26 February 2016

Economic Survey says new mission on climate change in the works

Apart from the National Action Plan on Climate Change, a new mission on climate change and health is currently under formulation, says survey

Lauding 2015-16 as a landmark year for climate change initiatives in India, the Economic Survey released on Friday said a new mission on climate change and health is currently under formulation.

“Apart from the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), a new mission on climate change and health is currently under formulation and a National Expert Group on Climate Change and Health has been constituted,” said the survey while highlighting that India has been taking ambitious domestic actions against climate change.
It said the National Mission on Coastal Areas (NMCA) for integrated coastal resource management and the proposed waste-to-energy mission are other major components of India’s domestic actions to tackle climate change.
The 2015-16 survey, released by finance minister Arun Jaitley, said that India also played an important role in the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in the adoption of the Paris Agreement—a new global climate deal—in December 2015.
“The Paris Agreement sets a road map for all nations in the world to take actions against climate change in the post-2020 period. Also, Prime Minister Narendra Modi played a leading role at COP 21 in the launch of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), and also volunteered to host its secretariat,” noted the survey while adding that 2015 has been a landmark year for India in terms of climate change initiatives both nationally and internationally.
It also highlighted that (as of 4 January 2016) with 1,593 out of 7,685 projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the UNFCCC, India had the second highest number of projects registered under the mechanism, showing its commitment to fighting climate change.
CDM allows emission-reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2 (carbon di-oxide), which can then be traded or sold, and used by industrialized countries to a meet a part of their emission-reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.
Talking about other green measures taken by the government, the survey noted that India is one of the few countries around the world to have a carbon tax in the form of a cess on coal.

Economic Survey FAQ

Economic Survey FAQ: What’s going for India, what isn’t, and how does the future look if…

Here, in a Q&A form, is the essence of Economic Survey 2015-16, which sets the context for Union Budget 2016-17

How is India doing?
Pretty good for an economy where exports have declined and private investment remains weak
How much will India grow by in 2015-16?
7-7.75%
Next year, 2016-17?
7-7.75%
Is that the fastest India can grow?
No. India’s long-term potential is 8-10% real rate of GDP growth. But the state of the global economy will weigh on the country’s ability to achieve it in the medium term when 7-7.5% will be the norm.
What has India done to boost growth?
It has tackled corruption; reformed its foreign direct investment policy; made it easier to do business in the country; increased public investment; launched a powerful crop insurance scheme; controlled inflation; worked on the cause of financial inclusion; restructured the power sector; and worked on removing some subsidies.
Why then are people so negative?
Maybe because they don’t realise that the sum is greater than the parts. And maybe because there have been disappointments.
Such as?
The inability to pass the Goods and Services Tax legislation. Not divesting as much as expected. Not moving fast enough on the next stage of removing subsidies. And the continuing stress on bank and corporate balance sheets
What can India do to get to the next stage of growth?
Become pro-entrepreneurship by becoming pro-competition. Invest in health and education. And not ignore agriculture which is still very important
In conclusion?
There are reasons for hope. Competitive federalism has made states pro-business and reformist. There is a growing realisation that good economics is good politics. There is always hope that GST will be passed. The sweet spot is still there.

25 February 2016

Section 124A should stay

the abolition of this provision? This article doesn’t discuss the correctness of the JNU arrests as the matter is in court; it only

submits that there’s a strong case to retain Section 124A.

Chapter Six of the IPC is titled “Offences against the state” and originally consisted of Sections 121-130, which included the offences of waging war against the government of India and, among other things, collecting arms with the intention of waging such war. Interestingly, Section 124A was Section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39 but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.

Explanation 1. The expression ‘disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without, exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”

The Federal Court, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs The King Emperor (1942), understood the dangers of misusing this section and made it clear that the section could not be used to stifle criticism. Interestingly, this decision was rendered in 1942 and at the height of World War II. Sir Maurice Gwyer observed that the use of violent, frothy and irresponsible language in a speech cannot be termed as sedition. He said: “There is an English saying that hard words break no bones; and the wisdom of common law has long refused to regard as actionable any words which, though strictly and literally defamatory, would be regarded by reasonable men as no more than mere vulgar abuse. Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily sedition and there are certain words and phrases which have so long become the stock-in-trade of the demagogue as almost to have lost all real meaning”.

This sensible interpretation was reversed by the Privy Council in 1947 (King Emperor vs Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao), which adopted the narrow view taken by Justice Strachey in the Tilak trial. Mercifully, in 1962, the Supreme Court restored

the view of the Federal Court while expressly holding that Section 124A was not violative of the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

This section would apply only to those activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public order (Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar).

The day after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, two persons raised slogans of “Khalistan zindabad” and “Raj karega Khalsa”. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, observing that the raising of some slogans a few times, which did not evoke any response and did not create any law and order problem, did not attract Section 124A. The court rightly observed that sometimes the arrest of individuals, rather than the slogans shouted, could lead to tension and a law and order problem and cautioned that over-sensitiveness could be counter-productive. Indeed, the explanations to Section 124A make it clear that criticism or disapproval of actions of the government do not amount to sedition.

The Law Commission of India had undertaken a careful re-examination of Section 124A. In its 42nd report, published in 1971, it wanted the section to be extended to include disaffection towards the Constitution of India, Parliament and state legislatures and the administration of justice. It also wanted the punishment to be reduced to a maximum of seven years. While the sentence can be restricted to seven years, there is no reason to expand the ambit of the definition. The present section has stood the test of time and the courts have restricted its application to serious acts that incite violence or create a major law and order problem.

Indeed, the call for its abolition may be incorrect. There is no data on the number of complaints that have been filed under this section in different states. What were the seditious utterances or activities? How many persons have been convicted? Without an analysis of the empirical evidence on the implementation of this section, it would be perilous to abolish it as an anachronistic colonial provision.

We cannot forget that dozens of districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution. Against the backdrop of this stark reality, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advised merely because it has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicised cases

The immediate fallout of the recent arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar, an All India Students Federation leader and president of the JNU students’ union, was the demand to abolish Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as being an abhorrent colonial legacy. The electronic and print media have reacted as if Kanhaiya Kumar has been convicted and punished under this section. The fact is that a complaint was lodged that alleges Kumar’s conduct was seditious. Does this justify a call for
the abolition of this provision? This article doesn’t discuss the correctness of the JNU arrests as the matter is in court; it only
submits that there’s a strong case to retain Section 124A.
Chapter Six of the IPC is titled “Offences against the state” and originally consisted of Sections 121-130, which included the offences of waging war against the government of India and, among other things, collecting arms with the intention of waging such war. Interestingly, Section 124A was Section 113 of Macaulay’s Draft Penal Code of 1837-39 but was inexplicably omitted when the IPC was enacted in 1860. Section 124A was inserted in 1870 by an amendment introduced by Sir James Stephen.

The section, in its original form, was invoked in the celebrated case of Queen Empress vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak in 1897. Soon thereafter, the section was redrafted and it now reads: “124A. Sedition. — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1. The expression ‘disaffection’ includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without, exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”
The Federal Court, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs The King Emperor (1942), understood the dangers of misusing this section and made it clear that the section could not be used to stifle criticism. Interestingly, this decision was rendered in 1942 and at the height of World War II. Sir Maurice Gwyer observed that the use of violent, frothy and irresponsible language in a speech cannot be termed as sedition. He said: “There is an English saying that hard words break no bones; and the wisdom of common law has long refused to regard as actionable any words which, though strictly and literally defamatory, would be regarded by reasonable men as no more than mere vulgar abuse. Abusive language, even when used about a Government, is not necessarily sedition and there are certain words and phrases which have so long become the stock-in-trade of the demagogue as almost to have lost all real meaning”.
This sensible interpretation was reversed by the Privy Council in 1947 (King Emperor vs Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao), which adopted the narrow view taken by Justice Strachey in the Tilak trial. Mercifully, in 1962, the Supreme Court restored
the view of the Federal Court while expressly holding that Section 124A was not violative of the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
This section would apply only to those activities involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public order (Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar).
The day after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, two persons raised slogans of “Khalistan zindabad” and “Raj karega Khalsa”. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, observing that the raising of some slogans a few times, which did not evoke any response and did not create any law and order problem, did not attract Section 124A. The court rightly observed that sometimes the arrest of individuals, rather than the slogans shouted, could lead to tension and a law and order problem and cautioned that over-sensitiveness could be counter-productive. Indeed, the explanations to Section 124A make it clear that criticism or disapproval of actions of the government do not amount to sedition.
The Law Commission of India had undertaken a careful re-examination of Section 124A. In its 42nd report, published in 1971, it wanted the section to be extended to include disaffection towards the Constitution of India, Parliament and state legislatures and the administration of justice. It also wanted the punishment to be reduced to a maximum of seven years. While the sentence can be restricted to seven years, there is no reason to expand the ambit of the definition. The present section has stood the test of time and the courts have restricted its application to serious acts that incite violence or create a major law and order problem.
Indeed, the call for its abolition may be incorrect. There is no data on the number of complaints that have been filed under this section in different states. What were the seditious utterances or activities? How many persons have been convicted? Without an analysis of the empirical evidence on the implementation of this section, it would be perilous to abolish it as an anachronistic colonial provision.
We cannot forget that dozens of districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution. Against the backdrop of this stark reality, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advised merely because it has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicised cases
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/section-124a-should-stay-2/#sthash.JGWfnNaY.dpuf

Section 124A should stay

It would be perilous to abolish it without analysing the empirical evidence on its implementation.

- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/section-124a-should-stay-2/#sthash.JGWfnNaY.dpuf

India’s solar plan flouts global trade rules: WTO

Domestic content restrictions on the production of solar cells and modules as part of the National Solar Mission was deemed a violation of global trade rules

World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel has struck a blow to India’s solar power programme, ruling that New Delhi violated global trade rules by imposing domestic content restrictions on the production of solar cells and modules as part of its National Solar Mission.

The ruling comes three years after the US launched a dispute against India at the WTO, complaining that its domestic content requirement (DCR) measures violated core norms of trade-related investment provisions, national treatment provisions for treating imported products on a par with domestically manufactured products, and financial subsidy rules.
The three-member panel, chaired by former New Zealand trade envoy David Walker, said India’s domestic content requirement measures “are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIMS (Trade-Related Investment Measures) and Article III:4 of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) 1994”.
The DCR measures are not “justified” under the general exceptions in Article XX (j) or Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, the panel ruled in its 140-page report.
The panel, however, did not pronounce a verdict on the financial subsidies provided by India for its solar power projects.
Its final report, which was delayed by more than two months, was issued on Wednesday after India and the US were unable to reach an agreement on the changes suggested by New Delhi to its solar power programme, according to a person familiar with the dispute.
India proposed that it would use the domestic content requirement measures for buying solar panels for its own consumption such as by the railways and defence and would not sell the power generated from such subsidized panels for commercial use.
A commerce ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the US may have rejected India’s offer because of a difference in perception and expectations.
“We have the option of going for an appeal against the ruling at WTO. It is too early. We will take a final call on the matter in due course of time,” he added.
The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said in a statement that the US has consistently made the case that India can achieve its clean energy goals faster and more cost-effectively by allowing solar technologies to be imported from the US and other producers.
“This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory ‘localisation’ policies,” USTR Michael Froman said.
Under the previous United Progressive Alliance government, India embarked on an ambitious solar power programme as part of the National Solar Mission, aimed at adding 100,000 megawatts (MW) of solar power capacity by 2022. However, the local content requirement is only for 5,000 MW each of rooftop and land-based projects where the government provides a subsidy.
The government has offered financial support of up to Rs.1 crore per MW to the implementing agency for setting up large solar capacities by placing orders with domestic manufacturers.
WTO members are not supposed to insist on national content requirements that discriminate against foreign products. Governments are also required to provide “national” treatment, under which imports must be treated on a par with domestically manufactured products.
In a confidential report issued to the US and India in August last year, a three-member dispute settlement panel headed by Walker, pronounced that New Delhi violated global trade rules by imposing local content requirements for solar cells and solar modules under the National Solar Mission, Mint reported on 27 August 2015.
Significantly, the final ruling comes at a time when there is growing international pressure for promoting green industries to address climate change. It will hinder India’s solar power programme and will hold consequences for other countries planning to embark on renewable energy programmes, according to global environmental groups such as the Sierra Club.
Environmental groups were critical of the preliminary ruling, saying it threatened the clean energy economy and undermined actions to tackle the climate crisis.
“Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis,” said Ilana Solomon, director of Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Programme, on the preliminary ruling when it was issued in August last year.
India’s national solar programme, said Solomon, “has driven dramatic growth of India’s solar capacity that will help reduce its reliance on dirty coal and spur the development of new clear energy jobs”.
“The US should be applauding India’s efforts to scale up solar energy, not turning to the WTO to strike the programme down,” she had maintained.
Global environmental pressure groups led by Sierra Club and others have repeatedly called on WTO to exit the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe.
The final ruling comes soon after the Paris climate agreement, where developing countries were promised technological and financial assistance for promoting renewable energy programmes.
At Paris, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the ambitious International Solar Alliance, with the aim of switching “sunshine nations” in tropical areas to solar energy.
The government has also scaled up its renewable energy target from 30 gigawatts (GW) by 2016-17 to 175GW by 2021-22, which could result in the abatement of 326.22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Of this 175GW, solar power will account for 100GW.

Productivity of Shipyards

As regards mechanization and productivity levels of shipyards in the country, the Central Public Sector Shipyards, CSL is sufficiently mechanised and modernised on par with good quality medium size international standards. Defence Public Sector shipyards are sufficiently mechanised and comprehensive modernisation has been undertaken to augment their capacity. About HDPEL, Government of India has decided to restructure the shipyard through joint venture with private sector shipyards.

Some Indian shipyards in the private sector lack mechanization and have low productivity levels due to lack of shipbuilding orders resulting in lack of economies of scale and hence benefits from high mechanization; low financial resources ; lack of ancillary industry support leading to delays in procurement of requisite equipment; lack of established vendors/contractors for outsourcing for hull and outfitting works; lack of concurrent design, engineering and construction capabilities to factor in changing user requirements leading to wasted efforts and reduced productivity; lack of modular construction approach resulting in less productivity at difficult confined space.

Based on the recommendations of the High Power Steering Committee (HPSC), cruise shipping policy had been approved by the Government in June, 2008. The salient features of the policy include conducive fiscal regime, development of facilities at Ports and connectivity through rail, road transport, air and metro, quick completion of immigration formalities, hassle free customs clearance, etc. The steps taken to implement the policy include the following:

• Foreign flag vessels carrying passengers have been allowed to call at Indian ports for a period of 10 years with effect from February 6, 2009 without obtaining a license from Director General of Shipping.

• Cruise Terminals are being developed in Cochin, Chennai and Mormugao Ports with the financial assistance from Ministry of Tourism.

• Major ports are providing rebates to cruised vessels calling at their ports. Mumbai Port provide rebate of 40% on Vessel Related Charges (VRC). Chennai Port provide rebate of 20% on VRC while Cochin Port provide 20% on VRC for GT 30,000 and less and 30% on VRC for GT above 30,000. At Mormugao port 50% rebate is provided on Port dues & 70% on pilotage, berth hire & anchorage charges.

• Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) has permitted Green Channel facility to all the international passengers who come onshore for tourism purposes and has also decided to permit Indian Nationals to travel from one Indian port to another Indian port in a foreign cruise ships/vessels during its domestic leg for tourism purposes.

The steps taken by the Government to rejuvenate the shipping industry in the country include the following:

• To bring parity in tax regime of Indian seafarers employed on Indian flag ships vis-à-vis those on foreign flag ships, the period of stay in India is to be counted as per the entries made in his Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC).

• Government has exempted Customs and Central Excise duty on the bunker fuel used in Indian flag vessels for transportation of EXIM, empty and domestic containers between two or more ports in India. This tax incentive will enhance Indian tonnage as well as promote use of transshipment hubs in India.

• Service Tax incidence on coastal transportation has been brought at par with road and rail in the Union Budget 2015-2016. This has reduced cost of domestic transportation through coastal shipping for shipper and encouraged use of coastal shipping as a mode of transport.

• Indian flag vessels have been given Right of First Refusal (RoFR) by removing the earlier 10% price band with respect to L1 for operation in coastal waters. Similar benefit has been extended to Indian dredgers for undertaking dredging works in non-major ports. This would help Indian flag vessels as well as dredgers to get more business.

• Facility for online application for registration, chartering permission, Multi-modal Transport Operator license and for e-payment of requisite fee has been introduced.

• Registration process for Ship Repair Units dispensed with.

• To counter cost disadvantage vis-à-vis imported ships, Government of India, has, on November 24, 2015 exempted Customs and Central Excise duties on inputs used in shipbuilding.

• Financial assistance policy for Indian shipyards has been approved for ten years commencing from April 1, 2016. All government departments or agencies including CPSUs are being instructed to provide Right of First Refusal to Indian shipyards while procuring or repairing vessels.

• Institutional Mechanism on Infrastructure has recommended grant of Infrastructure Status to shipyards.

• To bring down the cost of construction of barges, river sea vessels and port and harbor crafts and to meet demand for steel by ship and barge builders, the Government has decided that re-rolled steel obtained from re-cycling yards/ship breaking units would be certified for use in construction of these vessels.

The Maritime Agenda 2010-2020 has identified steps required to upgrade port infrastructure to provide world class facilities.

The above information was given by Minister of State for Shipping Shri Pon Radhakrishnan in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.

24 February 2016

Is there room in the budget for a big rural stimulus?

Three questions can help understand whether the budget has enough wherewithal to provide a big rural stimulus

The government has given enough signals that the distress-ridden rural sector would receive special focus in the forthcoming Budget. On Monday, a Mint reportquoted senior officials in the agriculture ministry saying that there could be a significant increase in budgetary allocations for crop insurance and irrigation. But in the backdrop of the 14th finance commission recommendations and the government’s own spending this year, three questions can help understand whether the Budget has enough wherewithal to provide a big rural stimulus.

1. How much has the government spent so far?

Finance minister Arun Jaitley recently said government spending on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) would cross his budgeted estimates for the current fiscal year. He went on to say that in doing this, his government was making a departure from the earlier practice of governments which did not honour the plan expenditure commitments made in budgets as actual spending would be less than budgeted estimates figures. An examination of latest rural sector spending figures of the central government (till December 2015) shows that while spending till December as a percentage share of budgeted estimates is the highest since 2011-12, the actual amount spent is lower than last year. Rural sector spending here has been taken to include plan expenditure of ministry of agriculture, panchayati raj and rural development.

Click here for enlarge

A similar picture holds for government spending on major rural sector welfare programmes. In its analysis of the 2015-16 Union budget, the Centre for Budgetary Governance and Accountability (CBGA) gave a break-up of allocation for four major rural welfare schemes during the 12th five year plan. According to the CBGA, these four schemes constitute bulk of the central government’s rural sector welfare expenditure. Among these, MGNREGS accounts for around 43% of the total spending. While MGNREGS spending seems to be on track with 12th Plan targets, the government would have to make extra effort to meet proposed spending for all four welfare schemes in this year’s budget, since allocations till 2015-16 budget have contributed to only 73% of the proposed spending.

Click here for enlarge

Any shortfall in the spending should be cause for more concern, as the Planning Commission approved spending anyway was much lower than what the ministry of rural development wants, says the CBGA analysis.

2. What is the share of rural/farm sector expenditure in overall spending?

One flaw with looking at allocations to individual programmes/schemes is that an increase in spending in one programme could come at the cost of another. It is safer, therefore, to look at the overall share of rural/farm sector in a budget to understand whether or not a stimulus has been provided. One way of looking at it can be to see the share of rural/farm sector plan expenditure in the government’s total plan expenditure since non-plan spending includes items like salaries. Trends in plan expenditure for the three ministries referred above show there was a marginal decline in this figure between 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Click here for enlarge

One reason for this could be a decline in the overall size of plan expenditure due to the recommendations of the 14th finance commission.

3. Untangling the tied versus untied devolution debate

Until now, budgetary policy commentators in India had their job cut out. The erstwhile Planning Commission would prepare a plan with allocations earmarked over a five-year period. Union budgets were supposed to fulfil these allocations. That situation has changed after the 14th finance commission increased the share of states in central taxes by 10 percentage points. To make up for its loss of resources, the Centre cut down on its financial support to many important Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS). Many of these CSSs had a rural/farm sector focus.

In an article published last year, Abhijit Sen, who as a part-time member gave a dissent note to the finance commission recommendations, raised this point. Sen argued that cutting or stopping central funding for programmes such as the Backward Region Grants Fund and Normal Central Assistance might result in some states reporting a net loss of resources under the new devolution structure. He also added that states might not be inclined to use their new untied transfers to sustain such schemes, which would lead to a reduction in the quantum of available resources to the Centre.

To be sure, central funding has been left unchanged for important schemes such as the MGNREGS. However, according to a 2015 Economic and Political Weekly paper by Pinaki Chakraborty at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, central government’s net support to CSS has reduced by around Rs. 67,000 crore in the 2015-16 budget, in comparison to 2014-15 revised estimate figures.

Click here for enlarge

To sum up, two points can be made. One, whether or not the government has actually given a big stimulus to the farm sector in the previous years is a question which should be answered by looking at the larger spending picture rather than changes in budgetary allocations for individual schemes. Two, the government might argue that it does not have much elbow room to increase spending in the wake of increased tax devolutions to the states.

In that case, whether or not this budget will lead to an increase in farm sector spending can only be answered when a detailed analysis of state budgets is available. One thing might clinch the debate though: Jaitley announcing some new rural schemes with sizeable funding to be wholly financed by the Centre.

In the interests of public order

Systemic flaws enable political parties to selectively enforce fundamental rights to further their own interests

There has been much furore about the home ministry’s recent decision to arrest Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students on the ground of sedition for allegedly chanting “anti-national” slogans. Though the move is not without supporters, many have criticized the arrest on grounds such as the fact that there is no law criminalizing anti-national activities, that the controversial offence of sedition has been misapplied or that it amounts to a blatant attack on free speech by the current government.

While these are all certainly valid arguments, they fail to address the larger pattern that is at the heart of the issue—a pattern that is not peculiar to one political party. After all, sedition isn’t the only law restricting the freedom of speech and the case of Aseem Trivedi has shown that the misapplication of sedition is not limited to the current dispensation.

Systemic flaws exist in Indian polity that enable political parties to selectively enforce fundamental rights to further their own interests when in power. The Constitution permits “reasonable restrictions” on these rights—and we are now at an unfortunate stage where the restrictions are being prioritized over their corresponding rights. B.R. Ambedkar was aware of such a possibility when he said that a good constitution could be undermined in the hands of bad people, and that it was possible to pervert the Constitution without amending it but by administrating it in a way that is inconsistent with its spirit. It is time the Indian state, whether it be via the judiciary, elected government or otherwise, re-examined its relationship with fundamental rights and their restrictions by asking: Why do we restrict our fundamental freedoms in the first place?

Article 19 of the Constitution is one of the most important fundamental rights as it is the one that grants basic freedoms such as the rights to free speech, to assemble peaceably and to work. However, the Constitution lists various reasons for Parliament to create “reasonable restrictions” for each of these different rights.

The reasons for restricting the right to free speech were significantly expanded by the 1st amendment to include restrictions “in the interests of” issues like the security of the state and public order. In 1962, the Supreme Court held that in the interests of public order, speech or behaviour could constitutionally be declared seditious if violence or a call to violence was involved (Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar).

However, this position has rarely been followed by governments eager to silence dissenting or critical voices. While such charges of sedition do not hold up to scrutiny by courts, the arduous process of fighting legal battles in India is in itself a form of punishment. Not everyone possesses the bare modicum of legal knowledge, time or resources required to challenge these charges through multiple levels of courts. Furthermore, “public order” is not just used to punish dissenting opinions but prevent them. Governments have prevented assemblies or screening of films on the grounds that the content is objectionable to a community and will lead to a law and order problem. Such decisions have worryingly become the norm despite the fact that the Supreme Court has stated that such a response “would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation” and that it is “the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed to handle the hostile audience problem” (S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram).

However, public order and the other reasonable restrictions have now become ends in and of themselves. Home minister Rajnath Singh promised the strongest possible action against anti-India slogans, which he qualified as trying to raise questions on the country’s unity and integrity. “Sovereignty and integrity of India” is one of the reasonable restrictions listed in the Constitution. But prioritizing restrictions over rights flies in the face of the very purpose of statehood. The reason that people willingly become part of a state is because its structure prevents a life of chaos and anarchy where survival is the primary concern. Granting the state a monopoly of violence enables it to secure law and order in a society so that citizens can pursue their goals and ambitions without fear. Ideas like the “security of the state”, “sovereignty and integrity of India” and “public order” are permissible restrictions not because they are worthy goals but because they are necessary ingredients in granting this sense of security to citizens.

It is also for this sense of security that fundamental rights exist in the first place. They are intended to secure a democratic and republic society where people can pursue their lives without fearing undue reprisal from the state or their fellow citizens. They are, among other things, intended to prevent arbitrariness and the overreach of government power by securing the rule of law. They are rarely absolute but generally are restricted only where their free exercise undermines other people’s rights or this sense of security. Reasonable restrictions were written into the Constitution only to avoid leaving the limits of fundamental rights to the sole discretion of judges.

Reasonable restrictions were thus intended to set clear parameters with which to limit fundamental rights so that people could exercise them harmoniously. However, reasonable restrictions have ended up providing the state a ready-made excuse to avoid building the capacity to enforce fundamental rights. In the name of public order, the police are more likely to refuse permission for events than provide increased security.

When the state dodges its duty to enforce fundamental rights, noxious elements of society take advantage by browbeating people who don’t follow the line they set. The ostensible objection that the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) had against the rally on 9 February was that they “feared” it might “disrupt” peace on campus—that is, it threatens “public order”.