Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi – wanted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate in a Rs 13,500-crore bank loan fraud case – moved a step closer to extradition on Wednesday, after the High Court in London rejected his appeal.
Citing mental health grounds, Modi had appealed against a district court extradition order. He had argued that he was suffering from depression and his extradition to India could exacerbate his tendency to commit suicide.
But the High Court in London ruled that his risk of suicide was not such that it would be either unjust or oppressive to extradite him to face charges of fraud and money laundering.
The court, in fact, observed that the arrangements assured by the Indian government in Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail were more comprehensive than the UK prison where he was lodged.
Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay, who presided over the appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this year, said in their verdict that District Judge Sam Goozee’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court order from last year in favour of extradition was “sound”.
The leave to appeal in the High Court had been granted on two grounds related to mental health – under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and Section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003.
The 51-year-old fugitive diamond merchant has the option of further appeals in the UK and European courts and the process to bring him back to stand trial in India is unlikely to be a speedy one.
Modi, along with Mehul Choksi, is wanted by the CBI and ED for cheating the Punjab National Bank of about Rs 13,500 crore in loans. Choksi is currently in Antigua.
The judges said they were satisfied with the Indian government’s assurances on the arrangements for Modi in Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail and the medical care that would be provided to him.
Modi had submitted that there were no set protocols in Arthur Road jail for mental healthcare and prevention of suicide by inmates. He submitted that his care would largely be entrusted to prison officers rather than specialist mental health nurses.
In fact, they said, the assurances were better than what Modi got while he was lodged at HMP Wandsworth since his arrest in the UK in March 2019.
“They are, in a number of respects, more comprehensive than the regime that has been implemented at HMP Wandsworth. Specifically, the arrangements for weekly attendance (and more often if necessary) by the JJ Hospital psychiatrist and the assurance of attendance by a psychologist as and when required, together with the assurance about the availability of relevant and necessary treatment from a private doctor or mental health expert of his choice go significantly further than the regime at HMP Wandsworth.
To meet states’ demand, PM Awas Yojana gets Rs 13,000 crore extra (Page no. 1)
(GS Paper 2, Welfare Schemes)
Months after the Union Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) flagged shortage of funds for implementation of the Pradhan Mantri AwasYojna-Gramin (PMAY-G), the Union Ministry of Finance has approved an advance of Rs 13,000 crore for the rural housing scheme from the Contingency Fund of India, it is learnt.
The Rs 13,000-crore tranche is over and above the outlay of Rs 20,000 crore provided for PMAY-G in the Union Budget 2022-23.
The government has set a target of building 52.78 lakh houses under the scheme in 2022-23.
In the first seven months (April-October 2022), the Rural Development Ministry has utilised Rs 16,785 crore – about 84 per cent – of the Rs 20,000 crore under the PMAY-G scheme.
The ministry’s other schemes like PMGSY (Pradhan Mantri Gram SadakYojna), which has almost equal budgetary allocation (Rs 19,000 crore) has been able to utilise only 40 per cent, and the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) only 25 per cent in the same period.
Under NREGS, a demand driven rural job guarantee scheme, 74 per cent of the allocated funds have been utilised in the first seven months.
With several states demanding extra funds for construction of rural houses, the MoRD had approached the Ministry of Finance way back in June for additional allocation.
On June 8, 2022, Nagendra Nath Sinha, Secretary, Rural Development, wrote to Finance Secretary TV Somanathan and highlighted that the budgetary allocation of Rs 20,000 crore was “not sufficient” to meet the “expected” demand of the states and Union Territories (UTs) to construct 52.78 lakh rural houses under the PMAY-G during the year, The Indian Express has learnt. Sinha requested him to provide an additional Rs 28,422 crore.
Under the PMAY-G, a financial assistance of Rs 1.20 lakh in plain areas and Rs 1.30 lakh in hilly states is provided to a beneficiary.
As per the scheme’s guidelines, the financial burden of implementation of the scheme is shared by the Centre and tate in a ratio of 60:40 in plain areas and 90:10 for hilly states (special category states which includes 8 North Eastern States, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and J&K). In the UTs, including Ladakh, the Centre bears 100 per cent of the expenditure on the implementation of the rural housing scheme.
The present NDA government, in its first tenure, had restructured the erstwhile rural housing scheme and launched the PMAY-G with effect from April 1, 2016, with an aim of providing “Housing for All” by 2022.
A target of construction of 2.95 crore PMAY-G houses by March 2024 has been set, of which 2.07 crore rural houses have been built.
The PM Awas Yojana has been the top spender —better than even the job guarantee scheme, NREGS — in the rural development ministry in the first seven months this year.
It sought extra funds in the first quarter itself, and has now received more than two-third of the money allocated when the Budget was presented.
The Editorial Page
Respect checks and Balances (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Judiciary)
Speaking at a media conclave on November 4, Union Minister of Law and Justice Kiren Rijiju came out against the collegium system under which appointments of judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court are made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) after consultations with the senior-most judges.
He is reported to have said that the collegium system is “opaque” and “not accountable” and that “across the globe judges do not appoint judges, but in India, they do so.”
He further said that after the SC struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC), the government could have taken other steps. Instead, it respected the top court’s decision, and did not act immediately to find alternate ways, but that does not mean “the government will be silent forever”. At a time when many independent institutions are under pressure, such a statement comes as no surprise.
The tone and the tenor of Rijiju’s words are overbearing, if not threatening. One wonders what he intended to convey when he said that after the SC’s judgment on NJAC, the government could have taken other steps and that it will not remain silent forever. It sounds as though the government did the Court a favour by accepting the NJAC judgment. Under the Constitution, the power of judicial review of a legislation lies with the SC. So, if the Court strikes down a law, the government has no option but to accept the verdict, however unpalatable it may be.
Of course, it can always table a fresh bill in Parliament, but as of now, the verdict stands, and the SC continues to enjoy primacy in the matter of appointment of judges to higher courts.
So, until it is overturned either by the Court itself or by Parliament, the NJAC judgment must be respected and accepted with magnanimity, and not grudgingly, as seems to be the case.
Still, not everything is hunky dory with the collegium system. It cannot be denied that some elevations in the past have raised eyebrows.
There have been cases where relatives of SC judges have been appointed as high court judges ignoring merit. It also cannot be denied that judges are transferred by the collegium without any seeming justification.
With due respect to the members of the collegium, both past and present, they too need to do some soul-searching. Nobody knows why, during the regime of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, two high court judges, who were at serial number 21 and 33 of the All-India Seniority list, were appointed to the Supreme Court, ignoring the claims of many Chief Justices and judges senior to them.
Incidentally, the government was a party to these appointments. It could have sent the file back to the collegium to ascertain why seniority was ignored at such a mass scale. But it did not.
Take another case: Justice AkilKureshi, who retired as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, was not recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that he was the senior-most judge in the All-India Seniority list of judges, and also despite the fact that one of the members of the then collegium reportedly objected to Justice Kureshi being passed over.
The Idea Page
Failing the constitution (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Owen M Fiss, professor at Yale University, has argued that “economic criteria” is artificial, and has no basis for discrimination in social life.
On the same line, William E Forbath of the University of Texas, said that constitutional equality is equality of status or standing; different degrees of respect are attributed to status.
Caste degradation denotes membership of a group that is seen as physically different and inferior. Class and interest groups do not need constitutional protection: Their economic commonalities do not demand invocation of constitutional values.
Use of economic criteria to understand marginalisation can result in the subjugation of historically-disadvantaged groups. This is why scholars reject economic criteria as the sole basis for understanding discrimination.
There is no instance of deprivation or discrimination or social exclusion against any person solely on the ground of her economic standing. For instance, Babu Jagjivan Ram, the then Deputy Prime Minister, was insulted for inaugurating a statue in Banaras in 1978 because of his caste.
India is a unique country where even a President could reportedly be insulted at a temple. In another instance, Jitan Ram Manjhi, the then chief minister of Bihar, faced similar humiliation.
The examples are far too many to list. There is enough evidence that points to the practice of untouchability and social discrimination continuing against the members of the erstwhile fourth varna, “Shudra”.
The five-member Constitution Bench that heard the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment did not reject this fact, yet the majority verdict held that the introduction of economic criteria in reservations is constitutionally valid.
Even the dissenting judgment by Justice Ravindra Bhat with the outgoing CJI U U Lalit did not say that the “criteria of economic standing alone” is bad, as they emphasised the 50 per cent ceiling.
This 50 per cent ceiling, a judicially-created criteria with no roots in the Constitution, could deprive members of SC, ST and OBC communities, as well as the deprived among the Muslims and Christians.
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari justified the economic criteria and held the view that the “exclusion of classes covered by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirement of non-discrimination and compensatory discrimination does not violate the equality code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India”.
This view is contrary to the scheme of the Constitution and the principles settled by a larger bench in Indra Sawhney (1992). Justice Bela M Trivedi held that “we need to revisit the system of reservation in the larger interest of reservation of the society as a whole, as a step forward towards transformative constitutionalism”.
In a case where the Supreme Court has upheld the reservation for a class, which does not deserve such a protective right, any suggestion to restrict or limit the rights of a class that has been historically deprived and socially excluded is against the spirit of the Constitution and is constitutionally impermissible.
The honourable judges do not seem to understand the social conditions of the society wherein a President of India or a Chief Minister can face discrimination on the basis of their caste.
To deny the recognition of social factors and to recognise economic factors alone to mark discrimination is constitutionally perverse and is meant to further perpetuate deprivation and even untouchability, which is abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution.
Trivialising hunger (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 2, Issues relating to poverty and hunger)
The authors of the Global Hunger Index (GHI), released on October 15, write that “the level of hunger in India is serious”. The country is ranked 107 of the 121 countries they studied.
With a score of 29.1 (0 means no hunger), India is behind its South Asian neighbours — Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
Close to 20 per cent of children in the country below the age of five suffer from the most visible and life-threatening form of malnutrition — wasting, or “low weight-for-height”.
About 35 per cent of such children are not as tall as they should be. These sobering factoids could have served as inputs for government programmes such as Poshan 2.0 and the Mid-Day Meal scheme.
However — like last year — the Ministry of Women and Child Development not only dismissed the GHI but also questioned the intent of its authors. An official statement has described the report as part of a “consistent effort’’ to “taint India’s image”.
Part of the government’s critique pertains to one of the major takeaways of the GHI — the pandemic seems to have aggravated India’s malnutrition crisis.
It contends that the report ignores the food security efforts undertaken during the crisis, especially the provision of 5 kg foodgrain to all beneficiaries of the National Food Security Act in addition to their regular ration.
There can be little doubt about the efficacy of the PDS as a safety net during troubled times. However, as several scholars have pointed out, the nutrition deficit of the country’s children is, in large measure, a function of their poor diets.
Studies have shown that even the well-off in the country do not consume adequate amounts of fruits, vegetables and non-cereal proteins. Eggs do not figure in the Mid-Day Meal schemes in a majority of states.
The government has argued that the index relied on an opinion poll. The authors of the report have clarified that the GHI draws on data reported by member countries, including India.
The debate on methodology isn’t settled and such conversations could enrich the understanding of a longstanding predicament faced by the country — one that the National Family Health Surveys have long underscored.
The NFHS-5, conducted just before the pandemic, showed that more than 20 per cent of children below the age of five did not weigh as much as they should.
The discourse on nutrition could acquire greater nuance with more data — on household consumption of food items, for instance. But the country has not had any official estimate on per capita household spending since 2011-12 — the findings of the last survey in 2017-18 were rejected by the government on “data quality” issues.
Work on filling this vacuum has, reportedly, begun. The government would be well-advised to bolster its information repositories that can help it address malnutrition effectively, and not be prickly about GHI rankings.
Explained
Vikram S is set to lift off :Giant leap for indian private sector in space (Page no. 19)
(GS Paper 3, Space)
India’s first privately developed launch vehicle is set to make its maiden flight from Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) launchpad at Sriharikota between November 12 and 16.
The mission, of Hyderabad-based Skyroot Aerospace, is called ‘Prarambh’ (the beginning), and will carry two Indian and one foreign customer payloads on the launch vehicle named ‘Vikram’.
“A launch window between November 12 and 16 has been notified by authorities, the final date being confirmed based on weather conditions,” Skyroot Aerospace CEO and co-founder Pawan Kumar Chandana said.
Vikram’s successful launch will mark a big step for India’s space exploration sector. In fact, Skyroot on its website claims, “Launching satellites to space will soon become as easy as booking a cab — Quick, precise and affordable!”
How will Vikram contribute to this ambitious goal? What are the rocket’s special features? And why do so many satellites need to be launched at all? We explain.
Prarambh will see Vikram-S carry three customer satellites in a sub-orbital flight. Sub-orbital flight, like the ones undertaken by Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson, travel slower than orbital velocity — they are fast enough to reach outer space but not fast enough to stay in orbit around the Earth.
“The Vikram-S rocket is a single-stage sub-orbital launch vehicle which will carry three customer payloads and help test and validate technologies in the Vikram series space launch vehicles,” said Naga Bharath Daka, COO and co-founder of the company.
Also, Spacekidz, a Chennai-based aerospace startup, will fly ‘Fun-Sat’, a 2.5 kg payload developed by students from India, the US, Singapore and Indonesia, on Vikram-S.
As reported by PTI, Skyroot was the first startup to sign a memorandum of understanding with ISRO for launching its rockets. Its launch vehicles have been crafted specially for the small satellite market, and are named ‘Vikram’ as a tribute to Vikram Sarabhai, founder of the Indian space programme. They come in three forms, Vikram I, II, and III.
According to Skyroot, “More than 20,000 small satellites are estimated to be launched in the coming decade, and Vikram series is designed to enable this through unprecedented mass producibility and affordability.
The leading technology architecture of Vikram vehicles offers unique capabilities like multi-orbit insertion, interplanetary missions; while providing customised, dedicated and ride share options covering a wide spectrum of small satellite customer needs.”
Skyroot claims a Vikam rocket can be assembled and launched within 24 hours from any launch site, and has the “lowest cost in the payload segment”.
Economy
Green bonds: FinMin clears framework (Page no. 21)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
The government gave nod to the final sovereign green bonds framework in line with the Budget announcement. The issuance of green bonds, which are intended to raise funds for public sector projects to help in reducing carbon intensity of the economy, will be for Rs 16,000 crore in the second half of this financial year.
The proceeds from the green bonds, which are a part of the scheduled borrowing plan of the government, would be used to fund renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transportation, water and waste management, pollution prevention and control and green buildings among others.
Nuclear power generation, landfill projects, alcohol/weapons/tobacco/gaming/palm oil industries and hydropower plants larger than 25 MW have been excluded from the framework.
All eligible ‘green expenditures’ will include public expenditure by the government in the form of investment, subsidies, grant-in-aids, or tax foregone or select operational expenditures, R&D expenditures in public sector projects that help in reducing the carbon intensity of the economy.
Equity is allowed only in the sole case of metro projects under the ‘Clean Transportation’ category, the framework said.
The Ministry of Finance has constituted a Green Finance Working Committee (GFWC) including members from relevant line ministries and chaired by the Chief Economic Advisor.
The GFWC will meet at least twice a year to support the Ministry of Finance with selection and evaluation of projects and other work related to the Framework. Initial evaluation of the project will be the responsibility of the concerned Ministry/Department in consultation with experts.
The allocation of the proceeds will be reviewed in a time-bound manner by the GFWC to ensure that the allocation of proceeds is completed within 24 months from the date of issuance.
It will also bring out an annual report on the allocation of proceeds to the eligible projects along with details of projects financed, status of implementation, and unallocated proceeds. For every year, GFWC will meet to identify a fresh set of eligible expenditures in line with the framework in consultation with line Ministries.
Once the Finance Bill is passed, Ministry of Finance will inform Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regarding the amount of eligible green expenditures for which proceeds from green bonds can be utilised.
The proceeds will be deposited to the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) in line with the regular treasury policy, and then funds from the CFI will be made available for eligible green projects, the framework said.
This Green Bond Framework has been reviewed by CICERO, a provider of second opinions on green bond frameworks.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her Budget Speech this year announced that the government proposes to issue sovereign green bonds to mobilise resources for green infrastructure.
“The proceeds will be deployed in public sector projects, which help in reducing the carbon intensity of the economy,” she said in the Budget 2022-23.