Environment Ministry plan to rank States draws ire
SC upholds OBC quota in NEET
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of quota for Other Backward Classes candidates in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test’s (NEET) All India Quota seats for undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses,noting that “reservation is not at odds with merit” in open competitive examination s.
“If open examinations present equality of opportunity to candidates to compete, reservations ensure that the opportunities are distributed in such a way that backward classes are equally able to benefit from such opportunities which typically evade them because of structural barriers.
This is the only manner in which merit can be a democratising force that equalises inherited disadvantages and privileges. Otherwise claims of individual merit are nothing but tools of obscuring inheritances that underlie achievements,” a Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna observed in a 106-page judgment.
Insight: Focus on Constitutional Validity aspect and keep in mind the latest view of SC about reservation._nbsp;
The court said an open competitive exam only ensures formal equality and does not end widespread ingrained inequalities in the availability of and access to educational facilities to certain classes of people, including the Other Backward Classes (OBC).
“The privileges that accrue to forward classes are not limited to having access to quality schooling and access to tutorials and coaching centres to prepare for a competitive examination but also includes their social networks and cultural capital (communication skills, accent, books or academic accomplishments) that they inherit from their family,” Justice Chandrachud observed.
The cultural capital ensures that a child from the forward classes 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 from social backward classes 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.
Thus, merit is not solely of one’s own making. “The rhetoric surrounding merit obscures the way in which family, schooling, fortune and a gift of talents that the society currently values aids in one ‘s advancement. Thus, the exclusionary standard of merit serves to denigrate the dignity of those who face barriers in their advancement which are not of their own making,” Justice Chandrachud explained.
The court said the “idea of merit” based on scores in an exam requires “deeper scrutiny”.
“While examinations are a necessary and convenient method of distributing educational opportunities, marks may not always be the best gauge of individual merit. If a high-scoring candidate does not use their talents to perform good actions, it would be difficult to call them meritorious merely because they scored high marks,” Justice Chandrachud reasoned.
The fortitude and resilience required to uplift oneself from conditions of deprivation are equally reflective of individual calibre and merit, the court said.
The apex court held it was the Centre’s prerogative to provide reservation in All India Quota (AIQ) seats. Granting reservation in the AIQ seats was a policy decision of the government, though subject to the contours of judicial review similar to every reservation policy;
Background
The AIQ scheme was introduced in 1986 to provide domicile free admission to students from across the country. Till 2007, there was no reservation in the AIQ. The rationale behind the AIQ scheme was that selection of candidates for admission based on the all-India open examination would further merit since it would permit the selection of the best minds in the country.
The increase in the number of medical seats over the years has favoured the AIQ scheme. In the last six years, MBBS seats in the country were increased by 56% from 54,348 in 2014 to 84,649 seats in 2020. The number of postgraduate medical seats were increased by 80% from 30,191 seats in 2014 to 54,275 seats in 2020. States like Tamil Nadu have relentlessly worked to provide OBC quota in AIQ seats.
Constitutional Aspect
Justice Chandrachud said the power of the government to provide reservations under Article 15 (4) and (5) of the Constitution is not an “exception” to Article 15 (1), which enshrines the mandate that “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”.
The court held that the power of the government to craft reservation for the OBC amplified the principle of “substantive equality” manifested through Article 15 (1).
The Parliament had backed the cause by enacting the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 to enable 15% reservation for Scheduled Castes, 7.5% for the Scheduled Tribes, and 27% for the OBC category. The Constitution Bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India had also upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBC category provided under the 2006 Act.
“Though the Act of 2006 would not be applicable to the seats earmarked for AIQ in State-run institutions since it would not fall within the definition of a Central educational institution under the Act, the Union, in view of Article 15(5), has the power to provide reservations for OBCs in the AIQ seats. It is not tenable for the States to provide reservation in the AIQ seats since these seats have been ‘surrendered‘ to the Centre,” Justice Chandrachud noted.
The judgment was based on petitions filed by doctors in August 2021 against a July 29, 2021, notification issued by the Directorate General of Health Services of the Ministry of Health implementing 27% and 10% reservation for OBC and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), respectively, while filling up 15% undergraduate and 50% postgraduate AIQ seats under NEET.
The ?8 lakh gross annual family income limit criterion for identifying EWS, as originally notified by a January 2019 official memorandum and recommended for retention by the government-appointed former Finance Secretary Ajay Bhushan Pandey-led Expert Committee on December 31, 2021, would be implemented for the admission year 2021-2022. EOM
Yemen’s tragedy
The Saudi-led coalition, in which the UAE was a part, started bombing Yemen in 2015, hoping to swiftly dislodge the Houthi rebels from Sana’a and reinstate the government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi in the capital.
Almost seven years later, the Iran-backed Houthis, who were holed up in northern Yemen and began counter-attacks with missiles and drones into Saudi Arabia, have expanded the war all the way to the Gulf coast of the UAE.
Monday’s drone attacks on Abu Dhabi by the Houthis, in which two Indians and a Pakistani were killed, were a message to the Emiratis on what they are capable of.
It may not be a coincidence that the attacks were carried out at a time when the UAE-backed forces have been making slow gains in Yemen’s conflict against the Houthis. But the UAE’s involvement in Yemen has had many turns.
It quit the Saudi-led coalition in 2020 as the war had hit a stalemate. Since then, the Emiratis have provided tactical support to the Southern Transitional Council, a separatist body in southern Yemen that drove the Saudi-backed forces loyal to President Hadi out of Aden.
The dynamics changed again when the Houthis began pushing into territories outside their stronghold, especially Marib; if they take Marib, they would be a step ahead to push into the south.
Faced with the prospects of further Houthi territorial gains, UAE-backed forces such as Giants Brigades (a militia from the south) have joined hands with the government. Then came the Abu Dhabi attacks.
What can be the Repercussions?
These could escalate the conflict. The immediate response from the Saudi-led coalition has been to carry out a massive air strike on the partly destroyed Sana’a. The UAE has also vowed retaliation.
A Houthi strike to scare away the Emiratis from Yemen could trigger the opposite reaction from Abu Dhabi, which now has powerful proxies in the south. The cycle of violence spells tragic news for Yemen’s 30 million people for whom the country has been turned into what UNICEF has called “a living hell”.
Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the Arab world, is facing a three-way crisis — thousands have been killed in the conflict, many more abandoned or suffering by the collapse of the government and social services; and mass hunger.
What can be the way Forward
The first step to address this tragedy is to end the fighting. But, unfortunately, the parties in the conflict and their regional backers are keen on escalating the conflict further rather than finding a solution. If the fighting over the last seven years holds any lesson, it is that there can be no military solution to Yemen’s problems. To dial down tensions, there have to be talks, not only between the rebels, separatists and the government but also between their backers — Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. If these regional powers agree to rein in their proxies and work towards rebuilding Yemen, that would also help them restore stability and security in the Arabian Peninsula.
The question of OBC reservation in local bodies
Reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in local body elections sans empirical base can no more be sustainable in law and the apex court’s latest order in Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra _amp;Ors. makes it mandatory that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for providing reservation to OBCs in local bodies shall be scrupulously followed across the country.
The latest order arises out of the challenge made to the ordinance promulgated on the teeth of the Supreme Court judgments by the Governor of Maharashtra to conduct the local body elections by providing 27% reservation to OBCs.
The Constitution Bench decision
The present political quandary harks back to the five-judge Constitution Bench decision in K. Krishnamurthy (Dr.) v. Union of India (2010) wherein the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 243D (6) and Article 243T (6), which permit reservation by enactment of law for backward classes in panchayat and municipal bodies respectively, to hold that barriers to political participation are not the same as that of the barriers that limit access to education and employment.
However, for creating a level playing field, reservation may be desirable as mandated by the aforementioned Articles which provide a separate constitutional basis for reservation, as distinct from what are conceived under Article 15 (4) and Article 16 (4) which form the basis for reservation in education and employment.
This is most important Part
Though reservation to local bodies is permissible, the top court declared that the same is subject to empirical finding of backwardness in relation to local bodies as fulfilled through the three tests as follows:
“1) To set up a dedicated Commission to conduct contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of the backwardness qua local bodies, within the State;
2) To specify the proportion of reservation required to be provisioned local body-wise in light of recommendations of the Commission, so as not to fall foul of overbreadth;
3) and in any case such reservation shall not exceed aggregate of 50% of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.” The 50% ceiling specifically relied on the ratio of the historic Indra Sawhney judgment (1992).
Vikas Krishnarao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra _amp;Ors. (2021)
The Indian political class usually displays apathy to the law declared by the courts as contrary to the enacted law. The 2010 judgment was not acted upon and the constitutionality of the enacted reservation was challenged. This resulted in the 2021 judgment of a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. In the above case, the Supreme Court read down the provision of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, which mandated for 27% reservation to OBCs in local bodies.
The court observed that the reservation for OBCs was just a “statutory dispensation to be provided by the State legislations” and is different from the “constitutional” provisions which mandate reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC/ST).
While insisting on the triple test, the court observed that the reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified to the extent that it does not exceed 50% of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.
The Supreme Court quashed notifications issued by the Maharashtra Election Commission, which provided more than 50% reservation to OBCs and SC/STs in some local bodies. However, the political decision was to take the usual route of ordinance to overcome an adverse judicial decision.
The wingless ordinance
Maharashtra had constituted a Commission to ascertain the backwardness of OBCs in June 2021. But without waiting for an empirical report, as mandated by the court, an ordinance was promulgated to amend the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act so as to conduct local body elections while ensuring OBC reservation.
Though the ordinance was portrayed to follow the order of the apex court without breaching the 50% ceiling as mandated by the triple test, other parameters had been transgressed. The ordinance failed to take off, as it was challenged before the Bombay High Court; but the election process was not stalled, citing which the petitioner reached the Supreme Court by filing appeal by special leave and the election process qua the reserved seats was stayed. The OBC reservation and notification for the local body election in Madhya Pradesh also were deemed to fall foul of the Supreme Court order, as was found by the apex court, on challenge.
The Supreme Court directed the re-notification of the reserved seats as belonging to general category in both the States on the basis of which the election process may proceed.
Legislative resolve and the judicial response
Surprisingly, on December 23, the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to keep the local body elections without OBC reservation at abeyance. Taking a political cue from Madhya Pradesh, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly also passed a resolution to stall the local body elections in the wake of the judicial interference.
Interestingly, the last order of the apex court records that “In case, the State or Union Territory is not in a position to fulfil the triple test requirement and the election to any of its local body cannot be postponed beyond the statutory period, the (State) Election Commission (concerned) ought to notify proportionate seats as open category seats, and proceed with the elections of the local bodies.”
Had the governments stuck to the law as mandated by Article 141 of the Constitution, this quandary wouldn’t have arisen. Rule of law is not just a set of letters, but it has to be followed in spirit.
Insight: Article 141 _nbsp;
141. The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
The shift from Jakarta to Nusantara
(Just focus on Cause, and geographical differences between old and new location)
On January 18, Indonesia’s Parliament approved a bill to relocate the country’s capital from Jakarta to a new city to be built on the island of Borneo, named as Nusantara.
The decision followed growing concerns about the long-term sustainability of Jakarta. The move to the forested province of East Kalimantan in Borneo has, however, triggered its own concerns about the environmental impact there as the massive project now kicks off.
Problem with Jakarta?
In August 2019, President Joko Widodo first announced that the capital would be shifted from Jakarta, on the island of Java, which has served as the national capital since Indonesia’s independence, to a new city to be built in East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, some 2,000 km northeast of Jakarta across the Java Sea.
As visitors to Jakarta would attest, the teeming city has suffered from a range of urban problems from overcrowding to pollution and possibly one of the world’s most congested roads.
One major concern about its long-term future was tied to the fact that the city, home to around 10 million people, stands on a swamp on the island of Java and has been slowly sinking. Studies have forecast that the entire city could sink by 2050, while flooding is a recurring problem.
What does the latest bill do?
The bill has now given the green light to Mr. Widodo’s long-discussed move and outlined a plan to shift the capital in five stages. Planning Minister Suharso Monoarfa told Parliament the first stage, to be completed by 2024, will focus on basic infrastructure such as new roads to provide access to the site. The last stage will be finished in 2045. The project is Indonesia’s biggest by some distance, estimated to cost more than $30 billion.
A broader goal, President Widodo has said, was to bring greater economic activity to Kalimantan and reduce the dependence on Jakarta as well as the island of Java, which is at the centre of economic activity as well as national politics. Government offices will all be moved to Nusantara.
If the current capital is suffering from pollution and flooding among other problems, environmental groups have, however, expressed concerns that the new project may end up bringing those problems to Kalimantan, a region known for its forests and biodiversity.
Why has it been named Nusantara?
The name literally means “archipelago”, but also has a historical context referring to the entire region, including Indonesia and its neighbours in Southeast Asia. The Planning Minister said Nusantara “is a unity concept that accommodates all of our diversity, whether in race, language, or ethnicity” and the hope was for the new capital to be reflective of that aspiration.
The name Nusantara dates back to Majapahit, a Hindu empire that was based in Java and ruled from the late 13th to the early 15th centuries. At its peak, its reach or influence extended beyond today’s Indonesia to much of Southeast Asia, including Brunei and parts of Thailand and the Philippines. While the official explanation is that this connotes diversity, there has been some head-scratching as to why President Widodo, who chose the name from a list of 80 suggestions, finally decided on one that refers not only to Indonesia but to the entire region.
Have other countries recently shifted capitals?
States have shifted capitals for a multitude of reasons throughout history, from the weather and military reasons to pride projects and just politics. Kazakhstan and Myanmar offer two recent examples. In 1997, Kazakhstan shifted its capital from Almaty to Astana, like many new capitals, a planned city. Then Astana was itself renamed in 2019 to Nur-Sultan, in homage to long-term former President Nursultan Nazarbayev (currently facing the ire of protesters amid the recent unrest). Myanmar in 2005 shifted its capital from Yangon to another planned city, Naypyidaw. Strategic reasons were cited as one possible explanation for the military regime’s decision.
Environment Ministry plan to rank States draws ire
A proposal by the Union Environment Ministry to “rank” and “incentivise” States on how quickly they could give environmental clearances to proposed infrastructure projects has drawn fire from environmentalists on the grounds that it contravenes basic principles of environmental regulation.
A note to States by the Union Environment Ministry on January 17 spells out seven criteria to rate State Environmental Impact Assessment Agencies (SEIAA) on “transparency, efficiency and accountability.” On a scale of seven, an SEIAA, for instance, gets two marks for granting a clearance in less than 80 days, one mark for within 105 days and no marks for more. If less than 10% of the projects for scrutiny prompted a site visit by committee members, to examine ground conditions, the SEIAA would get one mark. More than 20%, on the other hand, would be a demerit or zero marks. SEIAA with a score of seven or more would be rated ‘five star.’
‘Violative proposal’
The Legal Initiative for Forest on Environment (LIFE), a prominent environment organisation, described the proposal as “violative” of the Environment (Protection) Act. “A perusal of the criteria reveals that greater weightage is given for projects where due diligence is less.... SEIAA members should sit in the confines of conference rooms and take decisions and earn high marks.... The process ensures that the aim will be to clear projects at the shortest possible time. The task of the SEIAA is undertake a ‘detailed scrutiny’ whereas this notification makes them rubber stamp authorities,” a statement noted.
Should the government loosen its purse strings?
(This is an excerpt of Interview, focus only on highlighted/Bolden points. Read rest for Context)
Questions are marked in Red
With the Union Budget 10 days away, many economic observers are now focused on what support the Centre can offer the economy, which is still struggling to recover from the pandemic.
Some analysts believe that the government must keep its spending in check to prevent price rise from getting out of control.
Retail inflation is hovering close to 6%, while the wholesale inflation rate is in double digits. Other analysts, however, believe that the current rise in prices is a temporary phenomenon, and that the government must ignore the fiscal deficit and ramp up spending to support the ailing economy.
What is your view on the current trend in price inflation?
N.R. Bhanumurthy: First of all, when it comes to retail inflation, the latest reading says it is somewhere close to 5.6%. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has already predicted that it will remain below 6% by the end of March.
However, many of us believe there are some upside risks when it comes to inflation and inflation expectations. This is for a couple of reasons.
One, international oil prices have gone up to $87 per barrel this week.
We also see that inflation pressure is building up across the world, especially in countries where there was a large fiscal stimulus.
So, there could be the risk of transmission of international inflation to the domestic economy.
But at the same time, one needs to really understand what drives this inflation. At least in the Indian context, supply-side constraints play a major role and this needs a different policy prescription. And I’m very sure that the RBI has many instruments to contain this inflation pressure.
For the past three quarters, the RBI has been hitting bull’s eye when it comes to inflation forecasts, so I think when it says that retail inflation will be less than 6%, it’s likely to come true.
With regard to Wholesale Price Index (WPI), I’ve been a little wary of this reading. You cannot have wholesale market prices and retail market prices diverging for a very long time. We generally expect the transmission between the wholesale market and the retail market to not be more than one or two months. But what we see now is a very prolonged divergence. We need to look at a little more in detail in terms of the coverage and commodities and all those things. We need to focus more on Consumer Price Index (CPI) and less on wholesale prices.
We have to be very cautious in not just looking at inflation numbers in aggregate, but also what is driving inflation. I think that most of the inflation is basically driven by supply. Also, it not driven as much by domestic factors as it is by international factors. But domestic factors have added to the problem. The most obvious factor is that taxes on petroleum goods and services have increased. So, domestic factors have contributed to inflation, but the inflation is predominantly driven by the supply side. But I would also be a bit hesitant in saying that there is only little that can be done using fiscal policy.
Second, I think the gap between WPI and CPI is quite a big one and it has been so for a long time. Some of the inflation in wholesale prices will be passed on to consumer prices, so inflation is a cause of concern not just for fiscal policy or monetary policy, but also for the overall health of the economy because inflation is going to impinge on the basic economics of households.
How do you see the role of fiscal policy in supporting the economy in a high-inflation environment?
With regard to the fiscal policy, the current year is turning out to be a very good year in terms of tax revenues. If you look at the last Budget, the government was focused on the medium-term perspective, while leaving short-term issues to the central bank. I’m hoping that the same macro framework will continue in the coming Budget.
But at the same time, measures that were brought in to help the poor in terms of providing safety nets continue. Right now, the government has fiscal room and will want to focus on the social sector as well as medium-term growth prospects. Ultimately, the biggest stimulus would be any measure that provides more employment opportunities. Economic recovery has to be on a more sustainable basis rather than in the form of short-term spikes in growth.
Himanshu: I think it should spend more. If there’s any time that the government should be spending more, it is now. One has to go beyond this obsession with managing the fiscal framework. If fiscal prudence leads to growth slowing down, I don’t think that is something sustainable. The reason I say this is because there are enough of the government’s own economic indicators that show that there is excess capacity in the economy.
Aggregate consumption, which is a big part of GDP, is slowing down and has been for quite some time now. I think at this point of time the focus should be on reviving the economy and that is best done using fiscal policies. The government will have to open its purse, not just in terms of improving the incomes of people in cases where it can directly do so, such as using social security schemes, but also by increasing the transfers to States.
We are actually getting into a situation where the public debt to GDP ratio is going to increase because if growth is going to slow down, it would basically mean that government revenues will also slow down.
So, I don’t see how it is going to be good fiscal policy if growth is going to be affected by fiscal prudence. I would recommend that we not worry about the fiscal deficit at this point of time because once growth picks up, then a lot of the fiscal issues can be taken care of. But if the economic engines are not firing up, you are getting into a vicious cycle, and then I don’t think any kind of fiscal management, either in the short or in the medium term, is going to be sustainable. So, I think we need the government to play the important role of reviving the economy.
