Daily Current Affairs – 13th October 2022

Official Language Panel and a fresh ‘Hindi Imposition’ Row

The 11th volume of the Report of the Official Language Committee headed by Home Minister submitted to President has triggered angry reactions from the CMs of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, who have described the Report as an attempt to impose Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states.

About the Official Language Panel (for Hindi)

The Committee of Parliament on Official Language was set up in 1976 under Section 4 of The Official Languages Act, 1963.

Section 4 of the Act says there shall be constituted a Committee on Official language, on a resolution to that effect being moved in either House of Parliament.

It should have the previous sanction of the President and passed by both Houses.

Terms of reference of the committee

The Committee is chaired by the Union Home Minister, and has, in accordance with the provisions of the 1963 Act, 30 members — 20 MPs from Lok Sabha and 10 MPs from Rajya Sabha.

The job of the Committee is to review the progress made in the use of Hindi for official purposes, and to make recommendations to increase the use of Hindi in official communications.

History of its establishment

With the active promotion of Hindi being mandated by Article 351 of the Constitution, the Official Language Committee was set up to review and promote the use of Hindi in official communications.

The first Report of the Committee was submitted in 1987.

Issues with the committee

The name of the Committee is a little misleading.

This is because unlike the other Parliamentary panels, the Committee on Official Language is constituted by the Home Ministry.

It does not submit its report to Parliament like other Committees of Parliament.

The contents of the report submitted are not in the public domain.

The panel has the largest representation from the ruling majority party. This has made states more furious.

What has the Shah panel recommended in its latest (2021) report?

Medium of instruction: The panel has made around 100 recommendations, including that Hindi should be the medium of instruction in IITs, IIMs, and central universities in the Hindi-speaking states.

Administrative communication: The language used for communication in the administration should be Hindi, and efforts should be made to teach the curriculum in Hindi, but the latter is not mandatory.

Hindi translation of HC verdicts: High Courts in other states, where proceedings are recorded in English or a regional language can make available translations in Hindi, because verdicts of High Court of other states are often cited in judgments.

Mandate for govt. officials: The panel wants state governments to warn officials that their reluctance to use Hindi would reflect in their Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).

Why are these recommendations under criticism?

The crux of the recommendations is being ‘perceived’ that-

There is a deliberate attempt to reduce the usage of the English language in official communication and to increase the usage of Hindi.

Knowledge of Hindi would be compulsory in a number of government jobs.

Is this the first time that such recommendations have been made?

The makers of the Constitution had decided that both Hindi and English should be used as official languages for the first 15 years of the Republic.

But in the wake of intense anti-Hindi agitations in the south, the Centre announced that English would continue to be used even after 1965.

On January 18, 1968, Parliament passed the Official Language Resolution to build a comprehensive program to increase the use of Hindi for official purposes by the Union of India.

Finance Commission’s Approach to Equitable Delivery of Goods and Services

15th Finance commission on horizontal devolution agreed that the Census 2011 population data better represents the present need of States, to be fair to, as well as reward, the States which have done better on the demographic front, Finance commission has assigned a 12.5 per cent weight to the demographic performance criterion. Population, area, forest and ecology, demographic performance, tax efforts, income and distance are the criteria for horizontal distribution of funds.

Why equitable delivery is necessary in the country?

To fulfil the need of basket of Goods: There is a basket of goods and services that should be delivered by the State. It is best not to call them public goods, since “public goods” have a specific meaning for economists and this basket has items that are typically collective private goods.

To achieve Aantodaya approach (last person): Curlew Island is in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Until the 2011 Census, it had a population of two. Pulomilo Island, also in Andaman and Nicobar, had a population of 20 in 2011. At the time of elections, we read of astounding attempts made, so that voters in remote locations can vote. No one should be disenfranchised because of remoteness of location. By the same token, a resident, regardless of location, must be entitled to that basket.

To achieve poverty alleviation: The quality of public services affects economic growth via its impact on poverty alleviation, human capital formation and corruption.

What are the Problems with Equitable delivery targets?

High cost of delivery: States can have differential sources of revenue. Alternatively, the cost of delivering that basket may vary across geographical zones.

Problems associated with migration: Over time, villages of course get depopulated. They are reclassified, get absorbed into larger agglomerations, or disappear because of migration.

How equitable delivery can be achieved?

State need to take honest responsibility: The State cannot abdicate its responsibility of providing the basket.

Economic compulsion: Migration is a voluntary decision, often driven by the pull (and push) of economic forces. That voluntary decision cannot be replaced by fiat.

Dividing the pool between the governments: The Union Finance Commission has a vertical task, dividing the divisible pool between the Union government and states.

Adjusting to the criteria set by FC: It also has a horizontal task, dividing State share between different states. Accordingly, from the 1st to the 15th, Finance commission have adopted different formulae, with an attempt to also create incentives, by attaching weights to fiscal efficiency and even demographic performance.

This leaves variables like population, geographical area, income distance, infrastructure distance and forest cover:

expenditure equalisation based on needs/costs of public services;

Revenue equalisation measured by the ability of the state to raise revenue from one or more sources; and

Macro indicators covering broader economic or non-economic indicators that approximate fiscal capacity, where data constraints make it difficult to apply the other approaches.

Addressing Geographic area and population: Needs/costs are sought to be measured through geographical area and population. All Finance Commissions have used area as another criterion in the devolution formula on the ground of need — the larger the area, greater is the expenditure requirement for providing comparable services.

No more indictment under Section 66A of IT Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ordered States and their police forces to stop prosecuting free speech on social media under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which was declared unconstitutional by the court in a judgment seven years ago.

What did Section 66A do?

Introduced in 2008, the amendment to the IT Act, 2000, gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly “offensive and menacing” online posts, and was passed without discussion in Parliament.

Section 66A empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.

It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.

In 2015, the apex court struck down the law in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague”, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet.

Why was the law criticized?

The problem was with the vagueness about what is “offensive”.

The word having a very wide connotation was open to distinctive, varied interpretations.

It was seen as subjective, and what might have been innocuous for one person, could lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest arbitrarily.

So, how did 66A come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

The first petition came up in the court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post.

The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a political leader.

The arrests triggered outrage from all quarters over the manner in which the cyber law was used.

The petition was filed by Shreya Singhal, then a 21-year-old law student.

What were the grounds for the challenge?

The objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of information technology, particularly through social media.

The petitioners argued that Section 66A came with extremely wide parameters, which allowed whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.

Most of the terms used in the section had not been specifically defined under the Act.

The law was a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online and to curtail freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution, going far beyond the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

In March 2015, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman ruled in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India declared Section 66A unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”

Article 19(1)(a) gives people the right to speech and expression whereas 19(2) accords the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.

The decision was considered a landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.

The bench also read down Section 79– now at the centre of the ongoing “intermediary liability” battle between the Centre and micro-blogging platform Twitter– defining key rules for the relationship between governments and commercial internet platforms.

Section 79 says that any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.

What is the Interpol, and what is a Red Notice?

The Interpol has rejected a second request by India to issue a Red Corner Notice against a Canada-based founder and legal advisor of separatist outfits.

What is the news?

The person whom the Union Ministry of Home Affairs has listed as a “terrorist” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Why has Interpol rejected India’s request?

The Interpol has said that India has failed to provide sufficient information to support its case.

It criticized the UAPA for being misused to target minority groups and human rights activists without “respecting” their right to due process and a fair trial.

While acknowledging the separatists leader, the Interpol has said that his activities have a “clear political dimension”, which cannot be the subject of a Red Corner Notice.

What is the Interpol?

The Interpol, or International Criminal Police Organization, is an inter-governmental organization comprising 195 member countries, which helps police forces in all these countries to better coordinate their actions.

It enables member countries to share and access data on crimes and criminals and offers a range of technical and operational support.

It is run by a secretary general with its headquarters in Lyon, France, with a global complex for innovation in Singapore, and several satellite offices in different regions.

India accepted Interpol membership in June 1956.

How does it function in member countries?

Interpol has a National Central Bureau (NCB) in each member country, which is the central point of contact for both the general secretariat and the other NCBs around the world.

Each NCB is run by police officials of that country, and usually sits in the government ministry responsible for policing. (MHA in case of India.)

Interpol manages 19 police databases with information on crimes and criminals (from names and fingerprints to stolen passports), accessible in real-time to countries.

It also offers investigative support such as forensics, analysis, and assistance in locating fugitives around the world.

What is a Red Notice?

Criminals or suspects often flee to other countries to evade facing justice.

A Red Corner Notice, or Red Notice (RN) alerts police forces across the world about fugitives who are wanted internationally.

Red Notices are issued for fugitives wanted either for prosecution or to serve a sentence.

A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.

An RN is published by Interpol at the request of a member country.

Indian fugitives on this RN

Among the most popular Indians on this list are jeweller Mehul Choksi and diamantaire Nirav Modi.

Is an RN a warrant of arrest?

An RN is only an international wanted persons’ notice; it is not an international arrest warrant.

Interpol itself does not want individuals; they are wanted by a country or an international tribunal.

This means the Interpol cannot compel law enforcement authorities in any country to arrest the subject of an RN.

It is up to individual member countries to decide what legal value to give to an RN, and the authority of their national law enforcement officers to make arrests.

Interpol says that an RN must comply with its constitution and rules.