Cauvery Water Dispute (Law)

Supreme Court ruling – Kar now need to give TN only 177 thousand million cubic feet of water
as against the earlier 192, as laid down by the Tribunal – Cauvery Management Board set up to
oversee Karnataka giving TN water.
CCI Fine on Google and General Dominant Position of Google (Law)
CCI imposes 136 crore penalty on Google for “search bias” and “search manipulation” –
translates to 5 percent of it’s average total revenue for 2013, 2014 and 2015 – last year EU 3
billion dollar fine - TheCCI further observed in its order that Google, being the gateway to the
internet for a vast majority of internet users due to its dominance in the online web search
market, is under an obligation to discharge its special responsibility - The CCI found that the
“disproportionate real-estate” given to the flight unit unfairly pushed down or pushed out other
travel sites in India that relied on search engines to reach shoppers - The CCI also said Google
was being unfair to users by leading them to the Google Flight search page, which may leave
them “devoid of additional choices of results,” and called for clearer labeling of the link - It’s
also facing anti-trust probes in places like Brazil - But Google's strategy for its comparison-
shopping service wasn't just about attracting customers by making its product better than those of
its rivals. Instead, Google abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own
comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors. “What
Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to
compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a
genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation." - Google has systematically given
prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query
into the Google search engine in relation to which Google's comparison shopping service wants
to show results, these are displayed at or near the top of the search results. - Evidence shows that
even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's
search results, and others appear even further down. - The evidence shows that consumers click
far more often on results that are more visible, i.e. the results appearing higher up in Google's
search results. Even on a desktop, the ten highest-ranking generic search results on page 1
together generally receive approximately 95% of all clicks on generic search results - The first
result on page 2 of Google's generic search results receives only about 1% of all clicks. - Slicing
and dicing America's tech giants into separate pieces is the hot idea on the left (and increasingly
on the right) to make America more innovative, more equal, and more democratic. - These
activists think the megaplatforms — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, even Microsoft — are
just too big and powerful for our own good, even if they provide cool gadgets or free services
that we love. - As The Wall Street Journal economics columnist Greg Ip noted in a long piece
recently: "Google and Facebook absorbed 63 percent of online ad spending last year; Google and
Apple Inc. provide 99 percent of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft
Corp. supply 95 percent of desktop operating systems." - The case for either dismantling these
companies or preventing them from getting bigger through acquisitions may seem self-evident. -
Companies do not get dismantled just because they are big and dominate a particular market
sector. If consumers are benefiting, government generally keeps its hands off. Tax policy or
campaign finance reform usually tackles concerns about economic and political power now. But
antitrust reformers want a more expansive standard, one that puts the burden on the tech
platforms to show they are not hurting competition, innovation, and democracy. And instead of
arguing that these popular companies are hurting average Americans right now, antitrust
advocates argue that their size and power will prevent the next Facebook or Amazon from
emerging and thus deprive us of unimagined cooler stuff. Antitrust is thus pro-growth. - What's
more, they claim to have history on their side. For instance, today's nascent trust-busters claim it
was the government's antitrust action against IBM in the late 1960s that led to the flowering of
the U.S. software industry by prompting the company to unbundle its software and services from
hardware. As Stoller has put it, "IBM implemented a software unbundling policy due to scrutiny
from the antitrust suit. This allowed a software industry to emerge." - The last major antitrust act
of the W. Bush Administration was to threaten a Sherman Act monopolization case against
Google on November 5, 2008. It successfully blocked a proposed search ad partnership between
#1 search provider Google, with 70% share, and #2 Yahoo, with 20% share. Today Google has
94 percent of the mobile search market per Statista. How did Google illegally extend its 70
perent dominance in the PC search market in 2008 to 94 percent of the mobile search market in
2018? Google required all device manufacturers and mobile carriers that used Google’s free
Android operating system, to make Google Search the default search engine and to prominently
pre-install and prioritize over a dozen Google apps. Now 16 of the top 20 Android apps are
Google apps.
2017 - 2018 Rule of Law Index Report (Law)
While Venezuela continues to hold the bottommost place, Cambodia and Afghanistan come in
second-and-third-from-last. India’s score remained unchanged and it climbed by 4 ranks to
62/113. Philippines has shown the most rapid decline; it dropped 18 places to reach the 88th
position. In contrast, Burkina Faso, Kazakhstan, and Sri Lanka showed the hugest improvements
in overall rank, each of whom improved by nine positions over their 2016 overall rule of law
ranking. - This find emerges as concerns increase over a global rise in authoritarian nationalism
and relegation of international legal obligations. - The Nordic trio of Denmark, Norway and
Finland continue their hold on the first three places. - Overall, 38 countries have witnessed their
overall Rule of Law score diminish since the last index. In addition, more countries’ overall rule
of law score fell (34%) than bettered (29%) compared to their 2016 Index scores—a worrisome
trend. Thirty-seven percent of countries’ overall rule of law score remained unchanged. -
Overall, criminal justice systems continue to fall short. Few countries were considered to have a
penal system that has proven success in stemming criminal behaviour, with just four scoring 0.80
or above in this category (on the rating scale of 0–1). An equal number scored below 0.10. - The
WJP’s researchers could not collect data on a majority of countries – including those where
indicators are likely to be the worst, such as South Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and the Central African Republic.
World Justice Project has 4 principles of Rule of Law -
  Accountability: The government and private sectors are accountable under law. Legal
rules exist that can be applied to find one liable in a civil law suit or culpable in a
criminal offence.
 Just laws: The laws are clear, accessible to public, consistent and just; are applied without
discrimination; and safeguard fundamental rights, which include the security of persons
and property and certain core human rights.
 Open government: The processes involved in enactment, administration and enforcement
of laws are accessible, impartial and efficient.
 Accessible and Impartial Dispute Resolution: Justice is delivered on time by competent,
ethical and independent representatives and unbiased authorities who can be reached out
to, possess sufficient resources, and reflect the constitution of the committees they serve.
Why is this important?
 Public Works: “Consider the bridges, roads, or runways we traverse daily – or the offices
and buildings in which we live, work, and play. What would happen if building codes
governing their design and safety were not enforced, or if government officials and
contractors used low-quality materials in order to pocket the surplus?” Inadequate
regulatory enforcement and corruption greatly affect the security of physical
infrastructure and waste limited resources, which are the backbone of a flourishing
economy.
 Public Health and Environment: “What would happen if a company were pouring
harmful chemicals into a river in a highly populated area and the environmental inspector
ignored these actions in exchange for a bribe?” Pollution, wildlife poaching, deforestation
and forced resettlement create a chronic situation that worsens with time. Discipline in
maintenance of law is needed to hold all governments, businesses, civil society
organizations, and communities accountable for protecting public health and the
environment.
 Business environment: “Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources abroad. She
would probably think twice before investing in a country where corruption is rampant,
property rights are ill-defined, and contracts are difficult to enforce.” Poor application of
regulations, corruption, insecure property rights and improper means to resolve disputes
erode legitimate businesses and stifle foreign and domestic investment.
The Rule of Law Index is calculated based on performance in eight categories: constraints on
government powers; absence of corruption; open government; fundamental rights; order and
security; regulatory enforcement; civil justice; and criminal justice.
In the first category, government powers should be effectively limited by legislature, judiciary,
and independent auditing and review; subject to non-governmental checks; government officials
are punished for breach of rule; and transition of power depends on law. In the second category,
government officials in the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches, and the police and
military do not take advantage of public offices to accomplish private ends. In the third category,
laws and government data are accessible to the public; the public has the right to information;
civic participation is the norm; and a mechanism to file complaints exists. In the fourth category,
there should be maintained: equal treatment without discrimination; right to life and security; due
process of law and rights of accused; freedom of opinion and expression, belief and religion;
freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy and to assemble and form associations; and
fundamental labour rights. In the fifth category, crime is effectively controlled, civil strife
effectively restricted, and people do not employ violence as payback for personal grievances. In
the sixth category, government regulations are applied and enforced in an effective and impartial
manner, administrative proceedings are timely and respect due process, and the government does
not usurp. In the seventh category, people can access and afford justice that is free of
discrimination, corruption, improper government interference, is not ailed by unreasonable delay,
is effectively enforced, as are alternative dispute resolution process. In the eighth category,
criminal investigation and judgment are effective and timely, correctional system successfully
stems criminal behavior, criminal justice system is impartial, corruption-proof, free of
government interference, and the accused has rights in accordance with the due process of law.
*A 2013 article in The Atlantic, on the excellent state of prisons in Scandinavian region, noted:
“Throughout Scandinavia, criminal justice policy rarely enters political debate. Decisions about
best practices are left to professionals in the field, who are often published criminologists and
consult closely with academics.” Maintaining the barrier between “populist politics and results-
based prison policy are media that don’t sensationalize crime — if they report it at all ”.
However, one must factor in how these nations have highly homogenous populations and the
best education systems.
What was the reason for Phillippines dropping the most? The government has put a “palpable
strain upon established countervailing institutions of society ”, said Jose Luis Martin Gascon,
chairman of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights. He said there had been a “chilling
effect” on the country’s opposition following attacks against personalities who have taken issue
Duterte’s policies.
India had its highest scores in categories: “Constraints on Government Powers” where it stood
first among six countries in the region and 36th at the global level; and “Open Government”,
again first place among six and 32nd out of 113. This shows how the institutional and
constitutional set-up in the country is good however, where we are lacking is actual justice on the
ground. Too many instances of people taking the law into their own hands: For the categories of
“Civil Justice” and “Order and Security”, it performed at its worst and was placed 97th and 98th.
Supreme Court on Section 377
The Supreme Court on 9 Jan. agreed to revisit its 2013 ruling criminalizing consensual sex
between same sex adults, clearing the way for a fresh round of debate on a controversial
colonial-era law governing homosexuality in India. Article 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
makes homosexual sex punishable by law and carries a life sentence. The law which criminalizes
homosexual behaviour was drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860 and states that “whoever
voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal,
shall be punished with imprisonment”. The review follows the apex court’s August 24 judgement
which held privacy to be a fundamental right, extending its scope to the sexual orientation of a
person as an essential attribute.
“What is natural to one may not be natural to the other but the said natural orientation and choice
cannot be allowed to cross the boundaries of law and as the confines of law cannot tamper or
curtail the inherent right embedded in an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution.” A
petition at the Delhi High Court alleges an issue bias by the court against the LGBT community
through its references, such as “the so-called rights of LGBT persons” in its 2013 judgement.
The SC re-criminalized homosexuality, which carries a maximum jail sentence of life, and gives
the police one more excuse to harass, extort and jail law-abiding people whose only ‘crime’ is
that they do not conform to the traditional view of sexuality.
The most common argument against homosexuality is that it is against religious scriptures and is
detrimental to the culture of the Indian society. However, people fail to take into account that
Hinduism (the most practiced religion in India) depicts, in sculptures and scriptures, people of
the same sex engaging in sexual activities. If it is depicted in the sculptures of temples it means it
was practiced in earlier times, and was not condemned – even, arguably, celebrated. Section 377
is a vestige of the British era, who imposed the very norms of Victorian morality it found
difficult to impose in their own nation.’
In that instance, the Home Ministry noted that the ‘society’ continued to largely disapprove of
homosexuality strongly enough to justify treating it as a criminal offence. The Health Ministry,
however, had a different take. When it joined the fray in 2006 under the aegis of the National
Aids Control Authority, the ministry was clear that the existence of Section 377 was a
constitutional violation of the right to health, with criminalisation having a clearly detrimental
impact on HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.
It can be divided into the following three parts for easier understanding- Criminalises
homosexuality. Criminalises certain acts between heterosexuals. Criminalises sexual activities
between humans and animals. When people talk about section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,
people generally think it just criminalises homosexuality (sexual attraction to the people
belonging to the same sex) and violates the rights of gay people. The section also has various
implications for heterosexuals. According to the meaning of the section if a man and a woman
engage in sexual activities which are against the order of nature they will be punished with
imprisonment for life and/or fines. This means that anal sex and oral sex are against the order of
nature as they do not contribute to the process of reproduction. (Here you can run how since
order of nature means only for reproduction, a consensual activity between two mature adults is
illegal, solely because it is for pleasure and not reproduction. Which is also an informed choice
that these adults want).
Following its privacy judgment in August last year, the Congress had urged the apex court to re-
look at Section 377 IPC. They have welcomed the ruling. “Congress welcomes Supreme Court’s
decision. Everybody has equal right to live life the way they want,” All India Mahila Congress
president Sushmita Dev said. The CPI (M) too hailed the ruling. “We welcome and hope that the
Supreme Court will reverse its own unfortunate judgment earlier. CPI(M) has always been
against criminalisation of same sex between consenting adults. Any way in a democracy, police
and the state have no business interfering in personal choice of individuals,” party leader Brinda
Karat said. Appreciating the ruling, Rashtriya Lok Dal spokesperson Manoj Jha said, “There are
only very few countries that have criminalised homosexuality. We are happy that Supreme Court
has decided to reconsider its old judgment.” (Use these statements to show how its no longer
against the critical morality of the people. How do you know that? Cause when leaders of
political parties say such stuff, people don’t flip their shit).
Transgender in India
Joyita shifted to Siliguri, then Dinajpur where she chose to focus on working for the upliftment
of the transgender community. There, she founded the Dinajpur Notun Alo Society, forming a
network of members of the transgender community to work on projects involving care for the
elderly. July 8, 2017, she attended office for the first time as a Lok Adalat judge on the Islampur
bench of North Dinajpur district in north Bengal. In 2014, in a landmark judgment known as the
‘NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) case’, the Supreme Court ruled that transgender
people should be recognized as a ‘third gender’. Lok Adalat is administered by NALSA.
Though historically the TG community members “played a prominent role”, the advent of the
British Raj ushered in a downslide in their status British authorities sought to wipe out the
community for they saw them as "a breach of public decency." The authorities placed the TG
community under the Criminal Tribes Act 1871 and branded the, a "criminal tribe", to be
subjected to mandatory registration, strict scrutiny and ostracization; while they were denotified
in 1952, the centuries-old stigma continues.
2g scam
A special CBI court on 21 December acquitted former telecom minister A Raja, DMK supremo
Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi and other accused of all charges in the 2G spectrum
allocation cases — famously known as the 2G ‘scam’ and often described as the biggest
corruption scandal in India. A Raja, former Telecom Minister and leader of DMK: Accused of
taking bribes to arbitrarily change norms to benefit select individuals and companies, overruling
the regulator and the Prime Minister’s Office. Kanimozhi, daughter of DMK founder M
Karunanidhi: Came under the scanner for her ties with Kalaignar TV, which allegedly was a
beneficiary of bribes in return for the 2G licences granted to Swan Telecom. Saying there was no
material on record to prove that Raja was the “mother lode of conspiracy” in the case, the court
said, “ There is also no evidence of his no-holds-barred immersion in any wrongdoing,
conspiracy or corruption.” (High standard)
Meanwhile, an embarrassed CBI said it would file an appeal against the verdict. “Today’s
judgment has been prima facie examined and it appears that evidence adduced to substantiate
charges by the prosecution has not been appreciated in its proper perspective by the learned
court. CBI will be taking necessary legal remedies in the matter,” CBI said. (How they’re going
against their own special Court’s decision and how the whole system is so fucked up). The
alleged scam came to light in 2010 when the then Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)
Vinod Rai alleged that 122 2G licences were given to telecom operators at throwaway prices
without a free and fair bidding process, causing a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the national
exchequer.
Where are the holes in this judgment? If the special court’s verdict is to be believed, then nobody
made money in 2G scam, nobody flouted norms, nobody was complicit while laying down an
arbitrary “first come first serve” policy on antiquated pricing. In the end, the special CBI court
verdict on this case, which stirred national conscience for years and led to the demise of UPA-
government, is like the verdict in Jessica Lal murder case and Aarushi and Hemraj murder case:
No one killed Jessica, no one killed Arushi and Hemraj, and now no one caused 2G scam. What
makes the lower court order even more curious as it comes over five-and-half-years after two-
judge bench of Supreme Court said, while cancelling 122 licences that A Raja " virtually gifted
away the important national asset at throw away prices ". The question, which this verdict and
Congress' claim of fair play raises is: If there was no scam and nobody was guilty, then why did
Supreme Court cancel all 122 licences allocated by the government and order auction of the
same?
The CBI said it would file an appeal against the 2G scam case verdictby the special court, which
acquitted all the 16 accused rejecting the case presented by the agency. The agency, which
normally takes months to “study” court orders before proceeding to file an appeal in higher
court, declared within hours of the verdict that “ it has been prima facie examined ”. (How abuse
of political power is rampant).
Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill, 2017
There have been voices against the provisions of the Bill which allow for cancellation or writing
down of liabilities of a financial firm (known as bail-in). There are concerns that these provisions
may put depositors in an unfavourable position in case a bank fails. Bail-in differs from a bail-
out which involves funds being infused by external sources to resolve a firm. This includes a
failing firm being rescued by the government. Under bail-in, the Resolution Corporation can
internally restructure the firm’s debt by: (i) cancelling liabilities that the firm owes to its
creditors, or (ii) converting its liabilities into any other instrument (e.g., converting debt into
equity), among others. Bail-in may be used in cases where it is necessary to continue the services
of the firm, but the option of selling the firm is not feasible. This method allows for losses to be
absorbed and consequently enables the firm to carry on business for a reasonable time period
while maintaining market confidence.
The Financial Stability Board, an international body comprising G20 countries (including India),
recommended that countries should allow resolution of firms by bail-in under their jurisdiction.
The European Union also issued a directive proposing a structure for member countries to follow
while framing their respective resolution laws. This directive suggested that countries should
include bail-in among their resolution tools. After the global financial crisis in 2008, several
countries such as the US and those across Europe developed specialised resolution capabilities.
This was aimed at preventing another crisis.
Current laws governing resolution of financial firms do not contain provisions for a bail in. If a
bank fails, it may either be merged with another bank or liquidated. Countries such as UK and
Germany have provided for bail-in under their laws. However, this method has rarely been used.
One of the rare instances was in 2013, when bail-in was used to resolve a bank in Cyprus. The
final deal ended up keeping deposits under 100,000 Euros untouched, but uninsured deposits
were restructured, wiping out the savings and cash flow of foreign depositors and local
businesses alike. (harms)
In a letter to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Saturday, West Bengal Chief Minister
Mamata Banerjee urged the Centre to desist from making the “draconian” FRDI Bill into an act
“to ensure that common people are saved from financial ruin’’. “It forcibly converts the deposits
of common people into equity shares of the bank (even this equity share will be worthless
because the bank is already in debt being overburdened with non-performing assets). It could
charge the nature of deposits from one class to another, thereby changing the interest rate of the
tenure of the deposit.” “It could impose a stay on depositors right to withdraw deposits before
maturity. It could put a moratorium on payment of interest/payment of deposit on maturity. The
FRC is understood to be provided with sweeping powers over not only banks like the State Bank
of India and other nationalised banks but also over regional and rural banks, cooperative banks,
payment banks, insurance companies, including Life Insurance Corporation of India,” she said.
Aadhaar
When UIDAI reviewed the Airtel mobile app, it found that when the app is opened, along with
the welcome message a pre- ticked consent box is momentarily flashed on the screen which
states “Upgrade or create my Airtel Payment Bank wallet using existing Airtel mobile KYC.”
This was found to reflect blatant disregard of Aadhaar Act and Regulations. Sources said it was
brought to the notice of the UIDAI that at the time of mobile verification using Aadhaar e-KYC,
the Airtel retailers were also opening Airtel Payments Bank accounts, without consent of the
user. Government LPG subsidy was also getting transferred to these accounts, without their
consent.
A tick-box approach to consent is not legally acceptable, and the consent being taken isn’t really
informed consent. People aren’t really aware of the implications of the consent that they have
given to Airtel, and it probably hasn’t been explained to them in sufficient detail. Having terms
and conditions and a tickbox just doesn’t work for users.
A related concern that has been highlighted is that even if data are secure, with Aadhaar-enabled
Payments System (AePS), the Aadhaar project has created a vulnerability to identity fraud, even
identity theft. The idea behind AePS is, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi put it, “Your
thumbprint is your bank”. Fingerprint impressions, however, can be easily reproduced. For
instance, recently Hindustan Times reported that 200 students in Mumbai replicated their
fingerprints on a widely-used resin to fudge biometric attendance! Easy harvesting of biometrics
traits and publicly-available Aadhaar numbers increase the risk of banking fraud. In the light of
this emerging financial technology infrastructure which rides on Aadhaar and biometrics, the
recent ‘Aadhaar leaks’ scandal (whereby Aadhaar numbers of lakhs of people were displayed on
government portals) is significant. The emerging AePS architecture opens the door to identity
theft. Even in the absence of data breaches, that is an alarming breach of privacy.
Some believe that this interpretation of privacy is an elitist concern. Veteran journalist Shekhar
Gupta tweeted, “Crores of rural and urban poor see Aadhaar as tool of empowerment. They don’t
even know elite anti-Aadhaar echo chambers exist & they don’t care”. Such frivolous comments
are an attempt to trivialise the debate on privacy. Everyone – rich or poor, man or woman, rural
or urban – sets boundaries regarding what they share with others about their lives. These
boundaries may vary by person (in Delhi’s buses and in the metro, for instance, one may blush
when one hears young college students openly discussing their love interests). What is seen as a
privacy concern varies from person to person (financial matters, food preferences, shopping
habits, sexuality, medical history and so on).
What sets Aadhaar apart from other examples (whether it is the Registration Act or the Social
Security Number) is that Indian biometric and demographic data are being stored in a centralised
database and a unique number is associated with biometric and other information. Further, this
unique number is being sought to be ‘seeded’ (added as a new data field) with every possible –
public and private – database in the country. Why is that a problem? Today, information about
your life is stored in different data silos – train travel, air travel, bank account, mobile phone,
employment history, health and so on. The only person who can easily construct a full picture of
your life from these disjointed data silos is, well, you. This is because only you have the access
to these disconnected data silos. If the Aadhaar number is ‘seeded’ into every database, it
integrates these data silos. Aadhaar becomes the bridge across the hitherto disconnected data
silos with information about your life. You lose control over who can reconstruct a profile of
your life. People in government (who you have not authorised) will be able to ‘profile’ you, by
pulling in information from various databases using that single identifier. Just the possibility of
such profiling is likely to lead to self-censorship and, as Jean Drèze recently noted, is likely to
stifle dissent.
Run how Aadhaar, despite being advertised as a “welfare” scheme is actually the most
burdensome on the lower classes - 1) often many laborers don’t have fingerprints,
disenfranchising them from the program. 2) Everything tied to one system, if it fails they’re
fucked. 3) It’s not even really about the welfare part anymore, now it’s about submitting your
personal details for every single service - surveillance state. 4) It would be nearly impossible for
poor, illiterate citizens to reconstruct their identities. Some may not even know if their identities
were stolen in the first place, she added. "The biggest privacy risk is your entire identity being
stolen and you ceasing to exist if your Aadhaar number is deactivated for any reason," he said.
"You would cease to exist for any government department or private service provider. You
basically become a nobody."
“You are already being surveilled” It is true that we are profiled (the smartphone does that) and
our data is already being monetised (Google and Facebook are the best examples). Indeed,
smartphones, CCTVs, Google and Facebook do violate our privacy in some or all of the ways
listed above. There are four reasons why this is not a satisfactory response. One, none of them is
all-encompassing in the same way the Aadhaar project. Two, there is a genuine element of
consent with many of these – for instance, Facebook maybe a great surveillance tool, but it can
only know about my banking transactions or travel if I share that information there. Three, there
are technologies such as encryption, virtual private network and so on to protect ourselves
(partially at least) from such surveillance. Four, to say that because we are already being
surveilled, we should not be questioning the Aadhaar project is akin to saying that since we have
been robbed in the past, we should sleep with our doors and windows open!
“The law will take care of this” However, one, the law is either silent or weak on several of these
aspects. The safeguards (say against data breaches) in the Aadhaar Act are weak. Further, the
implementation of the law is even worse – publishing UID numbers is punishable by up to three
years in jail. Yet, after the ‘Aadhaar leaks’ scandal in which several state departments and central
ministries were found to be violating the Act, the UIDAI has not filed a single FIR against
anyone. Meanwhile, one department implicated in the ‘Aadhaar leaks’ scandal, Jharkhand’s
social welfare department, issued a press note denying the data leak. To make matters worse, if
data is ‘leaked’, only the UIDAI – not the affected person – is authorised to file an FIR under the
Aadhaar Act. In a nutshell, the Aadhaar Act is weak, its implementation worse.
The solution, therefore, is not to annul Aadhaar on the grounds of data privacy. Like with any
other tool in the public domain, there is a need to avail of its benefits and manage the risks, while
evaluating whether the benefits are worth the risks. To this end, India needs two parallel
initiatives to complement the court’s decisions. One, rigorous and independent research such as
the Indian School of Business’ digital ID research initiative is vital to ascertain the benefits and
risks across Aadhaar’s uses. This can help decide which uses should be furthered, adjusted, or
even dropped. This is critical because Aadhaar’s uses are proliferating, but most of the available
numbers on its impact are disputed and alternative narratives are based on journalistic accounts
or small surveys. Two, the country needs an independent regulator to protect data privacy and
regulate data initiatives. This regulator must be backed by a robust law, and be competent to
understand the nuances of data privacy and keep pace with new developments. This is urgent.
Many Indians are striding into a digital economy and are already suffering the consequences of
this void.
Tobacco Control in India - 85 percent display
2014 rules prescribing 85 per cent pictorial warning unconstitutional, unreasonable. Tobacco
control and legislation are not attached to one department or ministry. Rules framed unilaterally
by health ministry without other departments’ assent. No data or empirical research was
conducted to justify warning. Rules don’t conform to parliamentary panel’s
recommendation.2014 rules prescribing 85 per cent pictorial warning unconstitutional,
unreasonable. Tobacco control and legislation are not attached to one department or ministry.
Rules framed unilaterally by health ministry without other departments’ assent. No data or
empirical research was conducted to justify warning. Rules don’t conform to parliamentary
panel’s recommendation.
The tobacco industry had said there was no evidence to show smoking causes the diseases
depicted in the "extremely gruesome and unreasonable" pictures. The bench observed that the
rules couldn’t be made to scare people but to issue notifications.
2007 meta-analyses indicated that communications emphasizing the severity of a threat are less
effective than communications focusing on susceptibility, and that warning labels may have no
effect among smokers who are not confident that they can quit, which points to the need for
exploring different, potentially more effective methods of behavior change. The verdict is out on
whether bigger graphic warnings on cigarette packets work or not. They do. In a government
survey whose results were released in June this year, 62% of cigarette smokers confessed to
having thought of quitting smoking after looking at graphic warning labels.
According to the latest study done by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in India
(MHFW), the total economic cost for treating tobacco-linked diseases of individuals aged 35-69
amounted to Rs 1,045 billion (Rs 104,500 crore) in 2011-12. This economic healthcare cost
burden was more than five times the excise tax revenue collection done by the government from
tobacco in the same year. This implies that for every 20 paise collection in excise tax on tobacco,
the Indian government has to spend more than Rs 1 for tobacco-linked health issues.
Death Penalty
Despite Supreme Court explicitly rejecting public opinion as a guiding principle for decisions on
capital punishment, many judges noted that the crime’s effect on public psyche was a crucial
influence in judicial decisions on death penalty. This insight led to the inference that
notwithstanding efforts to regulate death sentences, whimsical determinations thrive. Thus rises
the next question: if decision-making rests on discretion, has the “rarest of rare doctrine” gone
unheeded? That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option
is unquestionably foreclosed” – Supreme Court, Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980).
“Death sentence has certain class complexion or class bias in as much as it is largely the poor
and downtrodden who become victims of this extreme penalty. We would hardly find a rich or
affluent person going to the gallows.” Another serious flaw the judges highlighted was the legal
representation offered to the accused, especially under the legal aid system where the accused is
represented by a state-appointed lawyer. The court awarding the sentence is expected to analyse
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, weigh them against one another, and then make the
final decision. The judges have to ensure that the possibility of a life sentence is completely
foreclosed. Mitigating circumstances specified by the apex court include “socio-economic
background of the convict, age and possibility of reformation”.
Thirteen of the 22 judges who provided detailed responses on this subject said that the “rarest of
rare” doctrine “was subjective to such an extent that it has no real standard at all”. This meant
different judges could interpret it differently. Moreover, a significant number of judges said
public opinion made a difference. The crime’s nature worsened if the effect on collective
conscience was deeper; a direct disregard of the 1980 guidelines, which urged courts to neglect
public opinion and be guided by the law. The role of media and public pressure in sentencing
was also acknowledged.
An article in The Wire on last year’s research noted, “Why aren’t we looking at what the
prisoners are going through? Maybe they aren’t being finally made to face the hangman, but
what about the years they spent on death row, the trauma they and their families faced? What
meaning is really left in the “rarest of rare” doctrine once we know these statistics?” “[These
statistics] call for a deeper interrogation into the reason for the imposition of the death penalty by
trial courts in the overwhelming number of cases where it is found to be unwarranted by the high
courts. In this context, it is important that we acknowledge the mental anguish as well as the
social and economic repercussions of a death sentence on the prisoners and their families before
the latters eventual acquittal or commutation,” that report said.
Delhi High Court senior advocate Rebecca John observed, “When I read this report, it validates
what I always believed in. Most judges, indeed most lawyers, have no understanding of the
constitutional position on death penalty as laid down in Bachan Singh’s case. In that case it was
made clear that life imprisonment was the rule and death was the exception and the option of
death was available only when the alternate option of life was unquestionably foreclosed. It was
made absolutely clear that to award the death penalty, courts have to look at the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances of the offence as well as those of the offender.” She also discussed the
conflicting judgments and among other instances, cited the Yakub Memom case as an example
where the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine was completely disregarded. “No mitigating circumstances
of the crime or the criminal were considered. He was a model prisoner, he had served a long
period of time in jail on death row and he had mental health issues as well”. (Example of how the
Courts are indeed giving too much
Rapes in India
India continues to be a rape-friendly nation, even as per the official records. An analysis of the
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data of three years reveals that the number of
gangrapes witnessed in Haryana in 2016 is 191 as compared to 104 in 2015. Haryana has also
witnessed a sharp increase in cases of rape against girl children as well. The reforms expanded
the definition of rape and criminalised acts including stalking, voyeurism and acid attacks. It also
introduced the death penalty in cases of rape leading to the victim's death or her being left in a
"persistent vegetative state", and rape by repeat offenders. Convictions in cases of sexual
violence, however, continue to be rare. More than 34,000 rapes were reported in 2015, but the
conviction rate was only 21.3%. (Hence how clearly this approach is not working)
Five years ago, the pressure on the government led to reforms that provided an opportunity to
increase women's access to justice. That public outrage and the collective conscience must now
focus on the implementation of the laws. To begin with, the police are still unwilling to register
complaints, survivors and their families reported. Then women and girls have problems
accessing healthcare, counselling and legal aid, the report added. Medical professionals are still
not sensitive to the needs of rape survivors and there is no legal aid or assistance available for
victims of sexual assault. Recent government initiatives such as rape compensation and One Stop
Centres too are proving ineffective. “Often, if rape survivors are from economically weaker
sections they are pressured by khap panchayats [village caste council] and even the police to
‘settle’ the case if the perpetrator is from a powerful family or caste,” said Jayshree Bajoria,
author of the report. “Police rarely informed the victims and their families about the provisions
related to compensation and free legal aid and often failed to inform child welfare committees,”
said the report. “One reason is that government circulars and guidelines do not reach police in
village and smaller towns.”
“The doctor said to my daughter, ‘If they had forced themselves on you, there should have been
marks on your body, but you don’t have any. You must have done this of your own free will.’
My daughter even became more scared after the exam”, says the mother of 18 year old Palak
(name changed), a Dalit woman who was kidnapped and raped in Madhya Pradesh. In 2014, the
ministry of health and family welfare issued fresh guidelines for the medico-legal care of
survivors of sexual violence. These provided medical information and laid down processes
which are meant to correct pervasive myths about sexual assault. The guidelines also rejected the
“two-finger test” used for vaginal examination to establish the sexual history of the survivor,
unless it was “medically indicated”. It also put a stop to the use of “medical” findings to degrade
the survivor and question her “character”. So far, only nine states have adopted the guidelines
but medical professionals in even these states do not always follow procedures, the report found.
Doctors failed to give survivors adequate information about the tests and lacked sensitivity in
dealing with them.
New Virus that can kill fetuses (Tech)
https://knappily.com/technology/the-viruses-that-kill-fetuses/5a794a93b5ed4e6Some scientists
speculated Zika to be unique in its ability to get past the placental barrier and infect and damage
fetuses. In-depth study of organs and tissues from some fetuses revealed that, for West Nile
infections, a range of mild to severe brain damage had occurred.
The Zika virus apparently originated in or near Uganda, but the trigger to discovering the
devastating effect on newborns was a massive Zika epidemic in Brazil and other South (and
Central) American countries that affected more than 1.5 million people. The urbanization of the
ever-increasing human population and the adverse effects of climate change are increasing the
population at risk of flavivirus infections (from infested mosquito or tick).
Scientists still haven’t understood the reasons for the sudden emergence of Zika in Africa. It
went genetic changes over the years, that went largely unnoticed and furthermore, the
consequences of which were unknown. No vaccines currently for West Nile Virus and Powassan
Virus.
Drones in Africa (Tech)
Several African countries are demonstrating supremely innovative solutions with drone
technology and expressing willingness to harness its power to solve the crucial problems across
the continent In Rwanda, transport of life-saving blood is accomplished by drones. In Malawi,
drones ferry HIV test kits to and from remote pockets in the country. In other places, drones are
employed to combat poaching, track illegal maritime doings and oil spills, or to enhance the
experience of safaris.
“Everyone has this paradigm that robotics and artificial intelligence starts in the U.S., made by
rich people for rich people. It couldn't be farther from the truth ," said Keller Rinaudo, CEO of
Zipline, a San Francisco-based robotics company, which is supplying the drones to facilitate
transfer of blood and vaccines. "There's a major shift [occurring] where it's not about the country
with the most resources; it's more about the countries with modern regulatory reform and a
willingness to try new things."
Africa offers countless use cases. He lists agriculture, mineral exploration, security surveillance,
and conservation among some application areas. Drone deliveries are a sensible option in
countries with bad roads and isolated communities. During the rainy season, several of Rwanda’s
roads are washed away and procuring health services in an emergency can take hours due to the
country’s hilly terrain.
Zipline partnered with the Rwandan health ministry to speed up the delivery of blood to hospitals
in remote areas. Thus the world’s “first and only national drone service was launched” and the
world's first drone port opened in Rwanda in October 2016. Orders are placed online, by text,
phone, or WhatsApp. A technician works from a refrigerated room where the blood —
specifically red blood cells, platelets, plasma, and cryoprecipitate — are stored, communicating
with his team over Slack. The drones take preplanned routes that trace the ups and downs of
Rwanda’s terrain. Instead of landing, the drones drop the package at the hospital – which
receives a message notification a minute before –, in a biodegradable paper box attached to a
parachute, and then return to Zipline’s headquarters. The costs are paid by the government on a
per-delivery basis. The company says the cost per trip is roughly equal to that of the present
delivery method, by motorbike or ambulance but neither Zipline nor the government has
disclosed the cost. Since our launch [in October 2016], we have made more than 2,000 deliveries
of life-saving medication and many of them have been in life-threatening situations.
Whether we like it or not, UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] are confused with weaponised
drones and are perceived by the general public as related to military operations and/or
intelligence gathering," one Congo-based aid worker. Zipline makes it a point to hire and train
local engineers, health workers, and flight operators. “We want to make sure that every citizen in
Rwanda understands what it means when a drone flies over them,”.
Criticism of the Government’s Decision: The ground-level situation in Rwanda has raised
concerns that the government, in marketing hi-tech solutions like Zipline, thwarts its
responsibility and relinquishes accountability for the root cause of problems – lack of investment
in infrastructure. This imposes “ significant externalities on the physical and economic welfare of
its citizens ”, notes an article in Quartz. If the costs were instead channeled to paving, upgrading
and maintaining roads in Rwanda and Tanzania, the article says, it would do greater than access
of blood and medicines to those in need. They would boost the infrastructure, which is “both the
backbone of the economy and the motherboard of technological innovation” Better roads mean
access to markets to facilitate people to sell their produce and labor in order to earn enough
money to feed their family and educate their kids. Better roads would mean jobs in construction,
repair and maintenance that could fight the growing epidemic of youth unemployment across the
continent, something that cannot be achieved by hiring a few people to work at a few Zipline
distribution centers. MIT Technology Review noted, “Few inside Rwanda, a highly authoritarian
state, dare to openly criticize the government or its programs. Yet many who’ve heard about the
project are skeptical in private and question why authorities are investing in unproven high-tech
gizmos when demand for fundamentals like ambulances and health workers still exceeds supply.
To some critics, the project’s most important benefit could be the good PR it generates, which
distracts from the Rwandan government’s spotty human rights record and the acute levels of
poverty in much of the country.
Mohammed Alhatim Ahmed Ibrahim and Hatem Mubarak Hassan, from Massive Dynamics
have invested years building Sudan's first flying robot farmer - a drone that can plant trees,
increase harvests and reduce crop damage. The drone's main function is to plant the seeds of
Acacia trees from the sky. Researchers say this is the best way to fight desertification, because
the roots of these Acacia trees can stop the movement of the sand. The second thing the drone
does is remote agricultural sensing, which is a way of conducting plant health assessment. By
doing that assessment, all the researchers and NGOs will be able to access the information
needed to make decisions on the ground.
However, Africa confronts some of the same challenges that drone operators in other parts of the
world have faced. Hourcade told AIN that governments must address a lack of regulation, safety,
and security. “ You have also training, ” she said. “ You need to have the right skills for people
to operate and maintain drones.”
Advances towards human cloning (Tech)
Chinese researchers have used the cloning method that produced Dolly the sheep to create two
healthy monkeys, Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua, bringing science an important step closer to being
able to do the same with humans. Although the cloning method, known as somatic cell nuclear
transfer (SCNT), is almost routine in mammals such as sheep, cattle and mice, it had been
extremely difficult to replicate in primates. "Humans are primates. So for the cloning of primate
species, including humans, the technical barrier is now broken," said Muming Poo, who helped
supervise the program at the institute.
More immediately, the technique will allow researchers to create whole labs full of genetically
identical monkeys. That could prove tremendously useful in scientific and medical research –
allowing doctors to watch how specific treatments affect the genetic makeup of animals that are
otherwise exactly the same, for instance.
Criticism: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) condemned the monkey-cloning
experiments. “Cloning is a horror show: a waste of lives, time and money — and the suffering
that such experiments cause is unimaginable,” PETA Senior Vice-President Kathy Guillermo
said in a statement. “Because cloning has a failure rate of at least 90 per cent, these two monkeys
represent misery and death on an enormous scale.” In all, it took 127 eggs to produce two live
macaque births. "It remains a very inefficient and hazardous procedure," said Robin Lovell-
Badge, a cloning expert at the Francis Crick Institute in London, who was not involved in the
Chinese work. Scientists at the Shanghai institute said they followed international guidelines for
animal research set by the US National Institutes of Health, but called for a debate on what
should or should not be acceptable practice in primate cloning. Research has already led to fears
about where it could lead. The scientists stress they did the work under strict international codes,
and co-author Muming Poo said the team was aware “that future research using non-human
primates anywhere in the world depends on scientists following very strict ethical standards”.