Analysis of Oxfam: Inequality Virus Report

• Inequality in India has risen to levels last seen when it was colonised.
• The additional wealth acquired by India’s 100 billionaires since March when the lockdown was imposed is enough to give every one of the 138 million poorest ?94,045, according to the Oxfam: Inequality Virus Report.
• An unskilled worker in India would take three years to earn what the country’s richest person earned in one second last year, the report calculates.
• The worsening inequality in income and opportunities impacts some sections disproportionately due to discrimination based on gender, caste and other factors. The poorer people were worst affected by the disease itself.
• The focus on growth had led politicians and policy makers to accept rising inequality as inevitable for decades.
• Inequality came to be seen as a benign outcome of economic growth that led to reduction of absolute poverty.
• Concerns about inequality could also be easily dismissed as being informed by socialism.
• Any criticism of capitalism was viewed with scepticism in the mainstream of development debates, until the crisis of capitalism could no longer be ignored.
• The literature on capitalism and its linkage with democracy is now growing fast. There is now universal agreement among economists that the distribution of new wealth between capital and labour has become so one-sided that workers are constantly being pushed to penury while the rich are getting richer.
• This has social and political consequences as upheavals in democratic societies around the world show.
• The environmental costs of a development model that hinges on higher and higher growth are also obvious.
• On the one hand, there is an acknowledgment of the crisis among capitalist moghuls.
• The theme of the World Economic Forum at Davos this week is ‘the Great Reset’ which it says is a “commitment to jointly and urgently build the foundations of our economic and social system for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future”.
• On the other, measures that favour capital at the cost of labour continue; for instance, changes in labour laws in several States during the pandemic. Lip service is not enough to tackle inequality.

Republic Day violence: Analysis

• The chaos and mindless violence unleashed on the national capital by a section of protesting farmers on Republic Day were abhorrent. It is plausible that agents provocateurs infiltrated the farmers’ march but that does not absolve the leaders of responsibility.
• The chances of fatigued agitators breaking loose were high as were the possibilities of vested interests triggering violence.
• The leaders of the agitation should have taken note of the divergence in the rank and the rejection by certain recalcitrant groups of the routes for the march they had agreed with the Delhi police.
• True, no popular mobilisation can be held hostage to the threat of violent deviation by a handful, but there is judgement to be made at each turn.
• The leadership, itself an association of disparate individuals and organisations, should have been more realistic about its capacity to manage such a gathering. In the end, unruly elements took over the streets of Delhi.
• They broke barricades, thrashed, and tried to mow down police personnel. The police resorted to lathi charge and used tear gas, but, given the circumstances, showed restraint.
• More than 300 personnel were injured, at least 40 of them seriously. All this, and the march itself, was avoidable.
• The Delhi police must investigate and hold to account individuals and groups responsible for the violence.
• Farmer leaders have the unenviable task of cooperating with the police in the investigation.
• False friends and real enemies of the agitators have painted them with a communal brush.
• Bringing the culprits to book is essential not only to salvage the reputation of an agitation that had remained largely peaceful for nearly two months but also to nip in the bud a dangerous communal slant before it slips out of control.
• The Centre has said it would continue to engage the protesters in negotiations.
• The offer of the government to keep in abeyance for up to 18 months the three controversial farm laws that are at the heart of the current face-off remains an opportunity for the leaders to seek a negotiated settlement.
• The agitators want the laws to go lock, stock, and barrel but their maximalist approach is unhelpful.
• They must discontinue the protest for now and disperse, while reserving the option of restarting it later.
• They should consider options short of a complete repeal of the laws.
• The Centre must consider more concessions, including the suspension of the laws until a broader agreement can be arrived at.
• It must make more efforts to allay the fears of those most affected by these reforms.
• The Centre’s imperious refusal to engage with political parties and State governments on critical questions of agriculture reforms has come back to haunt it.
• The resolution to this impasse can come only by involving them all.

Russia gave a nod to New START

• New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation with the formal name of Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed in 2010 at Prague, and, after ratification entered into force in 2011, it is expected to last at least until 2021.
• New START replaced the Treaty of Moscow (SORT), which was to expire in December 2012. It follows the START I treaty, which expired in December 2009; the proposed START II treaty, which never entered into force; and the START III treaty, for which negotiations were never concluded. The treaty calls for halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers.
• A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism. It does not limit the number of operationally inactive nuclear warheads stockpiled by Russia and the United States, a number in the high thousands.
• The deadlock over the New START and the collapse of the 1987 Soviet–U.S. Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) in 2019 suggest that the era of bilateral nuclear arms control agreements between Russia and the U.S. might be coming to an end.

Minister Harsh Vardhan nominated to GAVI Board

• The Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare Dr Harsh Vardhan was recently nominated by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, GAVI as a member of GAVI board.
• The term of the minister as a member in the GAVI board will be between 2021 and 2023.
• Dr Harsh Vardhan was elected as the chair of the World Health Organization.

GAVI Board

• The GAVI Board is responsible for policy making, providing strategic directions, overseeing the operation of the alliance and monitoring programme implementation.

GAVI

• GAVI is Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation It works to achieve the objective of “Immunisation for All”.
• The alliance aims to save lives, protect the world against the threat of pandemics and reduce poverty.
• It has so far helped vaccinate more than 822 million children in the poorest countries and prevented 14 million future deaths.
• It works in partnership with WHO on COVAX.
• COVAX is an alliance that aims to provide equal access to COVID-19 vaccines to all developing countries.

India and GAVI

• GAVI plays a major role in the Immunization drives of India such as Rotavirus vaccine, Measles-Rubella vaccine, Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV), Tetanus and Adult diphtheria vaccine, inactivated polio vaccine.
• However, GAVI has recently announced that it is to withdraw its financial support to India.
• This is because the threshold of Gross National Income per capita of a country to receive financial aid from GAVI should be less than 1,500 USD.
• The Gross National Income per capita of India was 2,130 USD in 2019.

Judicial Appointments in India

What is Collegium?

• Collegium system of the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts (HCs) of India is based on the precedence established by the “Three Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998) “.
• It is a legally valid system of appointment and transfer of judges in the SC and all HCs.
• It is a system of checks and balance, which ensures the independence of the senior judiciary in India.

The Judges Cases

1. The First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective. However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
2. The Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”. It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC.
3. On a Presidential Reference in its opinion, the SC, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

The procedure followed by the Collegium:

Appointment of CJI

• The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
• As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
• In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
• The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

Other SC Judges

• For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
• The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
• The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
• The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

For HC

• The CJs of HC is appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
• High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
• The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
• The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

• Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
• Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
• When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
• In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
• However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
• All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

What is the news?

• A meeting of the five-member Supreme Court Collegium led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad A. Bobde on names to fill the five judicial vacancies in the court ended on an inconclusive note on Thursday.
• This may be one of the last meetings of the Bobde collegium before he retires on April 23. Though Chief Justice Bobde steered the top court through an unprecedented time, chances are high that he may retire without a successful judicial appointment to the Supreme Court during his tenure as top judge.
• Last year, the court successfully used the virtual medium to hear cases and functioned without missing a day of work through the pandemic and lockdown months.
• The Thursday meeting ended with the collegium deferring its decisions for a later date.

Another meeting

• It is to be seen if Chief Justice Bobde would call another meeting in the few days left before his retirement, or, in the alternative, pass the baton to his successor and Chief Justice of India-designate, Justice N.V. Ramana, who takes over on April 24.
• Normally, the incumbent Chief Justice does not involve with the collegium work during his final days in office and after the presidential appointment of his successor is notified. The time is used to effect a smooth transition.
• Justices Rohinton F. Nariman, U.U. Lalit and A.M. Khanwilkar are the other members of the collegium.
• Several past meetings of the Bobde collegium in the past weeks, even before the CJI’s recommendation of Justice Ramana as the 48th Chief Justice, were inconclusive as the judges could not reach a consensus on the names.
• The collegium has been discussing diverse opinions from within on issues such as proportionate representation from various High Courts and seniority among High Court judges before finalising the names to recommend to the government for appointment.
• Proportionate representation and seniority, though only conventions and not constitutional or legal mandates, carry weight during the appointment process.
• The last appointments to the Supreme Court were of Justices Krishna Murari, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian and Hrishikesh Roy in September 2019. The past several months have seen the Supreme Court function under a series of challenges posed by the pandemic, even as its judicial strength has come down to 29 with the recent retirement of Justice Indu Malhotra.

Oldest vacancy

• The oldest vacancy of the lot of current five in the Supreme Court was that of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who retired on November 17, 2019.
• The year 2021 would further see four retirements in the top court, starting with Chief Justice Bobde, Justices Ashok Bhushan, Rohinton Nariman and Naveen Sinha. The latter two retire a few days apart in August.

Several HC judges

• The names of several High Court judges are in the zone of consideration.

• Information published by the Law Ministry on March 1 show that the senior-most among the current Chief Justices of the 25 High Courts, as per their initial appointment in 2003 and 2004, are Chief Justices A.S. Oka (Karnataka), Akil Abdulhamid Kureshi (Tripura), D.N. Patel (Delhi), Govind Mathur (Allahabad), Vikram Nath (Gujarat) and T.B. Radhakrishnan (Calcutta).
• The name of Justice B.V. Nagarathna from the Karnataka High Court is also under consideration for the vacancy left by Justice Indu Malhotra.

Judicial Appointments and Vacancies in India

Judicial Vacancies has been the issue of Indian Judiciary since a long time now. Click here to read more on the UPSC Facts and Data for Vacancies in Indian Judiciary.

Some Constitutional Provisions related to appoint of Judges

• Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President after consultation with such a number of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose.
• Article 217 of the Indian Constitution states that the Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.

What is Collegium?

• Collegium system of the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts (HCs) of India is based on the precedence established by the “Three Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998) “.
• It is a legally valid system of appointment and transfer of judges in the SC and all HCs.
• It is a system of checks and balance, which ensures the independence of the senior judiciary in India.

Evolution of the System:

First Judges Case (1981):

• It declared that the “primacy” of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)s recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent reasons.”
• The ruling gave the Executive primacy over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years.

Second Judges Case (1993):

• SC introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
• It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC.

Third Judges Case (1998):

• SC on President’s reference expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.
• It means that the SC collegium is headed by the CJI and comprises four other senior-most judges of the court.
• A HC collegium is led by its Chief Justice and four other senior most judges of that court.
• Names recommended for appointment by a HC collegium reaches the government only after approval by the CJI and the SC collegium.
• Judges of the higher judiciary are appointed only through the collegium system and the government has a role only after names have been decided by the collegium.
• The government’s role is limited to getting an inquiry conducted by the Intelligence Bureau (MHA) if a lawyer is to be elevated as a judge in a High Court or the Supreme Court.
• It can also raise objections and seek clarifications regarding the collegium’s choices, but if the collegium reiterates the same names, the government is bound, under Constitution Bench judgments, to appoint them as judges.

The procedure followed by the Collegium:

Appointment of CJI

• The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
• As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
• In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
• The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

Other SC Judges

• For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
• The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
• The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
• The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.
• President appoints Judges of the Supreme court.

For High Court

• The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Courts are to be appointed by the President under clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution.
• The Chief Justices of HC are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
• High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
• The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
• The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

• Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
• Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
• When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
• In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
• However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
• All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

Criticism of the Collegium System:

• Opaqueness and a lack of transparency.
• Scope for nepotism.
• Embroilment in public controversies.
• Overlooks several talented junior judges and advocates.
• Attempts to reform the Appointment System:
• The attempt made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.

What is the news?

• The Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, asked the Chief Justices of High Courts to ensure that recommendations for judicial appointments to the High Courts reflect the social diversity of the country.
• Chief Justice Ramana said this during his first-ever live and direct interaction with High Court Chief Justices. The discussion spanned two days and four sessions.
• The CJI also placed before the Chief Justices of High Courts the representations made by various Bar bodies to include lawyers primarily practising in the Supreme Court in the zone of consideration while recommending the names of judges for their High Courts
• The CJI also reminded the Chief Justices to expedite the process of filling up vacancies, particularly in the High Courts. This was a follow up to the letter the CJI had written to the CJs of High Courts in the first week of May.
• During the interaction, the Chief Justice of Madras HC told the CJI about the vaccine hesitancy seen in some areas of the State. The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, however, conveyed his satisfaction with the cooperation given by the Tamil Nadu government in the vaccination drive.
• The session also saw the CJI convey to the Chief Justices his vision to draw from the experience of the pandemic and build modern, self-contained courts with a permanent facility to hold virtual hearings in every courtroom. He reiterated his wish to create a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation and take forward a “nation plan” for judicial infrastructure.
• The High Court Chief Justices also flagged the apparent “digital divide” seen in rural and tribal areas. They said the lack of digital connectivity had impacted judicial functioning. A proposal for mobile video conferencing vans was discussed. Chief Justice Ramana assured the High Courts that the Supreme Court would take up with the Centre the highlighted issues regarding sufficient vaccine supply, connectivity and court infrastructure.