National coach Zeeshan to address World Tennis Conference
HC stays Haryana govt’s law providing 75% reservation for locals
In a relief to industry groups in Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on a law providing 75 per cent reservation in the private sector for those who have a domicile in the state. The high court released the detailed order on Friday.
A bench of Justices Ajay Tewari and Pankaj Jain passed the order on a petition filed by the Faridabad Industries Association and other associations from Haryana.
Staying the Haryana law mandating 75 per cent reservation in the private sector for people domiciled in the state, the court said “The core issue is whether any state can restrict employment (even in the private sector) on the basis of domicile”.
The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, which came into force on January 15, provides for 75 per cent reservation in the private sector to jobseekers “domiciled in the state of Haryana”. The law covers private companies, societies, trusts and partnership firms and applies to jobs that offer a maximum gross monthly salary or wages of up to Rs 30,000. Central or state governments and any organisation owned by these governments are outside the ambit of the Act.
The law was passed by the Haryana Vidhan Sabha on March 2, 2021. It came into effect in the state on January 15, 2022. As per the law, eligible candidates are required to register on a designated online portal. Companies can make recruitments only through this portal.
The law had been opposed by industry associations on the ground that it would affect their business_nbsp;_nbsp;_nbsp;_nbsp;_nbsp;_nbsp; s and make them less competitive.
Lok Ayukta rejects plea to oust Minister
The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government seemed to heave a sigh of relief on Friday when the Kerala Lok Ayukta rejected a plea by Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala to oust Higher Education Minister R. Bindu from office on charges of maladministration, abuse of power and nepotism.
Focus here on: Lok Ayukta
What is the Concept of Lokpal and Lokayuktas?
The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 provided for the establishment of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States.
These institutions are statutory bodies without any constitutional status.
They perform the function of an ombudsman” and inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for related matters.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 provides for establishing a Lokpal headed by a Chairperson, who is or has been a Chief Justice of India, or is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court, or an eminent person who fulfills eligibility criteria as specified. Of its other members, not exceeding eight, 50% are to be judicial members, provided that not less than 50% belong to the SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, or are women.
The Lokpal was appointed in March 2019 and it started functioning since March 2020 when its rules were framed. The Lokpal is at present headed by former Supreme Court Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
The Lokpal has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of corruption against anyone who is or has been Prime Minister, or a Minister in the Union government, or a Member of Parliament, as well as officials of the Union government under Groups A, B, C and D.
Also covered are chairpersons, members, officers and directors of any board, corporation, society, trust or autonomous body either established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly funded by the Centre.
It also covers any society or trust or body that receives foreign contributions above Rs. 10 lakh.
What is the Historical Background of Ombudsman in India?
In 1809, the institution of ombudsman was inaugurated officially in Sweden.
In the 20th century, the Ombudsman as an institution developed and grew most significantly after the Second World War (1939-45).
In 1967, on the recommendations of the Whyatt Report of 1961, Great Britain adopted the institution of the ombudsman and became the first large nation in the democratic world to have such a system.
In India, the concept of constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the then law minister Ashok Kumar Sen in parliament in the early 1960s.
The terms Lokpal and Lokayukta were coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi.
In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the setting up of two independent authorities- at the central and state level, to look into complaints against public functionaries, including MPs.
In 1968, Lokpal bill was passed in Lok Sabha but lapsed with the dissolution of Lok Sabha and since then it lapsed in the Lok Sabha many times.
In 2002, the Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by M.N. Venkatachaliah recommended the appointment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas; also recommended that the PM be kept out of the ambit of the authority.
In 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission chaired by Veerappa Moily recommended that the office of Lokpal should be established without delay.
In 2011, social movement India Against Corruption movement led by Anna Hazare put pressure on the government at the Centre and resulted in the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013.
Interrogating the false merit reservation binary
The Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling on an all India quota deserves closer attention for a reason other than its impact on post graduate medical admissions. This judgment has the potential to settle a long, fractious and futile debate in our country: merit versus reservations. The order of the two-judge Bench, comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna, lays to rest a popular misconception of merit while advancing an interpretation that is consistent with our constitutional ideals of equality and social justice. The judgment should have far-reaching consequences for judicial orders, public policy, and, hopefully, public discourse.
Limited case
The case before the Court was very limited: an expeditious resolution of the issues around the implementation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) and economically weaker sections (EWS) quotas in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)-All India Quota (AIQ) admissions to medical colleges. AIQ refers to a judicially created category where 15% of undergraduate seats and 50% of post graduate seats are filled on a domicile-free, all-India basis.
The Government had recently decided to extend the existing Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe reservations within this category to provide for OBC reservations as well. Writ petitions had challenged this order on the grounds that the implementation of OBC reservation would affect professional merit and cause reverse discrimination against general category candidates. Another set of writ petitions had challenged the notification of EWS reservation even as the hearings on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act were pending.
Another set of writ petitions had challenged the tenability of ?8 lakh as the income limit for EWS reservation. The Court, in view of the public health implications of the delay in medical admissions, upheld the admissions notice, and listed for March the hearing on the validity of the ?8 lakh limit.
Fresh ground
The Court took this opportunity to directly address the issue of merit versus reservations at some length (paragraphs 17 to 28). For the longest time, critics of affirmative action have argued that reservations violate merit. The defenders of reservation too often concede this but argue that affirmative actions serve other goals such as social representation. This is where the judgment, authored by Justice Chandrachud, breaks fresh ground. It builds on a long tradition of progressive jurisprudence on this issue, but takes it in a new direction.
The judgment begins by recalling and reaffirming the principle of substantive equality, rather than formal equality, that underlies our constitutional promise of equality of opportunity.
Relying on the debates in the Constituent Assembly, the Court reminds us that the intent of the framers was to remedy real structural barriers that prevented the realisation of equality of opportunity.
The Court builds on landmark cases such as State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas, K.C. Vasanth Kumar (1985), and Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) to reiterate sharply that the provision of reservations in Article 16(4) of the Constitution is not an exception to but an extension of the principle of equality enunciated in Article 16(1).
Reservations are crucial to achieving the aspirational goal of genuine equality of opportunity and status amongst all citizens. ‘Reservation is one of the measures that is employed to overcome these barriers. The individual difference may be a result of privilege, fortune, or circumstances but it cannot be used to negate the role of reservation in remedying the structural disadvantage that certain groups suffer’ (paragraph 22).
Second, the judgment contributes to the specification of the mechanisms through which social privileges work. Justice Chinnappa Reddy in K.C. Vasanth Kumar vs State of Karnataka (1985) had critiqued the purely economic understanding of claims for reservation by emphasising the embedded and rigid nature of the socio-cultural institution of caste.
The present order notes Marc Galanter’s insight that processes of resource accumulation impact the performance of candidates in examinations. Taking this understanding forward, it draws upon the work of K.V. Shyamprasad to recognise, perhaps for the first time, the role of cultural capital. The order holds: ‘The cultural capital ensures that a child is trained unconsciously by the familial environment to take up higher education or high posts commensurate with their family‘s standing. This works to the disadvantage of individuals who are first-generation learners and come from communities whose traditional occupations do not result in the transmission of necessary skills required to perform well in open examination...’ (paragraph 24) The judgment is also attentive to the exclusionary implications of this processes as meritocratic discourse legitimises consolidation of ‘family habitus, community linkages, and inherited skills’. In addition to ‘reaffirming social hierarchies’, this obsession with scores in an examination ‘serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face barriers in their advancement which are not of their own making’ (paragraphs 24-25).
Stereotypes and skills
Third, it exposes social prejudices that masquerade as concerns about ‘efficiency of administration’ and the anxieties about the dilution of merit. It recognises that there is a need to rectify prejudicial stereotypes about the skills of persons belonging to weaker sections.
It relies on the 2019 decision in B.K. Pavitra vs State of Karnataka, also authored by Justice Chandrchud, which held, ‘The benchmark for the efficiency of administration is not some disembodied, abstract ideal measured by the performance of a qualified open category candidate. Efficiency of administration in the affairs of the Union or of a State must be defined in an inclusive sense, where diverse segments of society find representation as a true aspiration of governance by and for the people.’
Examinations and merit
Finally, the judgment goes to the heart of the matter and questions examinations as a measure of merit. It cites Ashwini Deshpande’s study highlighting a stark separation between what examinations claim to measure, and what they actually do. It elaborates by citing Satish Deshpande’s research that shows that often what examinations measure have an indirect and weak link to the tasks the candidate is supposed to perform. He argues that the prestige of competitive entrance examinations and the unimpeachability of its evaluator standards are a manufactured construct. Satish Deshpande calls these examinations ‘traumatic bloodbaths’ that are administered to jealously guard the social prestige of the professional class.
Thus, Deshpande concludes that if the examinations were to be any less ruthless, their main social function of persuading ‘the vast majority of aspirants to consent to their exclusion’ would be stymied. Drawing upon this, the judgment opines that exams can ‘only reflect the current competence of an individual but not the gamut of their potential, capabilities or excellence’. Foregrounding the importance of individual character, lived experiences, and subsequent training, the judgment emphasises that examinations are exclusionary, though convenient, methods of resource allocation and that our constitutional ideals should inform our cautious appreciation of these processes (paragraph 25).
This critique of the widespread misconception about merit — the common sense of the upper caste elite — can have far-reaching consequences.
Claims of reverse discrimination by candidates from the unreserved category would have to be justified under the paradigm of substantive equality. This implies that a crude disparity in cut-off marks would not be construed in isolation of the structural inequalities perpetuated by a competitive examination. This invites a stringent judicial review of the constitutionality of EWS reservations since it overlooks the role of cultural capital for general category EWS candidates and fixes the same income limits for ‘creamy layer’ OBC and EWS. In the policy realm, this judgment opens the way for designing examinations that are free of linguistic, class, school boards, and regional bias. Justice A.K. Rajan’s report on NEET, cited in this judgment, could be a potential blueprint for democratising access to higher education. The recognition of social privileges that hide behind merit also buttresses the demand for caste census that can document the dynamics of privilege accumulation and caution against oligarchic and conservative policy demands for Savarna Aayogs (or Commission for Unreserved Classes) and Brahmin Schemes that are mushrooming across our political landscape.
Is it too much to hope that this reasoning — written in the language and style preferred by our elite — coming from the highest court of the land would open the eyes of our upper-caste opinion-makers to the reality of inherited caste privileges that masquerade as merit? Would this reshape the complacent and condescending drawing-room conversations about “reserved category”?
China, Pak. ink new CPEC agreement
China and Pakistan on Friday signed a new agreement on industrial cooperation as part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) plan during Prime Minister Imran Khan’s on-going visit to Beijing.
The agreement on Friday followed Mr. Khan’s meeting with He Lifeng, Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).
The industrial cooperation agreement is a key part of what is being called “phase two” of CPEC. The first phase primarily involved Chinese investments in energy projects as well as road infrastructure.
The agreement between Pakistan’s Board of Investment and the NDRC is aimed at boosting Chinese investment in Pakistan as well as transferring Chinese industrial capacity.
The framework will “promote industrialisation and development of economic zones, and initiate, plan, execute, and monitor projects, both in public as well as private sector”, the Associated Press of Pakistan quoted the agreement as saying.
Mr. Khan told Mr. He CPEC as a project of “strategic significance for both countries” and called for both sides to “expedite” measures to develop the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar.
Focus here:
China has described CPEC as a “flagship project” of the Belt and Road Initiative. The corridor links Xinjiang with Gwadar, and also passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) where China is investing in a number of projects.
The Pakistan Prime Minister, who attended the opening of the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing, will also hold talks with both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang. Besides seeking investment, Mr. Khan will also look to reassure Beijing about safety concerns which have slowed several CPEC projects.
In July, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi travelled to China for talks with his counterpart Wang Yi for a strategic dialogue, which took place days after the death of 13 people, including nine Chinese workers, in a bus blast near the Dasu hydropower project.
Mr. Wang told Mr. Qureshi then that President Xi Jinping had “put forward clear requests” to bring the perpetrators to justice. Mr. Wang also called on the Pakistani side “to further improve security protection for Chinese nationals, institutions and projects in Pakistan”, an issue that is expected to be discussed during the visit.
NATO chief to head Norway central bank
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg will take over as Norway’s central bank Governor at the end of the year, officials said on Friday, a controversial choice that has already raised concerns about the bank’s independence.
The appointment comes amid escalating tensions between the West and Russia. Western nations fear Moscow has plans to invade Ukraine, which aspires to join the NATO alliance.
But Mr. Stoltenberg, a 62-year-old trained economist, insisted on Friday he would stay on as NATO Secretary General until the end of his term in October.
“Until my mandate at NATO ends on October 1, I will devote all my strength and attention to leading the Alliance”, he told a press conference in Norway via video link.
“It’s absolutely necessary at a time when Europe and North America must stand together”, he added.
The central bank and finance ministry said he would take over “around December 1”.
Norway’s central bank determines monetary policy but also manages the country’s enormous sovereign wealth fund, the biggest in the world.
‘Disinvestment deals matter, not targets’
The modest disinvestment receipts target of ?65,000 crore set in the Budget for 2022-23, the lowest in six years, is not a reflection of the government slowing down on privatisation, but is based on “realism” and a focus on smooth execution of transactions instead of chasing a high number, a top Finance Ministry official said.
Tuhin Kanta Pandey, Secretary, Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM) in the Finance Ministry, “We should concentrate on making the transactions happen. They cannot happen simply because of my wishes or my target,” adding that privatisation deals take a longish time to conclude through due process and resolution of multiple obstacles.
The government had estimated ?1.75 lakh crore as disinvestment receipts in 2021-22, which has now been revised to ?78,000 crore, while it raised just about ?33,000 crore in the previous year against a stiff target of ?2.10 lakh crore.
INSIGHT: WHAT IS DISINVESTMENT?
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISINVESTMENT AND PRIVATISATION
Disinvestment means the government or an organisation is liquidating or selling its stake in a company. But it will be less than 50% and the government or the organisation will still be in the saddle, calling the shots.
Governments often take this step to reduce their fiscal burden and re-allocate resources into other productive areas within a government-funded project or an organisation.
It lowers the governments fiscal burden and provides funds for growth-oriented programmes and development.
In 1999, the Indian government set up a separate department of disinvestment, which is today known as the Department of Investment and Public Asset Management or DIPAM. It operates under the Ministry of Finance.
The government announces its targets for disinvestment each year during the Union Budget. For the ongoing fiscal year FY22, the government has set a disinvestment target of Rs 1.75 lakh crore. The plan includes privatisation of two public sector banks, public listing of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Shipping Corporation of India, and many other PSUs.
However, the Centre has so far garnered only a little over Rs 9,300 crore, mostly through minority stake sales in companies such as National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO), and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation (now Reliance Industries), among others.
This sum doesn’t include the amount raised through the privatisation of Air India, which was sold back to the airlines’ original owner, Tata Group, in October last year. This was the Modi government’s first privatisation deal in seven years.
Privatisation refers to the sale of the government’s majority stake, or the whole enterprise, to private investors. In case of privatisation, the government doesn’t hold the resulting control and ownership.
While the government is confident of mopping up Rs 1 trillion through LIC’s IPO in this fiscal year, the planned privatisation of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) is likely to spill over to the next financial year. This would mean that the government will miss its disinvestment target yet again.
Villagers resist sanctuary tag for langur habitat
Neighbours of a golden langur habitat in western Assam’s Bongaigaon district have opposed a move by the State government to upgrade it to a wildlife sanctuary.
Kakoijana Reserve Forest is one of the better-known homes of the golden langur (Trachypithecus geei) found only in Assam and Bhutan and a Schedule-I species under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. It is listed as among the world’s 25 most endangered primates.
The Assam Forest Department had in January issued a preliminary notification for converting the 19.85 sq. km. patch of forest into the Kajoijana Bamuni Hill Wildlife Sanctuary.
In a memorandum to Bongaigaon Deputy Commissioner M.S. Lakshmi Priya, the villagers of Bogoriguri Rabhapara said they have been protecting and conserving the flora and fauna of Kakoijana Reserve Forest for more than 25 years.
The memorandum submitted on February 2 was on behalf of 34 villages around Kakoijana inhabited by the Koch-Rajbongshi, Boro, Garo, Rabha and Gorkha communities.
As primary stakeholders, the villagers demanded that the “conventional idea of wildlife sanctuary” be dropped and the reserve forest converted into a community forest resource “using Forest Rights Act, 2006, to ensure community co-managed system of participation for sustainable conservation”.
“We consider some of the areas inside the forest as sacred and its sanctity should be maintained. The joint forest management committee in the surrounding villages are doing a good job in protecting the forest and have an intricate relation with the forest,” the memorandum said.
The villagers pointed out that the conservation efforts of the locals had helped the authorities concerned to restore the forest canopy from less than 5% to more than 70%, and the golden langur population from less than 100 to more than 600 over almost three decades.
Jagan Kumar wins his 10th National crown
Jagan Kumar of TVS Racing finished third in the premier Pro-Stock 165cc race, but the 15 points were enough to fetch him his 10th National crown with a race to spare in the fifth and final round of the MRF-MMSC-FMSCI National motorcycle racing championships at the MMRT.National coach Zeeshan to address World Tennis Conference
National coach Zeeshan Ali will be part of an elite list of speakers from across the world in the second World Tennis Conference being organised online by the Global Professional Tennis Coaches Association (GPTCA), from March 24 to 27.
The conference is scheduled to feature 56 speakers in all, including tennis legends, coaches, and sports science experts. There will be many topics like tactics and technique, mental and physical development, biomechanical principles, nutrition, sports medicine, training methodologies, role of technology apart from narration of successful cases and stories.
