July 2023

Current Affairs

Master Plan for Urban Areas

Context: India’s G20 Sherpa, stressed at a recent Urban-20 City Sherpas’ meet that a master plan is crucial for any city to manage urbanisation.

About Master Planning

It is an instrument of governance for urban local bodies (ULBs).
It is a statutory plan document, prepared for stream-lining the land use within the delineated planning area.
It is a long-term plan that provides a conceptual layout for future urban growth and development.
It includes analysis, recommendations, and proposals for a site’s population, economy, housing, transportation, community facilities, and land use.
It is based on public input, surveys, planning initiatives, existing development, physical characteristics, and social and economic conditions.
The validity of a Master Plan is for a specific period and after the expiry of the period it needs revision and modifications.
During the 11th Five-Year Plan, it was proposed to prepare Master Plan for priority towns and growth centers.
Recently, most States/UTs have revised their respective bye-laws based on the Model Building Bye Laws 2016 (MoHUA, 2016). It is imperative that the city governments adapt the model regulations and as per their context and economic growth drivers.
The powers to prepare master plans remain with State governments.

Significance of Master Planning

Growth & development of the city: It helps ULBs in achieving integrated development by considering various aspects such as land use, transportation, infrastructure, housing, environment, and social amenities.
Efficient land utilisation: It enables efficient land utilisation by identifying suitable areas for different purposes, and preventing haphazard development.
Infrastructure planning: It assists ULBs in identifying the infrastructure requirements of the city or town, such as roads, water supply, sewage systems, etc. to support the growing needs of the population and economic activities.
Environmental Sustainability: It incorporates environmental considerations and sustainability principles into the development process to foster a greener and more resilient urban landscape.
Disaster Resilience: It helps ULBs in incorporating measures to enhance the resilience of cities and towns to natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, and cyclones by identifying vulnerable areas, designing appropriate infrastructure, and implementing disaster risk reduction strategies.
Social equity: It takes into account the social aspects of urban development for the economically disadvantaged, provision of basic services to marginalized communities, and accessibility for people with disabilities to create inclusive cities where all residents have access to essential services and opportunities.

Challenges

Rapid Urbanisation: Many cities and towns are experiencing rapid population growth and urbanization, which can strain existing infrastructure and resources. Managing this rapid growth and ensuring that the master plan can accommodate future needs is a significant challenge.
Limited Resources: ULBs often face financial and resource constraints, making it challenging to implement comprehensive master plans.
Inconsistencies in decision-making: Frequent changes in political leadership, lack of continuity in governance, and bureaucratic challenges can hinder the execution of the master plan and result in inconsistencies in decision-making.
Data and Information Management: Limited capacity for data collection, data quality issues, and inadequate technology infrastructure can hinder the planning process.
Informal Settlements and Slums: Integrating these areas into the master plan and providing adequate housing, basic services, and infrastructure to these marginalized communities can be a complex and challenging task.
Environmental Concerns: Balancing urban development with environmental sustainability is a critical challenge.
Implementation and Monitoring: Monitoring progress, assessing the impact of implemented projects, and adapting the plan as needed are important but often challenging tasks due to limited capacity, coordination issues, and institutional barriers as per the NITI Aayog Report 2021.
No statutory backing: Some city governments lack much authority while some city administrations have developed mitigation plans without statutory backing. For example Bengaluru has not had a master plan to control its development and the Mumbai plan lacks any statutory backing and does not prescribe any regulatory controls.
Urban Planning: It is the State subject and as per the 12^thschedule of the Constitution and the function of Urban Local Bodies / Urban Development Authorities but the state government has powers to prepare master plans.

Way forward

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has recommended that master plans in cities should be revisited for the improved governance of cities. The National Mission for Clean Ganga has been advocating such a step to protect urban water bodies.
Many plans to improve sanitation, infrastructure, and social inclusion are dependent on particular programmes, but these are at best ephemeral and incremental as they are centrally funded.
It is simply a spatial plan of land-use allocation supported by bye-laws and development control regulations. Thus, it essentially embodies a spatial vision for cities.
The era of planetary urbanisation brings spatial planning into sharp focus, and calls for reimaging the spatial planning framework in India.
Recent moves such as Gati Shakti and Model Rural Transformation Acts are a reflection of this growing demand. The Centre must work with the States to reconsider the spatial planning framework in India.

The Advisory Committee of Niti Aayog recommends a National Council of Town and Country Planners to be constituted as a statutory body of the Government of India.

Karnataka High Court Judgement on Twitter

Context: On June 30, 2023, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Twitter’s challenge to the issuance of blocking orders by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) concerning the taking down of Twitter accounts and specific tweets. The High Court admonished Twitter for not complying with the orders and imposed an astounding cost of ₹50 lahks on the United States-based social media company.

Judgement of Karnataka High Court

On the issue of locus standi: It observed that users of Twitter were not “downtrodden” or did not “suffer from some handicap” that prevented them from accessing the appropriate remedies available to them. Additionally, the High Court held that claims of users whose tweets or accounts were blocked could not be espoused by Twitter and that none of the affected users had approached the High Court.
Observation on Shreya Singhal case: Karnataka High Court has held that observations in Shreya Singhal cannot be construed to mean providing notice to the users of the content, and that even if reasons are recorded in writing, they may not be conveyed to the user.
Observation on Art 19(2): High Court’s reproduction of certain portions of blocking orders in its judgment reveals that one of the reasons was that the content could lead to the spread of “fake news” and “misinformation”, which had the potential to disturb “public order” and threaten the “security of [the] State”.

Issues related to the case

Petitioner being a foreign company cannot avail any remedy of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Twitter, being an intermediary, can it be made responsible for the speech of individuals on its platform?

Procedural Safeguards against online speech

Art 19: No person shall be denied freedom of speech of expression except the ground mentioned in 19(2)
Art 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
Sec 79(1) of IT Act 2000: Provide for exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases famously known as “Safe Harbour Clause”.

Regulation of the online content

Section 69 of the IT act, 2000 gives the Central and State government the power to issue directions for the interception, monitoring, or decryption of any information through any computer resource.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 issued under section 87(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with due diligence by Intermediaries and GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM (under Part II) and with the blocking of information in case of emergency (Rule 16).

Other Cases Related to Freedom in the online sphere

Shreya Singhal case

Section 66 of the IT Act was abrogated in its entirety for infringing Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and not protected under Article 19(2).

Anuradha Bhasian case

Court said that nowadays the internet has become an essential part of everyday life and thereby freedom of speech and expression and freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business over the Internet is a part of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

Why HC dismissed the twitter's challenge?

The High Court rejected Twitter’s contention that Section 69A only permits the blocking of specific tweets not wholesale blocking.
The content posted could lead to the spread of “fake news” and “misinformation”, which had the potential to disturb “public order” and threaten the “security of [the] State”.

Suggestion:

“The Online Harms White Paper” of UK parliament

The Paper proposed a single regulatory framework to tackle a range of harms. At its core would be a duty of care for internet companies, including social media platforms. An independent regulator would oversee and enforce compliance with the duty.

CJI stresses need to take legal aid services to people

Context: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said there is “negligible use” of legal aid services in India despite it being available for free to the people.

Constitutional provisions related to Free Legal Aid

Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides that State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disability.
Articles 14 and 22(1) also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before law and a legal system which promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity to all.

Evolution of free legal aid in India

The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide free Legal Services to the weaker sections of the society and to organize Lok Adalats for amicable settlement of disputes.
This Act was finally enforced on 9th of November, 1995 after certain amendments were introduced therein by the Amendment Act of 1994.

Structure

National Legal Services Authority is the apex body constituted to lay down policies and principles for making legal services available under the provisions of the Act and to frame most effective and economical schemes for legal services. It also disburses funds and grants to State Legal Services Authorities and NGOs for implementing legal aid schemes and programmes.
In every State a State Legal Services Authority is constituted to give effect to the policies and directions of the Central Authority (NALSA) and to give legal services to the people and conduct Lok Adalats in the State. State Legal Services Authority is headed by the Chief Justice of the State High Court who is its Patron-in-Chief. A serving or retired Judge of the High Court is nominated as its Executive Chairman.
District Legal Services Authority is constituted in every District to implement Legal Aid Programmes and Schemes in the District. The District Judge of the District is its ex-officio Chairman.
Taluk Legal Services Committees are also constituted for each of the Taluk or Mandal or for group of Taluk or Mandals to coordinate the activities of legal services in the Taluk and to organise Lok Adalats. Every Taluk Legal Services Committee is headed by a senior Civil Judge operating within the jurisdiction of the Committee who is its ex-officio Chairman.

Functions

Various authorities at different levels have been tasked to perform the following functions on a regular basis:

(a) Establishing Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalats in all the Districts in the country for disposal of pending matters as well as disputes at pre-litigative stage;
(b) Establishing separate Permanent & Continuous Lok Adalats for Govt. Departments, Statutory Authorities and Public Sector Undertakings for disposal of pending cases as well as disputes at pre-litigative stage;
(c) Accreditation of NGOs for Legal Literacy and Legal Awareness campaign;
(d) Appointment of "Legal Aid Counsel" in all the Courts of Magistrates in the country;
(e) Disposal of cases through Lok Adalats on old pattern;
(f) Publicity to Legal Aid Schemes and programmes to make people aware about legal aid facilities;
(g) Emphasis on competent and quality legal services to the aided persons;
(h) Legal aid facilities in jails;
(i) Setting up of Counselling and Conciliation Centers in all the Districts in the country;
(j) Sensitisation of Judicial Officers in regard to Legal Services Schemes and programmes

Eligible persons for free legal service

As per the act following persons are eligible for the free legal Aid:

Members of Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe
A woman or a child
A person with disability
A person who is victim of mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocities, flood drought, earthquake or industrial disaster.
An industrial workman
A person in custody including custody in protective home under provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 or in juvenile home under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 or in psychiatric nursing home within Mental Health Act, 1987.
Persons whose annual income does not exceed ₹1 lakh (in t Supreme Court Legal Services Committee the limit ₹1,25,000/-)

The Free Legal service includes the following:

(a) Payment of court fee, process fees and all other charges payable or incurred in connection with any legal proceedings.

(b) Providing service of lawyers in legal proceedings.
(c) Obtaining and supply of certified copies of orders and other documents in legal proceedings.
(d) Preparation of appeal, paper book including printing and translation of documents in legal proceedings.

India supports 2016 Arbitral Award against China on South China Sea Dispute

Context: During the official visit of Foreign Minister of Philippines to India for Joint Commission on Bilateral Cooperation with India's External Affairs Minister, India upgraded its position and explicitly called for abiding by the 2016 arbitration award by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the UNCLOS. The arbitral award came on a petition by Philippines to the Permanent Court of Arbitration and ruled in favour of Philippines. China did not participate in the arbitration process neither does it recognise the legality of the Award.

What is the dispute regarding the South China Sea?

South China Sea is a semi-enclosed sea in the western Pacific Ocean.
Following countries share the littoral of South China Sea: China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei.
China has been making claim over the vast majority of South China Sea on the basis of historic entitlements. China claims over an area known as Nine Dash Line, which is based on the drawing a EEZ around disputed islands over which China claims its fishermen went on fishing and hence, it's sovereign territory.
Name of the disputed islands are:
- Paracel Islands
- Scarborough Shoal
- Spratly Islands
China wants to pursue one to one negotiations with countries of the littoral, where it thinks it can muscle through it demands due to vast asymmetric power difference between China and these countries.

Salient Features of the 2016 Arbitration Award

No legal basis for China's 'Nine-Dash Line' which is based on historic rights which China enjoyed during ancient times in South China Sea. According to the Award, UNCLOS defines the scope of maritime rights of littoral states in South China Sea.
None of the land features claimed by China in the South China Sea (Spratly & Scarborough Shoal) are 'islands' for the purposes of UNCLOS. Since they are not islands, they cannot generate an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. UNCLOS defines islands as 'a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide' and only islands have claim over territorial sea, contiguous land and 200 nautical miles of EEZ and continental shelf. On the other hand, a "rock" is a category of island which "cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of [its] own" and carries no entitlement to an EEZ or continental shelf.
UNCLOS provides that any decision rendered by a court or Tribunal having jurisdiction is final and binding between the parties. Thus, China's not adhering to the Award against it goes against liberal economic order and adherence to international law.
China through its maritime surveillance vessels, promulgation of a fishing moratorium in South China Sea, and construction of artificial islands and installations, had interfered with the exercise of the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its EEZ and continental shelf with respect to fishing, oil exploration, and navigation;
China failed to prevent exploitation of Philippines’ living resources by Chinese fishing vessels in the Philippines' EEZ;
China interfered with the traditional fishing activities of Philippine fishermen at Scarborough Shoal;
China failed to protect and preserve the marine environment by tolerating and actively supporting Chinese fishermen in the harvesting of endangered species and the use of harmful fishing methods that damaged the fragile coral reef ecosystem in the South China Sea;
China inflicted severe harm on the marine environment by constructing artificial islands and engaging in extensive land reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands; and
China through the activities of its law enforcement vessels, created serious risk of collision and danger to Philippine vessels and personnel.

India's evolving position on South China Sea

Earlier Position

In earlier statements, India called for peaceful resolution of disputes among the countries of South China Sea littoral.
India called for freedom of navigation and overflight and unimpeded commerce based on international law in the South China Sea region.
India has criticised unilateral use of force and abiding by principles of UNCLOS to amicably resolve the disputes between ASEAN countries of South China Sea Littoral and China.

Present Position

The present joint statements is the first time India has officially asked parties to adhere to the Arbitral Award i.e., India is expressly siding with Philippines and against China on the South China dispute. The reasons for the same are:

Changing policies in Philippines: Earlier, Philippines government under President Duterte tried to court China and put the issue of 2016 award on the backburner. However, present Philippines government under President Marcos Junior has taken the award more seriously and consider its ruling as final.

Geopolitical changes: USA and Quad countries have been backing India to play a larger role in the dispute resolution of South China Sea. China's increasing belligerence on India's territorial borders of Ladakh and Arunachal have also compelled India to take a more confrontational stand against territorial claims of China elsewhere.
Bolstering defence of Vietnam & Philippines: India has been selling weapons to Veitnam and Philippines, countries party to the South China Sea dispute against China to bolster their defences. India is considering to sell Brahmos missiles and Tejas airplanes to both Vietnam and Philippines. This will also boost indigenous defence industry and boost defence exports.

Way Forward:

India should focus on assisting ASEAN countries with all resources and technological knowhow to defend their territory. India has been a votary of ASEAN centrality while dealing with South China Sea dispute and this position should be continued.
India should contribute and facilitate quick finalisation of Code of Conduct among the Littoral Parties of South China Sea, which will ensure long term peace and amity in the region.
Ensure that South China Sea remains open for maritime shipping and overflight.