2023

Current Affairs

Global tropical primary forest cover continued to decline unabated in 2022

Context: Tropical areas lost 4.1 million hectares of forest cover – equivalent to losing an area of 11 football fields per minute – in 2022, new research quoted by the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Global Forest Watch has said.

Importance of Forest

Forests are critical ecosystems for fighting climate change, supporting livelihoods and protecting biodiversity.

Climate:
- As the world faces a “final warning” on the climate crisis, reducing deforestation is one of the most cost-effective land-based measures to mitigate climate change.
- Forests are both a source and a sink for carbon.
Human well-being:
- Some 1.6 billion people, including nearly 70 million Indigenous Peoples, rely on forest resources for their livelihoods.
- Deforestation, especially in the tropics, also impacts local temperatures and rainfall which compounds the local effects of global climate change, with consequences for human health and agricultural productivity.
Biodiversity:
- Forests harbor the most biodiversity of any ecosystem on Earth.

Primary Forests

Primary forests are forests that are:

Largely undisturbed by industrial-scale land uses and infrastructure such as logging, mining and dams and roads.
The result of ecological and evolutionary processes including the full range of successional stages over time and with natural disturbance processes operating within historic bounds.
More likely to possess the full complement of their evolved, characteristic plant and animal species with few if any exotics.
Dominated by a largely continuous tree canopy cover and have unpolluted soil and water.

Primary forests are some of the densest, wildest and most ecologically significant forests on Earth. They span the globe, from the snow-locked boreal region to the steamy tropics, though 75% of them can be found in just seven countries (Brazil, Bolivia, DRC, Ghana etc.). According to the University of Maryland, primary forest cover loss in tropical areas in 2022 was 10% more than in 2021.

Benefits of Primary Forests

These forests are major strongholds for biodiversity and include the planet's most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems.
They provide essential climate change mitigation and adaptation, freshwater, and other ecosystem service benefits.
They are also critically important for livelihoods and for cultural and spiritual reasons and are home for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Tropic Primary Forest vs intact forest landscapes (IFLs)

Both terms indicate a forest with no significant disturbances in recent record due to human activity.But while primary forests refer to areas of forest having reached the final stage of succession, IFLs encompass a broader patchwork of undisturbed areas. Within the boundary of an IFL you might find younger forests, clearings and areas of rock or ice in addition to primary forests. However, these younger patches must have been caused by natural disturbance patterns like floods or wildfire, Human-caused clearings fragment and degrade IFLs.

Need to protect Primary Forest

Primary forests are incredibly carbon rich. It is estimated that tropical primary forests alone store over 141 billion tonnes of carbon.
- Once a forest reaches primary status it can continue to sequester carbon for centuries.
- Clearing these forests releases the stored carbon and also reduces the capacity of them to sequester more carbon in the future.
The later successional stages also tend to have higher levels of biodiversity.
- The lack of human interference allows for ecological niches to flourish naturally, creating endemic species forming complex species interactions.
Preserving these forests also preserves cultural diversity, ensuring that traditional, indigenous ways of life are not disrupted.
Primary forest loss is almost irreversible in nature: even if the green cover regrows, a secondary forest is unlikely to match the extent of biodiversity and carbon sequestering capabilities of a primary forest.
Primary forests can take decades and even centuries to return to their undisturbed state, whatever we lose now, we may not see again in this century.
Loss of primary forest will have an adverse impact on the global climate e.g.,
- Forest loss in the Amazon basin not only affects carbon cycle but also regional rainfall. If tipping point is crossed, the variation can convert most of the ecosystem into a savanna.
- Deforestation in the Amazon region can disrupt rainfall patterns downwind and may be linked to the drought and fire in Bolivia. Deforestation also affects the climate in ways other than through the global carbon cycle.
Areas of mature rainforest are important for biodiversity, carbon storage and regulating regional and local climate effects.

Gobal Efforts

Global Pledge at COP-26

During the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, heads of 145 countries pledged to increase the efforts to combat deforestation with a goal to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.
A $500 million agreement was signed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2021, in Glasgow, to protect the Democratic Republic of Congo’s forests, but it is yet to have an impact on the deforestation rate in the country.

Global Forest Watch

WRI measures progress on two goals –

Ending deforestation by 2030
Restoring 350 million hectares (Mha) of lost and degraded forests by 2030 – that represents multiple global forest pledges.

REED and REED+

REDD+ is a climate change mitigation solution developed by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

REDD+ goes beyond simply deforestation and forest degradation and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
The framework is commonly referred to as the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ (WFR) adopted at COP 19 in Warsaw and provides the complete methodological and financing guidance for the implementation of REDD+ activities.
REDD+ is also recognized in Article 5 of the Paris Agreement.

Current Status of Primary Forest

Global Forest Watch, which is backed by the nonprofit World Resources Institute (WRI) and draws on forest data collected by the University of Maryland, revealed that about 41,000 sq km (16,000 sq miles) of tropical rainforest was lost in 2022.

Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo are the two countries with the most tropical forest cover, and both registered losses of this resource in 2022.
- The Democratic Republic of Congo lost more than half a million hectares of primary forest cover in 2022.
Ghana and Bolivia also rapidly lost their primary forest cover.
Indonesia and Malaysia managed to keep their primary forest cover loss to record-low levels in 2022.
In 2022, the global deforestation rate was 3.1% lower than the baseline from 2018-2020, it was still over one million hectares above the level needed. This puts the world off track to meet the 2030 goal.

Despite registering some gains, the overall change in tree cover in the last 20 years was a net loss of 100 Mha. This means that we are still losing forests and not restoring them at the required rate.

Current status in India

According to Global Forest Watch, India lost 43.9 thousand hectares of humid primary forest between 2021 and 2022, which accounts of 17% of the country’s total tree cover loss in the period. The total tree cover loss in India between 2021 and 2022 was 255 thousand hectares.

Reasons for loss of Primary Forest

As the population of the country grows, there is more demand for food, which in turn is leading to an expansion of area under agriculture and encroachment of land hosting primary forests
Primary forests are burned for short-term cultivation and then left fallow for regeneration of soil nutrients. However, increased demand for food has shortened the fallow periods, destroying more forests.

Global Initiatives

To curb deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia a logging moratorium, efforts to restore peatlands, and corporate commitments to exclude palm oil suppliers linked to deforestation appear to be effective.
The European Union this year delivered a push in the right direction, adopting a law that bans the import of a series of products that contribute to deforestation in tropical countries.
China, the world’s largest importer of many agricultural commodities, has recently committed to cracking down on illegal deforestation linked to its trade with Brazil.

Steps taken by India

Forest Rights Act of 2006, for instance, enables recognition of Community Forest Resource rights for conserving, protecting, regenerating and sustainably utilizing forest resources.
Estimates by WRI India show that between 2011 and 2016, India allocated more than 16 billion USD to improving forest and tree cover through public financing.
As a measure to balance environment and development demands on forest lands, Indian law requires a compensatory afforestation payment when forest lands are diverted to development projects.

What can be done

To meet the target of restoring 350 Mha of forests globally by 2030, the world needs to increase tree cover by 22 Mha per year, between 2021 and 2030.
To achieve zero deforestation by 2030, global deforestation had to be reduced by 10% each year.
Protected areas, indigenous, and community conservation are effective mechanisms for maintaining primary forests. National and international forest policies should prioritize the conservation of our planet's remaining primary forests.

Objections overruled; Forest Bill goes to House unchanged

Context: A Parliamentary committee, set up to examine proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, has endorsed the amendment, Bill.

Forest Conservation Act, 1980

FRA was enacted to provide for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.
It provides that prior permission of the Central Government is required for de-reservation of forest land, use of forest land for non-forest purposes, assigning of forest land by way of lease to private entities and for clearing of naturally grown trees for the purpose of reafforestation.
FRA empowers the Centre to require that any forest land diverted for non-forestry purposes be duly compensated.
The clearance process involves seeking permission from local forest authorities or wildlife authorities. Under this act, the Centre is eligible to reject a request or allow it with legally binding conditions.

Supreme Court Case

Godavarman case

The Supreme court in the Godavarman Case 1996 held that forest would not only cover the statutorily recognised forest under this act. It would recognise any area recorded in government record regardless of the ownership.

Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023

The bill is introduced to amend the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which envisages to remove ambiguity in the applicability of the provisions of said Act, to promote plantation in non-forest areas and to conserve the forests.

Provisions of the Bill

The Bill amends the FRA to make it applicable to certain types of land.
- These include land notified as a forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or in government records after the 1980 Act came into effect.
- The Act will not be applicable for land converted to non-forest use before December 12, 1996.
It also exempts certain types of land from the purview of the Act.
- These include land within 100 km of India’s border needed for national security projects, small roadside amenities, and public roads leading to a habitation.
In the FRA the state government requires prior approval of the central government to assign any forest land to a private entity.
- The Bill extends this to all entities, and allows the assignment to be made on terms and conditions specified by the central government.
The FRA specifies some activities that can be carried out in forests, such as establishing check posts, fencing, and bridges. The Bill also allows running zoos, safaris and eco-tourism facilities.

Issue raised against the bill

The changed definition of the land may go against the Supreme Court’s judgement in Godavarman case on preventing deforestation.
Exempting land near border areas for national security projects may adversely impact the forest cover and wildlife in north-eastern states.
A blanket exemption for projects like zoos, eco-tourism facilities, and reconnaissance surveys may adversely affect forest land and wildlife.
There were even objection to the proposal to change the name of the 1980 law from the Forest (Conservation) Act to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, which literally translates to Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act The objections were on the grounds that it was “non-inclusive” and left out “vast tracks of population both in South India and also in the North-East.”
This has invited opposition from multiple quarters, including some north-eastern States who objected that vast tracts of forest land would be unilaterally taken away for defence purposes.

The activities exempted by the proposed bill may help in economic development may even contribute to national priorities such as energy security and industrial growth. However, there may be a need to balance -economic benefits of such activities with that of conserving forests. Rather than giving a banket exemption to central government to determine the exempted activities a balance and inclusive approach can be discussed before finalising the bill.

Bad Loans at Record Low

Context: In the second quarter of 2019, the NPA ratio of Indian banks was 9.2% which was the worst among most emerging economies. However in the span of just four years, the GNPAs and Net NPAs have now reached their lowest levels since 2015 to 3.9% and 1%, respectively.

Basics of Bad Assets

Non-Performing Assets (NPA): An asset that is not returning in the form of principal or interest during the last 90 reporting days is classified as NPA.
Gross Non-Performing Assets (GNPA): GNPA is an absolute amount which reflects the total value of non-performing assets for the bank in a particular financial year.
Net Non-Performing Assets (NNPA): NNPA subtracts the provisions made by the bank from the gross NPA. Hence, net NPA gives you the exact value of non-performing assets after the bank has made specific provisions for it.
Return of Asset (RoA): RoA is calculated by dividing the net income of a bank by its total assets. An RoA of >=1% is generally considered good.
Provisioning is a mechanism to deal with bad assets. Under provisioning, banks have to set aside some funds to a prescribed percentage of their bad assets. The percentage of bad assets that has to be ‘provided for’ is called provisioning coverage ratio. The provisioning coverage ratio is the percentage of bad assets that the bank has to provide for from their own funds – most probably from profit.
Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) also known as capital-to-risk weighted assets ratio (CRAR) is defined as the proportion of a bank's total assets that is held in the form of shareholders' equity and certain other defined classes of capital. It is a measure of the bank's ability to meet the needs of its depositors and other creditors. It is expressed as a percentage of a bank's weighted credit exposures.

Facts that Shows the Decline in Stressed Assets

YVAuitRzI5VCZ5OLXWEL5L8ZehOfuZ6DXZCeymXjNhyb4z1ACOppM8dI025IWmZ0j XpkVmnVqVd63k8eseyTNgMbcOzjKN8bmJaL vMNm PljOFPwDqzY 9KWvoBuQDpf1KWNAQYgXWlmZhtjWqAQ

This graph shows that GNPAs and Net NPAs continued to decline and in March 2023, reached 3.9% and 1%, respectively, the lowest levels since 2015.

JS8GActxhbiQlOztHuX8Kr7w8wpVyLnepUnvVZ66nR NbqZz x 4zJlLNSQTU5HZWDlbZEi86yEpGBSH3lC8RDpRJ8poyhGBLyYqtQp5S WtKrEUDKadBppfdaG esl80 ZC5ouDF1oA66tOXzUytw

Chart above shows that the profitability of the banking sector has seen a marked improvement, with the Return on Assets (RoA) climbing to 1.1% in 2023, up from a negative 0.2% in 2018. An RoA of >=1% is generally considered good. This positive shift has contributed to the Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR) hitting a record peak of 17.1% in 2023. A key indicator of a bank’s health is its capital position, especially its CRAR that measures the bank’s exposure to riskier loans.

R5BbbgUTL2PVa0GpKzhE9x1arZM NMhGKuKxXGCIgafRvxxD7XRRuunuqEUdsRypdIw7YV0nAy3I pPlzW 7BK0ETCQtyN7Ca Nuo swZp lw8uDwJ5C37cHh5m8yViBgfBa1JCRLRXPHADMggwD1Q

The graph above illustrates the ratio of write-offs to GNPAs, which had been on a consistent downward trend during 2020-21 and 2021-22. However, there was a rise in this ratio in 2022-23, primarily due to substantial write-offs by private sector banks.

It shows the GNPA ratio of personal loans by category. The ratio has declined against all types of personal loans such as housing, credit cards, vehicle loans, and education loans.

Reasons For Declining NPAs

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code helped the recovery of sick loans.
Banks have stopped lending big money to industries and increased their share of personal loans.
Drop in Slippage Ratio: The slippage ratio is the rate at which good loans are turning bad. It is measured by

Fresh accretion of NPAs during the year × 100

Total standard assets at the beginning of the year

The slippage ratio was around 2% in September 2022 for SCBs, which is the lowest since 2015. Low slippage shows how well the asset qualities are managed by the bank.
Increasing Write-offs: Banks voluntarily choose to write off NPAs to maintain healthy balance sheets. According to the data given by the finance ministry, banks had written-off bad loans worth ₹ 10,09,511 crore in the last 5 years. In the first half of FY 2022-23, the loan write-offs as a ratio of GNPAs increased to 22.6%.

These factors not only helped in reducing the share of bad assets but also increased the profitability of scheduled commercial banks in the last one year.

Conclusion

Hence, from the above analysis, we can conclude that the recovery of banks is consistent and their health continues to improve.

Striking a blow against affirmative action in America

Context: In a ground-breaking decision, on June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions vs Harvard, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) deemed the race-conscious admission policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) as unconstitutional and violative of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judgement of US Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”
SCOTUS justified its verdict with four reasons.
- First, it emphasised that the equal protection clause is colour-blind, and the term “equal protection” means identical treatment. Thus, race-based affirmative action contravenes this promise.
- Second, it affirmed that any such contravention could only be justified if the state has a compelling goal, and affirmative action is absolutely necessary to attain it. The state must articulate this goal clearly to enable judicial scrutiny. The court found Harvard and UNC’s objectives, such as “training future leaders”, as commendable but vague.
- Third, the Court reiterated an earlier ruling that affirmative action policies should have a ‘sunset clause’. However, both Harvard and UNC lacked this.
- Lastly, the court held that affirmative action should not rely on racial stereotypes or disadvantage anyone based on race — two aspects it identified as problematic in this case.

Concept of Formal Equality and Substantive equality

Formal Equality

Formal Equality is the view that formal rules should not exclude individuals from acheiving certain goals by making reference to personal characteristics that are arbitrary, such as race, socio-economic class, gender, religion and sexuality.
In addition, Formal Equality forbids reference to proper names in formal rules.
The reason being equality cannot mean different things for different individuals. This applies even for affirmative action that may be justified to undo the historic discrimination faced by African Americans or Hispanics (or other groups).
Thus, measures which treat one race as distinct from another in any manner, including a preference in education, are viewed strictly and against equality. This narrow view of equality is called formal equality.

Substantive equality

This Concept of equality focuses on the outcomes and impacts of laws and policies.
Substantive equality goes far beyond creating formal legal equality for disadvantaged sections (where all are equal under the law) and means that governments are responsible for the impact of laws.
This requires governments to tailor legislation to respond to the realities of race, caste, sex, classes etc.
Striving for substantive equality also places a responsibility on governments to implement laws, through responsive governance and functioning justice systems that meet disadvantage sections’ needs.
It recognizes that because of historic discrimination, disadvantage sections of society do not start on an equal footing.

Comparison of Affirmative Actions in India and USA

Constitutional Provision in USA

The U.S. Constitution is silent on it, prohibiting only the denial of “equal protection”, leading to varied interpretations of this amorphous phrase depending on the sitting Justices.
To today’s majority, it means exactly what it meant in the 19th century: colorblindness. To dissent, it means consciously treating historically oppressed races differently.

Constitutional Provision in India

The Indian Constitution expressly allows affirmative action in favour of backward classes in matters of education (Article 15) and jobs (Article 16).
Article 16 expressly permits “reservations” in jobs, something that is unique to the Indian Constitution.
In fact, this reservation provision was part of the original Constitution as enacted on January 26, 1950, unlike affirmative action in education which was introduced the next year through the First Amendment.

Difference between the notion of equality in India and US

Notion of equality in USA	Notion of equality in India
US courts debate as to whether affirmative action is fundamentally permissible under the US constitution	India’s courts routinely debate the granular questions: what percentage of seats or posts can the state reserve? How should the beneficiary classes be identified? India’s courts do not debate as to whether affirmative action is fundamentally permissible, for the Constitution conclusively answers that question.
US follows a narrow view of equality called a formal equality that prevents U.S. courts from allowing broad-based race conscious measures.	India follows substantive notion of equality and that facilitates Indian Courts to pass pro-reservation judgments, in sync with the constitutional mandate.
The U.S. seeks to eliminate all distinctions based on race universally, the reason being equality cannot mean different things for different individuals.	India, on the other hand, does not treat all distinctions of race or caste alike. Certain classes such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes who have faced discrimination in the past are not considered on a level field with others.
Reservation is considered as antithetical to equality, but a tool that furthers equality.	Reservation is not antithetical to equality, but a tool that furthers equality.

Test of constitutionality of Affirmative actions in US

The U.S. has strict scrutiny of all measures that create distinctions based on race.
This means a measure is constitutionally permissible only if it furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve such interest.
Any broad measures are viewed with great caution so that non-minority candidates are not disadvantaged at the cost of minority.

Test of constitutionality of Affirmative actions in India

Under Art 15 and Art 16, ‘Education’ and ‘public employment’, respectively are enshrined in the Constitution as legitimate goals for reservation.
Thus, the standard adopted by courts focuses on whether the class seeking reservation is socially and educationally backward, and inadequately represented.
- In employment, this requires proof of quantifiable data from the state.
If these two criteria are met, even broad reservation measures are constitutional and the interests of the non-minority are instead taken care of by capping reservations at 50%.

Supreme Court of India have repeatedly sounded caution that foreign decisions should not be relied on without a proper appreciation of the context in which they were rendered. However, the emphasis on a sunset clause, akin to the Indian Supreme Court’s suggestion in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Reservations case, could potentially resonate.

CRUMBLING WTO

Context: In June 2022, the member-countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) managed to hammer out a face-saving deal, India played a vital role at the Geneva ministerial conference, thereby keeping faith in trade multilateralism alive.

An important part was resurrecting the WTO’s dispute settlement system (DSS), also called WTO’s ‘crown jewel’, by 2024. Since 2019, the WTO’s two-tiered DSS remains paralysed.
The appellate body, which is the second tier of the WTO’s DSS that hears appeals from WTO panels, is non-functional because the United States, single-handedly, has blocked the appointment of its members.
The U.S. reproaches the appellate body for judicial overreach and exceeding its assigned institutional mandate.
One major problem that the U.S. identifies is that the appellate body, contrary to the text of the WTO’s dispute settlement understanding (DSU), has been creating binding precedents through its decisions.

Issues Under WTO negotiation:

Plurilateral and Multilateral Agreement: Multilateral Agreements are adopted through consensus among all member countries. These agreements are applicable to all members and may include special and differential treatment for poor and developing economies. Examples of multilateral agreements include AoA, GATS, and TRIPS.
Plurilateral agreements, on the other hand, are voluntary agreements between a limited number of WTO member countries. The provisions of these agreements are not applicable to all members. Examples of plurilateral agreements under the WTO include Trade in civil aircraft, Government Procurement, Bovine meat, and Dairy products.
Plurilateral vs. Multilateral Agreements: While multilateral agreements consider the special needs and interests of poor and developing countries, the consensus-driven nature of multilateral negotiations often leads to delays. This has sparked a debate between developed and developing countries on the nature of trade negotiations under the WTO. Developing countries, led by India, oppose plurilateral agreements and advocate for the continuation of the multilateral framework.
Defunct Dispute Settlement Body: Sanctioned strength of Appellate Body (AB) of WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism is seven members and these members are appointed through consensus among the member countries.
US Blocking Appointment :The quorum required to decide on disputes is three judges. The US government believes that AB is biased against it and has criticized it for being "unfair". Consequently, US has so far been blocking appointment of members to the Appellate Body (AB) and it is left with only one judge which is below the quorum of three judges needed to hear appeals.

Reasons for WTO Crumbling:

Changing world order: The unipolar world order represented by institutions like the WTO, which favoured the West, is facing challenges due to the rise of developing countries like India and China. Developed countries resort to protectionist policies in trade wars, such as the one between the USA and China, and disputes like the solar dispute between India and the USA.
Process loopholes: The negotiation process, while appearing democratic, lacks transparency in ministerial consensus. Green room discussions exclude the majority of countries, favouring developed countries. Consensus-based decision-making is a root cause of slow reform.
Discriminatory agreements: Some agreements signed under the WTO are considered discriminatory and exclusionary in functioning. For example, the Doha Development Agenda has yet to provide a solution for domestic subsidies.
Flouting TRIPS: Developed countries accuse developing countries of flouting TRIPS, while the latter highlight public health concerns and practices like evergreening of patents by developed country companies.
Dispute Resolution: The costly and lengthy dispute resolution mechanism is mostly used by developed countries, making developing countries victims of the process.

Importance of WTO:

WTO regulates 98% of global trade flows and has reduced the average value of tariffs by 85% since 1942.
Trade as a share of GDP has grown from 24% in 1960 to 60% in 2015, fuelling economic growth, creating jobs, and increasing household incomes worldwide.
WTO's rules-based system brings openness, transparency, and stability to international trade.
Trade acts as a powerful tool for inclusive growth by reducing poverty and opening opportunities for small firms, women, farmers, and fishermen.

Way Forward:

Plurilateral Negotiations: The WTO should transition to plurilateral negotiations, allowing like-minded countries to discuss specific issues and form rules accordingly.
Services: As services occupy two-thirds of global GDP, efforts should be made to establish a global trade policy that addresses higher barriers compared to goods. GATS should be more open and transparent.
Consultation Committee: Countries should consider varying levels of development and form a consultation committee to address concerns effectively.
Agriculture Agreements: Agreements on agriculture should be restructured to cater to the concerns of developing countries.
Collective Bargaining: Like-minded countries such as the G33 African community should increase their collective bargaining power to demand favourable provisions in agreements related to agriculture, services, and intellectual property rights.
Mindset Change: The USA and EU should recognize the larger role played by the WTO in their growth and the maintenance of an open system.

Cabinet gives nod to Data Protection Bill

Context: The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, a draft of which was floated in November, is expected to be tabled in Parliament’s Monsoon Session that begins on July 20. The Union Cabinet approved the draft Bill on Wednesday.

Data Protection

Data protection is the process of securing digital information while keeping data usable for business purposes without trading customer or end-user privacy.

Data protection is becoming more intricate as the number of devices to monitor and protect expands. Today, it includes IoT devices and sensors, industrial machines, robotics, wearables and more.
Data protection helps reduce risk and enables a business or agency to respond quickly to threats.

Need for data protection

Data protection is important because the total number of computing devices increases each year, and computing is now more complex which connects large number of individuals breach of their data will have disastrous consequences.
The implications of a data breach or data loss incident can bring organizations to their knees. Failure to protect data can cause financial losses, loss of reputation and customer trust, and legal liability, considering most organizations today are subject to some data privacy standard or regulation.
Personal data reveals a lot about an individual, his thoughts, and his life. This data can easily be exploited to harm him, and that’s especially dangerous for vulnerable individuals and communities, such as journalists, activists, human rights defenders, and members of oppressed and marginalized groups. That is why data must be strictly protected.

Status of Data Protection in India

Information Technology Act of 2000 was passed to uplift e-governance, provide legal backing for online transactions, and fight cybercrime.
The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (“SPDI Rules”) which governs the “collecting, receiving, possessing, storing, dealing, handling, retaining, using, transferring, disclosing sensitive personal data or information, security practices and procedures for handling personal information”.
- The rules define sensitive personal data under Rule 3.
- Under Rule 6, a body corporate is not permitted to publish or disclose such data or information to any third party without the information provider’s prior consent.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as part of the right to life and personal liberty in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), also called the “privacy judgement.”
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to information act, 2005 deals with the non-disclosure of personal information.

Need for data protection laws in India

In India, the confluence of multiple regulations for different areas produces ambiguity, which is one of the key reasons for data breaches.
In India, there is no single codified law that addresses all areas of data privacy and keeps track of the penalties that should be applied.
When dealing with situations involving data breaches and cybersecurity, the enforcement mechanism typically confronts a number of implementation challenges in the absence of a codified law.
Since India is a nation-state, the data of the citizens is considered a national asset.
Depending on India’s security and geopolitical objectives, this national asset may need to be protected and stored within national borders. That would include not only the corporates, but also Non- Governmental Organisations and governmental bodies. For the regulation of which India need a law.
Article 38, Which is a Directive Principles of State Policy, is concerned with the general well-being of citizens. Privacy and data protection are fundamentally linked to the welfare state.
Article 51 also specifies that the State shall seek to encourage conformity to treaty obligations and international law in order to foster international peace and security. India being a member to several international organisations that focus on data protection mechanisms like the United Nations Commission on International Trade should make a comprehensive law on data protection.

Draft Digital Personal and Data Protection (DPDP) Bill 2022

The purpose of the bill is to provide for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognizes both the right of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process personal data for lawful purposes, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The data protection legislation specifies norms on management of personal data of Indian residents and requires explicit consent from people whose data is collected and used.

Key Provisions of DPDP Bill

Bill requires entities that collect personal data — called data fiduciaries — to maintain the accuracy of data, keep data secure, and delete data once their purpose has been met.
Bill defines “Data Principal” as an individual to whom the personal data relates and where such individual is a child includes the parents or lawful guardian of such a child.
In Bill “Data Processor” means any person who processes personal data on behalf of a Data Fiduciary.
Data Protection Board of India
- It consists of technical experts constituted by the government
- if board has reason to believe that their personal data has been used without their consent - for example, cell phone numbers or Aadhaar details. The Board will institute an investigation into the breach.
Bill has provision regarding “Data Protection Officer” who will represent the Significant Data Fiduciary under the provisions of this Act and be based in India
- The Data Protection Officer will be an individual responsible to the Board of Directors or similar governing body of the Significant Data Fiduciary and will be the point of contact for the grievance redressal mechanism under the provisions of the bill.
DPDP Bill also outlines practices for entities that collect personal data, how that data should be stored and processed to ensure there is no breach, as well as rights of the persons whose data is being used.
Bill has a clause for offering voluntary undertaking in case an entity wants to admit that a breach has occurred and pay penalty as mitigation measure to avoid court litigation.
- The fines would be levied by the Data Protection Board of India, which would be set up under the Act.

Benefits of the DPDP Bill

Once passed, the Bill will be critical in India's trade negotiations with other countries, particularly with the European Union, whose General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) are among the most comprehensive privacy rules in the world.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, is a crucial pillar of the overarching framework of technology regulations the Centre is building, which also includes the Digital India Bill — the proposed successor to the Information Technology Act, 2000, the draft Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022, and a policy for non-personal data governance.

Issues with the DPDP Bill

The bill empowers the executive to draft rules and notifications on a vast range of issues, which increases executive discretion and decreases accountability.
- For example, the central government can exempt any government or even private sector entity from the application of provisions of the law by merely issuing a notification.
The Centre was also empowered to appoint members to the data protection board, raising concerns over the control it could potentially exert on the institution in cases where it was an interested party.
Exemptions from data processing by the state for reasons such as national security may result in data collection, processing, and retention that exceeds what is necessary. This may violate the fundamental right to privacy.
- Any data collected by government agencies is exempted even if the data is later processed by a different agency and regardless of the legality of the purpose.
The Bill differentiates between private and government companies performing the same commercial activity, such as providing banking or telecommunications services, in terms of consent and storage limitation. This may violate the right to equality of the private sector providers.
- Which is contrary to the idea of data justice present in the original draft of the Personal Data Protection Bill created by the B N Srikrishna Committee in 2018.
The composition, manner, and tenure of appointments to the Data Protection Board of India will be determined by the Central government. This raises a question about the independent functioning of the Board.
The Bill does not grant the right to data portability and the right to be forgotten to the data principal.
Before processing a child's personal data, all data fiduciaries must get verified consent from the child's legal guardian, according to the Bill. To comply with this regulation, any data fiduciary must verify the age of anyone who signs up for its services. This may have negative consequences for online anonymity.
The bill proposes amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act to expand its purview and exempt all personal information from disclosure. This threatens transparency and accountability regime in the country as the personal data of government officials will be protected under it and cannot be disclosed to an RTI applicant.
The bill does not have stringent norms like GDPR including provisions that put limitation on the mass collection of the public data, which gives monopolistic power to first mover corporations and can cause harm to socio-economic rights.
The bill put publicly available data outside of its regulation, but such data has the potential to reveal, via machine learning, sensitive intelligence that individuals did not consent to reveal when they posted some harmless data on the internet.
Private entities are exempted even if they collect the personal data of the employee if it is for performance evaluation purposes. Which can lead to invasive data collection in office spaces, Invasive biometrics on blue-collar workers, enabling more sophisticated exploitation and universalising a culture of surveillance.
Under the bill private entities in possession of someone’s data can also assume consent and share that data with other private entities, for an unspecified duration, without informing the person.

Need for asymmetric power to state

Government needs certain exemptions because it deals with issues including terrorism, law and order, and public health emergencies. These exemptions are needed for the government to work efficiently.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill is only one of the pieces that form part of its larger policy vision for the entire digital economy and must be seen in that light.

Model of Data Protection

EU model:

The GDPR focuses on a comprehensive data protection law for processing of personal data.
The GDPR levy harsh fines against those who violate its privacy and security standards, with penalties reaching into the tens of millions of euros.
It has been criticised for being excessively stringent, and imposing many obligations on organisations processing data, but it is still the template for most of the legislation drafted around the world.

US model:

The United States follows a sectoral approach to data privacy protection.
There is no all-encompassing federal legislation that ensures the privacy and protection of personal data. Instead, legislation at the federal level primarily protects data within sector-specific contexts.
Privacy protection is largely defined as “liberty protection” focused on the protection of the individual’s personal space from the government.
It is viewed as being somewhat narrow in focus, because it enables collection of personal information as long as the individual is informed of such collection and use.

China model:

China’s two newest data security laws—the “Data Security Law” (DSL) and the “Personal Information Protection Law” (PIPL)—came into effect at the end of 2021.
The DSL sets a framework for companies to classify data based on its economic value and relevance to China's national security, while the PIPL recalls Europe's GDPR in setting a framework to ensure user privacy.
The DSL references two main categories of sensitive data—national core data and important data—with new guidelines for governing each.
The PIPL covers all data activities related to the personal information of Chinese citizens, whether it is originally collected within China or abroad.

On the one hand, Data Privacy is important because it safeguards personal integrity, promotes trust in digital interactions, and upholds the fundamental rights of individuals in an increasingly data-driven world on the other protecting data from internal or external corruption and illegal access protects a company from financial loss, reputational harm, consumer trust degradation, and brand erosion. In this regard DPDP Bill has a central importance in the economic, inclusive and secure development of India.

State of Science research

Context: The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, approved the introduction of the National Research Foundation (NRF) Bill, 2023 in the Parliament.

Status of research in India

In response to a Parliament question in March, the government said India’s total expenditure on R&D in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms in 2018 — about US$ 68 billion — was the sixth highest in the world, after the US, China, Japan, Germany and South Korea.
According to the Department of Science and Technology (DST), there were 7,888 R&D institutions in the country in 2021, including more than 5,200 units in the private sector and industries, which engage mainly in industry-specific research.
According to DST data, about 94 per cent of the Indians (34,241 out of 36,565) who obtained a doctorate at a US university between 2001 and 2020 did so in science and engineering disciplines, second only to China.
India produced 25,550 doctorates in 2020-21, of which 14,983 were in science and engineering disciplines. This 59 per cent proportion in the overall doctorates compares well with other countries, putting India in the seventh rank overall.
Even in absolute terms, India’s annual output of science and engineering doctorates is right at the top, with only the US, China and the United Kingdom producing more.

Source Indian Express

Problem of research in India

Problem of funding

The expenditure on research as a proportion of GDP has gone down, from about 0.8 per cent at the start of this millennium to about 0.65 per cent now. For the last decade or so, this share has remained stagnant.
The spending on research has more than tripled in the last 15 years, from Rs 39,437 crore in 2007-08 to over 1.27 lakh crore in 2020-21. But India’s GDP has grown faster, and so the share of research has gone down. Unlike India, at the global level, growth in Research & Development (R&D) expenditure has outpaced GDP growth.
At least 37 countries spent more than 1 per cent of their GDP on R&D in 2018, the last year for which data from all countries is available, according to the 2021 UNESCO Science Report.
India spent only 42 US dollars (in PPP terms) per researcher in 2020, compared with nearly 2,150 by Israel, 2,180 by South Korea and 2,183 by the United States.

Problem of research in universities

Only one per cent of universities engage in active research, according to the detailed project report on NRF.
Aside from basic research, due to minimal interaction between departments, there is a lack of interdisciplinary education and research in the universities.
Lack of collaborative research between academia and industries resulting in products with no commercial utility and public utility.

Problem in outcome of research

The number of researchers per million population in India, 262, is extremely low compared with even developing countries like Brazil (888), South Africa (484) or Mexico (349).
Data from DST showed that Indian researchers published 149,213 articles in science and engineering journals across the world in 2020, almost two and a half times more than a decade earlier. However, it still constituted only 5 per cent of all the articles. Chinese researchers contributed 23 per cent, while US researchers accounted for 15.5 per cent.
In 2021, a total of 61,573 patents were filed in India, making it the sixth largest in the world. But this was nowhere close to the nearly 16 lakh patents filed in China, and about six lakhs in the United States that year.

Suggestions:

Research & Development spending in specific domains like biopharmaceuticals, vaccines, biosecurity, One Health, digital health, and data science should be increase significantly both in the public and private sectors.
Investments should be made in areas where there are gaps in research capabilities and capacities e.g., technology development and commercialization of innovation.
A lot more emphasis should be on developing manufacturing capabilities of priority sectors across the value chain.

National Research Foundation Bill, 2023

The approved Bill aims to establish National Research Foundation (NRF) that will seed, grow and promote Research and Development (R&D) and foster a culture of research and innovation throughout India’s universities, colleges, research institutions, and R&D laboratories.

Key Provisions of the bill

The bill, after approval in the Parliament, will establish NRF, an apex body to provide high-level strategic direction of scientific research in the country as per recommendations of the National Education Policy (NEP), at a total estimated cost of Rs. 50,000 crores during five years (2023-28).
Since the scope of the NRF is wide-ranging – impacting all ministries - the Prime Minister will be the ex-officio President of the Board and the Union Minister of Science & Technology & Union Minister of Education will be the ex-officio Vice-Presidents.
The Department of Science and Technology (DST) will be the administrative Department of NRF which will be governed by a Governing Board consisting of eminent researchers and professionals across disciplines.
NRF’s functioning will be governed by an Executive Council chaired by the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India.
The bill will also repeal the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) established by an act of Parliament in 2008 and subsume it into NRF which has an expanded mandate and covers activities over and above the activities of SERB.

Role of NRF

NRF will forge collaborations among the industry, academia, and government departments and research institutions, and create an interface mechanism for participation and contribution of industries and State governments in addition to the scientific and line ministries.
It will focus on creating a policy framework and putting in place regulatory processes that can encourage collaboration and increased spending by the industry on R&D.
In order to bring non-science disciplines of research in its ambit, NRF will fund research projects across four major disciplines –Sciences; Technology; Social Sciences; and Arts and Humanities.

Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB)

SERB is a statutory body established through SERB Act 2008 of Parliament.
To Support basic research in emerging areas of Science & Engineering is the primary and distinctive mandate of the Board.
As per the provisions of the SERB Act 2008, the Board has an Oversight Committee. The members of the Oversight committee advise and assist the board.

Data Protection Bill

Context: The revised version of India's much-anticipated data protection law has received the Cabinet's approval and is now poised to be presented to Parliament.

More about the Bill

It is a crucial pillar of the overarching framework of technology regulations the Centre is building, which also includes the Digital India Bill, which will be the proposed successor to the Information Technology Act, 2000, the draft Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022, and a policy for non-personal data governance.
Once it becomes law, it will play a crucial role in India’s trade negotiations with other nations, especially regions like the European Union, whose General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) are among the world’s most exhaustive privacy laws.

Significance of a privacy law

The proposed law will apply to the processing of digital personal data within India; and to data processing outside the country if it is done for offering goods or services, or for profiling individuals in India.
It requires entities that collect personal data, called data fiduciaries, to maintain the accuracy of data, keep data secure, and delete data once their purpose has been met.
Voluntary undertaking: The entities violating its provisions can bring it up with the data protection board, which can decide to bar proceedings against the entity by accepting settlement fees.

Penalty

The highest penalty to be levied for failing to prevent a data breach has been prescribed at Rs 250 crore per instance.
The definition of “per instance” is subjective and could mean either a single instance of a data breach, or an account for the number of people impacted and multiply it by Rs 250 crore.
However, it will be open to interpretation by the data protection board on a case-by-case basis.

Concerns related to the draft bill

The Bill has largely retained the contents of the original version that was proposed in November 2022. Some of the proposals flagged by privacy experts:

Use of open-ended language such as “as necessary” or “as may be prescribed”.
The Bill did not seem to work towards protecting people but ensured that the government retains all power without any checks or balances
The government has been given the power to exempt not only government agencies but any entity that is collecting user data, from having to comply with the provisions of this bill on account of national security, relations with foreign governments, and maintenance of public order among other things.
The central government will have control in appointing members of the data protection board which will be an adjudicatory body that will deal with privacy-related grievances and disputes between two parties.
The chief executive of the board will be appointed by the central government, which will determine the terms and conditions of their service.
The Executive in India has a track record of exploiting to expand its powers. There is no right to compensation to individuals in case of a data breach and have no right to data portability.
There is also concern that the law could dilute the Right to Information (RTI) Act, as the personal data of government functionaries is likely to be protected under it, making it difficult to be shared with an RTI applicant.

Changes in the new bill

A key change is made in the way it deals with cross-border data flows to international jurisdictions, moving from a ‘whitelisting’ approach to a ‘blacklisting’ mechanism.
The previous draft proposed a "whitelist" of jurisdictions where the personal data of Indian citizens could be transferred, based on notifications from the central government.
However, the revised draft bill allows global data flows to all jurisdictions except those listed in a specified "negative list," which acts as an official blacklist of countries where data transfers are prohibited.
The previous draft's provision on "deemed consent" could be modified to impose stricter requirements on private entities. However, government departments would still be allowed to assume consent when processing personal data for reasons of national security and public interest.

Comparison with other countries

An estimated 137 out of 194 countries have put in place legislation to secure the protection of data and privacy, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), an intergovernmental organization within the United Nations Secretariat.
Africa and Asia show 61% (33 countries out of 54) and 57% (34 countries out of 60) adoption respectively.
Only 48% of Least Developed Countries (22 out of 46) have data protection and privacy laws.

Different Models of data protection framework

EU model: The GDPR focuses on a comprehensive data protection law for the processing of personal data. It has been criticized for being excessively stringent and imposing many obligations on organizations processing data, but it is still the template for most of the legislation drafted around the world.
US model: Privacy protection is largely defined as “liberty protection” focused on the protection of the individual’s personal space from the government. It is somewhat narrow because it enables the collection of personal information as long as the individual is informed of such collection and use.
China model: New Chinese laws on data privacy and security include the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which came into effect in 2021. It gives Chinese data principals new rights as it seeks to prevent the misuse of personal data.

Enhancement of Data Protection Measures in India

In 2017, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Vs Union of India, unanimously affirmed that Indian citizens have a fundamental right to privacy, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and liberty.
The Indian government in 2017 established the B.N. Srikrishna Committee, to address data protection issues. The committee submitted a report with recommendations, that included imposing restrictions on data processing and collection, establishing a Data Protection Authority, recognizing the right to be forgotten, and advocating for data localization.
Furthermore, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 require social media platforms to exercise increased diligence in monitoring the content on their platforms.

Standing up for National Anthem

Context: An executive magistrate in Srinagar has sent 11 men to jail after they were detained for allegedly not rising for the National Anthem at an event on June 25 where J&K Lt Governor Manoj Sinha was present.

Bound Down In legal terms, to be “bound down” means to be required to appear before the investigating officer or the court on a given date. The expression is usually used in court orders to indicate that an accused is “bound” by surety or personal guarantee to appear before authorities.

Provision of CrPC used for arrest

Section 107 Of CrPC

“It authorises a Magistrate, in case of emergency when breach of peace is imminent, to order the accused person to agree to a bond which asks him to maintain peace for the prescribed period of time, not exceeding one year, as the Judge thinks would fit.”

Section 151 of CrPC

“A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.

Such a detention period should not exceed twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force.”

Standing up for national anthem

Constitutional Provisions

Art 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression
Art 19(2) put restriction on the freedom provided under article 19(1)(a) in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
Art 25 provides for Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part 3.
In Part 4A, under Art 51A(a) every citizen has a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

Section 3 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 prescribes jail up to three years and/ or a fine for “intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or causing disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing”.

Issues

Whether mere standing and not singing the national anthem under a religious belief can be protected under Article 19 (1) (a) and 25 (1) of the Constitution of India.
Art 51A(a) of the Constitution makes it every citizen’s duty to “abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem”

The Issue arises because these provisions neither expressly spell out the proper way to show respect, nor do they talk about sitting or standing while the national anthem plays.

Supreme Court Cases

Bijoe Emmanual & Others v. State of Kerala & Ors, 1986

In this case, Hon'ble Supreme court (SC) granted protection to three children of Jehovas witness Sect, who didn’t join in singing of national anthem but stand respectfully at their school. The court held that forcing the children to sing national anthem is a violation of their fundamental right to religion.

Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India

Supreme Court said that

Article 25 (“Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion was incorporated in recognition of the principle that the real test of a true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the country’s Constitution.
SC passed an interim order that “All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem.”
The court had also ordered that “entry and exit doors shall remain closed” when the Anthem is played, and that “when the National Anthem shall be played…it shall be with the National Flag on the screen”

Later, in 2018, the order passed was modified to the extent that playing of the National Anthem prior to the screening of feature films in cinema halls is not mandatory, but optional or directory.

Instruction for Correct use of National Anthem by Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA)
Instructions have been issued by MOHA from time to time about the correct versions of the Anthem, the occasions on which these are to be played or sung, and about the need for paying respect to the anthem by observance of proper decorum on such occasions.

In an order issued by, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had stated that “whenever the anthem is played, the audience shall stand to attention”.
“However, when in the course of a newsreel or documentary the anthem is played as a part of the film, it is not expected of the audience to stand as standing is bound to interrupt the exhibition of the film and would create disorder and confusion rather than add to the dignity of the anthem,” the ministry added.

Constitutional Patriotism

Constitutional Patriotism is a German Jurisprudence concept which indicated complete devotion to constitutional principles as a way of encouraging social cohesion and dwells on building a common identity for all its citizens over their individual culture, religion tradition etc., thereby making the constitutional principles as binding factors and nothing else.

The idea was introduced by the German philosopher Karles Jaspers after World War II to inculcate the feelings of unity among the German people.
It was believed to be a kind of solidarity that is different from the context of nationalism and the ideas of a single community.

However, in this context, the Supreme Court has used this concept to play the national anthem as a means to instill patriotism and nationalism which is symbolic of the nation and not of the constitution.

Difference between Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Constitutional Patriotism

In general, the concept of constitutional patriotism designates the idea that political attachment ought to center on the norms, the values, and, more indirectly, the procedures of a liberal democratic constitution.
Thus, political allegiance is owed, primarily, neither to a national culture, as proponents of liberal nationalism have claimed, nor to “the worldwide community of human beings,” as, for instance, Martha Nussbaum's conception of cosmopolitanism has it.
Constitutional patriotism promises a form of solidarity distinct from both nationalism and cosmopolitanism.

How the Performance Grading Index assesses states in school education

Context: The Education Ministry released Sunday's latest Performance Grading Index (PGI) edition. This relatively new index measures the performance of states in school education.

How is PGI worked out?

It assesses states’ performance in school education based on data drawn from several sources, including the Unified District Information System for Education Plus, National Achievement Survey, and Mid-Day Meal.
States are scored on a total of 1,000 points across 70 parameters, which are grouped under five broad categories:

Access (e.g. enrolment ratio, transition rate and retention rate);
Governance and management;
Infrastructure;
Equity (difference in performance between scheduled caste students and general category students) and
Learning outcomes (average score in mathematics, science, languages and social science).

States are graded and not ranked to discourage the practice of one improving only at the cost of others, “thereby casting a stigma of underperformance on the latter”.
According to the government, the objective is to help the states prioritise areas for intervention in school education.
The Education Ministry released the first PGI in 2019 for the reference year 2017-18.

What does the grading system reflect?

The PGI grading system has 10 levels.
Level 1 indicates top-notch performance and a score between 951 and 1,000 points.
Level II, or Grade 1++, indicates a score between 901 and 950.
Those with Grade 1+ (or Level III) have scored between 851 and 900.
The lowest is Grade VII, which means a score between 0 and 550 points.

How have states performed this time?

In PGI 2019-20, no state or Union Territory could achieve the highest grade, that is Level I.
Even in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 editions, no state had reached Level 1 and Grade 1++.
Chandigarh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Andaman, Nicobar, and Kerala scored more than 90% and obtained Grade 1++ (or Level II), making them the best-performing states.
This is the first time that any state has reached Level II.
The top-performing states of Gujarat, Chandigarh, and Kerala in 2018-19 were given Grade 1+ (or Level III), which is a score between 851 and 900 points.
Only the UT of Ladakh has been placed in the lowest grade, Grade VII, but that’s because it was the first time it was assessed after it was carved out of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.

What are the areas where the states still have to improve?

According to the report, states and UTs mainly need to improve their performance in terms of governance processes.
This domain carries several parameters, including teacher availability, teachers’ training, regular inspection, and availability of finances.
In the domain of Governance Processes, there are 24 States/UTs which have scored less than 288 (80% of the maximum possible score). It implies that this is the area many States and UTs must focus on.
The PGI too accords the highest importance to this Domain because compliance with the indicators here will lead to critical structural reforms in areas ranging from monitoring the attendance of teachers to ensuring transparent recruitment of teachers and principals.
The second area that requires attention is the Domain for Infrastructure and Facilities, where twenty States/UTs have scored less than 120 (80% of the maximum possible score in this domain).
Two States, Bihar (81) and Meghalaya (87) recorded the lowest scores in this domain.
This is a cause for concern as a proper school building with adequate facilities is a must to improve the overall quality of school education.

Delimitation

Context: The recent announcement made by the Prime Minister of India during the inauguration of the new Parliament building highlighted a plan to expand the representation in Lok Sabha by increasing the number of seats and Members of Parliament (MPs).

What is Delimitation?

Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing the boundaries of constituencies or electoral areas. This process is carried out periodically to ensure that each constituency has a roughly equal number of voters, based on the principle of "one vote, one value."
After each census, a readjustment is to made in (a) allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha to the States, and (b) division of each state into territorial constituencies.
Parliament is empowered to determine the authority and the manner in which it is to be made.
Delimitation is necessary because population distribution changes over time, with some areas experiencing significant growth while others may decline. This can result in a situation where certain constituencies have a much larger or smaller number of voters compared to others, leading to an imbalance in representation.

About Delimitation Commission:

Delimitation Commission is appointed by the President of India.
Composition: Chief Election Commissioner, Retired Judge of Supreme Court and Election Commissioner of the concerned State.
Orders of Delimitation Commission cannot be called in question before any court of law.
The copies of its orders are laid before the House of People and State Legislative Assembly concerned, but no modifications are permissible therein by them.

Impact of Delimitation:

Balancing the Political Power: Delimitation can alter the distribution of political power among different regions and communities. The Redrawal of the constituencies can impact the electoral prospects of political parties and candidates, potentially impacting the political dynamics and power balance within a particular region or state. E.g., During 2008 delimitation exercise, Jharkhand witnessed a significant realignment of political power when the boundaries of constituencies were redrawn.
Addressing Demographic Shifts: In 2002, constituencies in states like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were redefined to address the substantial population growth in urban areas. It paved the way for better reflection of population changes and ensured that urban centers had adequate representation in the legislative bodies.
Minority Representation: Delimitation exercises have been instrumental in ensuring better representation for minority communities. In the 2008 delimitation exercise, constituencies in regions with a significant concentration of minority communities, such as Malappuram in Kerala, were adjusted to ensure their political interests were adequately represented.
Enhanced Gender Representation: Delimitation exercises have also contributed to improving gender representation in politics. E.g., during the 2008 delimitation exercise, the constituencies in certain states were redrawn to facilitate reservation of seats for women in local bodies, thereby promoting greater participation of women in the political process.
Fair Representation: Delimitation aims to ensure fair representation by readjusting the boundaries of constituencies based on population changes. It helps in balancing the number of voters per representative, ensuring that each vote holds relatively equal weight and upholding the democratic principle of "one person, one vote."

Issues associated with Delimitation:

The delimitation exercise, aimed at rearranging and standardizing the number of people per constituency, may result in decreased representation for States that have achieved population stabilization. E.g., Kerala, Tamil Nadu. It may lead to increased representation for States that are still experiencing population growth and have not yet achieved stability.
Delimitation exercises often face challenges in implementation due to logistical and administrative issues. For instance, the delimitation exercise planned for the state of Jammu and Kashmir faced delays and obstacles due to the unique circumstances and complexities of the region.

Roadmap for Future

The Commission can choose to implement freezing of seats, until all States have achieved population stabilization.
Alternatively, Commission can develop a customized mathematical model inspired by the 'Cambridge Compromise'. This model would aim to provide a mathematically equitable formula for the allocation of seats, similar to the apportionment of seats in the European Parliament. #Best Practice
It is essential to ensure that the delimitation process is carried out fairly, transparently, and with adequate consideration for the interests of all communities and regions.

Govt orders E-Commerce Platforms to Audit and Eliminate Dark Patterns

Context: Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued an advisory to all e-commerce platforms to conduct self-audits within 3 months to identify and eliminate dark patterns. Dark patterns are deceptive design practices that mislead consumers into unintended actions.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about Dark Patterns.

Government of India had notified the ‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns in 2023’ and specified 13 dark patterns, namely: False urgency, Basket Sneaking, Confirm shaming, forced action, Subscription trap, Interface Interference, Bait and switch, Drip Pricing, Disguised Advertisements and Nagging, Trick Wording, Saas Billing and Rogue Malwares.

Dark Pattern

A dark pattern is a user interface that has been crafted to trick or manipulate users into making choices that are detrimental to their interest - such as buying a more expensive product, paying more than what was initially disclosed, sharing data or making choices based on false or paid-for reviews, and so on.

Different Types of Dark Patterns

TYPE	ABOUT
Urgency	This tactic creates a sense of urgency or scarcity to pressure consumers into making a purchase or taking an action.
Tricks	Things that make users do things they did not meant to
Forced continuity	Give a free trail but changes to a paying scheme without warning
Nagging	It refers to persistent, repetitive and annoyingly constant criticism, complaints, requests for action. This is commonly seen when websites asking you to download their app, or platforms ask you to give them your phone number or sign up to their services.
Subscription Traps	This tactic makes it easy for consumers to sign up for a service but difficult for them to cancel it, often by hiding the cancellation option or requiring multiple steps.
Interface interference	This tactic involves making it difficult for consumers to take certain actions, such as canceling a subscription or deleting an account.
Bait and switch	This involves advertising one product or service but delivering another, often of lower quality.
Hidden Costs	This tactic involves hiding additional costs from consumers until they are already committed to making a purchase.
Disguised Ads	Disguised ads are advertisements that are designed to look like other types of content, such as news articles or user-generated content.
Deliberate misdirection	Focusing the user’s attention on the more expensive option, hiding the cheaper way
Roach Motel	The start is easy but quitting is hard
Obscured Pricing	Making it hard to compare the prices
Privacy Zuckering	Sharing more private info than you want
Growth hacking through spamming	You become the spammer without knowing it
Sneak into Basket	A random additional item appears in your basket. For example, buying insurance with airline tickets, or making a donation to a charitable cause while checking out of an e-commerce site.
Road-Block	A Pop-up interrupts your intended action
Misinformation	Trick questions and checkbox treacheryThese are usually in the form of opt-in or opt-out checkboxes that businesses use to give customers notional control over how their contact data is used These are usually in the form of opt-in or opt-out checkboxes that businesses use to give customers notional control over how their contact data is used
Forced Action	forcing consumers into taking an action they may not want to take, such as signing up for a service in order to access content.
Drip Pricing	Only a part of a product’s price is disclosed to potential buyers including elements that have to be borne by almost all customers, for example tax.
Confirm-shaming	Confirm-shaming uses shame to drive users to act. For example, when websites use words that induce shame or guilt to describe the options that consumers wish to exercise, such as declining to sign up for newsletters, or make a donation etc.

Legal position of dark pattern

Many people think that using dark patterns is just a commercial tactic and shouldn't be regulated by the law.
The legality of dark patterns is a complex matter as distinguishing between manipulation and fraudulent intent can be challenging.
In majority of countries, there are no particular laws banning dark patterns. However, those who have suffered as a result of dark patterns may potentially seek justice in other laws of the country.

In 2022, Google and Facebook faced repercussions due to their cookie banners which is a dark pattern.

These companies violated EU and French regulations by making it more difficult for users to reject cookies as compared to accepting them.

Regulation of Dark pattern in India

Section 2(9)(v) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for consumer’s right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers.

Government efforts

The Department of Consumer Affairs and the ASCI have identified the issue and recently taken certain steps to handle the same.
Department of Consumer Affairs sent a letter on June 30, 2023, warning major Indian online marketplaces against engaging in "unfair trade practices" by implementing "dark patterns" in their user interfaces to influence consumer choice and infringe on "consumer rights" as stated in Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Companies are being asked to stop using such tactics in the e-market.

Global efforts to regulate Dark Patterns

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) of the U.K. listed different pressure-selling techniques that the CMA believes would likely violate consumer protection laws, and actions will be taken for the same.
Guidelines from the European Data Protection Board were released in 2022 and offered designers and users of social media platforms practical guidance on how to spot and avoid so-called “dark patterns” in social media interfaces that are in violation of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws.

ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA (ASCI)

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) is the self-regulatory body of the Indian advertising industry was established in 1985.

Issues addressed by the ASCI

Dishonest or misleading ads
Indecent or offensive ads
Harmful ads
Ads that are unfair in competition

ASCI's independent jury (The Consumer Complaints Council or CCC) comprises 40 eminent professionals, both from industry as well as from civil society, who review complaints on a weekly basis and provide their recommendations.

Conclusion

Regulators and self-regulators across the globe are stepping up their monitoring game with investments in artificial intelligence that can detect dark patterns and manipulative practices. While legislation and rules in this area will continue to evolve, a culture of consumer respect and meaningful engagement is what is most needed from organizations to keep the online experience happy.