भारतवासियों का मेटाडेटा और आंकड़ों का राष्ट्रवाद

मेटा डेटा का एक अर्थ है- आकड़ों के बारे में आंकड़ा और दूसरा अर्थ है संग्रहित सूचना. सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पांच जजों वाली संविधान पीठ के 1,448 पन्नों के आधार मामले मे दिए गये फैसले में इस शब्द का लगभग 50 बार जिक्र किया गया है. यह शब्द आधार कानून 2016 में परिभाषित नहीं है. पृष्ठ 121 पर कहा गया है कि आधार कानून भारतवासियों और नागरिकों का मूल बायोमेट्रिक (उंगलियों व आंखों की पुतलियों) की जानकारी, जनसंख्या संबंधी जानकारी और मेटा डेटा का साइबर सूचना संग्रहालय तैयार करता है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला मेटा डेटा (अधि-आंकड़ा) के संबंध में मौजूदा प्रावधान को निरस्त करता है और उसमें संशोधन करने का निर्देश देता है.     

सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी से संबंधित संसदीय समिति ने फरवरी 2014 की अपनी एक रिपोर्ट में अमेरिकी नेशनल सिक्यूरिटी एजेंसी द्वारा किये जा रहे खुफिया हस्तक्षेप और विकिलिक्स के खुलासे और साइबर क्लाउड तकनीकी और वैधानिक खतरों के संबध में इलेक्ट्रॉनिक और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग के तत्कालीन सचिव जे सत्यनारायण (वर्तमान में चेयरमैन, भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण, भारत सरकार) से पूछा था. संसदीय समिति उनके जवाब से संतुष्ट नहीं लगी. हैरत की बात है कि इन्हें विदेशी सरकारों और कंपनियों द्वारा सरकारी लोगों और देशवासियों के मेटा डाटा एकत्रित किये जाने से कोई परेशानी नहीं थी. 

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पांच जजों की पीठ ने दो अलग-अलग फैसला दिया है. दोनों फैसलों में समानता और अंतर है. समानता यह है कि दोनों फैसलों में आधार कानून पर सवाल उठाया गया है. अंतर यह है कि न्यायमूर्ति एके सीकरी द्वारा लिखे चार जजों के आदेश ने आधार के कई प्रावधानों पर सवाल उठाया है और कुछ प्रावधानों को असंवैधानिक बताया है. 

उन्होंने आधार कानून के बहुत से प्रावधानों को रद्द कर दिया है और सरकार को उनमें संशोधन करने का आदेश दिया है. इस फैसले से अलग न्यायमूर्ति डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ ने पूरे आधार कानून को असंवैधानिक बताया है.

मोटे तौर पर ‘आधार’ तो बारह अंकों वाला एक अनूठा पहचान संख्या है, जिसके द्वारा  देशवासियों के संवेदनशील आकड़ों को सूचीबद्ध किया जा रहा है. लेकिन यही पूरा सच नहीं है. असल में यह 16 अंकों वाला है, मगर 4 अंक छुपे रहते हैं. इस परियोजना के कई रहस्य अब भी उजागर नहीं हुए हैं. शायद इसीलिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट की संविधान पीठ के पांच जजों में से चार जज सरकार द्वारा गुमराह हो गये प्रतीत होते हैं. 

यूआईडी/आधार  और नेशनल इंटेलिजेंस ग्रिड (राष्ट्रीय खुफिया तंत्र) एक ही सिक्के के दो पहलू हैं. आधार संख्या सम्मिलित रूप से राजसत्ता और कंपनियां विभिन्न कारणों से नागरिकों पर नजर रखने का उपकरण हैं. 

यह परियोजना न तो अपनी संरचना में और न ही अमल में निर्दोष है. केंद्रीय मंत्री रविशंकर प्रसाद ने 10 अप्रैल, 2017 को राज्यसभा में आधार पर चर्चा के दौरान कहा कि सरकार नेशनल इंटेलिजेंस ग्रिड और आधार संख्या को नहीं जोड़ेगी. इसी सरकार ने आधार को स्वैच्छिक बता कर बाध्यकारी बनाया है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दोनों फैसलों ने ऐसे प्रयासों पर रोक लगा दिया है. फिक्की और एसोचैम की रिपोर्टों से स्पष्ट है कि नेशनल इंटेलिजेंस ग्रिड और बायोमेट्रिक आधार संरचनात्मक तौर पर जुड़े हुए हैं.

आधार परियोजना पर होनेवाले अनुमानित खर्च का आज तक खुलासा नहीं किया गया है. देशवासियों को अंधकार में रखकर बायोमेट्रिक-डिजिटल पहलों से जुड़े हुए उद्देश्य को अंजाम दिया जा रहा है. 

अदालत ने दुनिया की सबसे बड़ी टेक्नोलाॅजी कंपनी आईबीएम के कारनामों की अनदेखी की है. आईबीएम ने नाजियों के साथ मिलकर यहूदियों की संपत्तियों को हथियाने, उन्हें नारकीय बस्तियों में महदूद कर देने, उन्हें देश से भगाने और आखिरकार उनके सफाये के लिए पंच-कार्ड (कंप्यूटर का पूर्व रूप) और इन कार्डों के माध्यम से जनसंख्या के वर्गीकरण की प्रणाली के जरिये यहूदियों की निशानदेही की, उसने मानवीय विनाश के मशीनीकरण को संभव बनाया. इसकी आशंका प्रबल है कि आधार से वही होने जा रहा है, जो जर्मनी में हुआ था. 

गौरतलब है कि चार जजों ने आधार के बहुत सारे प्रावधानों पर सवाल उठाया है. एक जज ने पूरे आधार कानून को असंवैधानिक बताया है. कोर्ट ने आधार कानून की धारा 57 को खत्म कर दिया है. आधार एक्ट के तहत प्राइवेट कंपनियां 2010 से ही आधार की मांग कर रही थी. धारा 57 के अनुसार सिर्फ राज्य ही नहीं, बल्कि बॉडी कॉरपोरेट या फिर किसी व्यक्ति को चिह्नित करने के लिए आधार संख्या मांगने का अधिकार अब नहीं है. 

इस प्रावधान के तहत मोबाइल कंपनी, प्राइवेट सर्विस प्रोवाइडर्स के पास वैधानिक सपोर्ट था, जिससे वे पहचान के लिए आपका आधार संख्या मांगते थे. ऐसे नाजायज प्रावधान को धन विधेयक का हिस्सा बनाया गया था, जिसे लोकसभा और लोकसभा अध्यक्ष ने कानून बना दिया था. बीते 26 सितंबर तक इस प्रावधान के तहत देशवासियों के साथ कानून के नाम पर घोर अन्याय किया गया. इस अन्याय के लिए लोकसभा और लोकसभा अध्यक्ष को नागरिकों से माफी मांगनी चाहिए. इस प्रावधान से देश के हित और नागरिकों के हित के साथ खिलवाड़ हुआ है. 

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के चार जजों ने फैसले में कहा है कि आधार कानून धन विधेयक है. ये जज हैं- प्रधान न्यायाधीश दीपक मिश्रा , न्यायमूर्ति एके सीकरी, न्यायमूर्ति एएम खानविलकर और न्यायमूर्ति अशोक भूषण. इन जजों का मानना है कि लोकसभा अध्यक्ष के फैसले को संवैधानिक चुनौती दी जा सकती है.  

न्यायमूर्ति डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ ने अपने फैसले में कहा है कि वह सरकार की इस दलील से सहमत नहीं है कि आधार कानून धन विधेयक है और उन्होंने लोकसभा अध्यक्ष के फैसले को गलत बताया है. 

उन्होंने आधार को लागू करनेवाले भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण (यूआईडीएआई) के साथ हुए विदेशी निजी कंपनियों के करार का हवाला देते हुए कहा कि नयी इन बायोमेट्रिक तकनीकी कंपनियों की सहभागिता से होनेवाले राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा संबंधी खतरे और नागरिकों के मूलभूत अधिकारों के हनन को नजरंदाज नहीं किया जा सकता है. इसलिए उन्होंने आधार परियोजना और कानून को खारिज कर दिया और इसकी जगह कोई वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था करने की अनुशंसा की है.      

वित्त मंत्री पर आरोप है कि इन्होंने तथ्यों को गलत ढंग से पेश किया है. सूचना के अधिकार के तहत जो कॉन्ट्रेक्ट एग्रीमेंट निकाले गये हैं, उसमें स्पष्ट लिखा गया है कि ऐक्सेंचर, साफ्रान ग्रुप, एर्नेस्ट यंग नाम की ये कंपनियां भारतवासियों के इन संवेदनशील बाॅयोमेट्रिक आंकड़ों को सात साल के लिए अपने पास रखेंगी.

इस का संज्ञान सुप्रीम कोर्ट के एक जज वाले फैसले में लिया गया है. इसी कारण चार जजों ने भी निजी कंपनियों को आधार सूचना देने पर पाबंदी लगा दी है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अभी यह तय नहीं किया है कि यदि आधार परियोजना और विदेशी कंपनियों के ठेका और संविधान में द्वंद्व हो, तो संविधान प्रभावी होगा कि ठेका. न्यायमूर्ति चंद्रचूड़ ने अपने फैसले में स्पष्ट किया है कि संविधान प्रभावी होगा. बाकी के चार जजों ने फिलहाल इस मामले में चुप्पी साध ली है.     

आधार को लागू करनेवाले प्राधिकरण द्वारा अब तक 120 करोड़ से अधिक भारतीय निवासियों को आधार संख्या प्रदान किये जा चुके हैं. यह नागरिकता का पहचान नहीं है. यह आधार पंजीकरण से पहले देश में 182 दिन रहने का पहचान प्रदान करता है. कोई बुरुंडी, टिंबकटू, सूडान, चीन, तिब्बेत, पाकिस्तान, होनोलुलू या अन्य देश का नागरिक भी इसे बनवा सकता है. नागरिकों के अधिकार को उनके बराबर करना और इसे बाध्यकारी बनाकर और इस्तेमाल करके उन्हें मूलभूत अधिकारों से वंचित करना तर्कसंगत और न्यायसंगत नहीं है.

 

Justice Shiva Kirti Singh remains Chairperson, Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal

Following the order of Supreme Court bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat on an interlocutory application filed in the Madras Bar Association 's petition challenging the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021, Justice Shiva Kirti Singh (retd.) cremains Chairperson, Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) till the appointment of the new Chairperson. 

The Court gave a direction staying Union Ministry’s communication dated March 31 to the TDSAT Chairperson asking him to demit office by April 20, 2021. The communication cited the new Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, which mandate that the tenure of Chairperson cannot exceed 4 years. This communication was challenged by lawyers who practice in the Tribunal. The order reads: "In view of the AG's submissions, the extraordinary situation and letter dated May 31, 2021, we are of the view that Justice Shiva Kirti Singh will be continuing as Chairman till fresh appointment is made. We request the Chief Justice of India to expedite the process of appointment".

The Central Government has notified the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, to dissolve certain existing appellate bodies and transfer their functions to existing judicial bodies. A Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in this regard during the Budget Session but it could not be taken up for consideration and passing. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh assumed the office of Chairperson, TDSAT on April 21, 2017.

Justice Shiva Kirti Singh was born in November 1951. His grandfather Late Krishna Kumar Singh of Village Narendrapur, P.S. Ander, District Saran (now Siwan), Bihar had a modest Zamindari. His father Late Shambhu Prasad Singh, retired as a senior most Judge of Patna High Court in January, 1979. His uncle, late Uma Kant Pd. Singh became a martyr in front of Patna Secretariat during Quit India Movement in August 1942. His maternal grandfather Late B.P. Sinha was Chief Justice of India from 1959 to 1964. 

He completed schooling from Sainik School Tilaiya, now in Jharkhand, He graduated in Political Science from Patna College. He did his post graduation from Patna University and LL.B. from Patna Law College. He enrolled as an Advocate on March 17, 1977. He was designated Senior Advocate on January 17, 1990. He practised in Patna High Court in Civil, Criminal, Service and Constitutional matters. He served as counsel for Bihar State Electricity Board for several years. He was elevated as permanent Judge of Patna High Court on December 29, 1998. He served as Executive Chairman of Bihar State Legal Services Authority from March 7, 2006 to October 16, 2012. 

He was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court in May 2009 for about four months, and again in September 2009 for about same period and for the third time in May 2010 for a lesser period. He was transferred to Allahabad High Court and took oath on October 17, 2012. He was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on November 20, 2012 and as Chief Justice on February 4, 2013. He was elevated to Supreme Court on September 19, 2013. He retired on 11th November, 2016. 

Justice Shiva Kirti Singh was part of the 3-Judge Bench that commuted the death sentence of 15 people in Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) because undue delay by the President in rejecting mercy to a death row convict amounted to torture. The time taken by the President in rejecting mercy petitions of the 15 prisoners ranged between 11 years and 1.5 years. This has paved the for India to adopt a more humane process committed to the rule of law until the very end in carrying out death sentences. The bench took the view that the crime in question is irrelevant in deciding the effects of keeping a death row prisoner waiting for a decision on his or her mercy petition. The suffering that comes with anticipating death on an every day basis for the judges amounted to torture, which was violative of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is the bench that declared that the 2-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v State of NCT of Delhi (2013) that those sentenced to death under anti-terror laws are not allowed to invoke the argument of undue delay to argue for commutation, was held to be flawed application of an earlier decision of the 5-Judge bench of Supreme Court in the Triveniben v State of Gujarat (1989). By declaring Bhullar per incuriam, this bench has done away with notorious judgements delivered in 2013. This bench held that enforcement of rights was within its jurisdiction and what constitutes the content of fundamental rights of all persons is determined by the judiciary. 

Bengal assembly elections once again about Ma Mati Manush

Bengal assembly elections commences on March 27 with ruling party's Trinamool Congress (TMC)'s main slogan - "Bengal only wants its own daughter"(BanglaNijerMeyekeiChay). 

Bengal elections will be held over 33 days in eight phases from March 27 to April 29, the Election Commission has announced. The results will be declared on May 2. The eight days of voting are March 27, April 1, April 6, April 10, April 17, April 22, April 26 and April 29. 

State's ruling party reacted saying, Bihar has 240 seats but it had elections in three phases. Tamil Nadu has 234 seats, it will have election in one day. Why eight phases in Bengal? The question is likely to reverberate throughout the election. In 2016 assembly elections, the BJP - which won 3 of seats with 10.16 percent vote share. TMC got 211 seats and 44.91 percent vote share. In 2011, in alliance with SUCI and Indian National Congress, TMC had defeated Left Front which has been ruling the state for 34 years. TMC had won 184 seats, SUCI won one seat and Congress got 42 seats. In 2016, TMC won 211 seats without any alliance. 

Ahead of the assembly elections, Left Front-Congress alliance has finalised seat sharing deal for 193 seats out of 294 seats. 148 seats are needed for majority. Out of the total seats, Left Front will contest 101 seats and Congress will contest 92 seats. Out of these seats, they had won 77 seats in the 2016 elections. The arrangements for the remaining seats are yet to be announced. 

Meanwhile, CPI (ML) has announced that it will contest in 12 seats independently and not as alliance partners with the Left Front-Congress. 

CPI (ML) has decided to contest in Phansidewa (Darjeeling), Maynaguri (Jalpaiguri), Mathabari (Malda), Khargram (Murshidabad), Manteswar (Burdwan), Jamalpur (Burdwan), Onda (Bankura), Ranibandh (Bankura), Krishnanagar South (Nadia), Nakashipara (Nadia), Dhanekhali (Hooghly) and in UttarPara (Hooghly).

CPI (ML) has announced that it will support candidates of other parties including Left Front, Congress and TMC. 

It is being said that Hindi speaking voters who constitute 12 percent of total voters are likely to play a significant role in some constituencies. The role of women voters too will be crucial. 

Significantly, Bengal assembly is the only state assembly in the country which had unanimously passed a resolution against controversial biometric surveillance initiative called Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number for residents of India with the support of TMC and Left parties. This project was launched by Congress led central government and is enthusiastically pursued by BJP led central government under the influence of the donors of ruling parties. The latter bulldozed it as Money Bill amidst bitter protest by Rajya Sabha. It has been found constitutionally questionable by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court and has been referred to a 7-Judge Bench. 

Alignments and alliances for the election are almost ready but rife with scope for surprising partial re-alignments. It is evident that Bengal election is once again going to be about Ma Mati Manush (Mother, Motherland and People). 

Agriculture markets laws are illegitimate, unconstitutional, must be repealed.

More than 50 days have passed since the farmers' protest started at Delhi's borders. Farmers have burnt the copies of the three agriculture market laws- Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) Bypass law, Contract Farming law and decriminalization of commodity hoarding law. They are gearing up for a tractor rally in Delhi on Republic Day demanding repeal of these illegitimate unconstitutional laws. 

At a Dialogue on Farm Market Laws in Patna, P. Sainath, noted journalist observed, "Agriculture is a state subject under the Constitution of India. These three laws aggravate the existing agrarian crisis. They should be repealed. The government is playing with fire." He added, "APMC is to agriculture what the government school is to the education sector and APMC is like the government hospital of the health sector. Reforms must be farmer friendly, and not corporate friendly.” He demanded a special session of Parliament for hearing the farmers and addressing their demands in the context of unprecedented mobilization of farmers on the issue of the farm market bills. Sainath explained how the farmers are directly confronting the corporate power- “Their protest is in defence of democracy and for reclaiming the republic”. He questioned the enactment of these laws during the pandemic. He explained the many aspects of the agrarian crisis, and how many allied professions have been affected by it and the importance of Minimum Support Price, and how it must be related to procurement. He concluded saying, “This is one of the series of struggles, the nation is with the farmers and this fight is ours, we need to show our solidarity with the mobilization of farmers because it is not an ordinary event. It merits special attention of all sections of society because these laws will have adverse effect on the rights of all the citizens."

Dr. Gopal Krishna of Nation for Farmers introduced the subject and explained the backdrop in which Bihar's APMC Act was repealed because of irrational and unconvincing reasons and made a case for its restoration. He said, Patna High Court erred in dismissing the petition challenging the repeal of Bihar's APMC Act, 2006 in 2008. Justice Rajesh Balia was misled by the then Advocate General of Bihar. It was admitted in the Court by the State Government that no studies were conducted to find out the achievements of Bihar's APMC Act before reaching the conclusion that the law had failed to achieve its purpose. Notably, the 23-page long verdict has cited International trade agreements to endorse the constitutionality of the repeal law. The fact remains the repeal of Bihar's APMC Act is illegitimate and is contrary to the principles of constitutionalism. There is a compelling reason to ensure restoration of this law. Similar law has been enacted in Maharashtra in 2015 to safeguard the interest of the farmers. 

 

तीनों कृषि बाजार कानून नाजायज और असंवैधानिक हैं: पी साईनाथ

केंद्र सरकार के तीन नए कृषि कानूनों के खिलाफ पिछले 50 से अधिक दिनों से दिल्ली की सीमाओं पर किसान प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं. किसानों ने नए कृषि कानूनों की प्रतियां जलाईं. साथ ही गणतंत्र दिवस के मौके पर 26 जनवरी को ट्रैक्टर परेड करने का ऐलान किया है. किसानों की मांग है कि तीनों कृषि कानूनों को निरस्त किया जाना चाहिए. उन्होंने कोरोना वायरस महामारी के दौरान इन कानूनों को पारित करने का केंद्र सरकार के फैसले पर सवाल उठाया है। किसान डटे हुए हैं और केंद्र सरकार द्वारा लाए गए तीन विवादित कृषि कानूनों को वापस लेने की मांग कर रहे हैं। इन कानूनों के जरिये सरकार एपीएमसी मंडियां और न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य (एमएसपी) खत्म करना चाह रही है, जिसके चलते उन्हें ट्रेडर्स और बड़े कॉरपोरेट के रहम पर जीना पड़ेगा। ये कानून किसानों को कोई कानूनी सुरक्षा नहीं प्रदान करते हैं. किसान संगठन अपनी इस मांग को लेकर प्रतिबद्ध हैं कि सरकार को हर हालत में इन कानूनों को वापस लेना होगा. इस संबंध में सरकार और किसानों के बीच बातचीत के कई दौर चले, लेकिन अभी तक कोई नतीजा नहीं निकला है।  

कृषि बाजार कानूनों को लेकर देश के किसानों के अप्रत्याशित व्यापक जुटान के सन्दर्भ में आज पटना में जाने माने कृषि विशेषज्ञ एवं मेग्सेसे पुरस्कार विजेता श्री पी साईनाथ के साथ चर्चा का आयोजन हुआ। ज्ञात हो कि श्री साईनाथ पीपुल्स अरकाईव ऑफ रूरल इंडिया (PARI) के संस्थापक हैं और द हिन्दू अखबार के ग्रामीण मामलों के संपादक रहे हैं. 

उन्हीने कहा कि भारतीय संविधान के तहत कृषि राज्य का विषय है. केंद्र द्वारा इन कानूनों को बनाना असंवैधानिक है. इससे मौजूदा कृषि संकट को और गहरा देगा। इन कानूनों को रद्द किया जाना चाहिए. सरकार आग से खेल रही है". साईनाथ ने कहा कि कृषि उत्पाद बाजार समिति, कृषि के लिए लगभग वही है जो सरकारी स्कूल शिक्षा के क्षेत्र के लिए है या फिर जो सरकारी अस्पताल स्वास्थ्य क्षेत्र के लिए है. कृषि कानूनों में नीतिगत सुधार निश्चित तौर पर किसानों के हित को ध्यान में रखते हुए किया जाना चाहिए, न कि निजी कंपनियों के हित में। 

इन कानूनों के जरिये सरकार एपीएमसी मंडियां और न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य (एमएसपी) खत्म करना चाह रही है, जिसके चलते उन्हें ट्रेडर्स और बड़े कॉरपोरेट के रहम पर जीना पड़ेगा। ये कानून किसानों को कोई कानूनी सुरक्षा नहीं प्रदान करते हैं. किसान संगठन अपनी इस मांग को लेकर प्रतिबद्ध हैं कि सरकार को हर हालत में इन कानूनों को वापस लेना होगा. इस संबंध में सरकार और किसानों के बीच बातचीत के कई दौर चले, लेकिन अभी तक कोई नतीजा नहीं निकला है।  

नेशन फॉर फार्मर्स के डा गोपाल कृष्ण ने चर्चा के विषय का परिचय दिया। उन्होंने यह भी बताया की कैसे बिहार के सन्दर्भ में  APMC एक्ट को गैर वाजिब वजह से निरस्त किया गया और इस एक्ट को फिर से बहाल करने के महत्व पर जोर दिया। 

मालूम हो कि केंद्र सरकार की ओर से कृषि से संबंधित तीन विधेयक– किसान उपज व्‍यापार एवं वाणिज्‍य (संवर्धन एवं सुविधा) विधेयक, 2020, किसान (सशक्तिकरण एवं संरक्षण) मूल्‍य आश्‍वासन अनुबंध एवं कृषि सेवाएं विधेयक, 2020 और आवश्‍यक वस्‍तु (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2020 को बीते 27 सितंबर को राष्ट्रपति ने मंजूरी दे दी थी, जिसके विरोध में किसान प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं. सरकार समझ रही थी कि यदि वो इस समय ये क़ानून लाती है तो मज़दूर और किसान संगठित नहीं हो पाएंगे और विरोध भी नहीं कर पाएंगे, लेकिन उनका यह आकलन ग़लत साबित हुआ है. किसानों को इस बात का भय है कि सरकार न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य (एमएसपी) दिलाने की स्थापित व्यवस्था को खत्म कर रही है और यदि इसे लागू किया जाता है तो किसानों को व्यापारियों के रहम पर जीना पड़ेगा. किसानों का व्यापक जुटान कोई मामूली जुटान नहीं है.

India Armed Forces have been losing over 100 soldiers every year due to suicides and fratricides

 To

Chairman,

National Human Rights Commission

New Delhi

Date: 09/01/2021

Subject-India Armed Forces have been losing over 100 soldiers every year due to suicides and fratricides

Sir,

With due respect we wish is to draw your attention towards the Report of Scholars Webinar titled "Prevailing Stress Levels in Indian Army due to Prolonged Exposure to Counter Insurgency/ Counter Terrorism Environment" prepared by Col. A. K. Mor, Senior Research Fellow at the United Service Institution of India (USI). The attached summary of the report was uploaded and published on 07-12-2020. The Press Trust of India, Times Now and The Tribune have reported the findings of this report stating that "Indian Army losing more personnel every year in suicides, fratricides and untoward incidents than in any enemy action and over half of its soldiers seem to be under severe stress presently".  

We submit that these findings corroborate the earlier findings in the paper titled "Addressing Stress-Related Issues in Army" published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in February 2011. Lt Gen Prakash Katoch, a former Lt Gen Special Forces, Indian Army wrote an article titled "Armed Forces Suicides, Welfare and Morale" (Indian Defence Review, 6 January, 2018) wherein he drew attention towards the information given to Parliament regarding 425 suicides in the Armed Forces since 2014: 335 in Army including nine officers; 72 in Air Force including 67 airmen; and, 18 in Navy including two officers. Parliament was also informed that since 2014, 803 Army officers and 38,150 soldiers had also sought premature retirement. It has been reported by The Times of India that as many as 597 military personnel committed suicide in 5 years between 2009 and 2013. NDTV reported that in 2018, a total of 80 army personnel committed suicide. The total number of suicides in the Air Force was 16 while in the Navy was 8, Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply on January 7, 2019. In 2017, the number of army men, who are suspected to have committed suicide, was 75 while in 2016, this number was 104. In the Air Force, the number of suspected suicides was 21 in 2017 and 19 in 2016. For the Navy, these numbers were 5 and 6 for 2017 and 2016, respectively. There are compelling reasons for the Commission to pay heed to the findings of Col. Mor's report which are consistent with earlier findings.  

We submit that it is indeed true that military duty is regarded as one of the most stressful jobs in the entire world. Col. Mor's report points out that India Armed Forces have been losing over 100 soldiers every year due to suicides and fratricides leading to the grim reality of one soldier dying every third day. This loss is substantially greater than the operational casualties suffered by the Armed Forces. In addition, a number of soldiers and leaders have been affected by hypertension, heart diseases, psychosis, neurosis and other related ailments. The maximum incidents of fatalities occur in Indian Army with one of the primary reasons being the prolonged deployment in the Counter-Insurgency/ Counter-Terrorist environment. 

We submit that research undertaken during 2019-20 by Col. Mor examined the stress levels in the Indian Army by identifying stressors experienced by the Army personnel due to prolonged exposure to the CI/CT environment and thereby make constructive recommendations to effectively manage stress in the Army. In this regard a webinar titled "Prevailing Stress Levels in Indian Army due to Prolonged Exposure to Counter Insurgency/ Counter Terrorism Environment" was organised on 17 October 2020. The panelists included Major Gen. B.K. Sharma, AVSM, SM Bar (Retd), Director USI, Major Gen Rajiv Narayanan, AVSM, VSM (Retd), Head CS3 USI and Major Gen. R.P. S. Bhadauria, VSM (Retd), Distinguished Fellow, USI.

Drawing on the report, we submit that stress is an outcome of anxiety generated in an individual by their perception of the demands and complexity of a situation, and the consequently perceived ability to handle the problem. This study has used Armed Forces Medical College (AFMC) Life Events Scale (LES) 2001 for quantification of stress amongst Indian Army personnel. Indian Army personnel face Environmental Stressors, Organizational Stressors, Personal Stressors, Role Related Stressors, Socio-economic Stressors and Miscellaneous Stressors. The main findings of the study are as under:-

1. Indian Army has been losing more personnel eveO'year due to suicides, fratricides and untoward incidents than in response to any enemy and/or terrorist activities. 

2. There has been a significant increase in stress levels amongst Indian Army personnel during approximately the last two decades due to operational and non-operational stressors. Furthermore, presently more than half of Indian Army personnel seem to be under severe stress.

3. Prolonged exposure of Indian Army personnel to CI/CT environment has been one of the contributory factors for increased stress levels. 

4. The operational stressors are well understood and accepted by Indian Army personnel as integral part of their profession. However, non-operational stressors are perceived to be avoidable and resented against. Unsurprisingly, it is precisely these non-combat stressors that add on to the operational stressors and have compounding adverse effects on health and combat efficiency of soldiers and thus affecting their respective units too. The stress management measures therefore, need to be focused towards mitigating organisational causes of non-operational stressors. 

5. Indian Army Officers experience comparatively much higher cumulative stress levels as compared to the JCOs/ OR. Also, the stress causative factors are found to be different for Officers as compared to JCOs/ OR. Therefore, the aspects causing stress amongst the various categories of Army personnel need to be addressed accordingly.  Moreover, the overall job satisfaction and pride in uniform still remains high amongst JCOs/ OR. However, at the same time, it seems to be a growing matter of concern amongst Officers, requiring urgent interventions from the highest levels of Government. 

6. Despite harsh and challenging service conditions, Indian Army personnel remain highly motivated to serve in CI/ CT areas voluntarily. They possess high confidence in the training, weapons and equipment provided for operating in the CI/ CT environment. However, the Officers lack a similar level of trust, faith and confidence in their leadership that JCOs/OR demonstrate. 

The report underlines that various stress management measures implemented by the Indian Army and Ministry of Defence during the last 15 years have not been able to achieve the desired results. There is thus an urgent need to remove all the shortcomings in the existing strategies at the earliest. Prolonged exposure to excessive stress has serious adverse effects on the health and efficiency of soldiers and combat units. Units and sub-units under stress are likely to witness an increased number of incidents of indiscipline, unsatisfactory state of training, inadequate maintenance of equipment and low morale, motivation and esprit-de-corps, thereby adversely affecting their combat preparedness and operational performance. Soldiers under stress need to be counselled, motivated and dealt with empathy. It points out insufficient accommodation and educational facilities, lack of motivation amongst juniors, non-grant of leave, indifferent attitude of civilian officials and short command tenures. The main organisational stressors as perceived by JCOs/ OR include delay and denial of leave, excessive engagements, domestic problems, humiliation by seniors, lack of dignity, unreasonable restrictions on the use of mobiles, lack of recreational facilities, conflict with seniors as well as subordinates, health problems, the inadequacy of train reservation, inefficient

administrative support, financial problems, lack of transparency in promotions, delay in crediting of financial claims and poor quality of rations as well as cooked food.

We submit that it has aptly been inferred by Ms. Sakshi Sharma in a paper titled "Occupational stress in the armed forces: An Indian army perspective" that "A 'sick' army can negatively impact the country in terms of health care, unhealthy working relationships, suicides, and killing of fellow soldiers, which have been frequently witnessed in the past decade." 

In the light of the above, we earnestly seek your immediate intervention to make considered recommendations for the protection of our armed forces. 

Thanking you in anticipation.

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)

High Court grappled with cases under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act in 2020

In 2020, Patna High Court disposed 14,108 civil cases and 1.42 lakh criminal cases till November 30. Numerous cases related to inappropriate implementation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 reached the Court throughout the year compelling it reiterate its order time and time again.  

January 2020: In Mohammad Babar v The State Of Bihar, a 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol, Justices Anil Kumar Upadhyay and K.C. Jha on 14 January, 2020, the Court reiterated its earlier orders. It observed "It is continued practice of this Court that in cases of drunken driving; no recovery from the vehicle; recovery of less than commercial quantity; where ex-facie, vehicle is not liable to be confiscated; where there is inordinate delay in initiating proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle etc., this Court has been directing the State to provisionally release vehicle/property, subject to initiation/conclusion/finalisation of the confiscatory proceedings, as the case may be" in the matter of offences punishable under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.  

It reminded the State that in Diwakar Kumar Singh v The State of Bihar (2018), the Court issued the following directions: "That apart, in the confiscation proceedings, the confiscating authority shall take note of the provisions of Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and record a positive finding after hearing the petitioner as to whether when the petitioner is found or the vehicle is found to be used by a person in drunken condition and no liquor is seized from the vehicle or when the vehicle is not used for transportation of liquor, whether the provision of Section 56 of the Act will apply. It shall be mandatory for the confiscating authority to decide this issue before passing any order on the confiscation proceedings. The confiscating authority shall consider the provision of Section 56 of the Act, apply his mind and pass a speaking order with regard to confiscation initiated. Without deciding the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue, further proceedings in the confiscation proceedings shall be prohibited."

It asked "the office of the Advocate General to communicate this order to all the District Magistrates in the State of Bihar, who would be mandated to pass an appropriate order in such cases where the vehicle has been confiscated under Section 56 of the Act only on the allegation that the vehicle was being driven in a drunken condition and no liquor was seized from the vehicle nor the vehicle used for transportation or carriage of liquor. The issue shall be decided by each and every District Magistrate before proceeding in the confiscation proceedings where the allegation is about the vehicle being driven in a drunken condition and no liquor was found from the possession of the vehicle. It shall be the duty of the Advocate General to communicate this order to each and every District Magistrate and inform the Registrar General of this Court. In spite thereof, if we find that the District Magistrates are passing confiscation order without addressing this issue first, we may consider initiating contempt proceedings against the concerned District Magistrate."

The Court recalled that in Shobha Devi v The State of Bihar (2019), the Court had observed :"On examination of aforesaid fact, particularly allegation of the petitioner that in a court proceeding before the learned Special Judge, Excise, a false information was given, we are of the opinion that the court of learned Special Judge, Excise would be competent court to pass an appropriate order, in view of provisions contained in Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to file appropriate petition before the learned Special Judge, Excise for prosecuting the concerned police official. So far as claim of compensation is concerned, obviously on going through the material on record, since there was no recovery of liquor from the vehicle and it was a case, in which, the occupants of the vehicle were alleged to be in drunken condition and were creating nuisance, though were liable to be arrested. In any event, the vehicle was not required to be seized, since it was not liable to be confiscated." 

For future guidance, where parties have not approached this Court, the Court issue the direction saying "The expression "reasonable delay" used in Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and with dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three months time is sufficient enough for any authority to adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with confiscatory proceedings."

It was hoped that this order authored by the Chief Justice will help in curbing the indiscriminate use of the provisions of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 without application of legal mind by police officials.  

Despite this order of January 2020, the 3-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice had reiterate his order once again in Sheetal Sahu v The State Of Bihar on 12 October, 2020. It observed: "Be that as it may, at this point in time, we Patna High Court CWJC No.8483 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020 refrain from passing any order under the contempt jurisdiction, but direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to file his personal affidavit dealing with each one of the issues highlighted (supra) as also elaborately indicating the mechanism which the State has or desires to evolve so as to prevent the litigants from directly approaching the Court for release of the vehicle and also ensuring early completion of the proceedings, be it confiscatory in nature or in an appellate jurisdiction, under the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016."

The Court further observed that "Learned counsel for the State undertakes to communicate the order to all concerned, including the District Magistrate and no certified copy of the order shall be required to be placed on the file of proceedings pending or initiated under the Act, for such order is available on the official website of the High Court & can be downloaded and/or verified from there, in the times of current Pandemic Covid-19. We only hope and expect that the Authorities under the Act shall take appropriate action at the earliest and in accordance with law, within the time schedule fixed, failing which the vehicle/property/things liable for confiscation shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.8483 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020 deemed to have been released without any further reference to this Court." The CWJC No. 8483 refers to Sheetal Sahu case. It is apparent that repeated order of the High Court is not being implemented by the police officials. 

Indian State Wants the Right to be Absent for Protection of Farmers and Citizens

After granting the right to anonymity, the ultimate privilege to the investors and donors of ruling parties, the Indian State wants the right to be absent in the face of cries for social, political and economic injustice in general and for farmers’ demand for justice in particular. What started as seemingly small amendments in the Companies Act in 2002 and 2013 for corporate political donations has emerged as an exercise in rewriting the political and electoral geography in the aftermath of amendments in relevant laws through Finance Acts of 2017 and 2018. It has paved the way for forging relationships that enable and facilitate accumulation by dispossession. The decriminalisation of some 60 corporate crimes through yet another amendment during the pandemic has left not even an iota of doubt about the quid pro quo underway. Indian citizens in general and farmers in particular have been able to identify some of these corporate investors and donors who have vindicated the scholars of white-collar crimes. These scholars have contended for long that corporations which used to be artefacts of laws have transformed their roles, now they have ensured that laws have become artefacts of corporations.

The enactment of the three illegitimate agriculture market laws are linked to the amendment in the companies act and related laws for electoral finance and anonymous foreign donations. These investors and donors have coerced the State to withdraw from its responsibilities towards farmers, the producers of primary agricultural commodities including women, land owners, tenants, sharecroppers, farm workers, plantation workers, milk producers and everyone engaged in crop cultivation, shifting cultivation, apiculture, sericulture, vermiculture and agro-forestry.

Farmers are demanding presence of the State to safeguard economic survival of majority of Indian households, national dignity, civilizational heritage and their future. Ironically, State is resisting their demand under the colossal influence of investors and donors of ruling parties. State wants to escape from its responsibilities. State wants the right to be remain unaccountable by refusing to exercise its role as a regulator.

A bizarre situation is being witnessed wherein defenders of the regulatory role of the Indian State, the 500 farmers’ organisations are being defined as Un-Indian by the news channels owned by the investors and donors of ruling parties. The latter have made the State act like an adversary with cruelty towards the villagers and the farmers. These purveyors of news are establishing a weird, stupid and vulgar cultural norm devoid of truth and reason because of their political relevance unmindful of the fact that Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India that allocates subjects on which central legislature and state legislature can legislate, is being made irrelevant. “Markets” are specifically mentioned as a State subject in entry 28 of List II under the Seventh Schedule. They are unmindful of states’ right to legislate on state subjects- agriculture and market.

State Executive has been undermining judiciary in instalments through tribunalization in the aftermath of the verdict of Allahabad High Court against I. Gandhi in 1975, now it is barring the jurisdiction of all civil courts as well and confining it to the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Collector or Additional Collector for dispute resolution under the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020. This law provides for trade area beyond Section 13 of the Act states that “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or the State Government, or any officer of the Central Government or the State Government or any other person in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder.” The fact remains under the law "person" includes an individual; a partnership firm; a company; a limited liability partnership; a co-operative society; a society; or any association or body of persons duly incorporated or recognised as a group under any ongoing programmes of the Central Government or the State Government. It is apparent that the investors and donors of the ruling parties have made themselves immune from “suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings” in respect of anything under the guise of being “any other person” mentioned in this legal provision. It is depriving every present and future Indian including farmers of the absolute fundamental right to constitutional remedy recognized under the Constitution of India.

It is noteworthy that Section 3 sub-section 1 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 deals with the powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities. It states that "If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein.” This provision of 1955 along with the amendment of 1967 with regard to defence and military operations, makes the continued presence of State quite explicit in both the ordinary and extraordinary circumstances in keeping with the constitutional obligations.

Reversing the pre-existing provision, Section 2 of Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 [Removal of Stockholding Limits Act] inserts a new sub-section (1A) after sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The new sub-section states that “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 “the supply of such foodstuffs, including cereals, pulses, potato, onions, edible oilseeds and oils, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, may be regulated only under extraordinary circumstances which may include war, famine, extraordinary price rise and natural calamity of grave nature”. It is evident that State is withdrawing from its role to perform regulatory role with regard to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities. It is apparent that the new amendment has failed to factor in the fact that India is currently faced with extraordinary circumstances of war, extraordinary price rise and natural calamity of grave nature like pandemic. The legal provisions of 1955 and 1967 were enacted with the realization that in a vast and diverse country like India, even ordinary circumstances are extraordinary in nature. Contrary to the constitutional obligations, this new provision makes the State absent in ordinary circumstances.

The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 provides for a national framework on farming agreements that claims to protect and empower farmers to engage with agri-business firms, processors, wholesalers, exporters or large retailers for farm services and sale of future farming produce at a mutually agreed remunerative price framework in a fair and transparent manner. "Farming agreement" refers to a written agreement entered into between a farmer and a Sponsor, or a farmer, a Sponsor and any third party, prior to the production or rearing of any farming produce of a predetermined quality, in which the Sponsor agrees to purchase such farming produce from the farmer and to provide farm services. It includes "trade and commerce agreement", where the ownership of commodity remains with the farmer during production and he gets the price of produce on its delivery as per the agreed terms with the Sponsor. It also includes "production agreement", where the Sponsor agrees to provide farm services, either fully or partially and to bear the risk of output, but agrees to make payment to the farmer for the services rendered by such farmer. Every such agreement is required to provide for a conciliation process and formation of a conciliation board consisting of representatives of parties to the agreement. Where the parties to the farming agreement fail to settle their dispute under that section within a period of thirty days, then, any such party may approach a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or later a Collector or Additional Collector in appeal for deciding the disputes under farming agreements. Under this law too it is provided that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any dispute action taken by these district authorities. In this manner, the State has withdrawn the judicial function of its civil courts and expressed touching faith in the tried, tested and failed judicial competence of subordinate executive authorities.

While feigning to be seeking right to be absent, Indian State is uniting executive powers and judicial powers in the same person. It is evidently an exercise in blasphemy against constitutionalism and Constitution of India and the sacred theory of separation of powers enunciated by French philosopher, Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Law influencing framing of democratic Constitutions. These three farm market laws are contrary to the theory of separation of powers and principles of constitutionalism which secures nations from "despotism".

* (The author is a law and public policy researcher and a member of the steering committee of Nation for Farmers|

Source: mainstreamweekly.net/article10227.html