Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Opposing the plea seeking a ban on political parties promising ‘freebies’ to lure voters in the run-up to elections, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has told the Supreme Court that “schemes for socioeconomic welfare of deserving and disadvantaged masses cannot be described as ‘freebies’”.
The party also accused the petitioner — who it said has “strong links” to BJP — of “furthering a particular political agenda”.
In an application seeking intervention in the PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the AAP stated that the plea “clearly seeks judicial action against a particular model of economic development by exclusively targeting fiscal expenditure on socialist and welfarist measures for the masses”.
But, AAP said, it “ignores the vast fiscal losses to the exchequer caused by tax rebates, subsidies and other such ‘freebies’ routinely provided to big industries and businesses by the Centre and various state governments”.
Instead, the petitioner prefers that the burden of improving the fiscal health of the nation be imposed solely on the underprivileged masses.
The application stated that the plea “neglects to acknowledge that a socialist and welfarist economic agenda is built into the Constitution of India by way of the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy and is, therefore, the constitutional mandate of any elected government.
By removing such socialist and welfarist agenda from electoral discourse, the petitioner seeks to advance the interests of a different, more parochial kind of politics reliant on caste and communal appeals instead of on appeals to people’s welfare.
Giving a list of schemes such as free canteens, free and subsidised electricity and water, etc, AAP said they “are absolutely essential in an unequal society such as ours”, and that “to describe them as ‘freebies’, despite their immense social utility and their impact on both the social and economic development of the country, is not just incorrect, but also an affront to our constitutional project…”
The party said that if a discussion has to take place on “freebies” and their connection to fiscal health of the country, then the discussion has to be first in respect of what is being given to politicians, ministers, MPs and MLAs.
If the idea is resource-conservation within the nation, then it should not begin with the “deserving masses who are constitutionally entitled to support in attaining a dignified standard of living, but the political and governing class which has, in the past and even now, been a significant beneficiary of the State’s largesse, through, inter alia, free housing in prime areas of national and state capitals, given to Ministers/Members of Parliament/civil servants, etc.
Express Network
The rupee is a better-performing currency against the dollar on a trade-weighted basis’ (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
Sajjid Chinoy, Chief India Economist, JP Morgan and part-time member, PMEAC, on tackling challenges of rupee depreciation, getting rid of the obsession with the rupee-dollar rate and RBI’s role.
Before the global financial crisis, it was Rs 40 to a dollar. A year into the crisis, the rate jumped to about Rs 50 and then in the taper tantrum of 2013, the rate swung between Rs 55 and Rs 70.
Then in 2018, the rupee moved down further by 10 per cent because of US exceptionalism, Fed rates and oil prices going up. In short, as the global environment gets more adverse, the rupee tends to gap down.
But this is the narrow view because it concerns a relative price and we deal with hundreds of prices in the goods and financial markets. Yet this gets everybody animated.
First, the US dollar is the reserve currency of the world. The US economy has an exorbitant privilege and has actually strengthened 15 per cent over the last year against advanced economies.
As a consequence of the strengthening dollar, all emerging markets and advanced economies have weakened. The dollar has strengthened because the US Fed got into a pretty aggressive rate hiking cycle.
The notion that inflation was transitory in the US proved untrue and once market participants understood just how sticky and broad-based inflation was and how much work the Fed had to do, the dollar began to strengthen.
I’m going to use the beginning of 2022 as a marker and you will see India is actually one of the better performing currencies against the US dollar.
So, when we say we’re down six and a half to seven per cent, it’s against the backdrop of a dollar index that’s up 15 and you know most emerging markets, including China have weakened further.
Second, India’s trade basket is very diversified (we export and import from the European Union, China, the UAE and 40 countries), so why are we so fixated on the dollar? We need to look at how our exchange rate has done vis-a-vis all our trading partners.
The US constitutes about 12 per cent of our trade weight and 18 per cent of our export weight. Now a lot of goods are invoiced in the US and maybe the weight of the dollar in the basket needs to be higher than the direct share but we should not get so obsessed with one currency. The rupee has moved down only as much as our trading partners have against the dollar.
The Editorial Page
Step back from the water’s edge (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
Reports about the impending visit of a Chinese “spy ship”, Yuan Wang-5, to the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota, created a major flutter in the Indian media.
Citing the ship’s “lethal capabilities” and “aerial reach of more than 750 km”, fears have been expressed that “atomic research centres within Indian borders could be snooped upon”.
Reflecting concerns at the “highest levels” in New Delhi, social media fired unkind comments about India’s emergency economic assistance to an “ungrateful Sri Lanka”.
Reports that Sri Lanka has asked for a delay in the Chinese ship’s arrival may temporarily calm the waters and provide respite for a dispassionate examination of the issue through legal, military and diplomatic lenses.
But before that a quick look at the ship’s provenance is in order. Yuan Wang is the generic name given to a flotilla of seven to eight ships belonging to the Chinese PLA’s Strategic Support Force.
These large “survey/research” vessels carry optical, laser, passive-radio and radar devices whose large dish-antennae enable tracking of ballistic-missile trajectories, monitoring of satellite and space vehicle launches, and gathering of technical intelligence.
From the legal perspective, the 1982 UN Convention for Law of the Seas permits unfettered freedom of navigation on the high seas and a foreign warship has as much right to be in the Indian Ocean as a similar Indian vessel would in the South China Sea.
Even in the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, there exists the conditional right of “innocent passage” for all vessels, including warships.
Entry into foreign ports, especially for warships, has to be with prior consent. But even in wartime, the 1907 Hague Convention permits entry for warships of belligerents into neutral ports for limited durations.
Given its cordial diplomatic relations, and its economic dependence on China, there could be no plausible reason for Sri Lanka to deny entry for Yuan Wang 5, especially into Hambantota on which China has a 99-year lease.
Viewed from the security angle, the presence of a research ship like the Yuan Wang 5, bristling with multi-spectral surveillance and eavesdropping devices, in India’s vicinity, certainly calls for vigilance and caution.
However, in this age of transparency, regular electronic “snooping” by ships, aircraft and satellites — both friendly and hostile — happens all the time.
Our armed forces and other agencies are aware of this, and precautionary policies and procedures relating to electronic emissions and missile-firing trials are in place.
One can also be sure that the position and movements of Yuan Wang 5, as long as she is in our waters, will be closely followed by the Indian Navy’s maritime domain awareness matrix.
A Fuller Right (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
On July 21, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant order, clarifying that the right to a medical abortion that was available to married women could not be denied to unmarried women.
The case highlights a legal anachronism that requires women to get the state’s permission to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion.
The SC’s order granting permission to undergo an abortion was passed in the case of a petitioner who was in a consensual relationship, and whose partner deserted her.
A July 15 order of the Delhi High Court denied the petitioner’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The Division Bench held that since she was an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, her case was “clearly not covered” by the applicable rules.
Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, lays down the categories of women who are eligible for termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks: Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest; minors; where there is a change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce); women with physical and mental disabilities, women with pregnancies in humanitarian settings; foetal “malformations” that have a substantial risk of being incompatible with life, or which, if the child is born, may cause it to suffer from a serious physical or mental handicap.
The SC found that prima facie, the High Court had been too restrictive in its approach, and that the term “change in marital status” should be given a purposive interpretation.
It based this finding on the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act, which no longer restricts itself to an unwanted pregnancy between a “husband” and “wife”, but to a woman and her “partner”, by marriage or not.
The MTP Act 1971, was intended to provide a remedy for the scores of women who faced serious health risks because of unregulated abortions.
Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code which continues to be on the books, criminalises anyone, including the woman carrying the pregnancy, who voluntarily causes a miscarriage.
The Explained Page
Electricity Bill – promise, problems (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The government tabled the Electricity (Amendment) Bill 2022 in the Lok Sabha, soon after which it was referred to the parliamentary standing committee on energy for wider consultation with stakeholders.
Under the amendments proposed, the government is providing consumers a choice of power suppliers like mobile and internet service providers.
It also has a provision for timely and adequate tariff revisions to help state utilities come out of losses and make payments for power in-time.
For consumers, the Bill, cleared by the Union Cabinet last Wednesday, has proposed to amend Sections 42 and 14 of the Electricity Act, thus, enabling competition in retail distribution of power by offering the customers the option to choose electricity suppliers, just like they can choose telephone or internet service providers.
The amended Section 14, the Bill says, will “facilitate the use of distribution networks by all licensees under provisions of non-discriminatory open access”, while Section 42 will be ameded to “facilitate non-discriminatory open access to the distribution network of a distribution licensee”.
The Bill, with the amendment of Section 62 of the Act, makes provision for “mandatory” fixing of minimum as well as maximum tariff ceilings by the “appropriate commission” to avoid predatory pricing by power distribution companies and to protect consumers.
Also, the amendment Bill has several provisions to ensure graded and timely tariff revisions that will help provide state power utilities enough cash to be able to make timely payments to power producers.
This move is aimed at addressing the recurrent problem of default by distribution companies in payment to generation companies.
The bill through amendments in Section 166 of the Act also seeks to strengthen payment security mechanisms and give more powers to regulators. ”
It has become necessary to strengthen the regulatory mechanism, adjudicatory mechanism in the Act and to bring administrative reforms through improved corporate governance of distribution licensees,” according to the bill.
The PESA Act, and the reason behind parties trying to woo tribals in Gujarat (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal Sunday (August 7) declared a six-point “guarantee” for tribals in Gujarat’s Chhota Udepur district, including the “strict implementation” of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act.
The PESA Act was enacted in 1996 “to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas”.
Other than Panchayats, Part IX, comprising Articles 243-243ZT of the Constitution, contains provisions relating to municipalities and cooperative societies.
Under the Act, Scheduled Areas are those referred to in Article 244(1), which says that the provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in states other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. The Fifth Schedule provides for a range of special provisions for these areas.
The PESA Act was enacted to ensure self-governance through Gram Sabhas (village assemblies) for people living in the Scheduled Areas.
It recognises the right of tribal communities, who are residents of the Scheduled Areas, to govern themselves through their own systems of self-government.
The Act empowers Gram Sabhas to play a key role in approving development plans and controlling all social sectors. This includes the processes and personnel who implement policies, exercising control over minor (non-timber) forest resources, minor water bodies and minor minerals, among other things.
Ten states — Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Telangana — have notified Fifth Schedule areas that cover (partially or fully) several districts in each of these states.
After the PESA Act was enacted, the Union government circulated model PESA Rules. So far, six states have notified these Rules.
What is AGM-88 HARM, the new US anti-radar missile supplied to Ukraine? (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 3, Defence)
United States Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Colin Kahl confirmed on Monday (August 8) that Washington has supplied some “anti-radiation missiles” to Ukraine, which could be fired from some Ukrainian Air Force aircraft.
The statement has put meat on Russian allegations that an American anti-radar missile, AGM-88 HARM, which is part of NATO’s inventory, has been used in the theatre of conflict. What kind of missile is this and what impact can it have in the ongoing war in Ukraine?
The acronym ‘HARM’ in the AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface missile stands for High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. It is a tactical weapon fired from fighter aircraft, and has the capability to detect and home into radiation emitted by hostile radar stations that have surface-to-air detection capabilities.
The missile was originally developed by the Dallas-headquartered Texas Instruments, but is now produced by the major American defence contractor Raytheon Corporation. An advanced version of the weapon is manufactured by Dulles, Virginia-based Northrop Grumman.
The AGM-88 HARM is 14 metres in length, but only 10 inches in diameter. It weighs around 360 kg and carries a fragmentation type warhead that is optimised for radar targets. It also has an anti-radar homing seeker broadband RF antenna and receiver, and a solid state digital processor. The missile has a range of more than 100 km.
For the past several days, Russian social media users have been sharing open-source information on Telegram to the effect that remnants of the AGM-88 HARM have been found near a Russian surface-to-air missile site.
The pictures of the seeming remnants of the missile appeared to show genuine serial numbers, which were traced to AGM-88 HARM by open source intelligence analysts. The statement by the US has now confirmed these deductions.
This is a question that military analysts have pondered over. It would appear that only Western military groups have the required fighter aircraft to use these missiles, and that the AGM-88 HARM cannot be fitted and used on the Russian-origin aircraft that Ukraine has in its fleet.
Several NATO aircraft in Europe — including the Tornado ECR, F-16CM Block 50, and F/A-18-EA-18G — can fire the AGM-88 HARM missiles.
A CNN report noted that the Russia-Ukraine war is the first in which the weapon has been confirmed to have been used by a military other than the US. However, its usefulness, considering the limited number of aircraft in the Ukrainian Air Force, remains in question.
The same CNN report also said given that Ukraine does not have aircraft known to be compatible with the missile, there is speculation that the missiles may have been fired by NATO aircraft secretly supporting the Ukraine military in combat roles.