[Editorial # 87] Be bold in revisiting the sedition law : The Hindu

[Following editorial has been published in The Hindu on 18th March 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer-writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

The government’s admission in Parliament that the present definition of ‘sedition’ in the Indian Penal Code is too wide and requires reconsideration, is the first indication that the fallout of the Kanhaiya Kumar episode has had a chastening effect on the ruling party. There seems to be a realisation that invoking the draconian penal provision against students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University was an act of overreach by the Delhi Police. Further, legal luminaries had pointed out that the essential ingredient of sedition — an imminent threat to public order — was absent in the case. Opinion is growing that the relevant provision, Section 124-A, has no place on the statute book. While Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh assured Opposition members that an all-party meeting on the issue would be convened after the Law Commission submitted its report on the matter, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju made a pointed reference to concerns that the definition of ‘sedition’ was very wide. He also sought to clarify that he was not discussing the merits of the case against JNU students or defending the action of the Delhi Police, indicating a significant political climbdown. In other remarks, Mr. Rijiju recalled that the Law Commission in its 42nd Report had rejected the idea of repealing the section altogether. A look at the 1971 report shows that in fact it wanted to expand the term relating to exciting “disaffection towards the government established by law” to cover disaffection towards the Constitution, Parliament, the government and legislatures of the States, and the administration of justice.

In penal law, vague and ‘over-broad’ definitions of offences often result in mindless prosecutions based merely on the wording of the act that seems to allow both provocative and innocuous speeches to be treated as equally criminal. While upholding sedition as an offence that fell under the ‘public order’ restriction on free speech, the Supreme Court ruled that it ought to be invoked only if a particular speech or action had a “pernicious tendency to create public disorder”. Words such as “excites or attempts to excite disaffection” or “brings into or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt” are unacceptably vague, and the further explanation that ‘disaffection’ includes “disloyalty and all feelings of enmity” compounds the problem. The provision in effect appears to demand ‘affection’ towards the government, except for a general exception allowing disapproval of governmental measures. Two High Courts had declared Section 124-A unconstitutional before the Supreme Court upheld the section in 1962 in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. The Law Commission, while revisiting the issue, should take into account recent developments, especially the flagrant instances of misuse of the sedition law and the tendency to invoke it against those involved in strident forms of political dissent and scathing criticism of governments. One way to limit its mischief is to narrow the definition; but a more rational and constitutional option would be to scrap the provision altogether.

Questions:

1. What is Indian Penal Code? When was it codified? 

2. Section-124 A of IPC has been associated with India's freedom struggle. Find out how.

3. Why is it being said that the definition of "Sedition" is too wide under IPC?

4. What is a Law Commission? Who all are the members of this Commission? What are the various roles of this commission?

5. What are various verdicts given by High Courts and the Supreme Court with regards to sedition?

6. Edmund Burke once said "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny"? Comment on this statement giving examples from Indian judicial system.

[Editorial # 85] A good omen : Business Standard

[Following editorial has been published in Business Standard on 15th March 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer-writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

The Real Estate Bill, which Parliament passed into law on Tuesday, contains several provisions which aim to protect homebuyers from unscrupulous builders. At the moment, there is great opacity in the sector. Buyers suffer because they often don't know the relevant details of the project, including the state of various government approvals and the legal status of the land. Under the new law, builders will have to register all projects with the authorities and disclose all details. And they can start construction only after they have got all the approvals. Builders will have to deposit 70 per cent of the money received from buyers in an escrow account which can be used only for the project for which money has been raised. In the past, builders have used money raised from buyers to buy land for new projects. As the market turned sluggish, and cash flows got constrained, this led to a lot of projects getting stuck, which put the buyers in a spot. The new rule should end this malpractice.

Moreover, builders will need the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the homebuyers before altering a project. This safeguard has been introduced after it came to light that builders had added extra floors without taking the buyers into confidence. In two cases, the courts disallowed such constructions after the residents complained. Not only is such construction unfair to the original buyers, who are forced to share the infrastructure with more people than initially promised, but it also poses a safety risk. There are other buyer-friendly features in the new law. Misleading advertisements are punishable with a fine and even imprisonment, and buyers will be charged only for the carpet area and not the common areas which are often included under the guise of "super area". Moreover, the new law covers residential as well as commercial real estate. Though the perception is that the residential market is where the rot lies, the commercial market is no less in need of a clean-up. Even in the commercial market, one big reason for corruption in the sector is the maze of laws in every state. Builders often need to pay speed money to negotiate these laws and get the clearances. In any market, this means that construction can start at least two years after the land has been acquired. This adds to the builder's cost, which he then tries to recover from his unsuspecting buyers. While the new law will help deal with errant builders, there is also the need to simplify these rules if the Augean stables need to be cleaned. Accountability is needed for bureaucrats as well as builders to fix the sector.

Importantly, the passage of this Bill marks one of those rare occasions when the Treasury and Opposition benches have buried their differences for the sake of legislative reform. In the version drafted by the Manmohan Singh-led government, the Bill had suggested that the money deposited in the escrow account should be 70 per cent. Given the high price of real estate, the Narendra Modi government had said 50 per cent should be enough. In a model case of co-operation, the government has, at the Opposition's request, returned the bar to 70 per cent. It is to be hoped that more examples of such forward-thinking bipartisanship will be on display in the ongoing session of Parliament.

Questions:

1. What are the problems being faced by Real Estate buyers? 

2. What was the need of The Real Estate Bill which was passed by the Parliament recently?

3. What are the salient features of the Real Estate Bill?

4. What is the share of the Real Estate sector in India's GDP?

5. What is meant by an escrow account? Explain with examples?

6. What all permissions are needed to start a real estate project? 

7. Why is the Real Estate Sector considered to be inflicted with corruption? 

8. "Burying of differences between the Treasury and Opposition benches could both be healthy as well as a dangerous sign". Comment (200 words)

[Editorial # 80] Don’t compromise on privacy : The Hindu

[Following editorial has been published in The Hindu on 9th March 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer-writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

The Aadhaar Bill, which the government introduced in the Lok Sabha last week, has not come a day too soon. More than six years have passed since the first attempt was made to give legal validity to Aadhaar, an ambitious project that seeks to provide unique identification numbers to each individual in a country of over a billion people, collecting demographic and biometric information in the process. And through these years, amid many legal and political challenges and a change in government, over 98 crore numbers have been issued. The stated idea of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, is to provide for “efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services”. This, along with a clause that says the unique numbers will not be considered as proof of citizenship, is welcome. And yet, the process of legislating for Aadhaar has not been wholly reassuring. The Bill has attracted immediate criticism for being introduced as a money bill, by virtue of which it does not require approval of the Rajya Sabha, where the BJP-led government does not have the numbers to ensure its passage. Bypassing the Upper House’s vote does give the Bill an easy route to becoming law. The question is, given that Aadhaar was a signature project of the Congress-led UPA, could not the government have made the effort to reach out to lawmakers across the board on such a crucial, bipartisan issue?

Wider political consensus and scrutiny are vital. Section 7 of the Bill, for instance, makes proof of Aadhaar necessary for “receipt of certain subsidies, benefits and services”. This must be read in the backdrop of a Supreme Court ruling that said Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory. A key concern over the collection of personal information on this scale is data protection. There are provisions in this Bill that seem to address the concern, including one that prohibits any official from revealing information in the data repository to anyone. But the exceptions cause unease. Two provisions are particularly troubling. The first is Section 29(4), by which no Aadhaar number or biometric information will be made public “except for the purposes as may be specified by regulations”. The second, which experts have already flagged, is Section(33), under which the inbuilt confidentiality clauses will not stand when it concerns national security. The only reassurance could be that in such cases the direction has to come from an official who is not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the government. Nonetheless, without robust laws to protect their data, citizens would be rendered vulnerable. It is not about just snooping. It is also being said that in order to be useful and effective, Aadhaar data might have to be used alongside other databases. That could trigger further privacy questions. There is little doubt that India needs to streamline the way it delivers benefits, and to empower citizens with a basic identification document. But this cannot be done without ensuring the strictest protection of privacy.

Questions:

1. What is Adhaar Card? Who issues it? What is the purpose behind enrolment for Adhaar Card?

2. How can one get Adhaar Card? What is the procedure? Evaluate the complexity of such procedure from the perspective of a common man, especially people who lie at the bottom of the pyramid.

3. What all data is collected while enrolling for Adhaar Card? 

4. What are the various criticism about Adhaar Card? Are they just? Comment

5. Why is there a need of passing Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016? How does it make the Adhaar Card mechanism more effective?

6. What is a Money Bill? What are the criteria for declaring a bill as a Money Bill? Who is the final authority on declaring a Bill as a Money Bill? Why is Rajya Sabha not allowed to vote on a Money Bill? How is a Money Bill different from an Ordinary Bill?

7. What are various sections of the said bill which are being criticised? Are these criticisms just? Comment

8. "There is little doubt that India needs to streamline the way it delivers benefits, and to empower citizens with a basic identification document. But this cannot be done without ensuring the strictest protection of privacy". Comment (200 words)

[Editorial # 79] Time to deliver on Women’s Bill : The Hindu

[Following editorial has been published in The Hindu on 8th March 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer-writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

By clockwork precision, talk about the Women’s Reservation Bill has duly floated in ahead of March 8, International Women’s Day. President Pranab Mukherjee and Vice-President Hamid Ansari have called for reviving the Constitution (108th) Amendment Bill to reserve for women one-third of seats in Parliament and the State legislatures. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been less forthcoming in revealing whether his government has any plans to pilot the Bill through the Lok Sabha. This is particularly disappointing. The Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha in March 2010 amid obstructive theatrics from parties such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Samajwadi Party, but also with an unusual level of cooperation among the national parties, especially the Congress, which was leading the United Progressive Alliance government, and the Bharatiya Janata Party. Thereafter they could not — or would not — overcome similar odds in the Lok Sabha to deliver on their stated support for the Bill. Six years on, Mr. Modi’s BJP commands a clear majority in the Lok Sabha. It is therefore in a position not only to get the Bill passed by mopping up the support of just a few more MPs, but also to force the Congress and the Left into reaching out across the aisle in a polarised Parliament to affirm fidelity to a long-voiced promise. Every session of Parliament must serve as a reminder that the real stumbling block to the Bill has not been political from parties opposed to it, but essentially patriarchal within the very same parties that have affirmed support to it.

In the two decades since it was first presented in Parliament, different governments have tried clearing it but faced tremendous opposition, often accompanied by manhandling and name-calling. It is obvious that despite the pretty speeches and public posturing, the political space in the country, regardless of the ideological divide, is uniformly and strongly chauvinistic. Opposition to the Bill has often taken the form of a demand for the proposed quota to be diced along other parameters of disadvantage, such as caste and class. Additionally, resistance has been rationalised as a caution that women’s quota would be appropriated by relatives and proxies of powerful politicians, neatly ignoring the fact that such a reality could well obtain with regard to male legislators too. Women need to overcome gender prejudice firstly in their respective parties before entering the wider electoral fray. It is also a sign of lack of seriousness on the Bill that parties have not taken up a considered discussion of the impact of the rotation of reserved constituencies envisioned, and purposefully debate its merits against suggestions for double-member constituencies, proportional representation and mandatory women’s quotas for parties while announcing candidate lists for elections. To have more women in legislatures and the government is a big step towards empowering women in society. The experience of several village panchayats that have women as effective leaders bears testimony to this fact. Affirmative action of this kind is the best way to usher in social and gender justice.

Questions:

1. What is Women's Reservation Bill? Why do you think that our country requires such kind of bill to be passed?

2. Do we have examples of legislatures in different countries which ensure reservation for women? If yes then which all? 

3. Why is it said that our Indian society is patriarchal? Explain with examples? Are there any communities in India which are matriarchal? If yes then which all?

4. What is a Constitution Amendment Bill? What is the significance of the number 108 in the above mentioned bill? Does that mean our constitution has been amended at least 108 times?

5. What is the rationale being put forth by few parties against the Women Reservation Bill? Do you think their logic is just? Why or why not?

6. What are various options/alternatives being put forth in order to increase the representation of women in legislatures? Analyse their feasibility?

7. What is meant by Affirmative Action? What is its purpose? 

8. Its true that women should be equally represented as men in the Parliament and state assemblies but ensuring this through reservation would bring in only cosmetic changes. Do you agree? Justify (200 words)