The Supreme Court of India verdict quashing the orders releasing 11 men convicted for the heinous gang-rape and murder of several members of a family during the Gujarat pogrom in 2002 is an unequivocal indictment of the State government. The men had been sentenced to life by a Sessions Court in Mumbai after the investigation in the ‘Bilkis Bano case’ was shifted from the Gujarat police to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the trial transferred to Mumbai. A disgraceful story that began with the Bharatiya Janata Party government facilitating their premature release and the freed men being garlanded by their supporters has now ended with the Court directing them to return to prison within two weeks. The verdict is based on the ground that Gujarat did not have any jurisdiction to decide on granting remission to convicts sentenced in Maharashtra.
The crime had been committed on March 3, 2002 in Chapparwad village in Gujarat’s Dahod district, but the trial took place in Mumbai, where a special court convicted and sentenced the accused in 2008. On Monday, the Supreme Court noted that the appropriate government to decide remission is the state within whose jurisdiction the accused were sentenced — and not the state within whose territorial limits the offence was committed or the accused were imprisoned.
Section 433A of the CrPC puts certain restrictions on these powers of remission. It says: “Where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.”
In ‘Laxman Naskar v. Union of India’ (2000) the SC laid down five grounds on which remission is considered:
(a) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect the society;
(b) Whether there is a chance of the crime being repeated in future;
(c) Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime;
(d) Whether any purpose is being served in keeping the convict in prison; and
(e) Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has been issuing regulations, guidelines and directives at break neck speed that some of the important ones miss drawing the attention of the higher education community. One such guideline is Mulya Pravah 2.0, a modified version of Mulya Pravah, which was notified in 2019. It seeks to inculcate human values and professional ethics in higher education institutions.
The trigger is the findings of a survey of human resource managers which highlight unethical practices in various organizations. The most prominent of these are “favoritism in hiring, training, pay and promotion; sexual harassment; gender discrimination in promotion; inconsistent view on discipline; lack of confidentiality; gender differentiation in compensation; non-performance factors overlooked in appraisals; arrangements with vendors for personal gain; and gender discrimination during recruitment and hiring”.
Mulya Pravah 2.0 underscores the need for utmost transparency in administration and highlights that decision-making in higher education institutions must be solely guided by institutional and public interest, and not be vitiated by biases.
It seeks to abolish the discriminatory privileges of officials and urges the administration to punish the corrupt.
The guideline requires higher education administration to conduct matters ensuring accountability, transparency, fairness, honesty, and the highest degree of ethics.
Higher education institutions must, in fact, be mandated to voluntarily disclose all critical information and subject themselves to public scrutiny.
Asserting that teaching is a noble profession, and that teachers play a crucial role in ‘shaping the character, personality, and career of the students’, it requires them to ‘act’ as role models and set examples of ‘good conduct, and a good standard of dress, speech and behaviour, worth emulating by students’.
Mulya Pravah 2.0 expects staff and student unions to ‘support the administration in development activities and raise issues in a dignified manner’.
Mulya Pravah 2.0 insists that staff and students unions must ‘raise issues in a dignified manner’.
As a part of smart governance, the present government has addressed the problem of infirmities and out-datedness in laws by suitable amendments in the laws and their updation to a large extent. After a detailed identification of the problematic laws, in the first phase, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provision) Act, 2023 was passed to bring about changes in 42 central Acts of varied genre, ranging from the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Railways Act, 1989, and the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
In the second phase, the colonial period Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023, respectively.
Crisis of credibility - We all accept and agree about the integrity of the rule of law for a democratic development.
Policing, through encounters, and now policing through ‘bulldozers’, has gained currency to replace ‘investigation’, which involved visiting a scene of crime, interrogation of witnesses, arrest, search and seizure. Often, the encounter and bulldozer methods evoke populist support and appreciation from the administration.
The second example is the custodial torture and civilian deaths in the course of security force.
The modern day ‘short-cut’ or ‘abridged’ rule of law model looks for quick and reactive ways for doing repressive justice that focuses more on identifying the targeted accused either on the basis of majoritarian dictate or cryptic information reaching the police or the civic administration.
Aconcerning development for India is the European Union (EU)’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The policy, which intends to tax carbon-intensive products coming into the EU from 2026, is divided into two phases, with the first phase (transitional phase) kicking in from October 1, 2023. There has been constant exchange between the EU and India on the implications of the CBAM. The Commerce and Industry Minister said recently that the proposed carbon tax on imports is an “ill-conceived” move that would become the “death knell” for India’s manufacturing sector.
What is CBAM - The EU contended, while providing context for the CBAM, that it intends to achieve the target of a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, under the European Green Deal. The CBAM is part of the package planned to achieve this. Second, there is a threat to EU products being replaced by carbon-intensive imports from other countries such as India or China. The EU argues that the higher standard of environmental compliance in its domestic industries will reduce their competitiveness. Thus, it intends to impose an import duty on carbon-intensive industries from non-EU countries to meet both these objectives.
India has just started working on its own carbon trading mechanism. In December 2022, it amended the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, to introduce the Carbon Credit Trading System (CCTS). This is proposed to combat climate change by incentivizing actions for emission reductions leading to increased investments in clean energy by the private sector. The Ministry of Power is still working on the specifics to operationalize the CCTS, including carbon valuation.
Understanding Carbon Credit System - The carbon credit is half of a so-called cap-and-trade program. Companies that pollute are awarded credits that allow them to continue to pollute up to a certain limit, which is reduced periodically. Meanwhile, the company may sell any unneeded credits to another company that needs them. Private companies are thus doubly incentivized to reduce greenhouse emissions. First, they must spend money on extra credits if their emissions exceed the cap. Second, they can make money by reducing their emissions and selling their excess allowances.
India’s options - India is reportedly among the top eight countries that will be adversely affected by the CBAM. As per the Global Trade Research Initiative report, in 2022, 27% of India’s exports of iron, steel, and aluminum products worth $8.2 billion went to the EU. It is estimated that a few of its core sectors such as steel will be greatly affected by the CBAM.
India has already challenged the CBAM before the World Trade Organization under the special and differential treatment provisions.
Conclusion: Recently, the U.K. declared the enforcement of its own CBAM by 2027. This is expected to cause a significant upheaval for India’s exports in the forthcoming years. As a consequence, there arises a pressing need for India to formulate its own carbon taxation measures that align with the principles of the Paris Agreement while simultaneously safeguarding its industries’ interests. However, given the limited time available, it is imperative for India to act swiftly in this regard.
