In response to the question posed by INC Lok Sabha MP from Rajasthan, Ummeda Ram Beniwal, on the lack of healthcare facilities and resources, affecting patients in India, the Central Government has cited the Rural Health Statistics 2022, which suggests that massive health infrastructure gaps need to be covered in rural areas. The Minister of State for Health and Family Affairs, Anupriya Patel referred to the Rural Health Statistics 2022 data in her reply to the query put forth by Beniwal on August 9 concerning the lack of health infrastructure in the country. The data given reveals that as of July 1, 2022, rural areas face a shortfall of 48060 Sub-Centres as against the requirement of 1,93,310 such centres, with the present number of Sub-Centres being at 1,57,935.

Similarly, rural India has a shortage of 9,742 Primary Health Centres (PHCs) against its required strength of 31,640 PHCs, with 24,935 PHCs presently in use. The number of Community Health Centres (CHCs) currently in use stands at 5480 against the required strength of 7894 such centres, with a shortfall of 2852 CHCs in total.

The parliamentary answer by the MoS Anupriya Patel explained that “All India Shortfall is derived by adding State-wise figures of shortfall ignoring the existing surplus in some of the states.” However, state-wise data regarding the shortage was not included in the response. Importantly, the figures provided here does not include shortage of such centres in urban areas, thus revealing the magnitude of the issue.

Patel further informed the Lok Sabha about the Union Government’s efforts at improving health infrastructure and human resource shortage, noting that the Health Ministry provides “technical and financial support including support for recruitment of health human resource (Specialists Doctors and other health workers), to the States/UTs to strengthen the public healthcare system, based on the proposals received in the form of Programme Implementation Plans (PIPs) under National Health Mission.”

She also said that under the Fifteenth Finance Commission (FC-XV) and PM-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) various initiatives have been undertaken, with “a total of 12,606 units of building-less sub-health centre, 881 units of building-less Primary Health Centre and 125 units of building-less Community Health Centre” being provisioned for the FY 2021-22 to 2023-24.

The response further stated that “Under PM-ABHIM, provisions have been made for construction/strengthening of 730 Integrated Public Health Labs (IPHLs), 3382 Block Public Health Units (BPHU), 602 Critical Care Blocks (CCBs) and 7,808 units of building-less sub-health centre-Ayushman Arogya Mandir during the scheme period FY 2021-22 to 2025-26.”

Notably, some states, including Mizoram, Nagaland, and Meghalaya have pushed back over renaming of Ayushman centres as ‘mandirs’ questioning the imposition of dominant religious nomenclature.

The parliamentary response on the subject dated August 9 can be found here:

Related:

Amidst Budget Session din, parliamentary responses reveal huge vacancies pending in the Central Government offices | SabrangIndia

Denials of Public Health in Odisha | SabrangIndia

India behind on poverty, health and gender goals: Independent study | SabrangIndia

The post Parliamentary response reveals severe infra crunch affecting rural healthcare appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As the political parties vie for power to form the new union government in Lok Sabha (LS) or the lower house of the parliament, we analyse how the current and 17^th Lok Sabha has performed over the last 5 years, highlighting many firsts in its history and tumultuous political journey over the course of its tenure. In this piece we dwell into composition, performance, and politics of the existing Lok Sabha, as well as, gather interesting insights into the challenges it faced.

Composition

The 17^th Lok Sabha was formed in June 2019 with the BJP as a ruling party, which currently has 287 Member of Parliament (MPs) out of total 543 seats compared to 46 MPs from the main opposition Congress Party. Notably, the 17^th Lok Sabha has 267 first-term MPs. In terms of gender representation, only 14% of Lok Sabha (LS) MPs are women, making LS a significantly male dominated space. As per PRS Legislative Research report, the average age of an MP is 54, while on average women MPs are 6 years younger compared to male MPs. Furthermore, as per ADR report, 44% of current Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges.

Performance

The present Lok Sabha had 274 sitting across 15 sessions in total, with first session hosted on June 17, 2019, and last one ended on February 10, 2024. PRS reported that 11 out of the 15 sessions held during this Lok Sabha were adjourned early (resulting in cancellation of 40 scheduled sittings), and the first and last sessions were extended by seven sittings and one sitting respectively. Significantly, this Lok Sabha is historic for being shortest in terms of number of sittings for any full-term Lok Sabha, with a total of 274 sittings and annual average of 55 sittings per year. In addition, the 17^th Lok Sabha has been without a Deputy Speaker during its entire duration, which is unprecedented. Pertinently, the Article 93 of the Constitution requires that Lok Sabha elect a Deputy Speaker ‘as soon as may be’, which suggests that the Lok Sabha has failed to fulfil the constitutional mandate by keeping the post of Deputy Speaker vacant for entire 5 years.

As per the Lok Sabha data, 179 Bills (excluding Finance and Appropriation Bills) were passed during its present tenure, with 58% of Bills being passed within two weeks of its introduction. Indian Express and PRS reported that 1/3^rd (35%) of all the Bills in the lower house were passed with less than an hour of discussion. Additionally, only 16% of the Bills were referred to different parliamentary Committees for detailed scrutiny compared to 14^th (UPA-I), 15^th (UPA-II) and 16^th LS, the percentage for which stands at 60%, 71%, and 28% respectively. PRS also reported that between 2019 and 2023 about 80% of the budget was voted on without discussion and in 2023 the entire budget was passed without discussion. Furthermore, 31% of total time in LS was spend on discussions other than legislation and budgets. Moreover, in spite of disruptions, Lok Sabha reportedly functioned for 88% of its scheduled time, with Question Hour functioning for 60% of its scheduled time.

The number of statements suo moto issued by ministers in public interest has reduced in the 17^th Lok Sabha with just 28 such statements, compared to 62 in the 16th, and 98 in the 15th Lok Sabha. Importantly, PM Narendra Modi has avoided to answer questions in the parliament from opposition MPs, making him visibly silent of various burning issues like ethnic violence in Manipur, land dispute at India-China border in Arunachal Pradesh, security breach in parliament, wrestler’s protests, among others. MPs from the states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan were most active in asking questions in the Lok Sabha, with Maharashtra leading with 370 questions per MP, followed by 275 and 273 questions per MP from Andra Pradesh and Rajasthan respectively. Interestingly, on average relatively younger MPs (aged less than 60 years) asked more questions (226) compared to MPs aged over 60 years (180). Additionally, representatives from Kerala and Rajasthan had the highest rate of participation in the Lok Sabha debates.

Importantly, one of most ignoble moments in the history of parliament occurred during the present Lok Sabha tenure when a record number of 100 Lok Sabha MPs were suspended during the 2023 winter session of the Lok Sabha for alleged misconduct in the House, with 46 more MPs suspended from Rajya Sabha or the upper house. Pertinently, the important criminal Bills which replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Indian Evidence Act, and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were passed when hundreds of MPs were suspended, casting aspersion on the legitimacy of the executive’s conduct. In addition, during the 17^th LS, MPs were suspended on 206 instances, across both Houses of Parliament. As per Hindustan Times report, 264 questions raised by suspended MPs were removed from parliamentary records as per the rule.

Political signalling through the Lok Sabha

The 17^th Lok Sabha also saw a series of political moves in the form of legislative engagement and passing of important Bills, including introduction of the three new mammoth criminal laws, bill to criminalise Triple Talaq, women’s reservation Bill to potentially reserve 33% of seats in Parliament for women MPs, tinkering with Article 370 to remove special status from Jammu and Kashmir and dividing the erstwhile state into two separate Union Territories. At the same time, the executive was forced to repeal the three farm laws after facing stiff resistance and protests from farmers against alleged corporatisation of agriculture sector. The three farm laws which were introduced and later repealed by the government include (i) the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, (ii) the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, and (iii) the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020.

The BJP government further released “white paper” during the last session of the present Lok Sabha in February 2024 allegedly giving account (read comparison) of the work done by BJP government vis-à-vis the mismanagement of the previous UPA regime. While on the face of it, the white paper seems to give an account of economy and growth between the two regimes, it was markedly selective in highlighting the deficiencies of the UPA regime while hiding its own. The paper attacks UPA regime for corruption, scams, bad loans, high inflation, policy misadventures, and abandoned economic growth. The analysis of the white paper by the Indian Express found that it “…ignores all that is amiss with the economy. For instance, it does not even contain the word “unemployment”. This was when the government’s own Periodic Labour Force Survey showed that unemployment had reached a 45-year high in 2017-18.” Similarly, the news report said that the white paper does not contain any chart on GDP growth nor makes any mention about the missed decadal Census, which any government has missed for the first time since 1881.

Parliamentary infringements

The 17^th Lok Sabha was particularly marred by two instances which raised serious questions over its conduct and safety. The first incident is related to the security breach that occurred on 13 December 2023, during which the intruders successfully bypassed the security and jumped inside the House Chamber and threw canisters emitting yellow smoke, leading to utter confusion among the members of the house. In the second incident, which occurred on 21 September, 2023, the MP from BJP, Ramesh Bidhuri, gave an Islamophobic hate speech against a fellow MP from BSP, Danish Ali, calling him Mullah Terrorist, pimp, and circumcised. In the history of parliament, it was for the first time that such hate speech was delivered against anyone from the floor of the house. Ironically, such incident came at a time when the present government was accused of censoring the opposition MPs for using “unparliamentary” words, even as the ruling party’s member freely engaged himself in delivering hate speech from the dais.

Related:

A blatant display of anti-Muslim bias in parliament is a shame for India | CJP

CJP & PUCL, M’tra release a Citizens Human Rights Manifesto for India 2024, demand a free and just India for all | CJP

Unity in Diversity: Tamil Nadu’s communal harmony shines bright in a divided nation | CJP

The post The 17th Lok Sabha in review appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its response, it was said that the government is committed to ensuring an open, safe, trusted and accountable internet for its users and has taken measures to safeguard citizen data from cyber threats. It is astonishing to note that there have been 165 data breaches from 2018-23 as reported by Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) and no investigations have taken place. They have mentioned that there has been no breach of data in the case of Aadhaar card information from the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) maintained by the Unique Identification Authority of India. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has implemented stringent safety measures for Co-IN App, including OTP authentication for accessing vaccination details, masking sensitive personal information, encrypting the Co-WIN database, and implementing two-factor authentication to prevent unauthorized access, ensuring citizen data protection.

The complete answer can be read here:

Even though the government alleges no breach of Aadhaar card information has occurred, the article published by Livemint states an Aadhar data breach that took place in October 2023.  

The article talks about a report by Resecurity, a US-based cybersecurity firm that claims that personal identifiable information of about 815 million which is 81.5 crore Indians has been leaked on the dark web. Data including names, phone numbers, addresses, Aadhaar, passport information are for sale online. On 9 October, 2023, a threat actor going by the name ‘pwn0001’ posted a thread on Breach Forums brokering access to 815 million “Indian Citizen Aadhaar & Passport” records. The company also added that its HUNTER unit investigators who established contact with the threat actor, learned that they were willing to sell entire Aadhaar and Indian passport database for $80,000.

There is information regarding an alleged data leak on the CoWIN platform as can be accessed here. In this report, it is mentioned that sensitive personal data such as full name, Aadhar number, mobile number and vaccination status of innumerable citizens stored on the CoWIN platform was leaked through a Telegram bot on June 12, 2023. 

The recent parliamentary inquiry by Saket Gokhale regarding data breaches raised concerns about the government’s handling of citizen data security. Despite assurances of safeguarding data and no reported breaches in Aadhaar information, discrepancies arise from recent reports. Livemint has highlighted a potential Aadhaar data breach involving sensitive personal information of millions for sale on the dark web. Additionally, allegations of a CoWIN platform leak in June 2023, compromising citizens’ Aadhaar numbers and vaccination status, add to the growing concerns about data security measures. These incidents underscore the urgent need for thorough investigations, enhanced cybersecurity protocols, and transparent accountability to ensure the protection of citizens’ sensitive data.

The post Parliamentary inquiry unveils 165 data breaches from 2018-23 as reported by CERT-In appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tagore had also asked for the union minister’s confirmation to the fact that the people from the OBC, SC and ST community hold a mere 4.5 percent, 7 percent and 2 percent professor’s post respectively while the upper castes acquire 86 per cent of the total posts.

These questions were presented to Dr. Subhas Sarkar, who is currently serving as the Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Education. In the response, the union minister apprised the Lok Sabha through the special recruitment driver under Mission recruitment, more than 6080 faculty positions, including professor’s posts, have been filled. Out of these positions, 871 positions have been filled by Scheduled Castes, showing a representation of 14.3 percent. The minister further provided that a total of 426 positions are occupied by the Scheduled Tribes, accounting for a mere representation of 7 percent. As per the data, 1424 faculty positions were held by people belonging in the OBC community, resulting in 23.4 percent representation in the faculty positions in Central Universities. It is crucial to note that the aforementioned data is concerning the total faculty positions available in Central universities and not the post of professor.

The union minister also provided that as of now, there is not proposal regarding reservation in promotions for OBCs.

The data providing the representation percentage of these marginalised communities in faculty positions and the post of professors indicate a need for further efforts to ensure more equitable representation across these groups within central universities’ faculty positions.

The complete answer can be accessed here:

Related:

Where thou representation: 3 women justices in the Supreme Court, 8.86% of the current strength

Infant mortality rate: UP records highest rate for SC at 57.8, Chhattisgarh at 41.6 for ST

MOE: Alarming dropout rates among SC, ST, and OBC students in premium institutes of India since 2018

Union data shows increasing beneficiaries of scholarships for OBCs in the past 5 years

The post Union data on faculty position in Central University: 14.3% SC, 7% ST, 23.4% OBC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On September 21, BJP Lok Sabha MP Ramesh Bidhuri, from South Delhi, used filthy and violent anti-Muslim slurs against MP Danish Ali of the Bahujan Samaj Party during the special session of the Parliament. In the video that has now surfaced, Bidhuri can be heard giving a communally charged rant while talking about the recent Chandrayan 3 mission, referring to the Ali as a terrorist, urging the speaking to “throw the Mullah (anti-Muslim slur) out”. The video also shows another senior BJP member and former government minister, namely Harsh Vardhan, sitting behind Bidhuri and laughing at the anti-Muslim diatribe. The Lok Sabha speaker, Om Birla, can be heard asking the MPs to sit down.

Indian Muslims are increasingly being subjected to systematic discrimination, prejudice, and violence despite there being constitutional protections in place, and yet, this open show of the prevailing anti-Muslim sentiment and islamophobia in a “temple of democracy” has brought shame to India.

It is important to highlight here that a report of the Indian Express has provided that Ali had approached speaker Om Birla to draw his attention to the anti-Muslim remarks made by Bidhuri and demanded some action over it. As per the IE report, Ali had written a letter to the speaker, which stated “I write to you with deep anguish regarding the speech given in the Lok Sabha by an MP of the BJP, Mr Ramesh Bidhuri, during the discussion on Chandrayaan success… During the course of his speech, he directed the most foul, abusive invectives against me, which are part of the records of the Lok Sabha. Among the words he directed against me were ‘B****a’ (pimp),’K***a’ (circumcised one), ‘Mullah ugravadi’ (Muslim terrorist) ‘atankvadi’ (terrorist) etc… This is most unfortunate and the fact that it has happened in a new Parliament building under your leadership as Speaker is truly heart-breaking for me as a minority member of this great nation and an elected Member of Parliament as well.”

Furthermore, Ali also requested the Speaker to take “cognisance of this foul conduct on the floor of the House and take appropriate action” against Bidhuri. In addition to this, Ali had also asked that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee of the Lok Sabha for prompt action.

As per ANI, sources in the Lok Sabha secretariat have provided that Birla took a serious view of use of unparliamentary words by Bidhuri. “He has issued a warning that if there is any recurrence of such behaviour in future, strict action will be taken,” ANI reported. Notably, as reported by various media reports, the Speaker also expunged the remarks made by Bidhuri.

What had led to the BJP MP making such disparaging remarks against the Muslim MP

In the report of the IE, Ali, an MP from Amroha in Uttar Pradesh, provided that the derogatory remarks were made by Bidhuri sometime after 10 pm in the Lok Sabha. He stated “The BJP MP was speaking in the House. During the speech, he said some people wanted Prime Minister Modi to die like a dog. I intervened and asked him what he was saying and that no one said that about the honourable Prime Minister. Then he called me names which included ‘terrorist’. I want to ask RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwatji, what is taught in their shakhas? Is this what they learn in Prime Minister Modiji’s pathshala?”

Reaction of the Bharatiya Janata Party to the remarks

It has been claimed by many that anti-Muslim sentiments have heightened under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP government, which has promoted a Hindu nationalist agenda since elected to power in 2014. This is not the first time that a representative or a member of the BJP has openly made an offensive comment against the Indian Muslims. Anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiments have been consistently aired by high-ranking members of the BJP and the government with impunity, and yet no concrete action has ever been taken against them. Be it Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal, who made an offensive statement against Prophet, or Haribhushan Thakur Bachaul, who said that Muslims should be set ablaze just as Hindus burn Ravana effigies during the festival of Dussehra.

No concrete action has yet been taken by the BJP party against Bidhuri. As per the IE report, BJP leaders provided that said Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had apologised immediately after Bidhuri made the remarks in the Lok Sabha. “He apologised to the House as the Deputy Leader and ensured the smooth functioning of the proceedings,” a source in the BJP said, as per the IE report. A report by The Wire stated that Singh had “expressed regret” over the remarks. “I express regret if the opposition is hurt by the remarks made by the member,” Singh had said while clarifying that he had not heard the remarks himself. The question that arises here is that how far will this apology go? Should an elected member not be held accountable for attacking a fellow minister based on their religious community and bringing down the sanctity of the House of the People?

On many occasions in the past, the ruling party has requested the comments made by opposition leader to be expunged. During the budget session of 2023, in February, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had written to the Lok Sabha speaker to move a breach of motion against MP Rahul Gandhi alleging that the allegations raised by him against the PM are baseless, derogatory and were not supported by documents. Notably, Rahul Gandhi had delivered a combative speech linking Adani’s meteoric rise in his business to the Modi government coming to power at the Centre in 2014. He had posed four questions to PM Modi which included asking him how many times he travelled with Adani abroad, how many times did the business tycoon joined the PM on foreign trips, how many times Adani visited that country immediately after PM’s foreign trip and got a contract. His remarks were expunged from records.

Ironically, on the same day as these comments were made by Bidhuri, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had requested the Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar to expunge the comments made by Derek O’Brien, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP from Rajya Sabha. During the Rajya Sabha discussion regarding the Women’s Reservation Bill, O’Brien had made a ‘money, media, muscle power, misogyny, remark against PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. O’Brien had also referred to an alleged remark by then-Gorakhpur MP Yogi Adiyanath, reported in media, opposing women’s reservation bill in 2010.

The question that begs to be asked here is why did no BJP member demand the expunction of the anti-Muslim remarks made by Bidhuri? While, reportedly, the Lok Sabha Speaker issued a warning to Bidhuri, why was he not suspended from the Lok Sabha, much like O’Brien was during the Monsoon session for displaying ‘unruly behaviour, unbecoming of a member of the Rajya Sabha’? Does calling a Muslim MP from the opposition party a terrorist not a comment grave enough to attract suspension?

Reaction of the Opposition:

One of the first leaders to condemn the said incident was TMC MP Mahua Moitra. She took to X (formerly known as Twitter) to express her anguish and criticised BJP in a post, with a video clipping of Bidhuri’s speech attached. “Keeper of Maryada @ombirlakota Vishwaguru @narendramodi & BJP Prez @JPNadda… any action please?” she posted.

The tweet can be accessed here:

BJP MP @rameshbidhuri calling MP Danish Ali a “Bharwa” (pimp), “Katwa” (circumcised), “Mullah Atankwadi” & “Mullah Ugrawadi” ON RECORD in Lok Sabha last night.

Keeper of Maryada @ombirlakota Vishwaguru @narendramodi & BJP Prez @JPNadda along with GodiMedia- any action please? pic.twitter.com/sMHJqaGdUc

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) September 22, 2023

In another post, she said “Abusing Muslims, OBCs an integral part of BJP culture – most now see nothing wrong with it. @narendramodi has reduced Indian Muslims to living in such a state of fear in their own land that they grin & bear everything. Sorry but I’m calling this out. Ma Kali holds my spine”.

Abusing Muslims, OBCs an integral part of BJP culture – most now see nothing wrong with it. @narendramodi has reduced Indian Muslims to living in such a state of fear in their own land that they grin & bear everything.

Sorry but I’m calling this out. Ma Kali holds my spine. pic.twitter.com/3NAqi5FWPy

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) September 22, 2023

Referring to the apology given by Rajnath Singh, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh called it an “eyewash”. As per the IE, Jairam Ramesh said “[It is a] complete shame what Bhiduri said. Rajnath Singh’s apology is not acceptable it was a half-hearted apology…it is an eyewash. Bhiduri has spoken in a language that is an insult not just to parliament but to every Indian,” Ramesh continued, wondering why the MP had not yet been suspended.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) said that Bidhuri should be arrested, as parliamentary privilege cannot extend to hate speech while the Aam Aadmi Party referred to yesterday’s session as ‘the blackest day in the history of Parliament.’

Is no Indian Muslim safe from Hate Speech in India?

The hateful politics that had spilled onto the streets of India, has now perpetrated the walls of the Parliament, serving as a stark reminder of the pitiful conditions faced by minorities in India. This display of discrimination and anti-Muslim bias, from an elected MP inside the Parliament is only proof.

Hate against Muslims has been mainstreamed like never before. And now, the inaction against this speech given by MP Ramesh Bidhuri during a session of the Parliament will be deemed as injustice to every member of the Muslim Community.

Related:

MP witnesses rising violence against tribals as BJP youth wing leader is caught beating an elderly tribal

FIR against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma for hate speech

Police shoot dead a Muslim man in custody

Rising Concerns as Incidents of Custodial Deaths of Dalits and Muslims Continue

Hate speeches by VHP, BJP leaders continue as India slated to host world leaders

Fortuitous week for BJP functionaries as courts protects 3 from punitive action under law

The post The blatant anti-Muslim bias displayed in the Indian parliament is a shame for the country appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, recent legislative developments within the hallowed chambers of the Indian Parliament have cast a shadow of concern over the robustness of these cherished principles. The ongoing monsoon session, which has witnessed the passage of contentious bills, serves as an illuminating case in point. Among these, the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 stands out as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between development aspirations and environmental safeguards. Despite fervent objections raised by civil societies and environmental advocates, the bill sailed through the Lok Sabha unaltered, underscoring the need for a closer examination of the prevailing legislative trends.

There have been a number of bills that have been passed or tabled by the parliament, regardless of the criticism and worries from the general public. A number of bills that directly impact the rights enshrined in each of us by the Constitution of India.

1. The Digital Data Protection Bill.

India’s lower house of parliament has recently passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, despite facing criticism and concerns regarding the discretionary authority it grants to the union government. This legislation aims to establish a “comprehensive framework for the protection of digital personal data in the rapidly evolving digital landscape of the country.”

Key Provisions of the Data Protection Bill

The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill introduces several important provisions to regulate the collection, processing, and sharing of personal user data:

• Explicit User Consent: The bill mandates that companies collecting user data must obtain explicit user consent before processing it. This is a significant step towards ensuring that individuals have control over their personal information.
• Legitimate Uses Exemption: While explicit user consent is a general rule, the bill includes “certain legitimate uses” as exemptions for data collection without consent. This allows platforms to process personal user data when provided voluntarily in specific situations, such as sharing payment receipts or providing public services.
• Government Authority: The bill grants the Indian government the power to waive compliance requirements for certain data fiduciaries, particularly startups. Additionally, the government is empowered to establish a data protection board and appoint its members, including the chairperson.
• International Scope: The bill extends its reach beyond Indian borders, covering digital personal information handling even if it occurs outside India but relates to providing goods or services to Indian individuals.

Challenges and Concerns Surrounding India’s Data Protection Bill

While India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Bill introduces several positive measures to enhance data privacy and protection, it also faces a range of challenges and concerns that have sparked debates and discussions among various stakeholders. These challenges are significant and must be addressed to ensure that the bill achieves its intended objectives without compromising citizens’ rights and privacy.

A. Amendments to RTI Act:

One of the most prominent concerns raised by critics is the proposed amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The bill seeks to amend Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which governs the disclosure of personal information. While the original RTI Act allows for the sharing of personal information if it is in the larger public interest, the proposed amendment seeks to exempt all personal information from disclosure. This blanket exemption raises concerns about limiting transparency and accountability, as citizens might be denied access to important information that could be essential for monitoring public activities, exposing corruption, and holding public authorities accountable.

B. Lack of Independence of the Data Protection Board:

The establishment of an effective and independent oversight mechanism is crucial for the successful implementation of any data protection framework. The bill’s provisions regarding the Data Protection Board do not provide adequate autonomy from the government. The bill grants the government significant powers, including the ability to appoint the chairperson and members of the board. This lack of independence raises concerns about potential government influence on the board’s decisions and actions, which could compromise its ability to fairly enforce data protection regulations and ensure citizens’ rights are upheld.

C. Excessive Government Discretion:

The bill grants the central government wide discretionary powers, particularly in the form of issuing notifications and rules. This includes the power to exempt both government and private sector entities from compliance with specific provisions of the data protection law. Such broad discretionary authority can potentially lead to arbitrary decisions and undermine the overall effectiveness of the data protection framework. This excessive government discretion could be exploited to favor certain entities or interests, thereby weakening the bill’s objective of safeguarding citizens’ privacy.

D. Exemptions for Government and Lack of Accountability:

The bill’s provisions grant exemptions to the government itself, allowing it to process personal data without user consent in certain situations. This raises concerns about unequal treatment and a potential lack of accountability for government agencies. Additionally, the bill’s provisions protect the Data Protection Board and the government from legal action. This provision could hinder citizens’ ability to challenge potential data privacy violations and limit accountability for any misuse of personal data by government entities.

E. Limited Redress Mechanisms:

While the bill establishes the Data Protection Board to oversee data protection compliance,  the board’s ability to address citizens’ grievances effectively might be limited. The bill’s provisions for fines and penalties for non-compliance are significant, but citizens might face challenges in accessing the board and seeking redress for privacy violations. This could undermine the overall effectiveness of the data protection framework in providing timely remedies for data breaches and privacy infringements.

2. Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023

The recent passage of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 in the Lok Sabha has raised significant concerns about its potential ramifications for the rights of minorities, marginalized communities, and the environment. Amidst cries of protest from the opposition, the bill was approved within a mere 30 minutes, prompting intense debates about its implications. This piece delves, again, into the provisions of the bill, its impact on various stakeholders, and the controversies surrounding its passage.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 introduces crucial changes to the existing Forest Conservation Act of 1980. Under the new amendment, forest land within a 100 km radius of India’s borders can be exempted from forest conservation laws for the purpose of national security projects, small roadside facilities, and public roads leading to habitation areas. This amendment raises concerns about potential environmental degradation and its repercussions for indigenous communities residing in these areas.

Redefining the Purview and Exemptions:

One of the central changes introduced by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is the redefinition of the Act’s purview. The bill exempts forest land up to 100 km along India’s borders from the Act’s coverage. Additionally, it grants the central government the authority to define and permit activities for ‘non-forest purposes’ on forest land. While proponents argue that such changes are necessary for national development, critics contend that these exemptions could lead to the degradation of forests and adversely affect marginalized communities that depend on these resources for their livelihood.

This has severe impact for the ecologically and politically fragile regions of India’s north eastern states.

Legal Issues and Ecological Concerns:

Critics of the bill point to legal issues stemming from a 1996 Supreme Court judgement, which clarified the applicability of the 1980 Act to all forests, regardless of classification. The new amendment could undermine this judgement by limiting protections to only officially designated forest areas. Environmentalists express ecological concerns, fearing that the bill’s provisions may lead to deforestation, habitat loss, and disruption of vital ecosystems. They argue that the bill’s emphasis on ‘compensatory afforestation’ is insufficient to mitigate the potential environmental damage.

Federal Structure and Indigenous Rights:

Another contentious aspect of the bill pertains to federalism and indigenous peoples’ rights. The bill grants the central government the power to decide whether certain activities can be classified as ‘non-forest purposes,’ which infringes upon the rights of state governments. Indigenous communities, often residing in forested areas, are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the bill’s provisions. The Forest Rights Act of 2006, which recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling tribes, could also be undermined, potentially leading to displacement and loss of livelihood for these communities.

Impact on Minorities and Marginalised:

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 could disproportionately affect minorities and marginalised communities that rely on forests for their subsistence. Indigenous tribes, traditional forest dwellers, and other marginalised groups often have deep-rooted connections to these ecosystems, relying on them for food, medicine, and cultural practices. The potential loss of forest land and disruption of ecosystems could further marginalize these communities and exacerbate existing inequalities.

The passage of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 has sparked significant debate over its potential impact on the freedom and rights of minorities and marginalized communities. While proponents argue that the bill is necessary for national development and achieving environmental goals, critics raise valid concerns about its legal, ecological, and socio-economic implications. As India continues to strive for sustainable development and the protection of minority and marginalized communities, it is crucial to carefully consider the long-term consequences of such legislative changes and ensure that their rights and well-being are adequately safeguarded

3. Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill

The recent passage of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill in the Rajya Sabha has sparked widespread debate and discussion due to the numerous concerns and critiques surrounding its provisions. The bill, introduced by Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav, proposes amendments to the existing Biological Diversity Act, 2002, with the aim of facilitating ease of doing business and promoting the commercial use of traditional resources, particularly in the AYUSH industries. Despite the concerns expressed by various stakeholders, the bill was passed by a voice vote in both houses of Parliament, raising questions about its potential impact on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.

Critiques and Concerns:

One of the primary concerns raised by critics of the bill is its perceived bias towards promoting the interests of the AYUSH industries and facilitating ease of doing business at the expense of conservation and equitable benefit sharing. Critics argue that exempting users of codified traditional knowledge and AYUSH practitioners from sharing benefits with local communities contradicts the original objectives of the Biological Diversity Act, which aimed to ensure sustainable use of biological components and fair distribution of benefits arising from the use of biological resources.

Furthermore, the bill’s decriminalisation of offences related to biodiversity and its replacement with monetary penalties have also drawn criticism. This shift has led to concerns about the balance of power between government officials and the judiciary, as well as potential implications for the deterrence of offenders. Some critics argue that these changes could undermine the progress made in democratising biodiversity governance in the country.

Impact on Fundamental Rights:

The passage of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill has raised significant questions about its impact on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens, particularly with regard to the right to a healthy environment and the rights of indigenous and local communities. The original Biological Diversity Act, 2002, was enacted to safeguard biodiversity and ensure equitable sharing of benefits, aligning with the constitutional obligation to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.

The concerns regarding the bill’s potential to dilute these protections have implications for the fundamental rights of citizens. By prioritizing commercial interests and ease of doing business, there is a risk that the bill could lead to the exploitation of biological resources without adequate consideration for conservation and the well-being of local communities. This, in turn, could infringe upon the right to a healthy environment and the right of indigenous and local communities to their traditional knowledge and resources.

While the passage of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill may have addressed certain policy goals, it has also given rise to valid concerns about the potential consequences for fundamental rights and conservation efforts in India. The delicate balance between promoting economic interests and safeguarding the environment, traditional knowledge, and the rights of local communities must be carefully managed. As the bill becomes law, it is imperative for policymakers, stakeholders, and civil society to remain vigilant and engage in ongoing dialogue to ensure that the implementation of the amendments does not compromise the essential principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

4. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023

The passage of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023, commonly referred to as the Delhi Services Bill, has sparked a heated debate and controversy within the Indian political landscape. The bill aims to replace an existing ordinance and grants the central government extensive control over the appointment, transfer, and posting of bureaucrats in the Delhi government. While proponents argue that the bill streamlines administrative functioning, critics view it as an assault on democratic principles, federalism, and the separation of powers. This essay delves into the concerns and criticisms surrounding the Delhi Services Bill, highlighting its potential unconstitutionality and implications for Indian democracy.

Erosion of Democratic Principles:

One of the central concerns raised against the Delhi Services Bill is its potential to undermine democratic principles. The bill empowers the central government to wield significant authority over the administrative machinery of the Delhi government, bypassing the authority of the elected Chief Minister and the state legislature. This move not only erodes the autonomy of the elected government but also raises questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Such a shift in power dynamics could lead to a situation where bureaucratic decisions are made without democratic accountability.

Violation of Federalism:

Federalism, a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution, ensures a distribution of powers and responsibilities between the central and state governments. The Delhi Services Bill appears to encroach upon this principle by granting the central government unilateral control over key bureaucratic appointments and transfers. This not only diminishes the authority of the state government but also undermines the cooperative federalism envisioned by the Constitution. The bill threatens the delicate balance between the center and the states, potentially setting a precedent for similar interventions in other states, thereby weakening the fabric of Indian federalism.

Disruption of Separation of Powers:

A cornerstone of democratic governance is the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The Delhi Services Bill raises concerns about the separation of powers by granting the central government extensive control over bureaucratic appointments, which traditionally falls within the purview of the executive branch. This intrusion blurs the lines between the legislative and executive branches, potentially compromising the system of checks and balances that ensures accountability and prevents the concentration of power.

Unconstitutional Nature:

The Delhi Services Bill is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the powers and prerogatives of the state government, as defined by the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court’s ruling in May, prior to the introduction of the bill, upheld the primacy of the elected Delhi government in matters of services and administration. The bill’s provisions that empower the Lieutenant Governor to unilaterally make decisions on various matters contradict the Court’s ruling and undermine the Constitution’s intent. Such a departure from the Court’s interpretation raises concerns about the bill’s constitutionality.

The passage of the Delhi Services Bill has ignited a fierce debate over its potential implications for democratic governance, federalism, and the separation of powers in India. The bill’s provisions pose a threat to the very foundations of the Indian Constitution and could set a concerning precedent for the centralization of power. While supporters of the bill maintain that it aims to streamline administration and ensure efficient governance, the concerns and criticisms raised highlight the need for a nuanced and balanced approach that respects the principles of democracy, federalism, and the separation of powers. It is imperative that the constitutional validity and democratic implications of such legislation are thoroughly examined and deliberated upon before enacting potentially transformative changes to the fabric of India’s governance.

5. Amendment to the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969

The recent passage of the Registration of Births & Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2023 in the Lok Sabha has ignited a fervent debate regarding its implications on privacy, democratic rights, and marginalized populations. This amendment seeks to establish a National Database of Births & Deaths, granting significant control over vital registration data to the Indian government. While the bill’s passage raises serious concerns, it is imperative to delve deeper into its provisions to comprehend the potential ramifications.

Privacy:

A Fundamental Concern Privacy, an intrinsic right, has been a topic of discussion as the amendment centralizes birth and death data. By sharing this sensitive information with national authorities, individuals’ control over their own data is compromised, opening avenues for potential misuse. The absence of clear guidelines on data access creates an unsettling scenario, wherein the government can decide which databases can tap into this repository. This unchecked delegation of authority raises questions about the government’s intentions and its commitment to safeguarding citizens’ privacy.

Impact on Democratic Rights:

The proposed amendment introduces a series of implications for democratic rights, notably:

1. Right to Education: The bill mandates birth certificates for school admission, inadvertently threatening marginalized populations. For those struggling to obtain birth documentation, this provision could hinder their right to education, thereby perpetuating societal inequalities.
2. Right to Vote: While the constitutional status of the right to vote remains a topic of debate, the emphasis on birth certificates could indirectly affect this crucial democratic right. Linking voting eligibility to birth certificates might exclude individuals who lack proper documentation, casting doubts on the inclusiveness of the electoral process.

Marginalised Populations: Caught in the Crossfire

The amendment inadvertently shines a light on marginalized populations. Its provisions may disproportionately affect these groups, potentially intensifying their struggles to access essential services. The requirement of birth certificates for various purposes could deepen the divide, further marginalizing vulnerable sections of society who face challenges in obtaining proper documentation.

Centralisation of Data: Lessons from the Past

The amendment’s centralization of birth and death data mirrors previous governmental attempts at data consolidation. Yet, history has shown that centralization often fails to address underlying issues and may even exacerbate problems. Rather than focusing solely on data centralization, the government should prioritize enhancing the efficiency and accessibility of birth and death registration systems.

Lack of Provisions:

A Recipe for Uncertainty One glaring concern lies in the lack of provisions to address the issues and gaps raised by the amendment. The absence of safeguards or guidelines for the protection of marginalized populations from exclusion highlights a significant oversight. A proactive approach to addressing these concerns would demonstrate the government’s commitment to an inclusive and equitable society.

Legitimising Exclusion:

A Cause for Alarm Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the amendment is its potential to legitimize exclusion. By failing to adequately address the concerns of marginalized populations, the amendment inadvertently reinforces existing inequalities. To foster a just society, the government must consider the implications of its actions on all citizens and take deliberate steps to ensure that no group is left behind.

The passage of the Registration of Births & Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2023, has set the stage for a critical dialogue surrounding privacy, democratic rights, and the well-being of marginalized populations. As the amendment seeks to establish a National Database of Births & Deaths, it is paramount that its potential consequences are thoroughly examined. While the government’s intent to modernize data management is commendable, it must be accompanied by robust safeguards, inclusivity, and a genuine commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of every citizen. In this era of data-driven governance, the protection of individual rights and the promotion of an equitable society must remain paramount.

6. Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023

The Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023, which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Union Minister for Information & Broadcasting, Anurag Thakur, and is meant to replace the existing Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (PRB). Though the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” mentions that the “proposed legislation is based on the spirit of upholding media freedom and ease of doing business”, in effect the new bill in fact widens the powers of the State to have more intrusive and arbitrary checks into the functioning of newspapers and magazines than the existing law had. However serious concerns have been expressed by the Editor’s Guild of India that has termed the proposed law “draconian.”

The expansion of powers of the Press Registrar, the new restrictions on citizens to bring out periodicals, the continuation of power to enter premises of news publications, the vagueness inherent in many of the provisions, and the ambiguity surrounding power to frame rules that can have adverse implications on press freedom.

 Expansion of power beyond Press Registrar

In the definitions section of the Bill, the term “specified authority” gives power to government agencies beyond the Press Registrar, to conduct the functions of the registrar, which could even include police and other law enforcement agencies.

Given the intrusive, expansive, and vague nature of powers that the bill in any case allows to the Press Registrar, the power to further delegate this power to other government agencies including law enforcement agencies is deeply distressing. Media organisations have strongly urged that only the Press Registrar should be the relevant authority for the purpose of this act and no other government agency should be given any powers with respect to registration of periodicals.

Denial and cancellation of registration to persons convicted for “unlawful activity”

Sections 4(1) and 11(4), allow the Registrar to deny the right to bring out a periodical, and to cancel the certificate of registration of a periodical, to persons convicted of “terrorist act or unlawful activity”, or “for having done anything against the security of the State”. Interestingly, the PRB Act, 1867, had no such provisions.

Given the liberal and arbitrary use of UAPA (which is the basis for defining “terrorist act” and “unlawful activity”), as well as other criminal laws, including Sedition, against journalists and media organisations to suppress freedom of speech, the introduction of these new provisions, and the way they can be misused to deny the right to bring out news publications to persons who are critical of governments is a matter of serious concern.

Power to enter premises of Press organisations

Under section 6(b), the Bill also gives power to the Press Registrar, (as well as any other “specified authority”) to enter the premises of a periodical to “inspect or take copies of the relevant records or documents or ask any questions necessary for obtaining any information required to be furnished”. This authority to enter a press organisation is excessively intrusive and it is deeply concerning that while on one hand, in the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” it is claimed that the intention is to make the process less cumbersome for press organisations, yet such powers are continued from the earlier laew.

Concerns regarding power to frame rules

Section 19 gives the Central Government powers to frame rules and guidelines under which news publishing is to be done in India. It has been seen time again that the power to frame rules under various acts has been used in arbitrary as well as excessively intrusive manner.

The recent IT Rules 2021, and the latest amendments made to it regarding setting up of a ‘fact checking unit’ with sweeping powers to order content take down is an illustrative example. Therefore, for the sake of preserving freedom of press, it is submitted that all such rules be clearly defined within the act, and there be no provisions be left to the discretion of a future government or a government authority.

To ensure that publishing of news in India remains free of encumbrances and intrusive checks on publishers by the registrar, and that the primary emphasis of the registrar and the PRP remains ‘registration’ and not ‘regulation’, as the latter has the potential of restricting freedom of press, this Bill needs to be reconsidered, amended before it is deliberated upon and made into a law.

The law on this issue should be more respectful of freedom of the press and should avoid granting vast powers to regulatory authorities to either interfere or shut down the press at their whims and fancies.

The Bill has already been passed in the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha has been urged to refer it to a Parliamentary Select Committee, to allow a deep discussion on the issues that are crucial for press freedom.

Bills that have been passed in the last 5-10 years in the face of criticism- A pattern?

In the annals of India’s legislative history, the past decade has witnessed the emergence of a series of transformative bills that have ignited profound debates, courted legal challenges, and raised significant questions about their alignment with the nation’s constitutional ethos. These laws have traversed a spectrum of domains, ranging from governance and land rights to social justice and personal liberties. While they have aimed to address pressing issues and propel the nation forward, their impact on the bedrock of freedom and constitutional principles has been both lauded and contested. This part of the essay embarks on an exploration of key legislative acts enacted within the last 5-10 years, delving into their implications and the patterns that underlie their passage despite criticism. As India’s democracy grapples with modern complexities, these legislative developments provide a lens through which to examine the evolving relationship between governance, freedom, and constitutional fidelity.

In a rapidly changing world, where societal needs and aspirations are continually evolving, legislatures bear the weighty responsibility of shaping policies that reflect the nation’s values while addressing contemporary challenges. The bills under scrutiny have been emblematic of these endeavors, encapsulating the aspirations of a diverse and dynamic population. However, as the nation navigates the intricate dance between progress and preservation, the interface between these legislative measures and the sanctity of individual freedoms has emerged as a central concern.

These are some of the bills passed in last 5-10 years in the face of criticism-

1. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013:

While the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act aimed to curb corruption, criticisms arose regarding the independence of the Lokpal and the effectiveness of its provisions. Concerns included the appointment process, the inclusion of the Prime Minister within its purview, and the potential for government influence, thereby raising questions about transparency and accountability.

2. Land Acquisition Bill 2013 (amended in 2015):

The Land Acquisition Act amendments faced opposition due to perceived violations of property rights and the rights of indigenous communities. Critics argued that the bill favored corporate interests over farmers’ livelihoods and local communities, leading to protests and legal challenges.

3. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment 2018:

Amendments to this Act were criticized for diluting safeguards for marginalized communities. Protests erupted over concerns that the amendments weakened protections against discrimination and atrocities faced by these communities, leading to questions about social justice and equality.

4. Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2019:

The Surrogacy Bill faced criticism for being restrictive and not adequately addressing the complex issue of surrogacy. Concerns included the exclusion of single parents and LGBTQ+ individuals from surrogacy arrangements, raising debates on personal autonomy and reproductive rights.

5. Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019:

The Transgender Persons Bill was criticized for failing to recognize the rights and identities of transgender individuals. Critics argued that the bill did not adequately address discrimination, lacked affirmative action measures, and violated the principles of self-identification and dignity.

6. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019:

The CAA sparked nationwide protests and legal challenges due to its selective approach to granting citizenship based on religion. Critics contended that it violated the secular fabric of the Constitution and discriminated against Muslims, raising concerns about religious freedom and equality.

7. Farm Bills 2020:

The Farm Bills led to massive farmer protests over concerns about potential exploitation by corporations and the erosion of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system. Critics argued that the bills could adversely affect farmers’ livelihoods and bargaining power, impacting their economic freedom.

8. Article 370 and 35A Repeal (Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act) 2019:

The repeal of Article 370 and 35A for Jammu and Kashmir led to debates about federalism, autonomy, and the rights of the region’s residents. Critics raised concerns about the manner in which the constitutional provisions were abrogated and the implications for the region’s identity and freedoms.

Democracy?

In the intricate tapestry of democracy, the process of passing legislation stands as a hallmark of governance that is meant to reflect the will of the people, protect their rights, and promote the common good. However, recent trends have unveiled a disconcerting pattern – bills being passed amidst criticism, raising valid questions about the democratic integrity of the legislative process. This essay delves into the complexities of this pattern, examining its implications for transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and the foundational principles of a democratic society.

Lack of Transparency:

Transparency serves as the bedrock of a healthy democracy, ensuring that decisions are made openly and with the public’s knowledge. When bills are passed despite criticism, a shroud of opacity descends over the legislative process. This lack of transparency undermines the public’s ability to understand the rationale behind decisions, eroding their trust in the democratic machinery.

Exclusion of Voices:

At the heart of democracy lies the principle of inclusivity, where every citizen’s voice is heard and represented. Passing bills amidst criticism, however, can lead to the exclusion of dissenting viewpoints. Such an exclusionary approach contradicts the democratic ethos and deprives the legislative process of the diverse perspectives necessary for well-informed decision-making.

Undermining Checks and Balances:

A fundamental tenet of democracy is the establishment of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. Passing bills without adequately addressing criticism can circumvent these mechanisms, leading to unchecked authority and a potential erosion of the separation of powers. This poses a significant threat to the delicate equilibrium that sustains democratic governance.

Ignoring Public Opinion:

Public opinion is the lifeblood of democracy, serving as a guiding force for policymakers. However, passing bills in the face of substantial public opposition or concerns undermines the significance of citizen input. The resulting dissonance between the government and the governed threatens to fracture the democratic contract that hinges on responsiveness to public needs.

Diminishing Accountability:

Accountability is the cornerstone of a functional democracy, ensuring that those in power are held responsible for their actions. Passing bills without addressing criticism can diminish accountability by evading rigorous scrutiny and accountability mechanisms. This evasion raises concerns about the potential consequences of such decisions and the erosion of the democratic principle of answerability.

Marginalization of Minorities:

Democracy is a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, guaranteeing the rights of minorities. When bills are passed without adequately addressing criticism, the concerns of marginalized groups can be easily overshadowed. This marginalization of minority voices compromises the democratic commitment to protecting the rights and interests of all citizens.

Erosion of Trust:

Trust is the glue that holds a democratic society together. Passing bills amidst criticism erodes public trust in the government’s dedication to democratic principles. This erosion of trust can lead to disillusionment with the democratic process itself, weakening the social contract that underpins a functional democracy.

Conclusion:

The pattern of passing bills amidst criticism presents a paradox within democracy – a mechanism meant to uphold the people’s rights can at times appear to disregard their voices. The implications of this pattern are profound, touching upon the essence of democracy itself. As we navigate the intricate terrain of governance, it is imperative to recalibrate the legislative process to ensure that transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and the protection of minority rights remain sacrosanct. Only by addressing this undemocratic conundrum can we fortify the pillars upon which a vibrant and resilient democracy stands.

(The author is an intern with the organization)

Related:

Controversial Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by Lok Sabha without any change, all concerns ignored

Will recently amended Birth Registration law be (mis)used to curb voting rights, even launch the dreaded NPR?

The battle for Indian Federalism: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India

Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023 draconian & dangerous: Editor’s Guild (EGI)

Guess where India stands on the World Press Freedom Index?

SC for freedom of expression: Strikes down ban on Media One

Replace toothless Press Council with Media Council: NAJ, DUJ

Saharanpur: Who were the ‘media men’ whose questions created tension during Friday prayers?

A fair media can defang intolerance

Jahangirpuri: Navika Kumar, Anjana Om Kashyap demolish media credibility further

Social media platforms finally compel extremist groups to shun hate speech, fake news

Khargone: Why is the administration ignoring the proliferation of hate on social media?

The post Democratic Deficit: Unlawful Bills tabled in Parliament: Monsoon Session 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In March of this month, the said bill had been referred to a 31-membered Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The said JPC was being headed by the Ruling Bharatiya Janata Party member Rajendra Agarwal. Public suggestions had been invited by the JPC in May. Notably, the Committee had not proposed any changes to the Bill. However, six MPs from opposition had filed the dissent note. The objections were raised by them on exemption of forest land at border areas from the purview of the Act that might turn detrimental to Biodiversity and forest coverage of border areas especially at Himalayan region. Concerns were also raised that it may lead to exploitation of forest land by using them for non-forest purposes.

It is essential to note that Rajendra Agarwal, who was leading the JPC, was also presiding over the Lok Sabha proceedings in Speaker Om Birla’s absence when the bill was discussed and passed.

Union environment minister says the said amendments will help with development:

Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav referenced Nationally Determined Contributions with three quantitative goals and international agreements on the climate problem during the bill’s debate. He said that the first two objectives had been accomplished nine years in advance, but the third objective—creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3.0 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent—had not yet been accomplished. As reported by Livemint, Yadav said, “I am happy to inform that India has achieved two of the three Nationally Determined Contributions nine years in advance. The bill will help us in achieving the last goal also.” 

Yadav also said the bill was passed by a joint committee which had visited even border area villages to understand what the legislation will help in achieving.” The bill will help in taking development to the border villages,” said Yadav. “To do that, we must concentrate on agroforestry and expand tree cover. The worldwide community should care about the objective,” as provided by the Hindustan Times. 

He claimed that due to certain limitations in the current law, progress has come to a halt in some places impacted by Left-wing extremism (LWE). “Compensatory afforestation is essential for carbon sink… The bill will prove to be a milestone. We want to encourage afforestation on private land. Also, this would help in addressing development issues in Left-wing extremism affected areas. The tribals are waiting for roads and health facilities. This will help us in achieving this,” as reported by Livemint. 

Yadav continued by saying that they want important public utility projects to reach these areas. “The exemption to forest areas in a 100 km radius from borders, LAC [the Line of Actual Control with China] and LOC [the Line of Control, the de facto border between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir]] will help develop roads crucial for border areas…help develop strategic infrastructure for our national security,” as reported by the Hindustan Times.

On BJD MP Bhartruhari Mahtab’s point that the bill was in conflict with the Forest Rights Act, Yadav said there was no contradiction. 

Bill passed amid protest from opposition on Manipur violence:

On Wednesday at 11 a.m., the Opposition members flocked to the Lok Sabha with placards seeking Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement regarding the Manipur crisis. The opposition members of parliament carried signs that said “India united against hate” and “India wants reply, not silence” and shouted “We want justice” intermingled with cries of “Shame.” The House was adjourned by Speaker Om Birla shortly before noon. The House was once more suspended till 2:00 pm in the afternoon.

The administration seems intent to advance a portion of its legislative agenda during the post-lunch session, according to the Hindustan Times. Notably, even as the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had objected to a few of the controversial Forest Conservation Amendment Bill’s clauses, it was tabled for review and passage before the Lok Sabha. The issue was discussed by four MPs amid incessant sloganeering from opposition members. It is important to mention that the said bill was enacted within 30 minutes of the House convening, amidst the sloganeering.

What were the concerns raised against the said bill?

On July 18, a few days before the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, around 400 ecologists, biologists, and naturalists had written to Yadav and other members of the Parliament, pleading them to not introduce the proposed legislation. In the said letter, they had highlighted the terrible effects of environmental degradation and climate change, emphasising on the flooding across the north India this summer. “Now is the time for the administration to reconfirm its dedication to safeguarding the vast biodiversity of the nation…The main goal of this amendment is to speed up the destruction of India’s natural forests.” They demanded more discussions with subject-matter specialists.

It is pertinent to highlight here that the now passed bill covers only land that has been declared or notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or under any other law. It states that no prior clearance is not needed for the construction of any strategic linear project of national importance. Essentially, almost all of the ecologically-fragile northeast fall under this category.

As provided by the Hindustan Times, the submissions attached to the JPC report shows opposition to the provisions of the bill, which are as follows:

1. The report acknowledges that experts have noted that the amendments were likely to weaken the landmark Godavarman decision of the Supreme Court from 1996. The aforementioned decision had expanded the application of the Forest Conservation Act to include all land that had been designated as a forest, regardless of who owned it—for example, huge areas of unclassified woods in the northeast.
2. Additionally, the experts also pointed out that the 100 km exemption from border areas can be detrimental to ecologically sensitive areas of the northeast. “Please look at the northeast, for example. If you are going to exempt 100 kilometres from each border, what is going to be left? It is a very sensitive area. As it is, we are seeing the problems which are being created because of certain communities who have had traditional rights and customary rights to forests under Schedule VI [of] the Constitution which itself, I believe, is inadequate,” noted an unnamed expert in the submission made to the JPC, as provided by the Hindustan Times. 

The Sixth Schedule provides for the autonomous administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

On this particular concern, the environment ministry said the 100 km provision has been decided in consultation with the defence ministry. It insisted it is considered optimum to meet the requirement of defence organisations and strategic requirements. The proposed exemption along the international borders and in LWE areas are not generic exemptions and will not be available for private entities, it said.

3. Experts had also pointed out that the bill violated provisions of the Forest Rights Act as it does not clearly speak of prior informed consent of village councils on forest clearances. The environment ministry has insisted there was no violation.

One of the Congressmen who provided dissenting opinions to the JPC, Pradyut Bordoloi, noted that the reconciliation of the forest conservation law with the issue of forest rights “remains an obvious gap, even in the statement and objects of the amendment.” That should have been crucial, he continued, especially since practically all proposed revisions would inevitably affect any forest rights that are currently in effect, on hold, or recognised. He remarked, according to the Hindustan Times, “There is an absence of any perspective on how existing proprietary, customary, and livelihood use rights will be handled for net zero compliant lands or in the case of fresh forest land diversions.”

The complete bill can be read here:

Related:

Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights

Supreme Court affirms right of forest inhabitants, prevents it from being limited to recognized communities

‘Black Day’ Protest against ecological plunder of forests, displacement of indigenous communities: Bhumi Adhikar Andolan

How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources

TN: Under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, 158 people in two villages have been granted title deeds

Amendments to Forest Conservation law to majorly affect the North East

The post Controversial Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by Lok Sabha without any change, all concerns ignored appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a written reply, the Minister has provided that a total of 5,825 teaching posts and 15390 non-teaching posts were lying vacant in Central Universities as on April 1, 2023. According to Sarkar, the vacancies arise on account of retirement, resignation and an increase in the number of students taking admission to various central universities. He further provided in the answer that the “occurring of vacancies” and filling them off is a “continuous process.”

The complete answer can be read here:

Related:

Over 87,000 Indians renounced their citizenship till June this year: Lok Sabha

26 thousand cases disposed of by the SC, 5.23 lakh by the HC in this year: Ministry of Law and Justice

Nearly 272 crores spent by the govt. on litigation over the last five financial years: Lok Sabha

The post More than 5,000 teaching & 15,000 non-teaching posts kept vacant: Education Ministry appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Responding to a query raised by the Lok Sabha MP Shri Ashok Mahadeorao Nete (BJP), the Law minister further provided the number of cases settled/disposed of by the Supreme Court during the last three year. The data showed an increasing trend in the number of cases being disposed of in the last three years. As per the data, 36,436 cases were disposed of in the year 2022, 24,586 in 2021 and 20,670 in 2020. In the current year, the top court has settled 25,959 cases till July 15. The minister was citing data from the Supreme Court’s Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS).

Citing from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) data, the minister provided that the 25 high courts of India has disposed of 5,23,338 cases till July 17 this year. The maximum number of cases had been disposed of by the Madras High Court (96796), followed by the Allahabad High Court (84077) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (37280).

Previously, during the year 2022, the High Court had disposed 13,56,714 cases. In the year 2021, the High Courts had disposed 13,37,660 cases while 10,59,266 cases had been disposed of in the year 2020.

Notably, Madras High Court topped the said list, with disposing of the maximum number of cases throughout the previous three years. In the year 2022, it disposed of 2,14,763 cases, 1,15,197 in 2021 and 1,53,158 in 2020.

The detailed statement showing the High Court-wise disposal of cases for last 3 years is as follows:

Furthermore, the data provided that a total of 1,08,01,051 cases were disposed of by the District Courts of India till July 17 this year. The maximum number of cases had been disposed of by the Uttar Pradesh Courts (20,22,823), followed by the Tamil Nadu Courts (14,08,796) and the Maharashtra Courts (860415).

As per the data, a total of 1,97,11,516 had been disposed of by the District Courts in the year 2022, 1,43,72,970 in 2021, and 76,56,102 in 2020.

Notably, the Allahabad Courts topped the said list, with disposing of the maximum number of cases throughout the previous three years. In the year 2022, it disposed of 36,98,994 cases, 25,27,703 in 2021 and 16,06,083 in 2020.

The detailed statement showing the state-wise disposal of cases by District courts for last 3 years is as follows:

In the said response, Meghwal also provided that the disposal of pending cases in courts is within the domain of the judiciary.

“No time frame has been prescribed for disposal of various kinds of cases by the respective courts. The government has no direct role in disposal of cases in courts,” he stated.

Furthermore, he said that the timely disposal of cases in courts depends on several factors, including availability of adequate number of judges and judicial officers, supporting court staff and physical infrastructure, complexity of facts involved, nature of evidence, cooperation of stakeholders — Bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants, and proper application of rules and procedures.

The complete answer can be read here:

Related:

69,768 cases are pending in Supreme Court end 2022 & 53, 51,284 in various High Courts: UoI

1.9 lakh POCSO cases pending in Fast Track Courts: Ministry of Women and Child Development

Over 87,000 Indians renounced their citizenship till June this year: Lok Sabha

Death behind bars: Justice through the Indian Courts as cases spiral

Uttar Pradesh has highest number of cases “closed by the NHRC without reason”: NHRC data

Preventive detention laws have a colonial legacy with a high potential for abuse and misuse, only to be used in rarest of the rare cases: Supreme Court

The post 26 thousand cases disposed of by the SC, 5.23 lakh by the HC in this year: Ministry of Law and Justice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the data, between the period of 2022-23, a total of Rs. 54,35,49,015 was spent by the government, which was more than the expenditure incurred in 2021-22, wherein Rs. 48,37,38,253 was spent. Accordingly, it was further provided that an expenditure of Rs. 58,01,97,187 was incurred in 2022-21, Rs. 60,40,71,128 in 2019-20 and Rs. 50,85,65,984 in 2018-19.

MP Dushant Singh also enquired about the nature and number of the cases pending in the Court. The Ministry of Law and Justice answered that requisite data is not maintained by the Government in the form and manner as sought above, however, according to the Legal Information Management & Briefing System (LIMBS) portal, there are presently 6,36,605 pending cases involving the government across various courts. The details are as follows:

The complete answer can be viewed here:

Related:

Uttar Pradesh has highest number of cases “closed by the NHRC without reason”: NHRC data

Tribal Atrocity: Data shows increase in the number of cases registered, decrease in cases dealt by the NCST over the years

69,768 cases are pending in Supreme Court end 2022 & 53, 51,284 in various High Courts: UoI

1.9 lakh POCSO cases pending in Fast Track Courts: Ministry of Women and Child Development

UAPA: 11.7% rise in cases pending trial, shows MHA data

The post Nearly 272 crores spent by the govt. on litigation over the last five financial years: Lok Sabha appeared first on SabrangIndia.