text:
Review: What are the major issues discussed in the Parliamentary Standing Committee report on India’s 5G rollout?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 8, 2022
Four Telecom Service Providers in India have been permitted to conduct 5G trials. The government expects that the 5G service will likely be rolled out in 2022-23. But what are the major issues associated with the 5G rollout in India, discussed in the Parliamentary Standing Committee report on India’s 5G rollout? Here is a review.
There is a growing recognition on the role of telecommunications in the socio-economic development of a nation. In fact, the internet and communication systems form the bedrock of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4.0).  The pace and the scope of this fourth industrial revolution are unprecedented. Adoption of many new technologies could disrupt the existing business arrangements and have a profound impact across multiple dimensions – our identity, government, and governance structures, and the future business models. The Industrial Revolution (IR) 4.0 is different from the earlier revolutions in the sense that it is more pervasive, and it has the capability to disrupt almost any industry.
One of the basic prerequisites that decide the success of IR 4.0 is the speed and the spread of internet services. The latest addition to the global telecommunication ecosystem is the 5G technology. This is distinctive from the earlier mobile networks in the way that its scope extends beyond just mobile broadband. It provides significant capability improvements over the earlier networks in terms of speed, reliability, efficiency, and latency. Globally, 209 operators in eighty-three countries have already deployed a 5G network. India had also envisioned the early adoption and deployment of the 5G network way back in 2018 to compete and stay ahead in the global technological race.
So, where are we right now? What is the status regarding 5G in India? Is it on the right and intended track? We answer these questions in this story by looking at India’s preparedness for 5G and a few critical issues that must be addressed during this transition. The key data references for this story are the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Information Technology (2020-21), the 36th report of the Standing Committee on the action taken on recommendations from the 21 report (2021-22), the report of the 5G High level Forum (2018), and parliamentary questions.
India and 5G, Status of 5G trials
India’s tryst with innovation in the telecommunication ecosystem is mired with delays. As a result, India had always ended up deploying technologies slower than the rest of the world. India’s 2G deployment was in 1995, while the global deployment was in 1991. Similar is the case with 3G and 4G, where India’s deployments were in 2008 & 2015, while the global deployments were in 1998 and 2008, respectively. The latest 5G global deployment was done in 2019, whereas India is yet to start the deployment. In response to a question in the Lok Sabha in February 2022,  the Government stated that the launch of 5G services in India by the Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) is likely during 2022-23. A total of six proposals for 5G technology trails were received from Indian and global TSPs including China’s ZTE and Huawei, but permissions were granted to M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd., M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., M/s Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, and M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. for conducting 5G trails in India. The standing committee expressed its concern over the delay in launching 5G services and asked the department to undertake a review of the policies relating to 5G and to conduct a study of the experiences of different countries that have successfully rolled out 5G services.
Transitioning to a 5G network is not a standalone process. It requires a whole lot of infrastructural changes that are to be set up to ensure a seamless transition. The High-Level Forum for 5G in India also had made recommendations to ensure the efficient rollout of 5G in India. These recommendations were categorized according to their content – spectrum policy, regulatory policy, case-use labs, education, awareness, and so on. The following sections will deal with the recommendations of this forum, along with the concerns raised by the standing committee and the response of the government to those concerns.
Spectrum Allocation
Radio Spectrum is a crucial resource and is very scarce. It is important to have an encouraging spectrum policy. Currently, the 5G is available in three bandwidths:
The mid-band is where the largest number of operators (82) have deployed their 5G service, followed by the mmWave band (8), and the lower band (7). Indian Telecom Regulatory Authority (TRAI) recommended that Mid-band could be used for expanding the 5G network in India. The High-level forum on 5G suggested that the release of the spectrum should be made in 3 tiers:
During the deliberations, the committee observed that the availability of spectrum is limited to the extent of 175 MHz only in 3300-3600 MHz, and this shortfall in the availability could hamper the service provisioning as well as cause underutilization of infrastructure. The Government, upon deliberations with the Department of Space and Ministry of Defence, made certain recommendations on the band range. The committee asked the government to coordinate with TRAI and translate these recommendations into fruitful actions depending on their merit.
Spectrum Audit
Spectrum is a scarce resource whose sub-optimal utilization could not only result in economic losses but also disrupt the growth of a nation. Considering its strategic importance, the TRAI has recommended the audit of the allocated spectrum – both government as well as commercial. This must be done on a regular basis by an independent audit agency. While the Standing committee appreciated the acknowledgment by the government of the need for an independent audit, it had also expressed serious displeasure at the government’s lackadaisical approach to the spectrum audit. It restated its earlier recommendation to ensure that the audit is conducted regularly by a specialized agency at the earliest possible and share the findings with the committee.
Spectrum Price
Apart from the availability of the spectrum, affordability plays a crucial role in the success of the 5G network. The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) had earlier submitted that the reserve price of Rs.  492 Crores as recommended by the TRAI is way higher than any other country. Similarly, the Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association of India (TEMA) had also pointed out the flawed inverted structure of the spectrum policy. One of the Telecom operators, Bharti Airtel presented a comparative statement of TRAI’s recommended pricing with the pricing in other countries, where Indian pricing is exorbitantly higher. TRAI, in its defence, claimed that considering the rollout plan of 5G and the population covered by it, the pricing policy is moderate. The committee was also apprised of various measures taken by the Department to ease the burden of greater spectrum cost. The Committee recommended that there is a need to re-examine the spectrum pricing policy, given the divergent and conflicting views by both sides. However, the Committee was disappointed to note that no action has been taken by the Department/TRAI on the recommendations. It was concerned that the pricing policy could become unsustainable in the future and cause further stress to the telecom sector. The Committee reiterated its opinion that higher spectrum price should neither become a deterrent for 5G adoption nor place an excess financial burden on the service providers, and all efforts must be made to ensure this.
Domestic Manufacturing of Telecom Equipment & 5G handsets
Ensuring an adequate supply of equipment is critical to the success of the 5G rollout. And given the security concerns raised about foreign equipment and operators, it is imperative to focus on domestic production of the equipment and technology that is needed. Consequently, the committee recommended that a Telecom Research and Development Fund (TRDF) is to be created at the earliest with an initial corpus of Rs. 1000 Crores. Additionally, it recommended that a proper eco-system must be enabled to facilitate domestic production and adoption of such technology and equipment. However, the committee expressed displeasure with the Department for not providing clarity on various measures and concerns raised by the stakeholders. It desired that necessary action would be taken.
Harmonization of Indian and Global Standards
Reducing inequities and providing universal coverage should be the aim of any network rollout. This could be achieved through adopting standards that allow for interoperability and roaming while providing economies of scale concurrently. India has developed TSDSI RIT standards which are not globally harmonized while the global industry follows 3rd Generation Partnership Project(3GPP) Standards. Even though the committee was apprised of the potential of TSDSI RIT (to enhance rural coverage at lower costs), it cautioned the department to adopt only those standards that are globally harmonized and ensure that India does not get itself disconnected from the global network ecosystem. The committee found that the reply of the department was evasive and did not address the matters put forth by the TSPs and COAI. It is hoped that these issues will be considered in a transparent manner and make sure that the faith of stakeholders in the telecom sector remains intact.
Development of 5G use case labs
To take a lead in 5G deployment, the Department has set up an indigenous 5G test bed worth Rs. 224 Crores to help the industry in validating their products. The committee expressed happiness to see the collaboration between the best institutes in India to make the end-to-end open 5G testbed a reality. At the same time, the committee recommended developing more sector-specific use-case labs and to develop a Digital Readiness Index, monitored by a cross-sectoral entity like NITI Aayog. The Committee expressed displeasure at the pace of the development of 5G use case labs and it asked the government to provide adequate incentives to ensure the development of more such use case labs in a shorter time.
5G and Health concerns
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) publishes recommendations for minimising electromagnetic field exposure. The committee was briefed about the adoption of such guidelines and the level of stringency of the norms adopted. It was also informed that no study or research regarding the health and environmental impacts of 5G came to the notice of the government. TRAI had released a consultation paper on the approach towards sustainable telecommunications. Additionally, since the 5G rollout is in a nascent stage, the Committee feared that the potential of the health impacts can become clearer only after the complete adoption of 5G in the future. Based on the representations received, it is recommended that the department must be watchful of any other scientific studies that emerge in the future regarding the health impacts of 5G. It also suggested budgetary allocation to conduct India-specific research to study such impacts.
Additional Measures
Summing it up, while the progress has been satisfactory, a lot of ground is yet to be covered to ensure the efficient rollout of the 5G network in India. In any case, India should not miss the 5G technology bus, unlike the previous rollouts.
Featured Image: Parliamentary Standing Committee report on India’s 5G rollout


text:
What are the various international resolutions proposed & voted on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 10, 2022
The international reaction to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has been varied though most countries denounced Russia’s actions. In this story, we look at few of the key resolutions & voting results in various international forums regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
Russia launched a large-scale military assault on Ukraine on 24 February 2022. This has escalated the already existing hostilities between the two neighbouring countries and has now led to full-scale war.
The relationship between the two former Soviet republics has been strained for quite some time now and particularly since 2014, in the wake of the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine. This revolution toppled the then President, who refused to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union, a notion which enjoyed the support of a majority of the Ukrainian Parliament. The latest escalation is part of the continued hostilities since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.
The international reaction to Russia’s aggression has been varied though most countries denounced Russia’s actions. The complex nature of the diplomatic relations with the countries involved and the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the wake of the military action, has necessitated the international community to respond.
In this story, we look at a few of the key resolutions & voting results in various international forums regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
Russia uses its Veto power to block UNSC’s draft resolution
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six main organs of the United Nations. The primary responsibility of the UNSC is maintaining international peace and security.  The UNSC consists of 15-members, which includes 5 permanent members and 10 elected members.
The five permanent members of the UNSC have the ‘Power of Veto’ i.e., the power to stop any resolution. A representative of each of the members of the UNSC is required to be always present at UN Headquarters so that the Security Council can meet at any time as the need arises.
The UNSC can meet whenever there is a threat to international peace and security. Accordingly, in view of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, UNSC sat for a meeting on 25 February 2022. Prior to this meeting, there were two other emergency meetings on 21 February  & 23 February. In the wake of the unfolding crisis in Ukraine, Albania and the United States submitted a draft resolution in the UNSC meeting.
The purpose of the draft was to deplore Russia’s aggression, which was in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. The draft also includes the request to immediately cease of force by Russia and to deplore its decision regarding the sovereignty of two regions in Ukraine. The resolution garnered support from 11 members, while 3 countries – China, India & UAE abstained from voting. Russia, which is a permanent member of the UNSC, exercised its power of veto. As a result, the UNSC failed to adopt the resolution.
Security Council vote sets up emergency ‘UN General Assembly’ session
After the failed attempt to pass the resolution in UNSC due to Russia’s veto, UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres stated that the UN’s primary objective is to end the war and even though the objective was not achieved in the UNSC meeting, they must never give up.
"The United Nations was born out of war to end war.
Today, that objective was not achieved.
But we must never give up.
We must give peace another chance."
— @antonioguterres following Security Council meeting on Ukraine. https://t.co/TOCcBZIhl8 pic.twitter.com/1TOfisb6FK
Accordingly, UNSC met again on 27February 2022. The purpose of this meeting was to secure approval for setting up an emergency UN General Assembly session.
The text of the draft resolution presented in the UNSC meeting was a procedural one i.e., the calling of the emergency session of the UN General assembly being procedural. Hence, none of the 5 permanent members can veto it. Furthermore, it requires only 9 votes in favour to pass. The measure to convene the General Assembly session was adopted by 11 in favour, 3 – abstaining (China, India & UAE) and Russia voting against it.
UN General Assembly adopts resolution demanding Russia to withdraw all troops
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the main policy-making organ of the UN, and it comprises all the member states. It currently has 193 members and each of them has an equal vote.
As per the resolution 377A(V), also called “Uniting for Peace”, adopted by the General Assembly in November 1950, the General Assembly can be convened in case the UNSC fails to exercise its responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, due to lack of unanimity of the permanent members. In such cases, an emergency General Assembly meeting can be convened within 24 hours.
Accordingly, General Assembly convened for an Emergency Special session on 28 February 2022.  There were only 10 such earlier instances of emergency special sessions following the adoption of the resolution in 1950.
The Draft resolution presented in the General Assembly:
The representative of Ukraine presented the resolution in General Assembly. The draft resolution was adopted by a vote of 141 in favour while 5 member countries voted against the resolution (Belarus, Eritrea, Russia, North Korea & Syria).  India is one of the 35 countries that were present but abstained from voting. 12 countries were not present.
UNHRC in its resolution condemned the Human Rights violations
Abuse and violation of Human rights are a direct result of any military conflict. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution that condemns in the strongest possible terms the human rights violation, abuses and violations of international humanitarian law resulting from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
UNHRC is a United Nations body, and its mission is to promote and protect human rights around the world. It has 47 elected members and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. As part of the resolution, UNHRC has called for immediate, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access. It has also decided to establish an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate all alleged violations of human rights in the context of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Ukraine presented the resolution on 04 March 2022. A total of 32 members voted in favour of the resolution, while 2 voted against it. 13 member states including India abstained from voting.
European Parliament condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine
On 01 March 2022, the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Since both the countries are European countries, the conflict has a bearing on the rest of Europe. However, it ought to be noted that both the countries are not part of the European Union.
The European Parliament is one of the three legislative branches of the European Union. It consists of 705 members (MEP – Members of European Parliament).
A few of the key aspects of the resolution include:
A total of 637 MEPs voted in favour of the resolution text, 13 voted against it while 26 MEPs abstained.

source: news-factly

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
What are the various schemes & initiatives for Cow & other Milch Cattle?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 30, 2020
There is a lot of debate recently around the protection of cow. But what all initiatives & schemes are the Central & State governments implementing to protect & promote the Cow & other milch cattle? Here is a review
Cow is revered by millions of Hindus as a sacred animal. However, implementation of cow slaughter laws, alleged lynching of persons on the pretext of cow slaughter have been the talking points around the Cow in the recent years.
The Indian Constitution authorises the States to make laws with respect to preservation, protection, and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases, veterinary training and practice, since these items are in the State list. The Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 48 of the Constitution ask the state to take steps for preserving and improving breeds, as well as prohibiting the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle. Accordingly, many states have enacted legislations related to the slaughter of cows.
It has even been acknowledged in the parliament that there have been reports of cattle rearers abandoning their milch cattle and bulls as stray animals when they stop producing milk. In this story, we look at legislations, schemes and other important state intervention with respect to the cow & other milch cattle.
All states except five have laws regulating the slaughter of cows
As per a response by the central government in the Rajya Sabha in July 2019, all States/UTs except Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Lakshadweep have their own legislations on slaughter of cows. As the government acknowledged in the parliament, there are reports of cattle rearers abandoning their milch cattle and bulls as stray animals when they stop producing milk. Since slaughter of cow is legally prohibited, the only way out is to have separate schemes and set up facilities to nurture the abandoned bovines. Similar schemes are being implemented in many states.
Many States have schemes to protect stray Cattle
Goa is implementing ‘The Goa Stray Cattle Management Scheme, 2013’, under which financial assistance is given to panchayats, municipalities, Animal Welfare Organisations (AWOs), and Goshalas to look after stray cattle. In May this year, the Himachal Pradesh government gave nod to launch ‘Rehabilitation of Stray Cattle in Himachal Pradesh’ scheme through which individuals and organisations are encouraged to adopt the stray bovines while cow sanctuaries and gau sadans are provided with assistance of Rs. 500 per cow. Rajasthan, the only state to have had a Gopalan ministry or ministry dedicated to cow, a surcharge of 10% on stamp duty was announced which would be utilized for the conservation and propagation of cow and its progeny in 2014. A similar cess is also being levied in Punjab.
Meanwhile, in Uttar Pradesh which has the largest livestock population in the country, the government introduced the Mukhya Mantri Be-sahara Gau-Vansh Sahbhagita Yojana in 2019 under which the government would handover over one lakh bovines in the government run shelters to the farmers or general public who wish to take care of them, and for this, the government would transfer Rs. 30 per animal each day. Additionally, budget allocations have also been made for strengthening gaushalas in the state. The government of Haryana provides feed and fodder, and shelter to the helpless animals using the funds under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Gaushalas and shelter homes being made for abandoned cows and other bovines
The Central Government does not have an explicit scheme for setting up Gaushalas for cattle. The scheme, ‘Provision of Shelter House for looking after animals in distress’ is being implemented through Animal Welfare Board of India, under which NGOs and AWOs are given financial assistance for establishing shelter houses. Between 2016-17 and 2018-19, a total of Rs. 9.4 crore was provided for the same. Sanctions have been given for projects in Uttar Pradesh to establish labs with Embryo Transfer Technology and In- Vitro Fertilization so as to use unproductive animals which have an intact reproductive system as surrogate mothers.
Milk production enhancement and encouragement of indigenous species breeding being pushed
Governments, both at national level as well as the state level, are implementing schemes to improve milk production, encourage breeding of indigenous species, and to utilize the products from cows. The state government of Tamil Nadu distributes milch cows for free. Similarly, the Maharashtra government gives subsidies under the ‘Navinypuarn’ Scheme to purchase milch cattle. Goan government implements the ‘Pashupalan’ scheme to encourage cross breeding of cows and buffaloes to increase milk production. Even Haryana implements a scheme for indigenous cattle development. The Government of Telangana also launched a milch cattle distribution scheme in 2018.
At the national level, the National Programme for Bovine Breeding & Dairy Development (NPBBDD), Rashtriya Gokul Mission, National Kamdhenu Breeding Centre, National Dairy Plan-I, Central Herd Registration Scheme, Central Cattle Breeding Farms, and Central Frozen Semen Production & Training Institute, Bangalore are being implemented to promote and protect indigenous bovines and increasing milk production. Progeny testing and pedigree selection of bulls, artificial insemination, strengthening of bull mother farms, establishment of breeding centres and cow sanctuaries, are the other initiatives.
Research on Panchagavya gritha
Cow dung, cow urine, cow milk and other byproducts of cow’s milk such as ghee, and curd- together known as Panchagavya Ghritha, is widely used in Ayurveda. Questions in parliament on whether such products can be used for treatment of cancer has been raised earlier. In fact, amidst the pandemic there were several outlandish claims such as cow dung would save people from the coronavirus.
Scientific research on ‘Prime-products from indigenous cows for medicine and health’ involving Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science (CCRAS) under the Ministry of AYUSH is being promoted by the government under the inter- Ministerial ‘Scientific Utilization through Research Augmentation – Prime Products (Panchagavya) from Indigenous Cow’. Entrepreneurship development and employment generation (EDEG) is a component under the National Livestock Mission under which an effective animal waste management– for the utilization of cow dung and cow urine was introduced in 2018-19. These schemes are being implemented through NABARD.
Eco-friendly Cow products promotion for Diwali
Chhattisgarh government recently launched the ‘Godhan Nyay Yojana’ where the state government would procure cow dung from livestock owners and use it for the producing organic fertilizers, according to the Hindu.  Relevant allocation has been made in the state budget. Following the response received for the ‘Gaumaya Ganesha Campaign’ promoting the usage of eco-friendly material to make idols for the Ganesh Festival, the Rashtriya Kamdhenu Aayog, which was constituted by the government for conservation, preservation, protection, and development of cows and their progeny, has launched a campaign, ‘Kamdhenu Deepawali Abhiyan’ to encourage the use of cow dung or the panchgavya products during Diwali for making Diyas, Candles, idols, and other products. The goal is to reach 11 crore families and light 33 crore Diyas made of cow dung.
A question on whether the government has received any proposal to declare cow as a national animal was raised in the Lok Sabha in 2017. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs responded by saying that no such proposal was received.
Featured Image: Initiatives for Cow

created: October 30, 2020


text:
Review: What Did Manifestos of BJP & Congress Promise About Environmental Issues Since 2004? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 30, 2024
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprise of 17 goals with 169 targets to be achieved globally by signatory countries, including India, by 2030. Among these targets are several related to environmental protection. But what did BJP & Congress promise about major environmental issues in their manifestos since 2004.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprise of 17 goals with 169 targets to be achieved globally by signatory countries, including India, by 2030. Among these targets are several related to environmental protection. However, despite these stated goals, available data and other reports indicate that India like many other nations is grappling with serious issues related to environment, some of which need to be addressed immediately.
Against this backdrop, as a part of our series covering India’s 2024 general elections, this article explores the official data and other relevant reports surrounding critical environmental issues faced by India. Along with it, we also look at election manifestos of two major national parties, namely the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC), for the years 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 and 2024 to analyse what these parties have said on environmental protection in their respective manifestos.
Air, Water and Noise Pollution (SDGs  3, 6, 14 and 15)
Air, Water, and Noise pollution pose significant environmental challenges in India. According to a 2016 report by the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution was responsible for 49 out of every 100,000 deaths in India in 2012. The periodic reports from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have also consistently highlighted elevated levels of air pollution in the country. Additionally, a recent parliamentary reply dated 05 February 2024 revealed that as of 2022, a total of 279 rivers in India exceed the prescribed pollution standards. Further, the issue of noise pollution is also well-known in India. Despite these issues, the analysis of the election manifestos of both the BJP and INC across the years shows a lack of substantive discussion on the same. (For further insights, refer to Factly’s coverage of Air, Water, and Noise Pollution stories).
Land Degradation and Coastal Erosion (SDGs 14 and 15)
Factly’s previous coverage on Land degradation revealed that, according to official data from the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), over 90 million hectares of land were classified as degraded as of 2015-16; land degradation refers to a loss of productivity, either temporarily or permanently. Another of Factly’s stories spotlighted findings from The National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR), indicating that approximately 33% of coastal land experienced erosion between 1980 and 2018. However, neither of the two parties’ manifestos have consisted of any discussion or measures to be taken to address these issues:
Forest Cover (SDG 15)
The National Forest Policy enacted in 1988 aimed to encompass one-third of the nation’s total geographical area with forest or tree cover. Despite this policy being in place for over four decades, the objective remains unmet, with the current forest cover standing at only around 22%, as per a recent parliamentary reply dated 18 December 2023. The same reply also disclosed that India lost 168,131 hectares of forest in the last decade, indicating an average annual loss of over 15,000 hectares. While compensatory afforestation is mandated by law for forests lost to non-forest purposes, the process of regenerating a forest with its full ecological integrity takes years, if not decades. Compounding this challenge, a significant portion of existing forest land is in a degraded state. For instance, Factly’s previous story revealed that about 45% of India’s mangrove forests being in degraded state.
Additionally, the landmark Supreme Court order in the Godavarman case, directing each state government to identify and notify deemed forest lands based on the dictionary definition of a forest, remains largely unimplemented across most states. However, the manifestos of BJP and INC lack substantive details on how these issues will be tackled.
Climate Change, Himalayas Protection and Green Technologies (SDG 13)
Climate change is an acknowledged reality in India, supported by official data. For instance, a 2023 parliamentary standing committee report highlighted that India experienced a mean temperature increase of 0.7°C from 1901 to 2018, compared to the global average of 1.1°C. The report also underscored that the Himalayan region witnessed a temperature rise 0.5°C higher than the global average, exacerbating various adverse impacts. These include the disappearance of certain glacier lakes and water bodies, alongside others expanding in size due to glacier retreat (Explore pertinent stories of Factly here, here and here). Yet again, the manifestos do not contain substantive details of how these issues will be tackled and addressed.
Solid Waste (SDG 12)
India is also confronted with the issue of mounting solid waste with each passing year. Previous stories of Factly (accessible here and here) have showed that while solid waste generation is increasing steeply every year,  the collection and recycling rates remain at inadequate levels.
Steep Challenges indicate that India is highly unlikely to achieve SDG targets relating to Environmental Protection by 2030
The Environmental Protection Act promulgated nearly 4 decades ago in 1986, defined “Environment” as including “water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property.” However, official data and various facts concerning environment indicate the increasing gap between man and the environment.
Nearly 3 decades ago, the Supreme Court (SC) of India in the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum case emphasized the imperative for regulatory authorities to anticipate, prevent, and combat the causes of environmental degradation. Yet, the plethora of environmental issues underscores the inadequacy and wide gap between measures taken and necessary to be taken for the conservation of the environment and achieving goals and targets outlined in both the SDGs and also in several national laws, including the Constitution of India.
To compound this, the recent parliamentary reply dated 7 August 2023 highlighted numerous impacts of climate change already experienced in India, such as a 75% increase in the frequency of daily precipitation, an increase in the number and spatial extent of droughts, a rise in sea levels, severe cyclones, etc. Additionally, a recent report from the Ministry of Earth Sciences forecasted a significant temperature surge of approximately 3 to 5°C across India over the next century due to climate change.
Despite the glaring situation at hand, it is ironic that even the latest manifestos of major national parties lack specific strategies for addressing these critical environmental issues with clear-cut road map on measures to address them.
India requires political parties to engage in dialogue and provide a clear road map to address social issues
Countries like the USA have a system where the contesting presidential candidates come to a common stage and publicly debate their positions & plans on specific issues. Unfortunately, such a kind of structured system does not exist in India though some television channels and civil society organize such events in a few places. We also do not see political leaders talk about specific solutions. Such a process will enable the voters to make an informed choice, as highlighted in the recent judgment of SC in Electoral Bonds case.


text:
What did courts say about media trials, reservation laws, and status of education?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 27, 2021
In this edition of the roundup of important court judgments, we look at cases where constitutional courts made important observations & issued directions about what constitutes media trials, retrospective application of certain reservation laws, the status of education, and environmental clearance for highways.
Bombay HC: Media Trial during investigation interferes with administration of justice
In disposing of a batch of PILs seeking regulation of media trial, the Bombay high court made several important observations & issued directions on “media trial”, how it interferes with the administration of justice and hence amounts to ‘contempt of court’ as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The judgement begins by expressing that the issue raises questions of contemporary importance touching upon the right of the press/media to express views freely, the right of the deceased to be treated with respect and dignity after death, the need to ensure investigation of the crime to proceed on the right track without being unduly influenced by media reports based on “investigative journalism”, and the right of the accused to a free and fair trial as well as the right not to be prejudged by the media.
With respect to the “administration of justice”, any report of the media, having the propensity of tilting the balance against fair and impartial “administration of justice”, could make a mockery of the justice delivery system rendering ‘truth’ a casualty. The duty of the media to have news items printed/telecast based on true and correct version relating to incidents worth reporting accurately and without any distortion/embellishment as well as without taking sides, cannot, therefore, be overemphasized.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni also discussed the status of regulation of cable television networks in India with respect to the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act (CVTN) which were brought into effect from September 29, 1994. The ‘Programme Code’ enshrined in the Act is emphasised. One of our earlier articles discusses this in detail. They observed that media trial not only runs counter to the Program Code framed under the Cable TV Act but also interferes with the criminal investigation by police.
Considering the provisions of the CTVN Act and the CTVN Rules, and the Programme Code as stipulated under rule 6 of the CTVN Rules, the bench concluded that it would apply to the telecast which is in the nature of a media trial having adverse consequences on an ongoing criminal investigation. The bench expressed that the media ought to avoid/regulate certain reports/discussions touching upon any on-going investigation into a criminal offence and that no report/discussion/interview should be presented by the media which could harm the interests of the accused being investigated or a witness in the case or any such person who may be relevant for any investigation. The judgement highlights that over the last six months, several High Court has also expressed concerns over the practice of “media trial”.
Accordingly, the court directed the media to exercise restraint from printing/displaying any news item and/or initiating any discussion/debate/interview of nature, as indicated below;
Based on such parameters, the Court also held that the media coverage by the Republic TV and Times Now against Mumbai police in the case pertaining to the death of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput is prima facie contemptuous.
Furthermore, the Bench has also held that the Press Council of India guidelines on reporting shall be applicable to the electronic media as well. It has directed all complaints regarding a programme’s contents to be dealt with immediacy by an authorized officer of the Central Government under the Cable TV Network Act without involving a private body like the National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) set up by the National Broadcasters Association.
Jharkhand HC: Retrospective application of 10% EWS quota is against Articles 14 and 16
In the case of Ranjeet Kumar Sah and Uttam Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Jharkhand and others, the Jharkhand high court held that retrospective application of 10% EWS quota is against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The issue in front of the court was that there were vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 2013 and pursuant to this, the advertisement was published in 2015. The number of unreserved posts advertised was 105 vacancies. There was no EWS reservation of 10% quota applicable at that point of time. The cut-off date for age eligibility was specified to be 01.08.2013 and it was also specified that the age of eligibility to participate will be 21 to 35. Though the selection process was initiated, the same was not concluded by way of a selection test. The department further published Advertisement No.05 of 2019 to make an appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The earlier advertisements were not completed and they have been superseded by the current advertisement, which contains merged vacancies of advertisements of 2013 and 2015 and also current vacancies of 2019.
The Government of India through an office memorandum dated 31.01.2019 published its decision of 10% reservation for EWS in direct recruitment in civil posts and services in the Government of India. The State of Jharkhand also introduced the reservation quota of 10% for EWS in the civil posts and services of the Government of Jharkhand. The amendment in the reservation rules of 2001, were brought into effect to the extent of increasing the percentage of reservations to 60%.
The petitioners submitted that since they are not EWS candidates, the applicability of reservation quota on this count is adversely affecting their right on earlier vacancies. Due to the merger of vacancies, the seats which were available in the year 2013 and 2015, have been brought under the cover of the current advertisement of the year 2019, wherein 10% reservation for EWS have been made applicable retrospectively for all the earlier vacancies, that were part of the earlier selection process. A total of 52 seats have been earmarked for EWS candidates separately, but these seats have been carved out from the unreserved quota but this has to be done on post facto vacancies.
The judgement clarifies that the court was not examining whether the reservation up to 60% is valid or not. The only question that was by the Court as to whether EWS reservation can be given effect retrospectively or not.
On that question, a single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the retrospective application of the 10% EWS quota is against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the State Government is directed to modify the Advertisement of 2019 to the extent that 10% quota for EWS shall not be made effective retrospectively for the vacancies of the years 2013 and 2015. It was concluded that the ongoing appointment process is not based on constitutional mandate and therefore it is illegal.
Allahabad HC: Education in the state has been taken as a business or industry
In the case, Sai College of Education and another vs. the State of UP, the high court made strong remarks on the status of education in Uttar Pradesh, which the court hold has been taken as a business or industry.
The matter before the court was with regards to the admission of twenty-five students in B.Ed. course. The facts on record show that twenty-five candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were recommended for admission through centralized counseling. None of the candidates, so recommended, was given admission rather appellants/petitioners’ institution admitted other twenty-five students.
By way of an appeal, a challenge was made to the judgment dated December 2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants/petitioners (Education Institutions) was dismissed.
To justify their action, the appellant/ petitioners (Education Institutions) held that the candidates named for the admission in the centralized counseling were not inclined to take admission and for that, a copy of the affidavit of few candidates was enclosed. The court pursued the affidavits and found it to be in a cyclostyled manner.
The Bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the affidavits were obtained by appellants/petitioners’ institution containing the same language which cannot happen if it is to be given by different candidates on different dates. The affidavits having the same language were created at the instance of the appellants/petitioners’ institution and seem to have been given to get a refund of the amount paid online. Most importantly, the fact further remains that out of twenty- five candidates/students recommended for admission, it cannot be that none would take admission. The court took a strong stance at the state of education in Uttar Pradesh and expressed the following:
In conclusion, the high court did not find any illegality in the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal challenging the earlier judgment.
The court was inclined to send the matter to the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) for appropriate action which includes de-recognition of the institution looking to their conduct, but for the reason that N.C.T.E. is not a party to this appeal as well as to the petition, the Court refrained to take suo-moto cognizance but warned the institution not to indulge in the practice of nature referred herein.
Supreme Court: Segmentation of project as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance not permissible
In the case of the National Highways Authority of India vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu and others, the apex court while observing the there was no requirement for obtaining environmental clearance for NH-54 A, held that segmentation of a project cannot be adopted as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance impact assessment.
The matter was regarding the environmental clearance for expansion of National Highway 45-A between Villuppuram to Nagapattinam. The project of widening and improvement of the existing 4-lane carriageway in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry was bifurcated into four packages. Approval was granted by the Competent Authority, i.e. Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways No. 45-A in March 2018. The process was initiated for the acquisition of lands required for the project.
Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras by certain aggrieved farmers and public interest litigants questioning the commencement of the project without obtaining environmental clearance.
Upon reviewing all the submissions, the apex court held that there is no requirement for obtaining environmental clearances for NH 45-A Villuppuram -Nagapattinam Highway as land acquisition is not more than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses. In doing so, the apex court set aside the Madras High Court judgment which had held that it is necessary.
The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi also observed that the adoption of segmentation of a project cannot be adopted as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance impact assessment. Therefore, it directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India to constitute an Expert Committee to examine whether segmentation is permissible for National Highway projects beyond a distance of 100 kms and, if permissible, under what circumstances.
The bench also directed NHAI to strictly conform to the EIA notifications in the matter of acquisition of land being restricted to 40 meters on the existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments, and also to fulfill the requirement of reafforestation in accordance with the existing legal regime.
The bench emphasised that development and the environment must go hand in hand.
Featured Image: Important court judgments

created: January 27, 2021


text:
Review: What Did the Expert Committee Reviewing the SVAMITVA Scheme Say?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 18, 2022
The main aim of the SVAMITVA scheme is to provide an integrated property validation for Rural India.  Through this scheme, the government plans to provide a ‘Record of Rights’ to every rural household owner in a rural inhabited area. What is the progress of the scheme?
Ownership of land provides security against any contingencies. Proper documentation regarding the ownership, enables a hassle-free process in securing any loans. Unclear & incomplete documentation hampers the process of securing financial aid. The situation is more common in rural areas. The SVAMITVA scheme was launched by the Government of India, to address a few of these issues related to property rights in rural areas.
What is SVAMITVA?
SVAMITVA scheme is a Central scheme launched in 2020 on the National Panchayat Raj Day i.e., 24 April. SVAMITVA stands for ‘Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas’. This was initially launched as a pilot project in select states during 2020-21. The scheme was launched nationwide on 24 April 2021 after the completion of the Pilot.
The main aim of the scheme is to provide an integrated property validation for Rural India.
Through this scheme, the government resolves to enable economic progress in Rural India by providing a ‘Record of Rights” to every rural household owner in a rural inhabited area. This is planned to be achieved using Drone Technology and Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) technology for capturing images.
Some of the aspects that the scheme wishes to achieve include:
Recently, Report of the Expert Committee on the SVAMITVA Scheme was released by the Government of India’s Ministry of Panchayat Raj, which reviewed the scheme and made recommendations.
31 States have signed MoU with Survey of India for implementation of the scheme.
SVAMITVA scheme is a collaborative effort of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, State Panchayati Raj Departments, State Revenue Departments and Survey of India. While the Ministry of Panchayat Raj is the Nodal ministry, the Survey of India is the Technological Implementation Agency.
The entire implementation of the scheme can be broadly divided into – Pre-Survey, Survey and Post-Survey activities.  Pre-survey activities include preparatory activities like – signing of MOU by State & Survey of India, Identification of sites for establishing CORS, notification of village, broader demarcation of the land, training activities etc.
Survey activities include the establishment of Ground Control Points for drone surveys, capturing and processing of Images etc. Post Survey activities include verification of maps, ownership data collection from Revenue departments and Gram panchayat, review of existing documents, resolution etc.
The Scheme was approved with a financial outlay of Rs. 566.23 crores for five years from 2020-25. The scheme has 7 components, and each of these components receiving funding.
Survey of India receives funding for two of the components – The establishment of the CORS network and Large-Scale Mapping (LSM) using Drones. The respective State government and National Informatics Centre (NIC) also receive funding for two components each.
Funding for Information, Education & Communication (IEC) activities and for State Project Management Unit in case of State Governments, while NIC receives funding for the National Project Management Unit (NPMU) and Enhancement of Applications.
The last component is for documentation support, exposure visits, workshops, etc., for which the funding is received by state governments or any other government agencies.  From 2020-21 to the end of 2022-23, the expected expenditure is Rs. 275.9 crores.
As highlighted earlier, the pilot phase of the scheme included 9 states. In the current scaling-up phase, 31 States and UTs have signed MoU with the Survey of India for the implementation of the scheme in their respective States and UTs.
Changes to State Acts and laws concerning Abadi lands
While surveying and providing a ‘Record of Rights” to every rural household is the broader aim of the SVAMITVA scheme, the focus is specifically on Abadi lands. Abadi areas are inhabited areas in rural areas.  In most of the states, the Abadi area is not surveyed and hence there are no record-of-rights for the properties in the Abadi area. Such homestead areas along with uncultivable areas like hilly terrains or forests were not surveyed earlier. They were generally considered as wasteland and unproductive, and not a major source of revenue collection.
However, with increased urbanization, there is an escalation in the value of Abadi land, necessitating the need for a detailed survey of these lands. There have been attempts by a few states to survey these Abadi lands. The Expert committee report highlights the efforts made in states like Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, etc. The report also highlights the different land-owning rights that exist in the hilly regions of North East India, mostly inhabited by tribal people.
Change in laws and amendments in State Acts and Rules for providing a survey of Abadi lands, and the issue of property cards, are the crucial steps in the implementation of the SVAMITVA scheme.
The Ministry of Panchayat Raj has written letters to respective states to make the necessary changes to their Act and rules. Among states – Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh made changes to their state laws.
The Expert committee made certain recommendations to further streamline the implementation process of the SVAMVITA scheme for Abadi lands, apart from the efforts already initiated by the respective State governments.
Use of Abadi property as financial asset for loans and other financial benefits
The rights of land or houses in Abadi areas is mostly inherited from forefathers. Possession and long use of land by an owner are generally the basis for the rights on the land. The purchase of the land or grants given by the government is also a source for the claim of ownership. There exists no record of rights for these lands, unlike Agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands are recorded by government authorities in the record of rights. This provides reliable records for the banks to disburse loans. The same cannot be said for Abadi lands. In the SVAMITVA scheme, it is envisaged to provide a Record of Rights for Abadi land, which will facilitate loans for owners with lands as security.
The Ministry of Panchayati Raj wrote a letter to the Department of Financial Services regarding the matter of recognition of the Property Card/Title deed issued by the state government with respect to newly surveyed Abadi lands. The banks were requested to recognize these for disbursing loans.
Source: Report of Expert Committee on SVAMITVA Scheme – Annexure V
The Framework for implementation of SVAMITVA Scheme (2021-25) also has guidelines for the state to ensure the recognition and legal sanctity of property cards.
The expert committee made a few more recommendations as listed below.
Distribution of Cards completed for 43.7 thousand villages
As per SVAMITVA’s dashboard of the Ministry of Panchayat Raj, Property Card Distribution is completed in 43,763 villages, as on 16 November 2022. More than half of them are in Uttar Pradesh with 22.6 thousand villages.  Other states with villages that have completed the process of issuing Property cards are Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, and Gujarat along with the UT of Jammu & Kashmir.  None of the other states have any villages which have completed the process. However, the Drone survey is initiated across all 31 States and UTs. As on 16 November 2022, Drone Surveys were initiated in a total of 1.97 lakh villages.
Featured Image: Report on SVAMITVA scheme

created: November 18, 2022


text:
Review: What Did the Home, Finance, Environment & Climate Change, Defence Ministries Say They Achieved in 2023?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 22, 2024
As the year 2023 came to an end, different ministries have published their respective year-end reviews. This annual publication serves as a comprehensive document spotlighting the principal initiatives and accomplishments undertaken by each department or ministry throughout the preceding year. We review the year-end reviews by the Ministries of Home, Finance, Defence, and Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
As the year 2023 came to an end, different ministries have published their respective year-end reviews. This annual publication serves as a comprehensive document spotlighting the principal initiatives and accomplishments undertaken by each department or ministry throughout the preceding year. From legislative milestones to economic strategies, these year-end reviews serve as a panoramic view of the nation’s governance and administrative landscape, shedding light on the policies, and transformative moments that have shaped the nation’s trajectory over the past twelve months.
In today’s story, we look at some of the important milestones and accomplishments of a few ministries/departments.
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
The year 2023 has been eventful for this ministry, with some new initiatives being launched along with some controversial bills being enacted. Some of the key highlights of this ministry are:
Ministry of Home Affairs
The year 2023 is considered a watershed year, with the passage of three new criminal law bills. A peace agreement is signed between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, to restore peace and insurgency-free Northeast. Some of the highlights are:
Some of the key highlights of the various departments under the Ministry of Finance are:
Ministry of Defence
India’s defence sector has experienced significant milestones and achievements in 2023.

created: January 22, 2024


text:
Review: What Did the ICMR Study on Factors Associated With Unexplained Sudden Deaths Among Adults in India Find? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 27, 2023
In the post COVID-19 times, speculation has arisen about potential links between COVID-19 and an increased risk of heart attacks in young adults. The matter was raised on multiple occasions in both the houses of the Indian Parliament. According to Health Ministry’s statement, ICMR was conducting three different studies to determine the facts regarding the apprehension of rising cases of cardiac arrest after COVID-19. Here is a review of the first one.
Gujarat’s Navratri celebrations are renowned worldwide for their energetic Garba dance. However, this year, the celebrations took a tragic turn as multiple incidents of sudden death from heart attacks were reported during garba. The victims were mostly teenagers and young adults, according to reports. Not just during the Navratri season, even otherwise, a sudden surge in cases of myocardial infarctions in youth and seemingly healthy persons has been a cause of concern in the post COVID-19 times. The concern is not restricted to India. Globally many countries have observed similar trends including UAE, USA, and Australia.
Often, heart attacks are linked to lifestyle-related risk factors. Consumption of foods high in saturated fats and sodium, like fast foods or processed meals, leading a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, alcohol, and drugs are some lifestyle choices that affect cardiovascular health. Additionally, health conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes also heighten the risk, as does the experience of chronic stress. Genetic factors also likely play some role in high blood pressure, heart disease, and other related conditions, as per the CDC. However, in the post COVID-19 times, speculation has arisen about potential links between COVID-19 and an increased risk of heart attacks.
Increase in heart attacks among young adults is being studied by ICMR
Governments and health authorities have acknowledged the concerns. The matter was raised on multiple occasions in both the Houses of the Indian Parliament. According to the Health Ministry’s statement, ICMR was conducting three different studies to determine the facts regarding the apprehension of rising cases of cardiac arrest after COVID-19. One of the studies, titled ‘Factors associated with sudden deaths among adults aged 18 – 45 years, India: multicentric matched case control study’ was published recently in the Indian Journal of Medical Research. Two more studies, one on the effect of COVID-19 vaccine and another study that seeks to explain the cause of deaths through physical and virtual autopsies are underway. The studies are reviewed and monitored by a committee of experts including epidemiologists, clinicians, pathologists, forensic medicine experts, and public health specialists.
729 cases and 2916 control subjects were covered in the ICMR study
The ICMR study that was recently published was conducted through the participation of 47 tertiary care hospitals across India. It focused on apparently healthy individuals aged 18 to 45 years, free from any known underlying health issues, who experienced sudden and unexplained deaths between 01 October 2021 and 31 March 2023. The criteria for selecting cases involved individuals who had been seemingly healthy, without any known chronic health conditions, and who suddenly died within 24 hours of hospitalization or were observed to be healthy 24 hours before their unexpected death.
A total of 29,171 sudden deaths were identified out of which the records of 729 cases as well as 2,916 control subjects were included in the analysis. That is, for every case, there were four other individuals selected specifically to closely resemble the case based on similar characteristics such as age, gender, and living in the same or similar neighbourhood. Details of medical history, smoking, alcohol use, intense physical activity, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and vaccination status were collected.
Hospitalization due to COVID-19, poor lifestyle, and family history have been positively associated to unexpected deaths
The key findings of the study are as follows:
It should be noted that the ICMR study has its own limitations. Some of them are:
Other research studies have also highlighted the heightened risk of cardiovascular conditions in those infected with COVID-19
Even before the ICMR study was published, many other international studies corelated COVID-19 infection with cardiovascular diseases.
A large Lancet study conducted in the USA analysed the medical records of over 6.91 lakh persons who tested positive for COVID-19. The mean age of the group was 43 years. Those who were vaccinated were excluded from the study. The study found that the COVID-19 survivors have higher risks of cardiovascular complications, including cerebrovascular complications, arrhythmia, inflammatory or ischemic heart disease, and thromboembolic disorders than those who did not test positive or exhibit symptoms. An analysis of different sub-groups in the study showed that the risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (weakened heart muscle) were the top two risks in younger COVID-19 survivors aged 20−44 years.
Another study published in 2022 noted that prior to the pandemic, deaths due to Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) had reduced. However, the trends were reversed since the pandemic outbreak. Excess deaths, or the difference between the observed and the predicted mortality rates, were most pronounced for the 25- to 44-year-old age group. One reason for this has been cited as the possibility that COVID-19 infection may have exacerbated the development of pre-existing heart conditions. It also added that psychological stressors associated with the pandemic such as job loss and other financial pressures may have also contributed to this.
While the ICMR study did not find any positive association of vaccines with sudden deaths, a study published in the British Medical Journal found that adolescent and young adult men are at the highest risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination for COVID-19. However, the incidence of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination among males was 50-139 cases per million in 12- to 17-year-olds and 28-147 cases per million in 18- to 29-year-olds. The mRNA vaccines considered in the study were that of Moderna and Pfizer. These vaccines were not bought by the Indian Government.
Heart diseases have been a concern in India even prior to the pandemic
Even before COVID-19, heart diseases contributed 28.1% of the total deaths in India in 2016 compared to 15.2% in 1990 for the 18 to 69 year-old age group, according to a 2017 ICMR study report indicating an increasing trend in cardiovascular diseases. It associated tobacco use, alcohol use, insufficient physical activity, and unhealthy diet with the prevalence of non-communicable diseases. The impact of such behavioural risk factors can reflect raised blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, overweight, and obesity.  During the pandemic too, the unforeseen restrictions have brought significant changes to lifestyle and mental health which may have added to the increased prevalence of non-communicable diseases.
Considering the increasing cases and growing concerns, research should be promoted by the government to understand the issue in detail. Currently, as highlighted by a standing committee report, ‘grossly insufficient funds’ are allocated to research councils in India.

created: November 27, 2023


text:
What did the Law Commission say about Hate Speech in its 2017 report?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 30, 2020
Sudarshan News telecasting a program about Muslims infiltrating the Civil Services has once again ignited the debate on Hate Speech. While the Supreme Court is hearing the matter, the Law Commission of India looked at the issue of Hate Speech in its 267th report submitted in 2017. Here is a review.
Recently Sudarshan News, a Hindi news-channel announced the telecast of a TV show with its Editor-in-Chief Suresh Chavhanke, claiming to have done an expose of alleged infiltration of the Muslim community into Civil Services and also termed it as ‘Bureaucracy Jihad’. Certain sections of the society have termed this program as a case of hate speech. The Students of Jamia Millia Islamia university approached the Delhi High Court , which issued a stay on the telecast of the Programme. However, hearing a similar plea by a different petitioner, Supreme Court has refused to stay the telecast.  A two-judge bench said that the court needs to be careful in imposing a prior restraint on the basis of a short video clip. It further observed that the petition has raised issues which have a bearing on protection of constitutional rights.
Subsequently the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting allowed the Channel to broadcast the show on 09 September2020. A total of 4 episodes of a planned 9 episode series were telecast when the Supreme court in a later hearing, issued an interim order on 15 September 2020 prohibiting the telecast of the remaining episodes. This new order was based on the content of the 4 episodes that were aired on television.
Meanwhile, the government of India also issued a show cause notice to Sudarshan TV under the Cable Television Network Act. While one side of the argument in this case is that the contents of the program fall under hate speech targeting a particular community, there are others who feel that a prior restraint on the telecast of this program is a violation of the free speech rights. The Supreme Court is set to hear this issue again on 05 October 2020.
Not just this case,  there have been multiple other instances where the debate was between hate speech vs the right to free speech and where does one draw the line.
As the Supreme Court discusses this issue, we take a look at laws and regulation regarding hate speech in India, along with the regulations internationally.
Constitution provides for reasonable restriction on Right to Freedom of Speech
Article 19(1)(a)  of the Constitution of India guarantees the ‘Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression’ to all its citizens.  While the constitution does not permit any arbitrary restrictions on freedom of speech, there are certain reasonable restrictions or limitations on free speech the details of which are mentioned in Article 19(2)
It provides for the following three important things that ought to be considered  before imposing any restrictions on Freedom of speech:
The current provisions in Article 19(2) were included in the constitution via the first ever amendment, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 to enable legislature to impose ‘reasonable’ restrictions on free speech. These restrictions are the following.
Multiple legal provisions exist in India regarding Hate Speech
Article 21 of Indian Constitution states that ‘No Person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty’. However, this article also provides a caveat, ‘except according to procedure established by law’.
One of the major challenges for a country in ensuring liberty to its citizens is to make sure that this liberty does not infringe upon the liberty of others, especially of citizens belonging to disadvantaged sections of the society. This becomes all the more challenging in a country like India where people belong to diverse caste, creed, religions and languages.
Hence the provisions in law have to safeguard the liberty assured for all the citizens. While no law in India defines ‘Hate Speech’, there are certain legal provisions and legislations that prohibit select forms of speech as exceptions to freedom of speech.
Law Commission advises on criteria to determine Hate speech
Since there is no legal or constitutional definition for Hate Speech in India, it has remained an area of debate and interpretation. There have been multiple instances in the past where the courts have explored the definition of hate speech. The Law Commission of India’s report on Hate Speech in 2017 highlights various examples from the past where the courts have  looked into the scope of hate speech and have passed judgments.
Few of these cases mentioned in this report are
The Law Commission of India in its Report on Hate Speech has identified criteria that can be used to determine Hate speech based on summarizing the different State jurisdictions
Various international laws monitor hate speech across the globe and in different countries
Incidence of hate speech is not limited to India. Xenophobia, Homophobia based on race, religion etc. plague different countries around the world. The context of Freedom of Speech and hate speech is also a debatable topic especially in countries upholding democratic values and individual rights of citizens.
In order to identify hate speech, recognize differentiate and control it, various countries are party to various international conventions or have evolved laws in the respective countries.
Apart from these international conventions and agreements to which most of the democratic nations are signatories, few countries have evolved their own procedures to discern the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech.
The Law Commission’s Report on Hate Speech, listed examples of various countries that have provisions for Hate Speech.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has been at the fore front on developing jurisprudence on hate speech. These are adopted in many of the European Union countries along with United Kingdom. Although they guarantee Freedom of Expression, certain limits and exceptions are set.
Meanwhile in USA, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the Congress from making any law prohibiting the exercise of free speech. This protection of speech in US is reliant on two assumptions:
Hence there is greater emphasis on protecting free speech in USA. For a speech to qualify as hate speech, there ought to be a clear case of present danger.
Canadian Charter of Freedom Rights guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law. South Africa, which suffered through decades of racial inequality during apartheid regime, constitutionally guarantees freedom of expression in Section 16 of their Constitution. However, the freedom has limitations under Section 16(2):
In many countries including India, the challenge with identification & codification of Hate Speech is to balance it with right to the Freedom of Expression that is guaranteed to its citizens. It is also important to ensure that the freedom is not put to indiscriminate use, especially by those who are powerful and thereby compromising and infringing on the rights of the disadvantaged communities.
Featured Image: Hate Speech

created: September 30, 2020


text:
Review: What did the ‘Regulations Review Authority 2.0’ recommend to the RBI?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 24, 2022
RBI has undertaken a periodic review of the regulatory procedures and instructions to make them more rationalized, streamlined and ease the burden of compliance. Recently, the report of the second such periodic review in the form of Regulations Review Authority 2.0 was released. Here is a review.
Regulatory governance forms an important part of the functioning of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The regulatory and enforcement mechanism of the RBI is mandated by various statutes. Accordingly, the regulated entities (REs) have a statutory obligation to ensure regulatory compliance, failure of which could potentially invite penal actions from the RBI. At the same time, the instructions and the mandate specified by the RBI should be clear, concise, and proportionate, for its effective adherence.
As technology evolves, the financial system undergoes transformations in its style of functioning. As a result, more and more regulatory advice and instructions are needed to ensure that these transformations do not result in adverse Outcomes. Because of this, there could be a possibility of having a multiplicity of instructions, and duplicates, thereby making compliance a burden. To avoid such issues, RBI has undertaken a periodic review of the regulatory procedures and instructions to make them more rationalized, and streamlined and ease the burden of compliance.
Today’s story looks at the report of the second such periodic review in the form of Regulations Review Authority 2.0 (RRA 2.0). Previously, Factly published a similar story on the RBI regulations and the performance of RBI in ensuring the compliance of regulatory instructions, which can be accessed here.
Need for RRA
As mentioned earlier, the scope and functions of the RBI under regulatory governance have evolved over the past few decades. To cope with the latest technological advancements in the financial systems, the RBI periodically comes up with master directions and instructions for the regulated entities. These instructions could well be revised in the future or made redundant completely, depending on future developments. As a result, a need emerges to rationalize these instructions and make them more streamlined, so that effective compliance is ensured.
Accordingly, the RBI had constituted RRA 1.0 in March 1999 as the first step in the process of regulatory review. The purpose of such review was to enable an opportunity for the common public to seek either removal or addition or modification of the existing circulars and instructions if they become either redundant or an alternative cost-effective and hassle-free solution is available. Initially set up for a period of one year, its term was extended by another year in 2000 to enable more participation.
Major recommendations of RRA 1.0
During the initial one year after the set-up of the RRA 1.0, it received more than 350 suggestions from 200 applications. One of the most important achievements that this RRA has enabled is to make RBI aware of the needs and requirements of its customers. Another significant accomplishment is initiating the work related to subject-specific master circulars by condensing a sizable number of circulars published over the years on a certain subject into a single circular. Additionally, individual banks were provided with the flexibility to levy service charges based on their service provisioning costs.
In addition to this, some of the recommendations which were accepted by the RBI are:
Furthermore, a working group was set up to work on the modalities for the dissemination of information in electronic format, whose report can be accessed here. Overall, the RRA 1.0 enabled several processes to be streamlined and made more effective. Regulatory prescriptions were made simpler, reporting requirements for regulated businesses were decreased, and Master Circulars, which condense regulatory guidance on a subject-specific topic, were made possible.
Regulations Review Authority 2.0
Considering the technological evolution in the financial sector landscape, RBI felt the necessity of another periodic review of the regulatory governance. Accordingly, RRA 2.0 was set up in April, 2021 its report was released in June 2022.  While the RRA 1.0 focus was on streamlining and simplifying regulatory prescriptions, the focus of RRA 2.0 is to internally examine regulatory procedures and solicit input from the Regulated Entities (REs) and other stakeholders, to make it easier for the REs to comply with the law without altering the current regulatory landscape. The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the committee were as below:
The RRA 2.0 had extensive consultations with stakeholders and had attempted a comprehensive exercise with the RRA. To enable this, the RRA constituted dedicated working groups on specific tasks. Each group had a different mandate, and they were entrusted with the responsibility to provide individual recommendations task-wise. Below is the framework of RRA 2.0.
The advisory group (AG) was entrusted with the task of engaging with all stakeholders, including the regulated entities. It held consultations with industry bodies and self-regulatory organisations. The Inter-Departmental Group (IDG) was mandated to internally review all the circulars, and instructions and identify redundancies, contradictions, and duplicates. Additionally, the RRA 2.0 also referred to the Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman (RBIO) and training establishments (TEs) for information on regulatory instructions. The committee on review of returns was asked to rationalize and streamline the reporting mechanism. The committee on circulars was instructed to guide the manner in which circulars should be issued to make them more effective and suggest changes in the information dissemination through circulars and instructions.
Recommendations of RRA 2.0
The report makes comprehensive recommendations covering a wide range of issues in the regulatory governance spectrum. Some of the broad recommendations are as below.
In addition to these broad recommendations, each advisory group had its own specific suggestions, a few important of them are mentioned below.
Recommendations on Review of Returns
Recommendations on review of circulars
Recommendations on the dissemination of instructions
Way forward
The aim of any RRA is to make the regulations simple, clear, and more streamlined. It should result in ensuring more compliance by reducing the burden on the reporting entities. Throughout the exercise, the RRA felt some additional improvements are needed to make regulatory governance more effective and consultative. The RRA asserts that there is a further need to enable skill development for regulatory drafting and provide continuous training and orientation to the officers.  Additionally, the RRA desires that a structured mechanism is put in place to take periodic reviews of the supervisory and regulatory instruments to keep pace with the advancements in the financial sector landscape. Finally, the RRA is hopeful that individual departments take ownership and be proactive in weeding out the redundant instructions and if possible, engage personnel to oversee this process. The outcomes of this RRA must be sustained and this process is institutionalized for the future as well with more regular reviews.


text:
What did the SC appointed committee say on the Farm Laws in its report?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 31, 2022
The Supreme Court appointed a four-member committee in January 2021 to look into the farm laws, talk to all stakeholders and submit a report. Since no further progress is made after the report was submitted in a sealed cover, one of the members of the committee made the report public last week. This story looks at the major issues in the committee’s report.
Indian economy is traditionally agriculture-based. More than 55% of the population still depend on agriculture for their livelihood, making it the largest employer in India. The Agriculture and allied sector grew at 3.6% during 2020-21, making it one of the sectors that registered a positive growth even during the pandemic. However, all is not well in the agriculture sector. The sector is reeling under severe stress, with issues all over the spectrum right from pre-production to post-production. The monthly average income per agriculture household at an ‘All-India’ level during 2018-19 is Rs.10,218.
Successive governments have been making efforts to address these issues through targeted interventions in the form of input investment support, Price support mechanisms, crop insurances to protect against uncontrollable events, and so on. The gains from these are hard to ascertain & quantify but the reality is that the sector still faces complex challenges. Amidst all these, the Government of India in the year 2020,  brought in three farm laws aimed at enhancing the farmers’ income- The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 (20 of 2020); The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 (21 of 2020); and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 (22 of 2020). The enactment of these three farm laws resulted in widespread agitations across the nation, the epicentre being the Delhi Border. These were challenged in Supreme Court, and it had appointed a 4-member committee to understand the grievances of the farmers about the farm laws, the stance of the government and make suitable recommendations.
Since the report was submitted to the apex court in a sealed cover, and no further progress is made, one of the members of the committee made the report public last week. We look at major issues dealt the committee & their response, as per the report available in the public domain.
About the committee
The apex court appointed committee initially had 4 members. But later, one of the members (Bhupinder Singh Mann, National President, Bhartiya Kisan Union, and All India Kisan Coordination Committee) recused himself from the committee. The other members include:
The archive of the views of the committee members on various agricultural-related issues is to provide an insight into their approach & ideas towards reforming Indian agriculture. Some serious questions were raised regarding the composition of the committee. There is no mention of any criteria that are followed in the selection of the members of the committee. It is also not known if the court considered the previous writings & views of the committee members on the farm laws. It was widely reported that three of the four members of the committee have strongly supported the farm laws.
It is also not clear why a member of the committee chose to release the report in the public domain when the court is still hearing the matter.
Report findings
The committee adopted a four-stage approach to arrive at the feedback on farm laws- holding direct interactions, feedback, or suggestions to a dedicated email id (sc.committee-agri@gov.in), a dedicated portal to receive comments on the questionnaire and using evidence-based analysis.
The report claims that the ‘silent majority’ supports the farm acts, and the act of repeal is a travesty of justice to them. However, looking at their survey sample and the feedback compositions, it is difficult to understand how the committee arrived at this conclusion. This is also in contrast with the results of a survey conducted by a private media organization, Gaon Connection on Indian farmers’ perception of these farm bills.
Before passing these bills, in July 2019, NITI Aayog constituted a high-level committee on “Transformation of Indian Agriculture” consisting of the Chief Ministers (mostly of the NDA). The terms of reference include suggestions of modalities for timely implementation of the following reforms:
In reply to an RTI application about the functioning and report of this committee, NITI Aayog denied the RTI request on the report, even though the report was already submitted.
Minimum or ‘Maximum’ Support Price:
Minimum Support Price (MSP) is one of the measures for achieving remunerative prices for the farmers. It is fixed based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The main issue raised by the farmer unions is regarding the MSP. They feared its removal gradually, thereby weakening their bargaining power. The majority of the farmers have small and marginal landholdings, whose agricultural output does not provide them with bargaining power on par with big private players.
The committee in its report mentions how only 27.5% of farmer respondents sell their produce at MSP, with more concentration in Punjab, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. It also mentions how sometimes weighted average mandi prices fall below MSP. If we look at the mandi prices of Karnataka, the weighted average price is well below the MSP. The ‘minimum’ support price is becoming the ‘maximum’ price that a farmer could potentially get for his/her produce. Such low prices are one of the main reasons why the farmer unions want to have a legal status for MSP.
In response to a question in the Parliament on whether the Government proposes legislation for MSP and any assessment done to study the impact of lack of reasonable price of agricultural produce, the Ministry did not respond to these questions directly. Whether the MSP is helping the farmers or is it failing them is a matter of debate and discussion.
Freedom to sell anywhere
One of the primary arguments in support of the farm laws is that it provides the farmers with the freedom to sell their produce anywhere outside the APMCs. The committee recognizes that this act tries to formalize the transactions happening outside the APMCs. As per the response in the Lok Sabha from July 2021, the farmers are free to sell their produce anywhere that fetches them at a higher price even now. As observed earlier, the price in APMC mandis sometimes goes below the MSP, and there is no assurance for the farmers that the price outside the APMCs would exceed MSP. Excessive focus is laid on the freedom or choice of the farmers to sell the produce, without taking into consideration whether the farmers have such bargaining power and the capability to sell anywhere outside the nearest mandi. Bihar’s tryst with the de-regulation of the APMC in 2006 provides us with an example of the consequences of weakening of the mandi system and the entry of potentially exploitative private players.
Another argument by the Government is that the middlemen exploit the farmers by way of charging a commission. The farm acts aim to remove such exploitation. However, neither the government nor the report suggests on how this is implemented in the reality. Involvement of private players in an arena that is largely dominated by individual traders and could lead to the creation of two layers of middlemen, as stated by a few commentators. The report seems to agree with the view of the government on this matter.
It is evident from the committee report that on a majority of the issues, the committee agreed with the reasoning provided by the government. The committee did not delve into the operationalization aspects of the farm bills, which is the primary apprehension of the farmer unions and organizations. It also did not provide enough information on the respondent pool and has not provided details of any contrarian views received by the committee. In the absence of these details, the report may not help bridge the trust deficit that was a major point of contention between the government and the farmers.
Featured Image:  SC Committee on the Farm Laws