THE SOCIAL ISSUES

1. WHY ARE TRIBALS OF RAJASTHAN AND GUJARAT DEMANDING A SEPARATE STATE OF BHIL PRADESH?

THE CONTEXT: The Bharatiya Tribal Party (BTP), a political party based in Gujarat, envisions Bhil Pradesh as a separate state carved out of 39 districts spread over four states: 16 in Gujarat, 10 in Rajasthan, seven in Madhya Pradesh, and six in Maharashtra.

THE EXPLANATION:

What is ‘Bhil Pradesh’?

• The Bhartiya Tribal Party (BTP), a political party based in Gujarat, envisions Bhil Pradesh as a separate state carved out of 39 districts spread over four states: 16 in Gujarat, 10 in Rajasthan, seven in Madhya Pradesh, and six in Maharashtra.
• Bhil social reformer and spiritual leader Govind Guru first raised the demand for a separate state for tribals back in 1913 after the Mangarh massacre. The massacre, which took place six years before Jallianwala Bagh and is sometimes referred to as the “Adivasi Jallianwala”, saw hundreds of Bhil tribals being killed by British forces on November 17, 1913, in the hills of Mangarh on the border of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Post-Independence, the demand for Bhil Pradesh was raised repeatedly.

But why do the tribals want a separate state of their own?

• Earlier, the Dungarpur, Banswara, Udaipur region in Rajasthan and Gujarat, MP, etc. was part of a single entity. But post-Independence, the tribal majority regions were divided by the political parties, so that the tribals don’t organise and unite.
• over the decades, several Union governments brought various “laws, benefits, schemes, and committee reports” on tribals, but went slow on their execution and implementation.
• “There were various measures such as the protection of tribal interests through the Fifth Schedule under Article 244(1) of the Constitution, but most of these were mere assurances by the ruling party,
• The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. “The law was enacted in 1996. The Rajasthan government adopted the law in 1999 and came out with its Rules in 2011. But even in my village Paldeval in Dungarpur, 25 years on, people don’t even know about the law. Even the MLAs and ministers don’t have proper knowledge about the law.”

 

2. SUPREME COURT RECOGNISES SEX WORK AS A ‘PROFESSION’

THE CONTEXT: The apex court says police should neither interfere nor take criminal action against adult and consenting sex workers.

THE EXPLANATION:

• In a significant order recognising sex work as a “profession” whose practitioners are entitled to dignity and equal protection under law, the Supreme Court has directed that police should neither interfere nor take criminal action against adult and consenting sex workers.
• “It need not be gainsaid that notwithstanding the profession, every individual in this country has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court observed.
• “Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law. Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of ‘age’ and ‘consent’. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action,” a three-judge Bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao directed in an order which was passed after invoking special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• The Bench ordered that sex workers should not be “arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised” whenever there is a raid on any brothel, “since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful”.
• A child of a sex worker should not be separated from the mother merely on the ground that she is in the sex trade, the court held. “Basic protection of human decency and dignity extends to sex workers and their children,” the court noted.
• Further, if a minor is found living in a brothel or with sex workers, it should not be presumed that the child was trafficked.
• “In case the sex worker claims that he/she is her son/daughter, tests can be done to determine if the claim is correct and if so, the minor should not be forcibly separated,” the court-ordered.
• The court ordered the police to not discriminate against sex workers who lodge a criminal complaint, especially if the offence committed against them is of a sexual nature. Sex workers who are victims of sexual assault should be provided every facility including immediate medico-legal care.
• The Centre and States must involve sex workers or their representatives to reform laws, the court suggested.

 

THE POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

3. INDIA MUST SHIFT THE DISCOURSE ON ABORTION RIGHTS

THE CONTEXT: It is not just a family planning and maternal health issue, but also a sexual health and reproductive rights issue

THE EXPLANATION:

• Our public health journeys started with witnessing maternal deaths in India. One of us, on her first clinical rotation, saw a woman die of sepsis, and infection in the blood, due to unsafe backstreet abortion. And the other, during her rural health internship in Uttar Pradesh, witnessed a pregnant woman die on a wooden hand-pulled cart because she was unable to reach the hospital in time. The images of these two women with their swollen abdomen and pale, dying faces still haunt us, as we reflect on the privileges we enjoy as women belonging to a certain class and caste in India.
• Women, pregnant people and transgender persons in India struggle every day to exert their choice about birthing and their bodily autonomy. Yet, despite this bleak reality, netizens on social media in India claim that the country is more progressive than the U.S. on abortion rights because we have the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”). Such a self-congratulatory attitude is neither in good faith nor is it factually correct.
• According to the World Health Organization, six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in induced abortion. Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, almost all of which (97%) take place in developing countries. As per a nationally representative study published in PLOS One journal in 2014, abortions account for 10% of maternal deaths in India.
• The recent round of the National Family Health Survey 2019-2021, shows that 3% of all pregnancies in India result in abortion. More than half (53%) of abortions in India are performed in the private sector, whereas only 20% are performed in the public sector — partly because public facilities often lack abortion services. More than a quarter of abortions (27%) are performed by the woman herself at home.
• In another a fact-finding study published in The Lancet in 2018, 73% of all abortions in India in 2015 were medication abortions, and even though these may have been safe — many of these are illegal as per the MTP Act, if they occur without the approval of a registered medical practitioner. Another 5% of all abortions were outside of health facilities with methods other than medication abortion.
• These risky abortions are performed by untrained people under unhygienic conditions using damaging methods such as insertion of objects, ingestion of various substances, abdominal pressure, etc. A recent study found that sex-selective abortions in India could lead to 6.8 million fewer girls being born between 2017 to 2030.
• Many may be unaware of these disturbing statistics and facts. But we all know of at least one adolescent girl among our family or friends or networks who had to travel to another city in order to find a ‘non-judgmental’ obstetrician or who had to arrange money to access abortion in the private sector. Or, we may have heard of someone who has aborted a female foetus because the family wanted a son; or know of a mother who escaped the pressure of such forced abortion because she did not want to lose her pregnancy.
• The MTP Act, first enacted in 1971 and then amended in 2021, certainly makes ‘medical termination of pregnancy’ legal in India under specific conditions. However, this Act is framed from a legal standpoint to primarily protect medical practitioners because under the Indian Penal Code, “induced miscarriage” is a criminal offence. This premise points to a lack of choice and bodily autonomy of women and rests the decision of abortion solely on the doctor’s opinion. The MTP Act also only mentions ‘pregnant woman’, thus failing to recognise that transgender persons and others who do not identify as women can become pregnant.
• Moreover, the acceptance of abortion in Indian society is situated in the context of population control and family planning. But, most importantly, after more than 50 years of the MTP Act, women and transgender persons face major obstacles in accessing safe abortion care.
• These are seven examples: First, they may not even be aware that abortion is legal or know where to obtain one safely; second, since the MTP Act does not recognise abortion as a choice, they need the approval of medical professionals even in the first few weeks of the pregnancy; third, unmarried and transgender people continue to face stigma and can be turned away from health facilities, forcing them to resort to unsafe care; fourth, mandatory reporting requirements under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Bill (POCSO), 2011 law against child sexual offences, impact privacy and hinder access of adolescents to safe abortion services; fifth, many are still coerced into agreeing to a permanent or long-term contraceptive method as a prerequisite for getting abortion services; sixth, health-care providers may impose their own morality by insisting on ‘husbands’ or ‘parental’ consent for abortion.
• Even women seeking abortion care in health facilities are often mistreated and not provided medications for pain relief; seventh, despite laws prohibiting sex determination, the illegal practice persists. The mushrooming of unregulated ultrasound clinics in India continues to facilitate the illegal practice of sex determination, resulting in unsafe abortions and female foeticide.
• It is a testament to class and caste divides when netizens talk of being ‘progressive’ when, 50 years after the MTP Act, women continue to die due to unsafe abortions. Passing one law and assuming the job is done is far from “progressive” when so many face a lack of access, systemic barriers, social norms and cultural preferences, and even criminal liability.
• There is an urgent need in our country to shift the discourse on abortions from just being a family planning and maternal health issue to one of a sexual health and reproductive rights issue. The situation in India shows that one law alone is insufficient and we must raise the bar on reproductive justice.
• We must improve our health systems to ensure good quality and respectful abortion care. As the focus on abortion rights in the U.S. rages, we call upon all to self-reflect and to stand in solidarity with people in the U.S. and other places where reproductive rights are in jeopardy. Reproductive injustice anywhere is a threat to the lives of people everywhere.

 

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY

4. PRIORITISE RESIDUE-FREE FARMING OVER ORGANIC FARMING

THE CONTEXT: Over the past few years, there has been a paradigm shift in consumer preferences. Indian buyers are becoming increasingly health-conscious and watchful of the food they consume. In light of this trend, two modes of farming — residue-free and organic, have become increasingly popular.

THE EXPLANATION:

• Simply put, residue-free farming techniques entail the protection and growth improvement of seedlings and plants by using organically procured bio-fertilizers and biocides.
• The produce is also grown using synthetic pesticides, which are applied at predetermined intervals so that the residue is not present in enormous quantities, conforming to the (MRL) Maximum Residue Level.
• Organic farming, on the other hand, is an agricultural system that relies on pest controls and bio-fertilizers that are obtained from animal and plant waste. It even involves the plantation of nitrogen-fixing cover crops.

The consumption factor

• Residue-free farming eliminates the shortcomings of organic farming techniques. It is essential to promote residue-free over organic farming for the following reasons:
• Research now reveals that there are no clear indicators to suggest that organic produce offers a higher nutritional value when compared to fruits and vegetables grown using other techniques.
• Residue-free farming practices have been successful in overcoming this downside. Since it does not involve any toxin throughout the production process, the fruits and vegetables, thus produced, are best for those with allergies and other dietary restrictions.
• Their overall nutritional value and quality are high. Despite the obvious benefits, farmers in India do not fully embrace residue-free farming, which is mostly neglected by buyers and sellers in the local market.
• Several State governments have recognised the importance of residue-free produce. The ₹2,200-crore State of Maharashtra Agribusiness and Rural Transformation (SMART) project plans to supply the urban population of Pune with residue-free produce.

The production factor

• According to a study, the yield capacity of organic farming methods is so low that relying solely on these techniques will be insufficient to meet the demands of a constantly rising population. Further, the production of organic items is expensive, and in some instances, the mark-up of these produces is as high as 40 percent. Residue-free techniques, on the other hand, are economical, and they do not hamper production quantity.
• It makes use of modern practices like poly-houses, grafting, bio-fertiliser management, and rainwater harvesting. The Centre has launched the All India Network Project on Pesticide Residues (AINP-PR) to combat pesticide contamination in several food commodities. Numerous agritech players are also collaborating with farmers to produce residue-free fruits and vegetables.

The environmental factor

• Traditional farming practices depended largely on chemical fertilisers and pesticides. These substances are not only detrimental for consumers but also impoverish the quality of the surrounding environment. For instance, they lead to soil degradation, water pollution and loss of aquatic life, among others. Though organic farming eradicates this problem, the cost of doing so is very high. The yield is insufficient. Residue-free practices entail minimal or no usage of chemicals. They do not hamper any other aspect of farming.
• As the name suggests, it leaves no harmful traces behind. To instill a culture of food safety in the country, FSSAI has introduced a list of crop contaminants and their acceptable levels. According to regulation, the certified levels of mentioned elements cannot be breached during production.

Trade and international standards

• India apart from its domestic consumption also caters to international fresh food demand. However, Indian goods face rejection because they fail to fall under the international Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). For example, the EU refused consignments of table grapes of India as they failed to fall under their strict MRL. In 2020, the crops that faced issues on the international front included chillies, basmati rice and sesame seeds. Developed countries encourage and promote residue-free crops. Good agricultural practices, as well as well-defined MRL standards, are used to ensure residue-free produce, and the slightest deviation from their pre-set parameters renders the entire consignment useless.
• To make indigenous produce more competitive in the export market, FSSAI has issued a set of MRLs for the compliance of domestic producers. These standards are set after considering the global requirements.
• The subcontinent’s focus on residue-free and clean produce has seen a dramatic increase in recent years. Apart from the government and its subsidiary bodies, a plethora of agri-tech players have also entered the picture to spread awareness. Many private players are leveraging technology to empower farmers, streamline the supply chain, incorporate end-to-end traceability and minimise wastage through residue-free cultivation.

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

5. WHAT IS THE SERVICE CHARGE LEVIED BY RESTAURANTS ON CUSTOMERS?

THE CONTEXT: The Centre has called a meeting of restaurant owners over service charges levied by them on customers. The meeting, called by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA) under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, will be held on June 2, 2022, with the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI).

THE EXPLANATION:

• The ministry wrote a letter to NRAI – the umbrella restaurant body – saying the restaurants are collecting service charges from consumers by default, even though the collection of any such charge is voluntary and at the discretion of consumers and not mandatory as per law.
• A restaurant bill in India comprises food charge (from the menu), with an addition of service charge (anywhere between 5 to 15 percent) and a 5 percent GST on this amount (IGST+SGST). This is for all kinds of standalone restaurants. In case a restaurant is located inside a hotel wherein the room rate is upwards of Rs 7,500 (mostly in case of five-stars), the GST would be 18 percent. While the GST is a mandatory component as per law, it is the service charge which is supposed to be optional. It is the equivalent of what is known as gratuity around the world, or tip, in casual parlance.
• Most restaurants decide on the service charge on their own, and print it at the bottom of the menu with an asterisk. It is this component that has come under dispute from time to time, with consumers arguing they are not bound to pay it.
• The issue, as per the Ministry, is that almost all restaurants have put service charge (fixed at their own accord) as a default billing option, and if a consumer is aware that it is not compulsory and wants it removed or wants to tip the server directly, the onus is on them to convince the management why they don’t want to pay it.
• The department says they received several complaints saying it leads to public embarrassment and spoils the dining experience since at the end of it, they either pay the charge quietly and exit the place feeling cheated or have to try hard to get it removed.
• Also, there is no transparency as to where this charge goes. The officials also say that collecting service charge on their own and paying GST on it to the government doesn’t make it authorised.

6. APEX COURT’S RULING ON GST IS A WATERSHED

THE CONTEXT: The judgment is likely to have some impact on the GST Council’s functioning. Collaborative decision making is the way forward

THE EXPLANATION:

• In tax laws, every once in a while, a Supreme Court decision gets the ‘landmark’ tag. The recent Supreme Court ruling in the Mohit Minerals case has earned that tag. The issue before the apex court was whether GST could be levied on ocean freight when IGST has been levied on the total transaction value which included freight.
• The apex court struck down the levy as unconstitutional and ended the controversy over double taxation on ocean freight. What interested everyone during the course of this decision was the observations of the Court on the GST Council.
• The operative part of the court ruling was that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States for the following reasons:
• Parliament intended for the recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units.
• Parliament and the State legislatures possess simultaneous power to legislate on GST.
• The ‘recommendations’ of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States. They are recommendatory in nature. To regard them as binding edict would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST.
• It is not imperative that one of the federal units must always possess a higher share in the power for the federal units to make decisions.
• The government, while exercising its rule-making power under the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act, is bound by the recommendations of the GST Council.
• However, that does not mean that all the recommendations of the GST Council made by virtue of the power of Article 279A (4) are binding on the legislature’s power to enact primary legislation.
• The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient — in this case the importer — by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. While import of services qualifies for reverse charge under this notification, this cannot be extended to cases where IGST has already been paid.
• The apex court has observed that the impugned levy imposed on the ‘service’ aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of ‘composite supply’ enshrined under Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act. Since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the ‘composite supply’, comprising supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a c.i.f. contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the ‘supply of services’ by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act.
• In essence, the Centre cannot a tax a transaction twice.The operative part of the court ruling was that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States for the following reasons:
• Parliament intended for the recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units.
• Parliament and the State legislatures possess simultaneous power to legislate on GST.
• The ‘recommendations’ of the GST Council are the product of a collaborative dialogue involving the Union and States. They are recommendatory in nature. To regard them as binding edict would disrupt fiscal federalism, where both the Union and the States are conferred equal power to legislate on GST.
• It is not imperative that one of the federal units must always possess a higher share in the power for the federal units to make decisions.
• The government, while exercising its rule-making power under the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act, is bound by the recommendations of the GST Council.
• However, that does not mean that all the recommendations of the GST Council made by virtue of the power of Article 279A (4) are binding on the legislature’s power to enact primary legislation.
• The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes. The specification of the recipient — in this case the importer — by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. While import of services qualifies for reverse charge under this notification, this cannot be extended to cases where IGST has already been paid.
• The apex court has observed that the impugned levy imposed on the ‘service’ aspect of the transaction is in violation of the principle of ‘composite supply’ enshrined under Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act.
• Since the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the ‘composite supply’, comprising supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a c.i.f. contract, a separate levy on the Indian importer for the ‘supply of services’ by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act. In essence, the Centre cannot a tax a transaction twice.
• This judgment of the apex court is bound to have some impact on the working of the GST Council. Collaborative decision-making would be the way forward — this is easier said than done since a few States have strong views on certain aspects of GST taxation and the decision in Mohit Minerals gives them more teeth.
• It is expected that the GST Council would not recommend anything that could turn out to be controversial.
• While the decision in Mohit Minerals does not give State governments unilateral powers of taxation, it sends a message to the GST Council to listen to all voices including those of protest.

THE PRELIMS PRACTICE QUESTIONS

QUESTION FOR 26TH MAY 2022

Q1. Consider the following statements about National Tiger Conservation Authority:

1. The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) is a statutory body.
2. The Prime Minister is the chairperson of NTCA.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

        a) 1 only

        b) 2 only

        c) Both 1 and 2

        d) Neither 1 nor 2

 

ANSWER FOR THE25^thMAY

Answer: B

Explanation:

• Statement 1 is incorrect: It is built by the kings of the Ganga dynasty.
• Statement 2 is correct: It is an example of Kalinga Architecture.

Spread the Word