03 July 2019: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

A. GS1 Related

B. GS2 Related

Category: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

1. Govt. bats for sharing biological research data

Background:

• The Central government recently released a draft National Education Policy 2019, a report prepared by a committee headed by space scientist K. Kasturirangan.
• Its reference to mandatory teaching of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking States set off a political storm in Tamil Nadu, which is traditionally opposed to the compulsory study of Hindi.
• The draft had a sentence on flexibility on choice of language for school students. Those who wished to change the three languages may do so in Grade 6, it said. However, this could be done so long as the study of three languages by students in Hindi-speaking States would continue to include Hindi and English, and one of the modern Indian languages from other parts of India, while the study of languages by students in the non-Hindi-speaking states would include the regional language, Hindi and English.

Reaction from Tamil Nadu:

• The draft evoked a hostile response from political leaders in Tamil Nadu, who were quick to dub the proposal as an attempt to impose Hindi on the unwilling State.
• Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam president M.K. Stalin warned that his party would be forced to launch another agitation against Hindi imposition.
• It is important to note that the State had witnessed massive protests against earlier attempts to impose Hindi in 1937 and 1965.
• The Centre sought to defuse the situation by first reminding them that it was only a draft, and that the policy was yet to be finalised.
• Subsequently, the reference to Hindi was dropped by the committee. It reworked the sentence to the effect that students could change their language preference in Grades 6 or 7, so long as they are able to still demonstrate proficiency in three languages (one at the literature level) in their modular Board examination some time during secondary school.

Analysis:

• It is important to note that the State of Tamil Nadu has been traditionally opposed to any attempt to introduce Hindi as a compulsory language of learning or administration.
• The origin of the linguistic row, however, goes back to the debate on official language.
• In the Constituent Assembly, Hindi was voted as the official language by a single vote.
• However, it added that English would continue to be used as an associate official language for 15 years.
• The Official Languages Act came into effect on the expiry of this 15-year period in 1965.
• This was the background in which the anti-Hindi agitation took place. However, as early as in 1959, Jawaharlal Nehru had given an assurance in Parliament that English would continue to be in use as long as non-Hindi speaking people wanted it.

A Closer Look at the Formula:

• It is commonly understood that the three languages referred to are Hindi, English and the regional language of the respective States.
• Though the teaching of Hindi across the country was part of a long-standing system, it was crystallised into a policy in an official document only in the National Policy on Education, 1968.
• This document said regional languages were already in use as the media of education in the primary and secondary stages.
• In addition, it said that at the secondary stage, State governments should adopt and vigorously implement the three-language formula, which includes the study of a modern Indian language, preferably one of the southern languages, apart from Hindi and English in the Hindi-speaking States. While, in the ‘non-Hindi speaking States’, Hindi should be studied along with the regional language and English.
• It also went on to add that suitable courses in Hindi and/or English should also be available in universities and colleges with a view to improving the proficiency of students in these languages up to the prescribed university standards.

What did the NPE 1968 say on the promotion of Hindi?

• On promotion of Hindi, the NPE 1968 said that every effort should be made to promote the language and that in developing Hindi as the link language, due care should be taken to ensure that it will serve, as provided for in Article 351 of the Constitution, as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India.
• It also went on to add that the establishment, in non-Hindi States, of colleges and other institutions of higher education which use Hindi, as the medium of education should be encouraged.
• Incidentally, the NPE 1986 made no change in the 1968 policy on the three-language formula and the promotion of Hindi and repeated it verbatim.

Position Taken up by the State of Tamil Nadu:

• Leaders in Tamil Nadu are often at pains to emphasise that they do not oppose the voluntary learning of Hindi and cite the unhindered work of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, established in Chennai by Mahatma Gandhi in 1918.
• The institution imparts Hindi teaching at various levels to anyone who enrols for its programme.
• Also, there is no bar on private schools, most of them affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, offering Hindi.
• The State has been following the two-language formula for many decades, under which only English and one regional language are compulsory in schools.
• In 2006, facing criticism that many manage to avoid learning Tamil by opting for Hindi or Sanskrit in private schools, the State government enacted The Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act under which Tamil has to be compulsorily learnt in schools operating in the State.
• The State is also opposed to the establishment of Navodaya schools by the Centre in any part of Tamil Nadu.
• An important aspect of the opposition to Hindi imposition is that many in Tamil Nadu see it as a fight to retain English.
• English is seen as a bulwark against Hindi as well as the language of empowerment and knowledge.
• There is an entrenched belief that the continued attempts to impose Hindi are essentially driven by those who want to eliminate English as the country’s link language.

What’s in the news?

• In a recent development, the Indian National Congress party’s chief whip in the Lok Sabha, Kodikunnil Suresh, said that it was technically eligible for the post of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and added that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should accord it the position if he was sincere about his comments on the Opposition.

Analysis:

A look at the norms:

• By norms, the Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the largest party that has not less than a tenth of the total strength of the House.
• It is important to note that this is only a norm and not mandated by law.
• The total strength of the Lok Sabha is 545, so any party that has 55 members can get the post. The Congress, which is the second largest party in the House after the BJP, has only 52 members, which is three short of the figure.
• The Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 only says that the largest Opposition party should get the post.
• The “Leader of the Opposition” is the “Leader in that House of the party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be,” says the Act.

Importance of the role of the Leader of Opposition:

• It is important to note that the leader of the opposition is one of the key parliamentary functionaries whose role, though not defined in any rule, is of very great importance in the functioning of a legislature.
• As a matter of fact, he or she is invariably a senior leader representing the main opposition party in the legislature.

(a) Example from Britain:

• In the British parliament, the leader of opposition is referred to as the ‘shadow prime minister’, so called because he or she is always in a state of readiness to take over the government if the incumbent government falls.
• There, the leader of opposition forms a shadow cabinet too. Thus, the role of this parliamentary functionary under the Westminster tradition is not only to oppose and criticise the government, but also to take the responsibility of forming an alternate government should it become possible to do so in the event of the fall of the existing one.

(b) Examining the Post of the Leader of Opposition:

The leader of the opposition in the houses of Indian parliament is a statutory post.

• This post is defined in the Salaries and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977 as simply the leader of the numerically biggest party in opposition to the government and recognised as such by the speaker/chairman.
• In this Act, the “Leader of the Opposition”, in relation to either House of Parliament, means that member of the Council of States or the House of the People, as the case may be, who is, for the time being, the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be.
• It is important to note that where there are two or more parties in opposition to the Government, in the Council of States or in the House of the People having the same numerical strength, the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as the case may be, shall, having regard to the status of the parties, recognise any one of the Leaders of such parties as the Leader of the Opposition for the purposes of this section and such recognition shall be final and conclusive.

(c) Procedure for recognising the leader of Opposition:

• The procedure for recognising the leader of the opposition is well laid down.
• On a request being made by the numerically largest party in the opposition that its designated leader be recognised as the leader of the opposition, the speaker, after the request is examined by her or his secretariat, accords recognition to that person.
• The point to note here is that the statute gives the numerically largest party in the opposition the right to have a leader recognised as leader of the opposition by the speaker.

(d) Is the Indian National Congress the rightful claimant?

• In the new Lok Sabha, with 52 members, the Congress is the largest party in the opposition, and is therefore the rightful claimant to this post under the law.
• There is no ambiguity about it as the law is absolutely clear on this point.
• Experts opine that it is hence very surprising to hear from the media that the Congress will not get the post of the leader of opposition this time too since its strength in the Lok Sabha is less than 10% of the total number of MPs in the house. The law does not contain any such condition.
• Since the leader of the opposition is a statutory post, one needs to only look into the concerned law to find out who can become the leader of the opposition and how he or she is to be recognised etc.
• There is no room for ifs and buts, under the Salaries and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, the duty of the speaker is to recognise the eligible person as leader of the opposition.
• When a request comes from the largest party in opposition, the speaker is legally bound to recognise the leader of that party as the leader of the opposition.

(e) Can the Speaker exercise discretion in the matter?

• Since the speaker is performing a statutory duty in recognising the leader of the opposition, she or he cannot exercise any discretion in the matter. This needs to be underlined again: No power of discretion is vested in the speaker in the matter of recognising the leader of the opposition.
• Recognising a member of the house as leader of opposition is not a political or arithmetical decision, but a statutory decision.
• The speaker has to merely ascertain whether the party claiming this post is the largest party in the opposition.
• Important questions arise: When the law is clear, why is there still this confusion and disinformation on the subject?

(f) Looking back at the historical context:

• Way back in the 1950s, the speaker started the practice of recognising parliamentary parties as ‘parties’ and ‘groups’ for the limited purpose of allotting seats in the house, time for participating in the debates, rooms in Parliament House etc.
• He issued a direction under which a party is recognised as such only if it had 10% of the strength of the house. A party which had less than 10% members was categorised as a ‘group’.
• But there was no reference to the leader of the opposition in the above direction.
• It would appear that the people who administered the house rules and directions acted under the erroneous belief that only a party having 10% members can claim the post of leader of opposition.
• Whatever the origin of this practice, there was no scope for confusion after the enactment of the Salaries and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act in 1977.
• That law made the post of leader of the opposition a statutory post, governed by the statute. Directions or rules made by the speaker cannot override a law made by parliament.
• In any case, after the enactment of the 10th Schedule of the constitution which brought in anti-defection provisions, every party – irrespective of the number of members it has in the house – is considered a ‘party’.  Even a one-member party is a party in the house.
• Thus, the categorisation of parliamentary parties as ‘parties’ and ‘groups’ by the speaker became irrelevant and hence this practice became obsolete.
• Therefore, to say that the Congress cannot claim the post of leader of the opposition because it does not have at least 10% of the membership of the house is devoid of any merit.

Looking at the example from the Delhi Assembly:

• In the Delhi assembly, the only opposition party, namely the Bharatiya Janata Party, got the post of leader of the opposition although it had only three members in an assembly of 70 members.
• Speaker Ram Niwas Goyal acted under the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Salaries and Allowances) Act, 2001, which has a provision identical to the central law.
• The Delhi speaker was absolutely right in recognising a member of the three-member legislature party of the BJP as leader of the opposition, as that party, being the numerically biggest party in opposition to the AAP government in the assembly, was legally entitled to the post.

Concluding Remarks:

• Finally, it is important to note that recognising a member of the house as leader of opposition is a statutory decision. No political consideration can be brought into it.

What’s in the news?

• The Supreme Court recently sought the response of the Government of India on a special leave petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh against a decision of the Delhi High Court, rejecting his challenge to amendments enacted to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) from 2015 onwards, through Finance Acts as ‘Money Bills’.
• A Bench led by Justice S.A. Bobde issued notice to the government on the petition, represented by senior advocate P. Chidambaram.

Mechanism of amendment adopted:

• Chidambaram submitted that before 2015, the PMLA was amended on various occasions through Ordinary Bills as defined under Article 109 of the Constitution.
• However, post 2015, the Act has been amended through Money Bills.
• It is important to note that a Money Bill is deemed to contain only provisions dealing with all or any of the matters under clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1), largely including the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund of India and taxation.
• In other words, a Money Bill is restricted only to the specified matters and cannot include within its ambit any other matter.
• In the High Court, Mr. Chidambaram had pointed out that amendments were made in the years 2015, 2016 and 2018, which were per se unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.
• Justice Bobde prima facie agreed, during the short hearing, that as per the Constitution Bench decision in the Justice K.S. Puttuswamy case — dealing with the Aadhaar Act — the court had held that the decision of the Speaker on whether a Bill was a Money Bill or not, was justiciable.

What’s in the news?

• The All India Trinamool Congress recently accused the BJP government of bypassing the rules of Parliament to try to push its agenda.
• Party leader in the Rajya Sabha Derek O’Brien said the government had listed the Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 without giving adequate time for the Opposition members to study it.

Looking at the Central Education Institutions (Reservations in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019:

• The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated on March 7, 2019.
• The Ordinance provides for reservation of teaching positions in central educational institutions for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and the socially and educationally backward classes.
• Reservation of posts: The Ordinance provides for reservation of posts in direct recruitment of teachers (out of the sanctioned strength) in central educational institutions.
• For the purpose of such reservation, a central educational institution will be regarded as one unit.
• Coverage and exceptions: The Ordinance will apply to ‘central educational institutions’ which include universities set up by Acts of Parliament, institutions deemed to be a university, institutions of national importance, and institutions receiving aid from the central government.
• However, it excludes certain institutions of excellence, research institutions, and institutions of national and strategic importance which have been specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance. It also excludes minority education institutions.
• The Bill seeks to provide for reservation in direct recruitment of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Educationally Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections for the teaching cadre in Central educational institutions.
• The Bill will replace the ordinance promulgated in this regard.

What’s in the news?

• The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2019, was passed by a voice vote in the Lok Sabha recently.
• The Bill provides for supersession of the Medical Council of India for a period of two years with effect from September 26, 2018.
• The Bill was introduced by Health Minister Harsh Vardhan to replace an ordinance promulgated on February 21^st, 2019.
• The government will soon come out with a National Medical Commission (NMC) Bill to usher in comprehensive reforms in the medical education sector.

Analysis:

Quick Look at the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2019:

• The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha by Mr. Harshvardhan, Minister of Health and Family Welfare on June 27, 2019.
• The Bill amends the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and replaces the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2019 which was promulgated on February 21, 2019. The Act sets up the Medical Council of India (MCI) which regulates medical education and practice. Provisions of this Bill will be effective from September 26, 2018.
• Supersession of the MCI: The 1956 Act provides for supersession of the MCI and its reconstitution within a period of three years from the date of its supersession.
• In the interim period, the Act requires the central government to constitute a Board of Governors, to exercise the powers of the MCI.
• The Bill amends the Act to reduce the time period for supersession of the MCI from three years to two years.
• The Act provides for the Board of Governors to consist of up to seven members including persons of eminence in medical education, appointed by the central government. The Bill amends this provision to increase the strength of the Board from seven members to 12 members.
• Further, it allows for persons with proven administrative capacity and experience to be selected in the Board.
• The Bill provides for the Board of Governors to be assisted by a Secretary General appointed by the central government.

Key issues regarding the regulation of medical education and practice:

• Several experts have examined the functioning of the MCI and suggested a different structure and governance system for its regulatory powers. Some of the issues raised by them include:

(a) Separation of regulatory powers

• Over the years, the MCI has been criticised for its slow and unwieldy functioning owing to the concentration and centralisation of all regulatory functions in one single body.
• This is because the Council regulates medical education as well as medical practice.
• In this context, there have been recommendations that all professional councils like the MCI, should be divested of their academic functions, which should be subsumed under an apex body for higher education to be called the National Commission for Higher Education and Research.
• This way there would be a separation between the regulation of medical education from regulation of medical practice.

(b) Looking at Recommendations by an Expert Committee:

• As a matter of fact, an Expert Committee led by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury (2015), recommended structurally reconfiguring the MCI’s functions and suggested the formation of a National Medical Commission through a new Act.
• Here, the National Medical Commission would be an umbrella body for supervision of medical education and oversight of medical practice.
• It will have four segregated verticals under it to look at: (i) under-graduate medical education, (ii) post-graduate medical education, (iii) accreditation of medical institutions, and (iv) the registration of doctors.

(c) Composition of MCI

• With most members of the MCI being elected, the NITI Aayog Committee (2016) noted the conflict of interest where the regulated elect the regulators, preventing the entry of skilled professionals for the job.
• The Committee recommended that a framework must be set up under which regulators are appointed through an independent selection process instead.

(d) Fee Regulation :

• The NITI Aayog Committee (2016) recommended that a medical regulatory authority, such as the MCI, should not engage in fee regulation of private colleges.
• Such regulation of fee by regulatory authorities may encourage an underground economy for medical education seats with capitation fees (any payment in excess of the regular fee), in regulated private colleges.
• Further, the Committee stated that having a fee cap may discourage the entry of private colleges limiting the expansion of medical education in the country.

(e) Professional conduct:

• The Standing Committee on Health (2016) observed that the present focus of the MCI is only on licensing of medical colleges.
• There is no emphasis given to the enforcement of medical ethics in education and on instances of corruption noted within the MCI.
• In light of this, the Committee recommended that the areas of medical education and medical practice should be separated in terms of enforcement of the appropriate ethics for each of these stages.

What does the National Medical Commission, 2017 Bill seek do to?

• The 2017 Bill sets up the National Medical Commission (NMC) as an umbrella regulatory body with certain other bodies under it.
• The NMC will subsume the MCI and will regulate the medical education and practice in India.
• Under the Bill, states will establish their respective State Medical Councils within three years.
• These Councils will have a role similar to the NMC, at the state level.

Functions of the NMC include:

• laying down policies for regulating medical institutions and medical professionals,
• assessing the requirements of human resources and infrastructure in healthcare,
• ensuring compliance by the State Medical Councils with the regulations made under the Bill, and
• framing guidelines for determination of fee for up to 40% of the seats in the private medical institutions and deemed universities which are governed by the Bill.

What’s in the news?

• In a recent development, the U.S. Senate has passed a legislative provision that brings India at par with America’s NATO allies and countries such as Israel and South Korea for increasing defence cooperation.
• The National Defense Authorisation Act, or NDAA, for the fiscal year 2020, which contained such a proposal, was passed by the U.S. Senate recently.
• The amendment provides for increased U.S.-India defence cooperation in the Indian Ocean in the areas of humanitarian assistance, counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and maritime security.

Some perspectives and inferences from the defence budget passed by the Senate:

• The Senate opines that the United States should strengthen and enhance its major defence partnership with India.
• The Senate listed six specific actions it wanted US President Donald Trump’s Administration to take.
• The Senate directed the Trump administration to explore additional steps to implement the major defence partner designation to better facilitate interoperability, information sharing, and appropriate technology transfers and to undertake strategic initiatives to help develop the defence capabilities of India.
• The Senate also urged for increasing the frequency and scope of exchanges between senior civilian officials and military officers to support the development and implementation of the major defence partnership.
• While India and the US have been holding joint exercises in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, the Senate urged to hold more such exercises and conduct them in the Persian Gulf as well.
• In recognition of the shared democratic values and commitment to free navigation, another suggestion in the budget document is to increase engagement with India in multilateral frameworks to promote regional security and defend shared values and common interests in the rules-based order.
• It also said that the quadrilateral dialogue among the US, India, Japan and Australia should be enhanced.

C. GS3 Related

Nothing here for today!!!

Nothing here for today!!!

Category: ECONOMY

1. Not by wishful thinking

Q1. Consider the following statements:

Q2. Consider the following statements:

Q3. Consider the following statements:

Q4. Consider the following statements regarding the Central Education Institutions 
(Reservations in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019: