The Evening Wrap: Is Article 370 being equated with Basic Structure of Constitution, asks SC

The Supreme Court on August 3 asked whether Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, is being equated to the Basic Structure of the Constitution. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was reacting to senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s submission that there was no constitutional process available to abrogate Article 370 and the provision had attained a “permanent character” after 1957 when the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly dissolved, leaving the Article unchanged. “The abrogation of Article 370 was a purely political act. There was nothing within the constitutional structure which empowered the President or the Parliament to abrogate Article 370,” Sibal argued. “How can you say that the Parliament could not have exercised its preliminary amending powers to abrogate Article 370,” Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned Sibal. “Will that not amount to equating Article 370 with the principle of Basic Structure of the Constitution when you say the abrogation of Article 370 can never be done?” Justice S.K. Kaul asked. The Basic Structure embodies the essential features of the Constitution, like dignity, liberty, fraternity, secularism, etc, which cannot be altered by Parliament. The senior lawyer responded that Article 370 was not the Basic Structure but a “compact” entered into between two sovereigns [the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Government of India] and engrafted in the Indian Constitution. “Unlike the case in some other princely States, the Indian government did not take over Jammu and Kashmir… You [government] want to take over J&K, you could have done it as a political act, but how do you do it from within a constitutional structure?” he countered. “On the lighter side, Mr. Sibal, are you saying you would have done it differently,” Justice Kaul asked. But the Chief Justice said Sibal was treading on thin ice there. “But is it not possible that such a compact could be overridden by the sovereign of the succeeding State [Government of India],” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked. “Having taken the position that we need the consent of the Constituent Assembly to abrogate Article 370, why and how did the President and the Parliament abruptly change tack in 2019? The Parliament is a creature of the Constitution. It has to function within the limits of the constitutional structure,” Sibal argued. The proviso to Article 370(3) required the President to take the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly before declaring the provision inoperative. “What happened to this residuary power of the State to decide its own fate,” Sibal asked. He said the government, on August 5, 2019, “circumvented” the “residuary power” of the State in the proviso by inserting Article 367(4)(d), which replaced the expression ‘Constituent Assembly of the State’ to Article 370(3) with the ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’. He said Parliament, which had arrogated to the role of the Legislative Assembly of J&K following the declaration of President’s rule in the State, converted itself into the J&K Constituent Assembly to do away with Article 370. “Tomorrow, the Parliament can say it is the Constituent Assembly and do away with the Basic Structure… If you can say in principle that the Parliament can convert itself into the Constituent Assembly, then where do we go from there… Forget about this case, I am more worried about our future… The Constituent Assembly is a political process in the context of the aspirations of the people. It is the politics of the day which decides what a state should be like… Unlike Europe, our Constitution-making process involved the amalgamation of colours to be united as one — the Tiranga,” Sibal submitted. Justice Kaul said it was “debatable” if Article 370 acquired permanence after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957. It was also “debatable” if the NDA government followed procedure while abrogating the provision in 2019. Sibal contended that the run-up to the abrogation was a series of events which culminated into an “act of paramountcy”. The J&K Governor, a day after the BJP pulled out of the ruling coalition with PDP, imposed Governor’s rule in the State on June 19, 2018. The Governor dissolved the J&K Legislative Assembly on June 21, 2018. Six months later, on the very day of the expiry of the Governor’s rule, President’s rule was imposed under Article 356 citing the breakdown of constitutional machinery. The Parliament subsequently approved the President’s rule. “Who heard the people of Jammu and Kashmir in all this? The Centre steadily absorbed the power of the State to itself. The President became the Governor and the Parliament became the State Legislature. They did what they liked… They gave themselves consent to abrogate the Article and bifurcate the State. This is, according to me, a complete breakdown of the constitutional structure,” Sibal said. Lok Sabha passes the GNCTD (Amendment) Bill, 2023; Shah did not have single valid argument: Kejriwal The Lok Sabha passed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 by a voice vote on August 3, after a debate. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said that Union Home Minister Amit Shah did not have a single valid argument in favour of bringing the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and asserted that the opposition bloc INDIA will never let it happen. Initiating the debate in Lok Sabha on the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Shah said the BJP and the Congress had ruled the national capital without any confrontation, but problems arose only in 2015 when a government came that had no intention to serve but only to fight with the Centre. In his first reaction after the introduction of the bill, Kejriwal said this is a bill to enslave people of Delhi. “Today I heard Amit Shah ji speaking in Lok Sabha on the bill which snatches away the rights of the people of Delhi. They do not have a single valid argument to support the bill... They also know that they are doing wrong. This bill is a bill to enslave the people of Delhi. This is a bill that makes them helpless and helpless. INDIA will never let this happen,” he said in a tweet in Hindi. The AAP-led Delhi government has been at loggerheads with the Centre over the control of Group-A officers in the National Capital Territory administration. In May, the Centre promulgated the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 that overturned the Supreme Court judgment handing over control of “services” in the NCT administration to the Delhi government. Congress’s Manish Tewari says Data Protection Bill being classified as money bill, govt refutes charge Union Minister for Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw informed the Lok Sabha that the Digital Data Protection Bill is “not a money bill but a general one”. His clarification in the House came moments after Congress leader Manish Tewari had objected to the bill being classified as a financial bill. “Some members had raised the issue about the bill being a money bill. Manish ji had raised. I want to assure that it is a general bill and not a money bill,” the minister told the Lok Sabha. While objecting to the introduction of the bill, Tewari had raised why this was being classified as Financial Bill. “The Bill should again go to a Joint Parliamentary Committee,” he said. Earlier, he had tweeted that the bill should be considered as a regular Bill. “How Did the Digital Data Protection Bill get classified as a Financial Bill suddenly,” Tewari tweeted. The bill aims to make entities such as internet companies, mobile apps, and business houses more accountable and answerable about the collection, storage and processing of data of citizens as part of the Right to Privacy. “If this bill on passage is certified as a money bill by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla which seems to be the intent of getting it classed as a Financial Bill then Rajya Sabha cannot vote on it. It can only recommend non-binding changes to Lok Sabha,” the Congress MP from Punjab said. He also shared a copy of the presidential order classifying the bill as a money bill, and said, “The latest iteration of this Bill mocks the efforts put in by the Joint Committee of Parliament on the Data Protection Bill led by two BJP members P.P. Chaudhary and Meenakshi Lekhi respectively.” Government sources said the President’s assent had been sought as funds will be earmarked under the proposed law from the Consolidated Fund of India. They said the penalties that will come under the law and the expenditure on the staff required under the law will be under the Consolidated Fund of India. The work on the data protection bill started after the Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right. The government had in August last year withdrawn the personal data protection bill, which was first presented in late 2019 and issued a new version of the draft bill in November 2022. The draft bill had earned criticism around the government getting the power to exempt entities from various clauses of the bill. Listen to today’s episode of the In Focus podcast Why does India have a substandard drugs problem? Last month, the Lok Sabha passed a Bill that was aimed at improving the ease of doing business in India. This Jan Vishwas Bill, passed by the Rajya Sabha, this month brought in amendments to 42 different laws, including amendments to two sections of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. These drug law changes have sparked a controversy: health activists have said that it essentially decriminalises the manufacture of drugs that are not of standard quality, allowing manufacturers to get away with a fine, with no imprisonment. The quality of drugs in India, has already been under scrutiny, with the recent deaths of dozens of children in at least two countries, Gambia and Uzbekistan, being linked to contaminated cough syrups manufactured in India. But while such cases of adulterated drugs can attract penal provisions, the bigger problem of substandard drugs that may not work effectively on a patient, potentially making the patient worse, are not dealt with stringently, say experts. This is potentially a huge problem, say experts, as the Indian pharmaceutical industry, estimated to be worth about USD 41 billion, is one of the largest in the world and provides drugs to a number of developing countries. How will this recent amendment affect drug laws and pharmacies in India? How do drugs that are not of standard quality affect the human body? What is the problem with the drug regulatory mechanism in our country? Manipur violence: HC directs status quo be maintained at mass burial site Hours ahead of the planned mass burial of 35 Kuki-Zo people killed in Manipur’s ethnic conflict, a Bench of the Manipur High Court led by Acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan, in a 6 a.m. hearing on August 3, directed the State and Central government forces to ensure that status quo is maintained at the proposed burial site in Haolai Khopi village of Churachandpur district. The Bench, which also had Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, further directed all law enforcement authorities to ensure the maintenance of law and order around the proposed site of burial and directed all parties, including governments, to amicably settle the matter. The court also gave liberty to the Kuki-Zo people to approach the authorities for allotment of land for burial within one week. Meanwhile, in a statement, the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF) said that they had decided to postpone the burial by five days after requests from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Home Minister Amit Shah. They said that the Mizoram Chief Minister had also requested the same. However, the ITLF has written to Shah, saying that they would go ahead with the burial in five days if demands for legalising the site are not met. The High Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by the International Meeteis’ Forum (IMF) on August 2, seeking that the burial be stopped as it was being planned on government property. The matter was mentioned before the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice, who had assigned the matter to a Bench of Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh and A. Guneshwar Sharma. However, in the morning order, the court said Justice Bimol Singh had expressed his “personal inconvenience”, and so the matter had been listed before the Acting Chief Justice for August 3. Upon learning this, the State government’s lawyer mentioned the matter before the Acting Chief Justice at his residence around 5 a.m. The urgency of the matter was explained and the matter was taken up as an unlisted one considering its nature. At the hearing, the State government was represented by the Deputy AG, H. Debendra, the Central government was represented by a Deputy Solicitor General of India, and the petitioners were represented by Advocate M. Hemchandra and his team. The High Court said in its order, “Taking into consideration the potentiality of aggravating the already volatile law and order situation and the possibility of igniting a fresh wave of violence and bloodshed due to the gathering of a large mob from both the communities at the land in question, we are of the considered view that it will be in the public interest to issue the following directions as an interim measure.” The Bench then went on to issue notices to the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum and the Joint Philanthropic Organisations (JPO) — outfits organising the burial — and posted the matter for next hearing on August 9. In their PIL petition, the IMF submitted that local authorities had in the last week of July held a meeting with the JPO over the proposed burial site being inappropriate. The Deputy Commissioner said that the site was on land of the Sericulture Department while the Superintendent of Police noted that the site was close to the boundary between Churachandpur and Bishnupur — a buffer zone — and that the burial could create a “negative reactive response from the neighbouring district”. The petition alleged that the proposed site of burial on the Sericulture Department land was vandalised and cleared out after the meeting was inconclusive, claiming this was done by Kuki-Zo people. The petitioner said that government land belonged to all communities and that it cannot be misappropriated. Meanwhile, leaders of Kuki-Zo outfits in Churachandpur told The Hindu that the insistence to choose the spot in Haolai Khopi village was to assert that it was a part of Churachandpur and not Bishnupur as some Meitei residents have been claiming, they said. In an official statement, the ITLF said that since it was considering the MHA’s request and postponing the burial, it expected the government to meet its demands, which have been set out in a letter to the Home Minister submitted through the Headquarter 27 sector Assam Rifles. The demands include legalisation of the proposed burial site in Haolai Khopi village, the release of Kuki-Zo bodies still lying in morgues of hospitals in Imphal, withdrawal of all “Meitei state forces” from the hill districts, progress on demand for separation from Manipur, and transfer of tribal jail inmates from Imphal to other States for safety. Government restricts import of laptop, computers India has restricted imports of laptops, tablets and personal computers with immediate effect, according to a government notice on August 3, in a bid to push local manufacturing. “Their import would be allowed against a valid licence for restricted imports,” the notice said. In April-June, electronics imports, which include laptops, tablets and personal computers, was $19.7 billion, up 6.25% year-on-year. Electronics imports range between 7% to 10% of the country’s total merchandise imports. “The move’s spirit is to push manufacturing to India. It’s not a nudge, it’s a push,” said Ali Akhtar Jafri, former director general at electronics industry body MAIT. India has been trying to push local manufacturing by giving production-linked incentives in over two dozen sectors, including electronics. It has extended the deadline for companies to apply for its $2 billion manufacturing incentive scheme to attract big-ticket investments in IT hardware manufacturing, which covers products like laptops, tablets, personal computers and servers. The incentive scheme is key to India’s ambitions to become a powerhouse in the global electronics supply chain, with the country targeting annual production worth $300 billion by 2026. Dell, Acer, Samsung, LG Electronics, Apple Inc, Lenovo and HP Inc are some of the key companies selling laptops in the Indian market and a substantial portion are imported from countries such as China. Shares of Indian electronic maker Dixon Technologies rose over 5% on the news. The intent seems to be “import substitution of certain goods that are imported heavily,” said Madhavi Arora, economist at Emkay Global. Laptops, tablets and personal computers compose about 1.5% of the country’s total annual imports and nearly half of those are bought from China, according to government data. India has imposed high tariffs in the past on products like mobile phones to catalyze domestic output. Last year, it produced $38 billion worth of mobile phones in the country, while local production of laptops and tablets were just $4 billion in comparison, according to estimates from industry body India Cellular and Electronics Association. Delhi court summons wrestler Bajrang Punia in criminal defamation complaint A Delhi court on Thursday summoned wrestler Bajrang Punia on September 6 in a criminal defamation complaint filed against him by wrestling coach Naresh Dahiya. Metropolitan Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal directed Punia to appear before the court on that day, holding he is of the “prima facie” view that all the ingredients of defamation were made out. He said at the stage of summoning it was fairly settled that the court was not required to go into a comparative analysis of the possible defence that may be taken by the accused. “On a consideration of the complaint, supporting documents and pre-summoning evidence, I am of the prima facie view that all the ingredients of defamation are made out. It appears that the statement made in the press conference was a result of malicious intent and was not made in good faith.” “In view of the same, let accused, namely, Bajrang Punia be summoned for the commission of offence punishable under Section 499 read with Section 500 (both dealing with criminal defamation) of the IPC,” the judge said. The complaint claimed that Punia, along with other wrestlers/persons, made defamatory remarks against Dahiya in a press conference held on May 10 at Jantar Mantar during a protest against alleged sexual harassment of certain women wrestlers by the outgoing Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. 1,365 vacant posts in IAS, 703 in IPS: Government tells Rajya Sabha There are 1,365 vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and 703 in the Indian Police Service (IPS), Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday (August 3). Besides these, 1,042 vacancies exist in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) and 301 in Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Union Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh said in a written reply. “Occurrence and filling up of vacancies is a continuous process. It is the endeavour of the central government to fill up vacant posts expeditiously,” he said. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducts the Civil Services Examinations (CSE) for filling up of vacancies on direct recruitment basis in civil services, including IAS, IPS, IFS and IRS, every year, he said. “To fill up vacancies in IAS and IPS promotion quota, selection committee meetings are held by Union Public Service Commission with state governments,” the Minister said. The government has increased the annual intake of IAS officers to 180 through the CSE till CSE-2022, Singh said. “Intake of IPS through the CSE has been increased to 200 from CSE-2020. Intake of IFS has been increased to 150 in 2022. Department of Revenue has reported 301 vacancies for filling through CSE-2023,” he added. In Brief: The Allahabad High Court on August 3 upheld the order of Varanasi district court for conducting a ‘scientific survey’ of Gyanvyapi mosque by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The court, hence, rejected the plea filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee which had challenged the district court’s order in the HC. The District Magistrate of Varanasi, S. Rajalingam, confirmed to The Hindu that the ASI had informed the administration that it would commence the survey of the mosque premises (except the ‘wazukhana’) from Friday. “We will provided all the needed assistance to the ASI,” Rajalingam added. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 03 August 2023 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Is Article 370 being equated to Basic Structure of Constitution, asks Supreme Court [The Supreme Court on August 3 asked whether Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, is being equated to the Basic Structure of the Constitution.]( A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was reacting to senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s submission that there was no constitutional process available to abrogate Article 370 and the provision had attained a “permanent character” after 1957 when the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly dissolved, leaving the Article unchanged. “The abrogation of Article 370 was a purely political act. There was nothing within the constitutional structure which empowered the President or the Parliament to abrogate Article 370,” Sibal argued. “How can you say that the Parliament could not have exercised its preliminary amending powers to abrogate Article 370,” Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned Sibal. “Will that not amount to equating Article 370 with the principle of Basic Structure of the Constitution when you say the abrogation of Article 370 can never be done?” Justice S.K. Kaul asked. The Basic Structure embodies the essential features of the Constitution, like dignity, liberty, fraternity, secularism, etc, which cannot be altered by Parliament. The senior lawyer responded that Article 370 was not the Basic Structure but a “compact” entered into between two sovereigns [the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Government of India] and engrafted in the Indian Constitution. “Unlike the case in some other princely States, the Indian government did not take over Jammu and Kashmir… You [government] want to take over J&K, you could have done it as a political act, but how do you do it from within a constitutional structure?” he countered. “On the lighter side, Mr. Sibal, are you saying you would have done it differently,” Justice Kaul asked. But the Chief Justice said Sibal was treading on thin ice there. “But is it not possible that such a compact could be overridden by the sovereign of the succeeding State [Government of India],” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked. “Having taken the position that we need the consent of the Constituent Assembly to abrogate Article 370, why and how did the President and the Parliament abruptly change tack in 2019? The Parliament is a creature of the Constitution. It has to function within the limits of the constitutional structure,” Sibal argued. The proviso to Article 370(3) required the President to take the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly before declaring the provision inoperative. “What happened to this residuary power of the State to decide its own fate,” Sibal asked. He said the government, on August 5, 2019, “circumvented” the “residuary power” of the State in the proviso by inserting Article 367(4)(d), which replaced the expression ‘Constituent Assembly of the State’ to Article 370(3) with the ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’. He said Parliament, which had arrogated to the role of the Legislative Assembly of J&K following the declaration of President’s rule in the State, converted itself into the J&K Constituent Assembly to do away with Article 370. “Tomorrow, the Parliament can say it is the Constituent Assembly and do away with the Basic Structure… If you can say in principle that the Parliament can convert itself into the Constituent Assembly, then where do we go from there… Forget about this case, I am more worried about our future… The Constituent Assembly is a political process in the context of the aspirations of the people. It is the politics of the day which decides what a state should be like… Unlike Europe, our Constitution-making process involved the amalgamation of colours to be united as one — the Tiranga,” Sibal submitted. Justice Kaul said it was “debatable” if Article 370 acquired permanence after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957. It was also “debatable” if the NDA government followed procedure while abrogating the provision in 2019. Sibal contended that the run-up to the abrogation was a series of events which culminated into an “act of paramountcy”. The J&K Governor, a day after the BJP pulled out of the ruling coalition with PDP, imposed Governor’s rule in the State on June 19, 2018. The Governor dissolved the J&K Legislative Assembly on June 21, 2018. Six months later, on the very day of the expiry of the Governor’s rule, President’s rule was imposed under Article 356 citing the breakdown of constitutional machinery. The Parliament subsequently approved the President’s rule. “Who heard the people of Jammu and Kashmir in all this? The Centre steadily absorbed the power of the State to itself. The President became the Governor and the Parliament became the State Legislature. They did what they liked… They gave themselves consent to abrogate the Article and bifurcate the State. This is, according to me, a complete breakdown of the constitutional structure,” Sibal said. Lok Sabha passes the GNCTD (Amendment) Bill, 2023; Shah did not have single valid argument: Kejriwal [The Lok Sabha passed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023]( by a voice vote on August 3, after a debate. [Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said that Union Home Minister Amit Shah did not have a single valid argument]( in favour of bringing the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and asserted that the opposition bloc INDIA will never let it happen. Initiating the debate in Lok Sabha on the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Shah said the BJP and the Congress had ruled the national capital without any confrontation, but problems arose only in 2015 when a government came that had no intention to serve but only to fight with the Centre. In his first reaction after the introduction of the bill, Kejriwal said this is a bill to enslave people of Delhi. “Today I heard Amit Shah ji speaking in Lok Sabha on the bill which snatches away the rights of the people of Delhi. They do not have a single valid argument to support the bill... They also know that they are doing wrong. This bill is a bill to enslave the people of Delhi. This is a bill that makes them helpless and helpless. INDIA will never let this happen,” he said in a tweet in Hindi. The AAP-led Delhi government has been at loggerheads with the Centre over the control of Group-A officers in the National Capital Territory administration. In May, the Centre promulgated the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 that overturned the Supreme Court judgment handing over control of “services” in the NCT administration to the Delhi government. Congress’s Manish Tewari says Data Protection Bill being classified as money bill, govt refutes charge Union Minister for Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw informed the Lok Sabha that the [Digital Data Protection Bill is “not a money bill]( but a general one”. His clarification in the House came moments after Congress leader Manish Tewari had objected to the bill being classified as a financial bill. “Some members had raised the issue about the bill being a money bill. Manish ji had raised. I want to assure that it is a general bill and not a money bill,” the minister told the Lok Sabha. While objecting to the introduction of the bill, Tewari had raised why this was being classified as Financial Bill. “The Bill should again go to a Joint Parliamentary Committee,” he said. Earlier, he had tweeted that the bill should be considered as a regular Bill. “How Did the Digital Data Protection Bill get classified as a Financial Bill suddenly,” Tewari tweeted. The bill aims to make entities such as internet companies, mobile apps, and business houses more accountable and answerable about the collection, storage and processing of data of citizens as part of the Right to Privacy. “If this bill on passage is certified as a money bill by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla which seems to be the intent of getting it classed as a Financial Bill then Rajya Sabha cannot vote on it. It can only recommend non-binding changes to Lok Sabha,” the Congress MP from Punjab said. He also shared a copy of the presidential order classifying the bill as a money bill, and said, “The latest iteration of this Bill mocks the efforts put in by the Joint Committee of Parliament on the Data Protection Bill led by two BJP members P.P. Chaudhary and Meenakshi Lekhi respectively.” Government sources said the President’s assent had been sought as funds will be earmarked under the proposed law from the Consolidated Fund of India. They said the penalties that will come under the law and the expenditure on the staff required under the law will be under the Consolidated Fund of India. The work on the data protection bill started after the Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right. The government had in August last year withdrawn the personal data protection bill, which was first presented in late 2019 and issued a new version of the draft bill in November 2022. The draft bill had earned criticism around the government getting the power to exempt entities from various clauses of the bill. Listen to today’s episode of the In Focus podcast Why does India have a substandard drugs problem? Last month, the Lok Sabha passed a Bill that was aimed at improving the ease of doing business in India. This Jan Vishwas Bill, passed by the Rajya Sabha, this month brought in amendments to 42 different laws, including amendments to two sections of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. [These drug law changes have sparked a controversy]( health activists have said that it essentially decriminalises the manufacture of drugs that are not of standard quality, allowing manufacturers to get away with a fine, with no imprisonment. The quality of drugs in India, has already been under scrutiny, with the recent deaths of dozens of children in at least two countries, Gambia and Uzbekistan, being linked to contaminated cough syrups manufactured in India. But while such cases of adulterated drugs can attract penal provisions, the bigger problem of substandard drugs that may not work effectively on a patient, potentially making the patient worse, are not dealt with stringently, say experts. This is potentially a huge problem, say experts, as the Indian pharmaceutical industry, estimated to be worth about USD 41 billion, is one of the largest in the world and provides drugs to a number of developing countries. How will this recent amendment affect drug laws and pharmacies in India? How do drugs that are not of standard quality affect the human body? What is the problem with the drug regulatory mechanism in our country? Manipur violence: HC directs status quo be maintained at mass burial site Hours ahead of the planned mass burial of 35 Kuki-Zo people killed in Manipur’s ethnic conflict, a Bench of the [Manipur High Court led by Acting Chief Justice M.V. Muralidharan, in a 6 a.m. hearing on August 3, directed the State and Central government forces to ensure that status quo is maintained at the proposed burial site]( in Haolai Khopi village of Churachandpur district. The Bench, which also had Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, further directed all law enforcement authorities to ensure the maintenance of law and order around the proposed site of burial and directed all parties, including governments, to amicably settle the matter. The court also gave liberty to the Kuki-Zo people to approach the authorities for allotment of land for burial within one week. Meanwhile, in a statement, the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF) said that they had decided to postpone the burial by five days after requests from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Home Minister Amit Shah. They said that the Mizoram Chief Minister had also requested the same. However, the ITLF has written to Shah, saying that they would go ahead with the burial in five days if demands for legalising the site are not met. The High Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by the International Meeteis’ Forum (IMF) on August 2, seeking that the burial be stopped as it was being planned on government property. The matter was mentioned before the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice, who had assigned the matter to a Bench of Justices Ahanthem Bimol Singh and A. Guneshwar Sharma. However, in the morning order, the court said Justice Bimol Singh had expressed his “personal inconvenience”, and so the matter had been listed before the Acting Chief Justice for August 3. Upon learning this, the State government’s lawyer mentioned the matter before the Acting Chief Justice at his residence around 5 a.m. The urgency of the matter was explained and the matter was taken up as an unlisted one considering its nature. At the hearing, the State government was represented by the Deputy AG, H. Debendra, the Central government was represented by a Deputy Solicitor General of India, and the petitioners were represented by Advocate M. Hemchandra and his team. The High Court said in its order, “Taking into consideration the potentiality of aggravating the already volatile law and order situation and the possibility of igniting a fresh wave of violence and bloodshed due to the gathering of a large mob from both the communities at the land in question, we are of the considered view that it will be in the public interest to issue the following directions as an interim measure.” The Bench then went on to issue notices to the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum and the Joint Philanthropic Organisations (JPO) — outfits organising the burial — and posted the matter for next hearing on August 9. In their PIL petition, the IMF submitted that local authorities had in the last week of July held a meeting with the JPO over the proposed burial site being inappropriate. The Deputy Commissioner said that the site was on land of the Sericulture Department while the Superintendent of Police noted that the site was close to the boundary between Churachandpur and Bishnupur — a buffer zone — and that the burial could create a “negative reactive response from the neighbouring district”. The petition alleged that the proposed site of burial on the Sericulture Department land was vandalised and cleared out after the meeting was inconclusive, claiming this was done by Kuki-Zo people. The petitioner said that government land belonged to all communities and that it cannot be misappropriated. Meanwhile, leaders of Kuki-Zo outfits in Churachandpur told The Hindu that the insistence to choose the spot in Haolai Khopi village was to assert that it was a part of Churachandpur and not Bishnupur as some Meitei residents have been claiming, they said. In an official statement, the ITLF said that since it was considering the MHA’s request and postponing the burial, it expected the government to meet its demands, which have been set out in a letter to the Home Minister submitted through the Headquarter 27 sector Assam Rifles. The demands include legalisation of the proposed burial site in Haolai Khopi village, the release of Kuki-Zo bodies still lying in morgues of hospitals in Imphal, withdrawal of all “Meitei state forces” from the hill districts, progress on demand for separation from Manipur, and transfer of tribal jail inmates from Imphal to other States for safety. Government restricts import of laptop, computers [India has restricted imports of laptops, tablets and personal computers with immediate effect]( according to a government notice on August 3, in a bid to push local manufacturing. “Their import would be allowed against a valid licence for restricted imports,” the notice said. In April-June, electronics imports, which include laptops, tablets and personal computers, was $19.7 billion, up 6.25% year-on-year. Electronics imports range between 7% to 10% of the country’s total merchandise imports. “The move’s spirit is to push manufacturing to India. It’s not a nudge, it’s a push,” said Ali Akhtar Jafri, former director general at electronics industry body MAIT. India has been trying to push local manufacturing by giving production-linked incentives in over two dozen sectors, including electronics. It has extended the deadline for companies to apply for its $2 billion manufacturing incentive scheme to attract big-ticket investments in IT hardware manufacturing, which covers products like laptops, tablets, personal computers and servers. The incentive scheme is key to India’s ambitions to become a powerhouse in the global electronics supply chain, with the country targeting annual production worth $300 billion by 2026. Dell, Acer, Samsung, LG Electronics, Apple Inc, Lenovo and HP Inc are some of the key companies selling laptops in the Indian market and a substantial portion are imported from countries such as China. Shares of Indian electronic maker Dixon Technologies rose over 5% on the news. The intent seems to be “import substitution of certain goods that are imported heavily,” said Madhavi Arora, economist at Emkay Global. Laptops, tablets and personal computers compose about 1.5% of the country’s total annual imports and nearly half of those are bought from China, according to government data. India has imposed high tariffs in the past on products like mobile phones to catalyze domestic output. Last year, it produced $38 billion worth of mobile phones in the country, while local production of laptops and tablets were just $4 billion in comparison, according to estimates from industry body India Cellular and Electronics Association. Delhi court summons wrestler Bajrang Punia in criminal defamation complaint [A Delhi court on Thursday summoned wrestler Bajrang Punia on September 6 in a criminal defamation complaint]( filed against him by wrestling coach Naresh Dahiya. Metropolitan Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal directed Punia to appear before the court on that day, holding he is of the “prima facie” view that all the ingredients of defamation were made out. He said at the stage of summoning it was fairly settled that the court was not required to go into a comparative analysis of the possible defence that may be taken by the accused. “On a consideration of the complaint, supporting documents and pre-summoning evidence, I am of the prima facie view that all the ingredients of defamation are made out. It appears that the statement made in the press conference was a result of malicious intent and was not made in good faith.” “In view of the same, let accused, namely, Bajrang Punia be summoned for the commission of offence punishable under Section 499 read with Section 500 (both dealing with criminal defamation) of the IPC,” the judge said. The complaint claimed that Punia, along with other wrestlers/persons, made defamatory remarks against Dahiya in a press conference held on May 10 at Jantar Mantar during a protest against alleged sexual harassment of certain women wrestlers by the outgoing Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. 1,365 vacant posts in IAS, 703 in IPS: Government tells Rajya Sabha [There are 1,365 vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and 703 in the Indian Police Service (IPS)]( Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday (August 3). Besides these, 1,042 vacancies exist in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) and 301 in Indian Revenue Service (IRS), Union Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh said in a written reply. “Occurrence and filling up of vacancies is a continuous process. It is the endeavour of the central government to fill up vacant posts expeditiously,” he said. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducts the Civil Services Examinations (CSE) for filling up of vacancies on direct recruitment basis in civil services, including IAS, IPS, IFS and IRS, every year, he said. “To fill up vacancies in IAS and IPS promotion quota, selection committee meetings are held by Union Public Service Commission with state governments,” the Minister said. The government has increased the annual intake of IAS officers to 180 through the CSE till CSE-2022, Singh said. “Intake of IPS through the CSE has been increased to 200 from CSE-2020. Intake of IFS has been increased to 150 in 2022. Department of Revenue has reported 301 vacancies for filling through CSE-2023,” he added. In Brief: The [Allahabad High Court on August 3 upheld the order of Varanasi district court for conducting a ‘scientific survey’ of Gyanvyapi mosque]( by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The court, hence, rejected the plea filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee which had challenged the district court’s order in the HC. The District Magistrate of Varanasi, S. Rajalingam, confirmed to The Hindu that the ASI had informed the administration that it would commence the survey of the mosque premises (except the ‘wazukhana’) from Friday. “We will provided all the needed assistance to the ASI,” Rajalingam added. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[Data | The contours of India’s ‘formal jobs’ crisis] Data | The contours of India’s ‘formal jobs’ crisis]( [[How Shinzo Abe changed Japan and its relations with India | The Hindu on Books Podcast] How Shinzo Abe changed Japan and its relations with India | The Hindu on Books Podcast]( [[Evidence, not narratives, should guide discussions about statistics] Evidence, not narratives, should guide discussions about statistics]( [[Link between mental and physical health | Work-mind Balance podcast Ep 5] Link between mental and physical health | Work-mind Balance podcast Ep 5]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](