022
The “Committee on Governance Assurances” is authorized to drop assurances made by the government on the floor of the house based on reasons provided by the respective ministries. Here is a review of some of the dropped assurances and the reasons provided.
In response to the debates & questions in the parliament, the government on various occasions makes assurances/promises, updates on action taken, or assurance of future action. These are referred to as “Assurances”.
The “Committee on Governance Assurances” is constituted by both the “Lok Sabha” & “Rajya Sabha” to review and ensure that the assurances made by the government are implemented in a reasonable time frame.
Factly has earlier highlighted that around 60% of the assurances made in the current Lok Sabha are pending, while in the case of Rajya Sabha it is 61%. Among the assurances that are pending in the Lok Sabha, 70% of them were made prior to 2018.
Assurances remain pending for a long time due to various reasons. Sometimes, the ministries request the ‘Committee on Governance Assurances’ to drop the assurances, as they continue to remain pending for various reasons. These requests are taken up and reviewed by the Committee and are either acceded to or rejected.
Recently, the Lok Sabha’s ‘Committee on Government Assurances’ submitted reports relating to the action taken on the requests to drop government assurances. This includes the 52nd report i.e., Requests for dropping assurances (Acceded to), and the 53rd report i.e., Requests for dropping assurances (Not acceded to).
In this two-part series, we review the reasons by the respective ministries for requesting the dropping of assurances in Lok Sabha and the subsequent action taken by the committee.
In the first part, we look at the assurances dropped by the committee for the following two reasons
21 out of the 27 pending assurances taken up by the Committee (2021-22) dropped.
Lok Sabha’s Committee on Government Assurances (2021-22) received requests to drop 27 pending assurances.
These 27 pending assurances are related to 14 distinct topics discussed in the Lok Sabha.  The Committee met on 12 August 2021, to discuss the dropping of the 27 pending assurances. After the discussion, the committee has decided to drop 21 pending assurances.
For 2020-21, the committee met during April 2021 and decided to drop 15 of the 26 requests received for dropping. However, in an earlier sitting during January 2021, the committee dropped only 5 of the 23 requests received.
Assurances related to Power Generation from Neutrino Laboratory and Defence Deal Augusta Westland among those dropped
The respective Ministries cited various reasons in their requests to drop the assurances. One of the common reasons cited was that it would take a long time to fulfill the assurances. The dependence on investigations, clearances, etc. makes it difficult for these assurances to be fulfilled in near future, according to the government.
The committee took cognizance of the dependence of the respective ministries on other departments and the prospective delay and decided to drop the pending assurances.
Few such dropped assurances include:
Unstarred Question 3979 (Department of Atomic Energy)
The question was about ‘Power Generation from Neutrino Laboratory’, and was dropped for the following reasons.
Unstarred Questions 6968 & 1395  (Department of Defence)
The questions were about ‘Procurement of Helicopters’, and the ‘Defence deal with Augusta West land’. These were dropped for the following reasons.
Unstarred Question 5587 (Department of Higher Education)
The question was about ‘Publishing as Small-Scale Sector.’, and it was dropped for the following reasons.
Unstarred Question 4699 (Ministry of Corporate Affairs)
The question was about ‘Investigation of Fraud & affairs of IL&FS’, and it was dropped for the following reasons.
Assurances related to Pre-nuptial agreements and Policy on Women Entitlement among those dropped as they cannot be fulfilled.
Among the assurances that were dropped include those that cannot be fulfilled by the respective Ministries.
Here is a snapshot of such assurances dropped by the committee.
Unstarred Questions 1146 & 3564 (Ministry of Women & Child Development)
The questions were about ‘Pre-Nuptial Agreements’. These were dropped for the following reasons.
Unstarred Questions 2266, 2789, 2655, 2555, 951 (Ministry of Women & Child Development)
The questions were about ‘Policy on Women Entitlement which is aimed at creating awareness regarding the rights of women, schemes, programs, etc.’ These were dropped for the following reasons.
Unstarred Question 1910 (Ministry of AYUSH)
The question was about ‘Aadhar based attendance system for Teaching & Non-teaching staff, hospital staff & PG students.’, and it was dropped for the following reasons.
In the second part of the story, we would look at the assurances that were dropped since the fulfillment is related to a different Ministry. We will also look at the assurances that were not dropped by the Lok Sabha’s Committee on Assurances (2021-22).

created: January 14, 2022


text:
Will Political Parties disclose reasons for selecting candidates with pending cases
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 1, 2020
The Supreme Court in February this year directed political parties to disclose reasons for selecting candidates with pending criminal cases instead of the cleaner candidates. The upcoming Bihar elections will be the first major election to be held after these new directions. Will the political parties disclose the real reasons for selecting candidates with pending cases?
On 13 February 2020, the Supreme Court (SC) delivered a judgement directing all political parties to upload details of pending criminal cases against candidates contesting on the party ticket, on their website. The reason for selection of the candidate along with details of pending criminal cases should also be made public by the political party. Even the Election Commission of India (ECI) directed the Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) all the states and UTs to implement the Supreme Court’s order. The Bihar Legislative Assembly elections, scheduled to take place in October 2020, would be the first one following the Supreme Court’s order in February 2020.
However, this is not the first time that the apex court delivered such an order. In the past few years, the Supreme Court passed orders concerning declaration of criminal antecedents of contesting candidates citing the increased criminalization of politics in the country.
‘Right to know’ the Contesting Candidate’s antecedents was upheld by SC in 2002
In Union of India Vs Association for Democratic Reforms and another; with People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and another, the Supreme Court in 2002 held that the citizens have a right to know about public functionaries. The court maintained that ‘right to know’ contesting candidate’s antecedents was a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) since such rights include the right to hold opinions and acquire information for citizens to be adequately informed in order to form those opinions. The Court added that a successful democracy strives toward ‘aware’ citizenry. Misinformation, or non-information will create uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. If non-informed or mis-informed voter castes vote, it will definitely affect democracy.
The SC directed the ECI to issue necessary orders to collect details regarding the background of candidates contesting elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, including
Sections 33A and 33B were inserted in ‘The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA  1951)’, in 2002 following the SC judgement. Section 33A states that information regarding criminal antecedents of contesting candidates such as if he has been accused of any offence with two years’ imprisonment or more, or if he has been convicted in any other offence and sent to prison for at least one year, should be disclosed. These are to be disclosed in Form 26 in the form of a self-sworn affidavit. Section 33B of the RPA 1951 stated that the candidates could not be forced or compelled to disclose any information about themselves except what is required under the act.
Section 33B of RPA was struck down by SC in 2003
Later in March 2003, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and another, Section 33B was found to be problematic on several grounds. The SC struck down Section 33B since it would otherwise nullify the 2002 landmark verdict of the SC. Thus, the candidates had to submit information relating to all pending cases in which cognizance has been taken by a Court, in addition to the details regarding assets, liabilities and educational qualification.
Despite these judgements, candidates continued to leave blank spaces or filled false information in affidavits. Though the judgement in 2003 clearly listed the information that needs to be submitted, there was not much clarity or details given on what should be done if the information provided is false. Returning Officer could not reject nomination papers if the information provided was false.
Filing false information, concealing information or not filling information does not result in disqualification of candidate
Under Section 125A of RPA also inserted in 2002, a candidate who does not furnish information regarding pending criminal cases, conceals it, or gives false information, will be liable for imprisonment up to six months and/or a penalty. The offence under Section 125A does not fall in the ambit of Section 8 of the RPA which lists out criteria for disqualification of contesting candidates. This implies that those filing false information or concealing information cannot be disqualified. The matter was discussed in several other cases. Arun Dattaray Sawant v. Kishan Shankar Rathore in 2007 in Bombay High Court, Nand Ram Bagri v. Jai Kishan in 2013 in Delhi High Court, and Krishnamoorthy v. Siva Kumar in 2015 in Supreme Court are some such cases.
Affidavits with blank spaces may be rejected
Finally in Resurgence v. ECI, the SC stated that if an affidavit is filed with blank particulars, it renders the entire exercise of filing affidavits futile, and infringes the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 19 (1). The Returning Officer should remind the candidate to fill the blanks. Yet, if the blanks are left unattended, the nomination is fit to be rejected.
Directions by SC in 2018 to promote transparency and flow of information
In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, the SC in 2018 had to decide whether members of legislative bodies should be disqualified when criminal charges are filed against them. Disqualification of contesting candidates from membership to Parliament and State Legislatures is dealt with under Section 8 of the RPA which states that the candidate will be disqualified if convicted for certain offences such as rape, corruption, terrorism, etc. The SC decided not to debar candidates with pending criminal cases from contesting elections. However, SC gave certain directions to promote transparency and flow of information about contesting candidates and pending criminal cases against them. A few important directions include
Political Parties to disclose reasons for selection of candidates with pending criminal cases
In Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora, the SC in February 2020 gave a series of directions to check the criminalization of politics. The Court had observed that in 2004, 24% of MPs had pending criminal cases  against them. In 2009, the same was 30% and in 2014, it went up to 34%. In 2019, around 43% of the MPs had pending criminal cases against them. Therefore, the Court directed that;
From 2002 to 2020, increased transparency about Candidates & their antecedents
To summarize, since 2002, candidates have been obliged to submit the details of the pending criminal records to the ECI. The SC’s judgement in 2018 made it mandatory for these details to be published in the concerned political party website and in newspapers and television channels. This has been further extended to official social media platforms in the 2020 judgement. Furthermore, the 2020 judgement has asked the parties to mention why the candidate with criminal record was chosen in place of those with clean records, apart from their ‘winnability’.
Strict implementation is the need of the hour
Going by the previous experience, political parties are likely to give generalized reasons without much substance, defeating the purpose of these directions. Even with the earlier directions on ‘source of income’, most candidates mentioned generic sources without revealing the actual source of income. Parties & candidates did not even follow the directions regarding publication of pending criminal cases in newspapers and television. Hence these changes would be useful only when there is strict monitoring by the ECI and compliance by all political parties.
The upcoming Bihar elections will be the first general elections to take place after the 2020 judgement of the SC. One will have to wait and see whether or not parties comply with the SC’s order in these elections.

created: September 1, 2020


text:
Review: Women’s Rights in Inheritance laws in India & around the World
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 19, 2020
The recent Supreme Court judgment cleared the air regarding Women’s right to ancestral property. In this story, we look at the evolution of the law in India for Hindus and rights of Women in inheritance across the world.
On 11August 2020, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgement regarding the right of Hindu women to ancestral property. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that a Hindu Woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and it does not depend whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005.
The law being referred to is the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which earlier gave women the right to be a coparcener (joint heir) as a male heir. The recent judgement is an extension to the list reforms brought in over the years in recognition of women rights. In this story, we take a look at the history and backdrop of this judgement, evolution of women inherence rights in India and also global precedence regarding property rights of women.
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not provide Women, right to coparcenary property
The initial effort towards streamlining succession and inheritance in India among Hindus was done through Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  This Act provides a uniform system of inheritance and succession among Hindus.
This act abolished the limited estate of Hindu women, where-in she is given the absolute power to deal or dispose of any property that belongs to her. However, in this act, right of a female heir to a coparcenary is not recognized. As per Indian Hindu law, a Hindu Joint family consists of lineal descendants of a common ancestor i.e. male head and his descendants, including wives and unmarried daughters.
Coparcenary is a smaller unit, which owns a property and consists of a person at the top of a line of descent and his three lineal descendants (sons, grandsons & great grandsons). Coparcenary property has a co-ownership by this smaller group. Upon the death of a coparcener, his interest becomes merged with the surviving coparceners. The codified law of 1956 kept this position intact in  Section 6.
However, it did contain a provision that if the deceased left behind a female relative (daughter, widow or mother) or any male relative claiming though such a female relative, the interest of the deceased would go to them by succession.
Hence, even the Hindu Succession Act,1956 which attempted at codifying the laws related to inheritance and right to property, did not address the conventional discrimination against women. Nevertheless, it did confer some limited rights regarding non-coparcenary property (in case of daughters) and to widows, whose right to succeed to a property was recognized at par with that of sons.
The 2005 amendment conferred Women equal right to coparcenary property
While amending the Hindu Succession Act-1956 in the year 2005, the Union government stated that the tenets under section-6 of the original act by excluding daughter from being part of the coparcenary ownership contributes towards discrimination on the ground of gender and also negates her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, an amendment was made to Section-6 to remove this discrimination and provide equal rights to the daughters as well.
This amendment came into force on 09 September 2005 and declared that a coparcener’s daughter would become a coparcener in her own right by birth and would have the same rights, had she been a son. However, this amendment came with a proviso that it would not invalidate any disposition of property by partition or will that had taken place prior to 20 December 2004 i.e. the day amendment was introduced in the parliament.
Even prior to this, five states in India – Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka & Maharashtra had amended state laws between 1986-1994 to provide daughters with equal rights over inheritance.
The current judgment was in light of variance in interpretation in different cases
Most of the laws are generally considered to be prospective. When Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into effect, there were questions around whether it would apply to daughters born before 09 September 2005 or if they are born before that , would it be limited to those whose father (coparcener) through whom they would be inheriting the property was also alive on that day.
Few courts took the view that only a living coparceners daughter would get the benefit of the new law. As per these judgments, if a man died before 2005, the interest would not have passed on to the daughter since the amendment was yet to come into force. In Prakash Vs Phulavati Case of 2015, a two-judge bench gave a verdict that if the coparcener i.e. the father has passed away prior to 09 September 2005, his daughter would not have right to coparcenary property.
However, in another case, Danamma Vs Amar, another two-judge bench decided that the daughters involved in the case would get a share in the property, even if their father was not alive in 2005.
Since there were these differing views, a larger three-judge bench headed by Arun Mishra was constituted for another case of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma.
The verdict of this larger bench upheld that the coparcenary status of daughter is created by birth and is not dependent on whether the father was alive or not on the date the amendment came into force. A daughter would have the same status as a son as soon as she is born.  This verdict lays to rest any doubts around interpretation of the amendment and whether any women can be left out due to prospective application of the law.
Women Inheritance laws vary Globally & have evolved over a period of time
The Inheritance laws for women vary across the world with strong regional and cultural influences. Even in few of the countries which currently have less gender – discriminatory laws, the inheritance laws have evolved over the period of time, with many of these societies not granting equal inheritance to women prior to 20 century.
Referring to a study, ‘Women, Business and the Law 2019: A decade of Reform’, an article published by World Bank states that only 45% of the economies in MENA (Middle East & North Africa) do not have discrimination in Women’s property & inheritance laws, while South Asia does relatively better with 55% of economies framing laws with less gender discrimination regarding property rights.  However, these are way behind Europe, Central Asia and Latin American countries.
As per an article published by UNAIDS, among the developing countries, Latin America has comparatively less discriminatory inheritance laws for women. It has noted that even though South Asian countries have made some progress in aspects relating to women’s rights, there are still serious inequalities with respect to property.
In most of the Middle East and North African countries, the law is governed by Sharia law.
As per World Economic Forum’s data in 2017, only 20% of the land across the world in owned by women.
In United States, it was only in the Twentieth Century that more equitable laws regarding inheritance of women were framed across the states. The inheritance laws in US is a State subject and it varies. In a Nordic country like Norway, there is no demarcation in the inheritance laws by gender of children.
Featured Image: Inheritance laws in India


text:
World Bank advocates for Reopening of Schools as countries begin vaccinating Adolescents & Children
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 14, 2021
Millions of Children around the world have been kept away from schools because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As many countries have vaccinated a significant proportion of the population, the call for reopening schools has gathered steam. The World Bank, in a recently published document advocated for the reopening of schools citing multiple studies which conclude that Children below 10 years are less vulnerable to COVID-19.
With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, educational systems worldwide faced sudden closure with schools, colleges, and universities closed for long periods. Schools in more than 188 countries were shut down and over 1.6 billion (75% of enrolled students) were out of school. The closure was sudden and there was not enough time to switch to distance/digital learning for many children especially in countries like India where the digital infrastructure is not equally available & accessible. In India, the COVID-19 pandemic-induced disruption in education is the largest in history and over 32 crore students were affected.
The World Bank has recently published a document advocating for the physical opening of schools. The document draws from evidence using multiple studies about COVID-19. The document touches on various aspects related to COVID-19 infection. Here is a review.
Duration of school closure in India is among the longest in the World
As schools remained shut for a significant period, the existing education disparities across the country further got exacerbated by the pandemic. The learning loss has also been significant. On one hand, online education/remote learning is not accessible by all. Even among those who accessed, learning has been substantially lower than what would have been if in-person instruction had continued. On the other hand, there has been a disruption in providing a nutritious meal to children. The Mental health of children has also been affected. Millions of children are also at the risk of being pushed into child labour.
In 2020, at least 463 million school children across the globe were unable to access remote learning during school closures according to UNICEF. Further, it was seen that by March 2021, children across the world had lost an average of 74 days of school due to school closures and lack of access to remote learning. As per the UNESCO’s monitoring of school closures, it is observed that lengthy closures have been reported in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, as well as much of South Asia and parts of East Asia Pacific. The duration for which there were full and partial school closures was the highest in Uganda where schools reported closure for 77 weeks. India reported the third-longest closure of 73 weeks.
Some states in India have resumed in-person classes
According to the COVID-19 Global Education Recovery Tracker, as of July 2021, 80% of schools worldwide were in the regular sessions of which 54% were back to in-person instruction, 34% relied on mixed or hybrid instruction while 10% continued with remote instruction and 2% offered no instruction at all. While schools have opened fully in countries like Canada, Russia, China, Italy, and Japan, schools have opened only partially in the USA, Australia, Brazil, Pakistan, and India. In India, educational institutions including schools started resuming physical in-person operations in September 2021 on the basis of guidelines and safety protocols issued by respective states. Most states started have resumed in-person classes in a phased manner starting with higher secondary students followed by secondary school students. To ensure adherence to safety protocols, classes are being divided into batches to limit the number of students in class. Students are given the option to continue taking classes online.
Pre-primary and primary school students are relatively less vulnerable to contract COVID-19
Multiple studies suggest that young children, especially those aged below 10 years (pre-primary and primary school students), are relatively less vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 infection and much less likely to transmit the disease as compared to adolescents and adults. Data-based evidence from studies in Spain, Italy, Iceland, South Korea, and the US point towards the very low incidence of infection among young children. Even among those children who got the infection, severe illness and death were rare and occurred among those children who had other underlying conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiac conditions. Children with complex chronic diseases were almost eight times more likely to be hospitalized and three times more likely to have a severe disease as compared to children without any chronic diseases.
Studies show children are less likely to transmit compared to adults
Unlike in the case of other diseases such as influenza or the common cold which are easily spread by children, the transmission of COVID-19 to adults was found to be less effective. Studies carried out in Finland, Sweden, and the UK confirm this. A study in Germany identified that when children over age ten were physically distanced (more than 1.5 metres) in school and children under ten had no distancing, an infected student led to an average of 0.04 secondary cases in teachers, while an infected teacher-led to an average of 0.56 secondary cases.
Considering the low vulnerability of children and their limited transmission of infection, teachers and other staff are more likely to contract the disease from their colleagues than from children. In Australia, the findings of a contact-tracing study found that the staff-to-staff transmission rate was 4.4% whereas the child-to-staff transmission rate was 1%. Thus, if staff adhere to the safety protocols, infections in schools can be curtailed to a large extent. Now that vaccines have become more easily available as compared to the times when most of these studies were conducted, the risk is further reduced. However, if schools are kept closed for the fear of infection, children’s future will be at stake, and more is lost in the bargain.
Countries have begun administering the COVID-19 vaccine for those aged above 12 years
Many countries are working on providing emergency authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children. USA’s FDA expanded the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine to include adolescents aged 12 to 15 years as early as May 2021. Soon, the European Union followed suit. Moderna’s vaccine has been given approval by European Union for usage among 12 to 17 years old adolescents. Since then, Spain has vaccinated close to 80% of the young adults aged 12 to 19 years with at least one dose while Switzerland has vaccinated over 27.5% of individuals in the 12 to 15 years age group as of 10 October 2021. As of 11 October 2021, France had completely vaccinated close to 68% of the 12-17 age group.
China gave emergency use approval to Sinovac’s vaccine for children & adolescents between 3 and 17 years as early as June 2021. Pfizer has submitted a request to the FDA, for emergency approval for using a lower dose in younger children aged 5 to 11 years. Results of trials on children aged 2 to 5 years, and for the youngest age group of 6 months to 2 years old are expected later this year.
India has given emergency use approval for young adults, but vaccination is yet to start
In India, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) gave Emergency Use Authorization for Zydus Cadilla’s DNA Vaccine- ZyCoV-D for adults as well as adolescents in the age group of 12-18 years in August 2021. It is a 3-dose vaccine with the first administered on day zero, second on day 28 and third dose on the 56 day. According to the company, this is the only needle-free COVID-19 vaccine in the world. However, the vaccine is yet to be made available on the market. News reports also state that the Subject Expert Committee has approved the use of indigenous Bharat Biotech’s COVID-19 vaccine, Covaxin, for individuals aged between 2-18 years. However, the final approval is yet to be given by the DCGI.
Featured Image: Reopening of Schools

created: October 14, 2021


text:
Reviewing the ‘National Youth Policy (NYP)’, the new 2021 draft and the 2014 policy
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 12, 2022
The Government of India has prepared a new draft National Youth Policy, 2021. This new draft is developed after a review of the existing National Youth Policy, 2014. But how far have we achieved the objectives of the NYP-2014 and what is new with the draft NYP-2021? Here is a review.
Youth form a vital demographic and are key to the success and progress of a nation. Most of the global ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) have youth as a focus area, emphasizing the importance of the young population and the need for investing in them.
India has the largest youth population in the world with one out of every four among the 15-29 years age group globally being Indian. They constitute nearly 34% of India’s total population. Despite a projected decline in their share, it is estimated that India would have 365 million youth by 2030, which constitutes 24% of the population. With other countries like China, the USA, and Japan battling issues with an aging population, this is a resource that India can take advantage of.
With a vision for youth development in India for this decade, the Government of India has prepared a new draft National Youth Policy, 2021. This new draft is developed after a review of the existing National Youth Policy, 2014.
While the Government of India has invited reviews and suggestions on the new draft policy, it is also important to understand the tenets and objectives of the existing policy and to ascertain the action & progress made in achieving the progress.
National Youth Policy 2014 identified 11 priority areas of action
The National Youth Policy – 2014 (NYP-2014) was introduced replacing the earlier National Youth Policy of 2003. The policy proposed broader policy interventions by government and non-government stakeholders to empower youth, rather than propose any specific programmes or schemes. Accordingly, the policy identified 5 objectives and 11 priority areas, for which policy interventions were suggested.
The 11 priority areas include – education, skill development and employment, entrepreneurship, health and healthy lifestyle, sports, promotion of social values, community engagement, participation in politics and governance, youth engagement, inclusion, and social justice.
The Policy Document of NYP-2014 highlights that monitoring and evaluation are key to understanding the impact of the policy on the youth. It further opines that in view of the diversity across the country, each state ought to have its own State Youth Policy in line with NYP- 2014.
It suggests two types of indicators – leading & lagging indicators which measure the impact of the policy.
The leading indicators are short-term indicators that evaluate the direction and implementation of the policy like – the States that created a youth policy, policy & programmes that were initiated, etc.
NYP-2014 also provides the lagging indicators, which talk about the long-term impact of the policy once they are implemented for a certain period.
To ensure that the monitoring of the indicators is in place and is measurable, the NYP-2014 recommended:
As highlighted earlier, NYP-2014 provides a larger framework based on which the union & the respective state governments need to formulate policies and programmes. Further, while NYP-2014 highlights the need for indicators and targets to be put in place in order to measure progress, it does not define the targets.
For example, it recognizes that the Government of India is spending approximately Rs. 2,710 (in 2014) on every young individual through various ministries and schemes of which Rs. 1,100 is through targeted programs. It notes that the government needs to invest more but does not mention the quantum of investment which could act as a measurable target to evaluate the success of the government’s initiatives.
Evaluation of government schemes and indicators provides insights on the impact of NYP-2014
The Government has over the years implemented various schemes which provided targeted and indirect benefits to the youth. The draft National Youth Policy – 2021, mentions a few of these schemes implemented by the government since the introduction of NYP-2014 and also highlights a few indicators which measure the impact on youth.
The status updates on a few of the schemes also highlight the achievements and the impact of these various schemes.  Here is a snapshot of the same:
One of the recommendations of NYP -2014, was to publish a bi-annual Status of Youth report, which is not published by the government.
The impact of COVID-19 on the employment, education, and health of the youth in the country is noted in the draft policy document for NYP-2021, which states that the pandemic has impacted and delayed the progress.
National Youth Policy 2021 aligned with Sustainable Development Goals
In its announcement of introducing a new Draft National Youth Policy – 2021, the government does not highlight any shortcomings of NYP-2014, which necessitated the need for developing a new draft policy.
As highlighted above, a few of the indicators related to various schemes show progress. However, the exact extent of progress with respect to any specific targets cannot be ascertained, to evaluate the success in line with NYP-2014.
NYP-2021 seeks to provide a 10-year vision for youth development by 2030. A key aspect of NYP-2021, which is not included in NYP-2014 is the alignment with Sustainability Development Goals. NYP -2021 identifies 5 priority areas – Education, Employment & Entrepreneurship, youth leadership & development; health, fitness & sports; and social justice.
Another key stated intent of the draft policy which is inherent in each of the 5 priority areas of draft NYP-2021 is the principle of social inclusion i.e., enabling equitable progress by including marginalized sections across all the schemes & programmes being planned and implemented.
Featured Image: Draft National Youth Policy -2021


text:
All about the ‘Revised Integrated Housing Scheme 2016’
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 9, 2017
Recognising the need for state support in enabling citizens to realise the right to adequate shelter,  a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Ministry of Labour and Employment released the guidelines for the Revised Integrated Housing Scheme, 2016.
The scheme initially started for the Beedi/Non-Coal mine workers in the year 1989. After increasing the central subsidy multiple times, the scheme was named the ‘Revised Integrated Housing Scheme (RIHS)’ for the first time in 2004. The scheme was further revised in 2007. The current scheme is a modified version of the earlier scheme with an increase in the subsidy amount.
The intended beneficiaries of the scheme are workers in the following industries
The following are the mandatory conditions for beneficiaries to avail this scheme
The scheme provides a subsidy amount of Rs 1.5 lakh to the beneficiary to construct only one house during their lifetime. The house must be constructed within 18 months and must adhere to local building regulations.
The subsidy amount is released in 3 stages through Direct Benefit Transfer:
No deposit is required to avail the subsidy and loans or financial assistance can be sought from legal sources even after availing the subsidy. If the subsidy amount is used by the beneficiary to obtain a bank loan, then the full subsidy amount can be released in one transaction to the beneficiary’s Jan Dhan account maintained by the same bank.
There is no upper limit to the floor area of the house. However, a minimum floor area of 30 sq. mts in metropolitan areas and 60 sq. mts in rural and other city areas must be adhered to.
The house thus constructed cannot be sold or transferred until the lapse of 15 years after complete construction of the house. The only exception is when the house is transferred to legal heirs after the death of the beneficiary. This legal heir will not be eligible for any further housing subsidy even if she is an eligible applicant.
The application process and implementation of the scheme will be monitored and guided by the State Level Screening and Monitoring Committee, chaired by the Welfare Commissioner. At the beginning of the financial year, the number of housing units for States will be indicated based on pro-rata calculation of beneficiary, expected expenditure and number of workers registered in the region.
Until online application forms are made available, filled hard copy application forms must be submitted by the worker to the nearest Labour Welfare Organisation or the office of Welfare Commissioner, whichever is available and closer. An acknowledgement slip that lists the date and time of receipt of application will be given to the worker. This is important because the scheme operates on a first-cum-first-serve basis.
The application will then be sent to the Welfare Commissioner’s office (in case the application is not received by the Welfare Commission) and the original documents attached to the application form will be verified. An electronic record of applications will be prepared. This will be followed by an on-site verification of the land and other particulars to identify eligible beneficiaries.
Thereafter, a priority list will be electronically formulated for:
A regional proposal along with recommendations shall be sent by the Welfare Commissioner to the Director General Labour Welfare for administrative approval and release of subsidy.
In the final selected list, 3% of the applications must be from persons with disability (including 1% from transgender), 50% of the applications must be from women headed households and 47% of the applications must be from others.
A copy of the final Selection list must be put up online and pasted on the notice board of the Welfare Commissioner’s office. A waiting list of up to 25% must also be accordingly displayed.
Grievances must be presented to the Welfare Commissioner.
The constructed house must:
A housing subsidy scheme was first started by the Central government in 1989 for beedi and non-coal mine workers with a subsidy of Rs 1,000. Revisions in 1994, 2001 and 2004 eventually raised the subsidy to Rs 40,000. The 2007 scheme required that beneficiaries have their own land for constructing a house and mandated that each house have a floor area of 160 sq. ft (nearly 15 sq. mts) with a living room, a closeted cooking space, a bath room and a toilet.
The scheme itself notes that a revision was necessary as houses constructed under previous schemes were of poor quality, incapable of withstanding natural disasters and insufficient to accommodate the average household.
The present scheme has substantially increased the subsidy amount, removes the upper limit on the estimated construction costs of the house, mandates Aadhaar registration for direct benefit transfer and no longer requires a minimum contribution of Rs 5,000 from the beneficiaries.
In response to a question in the Lok Sabha, the Ministry of Labour and Employment reported that a fund of Rs 55.12 crores had been allocated for the financial year of 2016-17 to aid in providing housing facility to about 14000 workers. However, certain issues persist:
Featured Image:Beedi Workers

created: January 9, 2017


text:
Fact Checking Government Claims on the ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act’
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 11, 2018
In an infographic published by the government, certain claims were made regarding provisions of the ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act’. Here is a fact check of those claims.
In an infographic published by the government,  there are certain claims made regarding social empowerment. A series of claims have been made about the ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016’ and its provisions. Here is a fact check of the claims.
Is this legislation introduced during the current government?
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2014 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the previous UPA government. This bill replaced the ‘Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995’. Though the bill is passed in the year 2016, the legislation is not a creation of the current government. However, certain amendments were made to the bill during the current government before it was passed in 2016.
Have the types of disabilities been increased?
The first claim by the government is that the types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. Chapter 1 of the earlier ‘Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 recognizes 7 types of disabilities including: (I) Blindness; (ii) Low vision; (iii) Leprosy-cured; (iv) Hearing impairment; (v) Loco motor disability; (vi) Mental retardation; (vii) Mental illness.
The Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 provides for different types of disabilities in vision, hearing, speech, movement, mental retardation, multiple and any other. Counting all the sub-categories of disabilities, shows that 21 different types have been mentioned.
The bill originally introduced by the UPA had 19 categories as mentioned in an answer in Lok Sabha. The current government amended the bill to include ‘Dwarfism’ & ‘Acid attack victims’ in the types of disabilities.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21.
Fact: The PWD act of 1995 contained 7 disabilities. The Rights of persons with disabilities act of 2016 provides for 21 types. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But it has to be noted that this legislation was introduced by the previous UPA government and passed by the current government.
What about Speech & Language Disability?
The second claim is that speech and language disability and specific learning disability have been added for the first time. The Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 defines ‘speech and language disability’ as a permanent disability arising out of conditions such as laryngectomy or aphasia affecting one or more components of speech and language due to organic or neurological causes. The act defines ‘specific learning disabilities’ as a heterogeneous group of conditions wherein there is a deficit in processing language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself as a difficulty to comprehend, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations and includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and developmental aphasia.
The persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 did not consider these as disabilities. The original bill introduced by the UPA in 2014 included both of these and the act passed in 2016 recognizes them.
Claim: Speech and language disability and specific learning disability have been added for the first time.
Fact: The PWD act of 1995 did not previously consider speech, language and learning disabilities. While it is TRUE that these have been added for the  first time, it has to be noted that both these types were also part of the original bill introduced by the UPA.
Inclusion of Acid attack victims
The third claim made by the government is that Acid attack victims have been included in the list of people considered as disabled. ‘Acid attack victims’ is defined as a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance in the Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016. Under the new Act, acid attack victims fall under the category of locomotor disability within the larger category of physical disability.
Claim: Acid attack victims have been included in the list of people considered as disabled.
Fact: Under the new act, acid attack victims are considered physically disabled. Hence the claim is TRUE. It should also be noted that ‘acid attack victims’ as a category was not included in the original bill introduced by the UPA.
Right to Free education & Reservation of 4% seats in Higher Educational Institutes
The fourth claim made in the infographic is right to free education for children with disabilities (6-18yrs) and reservation of 4% seats for students in higher education institutions. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserted Article 21-A in the Constitution of India to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6-14  years as a fundamental right. Article 21-A is commonly known as the right to education (RTE). Article 41 of the Indian constitution states that ‘The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved want’.
Chapter 3 in the Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 covers the aspects of education. Chapter 6 of the act mentions special provisions for children with benchmark disabilities that includes right to free education for those in the 6-18 age group. This chapter also provides for a provision where government institutions of higher education and other higher education institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than 5% seats for persons with benchmark disabilities.
Claim: Right to free education for children with disabilities (6-18yrs) and reservation of 4% seats for students in higher education institutions.
Fact: Right to free education is provided for children in the 6-18 age group & reservation of not less than 5% is provided in higher educational institutions for those with benchmark disabilities, but not to everyone with a disability. Hence, the claim is PARTLY TRUE. Again, it has to be noted that both these provisions were also part of the original bill introduced by the UPA in 2014.
Penalties for offences against Persons with Disabilities
The final claim of the government is that it has provided for penalties for offences committed against persons with disabilities (PwDs). Chapter 16 of the Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 addresses the issue of offenses and penalties. The chapter details that any person who violates the provisions of the act for the first time shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs 10,000 and for any subsequent violation with fine which shall not be less than Rs 50,000 and which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.  The act also provides for a prison term for certain violations.
Apart from the constitutional provision of non-discrimination in articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, there have previously not been any provisions for penalizing offences against PwDs.
Claim: Provided for penalties for offences committed against persons with disabilities (PwDs)
Fact: Chapter 16 of the Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 provides for the penalties. Hence, the claim is TRUE.  However,It has to be noted that penalties were also part of the original bill introduced by the UPA government in 2014.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: October 11, 2018


text:
Rihanna did not tweet about Kangana and Bollywood - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 8, 2021
Couple of posts with images of purported tweets of Rihanna about actress Kangana Ranaut and Bollywood are being widely shared across social media platforms. These posts can be viewed here and here. Through this article let’s fact-check the veracity of the tweets.
Claim: Rihanna’s tweets about Kangana Ranaut and Bollywood.
Fact: Rihanna did not tweet about Kangana and Bollywood. We cannot find any such tweets on her timeline. These tweets were actually made by some parody accounts. Twitter handles of these accounts are not the same as that of the original Twitter handle of Rihanna. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE.
Rihanna did not actually tweet about Kangana and Bollywood. On the timeline of Rihanna’s official Twitter account, we cannot find any of these tweets. Also, in one of the purported tweets, there is no verified symbol visible on Rihanna’s Twitter profile. Even the Twitter handles of the purported tweets in the posts are not Rihanna’s. When we compare these tweets with that of an original tweet by Rihanna’s official account, we can easily spot the differences.
FACTLY has earlier debunked news related to Rihanna which can be read here.
In the light of Rihanna’s tweet about farmers protest, posts like these are being shared on social media platforms with misleading claims.
To sum it up, Rihanna did not actually tweet about Kangana and Bollywood.

created: February 8, 2021