text:
Challenges await Indian students going abroad as only Covishield is approved by WHO
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 7, 2021
Many universities in the US, UK and other countries are beginning physical in-person classes from Fall of 2021. Most universities in the US have stipulated a mandatory vaccination for students, that too with only one of the WHO-approved vaccines. The Indian students might find it difficult as only Covishield is approved by WHO and its dosage interval in 12 to 16 weeks.
After more than a year of online classes and distance learning, many universities outside India are gearing up to resume in-person academic sessions from the Fall of 2021. In the United States of America (US) alone, more than 400 colleges and universities have mandated that students get vaccinated ahead of the Autumn semester set to begin in August/September, hoping that the upcoming academic year can be a normal one. With the dates of re-opening of many universities abroad close by, Indian students admitted to these universities are rushing to get themselves vaccinated. However, there are multiple concerns for students from India who account for a large share of the international students in countries like the US and UK, as these universities are proposing different measures regarding vaccines. We look at the rules stipulated by some major universities and governments with respect to international students and what this means for Indian students.
Universities have called for complete vaccination of students before returning to campus
US, UK, Canada, and Australia are the most popular destinations for Indian students who wish to study abroad. Out of these, most universities in the US have asked for complete inoculation against COVID-19, of international students before getting back into the campus for regular classes from the Fall of 2021 while Australian and Canadian universities are yet to formulate such rules.
China and India account for 62% of the total international students in US in 2020
According to the Open Doors report of International Education Exchange for 2020, there were more than a million (more than 10 lakh) international students in the US. Students from Asia alone, around 7.6 lakh, accounted for more than 70% of the international students in the US. Students from two of the world’s most populous countries of China and India made up nearly 62% of all the international students in the US in 2020. There were around 1.93 lakh students from India, the second highest after China.
Only those who take FDA approved vaccines are considered fully vaccinated in US
According to CDC, only those who have taken Pfizer, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines are considered fully vaccinated after two weeks of second/single dose as per the vaccine requirement.  If one does not meet these requirements, regardless of age, they are considered NOT fully vaccinated.
FDA or WHO approved vaccine mandatory in most universities in the US
One in three students enrolled in Fall 2020 were international students, predominantly from China, India, Canada, South Korea, and France, at Columbia university in New York, US. The university announced in April 2021 that the COVID-19 vaccination was mandatory for all students who will be present on campus, starting fall 2021. It added that religious and medical exemptions will be provided like in the case of influenza and measles vaccines, in accordance with New York State public health laws.
Another notification on the website dated 28 May 2021 stated that students will have to upload vaccine documentation such as a picture or copy of their CDC card, WHO booklet, or a physician letter containing details of their vaccinations to their university’s portal latest by 02 August 2021. Noting that not all international students would have access to vaccines or complete a vaccine series before coming to New York for the upcoming session, the university will administer vaccines in the first week they return to campus.  More regarding the vaccine process will be shared in July. Nonetheless, the university recommends that those who arrive in the US earlier must get their vaccine from the nearest site.
The university’s FAQ page on vaccine requirement for students states that Vaccines authorized by the FDA or by WHO will be acceptable. It is to be noted that the FDA has given Emergency Use Authorization to three vaccines- Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen and the WHO has listed AstraZeneca (Covishield) and Sinopharm vaccines in addition to the three approved by FDA. Recently, the second Chinese vaccine Sinovac was also approved by the WHO.
As per the university guidelines, for individuals who are partially vaccinated with a WHO-authorized vaccine or vaccinated with a vaccine not authorized for emergency use by the WHO, it is necessary that they get revaccinated with an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine after a minimum of 28 days since the vaccination with non-FDA authorized vaccine.
Stanford University and Indiana University have also issued mandatory vaccination guidelines for students similar to that of Columbia University. The university also abides by the guidelines on vaccination as issued by CDC.
The California State University announced that COVID-19 vaccination will be mandatory for students, faculty, and staff who will be physically present on campus or at any university location in Fall provided that FDA gives full approval to one or more COVID-19 vaccines and the fully approved vaccines are available. This requirement will become effective at the beginning of the fall 2021 term, or upon full FDA approval of the vaccine, whichever occurs later.
No requirement for vaccination announced for International students in the UK
According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency(HESA) of the UK, a total of 41,815 students joined for higher education from India in 2019-20, highest after European Union and China. The UK government announced that all English universities could return to in-person teaching from 17 May 2021. Further, students that are traveling to the UK from abroad will have to heed the border measures on their return depending on the country from which they are coming. Students from India, which is on the red-list (or high-risk countries), will have mandatory 10 days quarantine.
Some universities will continue online classes in the next semester in the UK
However, different universities have different plans for re-opening. The University of Cambridge announced various measures for returning students based on certain criteria. The University of Manchester also announced that there will be online lectures for most students barring those who are on practical and practice-based courses, or who require access to specialist equipment or facilities.
The University of Oxford announced that large group teaching and lectures at Oxford were likely to remain online.  It added that departments may offer in-person teaching to students on courses that have now been permitted to restart where feasible. If international students wished to return, they must follow national and international travel guidance and must quarantine for ten days on arrival in the UK and taking the RT-PCR test within three days before traveling to the UK. No requirements for vaccination have been mentioned.
Canada and Australia have also not listed any requirement with respect to vaccination
So far, Canada has not made mandatory requirements pertaining to vaccination for International students. However, students may have to undergo mandatory quarantine for up to 14 days. Meanwhile, the Australian Government has prohibited non-Australian citizens from traveling to Australia due to the pandemic as of date.
Many challenges await Indian students
While attending physical classes is desirable for quality education, there are multiple challenges for Indian students admitted to universities in different countries.
In India, the vaccination for those aged 18 years and above began only recently (on 01 May 2021). Only three vaccines are currently approved and available for now, namely- Covishield, Covaxin, and Sputnik. Of these, only Covishield has been approved by the WHO while India’s indigenous Covaxin and Russian Sputnik V have not been approved by the WHO as yet. The time frame for approval of these two vaccines by the WHO is also not clear. While additional data is sought in the case of ‘Sputnik V’, a pre-submission meeting is planned for Covaxin in June 2021, as per the latest available information.
In other words, those students who took either of the two unapproved vaccines may have to get revaccinated with FDA-approved vaccines if they are traveling to the US. However, there are certain concerns regarding revaccination. Firstly, there are no safety or efficacy studies regarding taking two different vaccine candidates. Secondly, based on the gap requirement between different doses and the two weeks requirement of CDC for full vaccination, a student will have to wait for at least five weeks before attending in-person classes in the US. While other countries still do not have a mandatory vaccine requirement, the talk of vaccine passports might make it difficult for students and other Indians who take unapproved vaccines to travel abroad. India’s Health Minister has already expressed concern & strong opposition to ‘vaccine passports’ at this juncture.
Gap between doses and availability are major roadblocks
Though the absolute number of those vaccinated in India is impressive, the share of those vaccinated of the entire population is where India falters. A little over 15% of the population has received at least one dose so far unlike the UK and the US which have vaccinated a large portion of their population.
As observed in one of our earlier stories, India missed the trick by not making advance orders and hence is now facing supply-side constraints. The situation may not improve without a substantial ramping up of the production facilities in the coming months.  Coupled with the issue of availability are technical issues and the mandate of dosage gap. Quite a few people have complained about not being able to book slots on the COWIN platform and have jokingly equated this to book a tatkal ticket on the IRCTC website.
The other big concern is the mandatory dosage interval for Covishield. The Indian government has increased the gap between two doses of Covishield to 12 to 16 weeks. In other words, an individual has to wait for a minimum of three months to get both doses. Considering that the fall classes in most universities begin late August and that reporting of vaccination has to be done by the first week of August, many students might find it difficult to get both doses of the WHO-approved Covishield by August. The government also recommends a waiting period of four to eight weeks for those who were infected with the coronavirus prior to vaccination. This means that students who recently got infected may have to wait for up to two months to even get their first dose. In addition to the issues with vaccination, localized lockdowns have also disrupted the issuance of visas to students.
Some states have prioritized vaccination for students going abroad
The states of Kerala and Telangana and the City of Mumbai have prioritized the vaccination process for students going abroad for higher studies. The Kerala Government has also reduced the gap for the two doses of Covishield to 4 to 6 weeks, for those traveling abroad. The Central Government needs to consider these difficulties and make appropriate changes in dosage intervals for those traveling abroad for studies and other needs, on the lines of the Kerala government.
Featured Image: Vaccination for Students


text:
Committee refuses to drop important assurances as ‘Long time for fulfilment cannot be the sole reason to drop’
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 17, 2022
In this second part on dropping assurances, we review the assurances that were dropped for other reasons such as fulfilment is no more the responsibility of the current ministry. We would also look at assurances whose request to drop has not been accepted by the Committee as it said that a long time for fulfilment cannot be the sole reason to drop.
In the first of this two-part series, we looked at the assurances dropped by the Lok Sabha’s Committee on Governance Assurances because of the two reasons, namely – assurances that cannot be fulfilled in the near future, and assurances are no longer under consideration and would not be fulfilled.
In this second part, we review the assurances that were dropped for other reasons such as fulfilment is no more the responsibility of the current ministry. We would also look at assurances whose request to drop has not been accepted by the Committee.
Assurances relating to ‘Operation of Digital Board’ and ‘Review of NCERT Books’ among those subsumed by other departments or schemes
Among the assurances that were dropped by the Committee, are those that were dropped because the responsibility of the fulfillment does not lie with the ministry anymore, as the assurance is already part of another initiative, or the responsibility lies with other departments/ministries.
Few such dropped assurances include:
Unstarred Question 3438 (Department of School Education & Literacy)
The question was about the implementation of “Operation Digital Board” and was dropped for the following reasons:
Unstarred Questions 6641 & 4129 (Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs)
The questions were regarding the requests received from Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose INA Trust and other organizations for the allotment of land in New Delhi for the Netaji memorial.
The assurances were dropped for the following reasons:
Unstarred Question 2091 (Ministry of Education)
The question was regarding NCERT reviewing ‘National Curriculum Framework (NCF) – 2005’ in school textbooks. The question was dropped for the following reasons:
Unstarred Question 1149 (Ministry of Finance – Department of Expenditure)
The question was regarding ‘Parity between IAS & non-IAS officers in Seventh Pay Recommendations’. It was dropped for the following reasons:
Starred Question 342 (Ministry of Jal Shakti)
The question was regarding Shortage of Water in Telangana, due to new projects built by Andhra Pradesh and the action to be taken on these projects. The assurance was dropped for the following reasons:
The Committee observed that a long time for fulfillment cannot be considered as criteria for important assurances to be dropped.
Out of the 27 requests for dropping the assurances received by Lok Sabha’s Committee on Government Assurances (2021-22), 6 requests for dropping have not been accepted by the Committee.
Here is a look at the comments provided by the Committee for not dropping these assurances as per the 53rd Report.
Unstarred Question 29 (Ministry of Culture)
The assurance was related to the setting up/ construction of the ‘National Centre for Performing Arts (NCPA) and the Indian Institute of Culture’. The committee gave the following response for not dropping the assurance:
Unstarred Question 3519 (Ministry of Corporate Affairs)
The question was related to developing ‘India’s Nation Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights’. The Committee’s reasons for not accepting the drop request are the following.
Unstarred Question 3413 (Ministry of Finance – Department of Revenue)
The question was regarding the creation of ‘New Tariff lines for Cashew’. The Ministry has examined and decided that the creation of new tariff lines cannot be considered. The Committee observed that, since the Ministry decided on this matter, the assurance would be deemed as fulfilled and has requested the implementation report to be laid in the House. Hence the request for dropping the assurance is not accepted.
Starred Question 277 (Ministry of Defence)
The Question was related to the delay in HAL’s handing over the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT) to the Indian Air force. The Ministry contended that the assurance cannot be fulfilled owing to the uncertainty involved in IJT Programme. The Committee observed that:
Unstarred Question 680 (Ministry of Defence)
The question is relating to the construction of Polyclinics under ECHS. The Ministry has cited that acquiring land takes a long time and it has to negotiate and deal with various local authorities.
The Committee in its reasons for not dropping the Assurance has stated that:
Unstarred Question 4684 (Ministry of Finance – Department of Revenue)
The question was regarding providing certain privileges for honest taxpayers. The Ministry’s request to drop this assurance was based on assurance for a similar question being dropped in Rajya Sabha. The Committee felt that this cannot be cited as a reason for dropping the assurance, and further asked the ministry to expedite taking a decision on granting privileges to honest taxpayers, as they contribute towards nation-building.

source: news-factly

created: January 17, 2022

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Constitutional responsibility of government to dispose of dead bodies
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 10, 2021
In this roundup of the important court judgments, we look at directions about the nature of offences under Section 295A, OBC reservations, the responsibility of government to dispose of dead bodies, enabling access to potable and arsenic-free drinking water.
Tripura HC: Careless insults to religion without any deliberate or malicious intention would not come within the Section 295A.
In the case Dulal Ghosh v. State of Tripura & Ors, the Tripura high court held that insults to religion made unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class would not come within the Section 295A.
The court was hearing the appeal filed by the petitioner to quash an FIR filed against him filed under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant submitted that the petitioner hurt the religious feelings of the Hindu community by posting a comment on his Facebook, where he referred to Geeta (Hindu religious scripture) as “thakbaji Gita” (meaning deceitful or swindling). The complainant further submitted that the petitioner always puts up un-tasteful and obscene comments on the Hindu religion.
The petitioner contended that the post in question is deliberately twisted and misinterpreted. He had neither the intention nor desired to hurt the religious feelings of any community or class of citizens and therefore, appealed that the FIR be quashed since even after taking the allegations made in the complaint on the face value, no offence can be stated to have been committed.
After considering all submissions, the high court noted that with the rapid spread of social media platforms, the right to free speech has got an entirely new dimension. While presenting on the nature of Section, the high court referred to the case of Ramji Lal Modi versus State of U.P, where a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 295A of IPC on the ground that it transgresses the guarantee of free speech. The judgement notes that Section 295A does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
In this context, the bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi highlighted that insults to religion made unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class would not come within the said section. The judgement concluded that the expression used by the petitioner is in total isolation, without virtually any background or foreground, therefore would not fit within the scheme of Section 295A of IPC. The judgment pronounced that the petitioner can hold his personal beliefs and within the framework of law and the said FIR against him was quashed.
Supreme Court: OBC reservations cannot exceed the aggregate of 50 per cent of the total seats in the local bodies
In the case Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. the State Of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that OBC reservations are permissible only to the extent it does not exceed the aggregate of 50 percent of the total seats in the local bodies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.
The apex court was hearing a writ petition seeking to quash Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 that provides for reservation exceeding 50 percent in Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis of districts Washim, Akola, Nagpur, and Bhandara. A district-wise chart was presented to illustrate the excess reserved percentage and seats (more than an aggregate of 50 percent of total seats).
The judgement notes that the thumb rule is that of proportionate reservation. The legal position is that the upper ceiling of 50 percent (quantitative limitation) with respect to vertical reservations in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together should not be breached in the context of local self-government. Exceptions can only be made in order to safeguard the interests of the Scheduled Tribes in the matter of their representation in panchayats located in the Scheduled Areas.
The judgement specified that the quantum of reservation for OBCs in the local body should be provisioned to ensure that it does not exceed the quantitative limitation of 50 per cent (aggregate) of vertical reservation of seats for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together. Further, the State legislations must not simply provide a uniform and rigid quantum of reservation for OBCs in local bodies across the state without a proper enquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness by an independent Commission about the imperativeness of such reservation.
The argument of the State was that the reservations in favour of OBCs must be linked to the population in the State. To this, the judgement has expounded about the distinction in the matter of reservation in favour of SCs and STs on the one hand, which is a “constitutional” reservation linked to population unlike in the case of OBCs which is a ‘statutory’ dispensation. Therefore, the latter reservation for OBCs must be proportionate in the context of nature and implications of backwardness and in any case, is permissible only to the extent it does not exceed the aggregate of 50 per cent of the total seats in the local bodies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.
In conclusion, the bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, and Ajay Rastogi held that Section 12(2)(c) of the 1961 Act needs to be read down.
Calcutta HC: Constitutional & Statutory responsibility of government to dispose of dead bodies which are not being cared for.
In the case Lakshmikanta Lagar & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., the high court held that in the ultimate situation of dead bodies not being cared for by the near and dear ones, is the constitutional and statutory responsibility of the Government or the local self-government.
The court was dealing with a plea seeking installation of an electric chulli for a certain area as absolutely essential for taking care of dead bodies not being cared for by relatives.
The bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee was of the view that providing an electric chulli for the areas in question is absolutely essential in the larger interest of managing right to life and connected issues particularly, decent disposal of human remains.
The court directed the District Magistrate and related officials to install electric chulli for the utility of the people, the majority of whom are economically and socially marginalised, within a period of a fortnight from the day of the judgment.
Meghalaya HC: Formulate a policy for enabling easy access to potable and arsenic-free drinking water.
In the case of Dr. Tilok Dasgupta v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., the High Court directed the State of Meghalaya to formulate a policy for enabling easy access to potable and arsenic-free drinking water.
On 16  February 2021, the High Court directed the State of Meghalaya, to furnish a detailed report providing the exact number and names of those villages that, to date, do not have any access to potable and arsenic-free drinking water. The submitted report did not reveal any policy of the State Government other than a reference to the Jal Jeevan Mission programme of the Central Government’s Ministry of Jal Shakti.
The Bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew and Justice Biswanath Somadder noted that since the State of Meghalaya does not have any scheme/policy of its own, it has directed the State of Meghalaya to formulate a policy that should lay down a roadmap for those people residing in this State, who do not have any easy access to potable and arsenic-free drinking water.
Featured Image: Important Court Decisions


text:
Consumer Confidence dips slightly in the RBI’s Forward Looking Surveys
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 24, 2021
The RBI recently released the results of the March round of ‘Forward-Looking Surveys’. Both the Current Situation Index (CSI) and the Future Expectations Index (FEI) related to consumer confidence dipped slightly in the latest survey as compared to the previous survey. The business expectations index, however, showed an improvement. The impact of the second wave of COVID-19 on these indices will be only known in future surveys.
On 07 April 2021, RBI released the results of ‘Forward-Looking Surveys’. The RBI periodically conducts surveys on various aspects such as consumer confidence, industrial production, inflation expectations, etc. to understand the prevailing economic conditions in the country. In this story, we take a look at a few of the critical observations from these surveys and explore the trends over the period of time.
Consumer Confidence Survey (CCS)
The Consumer Confidence Indices comprise of Current Situation Index (CSI) and Future Expectations Index (FEI). The Current Situation Index measures the overall consumer sentiment regarding the present economic situation. It is an indicator of consumer sentiment about current business and job market conditions. The Future Expectations Index is used to gauge future trends. The Future Expectations Index indicates how business conditions, employment, and income would likely change over the next year. In other words, the Consumer Confidence Survey gauges consumer perception and expectations on the following:
Businesses, investors, and economic policymakers watch these indices along with other related indicators to help gauge near-term consumer demand. One of our previous articles details the intricacies involved in the Consumer Confidence Survey.
The survey was conducted through field interviews during 27 February and 08 March 2021 in thirteen major cities, viz., Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Chennai, Delhi, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Patna, and Thiruvananthapuram. Perceptions and expectations on the general economic situation, employment scenario, overall price situation, and own income and spending have been obtained from 5,372 households across these cities.
Highlights of the Consumer Confidence Survey:
In order to understand these major highlights, let us take a look at specific parameters of the Consumer Confidence Survey.
Spending in further divided into essential and non-essential categories.
Households’ Inflation Expectations Survey
The Households’ Inflation Expectations survey seeks qualitative responses from households on price changes (general prices as well as prices of specific product groups) in the three months ahead as well as in the one year ahead period and quantitative responses on current, three months ahead, and one year ahead inflation rates. The results of this survey provide useful inputs for monetary policy. The survey was conducted through field interviews on 27 February and 08 March 2021 in 18 major cities. The results are based on responses from 5,955 urban households. The survey aims at capturing subjective assessments on price movements and inflation, of approximately 6,000 households, based on their individual consumption baskets, across 18 cities, viz., Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Chennai, Delhi, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, Nagpur, Patna, Raipur, Ranchi, and Thiruvananthapuram.
Highlights of the Households’ Inflation Expectations Survey:
Industrial Outlook Survey of the Manufacturing Sector
The Industrial Outlook Survey (IOS) encapsulates a qualitative assessment of the business climate by Indian manufacturing companies and their expectations. In all, 967 companies responded in this round of the survey. The 93rd round of the IOS was conducted during January-March 2021 and owing to uncertainty driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional block was included in this round of the survey for assessing the outlook on key parameters for two quarters ahead as well as three quarters ahead.
The business assessment index (BAI) showed a significant dip in Q1 of 2020-21 and improved thereafter. The BAI extended further to 113.1 in Q4 of 2020-21 from 108.6 in the previous quarter. The business expectations index (BEI) showed a decline through 2020 and improved thereafter. The BEI has increased to 119.6 in Q1 of 2021-22 from 114.1 in Q4 of 2020-21.
Highlights of the Industrial Outlook Survey of the Manufacturing Sector:
Assessment for Q4 of 2020-21
Expectations for Q1 of 2021-22
Expectations for Q2 & Q3 of 2021-22
While things sound favourable in terms of the overall business climate, it has to be noted that these surveys were conducted before the onset of the COVID-19 second wave in India which is causing severe distress across the country. The impact of the second wave and vaccinations will only be known in future surveys.


text:
Courts make important decisions about Rights of Persons with Disability, dereliction of duty by government officials,invocation of sedition laws,rights of LGBT community.
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 18, 2021
Supreme Court: Conflating the rights of PwDs with the notion of benchmark disabilities does a dis-service
In the case Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors, the Supreme court held that conflating the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities (PwDs) with the notion of benchmark disabilities does dis-service to the purpose underlying the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
While examining the contours of the case, the bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, and Sanjiv Khanna held that through a maze of statutes, rules, and regulations, the case raises core issues about the actual realization of equal opportunity and access to people with disability.
The court was hearing the case of a citizen who suffers from a writer’s cramp and was denied a scribe in the civil services examination. The appellant has a disability in the form of dysgraphia, commonly known as a Writer’s Cramp. For the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2018, the appellant declared himself to be a person with a benchmark disability of 40% or more and requested the UPSC to provide him with a scribe for the examination. On 15 March 2018, UPSC rejected the request on the ground that a scribe could be provided only to blind candidates and candidates with a locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with impairment of at least 40%, as per the CSE Notification 2018, and that the appellant did not meet this criterion.
Aggrieved by the denial of the services of a scribe for the CSE 2018, the appellant moved the Tribunal. With an interim order, the Tribunal directed the UPSC to provide him a scribe to enable him to appear for the preliminary examination. The results were published on 14 July 2018, but the appellant’s result was withheld. On 07 August 2018, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellant on the ground that, since Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital had refused to issue a disability certificate, the appellant could not claim access to a scribe as a disabled candidate. The Tribunal refrained from interfering in the rules enshrined in the CSE notification 2018.
Thereafter, the appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and challenged the legality of the CSE Rules 2018. Meanwhile, he obtained a medical certificate on 27 August 2018 from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, declaring that he has a Writer’s Cramp and would require a scribe during his examinations. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, on 25 September 2018, declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant had not qualified at the Preliminary Examination for CSE 2018 and thus, the relief seeking an amendment of the CSE Rules 2018 to provide scribes to candidates with specific disabilities was rendered otiose.
After that, the appellant challenged the order of the High Court in Supreme Court. On 16 January 2020, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) was directed to constitute a medical board to evaluate the condition of the appellant. Their report, as mentioned in the judgement, opines that while he does not suffer from a “benchmark disability”, the appellant is a ‘person with disability’ under the Rights of Persons with Disability (RPwD) Act, 2016. The extent of the disability was assessed at 6%.
Upon examining all submissions, the Supreme Court opined that although the RPwD Act 2016 & relevant guidelines envisage the provision of a scribe to candidates with benchmark disabilities in written examinations, the policy also recognises that there should be a measure of flexibility to accommodate specific needs on a case-to-case basis. In this backdrop, the judgement directs that benchmark disability is not a precondition to obtaining a scribe. Conflating the rights and entitlements of persons with disabilities with the notion of benchmark disabilities does dis-service to the purpose underlying the enactment of the RPwD Act 2016.
The bench highlights that under Section 20 of the RPwD 2016 Act, every government establishment is required to provide “reasonable accommodation” and a conducive environment to employees with disabilities. “Reasonable accommodation” as defined in Section 20(2) means necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy their rights equally with others.
Taking note of this principle, the bench also observed that the V Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu judgment does not discuss this principle even though it was rendered after the enactment of the RPwD act 2016. The apex court held that Surendra Mohan’s judgement would no longer be a binding precedent, in the light of the RPwD act 2016. In this judgement, the supreme court had held that a judicial officer in a State has to possess reasonable faculties of hearing, sight, and speech in order to hear cases and write judgments and, therefore, stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post. The judgement was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph while dismissing the appeal filed by a V. Surendra Mohan, who was held ineligible for the post of judicial officer (civil judge) as it was found that he was having 70% disability.
In conclusion,
Madras HC: Negligence and dereliction of duty by government officials is serious misconduct
In the case Union of India v. Kommu Sumathi & Ors., the high court held that one cannot approach the Court in a routine or mechanical manner with a huge delay in filing an appeal.
The high court was hearing a Civil Appeal filed by Southern Railways of the Indian Railways, with an application to condone the delay of 264 days in filing the said appeal.
The department submitted that the submission of the civil appeal was delayed by 264 days because of the delay in getting the opinion for filing an appeal.
The high court held that such an administrative delay is unacceptable. If the officials working in the legal section of the department are not vigilant, they must be held responsible and they are accountable for the lapses, negligence, and dereliction of duty.
In refusing to condone the long delay in the absence of any acceptable reason, Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the concerned officials must be prosecuted under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and the financial loss is to be recovered from those officials by conducting an enquiry.
The judgement condemns the delay and emphasizes that the authorities cannot approach the Court in a routine or mechanical manner with a huge delay in filing an appeal. Negligence and dereliction of duty are serious misconducts and therefore any such lapse is to be enquired and all appropriate actions are to be initiated to ensure appropriate disciplinary proceedings. Parties are expected to file their respective appeals within the period of limitation stipulated in the statute. In case of certain unforeseen circumstances that may cause delay, they have to be truthfully explained in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition.
In conclusion, the high court held that the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition are neither valid nor acceptable and therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
Madras HC: Neither the Government nor its officials are interested in the welfare of the citizens and honouring orders of the court.
In another case concerning administrative delays, District Collector, Dindigul District and another vs. Saraswathi and others, the Madras high court came down heavily on state government officials for delaying the disbursement of compensation, by 54 years, for a piece of land acquired to set up a bus depot.
The land in question was acquired by the Government for the formation of the Bus Depot at Palani in August 1967. Originally, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a sum of Rs. 1.70 per sq. feet. This award was passed in October 1971. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 7.82 per sq. feet in July 2004 i.e., nearly 30 years after the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. The said fixation was challenged, and the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed confirming the award in January 2017. Consequently, it was also undertaken that the said amount would be paid on or before 10 January 2019. The said amount was not paid as directed. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dindigul, filed this application seeking further extension of time.
Upon examining all submissions, the high court observed that the orders of the high court to satisfy the said compensation award were repeatedly not honoured. Noting the delay of 54 years in providing compensation, the judgement opines that neither the Government nor its officials are interested in the welfare of the citizens and honouring orders of this court. In conclusion, the court directs that the state must comply with the award by 25 March 2021 and if the entire balance compensation is not deposited by that day, the District Collector, Dindigul shall appear in person before the court on the following day.
Delhi HC: The law of sedition cannot be invoked to muzzle miscreants
In the case Swaroom Ram vs. State, the high court held that the law of sedition is a powerful tool in the hands of the state to maintain peace and order in the society. However, it cannot be invoked under the pretense of muzzling miscreants.
The high court was hearing a bail plea filed by the petitioner, a 21-year-old labourer who was accused of sedition and forgery for posting a fake video on his Facebook page relating to the senior officer of Delhi.
The submissions from the petitioner expressed that the material alleged against the applicant/accused is innocuous in nature and in fact an expression of emotions uttered in disagreement with government policies. The submissions from the state’s side alleged that the petitioner has not only made a sensational Facebook post with an intent to spread disaffection against the State but has also committed forgery.
The high court held that the law of sedition cannot be invoked to quieten the disquiet under the pretense of muzzling the miscreants. In the absence of any call, incitement, or instigation to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resorting to violence or any allusion, the charges of sedition cannot be invoked against the petitioner.
The judgement also highlighted that the alleged offence of forgery would also not be attracted in this case as the post was not created or executed under the authority of the petitioner, the post was only shared by the petitioner. However, the judgement notes that allegations against the petitioner for spreading rumours under Section 505 IPC seems to bear force but that is a bailable offence. In view of this, the Court granted bail to the accused on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount.
Allahabad HC: Display of affection amongst the members of the LGBT community towards their partners in the public cannot be bogged down by majority perception.
In the case of Pramod Kumar Sharma vs. State of UP and others, the high court held that affection amongst the members of the LGBT community cannot be bogged down by majority perception and highlighted that the sexual orientation of the person is his individual choice.
The high court was hearing a petition filed against the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner (dated 11.06.2019) from the post of Home Guard passed by the District Commandant of Home Guards, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.
The appointment of the petitioner to the post of Home Guard was cancelled on account of some video that was made viral by someone. The sexual orientation of the petitioner was stated, and the petitioner was said to be indulgent in the untoward activity. The high court held that this was in complete violation of the observations of the Apex Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India reported in (2018), which pronounces that the sexual orientation of the person is his individual choice and any act of treating it as an offence would be interference in the right of the privacy of the person concerned.
The Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal observed that any display of affection amongst the members of the LGBT community towards their partners in the public cannot be bogged down by majority perception.
In conclusion, the high court quashed the appointment cancellation order passed by the District Commandant of Home Guards, Bulandshahar, and directed the Commandant General of Home Guards, Lucknow to take the petitioner back in service with immediate effect. The judgement also mentions that the petitioner shall be entitled to all admissible dues and honorarium.
Featured Image: Important Court Decisions

created: February 18, 2021


text:
Courts make observations about Citizenship, action against Religious trusts, Human Rights
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 10, 2021
Gauhati HC: Citizenship of a person is a valuable right
The Gauhati high court was hearing an appeal filed by Nasima Begum (petitioner) against the order of a tribunal dated 12 October 2018, wherein the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of the post-1971 stream. The high court held that citizenship of a person is a valuable right, and the tribunal has acted half-heartedly.
The Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioner asking her to prove her Indian Citizenship. The petitioner claimed that she was born and brought up at village Mora Chengeli, P.S. – Halem in the Sub-Division of Gohpur, District – Biswanath. Her father’s name is Sultan Ansari. In the year 1998, she got married to Md. Allaudin Halder, resident of Village-Nalanibari, P.S. Halem in the Sub-Division of Gohpur, District – Biswanath. According to the petitioner, her father’s name appeared in the voters’ lists of 1965 and 1971. The petitioner studied in Indira Gandhi L.P. School and the Headmaster of the school-issued her a certificate displaying the petitioner to be the daughter of Sultan Ansari. For this purpose, the petitioner produced two other documents, namely, a Gaonbura certificate and a certificate issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat. The Gaonbura and the Secretary of the Panchayat were not examined before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, at the behest of the petitioner, issued summons to the Headmaster, but the Headmaster did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, a bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the said Headmaster. Finally, the Tribunal issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest on 13 November 2017, for securing the presence of the Headmaster of Indira Gandhi L.P. School but police did not execute the said warrant of arrest. Finally, the Tribunal delivered the opinion without examination of the Headmaster and declared the petitioner to be a foreigner.
The high court held that citizenship of a person is a valuable right, and it appears that the Tribunal acted half-heartedly while trying to enforce the attendance of the Headmaster of Indira Gandhi L.P. School. The petitioner could not prove the school certificate only because of the failure of the Tribunal to enforce the attendance of the Headmaster of Indira Gandhi L.P. School. Therefore, the tribunal’s order suffers from and hence not sustainable as per the HC.
After considering all submissions, the bench of Justice Manojit Bhuyan and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia was of the opinion that for the ends of justice at least one more opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to contest the police reference on merits. On such production and on the application made for bail along with documents, the Tribunal shall take steps to release the petitioner on bail. It is expected that the Tribunal will fix the next immediate date within a reasonable time, enabling the petitioner to produce further evidence.
The judgement also makes it clear that if the petitioner defaults in appearing before the Tribunal on dates to be fixed in the case and also fails to take the required steps, it shall be open to the Tribunal to pass such order as may be deemed fit and proper and in accordance with the law.
Bombay HC: Police officers and judicial officers should work with a ‘secular mind’
In the case of Shri. Namdev Sahebrao Garad vs. State of Maharashtra and others, the Bombay high court held that government authorities, including police officers and judicial officers, should work with a ‘secular mind’ and avoid the general fear of inviting trouble in matters involving religious feelings.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Namdev Garad, a former trustee of the Jagdamba Trust alleging the commission of ‘illegal acts’ by the trustees of the trust. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the year 2011 and later some illegal acts were committed by the trustees of Devi Sarvajanik Trust situated at Mohote in Ahmednagar. They involve burying around 2 kg of gold in the name of Yantras and showing the additional expenditure of Rs. 25 lakh for doing ceremonies in respect of so-called Yantras.  It is submitted that there is a clear probability that by showing that Yantras weighing 2 kg of gold were buried, the gold and aforesaid amount were misappropriated and so, these acts of the trustees need to be investigated by the police. It is contended that a person who was working as Project Officer of the trust had committed illegal activities and in the year 2010 and an inquiry was made against that Project Officer. The Project Officer continued to work as Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) of the trust and this circumstance creates a probability that for many years such illegal activities of the trust are going on.
The petitioner further submitted that a question was raised in State Legislative Assembly about such illegal activities and an inquiry was also directed. He contended a farce was created of the inquiry and nobody cooperated in the inquiry and no action was taken even when complaints were made by the petitioner and others in respect of the illegal activities.
The court, after examining the record of inquiry made by the clerical staff of the office of Deputy Charity Commissioner, noted that the Deputy Charity Commissioner has not passed any order which is expected after making an inquiry.
The judgement emphasises that the act of the trustees cannot be called as only irregularity. The circumstances are sufficient to make out the case of breach of trust for the present purpose. These activities apparently fall under the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, etc. of IPC. It is also cheating of the poor people who had donated the ornaments to the endowment for purposes mentioned in the scheme of the trust.
The judgement highlights that the object behind the Maharashtra Public Trust Act is to prevent and stop the prevailing abuses, malpractices, and defects in the administration of such trust and endowment. The court felt that in a case like the present one, the acts done in breach of the provisions cannot be ignored.
The bench of Justice T.V. Nalawade and Justice M.G. Sewlikar highlighted that the inaction on the part of the Deputy Charity Commissioner in the case shows the authorities did not conduct the investigation properly due to general fear of hurting religious sentiments. The general fear may be the possibility that they may invite trouble as the matter involves religious feelings and it can be viewed as an act against God. In view of Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, this Court holds that the authorities are expected to work with the secular mind in such a case and they need to adhere to the ‘truth’.
The authority needs to have a scientific approach in such matters, and they need to adhere to the provisions of law. With that approach, they need to make inquiries and investigations and take action. If no such approach is adopted, ‘truth’ will always suffer defeat and the tendency like one shown by the trustees in the present matter will go on increasing.
The Court holds that even the trustees like the petitioner who was party earlier can be made accused as one of the conspirators. All the trustees who were party to the resolution and who approved the expenditure subsequently also can be booked for these illegalities. The complaint is already given and that can be treated as the base for starting the investigation, for registration of the crime. The judgement directs the concerned police station having jurisdiction over the religious endowment to register the crime on the basis of the complaint. Crime can be registered for the offence of conspiracy, for the offence of cheating, for the offence of misappropriation, for the offence of breach of trust, and also for offence punishable under the Black Magic Act and also under the other provisions which police may deem fit. It also specifies that the investigation needs to be completed within six months from the date of order.
Madras HC: Recommendation of State Human Rights Commission is binding on Government
In the case  Abdul Sathar vs. Principal Secretary to the Government, the Madras high court has held that the recommendation of State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is binding on the Government or the relevant Authority. It has also suggested amendments in the Protection of Human Rights Act to provide an internal/self-contained mechanism for the Human Rights Commission to enforce its recommendations.
In this regard, the judgement outlines the following:
The Bench comprising of Justices S Vaidyanathan, Parthiban and M Sundar also held that it is an adjudicatory order which is legally and immediately enforceable.
Gujarat HC: Education should never be compromised
In taking Suo Moto cognizance of an article dated 18 December 2020 published by the Indian Express, the high court made the following observations and issued relevant directions.
The article reported a survey conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A) and the UNICEF, Gujarat, with respect to the various problems and hardships faced by many households during the period of lock-down, more particularly, the hardship that was caused on account of the sudden stoppage of the mid-day-meals in the Government schools.
In response, the State submitted that:
Having duly considered the survey report and submission of the State government, the high court emphasised that inability to pay the fees should not compel the parents to stop providing education to their children. It is possible that the help rendered by the Government might not have reached to few families and this is what the survey talks about. The judgement directs that the state government pay due attention to such genuine cases and try to render assistance in all possible manner.
Featured Image: Important Court Observations

created: February 10, 2021


text:
Review: Courts make important observations about right of transgenders
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 13, 2021
In this edition of the roundup of important court judgments, we look at cases where constitutional courts made important observations about the right of transgenders to self-perceived gender-identity, indiscriminate arrests, pending criminal cases against legislators, and the spirit of implementing reservation.
Bombay HC: A person recognised as a transgender has a right to self-perceived gender identity
In the case, Anjali Guru Sanjana Jaan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High court observed that the right of a transgender person to self-perceived gender identity is well-established.
The petitioner is a transgender who chose the female gender as her self-perceived gender identity and hence, had tendered her nomination form for contesting the election from the ward reserved for the women-general category. Her nomination form was rejected by the Returning Officer in December 2020 stating that since she is transgender, there is no reservation for the transgender category in the present Village Panchayat elections.
The judgement referred to Section 4(2) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 which lays down that a person recognised as a transgender shall have a right to self-perceived gender identity. The advocate representing the State Election Commission stated that the Returning Officer is likely to be unaware of this law and must have been in a dilemma while deciding the issue of acceptance of the nomination form of the petitioner.
It also highlights the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India and others and observes that:
The returning officer’s order was quashed and set aside by the high court. The petitioner was permitted to contest the election from the ward and category which she has opted for in her nomination form.
Allahabad HC: Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights
J&K HC: Keeping accused in custody indiscriminately amounts to pre-trial punishment
In the case of Sachin Saini vs. State of UP and others, after the lodging of FIR, the arrest can be made by the police at will but it should be restricted to “those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required.”
The Bench was hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed on behalf of the applicant, Sachin Saini, with a prayer to release him on bail, in connection with a case registered under Section-452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. While the counsel for the accused argued that he has been falsely implicated and that there is no criminal history to his credit, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) of Uttar Pradesh opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.
After considering the submissions this court observes that “Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the particular case, the arrest of an accused should be made.”
In the backdrop of this case, the High court took the opportunity to highlight the third report of the National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India are one of the chief sources of corruption in the police.
The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of the expenditure of the jails. Regarding arrests, a part of the report highlights that:
In conclusion, the Allahabad high court ordered the applicant be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.
In another similar case Suraj Kumar vs. Union Territory of J&K, the J&K high court observed that an accused cannot be kept in custody merely for the reason that the offence alleged to have committed by him is of serious nature. The high court was hearing the bail plea filed on behalf of Suraj Kumar was booked under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, allegedly for being in possession of 500 grams contraband. The Trial Court had rejected his bail plea on the ground that the offence is serious in nature and affects society in general and the young generation in particular.
Reiterating the basic principle of law that every person is presumed to be innocent unless duly tried and found guilty, the bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, opined that withholding of bail of accused cannot be used as a measure of punishment. Considering the submission of the case, the Court noted that the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner was of “intermediate quantity” and hence, the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act would not apply.
Further, the Judge noted that the challan had already been produced before the Trial Court and thus, further incarceration of the petitioner could not be justified.
In conclusion, the J&K high court ordered the applicant be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with one surety.
Madras HC: Orders a comprehensive roadmap for clearing pending criminal cases against MPs and MLAs
A division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy took suo moto cognizance for monitoring the progress of pending criminal cases against state MPs and MLAs in the trial courts and High Court for ensuring full compliance with the directions of the Apex Court as provided in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. v. Union of India (2020).
In the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case, the apex court directed that each high court must assign pending criminal cases involving former and sitting legislators to one judicial officer in each district both for sessions and magisterial courts to expedite their disposal.
Submissions from other high courts highlighted challenges associated with the speedy disposal of criminal cases against legislators, as highlighted in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case judgement. First, the proceedings in a number of cases have been stayed by the various High Courts. Second, the number of special courts constituted for the hearing and disposal of these criminals registered against legislators is grossly insufficient. Third, there is a   dearth of public prosecutors in these courts. Additionally, warrants are not executed, and witnesses are often not summoned. Sometimes, even the concerned authorities do not appear as required. Fourth, even when authorities may formally initiate an investigation by registering an FIR or with a preliminary inquiry by the CBI, or by registering an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), these matters are not taken to their logical conclusion and often do not even result in the registration of a charge-sheet.
The apex court noted that this matter is of paramount public importance and issued the following guidelines:
Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, the High Court of Madras prepared data in the prescribed format describing the numbers of pending criminal cases against the legislators and concluded that a total of 107 cases were pending before the High Court alone (91 before the Principal Seat at Madras and 16 before the Bench of Madurai). Considering the gravity of the situation, the high court issued the following directions:
Delhi HC: Authorities should not take technical objections while considering candidatures filed by members belonging to SC/ST communities.
In the case of Lekharaj Meena and Union of India, the Delhi high court observed that the authorities should not take technical objections while considering candidatures filed by members belonging to SC/ST communities.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Lekhraj Meena, a Police-forces aspirant from Rajasthan, who applied and passed for the SSC examination under the SC category. However, he was unable to qualify for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) conducted in Delhi because he had not filled up the form of certificate for height relaxation. The Presiding Officer of the PET Board granted 5 days’ time to submit the requisite form of certificate for height relaxation, after obtaining certification from the competent authorities of the district where the petitioner resides. However, the same could not be submitted on time and the Presiding Officer refused to accept his certificate after five days. The Petitioner submitted that the delay was for reasons beyond his control, given the hurdles created by the ongoing Farmers’ Protest and Municipal Elections held in Rajasthan.
Considering these submissions, the Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon emphasized that the reasons and objective of providing reservations/relaxations should not be lost sight of while implementing the reservations and relaxations. The default by the petitioner in submitting the certificate for height relaxation cannot be enforced pedantically, forgetting the very purpose of granting the reservations.
In conclusion, the high court directed the concerned authorities to consider the Petitioner’s application along with the height relaxation certificate.
Featured Image: Important observations by Courts

created: January 13, 2021


text:
Review: Courts make important observations about the right to privacy
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 3, 2021
Karnataka HC: Information privacy is a facet of the right to privacy
In the case Anivar A Aravind vs. Ministry of Home Affairs and others, the Karnataka high court held that information privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The bench of Chief Justices AS Oka and Justice Vishwajith Shetty passed an interim judgement restraining the Central Government and the National Informatics Centre (NIC) from sharing the response data given by users in the ‘Aarogya Setu’ app with other government departments and agencies, without obtaining informed consent of the users.
The court was hearing a writ petition concerning the ‘Aarogya Setu’ application introduced by the Government of India after the nationwide lockdown was announced on 24 March 2020. The NIC launched the ‘Aarogya Setu’ app on 02 April 2020 which is stated to have been downloaded by more than one hundred million users. On 11 May 2020, an order was issued by the Chairperson, Empowered Group on Technology and Data Management in the name of ‘the Aarogya Setu Data Access and Knowledge Sharing Protocol, 2020’. One of the issues involved is whether the Government of India has a right to use the personal data of ‘Aarogya Setu’ app users and whether it can transfer/share the data without obtaining the informed consent of the users.
At this stage, the high court was not deciding the main issues raised in the petition. The judgement records only prima facie and tentative findings for the purposes of considering the prayer for interim relief. The judgement clarifies that no citizen can be denied the benefits of any Government services or the services rendered by any of the agencies or instrumentalities of the State solely on the ground that he has not downloaded and installed the ‘Aarogya Setu’ app. With respect to the right of privacy, the judgement observes that:
The judgement commends the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The users of the app are not even informed about the said protocol as provided in the ‘Aarogya Setu’ Data Access and Knowledge Sharing Protocol, 2020 because there is no reference to the said protocol in the terms of use and Privacy Policy available on the app. Therefore, the judgement directs that the use and retention of information and data shall remain confined to what is provided in the privacy policy which is available on the ‘Aarogya Setu’ app.
Delhi High Court: RTI Act as framed casts obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied
In the case Rakesh Kumar Gupta (erstwhile CPIO) vs. Central Information Commission, the high court held that Central Public Information Officers(CPIOs) have a solemn responsibility to deal with requests for information and `render reasonable assistance’ to the persons seeking information in a fair, non-arbitrary and truthful manner.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by two officers, who were working with the Union Bank of India as CPIOs, challenging the order dated 14 December 2020, passed by the Information Commissioner of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 10,000/- upon the Petitioners.
The background of this case is that an RTI application was filed on 09 January 2018, by the applicant who was a Chief Manager at the Union Bank of India seeking details of the Board approval along with justification. In reply to the said RTI application, the office of the CPIO informed the Applicant that a copy of the board note, being an internal document of commercial confidence and hence exempted from disclosure, cannot be furnished. The applicant thereafter filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. The said Appellate Authority also disposed of the appeal stating that a copy of the board approval was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
The applicant, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Information Commissioner, CIC. The CIC, through an order dated 29 January 2020, found that there was no reason why complete information was not provided to the applicant and held that the responses provided were rather incomplete and evasive. A show-cause notice was then issued to the CPIOs of the bank as to why a penalty should not be imposed on them for not providing complete information to the applicant.
After the said show cause notice was issued, the petitioners took a completely different stand and stated that the information sought could not be found on the record. In view of this complete change in stand by the petitioners, the CIC via an order dated 14 December 2020, imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each, on both the CPIOs.
The CIC came to the conclusion that there was variance in the replies given by the CPIOs and despite a lapse of more than two and a half years, the information has not been provided. Thus, it concluded that there were mala fides on behalf of the CPIOs resulting in the imposition of a penalty against them under section 20 of the RTI Act.
A single Judge bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh highlighted that the CPIO, being the custodian of information or documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information, and in cases of default, the penal action is to be invoked against the CPIO only.
The judgement observes that the CPIOs/PIOs are not merely ‘post offices’ and have a crucial responsibility in facilitating the purpose of the RTI Act. The court has held that:
Thus, information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. A PIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The RTI Act as framed casts an obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act fully comply. Even otherwise, the settled position in law is that an officer entrusted with the duty is not to act mechanically.
With respect to the duty of CPIOs, the judgement describes the following principles:
Considering the overall facts, the court opined that the penalty imposed cannot be faulted. However, considering the fact that both the CPIOs has since retired from the service of the Bank, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- each.
Calcutta HC: Basic tenets of Equality violated by not providing Reservation Benefits to Transgenders In ‘Joint CSIR-UGC NET’
In the case of Mx Sumana Pramanik vs. Union of India, a very pertinent question has been raised by the writ petitioner as regards a patent discrepancy in the eligibility criteria of the Joint CSIR-UGC NET examination with those of the UGC-NET Examination.
The high court observed that such discrimination relates to the eligibility criteria of the latter providing for transgenders to get the benefit of reservation and allied benefits, while those of the former, that is, the joint CSIR-UGC NET, excluding the transgender.
The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that guidelines have already been laid down by the Supreme Court, including a direction on the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat members of the “third gender” as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
The court opined that prima facie, such direction of the Supreme Court as well as the basic tenets of equality, enshrined in the Constitution, were violated by such exclusion. In conclusion, the court allowed the UGC some time to take appropriate instructions.
Allahabad HC: Lays down directions to ensure compliance of safeguards from arbitrary arrests
In the case of Vimal Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others, the high court made a significant observation regarding arbitrary arrests. The court directed the Police authorities to desist from making automatic/routine arrests, especially in dowry cases (498A IPC), and strictly comply with the pre-conditions laid down under Section 41A of CrPC.
Section 41A of CrPC provides that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1) (when police may arrest without warrant), the Police shall issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice. It further states that where the accused complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
A Division bench comprising Justices Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary noted that despite this safeguard, in many cases the police is still routinely proceeding to arrest accused persons, even if they are involved in offences punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment.
In conclusion, the judgement gives the following directions:
Featured Image: Important observations by Courts

created: February 3, 2021


text:
Courts make important observations about the role of judicial scrutiny
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 6, 2021
In this edition of the roundup of important court judgments, we look at cases where constitutional courts made important observations about the role of judicial scrutiny, individual rights vs. national interest, horizontal reservations, and animal rights.
Supreme Court upholds Centre’s plan for Central Vista Project by 2:1 majority
On 05 January 2020, in the case Rajeev Suri vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., the Supreme Court was called upon to undertake a comprehensive and heightened judicial scrutiny regarding the permissibility of the Central Vista Project for the construction of a new parliament building. Issues concerning the change in land use, the grant of statutory and other permissions, environmental as well as heritage clearances were raised.
The submissions from the government side stated the urgent need for a larger working space for the efficient functioning of the highest legislative wing of the country. They also stated that the present parliament building not only falls short of sufficient space but also fire, water, electrical, and earthquake safety norms and poses a grave security risk for the legislators and secretariat staff.
The submissions from the petitioner’s side challenge the legality of change in the land use of six plots in the Central Vista under the Delhi Development Act (DDA), 1957, and the permissions/approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission under the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973 and the clearance/no-objection for construction of a new Parliament House under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. It alleged the failure to take prior permission/approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee as per Annexure-II of the Unified Building Bye-Laws. The larger question relates to the government’s duty to consult and the scope and ambit of the citizen’s right to participate in the quasi-legislative exercise.
A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the judgement. While Justices Khanwilkar and Maheshwari formed the majority, Judge Sanjiv Khanna penned a dissenting judgement on the aspects of public participation on the interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee, and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee. However, he agreed with the other judges on the aspects of notice inviting bid, the award of consultancy, and the order of the Urban Arts Commission.
The dissenting judgement took note of the Centre’s failure to ascribe to the principle of intelligible and adequate disclosure to fulfil the requirement of public participation.
The majority judgement declared that there is no infirmity in the grant of approvals by the Central Vista Committee (CVC), Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC), and Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC). The judgement observes that the exercise of power by the Central Government under the DDA Act, 1957 is just and proper and thus the modifications regarding the change in land use of plot stands confirmed. It also opined that the role of the Court is limited to examining the constitutionality including the legality of the policy and Government actions and it cannot be called upon to govern.
Kerala HC: Individual rights should subserve the national interest
In the case of Thwaha Fasal vs. Union of India, the Kerala High Court was considering the appeal filed by Union of India against the order passed by NIA (National Investigation Agency) Court granting bail to Thwaha Fasal, who was booked under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) for alleged Maoist links in September last year.
The NIA court granted them bail observing that the National Investigation Agency failed to establish a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, against the accused as they have not indulged in any specific terrorist act or act of violence. In that view, the NIA court allowed the applications and released them on bail imposing certain conditions.
The High Court judgement, however, noted the opinion regarding the grant or otherwise of the bail must be reached by the courts not only in reference to the accusation in the FIR but also in reference to the contents of the case diary including the charge sheet and the other material gathered by the investigating agency.
The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices A. Hariprasad and K. Haripal observed that the documents seized from the accused carry the seeds of a secessionist ideology. The bench referred to the provisions of the UAPA Act and observed that if there are materials to infer that the accused have done something to promote or enthuse the activities of a terrorist organisation or done anything supporting its activities with the intention to further its activities, these offences are attracted. As per the agency, the accused was in possession of volatile materials from the banned CPI(Maoist) that could create unrest in the society.
Hence, the bench cancelled the bail granted to Thwaha Fasal by the NIA court and opined that “when individual rights are pitted against national interest and security, the latter should prevail.” The bench, however, did not cancel the bail granted to another accused Allan Shuaib observing that there are numerous mitigating circumstances in his favour.
Supreme Court: Candidates belonging to reserved category are eligible to fill general/open category vacancies
In the case of Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the apex court made important observations on the issue of vertical and horizontal reservations.  The case was with respect to the selection process undertaken by the State of Uttar Pradesh to fill up 41,610 posts of Police Constables. Two applicants, Ms. Sonam Tomar and Ms. Reeta Rani approached the Court aggrieved with non-consideration of their claim (of OBC female and SC female candidates) against the posts meant for General Category female candidates and that candidates with lower marks have been selected in General Female category.
The judgement refers to various earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court which deal with the issue of vertical and horizontal reservation. In the case of vertical reservations, the principle is well settled – candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “Open or General Category”.
The judgement noted that the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat have adopted the same principle (of vertical reservation) while dealing with horizontal reservation whereas the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh have taken a contrary view. According to the second view, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, the candidates from reserved categories can be adjusted only against their own categories under the concerned vertical reservation and not against the “Open or General Category”.
Disapproving the second view and rejecting the State’s contention that the women candidates who are entitled to benefit of social category reservations, cannot fill open category vacancies, the bench observed:
In conclusion, the apex court held that all candidates coming from ‘OBC Female Category’ who had secured more marks than the marks secured by the last candidate appointed in ‘General Category–Female’ must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.
Madras HC: Considering Elephant’s emotional bonding with caretaker, stops the department from taking its custody
In the case of Sheik Mohammed vs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests et al., the Madras High Court permitted a man to keep the custody of an elephant even though he does not have the requisite transfer certificate under the Wildlife Protection Act.
While dispensing this interesting judgement, Justice GR Swaminathan expressed that “just solutions to legal issues may sometimes lie outside the formal statutory framework.”
The case was regarding the possession of a female elephant named “Lalitha”, who was originally purchased by one G.Thangappan of Thirupuvanam. In 1988, the department issued a certificate of ownership in his favour. She then changed hands. Mohammed Aslam bought her in 1996 and sold her to Kannathu Kunju Mohammed. The writ petitioner i.e. Sheik Muhammed purchased her in 2000. He then applied in 2002 seeking transfer of ownership. The said request was kept pending and finally rejected in the year 2020. In this writ petition, Sheik Muhammed was challenging the move of the state wildlife department to take custody of “Lalitha”.
The court noted that the department’s view was legally valid and the writ petitioner was not in possession of the required documents to confirm his legal ownership of the Lalitha. However, the Court said that the peculiar case demanded the approach taken in child custody matters.
At the same time, the court also observed that Lalitha has been with the petitioner for more than 20 years and has developed a great bond with her caretakers. Therefore, a forcible relocation in alien surroundings is sure to traumatize her as feelings of love, grief, and compassion are equally found in the animals. The judgement noted that elephants are known to be sensitive and possessed of self-awareness. The judge also made a surprise inspection to examine the place of stay of ‘Lalitha’ and concluded that she was in good health and appropriately taken care of.
Applying the yardstick of what is good for Lalitha, the judge concluded that it was not in her best interest to allow the department to take her custody observing that “the rights of the animal are more relevant and they determine the adjudicatory outcome and not the formal validity of the administrative order”.
Featured Image: Central Vista Project and other Judgments

created: January 6, 2021


text:
Courts make observations about women’s rights, health, and criminal justice administration
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 23, 2020
In this edition of the roundup of important court judgments, we look at cases where constitutional courts made important observations about the rights of a married woman, rights of citizens in health issues, and criminal justice administration.
In this edition of the roundup of important court judgments, we look at the case challenging the provisions of compassionate appointment for excluding ‘married daughters’ and a conflict between provisions under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Domestic Violence Act, 2005. We will also look at the apex court’s observations on the fundamental right to health and selective media leaks affecting the rights of accused and victims.
Karnataka HC: Excluding Married Daughter from Compassionate Appointment Is Unconstitutional
On 15 December 2020, in the case Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranil vs. the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court held that excluding a married daughter from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is unconstitutional.
Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik submitted a representation in November 2016 (re-submitted in May 2017) for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to the Department of Agriculture Marketing. Her request was denied consideration on the score that she is a “married daughter” based on Rule 2(1) (a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b), and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The rule declines appointment on compassionate grounds to a daughter who is married and restricts the consideration of appointment to an unmarried daughter only if the widow & son is not eligible for any valid reason or he is not willing to accept the appointment, in case of the deceased male government servant.
The High Courts of Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madras, Allahabad, etc have passed similar judgments in the past holding that such exclusion of married daughters is unconstitutional. The Calcutta High Court has held that a divorced daughter would come under the definition of an “unmarried daughter” and would be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
These judgments together set a precedent that the offer of appointment or its denial cannot be based on gender. The above-mentioned provisions in the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 create a division of the same object of appointment based on gender by granting an appointment to a son without any qualification and denying the same to a daughter with the qualification of “marriage”.
The judgment also emphasises that marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child with the parent, whether a son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage as marriage does not severe the relationship of the daughter with the parent.
Supreme Court: Selective Leaks to Media during Investigation Affect the Rights of Accused and Victims
In the case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Anita Agarwal & Ors., the Supreme Court has observed that selective disclosures to the media during the investigation of crime affect the rights of the accused and victims.
The apex court canceled the anticipatory bail granted to four out of five accused in the dowry death case and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further investigation. A Single Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court had granted bail to the accused observing that that (a) “the FIR prima facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants”; (b) “there is no correlation in between the various allegations leveled in the FIR”, and (c) the allegations “are general in nature” with no specific role being assigned to the accused.
The apex court held that there is no cogent basis for the Single Judge to have arrived at any of the three prima facie findings.
Within a couple of days of the death of the victim, the alleged suicide note found its way into the newspapers in Agra. Immediate publicity was given to the alleged suicide note. The Supreme court notes that selective disclosures to the media affect the rights of the accused in some cases and the rights of victims’ families in others. The media does have a legitimate stake in fair reporting. But events such as what has happened in this case show how the selective divulging of information, including the disclosure of material which may eventually form a crucial part of the evidentiary record at the criminal trial.
The court observed that the administration of criminal justice was compromised by the manner in which selective leaks took place in the public realm. In the backdrop of these findings, the court made a strong statement on the role of media and the dangers of dispersing selective information that can influence the procedures of criminal justice administration.
Supreme Court: Fundamental Right to Health Includes Affordable Treatment
In taking suo motu cognizance of fire incident which happened in Rajkot, Gujarat on 26 November 2020 resulting in death of COVID-19 patients in a private COVID Hospital, the Supreme Court issued directives to ensure safety in hospitals and observed that fundamental right to health includes affordable treatment.
The Rajkot incident was the second such tragedy in the state. On 06 August 2020, eight COVID-19 patients succumbed to death in a fire that broke out on the top floor of a four-storey private hospital in Ahmedabad. In both incidents, the fire broke out in the intensive care unit (ICU) ward due to a short-circuit.
The apex court issued the following guidelines regarding fire safety and compliance:
In cases of non-compliance, the judgement also stressed the need for a helpline number for common citizens to report any non-compliance of safety guidelines or any other guidelines that the concerned state implements.
In taking note of the loss of life and other difficulties caused by the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, the court also emphasised that the Right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to make provisions for affordable treatment and more and more provisions in the hospitals to be run by the State and/or local administration are made.
The judgement takes cognizance of public suffering on account of the pandemic and issues guidelines and advisory to the state government on various aspects, including safety of hospitals and affordability of treatment.
Supreme Court: Provisions under Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a “shared household” Domestic Violence Act, 2005
In the case S Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, the Supreme Court bench was hearing the plea of S Vanitha, residing at her in-law’s residence, challenging the order of eviction passed against her by the Deputy Commissioner. The in-laws filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, and inter alia, sought the appellant and her daughter’s eviction (i.e. their daughter-in-law and grand-daughter) from a residential house in North Bengaluru.
The Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 17 September 2019 held that since the house belonged to the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law’s right to maintenance and shelter lies only against her estranged husband. The Division Bench upheld the Order of the Deputy Commissioner and directed the appellant to vacate the suit premises.
The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, submitted that she is residing in her matrimonial home as the lawfully wedded spouse and she cannot be evicted from her shared household in view of the protection offered by Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005.
The Supreme Court outlines that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent. However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute. In the present case, it is that the eviction was sought of the daughter-in-law. Although the High Courts have upheld the power of eviction as being implicit in the Senior Citizens Act, that is in the case of sons refusing to maintain their parents. The apex court observes that such facts do not arise in this case.
Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act defines ‘shared household ‘as:
The judgement observes that in the event of a conflict between special acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analysed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other. The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise.
The court firmly held that Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a “shared household” under Section 17 of the PWDV Act 2005.
The judgement broadens the understanding of “shared household” for married women. A “shared household” would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws or that her estranged spouse is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the PWDV Act 2005.
Featured Image: Criminal justice administration

created: December 23, 2020


text:
COVID-19 Guidelines for Media & Entertainment Industry around the World
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 27, 2020
In India, the government has recently issued guidelines allowing film & other shootings to resume. World over, various countries have issued similar guidelines and have setup special schemes & financial packages for the Media & Entertainment industry. Here is a review.
Shooting of films, TV serials, web series, and other content for electronic & digital medium has been permitted to resume from 21 August 2020 in India. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued standard operating procedures for media production to contain the spread of the coronavirus, including physical distancing, mandatory use of masks for cast and crew except for actors, frequent handwashing, and practicing respiratory etiquette.
India is the largest producer of films in the world. Not just in Hindi, but the film industry is active many different languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Odia, and even Tulu. TV serials, reality shows, web series, and other audio-visual content is also produced in multiple Indian languages. However, with theatres shut and the temporary ban on media production, the performing and visual arts industry has been severely affected because of COVID-19.
The Media production industry is a source of livelihood for many
The performing and visual arts industry provides livelihood for many such as spot-boys, make-up artists, lights and camera team, music and sound recording, VFX team, writers and editors, stunt performers, directors, set designers, costume designers, crew for service in sets, and many others. Being a major economic activity and contributing substantially to the nation’s GDP, the government has decided to allow the activities of media production industry while laying down strict operating procedures.
Government of India guidelines for resumption of Media Production
The guidelines released by the Government of India are applicable to all media production including film shootings, television production, web series and all forms of content creation in electronic and film medium.  For media production, the presence of technicians and some crew members alongside actors during the shoot is inevitable. Hence, besides prescribing mandatory social distancing, use of masks, regular handwashing, and respiratory hygiene practices, the guidelines also lay down the following.
Apart from the above-mentioned guidelines, a designated supervisor/COVID coordinator is to be nominated among cast and crew to keep record of the workplace. They should also ensure that concerned persons have updated Aarogya Setu app on their mobiles. Observance of protocols, maintaining a record of medical and travel history of cast and crew, earmarking quarantine areas and contacting nearest health facility in case any of the cast and crew members develop symptoms, are the list of activities that fall under the purview of the COVID coordinator. No media production activity is permitted in containment zones. Unruly behavior or COVID-19 stigmatization will be dealt with strictly in coordination with local authorities.
In the USA, guidelines have been released by respective states
Filming in the United States is being regulated at the state level. Guidelines, similar to that issued in India, have been issued in Washington and Iowa. However, in Washington, those employees who wish to pull out from a worksite out of safety concerns, will be given access to certain leave or unemployment benefits. In the case of high-risk individuals, employers must be given a choice to avail employer-granted accrued leave or unemployment benefits if an alternative work arrangement is not feasible. Other employees are given access to expanded family and medical leave as per the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, avail unemployment benefits or access paid time off depending on the situation. Meanwhile, in Iowa, the emphasis is on limiting the size of crew.
UK’s advisory is not mandatory
The United Kingdom allowed filming to resume in June 2020. The British Film Commission released a comprehensive advisory listing out guidelines for different teams, which is not mandatory to follow. The UK government has also announced a temporary scheme worth 500 Million pound for helping TV and Film production that have been halted or delayed due to lack of insurance.
Australia extends financial support for TV and Film production
In Australia, the government released a set of guidelines in May. Besides the general preventive measures as laid down in India, norms for each department and different stages of production have been clearly listed out. Use of technological solutions is advised to allow for physical distancing in case of scenes requiring physical proximity. Cast members should also provide written consent to work in such scenes. Usage of color-coded equipment to identify whether it has been cleaned or ready to use is also a part of the norms. Further, a Temporary Interruption Fund was announced in June to help local production houses to start filming again in case the filming was paused due to lack of insurance coverage against COVID-19, like in the UK. Another COVID-19 Budget Support Fund is also in place to cover the additional costs arising out of implementation of COVID-19 Safety and Risk Assessment Plans for current green-lit projects.
The Australian government has also announced a $400 Million incentive to attract film and television production industry to the country over the next seven years, with an objective to create 8000 new employment opportunities and attract an estimated $3 billion in foreign expenditure.
Singapore and China have also resumed media production work
Singapore has put a cap on the number of persons on set and those on screen depending on the performance. For instance, in case of ‘live’ singing, there can only be a maximum of 30 persons on set and a maximum of five persons on-screen without masks.
According to reports, Chinese Film and TV industry resumed work gradually since February 2020. Crew had to take a slew of measures like preparing an epidemic prevention and control plan, mandatory local quarantine for 14 days prior to shooting, and limiting the number of people to 50 while shooting. The film and tv production companies were also given preferential financial policies by local governments and studios in Beijing, Shanghai, Zhejiang Province and Jiangsu Province.
Media production continued in innovative ways amidst lockdown
The pandemic has resulted in postponement of shoots and release of many films and shows globally like Avatar 2, Batman, and Star Wars. TV channels had resorted to airing old episodes of serials and reality shows while some movies were released on OTT platforms. Video conferences,  shooting using phones at different locations and putting them together for producing movies and reality shows were some of the innovative measures adopted for producing content during the lockdown.
Featured Image: COVID-19 Guidelines for Media & Entertainment Industry