22-05-2023 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:22-05-23
Capital Conundrum
Ordinance on control of Delhi admin overturns SC’s correct argument on representative democracy.
TOI Editorials
GoI last week enacted an ordinance overturning the Supreme Court’s days-old judgment that granted Delhi’s elected legislature control of bureaucracy/services and then moved the court for a review of the verdict. Many arguments are being put forward to justify the decisions. That ordinances are necessary when the executive feels a judgment overrides a fundamental priority. That many other governments have used ordinances. That governance of national capitals in many countries has involved special arrangements. That the SC judgment itself noted the Delhi government’s powers are subject to Parliament’s laws and thus the Centre is well within its right to enact a new governing body.
But the point still remains – the fundamental argument on which the SC judgment rested was that an elected government that has the popular mandate should have control over administrative services and that this control flows naturally from the meaning of representative democracy. SC also emphasised federalism in its verdict. That different governments will have different approaches to public administration is part of a big country’s federal character. As the court said: that “ideas of pragmatic federalism and collaborative federalism will fall to the ground if we are to say the Union has overriding executive powers even in respect of matters for which the Delhi legislative assembly has legislative powers. ” It’s these entirely logical SC arguments that have been overturned by the ordinance – and that’s why it is a deeply problematic decision.
The problematic nature of the ordinance isn’t mitigated by allusions to some AAP politicians’ alleged overbearing conduct visà-vis bureaucrats. If badly behaved elected politicians constituted a good reason to wrest control of administration from them, few governments in India will have the power to direct bureaucrats. Also, that Parliament’s power to enact laws on Delhi was noted by SC does not condone every such enactment. The ordinance is flawed in its staunch refusal to recognise the powers of an elected government.
Whether SC in its review will stick to the verdict of one of its constitutional benches is a fascinating question of law. But perhaps the question of how to govern Delhi cannot be settled thus. One of our columnists today makes a case for a ‘Two Delhi’ solution. Time has come to consider that or something akin to that. Delhi’s people don’t deserve this never-ending squabble.
Date:22-05-23
The Two Delhi Solution
There’s a way out of the tussle. Centre should carve out for itself a Union Territory of New Delhi. Rest should become a new full state with its own police, administrative machinery.
Arghya Sengupta, [ The writer is research director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. ]
In the Shanti Parv of the Mahabharat, a dying Bhishma on his bed of arrows counsels Yudishthir on how to effectively rule Indraprasth. “Fire, debts, and enemies should be dealt with quickly and completely. If any remainder is left, they may keep growing. ” In Delhi, his wisdom, at least when it comes to political enemies, is being religiously adhered to.
GoI’s latest move is a late-night ordinance intended to reassert control over transfer and posting of bureaucrats in Delhi. That control, a subject of much past acrimony between GoI and the Delhi government, had been vested in the latter by a judgment of the Supreme Court earlier this month. In the matter of a week, the central government set up the National Capital Civil Service Authority, comprising the chief minister and two senior IAS officers, to take these calls. The final word would be with the lieutenant governor, who is appointed by the Union. The action was quick and complete, yet another measure that severely limits the powers of the Delhi government to pick its own officers.
Not contempt of court
Coming so close on the heels of a SC judgment holding to the contrary, it is natural that the first reaction of many has been to decry the move as contempt of court. But rhetorical value apart, this is mistaken at many levels. It is entirely open to democratically elected legislatures to overturn the effect of SC judgments by removing the basis for the judgment. In this case, the SC judgment itself noted that the power of the Delhi government would be subject to any law that the central government passed in this matter. This is what the central government has done by setting up the new authority.
Admittedly, its use of the ordinance power as well as its assertion that the state government shall have no exclusive powers in this matter, may be suspect. While the central government can reaffirm its own power to deal with theseissues, strictly speaking it cannot take away the state’s power to do so. But this is a technicality and challenging it in court might lead to a symbolic victory, nothing more. The central government will find other ways to achieve its aim “quickly and completely”. History shows us that when it comes to Delhi, this has usually been the pattern.
From Ambedkar to Advani
In the constituent assembly, local representative Deshbandhu Gupta evocatively pleaded Delhi’s case arguing that it could not be treated alongside other tiny chief commissioner’s provinces like Ajmer-Merwara and Panth-Piploda, as Ambedkar had proposed. Despite Gupta’s appeals, Ambedkar remained steadfast – though Delhi would be a state, Parliament would have overriding powers. This logic was taken forward by the States Reorganisation Commission in 1956. Though the Commission is known for having created a significant number of states, in Delhi’s case, it abolished the state. Its reasoning was straightforward: “The future of Delhihas to be determined primarily by the important consideration that it is the seat of the Union government. ”
The only real exception to this line of thinking was ironically a strategic move by the BJP government two decades back. In 2003, with a view to satisfy “the aspirations of the people of Delhi” Lal Krishna Advani introduced the State of Delhi Bill in Parliament. This made Delhi a full state on a par with every other state, with a nearly non-existent role forthe Union government. With this, they hoped to recapture power in the state.
However, the Congress government of Sheila Dikshit opposed the bill. Her opposition appeared to result in a shortterm victory with a return to government in the state. But it meant that statehood became a dead letter and no central government ever championed the cause again. The rest is history, reaffirmed every day through new forms of gridlock.
Road to Indraprasth
How long can this unworkable situation continue? Almost a decade on from the first AAP government in Delhi, two constitution bench judgments and regular clashes between three LGs and the CM, it is time to consider an alternative that works for all.
Since the central government has legitimate interests in ensuring protection of its own persons and property in the national capital, it should carve out for itself the Union Territory of New Delhi. This should comprise the area governed by NDMC where all major central government offices, embassies and other state landmarks like Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate are located. It should have its own police, municipal corporation and be directly governed by a department of the central government.
The rest of what is Delhi today – with an approximate population of 16 million people – should become a new full state of Indraprasth with its own police machinery. It should have a fully representative government and share in national revenues like every other state. Though it would be the smallest state in terms of area, in terms of population, it would be larger than 10 existing states. In terms of viability, it would produce more trade and commerce than many smaller states combined.
This solution may appear fanciful. But if indeed the Mahabharat is a holy book for those in a position of authority, they should heed another of Bhishma’s aphorisms: “A ruler may be hard as steel, but must also be soft as butter, according to the situation. ”
Clipping Angel Wings Isn’t Cutting, But…
…tax not best way to reevaluate startups
ET Editorials
The government’s attempt to make startup valuations realistic through taxation coincides with an investment downturn. It risks diverting capital and entrepreneurship to friendlier jurisdictions. The cohort of India’s unicornswas unduly tilted in favour of incorporation abroad even before the imposition of angel tax on foreign investors. The original purpose of the tax was to curb pooling of unaccounted capital in the startup ecosystem. This was, subsequently, revised to include investor protection. Both these objectives will be met. But a tax is not the best way to go about it.
Particularly when the bets are on ideas. Investors with an appetite for risky innovation have their own yardsticks for valuing infant businesses. These need not conform to the officially acceptable definition of fair value. The government may be within its rights to know where the money is coming from. But it is introducing market imperfections by trying to set prices of companies. This increases constraints under which locally incorporated startups operate. Such interventions can also slow innovation in India, a market that offers enormous scope for deploying technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) based on the richness of data it is expected to generate.
Date:22-05-23
Reach Out to the Other Coast of Indo-Pacific
ET Editorials
Be it at the Quad meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, or Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bilateral with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday, India is showing its commitment to a free, open, rules-based order. Modi’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the first-ever by an Indian PM, to attend the summit of the Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC), a partnership with 14 island nations, must be seen as a larger part of this engagement. Despite a sizeable population of Indian origin, New Delhi’s dealings with Pacific island states had been limited. Modi’s visit to Fiji, a visit by an Indian PM after 33 years, and the launch of FIPIC in 2014 changed that.
India has provided financial support, helped with capacity building through the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI). However, a sustained political engagement and partnership has been lacking — the leader-level FIPIC meet was last held in 2015. India’s role as a flag bearer of the global south dovetails with its leadership in climate action. Therefore, engagement with Pacific island nations needs to be seen as the other ‘coast’ of New Delhi’s Indo-Pacific rubric as a whole.
For India to take on a more active role in this expanded IndoPacific, it has to rely on an out-of-the-box approach. Traditional foreign policy priorities will not serve when it comes to these small island nations existentially threatened by global warming. What gives India the edge over other countries is its partnership approach, building human and physical capacity with a focus on climate change and adaptation, clean energy, and capacity building when supplemented with historical ties.
Capital quandary
Delhi’s quest for administrative autonomy is hostage to BJP-AAP rivalry.
Editorial
The Centre has through an ordinance overturned a Supreme Court judgment of May 11 that held that the elected government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi had executive and legislative powers over its officials. The move has set in motion a new legal battle. The AAP government in Delhi has decided to challenge the ordinance, while the BJP government at the Centre has moved the Court to review its judgment. The National Capital Territory of Delhi Act (NCTD), 1991 created a unique administrative unit, and judicial interpretations have never completely resolved the conflicts between the Centre and the elected government of the NCTD all these years. The judgment held that Union Territories with a Legislative Assembly of their own are comparable to States, and their government’s executive powers would extend to all matters on which they are allowed to make laws. In Delhi’s case, law and order and land remained with the Centre, unlike other States. The Court also pointed out the absence of a law on services, and the lack of oversight by elected representatives over the officials under the present scheme. The ordinance purportedly removes the basis of the judgment by creating the National Capital Civil Service Authority. The Chief Minister is the chair, with the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Home — both appointed by the central government — as members. The Central reclaimed all powers it lost in the judgment.
The Centre is well within its powers to overturn a judicial pronouncement through legislation. Whether the basis of the instant judgment has been removed by the ordinance remains an open question, but the more pertinent issue is the political intent of the Centre’s move. The Centre under the current BJP dispensation has been confrontational, rather than cooperative, with States in resolving governance issues. It has shown little regard for elected governments at lower levels, while claiming for itself all powers on the grounds of its electoral majority. Delhi being the national capital has to maintain a unique administrative character, and it should not be left to the exigencies of local politics. Equally, the voters of Delhi cannot be disenfranchised for extraneous reasons. The irony is that AAP itself has been a votary of centralisation, though it could swing to provincialism to suit its leaders in a changed situation. The AAP government had resorted to provincialist rhetoric in the past, also going to the extent of questioning the rights of people from other States to access health care and education in the national capital. It was also a cheerleader of the Centre’s brazen move that dismantled the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. Democracy and federalism are threatened by an unprincipled hunger for power, and AAP is both villain and victim.
टकराव की शक्ति
संपादकीय
दिल्ली सरकार में अधिकारियों की तैनाती और तबादले को लेकर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की संविधान पीठ का फैसला आया, तो लगा कि अब केंद्र और दिल्ली सरकार के बीच टकराव की नौबत नहीं आएगी। संविधान पीठ ने कुछ को छोड़ कर सभी विभागों के अधिकारियों के चयन और तबादले का अधिकार दिल्ली सरकार को दे दिया। मगर केंद्र सरकार को वह फैसला रास नहीं आया। शुक्रवार को उसने अध्यादेश जारी कर दिल्ली सरकार के अधिकारों का अधिग्रहण कर लिया। अधिकारियों की तैनाती और तबादले के लिए राष्ट्रीय राजधानी लोकसेवा प्राधिकरण का गठन कर दिया गया, जिसके अध्यक्ष दिल्ली के मुख्यमंत्री को और दो अन्य सदस्यों के रूप में प्रधान सचिव और केंद्रीय गृहमंत्रालय के प्रधान सचिव को नामित कर दिया गया। नियम बनाया गया कि सदस्यों के बहुमत के आधार पर नियुक्तियों और तबादलों से संबंधित फैसले होंगे। जाहिर है, इस आयोग में भी केंद्र सरकार की शक्ति अधिक रखी गई है, यानी केंद्र सरकार जिसे चाहेगी वही अधिकारी दिल्ली सरकार में तैनात किया जा सकेगा। इसे लेकर स्वाभाविक ही विपक्ष और मुख्य रूप से आम आदमी पार्टी ने विरोध शुरू कर दिया है। दिल्ली सरकार इस अध्यादेश को अदालत में चुनौती देगी। मुख्यमंत्री अरविंद केजरीवाल आश्वस्त हैं कि यह अध्यादेश अदालत में एक दिन भी नहीं टिकेगा।
यह बात किसी को भी गले नहीं उतर रही कि आखिर केंद्र सरकार क्यों इस जिद पर अड़ी है कि दिल्ली सरकार को एक चुनी हुई सरकार के अधिकार हासिल न होने पाएं। वह उसकी सारी प्रशासनिक शक्तियां अपने हाथ में क्यों रखना चाहती है। शुरू से ही, दिल्ली के जो भी उपराज्यपाल नियुक्त हुए, वे केंद्र की इच्छाओं के अनुरूप ही काम करते रहे। इसे लेकर दिल्ली सरकार लगातार केंद्र पर आरोप लगाती रही कि वह उसे काम नहीं करने दे रही। पांच साल पहले भी वह अदालत गई थी कि उसके अधिकारों की व्याख्या की जाए। तब भी अदालत ने यही कहा था कि दिल्ली सरकार लोगों द्वारा चुनी हुई सरकार है, इसलिए उसे प्राशासनिक फैसले करने का अधिकार है। मगर किसी भी उपराज्यपाल ने उसे गंभीरता से नहीं लिया। वर्तमान उपराज्यपाल ने तो एक तरह से दिल्ली सरकार के सारे अधिकार अपने हाथों में लेने की कोशिश की। नगर निगम में भी उन्होंने संवैधानिक नियमों को ताक पर रखते हुए अपनी पसंद के दस सदस्य मनोनीत कर दिए। इसे भी सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने अनधिकार चेष्टा करार दिया। फिर भी केंद्र ने अदालत के फैसले का सम्मान करना जरूरी नहीं समझा।
सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की संविधान पीठ ने उपराज्यपाल और चुनी हुई सरकार की शक्तियों की स्पष्ट व्याख्या कर दी थी, फिर भी केंद्र को वह रास नहीं आई, तो इससे यह भी जाहिर होता है कि उसे न तो संविधान के नियमों की परवाह है और न अदालत की संविधान पीठ का। आखिरकार वह अपने ही फैसले लागू करना चाहती है। इससे एक बार फिर केंद्र सरकार की किरकिरी हुई है। अब आम आदमी पार्टी को बैठे-बिठाए एक और मुद्दा मिल गया है भाजपा और केंद्र सरकार को घेरने का। इससे आम लोगों में केंद्र सरकार के कामकाज को लेकर कोई अच्छा संदेश नहीं गया है। लोकतंत्र में संविधान सर्वोपरि होता है और अगर कोई सरकार उसे दरकिनार करके अपनी जिद को ऊपर रखने का प्रयास करती है, तो उससे उसका पक्ष कमजोर ही होता है। अगर केंद्र के इस अध्यादेश को अदालत ने निरस्त कर दिया, तो फिर और किरकिरी होगी।
दूर करना होगा भ्रम
संपादकीय
नई तकनीक को लेकर होने लगी चिंताओं की बरसात
हरजिंदर, ( वरिष्ठ पत्रकार )
तकनीक और आशंकाओं का चोली-दामन का साथ रहा है। किसी भी बड़ी तकनीक का आगमन एक तरफ उम्मीदों के ज्वार जगाता है, तो दूसरी तरफ हाय-तौबा की गुंजाइश भी बनाता है। कई बार यह हाय-तौबा उम्मीदों से ज्यादा बड़ी और बहुत बड़ी हो जाती है। इन दिनों यही हो रहा है। आर्टिफिशियल इंटेलिजेंस, यानी एआई को लेकर हो रही चिंताओं की बरसात में उम्मीदों के नामलेवा लगातार कम होते जा रहे हैं।
खुद एआई विकसित करने वालों के भी विकेट गिर रहे हैं। कुछ समय पहले आर्टिफिशियल इंटेलिजेंस के पितामह माने जाने वाले ज्योफ्री हिंटन ने गूगल से इस्तीफा दे दिया। इसके साथ ही यह बयान भी नत्थी कर दिया कि एआई के लिए अपने योगदान पर उन्हें पछतावा है। सबसे लोकप्रिय एआई एप्लीकेशन चैट-जीपीटी के आला अधिकारी सैम अल्टमैन ने पिछले सप्ताह बयान दिया कि एआई का नियमन करना अब बहुत जरूरी हो गया है। ऐसी बहुत सारी चिंताएं कंप्यूटर से बनाई गई कृत्रिम बुद्धि के नैतिक पक्ष को लेकर हैं, और बहुत सारी इसकी वजह से होने वाले निजता के उल्लंघन को लेकर। एक तीसरी चिंता भी है- एआई की कोख से जन्म लेने वाली बेरोजगारी की। दुनिया की तमाम अर्थव्यवस्थाओं पर जिस तरह के बादल मंडरा रहे हैं, उसमें यह चिंता कुछ ज्यादा बड़ी हो गई है।
इस बार जो नई तकनीक पधार रही है, उसका असर अगर किसी वर्ग पर सबसे ज्यादा पड़ने वाला है, तो वह है समाज का पढ़ा-लिखा तबका। बाद में यह तकनीक कहां जाएगी, हम अभी ठीक से नहीं जानते, फिलहाल यह सबसे पहले लेखकों, पत्रकारों, साहित्यकारों, चित्रकारों, वकीलों, डॉक्टरों, सॉफ्टवेयर इंजीनियरों, शोधकर्ताओं, अध्यापकों और यहां तक कि वैज्ञानिकों व अर्थशा्त्रिरयों की जगह लेने को बेचैन दिख रही है। एक भारतीय न्यूज चैनल पर इन दिनों एक एआई एंकर मौसम का हाल बताती दिखाई देती है। उम्मीद की जा रही है कि जल्द ही वह खबरें पढ़ने और यहां तक कि तमाम विषयों पर बहस कराने के काम करती भी दिखाई देगी। टीवी एंकर के पेशे पर इस तरह का खतरा मंडराएगा, इसे कुछ महीने पहले तक किसी ने सोचा भी न था।
ये ऐसे वर्ग हैं, जिन्हें आज तक कोई तकनीक छूने की हिम्मत नहीं कर सकी। किसी तकनीक में ऐसी क्षमता और योग्यता थी भी नहीं। पर अब जो तकनीक आ रही है, उसमें क्षमता और योग्यता तो है ही, साथ ही इन पेशेवरों से ज्यादा कार्य-कुशलता भी है। ये समाज के ऐसे वर्ग हैं, जिनकी आवाज मायने रखती है और जो जनमत तैयार करने में भी महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाते हैं। जनमत तैयार करने की व्यवस्थाएं भी इन्हीं के नियंत्रण में रहती हैं। इसी कारण दुनिया के तकरीबन हर तरह के बुद्धिजीवी आर्टिफिशियल इंटेलिजेंस का विरोध करते नजर आ रहे हैं। बुद्धिजीवी विरोध कर रहे हैं, पर मजदूरों के ट्रेड यूनियन चुप्पी साधे हुए हैं।
बेरोजगारी को लेकर मोटे तौर पर दो धारणाएं रही हैं। परंपरागत सोच यह कहती है कि लोगों का निठल्लापन ही उन्हें बेरोजगार बनाता है, यानी अगर कोई बेरोजगार है, तो इसमें दोष उसी का है, किसी और का नहीं, मगर आधुनिक अर्थशास्त्री मानते हैं कि बेरोजगारी व्यक्ति की कर्मण्यता का नहीं, अर्थव्यवस्था के कारगर होने का मामला है। जहां बडे़ पैमाने पर बेरोजगारी हो, वहां अगर दोष किसी को दिया जा सकता है, तो आर्थिक नीतियों और उन्हें बनाने वाले राजनेताओं को ही। यह बात अलग है कि अक्सर इसका दोष तकनीक पर मढ़ दिया जाता है।
एआई ऐसी दुनिया में आ रही है, जिसके पास अपनी बेरोजगारी की समस्या का पक्का इलाज नहीं है। ऐसे समाज को हरेक नई तकनीक डराती है। एआई भी इसका अपवाद नहीं है। ठीक यहीं एआई को लेकर एक अन्य समस्या भी है। हमने पिछली सदी में लोगों को यह समझाने की कोशिश की है कि पढ़ोगे-लिखोगे तो बनोगे नवाब। बेरोजगारी की समस्या जरूर है, पर लोग यह समझने लगे हैं कि पढ़कर ही वे सम्मानजनक रोजगार हासिल कर सकते हैं। लेकिन अब सबसे ज्यादा पढ़े-लिखे लोगों के रोजगार पर ही संकट मंडरा रहा है। इसीलिए एआई को ऐसी तकनीक माना जा रहा है, जो बहुत से स्थापित स्तंभों और मान्यताओं को उखाड़ देगी।
