02-06-2017 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:02-06-17
GDP slowdown
Demonetisation’s fallout has hurt the economy but there are reasons to be optimistic
The highlight of January-March quarter data is that the widely anticipated fallout of demonetisation showed up. Sift the data and what is apparent is that agriculture was a saving grace on account of a good monsoon last year, and government spending shored up consumption. But it is worrisome that construction, a key provider of jobs for surplus rural labour, shrunk by 3.7%. Demonetisation appears to have taken a toll here. Other areas in the economy’s service sector such as trade have also been adversely affected by demonetisation. Consequently, the quarterly growth in gross value added was just 5.6%, the fourth consecutive quarter which witnessed a slowdown.
GDP data also showed that some of the longer term problems continue to cast a shadow on the economy. The anaemic pace of increase in bank credit and a contraction in fresh investments checked economic momentum. Fixed investment as a proportion of GDP has been declining which means demand from consumers is the main driver of economic momentum. This feature is linked to troubles of banks. Indebted corporates have not been able to service their loans to banks, which has led to the latter’s problems of bad loans – making banks risk averse when it comes to disbursing fresh loans. The end result of these enduring problems is that the economy is functioning below potential.
Looking ahead, there is reason to be optimistic, as some of the problems on account of demonetisation have faded following the introduction of new currency. But other enduring problems need to be forcefully tackled. The recent ordinance empowering RBI to deal with bad loans needs to be followed through. Government should also be ready to recapitalise banks that have to take a hit on account of resolving bad loans. Once health of banks improves, the Indian economy will be on a firmer footing.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट आगे आए
उचित यह होगा कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट इस मसले का निपटारा प्राथमिकता के आधार पर करे ताकि केंद्र सरकार की अधिसूचना के बहाने जो अनावश्यक राजनीति हो रही है उस पर विराम लगे और साथ ही आम जनता और खासकर मीट एवं चमड़ा कारोबार में लगे लोग किसी दुविधा या संशय में न रहें। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दखल की जरूरत इसलिए भी है, क्योंकि पशुओं की खरीद-बिक्री के नए नियम उसके ही आदेश के अनुपालन का हिस्सा हैं। बेहतर हो कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट इसकी गहन समीक्षा करे कि पशुओं को क्रूरता से बचाने के लिए उनको बेचने-खरीदने के जो नए नियम केंद्रीय पर्यावरण मंत्रालय ने एक अधिसूचना के जरिये जारी किए उनमें कहीं कोई विसंगति तो नहीं? इस समीक्षा के दौरान राज्यों के अधिकारों के कथित उल्लंघन के मसले के साथ ही मीट एवं चमड़ा व्यवसाय की संभावित परेशानियों का तो संज्ञान लिया ही जाना चाहिए, यह भी देखा जाना चाहिए कि पशुओं की देसी नस्लों का संरक्षण-संवद्र्धन कैसे हो और उन्हें क्रूरता से कैसे बचाया जाए? सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष यह सवाल भी होगा कि आखिर पशु बाजार के नियमन की जरूरत है या नहीं और अगर है तो उसकी पूर्ति कैसे की जा सकती है? इन सवालों का परीक्षण करते समय गाय के प्रति धार्मिक-सांस्कृतिक मान्यताओं को भी ध्यान में रखना होगा, क्योंकि कुछ लोग गोमांस खाने की जिद पकड़े हुए हैं। इस हठधर्मिता का उपचार समय की मांग है।
Date:02-06-17
आधे-अधूरे उपाय नहीं
केंद्रीय सांख्यिकी कार्यालय ने आर्थिक उत्पादन के जो ताजातरीन आंकड़े जारी किए हैं उनकी गंभीरतापूर्वक विवेचना करने की आवश्यकता है। सरकार के लिए अवसर है कि वह इसे चेतावनी के रूप में ले, वहीं निजी निवेश और व्यापक आर्थिक वृद्घि में भारी गिरावट के रुख के चलते भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक (आरबीआई) को भी मौद्रिक नीति को लेकर अपने मौजूदा रुख पर पुनर्विचार करना चाहिए। वर्ष 2016-17 के पूर्ण वर्ष के लिए वृद्घि 7.1 फीसदी की दर पर जताई गई। उसके कुछ हिस्से के लिए वित्त वर्ष की पहली तिमाही में आंकड़ों में सकारात्मक संशोधन भी जिम्मेदार रहा। वर्ष 2016-17 की चौथी तिमाही में वृद्घि दर घटकर 6.1 फीसदी रह गई। पहली तिमाही में सकारात्मक संशोधन के बाद स्थिति बताती है कि अर्थव्यवस्था अपनी गति काफी हद तक खो चुकी है।
Date:01-06-17
Delhi to Berlin
Current turmoil in Eurasian politics demands that India and Germany reconnect. The ball is in India’s court
If you want to describe the relations between independent India and post-War Germany, the phrase “benign neglect” readily comes to mind. Before the Second World War, though, there was a lot more going on between Indian and German nationalists united by their hostility towards Britain.After the War, India and Germany had a correct but inconsequential relationship. The current turmoil in Eurasian geopolitics — the prospects of an American retrenchment under Donald Trump and the growing assertion of Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping — demands that Delhi and Berlin reconnect and revitalise their relationship.Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chancellor Angela Merkel have promised precisely that — that they will deepen their political, economic and security cooperation on the basis of shared values and offer responsible leadership on regional and global problems, ranging from maritime order to climate change.
Sceptics would say the words from India and Germany on building a strategic relationship have not been matched by deeds. One major constraint has been India’s legacy of non-alignment and Germany’s deference to American leadership. Both nations were hesitant powers — India is tied down by a pretentious moralpolitik and Germany by the genuine expiation of the guilt from World War II. That is changing now.Under Modi, India’s aspirations to become a leading power have become more pronounced. Meanwhile, Merkel is under a growing compulsion to take a larger share of global burdens. As Britain walks out of the European project and “America First” isolationism threatens the global economic and political order, there are growing expectations of the German leadership. Merkel’s remark, that Europe can no longer rely on the Anglo-American leadership and must take charge of its own destiny, resonates in India.
Modi had every reason to cheer Chancellor Merkel in building a globally engaged Germany and a more cohesive Europe that could partner India in structuring a stable balance of power in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific theatres. So far, so good. But the problem begins when it comes to concrete issues relating to India’s economic and security cooperation with Germany and Europe.If the prickliness of Delhi’s Commerce Ministry alienates India’s trade partners, the Defence Ministry relishes slamming the door on the face of all those seeking strategic engagement with India. Despite the massive centralisation of power in the last three years, the PM seems unable to force his trade and defence negotiators to follow through on his expansive internationalist rhetoric.
In his talks with Merkel, Modi has promised to renew the conversation on free trade and investment protection with Europe and on defence industrial collaboration. Germany and Europe will not hold their breath for too long. For, the pace of Eurasian tectonic movement may be much faster than the response time of the Indian bureaucracy.
Cow slaughter and the Constitution
The government’s new set of rules on cattle sale is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny
Over the last few days, the Central government’s new Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules have run into strong headwinds. These rules, which effectively prohibit the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets, and are therefore perceived as imposing an indirect beef ban, have been the subject of protests in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and have drawn strong condemnation from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. With the Madras High Court on Tuesday staying the rules for four weeks, the battle has swiftly moved to the court as well. And with this, apart from the political turmoil, legal and constitutional fault lines have also been reopened, causing much uncertainty about what the outcome will be.
In the Constituent Assembly
This dispute has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational [problem] from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability. In this, he was supported by other members of the Constituent Assembly, such as Shibban Lal Saksena, Thakur Das Bhargava, Ramnarayan Singh, Ram Sahai, Raghu Vira, R.V. Dhulekar and Chaudhari Ranbir Singh. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.There was one small, snag, however: fundamental rights were meant to inhere in human beings, not animals. After much debate, the Constitution’s Drafting Committee agreed upon a compromise: prohibition of cow slaughter would find a place in the Constitution, but not as an enforceable fundamental right. It would be included as a “Directive Principle of State Policy”, which was meant to guide the state in policymaking, but could not be enforced in any court. Furthermore, in its final form, this Directive Principle (Article 48 of the Constitution) carefully excluded the question of religious sentiments. Nor did it require the state to ban cow slaughter outright. Instead, under the heading “Organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry”, Article 48 says the state shall “organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
Members of the Constituent Assembly found these incremental compromises both unprincipled and unsatisfactory. Shibban Lal Saksena objected to such “back door” tactics, and asked why the Drafting Committee was “ashamed of providing for [the prohibition of cow slaughter] frankly and boldly in so many plain words”.
Z.H. Lari, one of the Muslim representatives in the Assembly, stated that his community would not stand in the way of the majority’s desire, but nonetheless asked that the majority “express itself clearly and definitely”, so that Muslims could know exactly what the position was on cow slaughter. However, clear and definite expression on the issue of cow slaughter was one thing that the Assembly was unwilling to commit to. Article 48, a provision that was grafted out of a compromise that left nobody satisfied, came into being with the rest of the Constitution, on January 26, 1950.
In the Supreme Court
The fundamental disingenuousness that underlay Article 48 was to be repeated, many times over, in constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court. Right from 1958, the Supreme Court was asked to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of cattle slaughter bans passed by various States. Petitioners before the court argued that a prohibition of cow slaughter violated their rights to trade and business, and also their right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations. Detailed analyses of agricultural output and milch yields give these judgments a strained, almost unreal quality. Much like the Drafting Committee, it was as if the court was unwilling to admit — and to uphold — the possibility of non-economic considerations behind such laws, as though this would shatter the thin facade of secularism to which the Constitution remained (ostensibly) committed.
A possible answer
The disingenuousness that marked the Constituent Assembly debates, that was written into final text of Article 48, and that has been inscribed into 50 years of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, has found its latest avatar in the present rules. This time, the Central government has invoked a Supreme Court order on cattle smuggling across the Nepal border, as well as a 1960 law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as its justification.However, the Supreme Court’s order makes no mention of cattle slaughter, and a reading of the Act demonstrates clearly that it does not contemplate prohibiting animal slaughter per se. Not only does it specifically exempt slaughter of animals for food, it also provides for advice on the design of slaughterhouses, so that “unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible.”
Now, under our legal and constitutional system, an executive notification cannot even go beyond the specific terms and ambit of the parent law from which it derives its authority. The government’s new rules, however, go even further: by prohibiting the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets, they contravene the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by specifically forbidding what that Act permits. There is a strong argument, therefore, that the rules are invalid.Furthermore, if indeed the purpose of the rules was to prevent cruelty to animals, then why is their scope limited only to cattle — and to camels? It is true that the government is always at liberty, for reasons of administrative convenience or otherwise, to choose and categorise the subjects to whom its actions will apply; but while under-inclusiveness is not generally a ground for a court to invalidate executive action, in the present case, there seems no rational basis for limiting the reach of an anti-cruelty regulation to only some animals. At the very least, in law, this casts serious doubts about the government’s motivation and justification for its rules.
One might wonder why the Central government chose to take such a momentous step armed with such a flimsy defence. The only possible answer seems to be that had it gone with the traditional, economic justification for an (effective) ban on cow slaughter, it would have run up against an insurmountable constitutional difficulty: under our constitutional scheme, “agriculture” and “the preservation of stock” fall within the exclusive legislative competence of the States. This is the reason why, historically, different cow slaughter laws have been passed by different States. It is to get around this that the Central government has invoked the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a subject on which both the Centre and States can make laws.
What this has resulted in is a badly drafted set of rules, which is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. It is also, however, an opportunity for citizens — and courts — to think once again whether the prescription of food choices is consistent with a Constitution that promises economic and social liberty to all.
Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based lawyer
