Nov-16P Flashcards
1.1. REGULATION OF MEDIA
Why in news?
Inter-ministerial committee instituted by the Information
and Broadcasting ministry ordered that the Hindi channel
NDTV India be shut down for a day for revealing
“strategically sensitive” details during its coverage of
the Pathankot attacks in January.
This action has come under severe criticism for impinging
the Freedom of the Press.
As of now, the ban has been put on hold. The SC is yet to
hear the appeal against ban, scheduled on Dec 5.
Criticism of decision
Editor’s Guild strongly condemned the unprecedented
decision of the committee and demanded that the order
be immediately rescinded. The government’s decision was a violation of freedom of media and therefore the citizens of India. Imposing ban without judicial intervention or oversight goes against the spirit of the Constitution and is violative of the principles of natural justice.
Evolution of curb on free speech
When the Constitution of India came into force, freedom
of expression was almost absolute.
To curb violence after partition, Nehru-Liaquat pact was
signed, in which even speeches were to be curbed. But the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India was the biggest hurdle in the finalisation of the pact.
Finally the first constitutional amendment came, but it was not on the basis of this pact but on the basis of a court verdict in the case of SOME magazines opposing Nehru’s policies.
The second serious move to curb free speech was during the Emergency, when all the rights of media were suspended.
The third move was when Rajiv Gandhi Govt. introduced a defamation Bill in 1988 aimed at limiting the right of freedom of expression. However, Government was forced to withdraw the controversial Bill.
The fourth move was under UPA government, when a proposal was made to amend the Cable and Television Act to give powers to the area magistrate to stop the telecast of news channel. This move was opposed by journalists and Govt. was forced to withdraw it.
Suggestions
There should be detailed guidelines laid down for the news channels, in relation, to broadcasting during a
terrorist attack.
The government should work with the media, the armed
forces and all the stakeholders to create a system so as to
prevent leakages.
Media has to be more responsible when it comes to
broadcasting such sensitive issues.
Way forward
Live coverage of terror events and the compromise of ongoing operations is now a global point of debate tocreate a balance between the right to allow dissemination of information in real time and aiding and abetting the enemy by providing helpful data on what’s going on to winkle them out.
It’s time to establish an independent television media watchdog on the lines of the Press Council of India to ensure the freedom of the televised press. The UK has an independent media watchdog Office of Communications (Ofcom) that is recognised by statute and has enforcement powers.
Box–Press Council of India
Created by Press Council Act of 1978.
It is the apex body for the regulation of the Press in India.
It enjoys independence from the government.
It acts as the regulator that prescribes and enforces professional standards for the print media in India. News Broadcasting Standards Authority It is an independent body set up by the News Broadcasters Association. It is headed by eminent jurist Its task is to consider and adjudicate upon complaints about broadcasts. It has laid down the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards for violation of which a complaint may be made.
Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) It is the independent self-regulatory body for non-news general entertainment channels set up by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) in June 2011. There is a constructive recognition of BCCC’s self-regulatory mandate by the Ministry of I&B, which refers complaints received/generated by it to the Counci
1.2. ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICES
Prime Minister recently revisited the possibility of recruiting judges through an All India Judicial Service (AIJS).
Rationale for AIJS
It focuses on quality of judges rather than quantity.
Appropriate way to recruit the best talent required for fulfilling the role that is demanded of a judge.
Currently the subordinate judiciary depends entirely on state recruitment. But the brighter law students do not join the state judicial services because they are not attractive.
With no career progression, no one with a respectable Bar practice wants to become an additional district judge, and deal with the hassles of transfers and postings. Hence the quality of the subordinate judiciary is by and large average.
Previously recommended by
First Law Commission of India (LCI) in its 14th Report on Reforms on the Judicial Administration, recommended an AIJS in the interests of efficiency of the judiciary. In its 77th Report the LCI once again said the AIJS needed serious consideration.
The idea of an AIJS was approved in the chief ministers’ conference in 1982
The Supreme Court has itself said that an AIJS should be set up, and has directed the Union of India to take appropriate steps in this regard.
After the Swaran Singh Committee’s recommendations in 1976, Article 312 was modified to include the judicial services.
Way forward
A career judicial service will make the judiciary more accountable, more professional, and arguably, also more equitable.
It can have far-reaching impact on the quality of justice and on people’s access to justice as well.
The PM and the CJI have raised red flags about the problems that plague the courts. There is no time better than now to start doing something about these problems.
1.3. EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT LITIGATION
Why in news?
Prime Minister, during Delhi High Court’s golden jubilee in October, brought up the problem of excessive government litigation.
Background
Government litigation reportedly constitutes nearly half of all litigation in the Indian judiciary.
Besides being a constraint on the public exchequer, government litigation has contributed to judicial backlog, thus affecting justice delivery in India.
Supreme Court, since the 1970 has criticized successive governments for being callous and mechanical in pursuing litigation
The Law Commission of India also studied this problem in its 126th Report in 1988, and made appropriate observations on this front.
“National Litigation Policy” (NLP) 2010 failed as it was generic and without any scope for implementation.
Problems in NLP 2010
It fails to provide a yardstick for determining responsibility and efficiency. The text does not define “suitable action” against officials violating this policy.
It creates “Empowered Committees” to regulate the implementation of the policy. But there is ambiguity about their role and powers.
It also lacks any form of impact assessment to evaluate actual impact on reducing government litigation.
Way forward
Revision of the NLP needs to ensure certain critical features are not missed out:
It must have clear objectives that can be assessed;
The role of different functionaries must be enumerated;
The minimum standards for pursuing litigation must be listed out;
Fair accountability mechanisms must be established;
The consequences for violation of the policy must be provided;
A periodic impact assessment programme must be factored in.
A litigation policy can have a profound effect on how the government thinks about itself as a litigant, and can help curb the problem, provided it is a constructed with a thorough understanding of the problem and offers solutions based on evidence rather than conjecture.
1.4. CONTEMPT OF COURT
Why in news?
The Supreme Court recently created history by issuing a contempt notice against one of its own former judges, Justice Markandey Katju.
Issue
Former judge, Justice Katju wrote a blog criticising the judgment in the Soumya rape and death case and calling it “grave miscarriage of justice”.
Although there is a right to free speech in India, no person can say anything which “scandalizes the court”, i.e., which lowers a court’s dignity or shakes public confidence in the judiciary.
Situation in India
When the Constitution was enacted in independent India, contempt of court was made an exception to the right to free speech.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘contempt’ as
Disobeying court orders,
Interfering with judicial proceedings,
Obstructing the administration of justice
Scandalising or lowering the authority of the court
and the last provision has created problem in many cases.
1.5. SC RULING ON WAGE DISPARITY
Why in news
Supreme Court has held that they daily wagers, temporary, casual and contractual employees should be paid at par with regular employees doing the same job as them.
The petitioners were daily wagers working for Punjab Government.
Significance
SC termed denial of equal pay for equal work as “exploitative enslavement”. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Court empathized with the condition of a helpless employee.
SC cited that India has been a signatory
for the past 37 years to Article 7 of the
International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights of 1966.
According to different constitutional
provisions and the law declared by the
Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution, the principle of ‘equal pay
for equal work’ constitutes “a clear and
unambiguous right and is vested in every
employee, whether engaged on regular
or temporary basis”.
The Constitution of India 1949: Art. 39
(d) say the state has to ensure that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women
Box–International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
It is a multilateral treaty adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1966
It commits its parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to the Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories and individuals, including labour rights and the right to health, the right to education, and the right to an adequate standard of living.
The ICESCR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
1.6. SCHEME TO STRENGTHEN FOOD TESTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Why in news?
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India have rolled out a scheme for strengthening of food testing infrastructure in the country.
This is following the observations of the Bombay High Court regarding the urgent need to upgrade Food Testing Laboratories in India.
The estimated cost of the scheme is Rs 482 crore.
Key Features
Food Testing Labs- Under this scheme, 45 State/UT Food Testing labs (at least one in each State/UT with a provision of two labs in larger states) and 14 Referral Food Testing labs will be upgraded to enable them to obtain National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) accreditation.
Mobile Testing Labs- 62 Mobile Testing labs will also be established across all States/UTs. There are currently 4 Mobile food Testing labs in Punjab, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which will serve as a model for these Mobile Testing labs.
School Food and Hygiene Programme- Basic Food Testing labs will be set up in 1500 schools/colleges across the country to promote a culture of safe and wholesome food.
Capacity building of the Food Testing labs is also an important component of this scheme.
1.7. RTI PERFORMANCE: STUDY
Why in news
A new study on the performance of the adjudicators of the Right to Information (RTI) Act has raised many important questions.
Findings
Information commissions (ICs) imposed the penalty for denial
of information (in violation of the RTI Act) in only 1.3 per cent
of the cases where penalty was imposable. This promotes a
culture of impunity.
By foregoing of penalties (Rs. 25000 under RTI Act) has caused
an estimated annual loss of Rs. 290 crore to the exchequer.
Even more important than the revenue lost is the loss of deterrence value that the threat of penalty was supposed to have provided.
Two provisions of the RTI Act invoked the most for denial of information were section 7 (9) (disproportionate diversion of resources) and section 11 (1) (third party information). “Neither of these can themselves be used to deny information,” noted the study.
Many of the state commissions had not posted their annual reports on the web and very few had updated the information.
Despite the dictum of the Supreme Court, more than 60 per cent of the IC orders analysed contained deficiencies in terms of not recording critical facts.
Rajasthan and Bihar’s State Information Commissions (SIC) were the worst performers, with 74 per cent and 73 per cent of the orders not describing the information sought.
The collective backlog in the disposal of appeals and complaints in the 16 SICs studied, was an “alarming 1,87,974 cases pending as on December 31, 2015.
The Chief Information Commission (CIC) saw a rise in pendency of 43 per cent.
Way forward
There needs to emerge, through a broad consensus, an agreement on the number of cases a commissioner should be expected to deal with every month. Well before a commissioner is due to demit office, the process of appointment of his replacement should be initiated so that the new commissioner joins as soon as the previous one leaves. The study has called for a review of the structures and processes of the ICs. With the help of a trained cadre of officers, the burden of work will be shared and the process of first communication from the IC can be restricted to 30 days. Suggestions by former information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi – At the time of the selection of the information commissioners itself, a deposition should be taken from them stating that they would strive to clear at least 5,000 cases per annum. In most of the cases, templates can be followed for quick disposal. Another prerequisite is the adequate staff which should be provided for. Also payment of compensation for denial of information to the applicants is a quick and sure shot way of reducing litigation. (Please refer Mains 365 Polity Article 7.2 for details)
Box–Reasons for denying the information are
information pertained to previous years,
information sought was voluminous,
PIOs claimed the information could not be traced,
the IC determined that the applicant “had no good reason” for seeking information.
None of these are valid grounds for denial of information.
Nov-16Polity
- Regulation of Media
- All India Judicial Services
- Excessive Government Litigation
- Contempt of Court
- SC Ruling on Wage Disparity
- Scheme to Strengthen Food Testing Infrastructure
- RTI Performance: Study
