CURRENT AFFAIRS – 22/07/2023

India expects Sri Lanka to implement the 13th Amendment and ensure a “life of dignity and respect” for its Tamil population, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Friday.

Welcoming Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe to India, Mr. Modi said both sides had held talks on a number of infrastructure projects that could ensure greater connectivity between the two countries.

He also announced a development assistance package for the Tamils of Indian origin who are marking the 200th anniversary of their arrival in the island nation.

“We also talked about reconstruction and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. President Wickremesinghe presented his inclusive approach. We hope that Sri Lanka will fulfil the aspirations of the Tamils. We expect that Sri Lanka will take forward the process of rebuilding for equality, justice and peace. We hope that Sri Lanka will fulfil its commitment to implement the Thirteenth Amendment and to hold Provincial Council elections,” Mr. Modi said delivering his remarks in Hindi.

President Wickremesinghe expressed his government’s “profound appreciation” for the support that India has extended to Sri Lanka over the past year, which he described as the “most challenging period in Sri Lanka’s modern history”.

Mr. Modi and Mr. Wickremesinghe spoke at the end of bilateral talks held at Hyderabad House where the two sides exchanged documents on cooperation in the field of animal husbandry, renewable energy, development projects in Trincomalee district in eastern Sri Lanka, and online payment services between the two sides.

Manipur is burning but the rest of India did not care. The violence in the State began on May 3, 2023, but the nation was in deep slumber till July 19. It took a video clip of sexual violence by a mob to surface and go viral on social media that day and 78 days for the Prime Minister of India to break his silence. During this period an Internet shutdown has continued in the northeast State. What was its propriety and its role in our national apathy?

Data from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India show that the people of Manipur access the Internet primarily through their smartphones; and wired Internet users primarily constitute institutional, commercial and higher socio-economic groups. Out of a total pie of 0.05 million wireline and 2.36 wireless million users, about 2.2 million connect to the Internet. The Internet shutdown in Manipur, first enforced on May 3, is a case of blanket prohibition. The entire State is affected, and it is not a case of some of a total of 16 districts being affected; it covers all web traffic and mediums of connectivity.

The orders issued by the Commissioner (Home) of Manipur under the Telecom Suspension Rules use vague language in order to “thwart the design and activities of anti-national and anti-social elements… by stopping the spread of disinformation and false rumours, through various social media platforms”. There is an absence of data or specific instances of violence being prevented due to the jamming of Internet connectivity. Before the weekly deadline lapses, a fresh order is passed, where each order is a mere reproduction of the earlier one but with minor changes in dates, thus making it clear that this could be indefinite. One may wonder about compliance following the reported Supreme Court of India judgment on Internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. There is a breach of directions that was made clear in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India.

In this period, reports have filtered in — these are besides the protests in Delhi and the information flow here — that document the injury being caused to the people of Manipur. The news is of extremes — from students from Manipur pursuing their education in the metropolitan cities running out of money to residents being unable to apply for their evacuation to relief camps. Around May 19, petitions challenging these orders — such as Aribam Dhananjoy Sharma vs State of Manipur — were filed in the High Court of Manipur. This case in particular is vital to understand evolving jurisprudence of “limited internet shutdowns” not only in Manipur but also the rest of India. After 10 dates of hearing on July 7, a direction was issued for partial restoration. The primary objective as framed by the High Court has been to assess “whether it is possible to provide limited usage of internet service to the public”. This is constitutionally incongruent to judicial review for it avoids determining the legality of impugned orders. However, this follows an institutional grammar on Internet shutdowns.

In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, the Supreme Court failed to adjudicate on even one Internet shutdown order. The decision by itself did not result in restoration of access but for “State/competent authorities to review all orders suspending internet services”. Its directions for transparency (such as publication of orders) have not been implemented as yet — as seen in the flurry of cases and recent joint report by Human Rights Watch and the Internet Freedom Foundation. Bringing lasting damage, this case carved out greater flexibility for, “limited internet shutdowns”, with the possibility of access only to, “government websites, localized/limited e-banking facilities, hospitals services and other essential services, in those regions, wherein the internet services are not likely to be restored immediately.”.

The High Court of Manipur has acted in congress with judicial doctrine and practices by its order on July 7. It directs provisional access for leased lines (primarily used by public departments and corporate offices), wired line services (with signed undertakings, a ban on social media, virtual private networks or VPNs and physical monitoring), and a technical trial for whitelisting of mobile Internet determined by the Home Department. There are no clear definitions on terms such as “social media” or examining continuing prohibition for Internet usage primarily through smartphones. Hence, in effect, a ban on Internet access continues in Manipur. The response of the Supreme Court has been one of judicial avoidance. The top court had an opportunity twice to adjudicate when a petitioner challenged the Internet shutdown and later when the State government itself appealed the order of the High Court for partial restoration. Even otherwise, it is peculiar as the Supreme Court is examining a broader issue regarding violence in Dinganglung Gangmei vs Mutum Churamani Meetei. In this case, Internet shutdowns are an inherent element. For instance, the State government has in its Status Report dated July 10 before the Supreme Court, cited the Internet suspension as a security measure. Also, the Chief Minister on July 20, 2020, has in a media interview, stated, “[t]here are hundreds of similar cases and that is the reason why the internet is shut off in the state.”

In an Internet ban, misinformation spreads rather than abates. For instance, a press report dated June 1, by Hoineilhing Sitlhou, and published by the online portal, NewsClick, points out in chilling detail that disinformation served as a pretext for the perpetration of sexual violence against Kuki-Zo women. For Manipur, the video clip is a vital moment for a national awakening that must be achieved without any reputational and social harm to survivors of sexual violence and communal hatred. Information flows are also necessary to ensure the accountability of the State and central governments in taking steps to ensure truth, justice and reconciliation. Accountability can only come when the courts improve on the precedent of the Anuradha Bhasin case and demand it from the State and central executive. So the question that needs to be asked again is: what was the propriety of the Internet shutdown and role in our national apathy? We will never have these answers till we hear the voices of Manipur.

Courts should adopt a clear-headed and common sense approach while considering the grant of bail, and should eschew the tendency to keep someone in prison merely because the police oppose bail with great vehemence. In granting regular bail to activist Teesta Setalvad, the Supreme Court of India has effectively rebuffed the Gujarat police stand that the purported gravity of the offence she is accused of is enough to deny her bail. As the case depends mainly on documentary evidence, all of it forming part of the charge sheet filed in the case, the Court really saw no need for her to be in judicial custody. Further, Ms. Setalvad had been subjected to custodial interrogation during a seven-day police remand shortly after her arrest in June 2022, and she was not called in for any further questioning ever since she was given interim bail by the Supreme Court in September. In effect, the three-judge Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai saw no real need to imprison someone during trial solely because the police strongly argued that she had allegedly fabricated evidence and goaded victims of the 2002 pogrom in Gujarat to level false charges against political leaders in a bid to implicate them in the communal carnage.

The Court posed some pertinent questions to the Gujarat police. The case of forgery and fabrication of evidence was registered shortly after the Supreme Court, while rejecting a riot victim’s plea, had observed that those who had sought to malign the State government and its functionaries should be put in the dock. Ms. Setalvad had been arrested within a day, and the Court had questions about what investigation it had conducted within such a short time to justify her arrest. Notably, the apex court Bench was of the view that the High Court order refusing bail to her contradicted itself, as it had initially observed that it cannot go into the existence of a prima facie case, but had gone on to consider statements of witnesses against her. The ruling is yet another reminder that an order of bail must be the norm after considering whether the accused is likely to flee justice or will be available for trial, and if, once freed, will be in a position to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. While the gravity of the offence is a factor, it need not be the sole consideration. The trial in this case is set to begin soon in a Sessions Court in Ahmedabad. One hopes it will settle the question whether activists assisting victims ought to have been proceeded against on the charge of trying to implicate innocent political leaders.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has written to its affiliated schools that they may consider using Indian languages as an optional medium of instruction, in addition to the other options.

The CBSE has advised using an Indian language as an option from pre-primary classes to Class 12.

“Multilingual education has been widely recognised as a valuable approach to fostering linguistic diversity, cultural understanding, and academic success among students,” Joseph Emmanuel, Director (Academics), CBSE, said in the letter.

Mr. Emmanuel said the National Education Policy, 2020 emphasised the significant cognitive advantages of multilingualism for young learners, particularly when they were exposed to several languages from the foundational stage.

“The policy strongly advocates for utilising the home language, mother tongue, local language, or regional language as the medium of instruction whenever feasible, at least until Grade 5, but preferably extending till Grade 8 and beyond,” the letter said. It further listed the challenges in the implementation of multilingual education. “The utilisation of the mother tongue as a medium of instruction presents several challenges, including the availability of skilled teachers capable of teaching in multilingual settings, the creation of high-quality multilingual textbooks, and the limited time available, especially in two-shift government schools, as multilingual education demands additional instructional time allocation,” it said.

Mr. Emmanuel wrote that one of the major steps taken now is the direction by the Ministry of Education to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to prepare textbooks in the 22 Scheduled Languages of the country.

The letter also talked about the steps being taken to introduce textbooks in Indian languages for higher education, facilitate learning-teaching processes and offer exams in Indian languages.

Since the higher education sector has started responding to this need, schools must lay the foundation, Mr. Emmanuel suggested.

The approach towards medium of instruction should be in continuity from school education to higher education, the letter added.

Despite the ban imposed by the Union government in 2019, e-cigarettes continue to be sold on e-commerce sites, even to children below 18, warn experts working in the area of tobacco control. Now to curb this, the Health Ministry has launched an online portal to facilitate reporting of violations under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act (PECA).

The portal, www.violation-reporting.in, will allow faster action against any reported violations, the government said.

“The ban on electronic cigarettes was introduced to protect our younger generation from a new form of toxic addiction. It’s a welcome move by the Health Ministry to launch the online portal for strict enforcement, implementation and to ensure the ban is effective,” Binoy Mathew, programme manager, Voluntary Health Association of India, said.

The Ministry had earlier cautioned all States and Union Territories about the weak implementation of PECA, leading to easy availability of e-cigarettes through online, retail, convenient stores, stationery shops and near educational institutions.

The States were also directed to review the compliance of PECA and issue necessary instructions for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act, through special drives and random checking.

“Health Ministry also issued a public notice in view of e-cigarettes ban violations and its availability in the Indian market,’‘ Ranjit Singh, advocate, Supreme Court of India, said.