India's GDP Figures Seem Manipulated

NDIA EGALL STORIES THAT COUNT
` 100
I
www.indialegallive.com
April 29, 2019
AnexclusiveresearchpaperforIndiaLegalquestionsIndia’sGDPfigureswhichseem
manipulatedtopresentarosypicture.Thisisreflectedindecreasedeconomicactivityinmany
otherspheres.LossoffaithinGovtdatacanhaveseriousrepercussionsforfuturegrowth
ThePoliticsofEconomics
National Security: Politicising
the armed forces
SCBA Event:
No bar on talent

Catch Us
Every Saturday at 8 pm
and Sunday at 2 pm

constant criticism of elected govern-
ments in this country has been that
once they come into power they use
the State as their private milch cow.
They use public resources for private
and political benefit. They exercise ownership
rights, throwing all accountability to the winds.
And they escape mostly unpunished except for
an occasional defeat at the polls.
The most recent and blatant example of this
transgression has been the sudden appearance of
a propaganda outlet on all cable and satellite TV
platforms—NaMo TV. It had been blaring 24x7
wall-to-wall election and related speeches of the
prime minister without any equal time provi-
sions for opposition leaders.
It is a well established principle of broadcast-
ing norms across the world’s democracies that
the airwaves are a public resource. The airwaves
belong to the public and cannot be privatised. If
they are rationed between broadcasters compet-
ing for shares of the band-width and spectrum
available, they can only be held in trusteeship
and not in perpetual ownership.
In America, the Federal Communications Act
of 1934, which established the Federal Commu-
nications Agency (FCC), recognised the need for
strict regulation of the broadcast spectrum. Un-
der the rules then framed, qualified broadcasters
are granted renewable licences subject to with-
drawal on public challenge in case the broadcast-
er enjoying this privilege abuses the terms and
conditions of the licence or fails to perform in
the public interest. One facet of the law is the
equal time provision under which broadcasters
must give space to opposing points of view. Even
the president cannot hog air time to project a
political viewpoint without the opposition being
given a chance to respond.
That’s what democracy is all about: freedom
from monopoly over the dissemination of views
of information by any single entity. No wonder
that opposition parties and some sections of the
media kicked up a ruckus over NaMo TV. Who
owned it? Who ran it? Did it have a licence to
operate? How come it was being compulsorily
carried on a prominent DTH platform like the
prestigious Tata Sky?
Strangely, the channel was not listed among
those permitted by the Information and
Broadcasting Ministry (MIB). Under the Policy
Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels
in India, a channel can legally broadcast content
only after it is given permission by MIB in accor-
dance with Clause 9 of the guidelines. After
ascertaining that the applicant has met the req-
uisite criteria, MIB forwards the application to
the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for security
clearance. After the MHA approval, the broad-
caster must obtain further written permission to
get authorisation from the Ministry of Commu-
nications and Information Technology.
When the hullaballoo over NaMo TV reached
the Election Commission, it asked for an expla-
nation from the MIB. The ministry responded
that the channel was an advertising platform and
did not require a licence from the ministry.
This was sheer bafflegab. It made no legal or
administrative sense. According to Clause 3 of
Rule 7 of the Cable Television Networks Rules,
Inderjit Badhwar
Letter from the Editor
A
Democracyisallaboutfreedomfrommonopolyoverthedisseminationof
viewsbyasingleentity.Nowonder,theoppositionpartiesandsectionsof
themediatargettedNaMoTV.Whoownedit?Whoranit?Didithavea
licence?HowcomeitwasbeingcarriedonaprominentDTHplatform?
4 April 29, 2019
EGREGIOUS
TRANSGRESSION

| INDIA LEGAL | April 29, 2019 5
1994, “No advertisement shall be permitted,
the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a
religious or political nature; advertisements
must not be directed towards any religious or
political end.”
There was, in addition, a legal precedent to
prohibit such malpractices. The Supreme Court
in Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting vs M/s Gemini TV Pvt Ltd upheld
that Rule 7(3) of the Cable Television Networks
Rules, 1994, prohibits advertisements of a reli-
gious or political nature on television channels.
This rule had been challenged before the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in several writ petitions. The
High Court passed an interim order on March
23, 2004, staying the operation of Rule 7(3). The
MIB filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. The
Court, in an interim order passed on April 13,
2004, directed that political parties, candidates
or any other person or organisation intending to
issue advertisements of a political nature on a TV
channel or cable network, should submit an
application to the Election Commission or an
officer designated by the Commission along with
copies of the proposed advertisements. The
advertisement can be aired only after obtaining
clearance from the Commission.
Clause VII(4) of the Model Code of Conduct
also states that media advertisements issued at
the cost of the public exchequer and the misuse
of official mass media during the election period
“for partisan coverage of political news and pub-
licity regarding achievements with a view to fur-
thering the prospects of the party in power shall
be scrupulously avoided”.
A
s the NaMo TV controversy raged, saf-
fron-faced BJP spokespersons had to
admit that the channel was indeed a part
of a party-financed media blitzkrieg. And the
Election Commission, as it came under fire from
all quarters for looking the other way, finally
issued a directive on April 11: “It has been
brought to the notice of the Commission that
NaMo TV/Content TV is a platform service
offered by DTH operators to the BJP on a paid
basis…any political publicity material or contents
being displayed on electronic media without the
requisite certification from competent authority
[media certification and monitoring committee
in this case] should be removed immediately and
any political content shall only be permitted
strictly in accordance with the EC instructions
in this regard.”
In other words, NaMo TV, sponsored by the
BJP, cannot display election matter during the
silence period prescribed in the electoral law in
each of the remaining five phases of the ongoing
Lok Sabha elections. But that seems to be akin
to bolting the stable doors after the horses
have fled.
BLATANT
TRANSGRESSION
(Top) As the NaMo
TV controversy
raged, the BJP
admitted that it
was a part of a
party-financed
media blitzkrieg;
The EC led by Sunil
Arora had to take
action after coming
under fire
Twitter: @indialegalmedia
Website: www.indialegallive.com
Contact: editor@indialegallive.com
UNI

ContentsVOLUME XII ISSUE24
APRIL29,2019
OWNED BY E. N. COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.
A -9, Sector-68, Gautam Buddh Nagar, NOIDA (U.P.) - 201309
Phone: +9 1-0120-2471400- 6127900 ; Fax: + 91- 0120-2471411
e-mail: editor@indialegalonline.com
website: www.indialegallive.com
MUMBAI: Arshie Complex, B-3 & B4, Yari Road, Versova, Andheri,
Mumbai-400058
RANCHI: House No. 130/C, Vidyalaya Marg, Ashoknagar,
Ranchi-834002.
LUCKNOW: First floor, 21/32, A, West View, Tilak Marg, Hazratganj,
Lucknow-226001.
PATNA: Sukh Vihar Apartment, West Boring Canal Road, New Punaichak,
Opposite Lalita Hotel, Patna-800023.
ALLAHABAD: Leader Press, 9-A, Edmonston Road,
Civil Lines, Allahabad-211 001.
Editor Inderjit Badhwar
Senior Managing Editor Dilip Bobb
Deputy Managing Editor Shobha John
Executive Editor Ashok Damodaran
Contributing Editor Ramesh Menon
Deputy Editor Prabir Biswas
Senior Writer Vrinda Agarwal
Art Director Anthony Lawrence
Deputy Art Editor Amitava Sen
Senior Visualiser Rajender Kumar
Photographers Anil Shakya, Bhavana Gaur
Photo Researcher/ Kh Manglembi Devi
News Coordinator
Production Pawan Kumar
CFO
Anand Raj Singh
Sales & Marketing
Tim Vaughan, K L Satish Rao, James Richard,
Nimish Bhattacharya, Misa Adagini
Circulation Team
Mobile No: 8377009652, Landline No: 0120-612-7900
email: indialegal.enc@gmail.com
PublishedbyProfBaldevRajGuptaonbehalfofENCommunicationsPvtLtd
andprintedatAcmeTradexIndiaPvt.Ltd.(UnitPrintingPress),B-70,Sector-80,
PhaseII,Noida-201305(U.P.). Allrightsreserved.Reproductionortranslationinany
languageinwholeorinpartwithoutpermissionisprohibited.Requestsfor
permissionshouldbedirectedtoENCommunicationsPvtLtd.Opinionsof
writersinthemagazinearenotnecessarilyendorsedby
ENCommunicationsPvtLtd.ThePublisherassumesnoresponsibilityforthe
returnofunsolicitedmaterialorformateriallostordamagedintransit.
AllcorrespondenceshouldbeaddressedtoENCommunicationsPvtLtd.
Senior Content Writer Punit Mishra
(Web)
6 April 29, 2019
12Fudging India’s Data
An exclusive research paper for India Legal questions the legitimacy of the Modi government’s
GDP figures. This is reflected in decreased economic activity in spheres such as steel, cement,
coal, electricity and oil. Loss of faith in government data can have serious effects on future growth
LEAD
20Freedom to Pray
In view of the Sabarimala
verdict which allowed the
entry of women of all ages
into the temple, the apex
court has taken up a similar
plea on the right of Muslim
women to offer prayers
in mosques
SUPREMECOURT
In the Name of Tradition
In a big relief to the organisers of the 221-year-old Pooram festival in Kerala, the Supreme Court has
allowed the display of fireworks during the festival subject to certain conditions
24

A Crucial Miss
REGULARS
Followuson
Facebook.com/indialegalmedia
Twitter:@indialegalmedia
Website:www.indialegallive.com
Contact:editor@indialegallive.com
Cover Illustration & Design:
ANTHONY LAWRENCE
Ringside............................8
Courts ...............................9
Is That Legal...................10
Media Watch ..................50
42
It is surprising that the NCRB has
omitted releasing caste and
religion data of prisoners and
undertrials this year. But this data
is important for framing policies
and understanding social realities
Trump’s
Russian Escape
While the Mueller report does not conclude
that US President Donald Trump committed
a crime, it also does not exonerate him,
reports Kenneth Tiven from Washington
No Bar to Talent
In a first-of-its-kind, the Cultural Committee of the Supreme Court
Bar Association organised a cultural extravaganza that showcased
the many-splendoured talents of its lawyers
SPOTLIGHT
CRIME
GLOBALTRENDS
49
Illegitimate Strike 32
Life and Death Matter 44
A handful of VVIP deaths in recent times put the focus back on the judgment of the apex
court last year where it held that the right to die with dignity is also a fundamental right
FOCUS
Sacred No More 46
Despite the NGT passing strictures
against various governments in UP for
turning a blind eye to illegal sand
mining on the banks of the Saryu river,
the exploitation continues with impunity
MYSPACE
Water Woes
As the long “lean season”
till the arrival of the
monsoon begins, the Delhi
Jal Board wants the Delhi
High Court to direct the
centre to supervise water
supply from Haryana to
the national capital
36
COURTS
Omissions of Commission
The ongoing poll campaign has seen senior leaders of national parties
violating the Model Code of Conduct with impunity, but the Election
Commission has been frugal in handing out punishment
38
COLUMN
Rising Star 40
The BJP has put up a controversial 28-year-old candidate from Bangalore South, Tejasvi
Surya, with a view to garner the youth vote, but his appeal is divisive and communal
ENVIRONMENT
26
The government’s
valour-for-votes call is
unprecedented and
unprincipled when it
does not even have a
national security
strategy in place, writes
General Ashok Mehta

8 April 29, 2019
“
RINGSIDE
“I want sisters of
Wayanad to say that
he is my brother. I
want fathers and
mothers of Wayanad
to say he is my son.
That kind of rela-
tionship...has to be
built on truth.”
—Congress chief
Rahul Gandhi in
Wayanad
“We should not for-
get that Imran Khan
was a cricketer and
his recent statement
was an attempt to
bowl reverse swing to
influence Indian
elections. However,
Indians know how
to hit a helicopter
shot on a reverse
swinging delivery.”
—PM Modi, referring
to Pakistan PM
Imran Khan in his
interview to TOI
“I have always main-
tained…that a wo-
man can never be
treated as chattel. She
can never be regard-
ed as a commodity or
an object. She has to
be treated with
respect in all spheres.
That thought
enhances the concept
of gender equality....”
—Former CJI Dipak
Misra at an event
in Delhi
“We are such people.
To hell with the law,
we’ll deal with the
Model Code of
Conduct. Whatever
comes to our mind
we must speak out
otherwise we feel
claustrophobic.”
—Senior Shiv Sena
leader and Rajya
Sabha lawmaker
Sanjay Raut on
violating the Model
Code of Conduct
“Modi, when you had
not even learned to
wear pyjamas and
pants, Jawaharlal
Nehru and Indira
Gandhi had created
the Army, the Air
Force and the Navy
for this country. And
you say...the country
is safe under you.”
—MP Chief Minister
Kamal Nath
“The closure of Jet, even if temporarily, is definite-
ly a setback to Indian aviation. It is indeed a sad
day for all those in the business of flying in the
country to witness a fine airline closing shop....in
the entire aviation eco-system, it is the airline that
invariably remains at the receiving end while all
other stakeholders make money....”
—Ashwani Lohani, CMD, Air India, on Jet Airways’ indefinite
suspension of operations
“Imagine the anger
if I fielded a terror
accused. Channels
would have gone
berserk by now....
According to these
guys terror has no
religion when it
comes to saffron
fanatics....”
—PDP chief Mehboo-
ba Mufti on the BJP
fielding Pragya Singh
Thakur from the
Bhopal constituency
“Deeply saddened
that lumpen goons
get preference in
@incindia over
those who have given
their sweat & blood...
those who threatened
me within the party
getting away...is
unfortunate.”
—Congress spokesper-
son Priyanka Chatur-
vedi on her party tak-
ing back workers who
misbehaved with her
Anthony Lawrence

Courts
—Compiled by India Legal Team
Madras HC refuses
to lift TikTok ban
While hearing a PIL praying that the
Election Commission of India (EC)
take action against political parties who
campaign in the name of caste and religion,
a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice
Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
told the EC that “it seems you have got
your powers now...now the Election Com-
mission has woken up to its powers”.
These remarks came in the backdrop
of the EC barring UP Chief Minister
Yogi Adityanath, BSP supremo Maya-
wati, BJP leader Maneka Gandhi and
SP leader Azam Khan from campaign-
ing for some time, on grounds of vio-
lating the Model Code of Conduct
(MCC) by appealing to voters on the
basis of caste and religion. During an
earlier hearing on this matter, the
Court had asked the poll watchdog what
actions it had taken against those acting in
violation of the MCC. In response, the EC
had bemoaned its lack of power and sub-
mitted that “the power of the EC in this
behalf is very limited...we can issue notice
and seek reply but we can't de-recognise a
party or disqualify a candidate”.
Days after Congress
President Rahul Gandhi
made a statement that
“Supreme Court has said,
chowkidar chor hai”, follow-
ing the Court’s April 10
order which allowed the
admissibility of certain doc-
uments pertaining to the
Rafale review case, the
apex court issued him a
notice seeking an explana-
tion for his comment.
Gandhi has been given a
week’s time to respond. A
bench of Justices Deepak
Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna
passed this order while
hearing a contempt plea
filed by BJP leader Meenak-
shi Lekhi against Gandhi.
The bench also observed
that no views, observations
or findings should be attri-
buted to the Court in politi-
cal address to the media
and in public speeches,
unless such views, obser-
vations or findings are
recorded by the Court.
The Madurai bench of the Madras
High Court refused to stay its ban
on the download of video-sharing
mobile application TikTok. On April 3,
a bench of Justices N Kirubakaran
and SS Sundar had asked the centre
to prohibit downloading of the app
and restrain media houses from tele-
casting videos made using the app
as it “encouraged pornography” and
made children vulnerable to sexual
abuse. The latest order comes after
TikTok’s owner, Bytedance (a Chin-
ese firm), decided to contest the
April 3 order. In its defence, Byte-
dance said it has a technology in
place to filter inapp-
ropriate content.
The bench declined
to stay the ban and
adjourned the mat-
ter to April 24.
Sajjan Kumar’s bail
hearing in August
ASupreme Court bench of Justices
SA Bobde and S Abdul Nazeer
said that the Court will hear the bail
application of former Congress
leader Sajjan Kumar, who was con-
victed in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case,
in the first week of August. In Dec-
ember 2018, the Delhi High Court
had sentenced Kumar to life impris-
onment and held him guilty of mur-
der, promoting enmity between
groups, and defiling public property.
The CBI has been opposing Kumar’s
bail plea and told the top court that
his crime was of a “gruesome na-
ture” and described it as “genocide”.
SC notice to Rahul Gandhi over
“chowkidar chor hai” jibe
EC has woken up to its powers: SC
EC told to see Modi film and decide on its release
The Supreme Court
asked the Election Com-
mission of India (EC) to
watch the biopic on Prime
Minister Narendra Modi and
report to the Court by April
19, in a sealed cover, on
whether the film can be
screened during election
time. The bench, compris-
ing CJI Ranjan Gogoi and
Justices Deepak Gupta and
Sanjiv Khanna, was hearing
a plea by the film’s pro-
ducer against the EC’s
order stalling the screening
of the film. The film PM
Narendra Modi starring
Vivek Oberoi was sched-
uled to be released on April
11, also the day of the first
phase of polling. It had
reportedly been cleared by
the censors with a “U” cer-
tificate, a move which was
criticised by opposition
parties who took the matter
to court.

ISTHAT
What is the difference between battery
and assault under criminal law?
Assault is defined under Section 351 of
the Indian Penal Code as the use of force
to threaten or potentially harm another
individual. There is no actual physical
contact taking place in assault. It is a
gesture to harm or potentially harm
another individual. The intention of the
person plays an important role in deter-
mining assault. In order for an act to
constitute assault, it is also necessary
that the person so assaulted must, on
reasonable grounds, believe that the per-
son assaulting has the ability to apply the
force/criminal force so attempted by him.
On the other hand, battery is the
application of force on another individual
with the intention to cause injury and
harm to such person. Hence, while
assault involves an apprehension by the
person so assaulted that he is going to
get hurt, the offence of battery is said to
occur when actual injury takes place.
What does the term “res sub judice” mean?
“Res sub judice” is a principle which is used to
put a stay on a matter and is aimed at avoiding
multiplicity of suits. It is covered under Section
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which
states that: “No Court shall proceed with the
trial of any suit in which the matter in
issue is also directly and substantially
in issue in a previously instituted suit
between the same parties, or between
parties under whom they or any of
them claim litigating under the same
title where such suit is pending in the
same or any other Court in India having
jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed,
or in any Court beyond the limits of
India established or continued by the
Central Government and having like
jurisdiction, or before the Supreme
Court.”
The essential elements of the principle are that
the issues or the cause of action should not be
the same, the parties should not be the same
and there should not be a previously instituted
suit in a court competent to pass an order.
— Compiled by India Legal team
Battery and Assault are Separate Criminal Offences
Ignorance of law is no excuse. Here are answers to frequently asked
queries regarding matters that affect us on a day to day basis
What is double jeopardy?
Double jeopardy is a legal term
which means that a person cannot
be prosecuted and punished for
the same offence more than once.
This is a fundamental right guaran-
teed under Article 20(2) of the
Constitution. The concept of dou-
ble jeopardy existed even prior to
the enactment of the Constitution,
under Section 26(3) of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, which stated
that “where an act or omission
constitutes an offence under two
or more enactments, then the
offender shall be liable to be pros-
ecuted and punished under either
or any of those enactments, but
shall not be liable to be punished
twice for the same offence”.
No Person Can be
Tried Twice for the
Same Offence
?
Is dishonouring of a cheque a
criminal offence?
Yes, according to Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, dishonouring of
cheques is a criminal offence
and is punishable if a cheque
gets dishonoured for reasons
such as insufficient funds, sig-
nature not matching, etc. It is
punishable with imprisonment
for up to two years or with a
fine up to twice the amount of
the cheque. The procedure
that follows after a cheque
bounces is that the aggrieved
person has to send a notice
within 30 days after the
cheque is returned and inform
the drawer that legal action
might be initiated if the money
is not paid within 15 days
from the receipt of such
notice.
Dishonouring of Cheque Can Land a Person in Jail
10 April 29, 2019
Multiplicity of Suits
Discouraged Under the CPC

Lead/GDP Figures
AnexclusiveresearchpaperforIndiaLegalquestionsthelegitimacyoftheModi
government’sGDPfigures.Thisisreflectedindecreasedeconomicactivityinotherspheres
suchassteel,cement,coal,electricityandoil.Lossoffaithingovernmentdatacanhave
seriousrepercussionsforfuturegrowth
By Sanjiv Bhatia
The Politics
of Economics
UNI

“A single lie discovered is enough to
create doubt in every truth expressed.”
ecently there has been
much debate about the
Indian economy. Surveys
conducted by government
agencies such as the
National Sample Survey
Office (NSSO) and data collected by
reputed private agencies like the Centre
for Monitoring the India Economy
(CMIE), show a dramatic uptick in
unemployment over the last four years.
The NSSO survey shows that unem-
ployment increased from 2.2 percent in
2011-12 to an all-time high of 6.1 per-
cent in 2018, with the highest unem-
ployment among youth between the
ages of 15 and 29. The CMIE data shows
that the number of people employed
dropped by 11 million—from 408 mil-
lion in 2017 to 397 million in 2018.
Additionally, the number of youth who
are “not in education, employment or
training (NEET)” increased from 70
million in 2004-5 to 116 million in 2017-
18 with 70 percent of this increase com-
ing in the past two years. Rural distress
and massive disruption in the informal
economy after demonetisation accentu-
ated the unemployment problem.
Faced with the evidence that there
are more people unemployed and un-
deremployed now than when he took
over as PM, Narendra Modi came up
with the argument that the labour data
was incorrect and posed the following
question: How can an economy growing
at 7 percent not produce jobs? That
seems like a reasonable argument except
when flipped on its head: How can an
economy that has lost almost 20 million
jobs be growing at 7 percent? Is the In-
dian economy really growing at 7 per-
cent or is it a misrepresentation? Do the
high unemployment numbers cast doubt
on India’s economic growth?
This issue becomes all the more rele-
vant in light of recent accusations that
the government is suppressing weak
employment data and manipulating
GDP numbers to make the economy
appear better. In a bizarre sequence of
events, the government first revised
2016-17 GDP numbers downwards to
make the GDP for 2017-18 look better
by comparison (GDP growth is calculat-
ed relative to the previous year), and
then six months later, in a complete
turnaround, revised the 2016-17 GDP
upwards to 8.2 percent. This made the
demonetisation year the best year for
the economy in a decade. Within a peri-
od of six months, the GDP for 2016-17
mysteriously changed by almost 2 per-
cent (200 basis points) first down and
then upwards. Believe it or not.
Recently, Niti Aayog, which is run by
government-appointed bureaucrats with
no expertise in national income account-
ing, rejiggered the GDP numbers going
all the way back to 2005. They lowered
the average annual GDP growth for the
Singh government (2005-2014), from
8.2 percent to 6.8 percent, and simulta-
neously raised the average growth rate
of the Modi years from 6.2 percent to
7.3 percent. This juggling allowed the
Modi government to crow that it was a
better steward of the economy than the
Singh government.
This attempt to rearrange the data
was so blatant that a group of 108 pro-
minent Indian and foreign economists
wrote to Modi in March and raised con-
cerns over “political interference” in the
reporting of statistical data and cast do-
ubt on the government’s achievements
because of the revision and suppression
of data. The economists warned that
tampering with data could have serious
consequences not only for internal poli-
cymaking but for external investments.
An economy’s growth, as measured
by GDP, comes from the production of
goods and services. There are many
problems with measuring GDP, espe-
cially in an economy like India’s where
85 percent of the people work in what is
known as the “informal” sector. As re-
cord keeping is lax in this sector, it ma-
kes it difficult to generate reliable esti-
mates on the output generated. But gi-
ven the number of people that work in
the informal sector, it can be safely ass-
umed that a substantial portion of the
country’s GDP comes from this sector.
Empirical estimates are that the
informal economy contributes roughly
one-third to one-half of the nation’s
GDP. A recent study by WIEGO esti-
mates the contribution of the informal
sector to the economy to be about 46
percent of non-agricultural GVA (gross
value added). Since calculating produc-
tion from the informal sector is hard,
GDP statisticians impute to it a value
equal to roughly half of the formal sec-
tor. So, if the formal economy produces
`100 worth of goods and services, the
total GDP is estimated to be `150—
where `50 is the imputed output of the
informal sector.
R
BLEAK FUTURE
Unemployed youth at a job fair in Assam.
Unemployment has increased to an all-time
high of 6.1 percent in 2018

It is easy to see how the real GDP
could be higher or lower depending on
the variance of the actual and the
imputed contributions of the informal
sector. An economy growing at 7 percent
could in reality be growing much slower
if the performance of the informal sec-
tor is lower than the value imputed in
the GDP calculation. We know that de-
monetisation disproportionately affect-
ed the informal economy, so a failure to
lower the imputed value of this sector
could well lead to an overestimation of
GDP growth.
E
rrors in estimating GDP are not
limited to informal economies
such as India. Countries ruled by
an authoritarian regime often misreport
economic data to appear more success-
ful and stable than they are. In the ’50s
and ’60s, estimates of the Russian econ-
omy were so inflated that many econo-
mists started to believe that socialist
economic systems were better at gener-
ating growth than capitalist systems. A
good contemporary example of data
manipulation is China. The government
officially reported 10 percent plus GDP
growth for 14 consecutive years, and
everyone believed those numbers till
recently when a group of analysts and a
Chicago professor, using entirely differ-
ent methodology, concluded that China’s
GDP had been overestimated by bet-
ween 30 percent to 35 percent.
This confirms what many analysts,
economists and even some high-level
Chinese officials have said for years—
China’s economic data are cooked and
can’t be trusted. In a secret diplomatic
cable (released by Wikileaks), Chinese
Premier Li Keqiang called China’s GDP
numbers “man-made” and “unreliable”.
He admitted that he ignores those num-
bers—focusing instead on more tangibly
14 April 29, 2019
REALITY CHECK
(Top) The Manmohan Singh government did
a better job handling the economy as
compared to Modi’s; Infrastructure sector,
including steel (middle) and coal, grew at
only 4.1 percent per year in 2014-2018
Lead/GDP Figures
UNI
indiasteel.in
UNI

measured things such as bank loans, rail
freight and electricity output.
In this research, I use a similar app-
roach and focus on other proxies of
economic activity for the Indian econo-
my. A growing economy will need
increasing amounts of inputs like steel,
cement, coal, electricity, oil. It will also
require higher amounts of capital and
will involve a greater movement of
goods. GDP growth should, therefore,
be reflected in a proportional growth in
these input factors. Any discrepancy
between the two suggests a misreporting
of GDP.
I examine 21 different indicators of
economic activity to answer two ques-
tions: (1) does the data support the
Modi government’s assertions on GDP
growth and (2) what does the underly-
ing data reveal about economic growth
under the Singh (2004-2014) and the
Modi (2014-present) governments. Let’s
examine the data.
A
s an economy grows, there is an
increase in demand for goods
and factories start using a higher
percentage of their installed production
capacity to produce more goods. Capa-
city utilisation is a key indicator of gro-
wth in the economy. Data from the Res-
erve Bank of India shows that aggregate
capacity utilisation declined from a peak
of 82 percent in 2011 to 73 percent in
2018 (Figure 1). This decline is not con-
sistent with a growing economy, espe-
cially one purported to be the “fastest
growing economy in the world” growing
at 7.3 percent.
Further evidence of declining
demand in the post-2014 period is the
reduction in capacity utilisation in two
key sectors—steel (Figure 2) and
cement (Figure 3). Clearly, this data is
incompatible with a growing economy.
Table 1 gives the annual growth rate
(CAGR) of key economic variables for
two different periods, the 2004-2014
representing the Singh government and
the 2014-2018 period representing the
Modi government. First, some observa-
tions about growth in the post-2014
period (data in column 3 of Table 1).
None of the input variables in the post-
2014 period grew at a rate that would be
supportive of an economy growing at 7.3
percent. Electricity consumption grew at
only 4 percent, cement consumption at a
mere 3.6 percent, steel by 5.6 percent,
coal by 5.4 percent and mining activity at
2.6 percent. If it takes two yards of cloth
to make one shirt and if 10 yards of cloth
were used one has to conclude that only
five shirts were made and not 20.
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
2009 2010
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
OBICUS: RBI: Capacity Utilisation Source: www.CEICDATA.COM | Reserve Bank of India
Crude Steel: Capacity Utilisation: Public Sector: Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)
Source: www.CEICDATA.COM | Joint Plant Committee
Source: CMA
Figure1:Capacityutilisation
Figure3:Capacityutilisation—cement
Figure2:Capacityutilisation—steel
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Graphics: Rajender Kumar

16 April 29, 2019
Infrastructure output which consists
of eight core sectors—coal, cement, fer-
tilisers, steel, natural gas, refinery, elec-
tricity and crude oil—grew at only 4.1
percent per year from 2014 to 2018.
This too is incompatible with an econo-
my growing at 7.3 percent as infrastruc-
ture output comprises about 40 percent
of the country’s industrial production.
If goods are produced, they have to be
moved. During the post-2014 period,
rail freight grew at an annual rate of
only 2.9 percent and road freight by 5.7
percent—both indicating slower eco-
nomic growth than claimed.
Capital is a critical factor in economic
growth. Bank credit to the private sector
grew at a measly 4.8 percent during the
2014-18 period. This was the slowest
rate of credit growth in 20 years. It is
virtually impossible for an economy to
grow at 7.3 percent with such poor
growth in bank credit.
O
ne can see a clear pattern
emerging here. The numbers
just don’t add up. And data
on manufacturing activity supports
that contention.
From 2014-2018, manufacturing
activity grew by only 3.9 percent annu-
ally and production of motor vehicles by
a mere 4.6 percent—the slowest growth
in 15 years (FFigure 4, ffacing page).
These numbers do not reflect an econo-
my growth of 7.3 percent.
Modi travelled to 93 countries and
spent $500 million on those travels, yet
between 2014 and 2018, India’s exports
fell at an annual rate of 2.9 percent
making this the first government in his-
tory under whose watch exports
dropped. That this happened despite the
rupee dropping almost 12 percent (a
lower rupee helps exports) is indeed
alarming. Exports make up about 11
percent of the country’s GDP, and it is
hard to comprehend how the economy
could have grown at 7.3 percent with
declining exports.
Let’s now compare the state of the
economy under the Singh and Modi
governments by comparing the numbers
Lead/GDP Figures
Table1:Growthinpost-2014period
Economic Activity
CAGR
from 2004
to 2014
CAGR
from 2014
to 2018
Data Source
Electricity consumption 8.2% 5.5%
CEIC, Trading
Economics
Industrial electricity
consumption
7.9% 4.0% Indiastat
Cement production 7.0% 3.6%
CMA, Trading
Economics
Steel production 9.7% 5.6% CEIC
Coal production 5.9% 6.1% CEIC, Coal India
Crude oil consumption 5.4% 3.0% Knoema, CEIC
Mining activity 7.2% 2.6%
CEIC, Trading
Economics
Manufacturing activity 5.4% 3.9% Markit, CMIE
Growth in tourism 18.2% 7.8% CEIC, Min of Tourism
Credit to the private sector 17.0% 4.8% RBI, CEIC
Gross fixed capital
formation
14.0% 8.6%
CMIE, Trading
Economics
Gross fixed capital
formation(% GDP)
33.5% 28.9% Trading Economics
Growth in bank credit 14.4% 6.2% RBI, CEIC
FDI (as % of GDP) average 4.1% 1.9% Trading Economics
Rail freight movement 8.0% 2.9%
CEIC, Min of
Railways
Road freight movement 11.0% 5.7%
Mospi, GOI, Trade
pubs
Production of motor
vehicles
13.3% 4.6% CEIC
Exports 14.1 % -2.9% RBI
Infrastructure output 5.2% 4.1% Bloomberg
Corporate profits (EPS) 12.1% 2.6% NSE
Stock market growth 15.5% 7.7% Bloomberg, NSE

in columns 2 and 3 of Table 1. The fol-
lowing observations stand out:
Each of the 21 proxies of economic
activity show a significantly higher
growth rate during the Singh adminis-
tration (shaded area in the Table 1)
compared to the Modi government. Niti
Aayog can rejig the numbers any way it
wants, but the underlying data tells the
real story—the economy grew much
faster during the Singh administration
than the Modi one.
All the inputs required to produce
goods and services—steel, cement, coal,
electricity, oil, mining, capital—grew at
higher rates during the Singh adminis-
tration. More goods were produced and
moved from 2004-2014 than any time in
the country’s history. Rail freight grew at
an annual rate of 8 percent from 2004-
2014 compared to only 2.9 percent in the
post-2014 period, and road freight grew
at twice the rate under Singh than under
Modi (11 percent versus 5.7 percent). If
more was produced and shipped, then
GDP would have been higher during the
Singh administration.
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI),
which many have touted as a significant
achievement of the Modi government,
averaged only 1.9 percent of GDP. In
contrast, under the Singh government,
FDI inflows were twice as much at 4.1
percent of GDP.
Gross Fixed Capital Formation, which
is an indicator of investment in fixed
assets, grew at almost twice the rate
during the Singh administration com-
pared to Modi—14 percent versus 8.6
percent. Figure 5 (next page) shows
that investment as a per cent of GDP
averaged 33.5 percent during the Singh
administration compared to 28.9 per-
cent during the Modi years.
Credit growth averaged 14.4 percent
during the Singh administration, more
than twice the 6.2 percent growth under
the Modi government (Figure 6).
Tourism, which contributes about
nine per cent to GDP grew more than
twice as fast (18.2 percent increase
annually) during the Singh government
than under Modi (7.8 percent).
Exports increased by 14.1 percent
Figure4:Automobilesales
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Source: Tradingeconomics.com | Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy
BUMPY RIDE
(Top) From 2014-2018, production of motor
vehicles grew by only 4.6 percent; (left) A job
fair in China which manipulates GDP figures;
Niti Aayog has been trying to distort the truth
UNI PIB

18 April 29, 2019
every year during the 10 years of the
Singh government. In contrast, under
Modi, exports declined at around 3 per-
cent a year.
The Business Expectations Index
reflects how businesses feel about the
economy. The average value of the index
was 20 percent higher under the Singh
government (despite the 2008 global
economic meltdown), compared to the
Modi administration (Figure 7).
Indian companies made record profits
during the Singh administration. Ear-
nings per share (EPS) of the Nifty 50
companies increased at an annual rate
of 12.1 percent during the Singh years,
almost five times higher than the mea-
gre 2.6 percent per year increase under
Modi. Corporate profits as a percent of
GDP dropped to a 15-year low of 3 per-
cent in 2018.
The debt-service ratio shows the abili-
ty of companies to pay back their cur-
rent debt from earnings. During good
economic times, corporate earnings
increase and businesses find it easier to
service their debt. From 2004-2014, the
debt-service ratio doubled from 4.5 to 9,
but by 2018, it had dropped to 7 (Figure
8). This partly explains why bad loans
have increased in the past four years.
The Indian stock market (Nifty 500)
Lead/GDP Figures
Figure5:Investment(%ofGDP)42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Investment: Percent of normal GDP: Quaterly: India Source: WWW.CEICDATA.COM | CEIC Data
Figure6:Domesticcreditgrowth
Figure7:Businessconfidenceindex
2005 2006 2007 2008 20102009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Domestic Credit: YoY: Monthly: India Source: WWW.CEICDATA.COM | CEIC Data
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
M
E
A
N
Source: Tradingeconomics.com | Reserve Bank of India
30
25
20
15
10
5
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95

increased by almost 500 percent under
the Singh government, an annual per-
centage increase of 15.5 percent. In con-
trast, the stock market rose by only 7.7
percent a year during the Modi years. A
rising stock market is a good indicator
of an expanding economy and the
results indicate that investors felt twice
as good about the economy under Singh
than under Modi.
The performance of the Singh govern-
ment is even more remarkable given
that there was a global economic crisis
in 2008 and the average crude oil price
between 2004 and 2014 was $81 per
barrel. In contrast, the Modi govern-
ment enjoyed significant tailwinds:
the best global economy in 30 years,
and an average crude oil price of $60
per barrel.
There is no evidence of productivity
gains to explain the difference in input
factor usage between the two regimes.
In a recent article (http://www.indi-
alegallive.com/constitutional-law-
news/economy-news/gdp-figures-gam-
ing-the-system-58141), I compared the
performance of the Singh and Modi gov-
ernments using the national income acc-
ounting identity in which GDP growth is
the sum of consumption, investment,
government spending and net exports. I
document that each of the components
grew at a faster pace during the 2004-
2014 period compared to the post-2014
period.
The evidence is quite clear. Fewer
raw materials were used, fewer goods
and services produced, fewer items
moved around and even fewer goods
exported in the Modi years compared to
the Singh period. Yet, mysteriously, GDP
grew at a faster pace under Modi than
under the Singh government.
B
ased on all this evidence, it is
impossible to conclude anything
but the obvious: The Singh gov-
ernment did a better job handling the
economy than the Modi government.
The facts are irrefutable and Niti
Aayog’s attempt to rearrange GDP num-
bers is a crude attempt to distort the
underlying truth.
The real barrier to India’s economic
growth is the small group of people that
sit in Delhi and make decisions affecting
the entire economy. That’s bad enough,
but that they live in fool’s paradise about
the actual growth because of fudged
data is indeed scary. It’s hard to provide
meaningful solutions if you don’t accept
there is a problem.
In a recent interview, ex-RBI gover-
nor Raghuram Rajan was asked how it
was possible for an economy growing at
7 percent to produce no jobs. His res-
ponse: “One possibility is that the econ-
omy is not growing at 7 percent.” The
evidence presented here supports
Rajan’s assertion.
In a recent Reuter’s poll of leading
global economists, more than half the
respondents admitted that they had lost
faith in the official statistics put out by
the Indian government. The data shows
that this fear is not unfounded. The
GDP numbers have clearly been misre-
ported. Fabricated data not only ham-
pers policy making, but also foreign
investment. Foreign investors are scepti-
cal about investing in countries where
governments cannot be trusted. The loss
of faith in the Indian government’s abili-
ty to provide reliable economic data
could have serious repercussions for
India’s future growth.
It is unclear who misrepresented the
data, but it should be investigated as a
serious crime because it leads to ques-
tions about the integrity of an entire
nation. A nation’s economic growth
comes from the toil and sweat of its citi-
zens, not the government. Distorting
economic data is a slap on the hard
work of India’s millions. Corruption per-
tains not just to money, but also to the
abuse of entrusted power to misuse and
misstate facts.
—The writer is a Financial Economist
and Founder, contractwithindia.com
Figure8:Debtserviceratio
Source: WWW.CEICDATA.COM | Bank for International Settlements
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
2005 2006 2007 2008 20102009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
NN: BIS: DSR: Private Non-Financial Sector: India
Ex-RBIgovernorRaghuramRajanwas
recentlyaskedhowitwaspossibleforan
economygrowingat7percenttoproduce
nojobs.Hissaid:“Onepossibilityisthat
theeconomyisnotgrowingat7percent.”

Supreme Court/ Right of Women to Worship in Mosques
20 April 29, 2019
NE of the abiding contri-
butions of the Supreme
Court’s judgment declar-
ing the right of women to
worship at Sabarimala
was that it inspired wo-
men of other faiths to question similar
restrictions placed on them. When the
Supreme Court bench of Justices SA
Bobde and Abdul Nazeer heard a peti-
tion seeking the right of Muslim women
to worship in mosques on April 16, it
had no option but to agree to examine
the issues raised in it in view of the
Sabarimala judgment.
The petition was filed by a Muslim
couple from Pune, Yasmeen Zuber Ah-
mad Peerzade and her husband, Zuber
Ahmad Nazir Ahmad Peerzade, who
made the Ministries of Women and
Child Development, Law and Justice
and Minority Affairs, National Commi-
ssion for Women, Maharashtra State
Board of Waqfs, Central Waqf Council
and All India Muslim Personal Law
Board as respondents. The bench issued
notices to all the respondents.
The petitioners argued that the pro-
hibition of women’s entry into mosques
was a violation of constitutional and
fundamental rights guaranteed under
the Constitution as there cannot be any
discrimination based on caste, sex and
religion. Relying on the Sabarimala
judgment, they argued that religion can-
not be used as a cover to deny rights of
worship to women and it was also
against human dignity. Prohibition of
women was due to non-religious reasons
and it was a grim shadow of discrimina-
tion going on for centuries, they said,
quoting the Court judgment in the
Sabarimala case.
The petitioners submitted that
the Imam of Mohmdiya Jama Masjid,
Bopodi, Pune, had responded to their
request for permission for women to
offer prayers in mosques, stating that
no such practice is permitted in Pune
and other areas. The Imam, however,
told them that he had written to
“higher authorities” seeking suitable
directions. Failing to get a satisfactory
reply, the petitioners approached the
Supreme Court.
The petitioners contended that there
was nothing in the Quran and the
Hadith that requires gender segregation.
Breaking Barriers
InviewoftheSabarimalaverdictwhichallowedtheentryofwomenofallagesintothetemple,
theCourthastakenupasimilarpleaontherightofMuslimwomentoofferprayersinmosques
By Venkatasubramanian
O
RIGHT TO PRAY
Muslim women offering prayers at the
Jama Masjid in Srinagar in the holy month
of Ramzan
Photos: UNI

There are divergent opinions among
experts of Islamic theology concerning
gender segregation, they said. An
Islamic theologian in Canada, Ahmad
Kutty, reportedly, said that segregation
of the sexes was not a requirement in
Islam, as men and women interacted in
Muhammad’s time without any parti-
tions. However, an Islamic theologian in
Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak,
issued a death warrant in the form of a
fatwa against those who allowed mixing
of the sexes. The petitioners claimed
that the Prophet Muhammad specifical-
ly admonished men not to keep their
wives from going to the mosques.
The petition wanted the Supreme
Court to examine whether such prohibi-
tion was violative of Article 44 of the
Constitution which encourages the State
to secure a uniform civil code for all citi-
zens by eliminating discrepancies
between various personal laws. It also
wanted the Court to examine whether
the right to exclude women can be
claimed under Article 25(1) of the
Constitution, which guarantees to all
persons equal entitlement to freedom of
conscience and the right to freely pro-
fess, practise and propagate religion,
subject to public order, morality and
health, and to other provisions of Part
III of the Constitution.
The petition said that in the Haj pil-
grimage and Umrah, thousands of
Muslim women gathered and performed
rituals along with Muslim men. In the
Mecca Masjid, considered the most
sacred of all mosques, there was no such
prohibition on women regarding wor-
shipping, it said. Relying on the
Supreme Court’s judgment in Khursheed
Ahmad Khan v State of Uttar Pradesh
and others (2015), the petition stated
that practices permitted by a religion do
not become a religious practice or a pos-
itive tenet as the practice does not
acquire the sanction of religion merely
because it was permitted.
The petition claimed that at present,
women were allowed to offer prayers at
mosques under the Jamaat-e-Islami and
Mujahid denominations, while they
were barred from mosques under the
predominant Sunni faction. It contend-
ed that although Article 15, which pro-
hibits discrimination by the government
on the basis of sex, cannot be strictly
invoked against mosques, religious bod-
ies that ask for and receive tax payers’
money from the government must be
subject to the anti-discrimination provi-
sion of the Constitution.
The petition said that women were
allowed in mosques in Saudi Arabia, the
UAE, Egypt, the US, the UK and
Singapore. Women were allowed in the
sacred mosques of Masjid-e-Haram in
Makkah and Masjid-e-Nabawi in Madi-
nah, the petition stated.
T
he Supreme Court bench quizzed
Ashutosh Dubey, the petitioners’
advocate, on how mosques which
are not under the control of the State
could be subject to the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the State. It want-
ed to know how non-State actors could
come under the constitutional compul-
sion to not discriminate between sexes.
Dubey could not satisfy the bench
beyond saying that mosques receiving
aid from the State were bound to com-
ply with the fundamental rights guaran-
tees applicable to the State.
There are several articles in Part III
of the Constitution (dealing with funda-
mental rights) which directly apply to
non-State actors as well. Section 12(1)(c)
of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act 2009 was
challenged in the Supreme Court
because it mandated private unaided
schools across the country to admit 25
percent of their Class I strength with
children from weaker and disadvan-
taged sections and provide them with
free education. The Supreme Court, in
this case, not only affirmed the horizon-
tal application of social rights and not
merely civil and political rights, but
recognised that private schools are also
required to comply with the obligation
to provide the right to education.
The Supreme Court has taken this
argument ahead of other jurisdictions,
which have anti-discrimination laws
ThepetitionsaidthatalthoughArticle15
cannotbeinvokedagainstmosques,
religiousbodiesthatreceivetaxpayer’s
moneyfromthegovernmentmustbe
subjecttoprovisionsoftheConstitution.
SHOWING THE WAY
Women trying to enter the Sabarimala
Temple. The petitioners referred to the SC
verdict on the issue

Supreme Court/ Right of Women to Worship in Mosques
22 April 29, 2019
an extension of a citizen’s personality
and his digital footprints. Therefore, it
is part of Article 21 which guarantees
non-deprivation of right to life and per-
sonal liberty of every person except
according to procedure established by
law, the centre had then submitted to
the Court.
M
ore significantly, the present
bench’s concerns over the
applicability of fundamental
rights against non-State actors have
already been answered by the nine-
judge bench in the Justice Puttaswamy
v Union of India case in 2017 declaring
right to privacy as a fundamental right.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who was
part of that bench, in his separate
judgment, held: “The right to privacy is
claimed qua the State and non-State
actors. Recognition and enforcement of
claims qua non-State actors may require
legislative intervention by the State.” He
concludes in paragraph 77 by saying:
“The right of privacy is a fundamental
right. It is a right which protects the
inner sphere of the individual from
interference from both State and non-
State actors and allows the individuals
to make autonomous life choices.”
According to legal scholar Gautam
Bhatia, constitutional courts have devel-
oped various ways in which to apply
rights “horizontally”, that is, to apply
rights in transactions where private
actors are involved. A classic example is
the Supreme Court’s intervention in
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, when it
laid down guidelines to prevent sexual
harassment in both public and private
workplaces, to protect rights under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Consti-
tution. The Court intervened on the
ground that fundamental rights guaran-
tees cast an obligation on the State
to regulate private actors in a manner
that ensures that these rights are
not violated.
TheSupremeCourtbenchofJusticesSABobde(left)andSAbdulNazeerquizzedthe
petitioners’advocateonhowmosques,whicharenotunderthecontroloftheState,
couldbesubjecttothefundamentalrightsguaranteedbytheState.
ALL ARE EQUAL
In the Haj pilgrimage, women perform
rituals along with men
covering the private sector, to hold that
they are not merely required to perform
negative duties of restraint from infring-
ing on fundamental rights, but also to
positively provide socio-economic rights
guarantees like the right to education.
Therefore, the apex court, according
to observers, cannot go back and deny
horizontal application of a civil right
like the right of women to worship in a
mosque because the mosque is not
a State.
In 2017, the centre submitted to the
top court that a non-State actor like
WhatsApp cannot lay down contractual
conditions that violate a citizen’s right to
life and liberty. It made this submission
when the Court was hearing a challenge
to WhatsApp’s privacy policy, which,
the petitioners alleged, would allow it to
share user data with its parent,
Facebook. Data, the centre claimed, is
UNI

Supreme Court/ CJI Ranjan Gogoi
N the surcharged pre-election scan-
dal-a-day atmosphere, the upper
echelons of the Judiciary had hith-
erto remained untouched, by and
large. But Saturday, April 20, 2019,
saw even that last vestige coming
under attack as a special bench of the
Supreme Court was set up to look into
charges of sexual harassment levelled
against the Chief Justice of India,
Ranjan Gogoi, by a dismissed woman
employee of his office.
The apex court held an unscheduled
urgent hearing on Saturday, April 20,
with a bench consisting of the CJI and
Justices Arun Mishra and Sanjiv
Khanna, after the woman accused the
CJI of sexual misconduct while the on-
line media published her letter of com-
plaint and carried extensive reports
about her charges.
Justice Gogoi himself announced the
setting up of the bench at a hearing dur-
ing which he turned emotional and said
that these were part of “attempts being
made to undermine the independence of
the judiciary”.
Justice Gogoi said that such attempts
were being made because he had several
sensitive cases coming up next week
(April 22-26), including the contempt
petition against Congress president
Rahul Gandhi and the PM Narendra
Modi’s biopic release matter.
He pointed out: “Nobody can catch
me on money. After 20 years, I have a
bank balance of `6,80,000. My peon
has more assets and money than me. My
brother judges will consider this issue.”
It all started with the woman filing
an affidavit in which she detailed the
alleged harassment at the residential
office of Justice Gogoi on October 10
and 11, 2018, and the retribution that
followed when she rejected his alleged
advances. The CJI has denied the allega-
tions and said they were “unbelievable”.
He also said that the woman in question
had worked in the Supreme Court for
just less than two months and accused
her of having a “criminal background”.
He further alleged it was a plot to de-
activate the office of the CJI.
A handful of online portals, who had
access to the affidavit, published it in
full with detailed interviews of the
woman that gave even more sordid
details of what transpired according
to her.
The Secretary General of the Sup-
reme Court responded to the charges by
calling the allegations “completely and
absolutely false and scurrilous”. “It is
also very possible that there are mischie-
vous forces behind all this, with an
intention to malign the institution,” the
Secretary General wrote in an email.
But the woman claims her travails
had just begun. Within months, her life
and that of her family fell apart, she
said. She herself was dismissed, her hus-
band and brother-in-law, both in the
police service, were suspended, citing
old and pending cases while another
handicapped relative was also dismissed
from service. Later, she and her hus-
band were arrested in a old “cheating
case” and subjected to physical and
mental abuse.
Referring to the allegations, Justice
Gogoi said, “I don’t want to stoop so low
to answer these charges. They cannot
catch me on money, so they have
brought this up. I want to tell citizens
that the judiciary of this country is
under serious threat.”
He added that he intends to “sit on
this bench and discharge my duties
without fear and favour till my tenure
is over”.
Justice Gogoi has seven months of
his tenure left before he retires on
November 2019.
Crumbling Pillars
Theapexcourtsetsupaspecialbenchtolookintocharges
againstthechiefjusticeofIndiaafteradismissedwoman
employeesaysshewassexuallyharassedbyhim
By India Legal Bureau
I
Anil Shakya

Supreme Court/ Thrissur Pooram Festival
24 April 29, 2019
ISPLAYING of fire-
works has been an
integral part of the cel-
ebrations of the festi-
val. Hence we see no
reason why the festivi-
ties should be suspended.”
These words from a three-member
bench of the Supreme Court on April 12,
allowing two temples in Kerala’s
Thrissur to display fireworks during the
famous Pooram festival came as music
to the ears of millions of enthusiasts
from around the world. The festival has
been celebrated with pomp and
pageantry for over 220 years. The man-
aging boards of the two temples—
Thiruvambadi and Paramekkavu—had
filed a petition before the apex court,
seeking an exemption from the Court’s
October 2018 judgment to allow for the
traditional display of fireworks during
the Pooram festival. In that judgment,
the Court had said that only less pollut-
ing “green” firecrackers can be sold in
the market and, that too, only through
licensed traders. The Court had also
imposed restrictions on the timing of
bursting of crackers during festivals like
Diwali and Pooram.
In an interim order, the bench com-
prising Justices SA Bobde, Mohan M
Shantanagouder and Indira Banerjee
allowed the Thiruvambadi and
Paramekkavu Devaswoms in Thrissur to
display fireworks during the Pooram
festival being held at the famous
Vadakkunnathan temple.
The annual festival, celebrated since
1798, will take place between May 7-14
this year. The Court directed the Petro-
leum and Explosives Safety Organis-
ation (PESO) to grant the approval for
fireworks within three days from the
date on which the temples moved the
application. While decreeing that all
usual customs may be observed, the
Court made it clear that the organisers
must ensure that barium is not used in
the fireworks. The bench noted that the
temples get the fireworks manufactured
through their own licensees. The Court
added: “They may do so subject to the
written approval to be granted by the
PESO recording the new formulation
that can be used in the firecrackers.” The
Court, however, cautioned the temple
boards and said they must take care that
the fireworks manufactured for the fes-
tivities are used and retained by them
and do not find their way into the mar-
ket. The fireworks will be displayed
according to the usual customs of the
temples, the bench said.
In its judgment delivered in October
last year, the Supreme Court had said
that only less polluting “green” crackers
can be sold, that too only through
licensed traders. The Court had banned
the online sale of firecrackers and
Inabigrelieftotheorganisersofthe221-year-oldPooram
festival,theapexcourthasallowedthedisplayoffireworks
By NV Ravindranathan Nair
in Thiruvananthapuram
CENTURIES-OLD TRADITION
Displaying of fireworks is an integral part of
the festival which is held at the famous
Vadakkunnathan temple in Thrissur
D“
Fireworks Again
keralaphotos.in

restrained e-commerce websites from
carrying out such sales. It had also fixed
the duration for bursting of crackers. On
Diwali and other religious festivals,
bursting of crackers is allowed between
8 pm to 10 pm. On Christmas and New
Year’s Eve, it will be allowed only bet-
ween 11.45 pm to 12.45 am. The Court
also said that crackers can be burst only
in designated areas.
On the prayer made on behalf of the
fireworks manufacturers to permit man-
ufacture of fireworks with a barium sub-
stitute, i.e. barium nitrate, the Court
said it was not inclined to allow it at this
stage as the matter is still under consid-
eration of PESO which has agreed to
look into the best formulation that may
be permissible for the manufacture of
firecrackers.
Over the past several years, the
Pooram festival has been running into
trouble as vested interests have, time
and again, intervened to suspend the
festival, citing various reasons. As the
Pooram festival sees the participation of
nearly two million people, it is the most
widely celebrated festival in central
Kerala. It is noted for the unparalleled
beauty of the percussion ensemble and
the spectacular parade of the capari-
soned elephants and the Kudamattom
ritual—a rhythmic changing of the orna-
mental umbrellas giving shade to the
deities mounted on the elephants. It
attracts several domestic and foreign
tourists as well. It is at the culmination
of the event that the display of fireworks
is held, and thousands throng the
Vadakkunnathan temple premises and
its surrounding areas spread over 10
square kilometres to indulge in the fes-
tivities and savour each exquisite
moment of the cultural bonanza.
A
s the temple procession and the
parading of elephants are inte-
gral to the Pooram festival,
efforts by vested interests to get the
Court to ban the event did not succeed.
While it is a fact that several elephants
are subjected to untold suffering in the
name of parading them in temple festi-
vals, the Pooram organisers have been
credited for giving maximum possible
care and attention to the jumbos.
After the “elephant lovers’” attempts
to rob the Pooram of its charm failed,
some self–styled environmentalists
entered the scene to move the Court,
citing various violations in the display
of fireworks. They cited instances of
fireworks organisers committing serious
lapses, leading to fire accidents. The
fireworks display during the festival is
carried out as a competition between
the Thiruvambadi and Paramekkavu
temple boards and, as such, the con-
tractors are known to indulge in unfair
means to generate more sound and
glitter, often putting human lives at
risk. In spite of all such negative ele-
ments associated with the event, the
festival has been an exemplary model of
communal harmony.
“As Thrissur shares the composite
culture of people living in complete
harmony and peace, they join whole-
heartedly to make the event a huge suc-
cess. In fact, Thrissur Pooram is the
most spectacular cultural festival on the
planet. Still some vested interests want
it to be stopped,” said Professor M
Madhavankutty, secretary of the
Thiruvambadi Devaswom. He added
that this festival sees a lot of cross-
religious participation that is respon-
sible for the communal harmony that
Kerala is known for.
As the Pooram festival involves the
year-long labour of thousands of people,
it helps to generate employment and
boosts the purchase of consumer goods
in and around Thrissur, resulting in
high-value economic activity. As the
business community around Thrissur
predominantly constitutes Christians
and Muslims, the Pooram festival gets
the full backing of the business commu-
nity. “Ultimately this coexistence of dif-
ferent communities and people belong-
ing to different economic strata adds to
the unifying character of Pooram,” said
Rajesh, secretary of the rival Param-
ekkavu Devaswom.
Whiledecreeingthatallusualcustoms
maybeobserved,theSCmadeitclear
thattheorganisersmustensurethat
bariumisnotusedinthefireworksand
thattheydonotendupinthemarket.
CULTURAL BONANZA
Hordes of spectators gathered around a
colourful procession of decorated elephants
during the celebration in 2018
UNI

Spotlight/ SCBA Event
26 April 29, 2019
NoBarToTalentInafirst-of-its-kind,theSupremeCourtBarAssociationorganisedaculturalextravaganzathat
showcasedthemany-splendouredtalentsofitslawyers
GRAND OPENING CJI Ranjan Gogoi lighting the inaugural lamp of the final round of the SCBA talent hunt show held at the Supreme Court in
the presence of Chairman, Cultural Committee, SCBA, Pradeep Rai (third from right), and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (second from right)
AUGUST GATHERING (From left) CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice NV Ramana, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice KM Joseph of the Supreme
Court along with other members of the distinguished gathering at the final round

N the evening of April 4,
the Supreme Court, a
place usually packed with
busy lawyers and worried
litigants, turned into a
different sort of meeting
ground. A massive canopy in purple-
pink and gold-white hues hung over the
central lawn of the Court premises as a
bevy of lawyers, taking a break from
their packed schedules, showed up to
attend an event organised by the
Cultural Committee of the Supreme
Court Bar Association (SCBA).
And it was no ordinary event. It was
the final round of a talent hunt reality
show titled “Mera Bhi Naam Hoga”
organised by the SCBA, a first-of-its-
kind event, with the aim to showcase the
talent of Supreme Court lawyers in
singing, dancing and drama, and even
anchoring. The quarter-finals and semi-
finals had taken place earlier on March
30 and 31, respectively, at a studio in
Noida where former Chhattisgarh High
Court Chief Justice Yatindra Singh and
senior advocates Indira Jaising and
Anand Grover were the special guests.
The final round was inaugurated by
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi who
was accompanied by Justices NV
Ramana, Indira Banerjee and KM
Joseph. Several senior advocates and
members of the SCBA executive com-
mittee including PH Parekh, Rakesh
Khanna, Rupinder Suri, Vikas Singh,
Aishwarya Bhati, HS Phoolka, and
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta were
also in attendance. The dignitaries were
welcomed with flowers and were pre-
sented with their sketched portraits as a
token of appreciation.
Senior advocate and ASG Pinky
Anand, who was present at the final,
told India Legal: “Honestly, I was in
O
A MOMENT TO SAVOUR: Ipsita Behura rendering her performance in
the final round
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY For Shobha Gupta, a performer, “it was a
wonderful experience and a platform for lawyers to show talent”
THEY TOO ARE IMPORTANT For the first time, the SCBA employees
were recognised and given due respect
SPECIAL OCCASION Madhavi Divan, ASG, (centre) was among the
newly-designated senior advocates honoured by SCBA’s cultural committee

28 April 29, 2019
two minds about coming for it. I was
hearing about it only for the last two
days. But it’s a very magnificent effort
and it is fun to see people relax in a legal
environment which can be very stressful
otherwise. I think the SCBA should do
more such events which are on a lighter
side and have scope for social interac-
tion. This is a great beginning.”
What was even more commendable
was the enthusiasm and talent which
the contestants put on display. Young
and old, men and women, singers, dan-
cers and actors, the contestants were a
motley mix and regaled the audience for
the better part of the evening. Some of
the participants later shared their expe-
rience with India Legal. Shobha Gupta,
who danced to the Waheeda Rehman
number “Aaj Phir Jeena Ki Tamanna
Hai”, said: “It was a wonderful experi-
ence. It has given a very good platform
for lawyers to show their talent. I per-
formed on a stage after 20 years and am
looking forward to more such events.”
Stuti Chopra, who sang a song from the
movie Raazi, said: “It was an amazing
experience. This event is historic as
something like this has not happened
before in the Supreme Court. The event
was organised very professionally and
transparently with auditions and several
rounds. The huge turnout shows how
well it has been planned and executed.”
Indeed, the event was a packed
house as lawyers kept trickling into the
venue, some sitting on sofas, some
crowding around the stage and others
enjoying the sumptuous buffet of
evening snacks and dinner. Cheers of
“wah wah!” and “Once more!” kept
reverberating through the grounds.
REASON TO SMILE (From left) Vikas Singh and PH Parekh, senior
members, SCBA, with Justice Banerjee and Justice Joseph
SPECIAL GUEST Padma Shri Soma Ghosh being honoured by SCBA
members at the final round
FOND MEMORIES With loads of entertainment, the audience at the
final round had a great time
DIALOGUE DELIVERY A scene from a play being enacted by one of
the groups in the drama category

A REVELATION Special guest former Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh
High Court Yatindra Singh showcasing his talent at the semi-final round
A FEW WORDS Indira Jaising along with her husband and special
guest senior advocate Anand Grover (centre) at the semi-final event
ODE TO LORD GANESHA Sneha Kalita of SCBA and one of the
contestants performing Ganesh Vandana at the finals
PERFECT TUNING A spellbinding performance by contestant Naveen
Kumar Singh
COME TO THE PARTY Former Additional Solicitor General of India
Bishwajit Bhattacharyya performing at the event
NO CAKEWALK The competition and enthusiasm to excel made the
show a challenge for participants

30 April 29, 2019
And, as evening turned to dusk, a spe-
cial guest arrived to regale the audience
with his trademark wit—stand-up
comedian Surendra Sharma. He began
by saying: “I am not associated with this
Bar (SCBA) but definitely associated
with the other bar” and the audience got
a sense of what was coming. In his inim-
itable comic style, he also espoused the
message of peace and nationhood while
lamenting the charged political climate
we live in. He was full of praise for the
performers and lauded the SCBA for
organising the event. Ending his per-
formance, he told the audience: “The
legal profession is a service not an
industry. Don’t let it degrade into one.
Keep laughing and make others laugh.”
Later, another powerhouse of tal-
ent—Padma Shri Soma Ghosh—graced
the stage. One of the special guests for
the event, she mesmerised all with her
singing. The other special guests were
playback singer Tripti Shakya, Kathak
dancer Sinjani, film director Dhananjay
Kapoor, anchor Ravleen Sabharwal,
music director Satish Tripathi and cho-
reographer Jhalak.
In the midst of all the fun and frolic,
the SCBA executive committee did not
fail to honour various employees for
their continued assistance and support
to the SCBA.
The event wrapped up around 10.30
pm with the Antakshari competition.
The following were declared the winners
in the various events:
Dance: Ipsita Behura, Pushpa Kishore
and Sneha Kalita.
Singing (Male): Jitendra Singh, Naveen
Kumar Singh and Gautam Das.
Singing (Female): Sasmitha Tripathi,
Swati Jindal and Manjula Gupta.
Drama: Team 1 headed by Kuldeep
Rai.
Antakshari: Sasmitha Tripathi from
Team Suriley and Deepika Kalia from
Team Chabeeley.
Painting: Anirudh Kumar
Besides these, various special catego-
ry awards were also given:
Amrendra Kumar Singh: Showstopper
Award
Kanhaiya Priyadarshi: Perfect
Performer
Kuldeep Rai: Best Expression
Prerna Kumari: Perfect Performance
Shobha Gupta: All Rounder Award
Ashok Arora: Melodious Voice Award
Umesh Babu Chaurasia: Anchoring
JUST KEEP LAUGHING Stand-up comedian Surendra Sharma
had the audience in splits
TALENT HUNT SCBA member Ashok Arora singing in the final of the
show as a contestant
MANY THE BETTER Contesting teams taking on each other in the
Antakshari segment of the show
NO STAGE FEAR Lawyers performing in the drama seemed to be no
less talented than professional actors

The prize distribution ceremony was
held on April 12 in the Supreme Court
library. Supreme Court judge Justice NV
Ramana was the chief guest for the cer-
emony and gave away trophies and cer-
tificates to the winners.
The grand event would not have
been what it was but for the tireless
efforts of the Cultural Committee of the
SCBA headed by Pradeep Kumar Rai,
who is also senior executive member of
the Association. He was ably assisted by
Co-chairman Jana Kalyan Das, Joint
Secretary Preeti Singh, Treasurer Vikas
Bansal, Joint Treasurer Rohit Pandey,
Convener Amrendra Kumar Singh,
Co-convener Sadhna Sandhu, and
members Mukti Chowdhary, Aditya
Singh, Upendra Narayan Mishra, Anjali
Chauhan and Shamsravish Rein.
— Text by Vrinda Agarwal
—Photographs by Anil Shakya
THANK YOU, LORDSHIP Justice Ramana being felicitated at the prize
distribution ceremony of the SCBA Talent Hunt Show at SC Bar Room
JUDGES’ CORNER Justice Ramana (left), Justice Banerjee (centre)
and Pradeep Rai at the awards ceremony function
WITH PRIDE Executive committee member SCBA HS Phoolka (left)
and co-chairman, SCBA cultural committee, Jana Kalyan Das
MY PLEASURE Pradeep Rai addressing the august gathering of
Justice Ramana and Attorney General KK Venugopal
SAY CHEESE! A group of winners enjoying a photo-op with Pradeep
Rai at the prize distribution ceremony
EXCELLENT PHOTO-OP Pradeep Rai with senior advocate and
Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand

My Space/ Politicisation of the Armed Forces Gen Ashok K Mehta
32 April 29, 2019
FTER five years of the
BJP-led government,
whose ideology rests on
Hindutva, it is fair to
infer that it has succeed-
ed in attracting elements
of the armed forces and veterans to-
wards its nationalist ethos. In other
words, it has sown the seeds of politici-
sation that no other government has
attempted. It seems this was not a con-
scious strategy, but something that
mushroomed after the post-Uri surgical
strikes in 2016.
The colossal electoral dividend
reaped by the government in the assem-
bly elections in 2016-18 was a game-
changer. It was then that the Army was
placed on a pedestal and national secu-
rity and counter-terrorism came to occ-
upy centre stage.
Similarly, the Pulwama attack was a
godsend for a government which had
lost some of its sheen after setbacks in
the assembly elections in three Hindi
heartland states. The Balakot air strikes
resuscitated the eclipsed image of the
government.
The BJP’s likely long-term vision is
to de-secularise the military and get it to
be committed to its ideology. Its allies in
this mission are the RSS and the VHP
who have become more vocal in their
political pronouncements.
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat recently
observed that his swayamsevaks, recog-
nised as highly selfless and a disciplined
Hindu organisation, can mobilise in a
few days and not the seven months that
the Army took to mobilise in 2001. The
excessively communal former BJP MP,
Vinay Katiyar, has said Muslims should
leave India and go to Bangladesh and
Pakistan, not realising that there are
many Muslims in the military too.
Praveen Togadia of the VHP has said
that stone-pelters in Kashmir should be
bombed. The RSS is the cutting edge of
BJP’s election-winning campaign.
The Army and the Air Force ground
and air raids, respectively, have the pot-
ential to transform the political fortunes
of the BJP and Prime Minister Naren-
dra Modi as a decisive leader. These two
military operations, coupled with the
less politicised Doklam stand-off in the
Chinese Chumbi Valley, have reset the
national security discourse catalysed by
the media hype on patriotism and
nationalism. The BJP has even appro-
priated the Army’s motto: Nation First.
The grand irony is this: While milk-
ing the “Sena” for electoral gains, it has
done precious little for sharpening its
deterrence through defence modernisa-
tion and solid welfare measures. Still,
former Vice Chief of Army Lt Gen Sar-
ath Chand, who in 2018 lamented the
government’s meagre defence funding
while deposing before a Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Defence, joined
the BJP last month. So did former DG,
Milking the
Armed Forces
Thegovernment’svalour-for-votescallisunprecedentedand
unprincipledwhenitdoesnotevenhaveanationalsecurity
strategyinplace.TruecommitmenttotheForcesismissing
andPMNarendraModiisbeingseenasinsensitive
A
LEAVE THEM ALONE
PM Narendra Modi greeting the three
service chiefs at the 2019 Republic Day
celebrations at Rajpath
PIB

CRPF, Prakash Mishra. But Chand’s
contemporary who was billed as the
hero of the surgical strikes, Lt Gen DS
Hooda, who helped the Congress party
in developing its national security agen-
da, did not join that party. Remaining
apolitical even after demitting office was
the soldier’s credo and still is for many.
T
he Indian Armed Forces are his-
torically and traditionally
uniquely apolitical, secular and
professional and under civilian political
control. Its equivalent might not exist
even in developed democracies. Sadly,
civilian control has degenerated to
bureaucratic control and Service Chiefs,
mighty in their own right, have abrogat-
ed their constitutional responsibility
towards the forces for fear of upsetting
their apple cart. Rarely have Service
Chiefs stood up individually or collec-
tively for a just cause.
Even before 156 veterans had written
the letter to the president about the gov-
ernment’s misuse of military operations
to advance its political agenda, the
Chiefs should have reached Rashtrapati
Bhavan to apprise the Supreme Comm-
ander, President Ram Nath Kovind, of
this serious breach of military ethics
and ethos.
Never in the history of cross-border
forays, mostly kept under wraps, has the
government tom-tommed military oper-
ations to further its electoral fortunes.
Calling the armed forces “Modi’s Army”
or Prime Minister Modi himself urging
people in Latur to vote for Pulwama
martyrs and the Air Force which carried
out the airstrikes in Balakot is unprece-
dented and unprincipled. The Election
Commission is silent over Modi’s valour-
for-votes call in defiance of its ruling
“that political parties/candidates/cam-
paigners should desist from indulging in
propaganda involving activities of the
defence forces”.
Just last month, the Australian Chief
of Defence Staff, Gen Angus Campbell,
intervened in an interaction between
Defence Minister Christopher Pyne and
soldiers, pointing out that he was raising
a political issue. In March 1977, Army
Chief Gen TN Raina did not oblige
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with an
election-related and politically motivat-
ed request. The previous evening, Gen
Raina had spoken at the Rotary Club in
New Delhi where he said the Indian
Army is an apolitical institution.
In his book, Kargil: From Surprise to
Victory, then Army Chief Gen VP Malik
wrote that the ruling BJP-led govern-
ment was politicising the war for elec-
toral gains and he had to send a strong
message through the media: “Leave us
alone, we are apolitical.” Why Gen Malik
did not go to Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee as he had done earlier over
pictures of the three Service Chiefs on
election banners is not explained.
Earlier instances of politicisation are
in the Jawaharlal Nehru-Krishna
Menon era when the latter, gunning for
Army Chief Gen KS Thimayya, had
placed his acolytes to key command
appointments leading to the Himalayan
debacle in 1962. In 1996, on the 50th
anniversary of India’s independence, the
BBC called the Indian Army the last
bastion of democracy.
It was, therefore, extremely surpris-
ing that the BJP chose to field contro-
versial and former Army Chief Gen VK
Singh for a Lok Sabha seat in 2014. Gen
Singh had distinguished himself in
office by taking his own government to
TheBJPleadershaveusedpicturesof
WingCommanderAbhinandanVarthaman
(left)tilltheywereaskedbytheECto
removethem.Itisintoxicatedbyits
Balakotbrew.ThePulwamaattack
(below)wasagodsendfortheBJP.
Twitter

My Space/ Politicisation of the Armed Forces/ Gen Ashok K Mehta
34 April 29, 2019
court on a personal matter of his age,
breaking the Army’s code of service
before self. But his presence in the cabi-
net has made no difference to the lack-
adaisical approach of the government
towards the Armed Forces because it
was he who in 2013 had complained
about critical deficiencies in the Army
(which have not been fully made up to
date) that created a furore in Parlia-
ment. Gen Singh said anyone calling the
Army Modi’s Sena is a traitor, but soon
backtracked as UP Chief Minister Yogi
Adityanath, his star campaigner, had
said it.
The current political virus spreading
to the military has its origins in the sur-
gical strikes of 2016. Ministers in the
government were freely using the mili-
tary strikes to canvass for votes, with
pictures of then Director General Milit-
ary Operations Lt Gen Ranbir Singh
flanked by Modi and BJP President
Amit Shah on billboards and banners.
Then Defence Minister Manohar Parri-
kar, an RSS pracharak, would regale his
votaries with stories of how he had in-
fused in the Army the Hanuman spirit.
Later, Yogi Adityanath used the same
simile after Balakot. BJP leaders used
pictures of Wing Commander Abhi-
nandan Varthaman till they were asked
by the EC to remove them. The BJP is
intoxicated by its Balakot brew.
Modi boasted: “Ghar ghar me
ghuskar Modi ne mara hai.” Amit Shah
defiantly told a TV channel that his
party would use the air strikes to garner
votes, adding the Congress did so after
1971. Shah equating Balakot with
Bangladesh is incredible. And Modi’s
campaign chants of “Mere saath bolo,
Sena ki Jai” are self-serving.
T
he government’s glorification of
the military is, in reality, the
deification of its party and lead-
ership. Ministers tying rakhis on sol-
diers in Siachen and Modi spending
Diwali with them is symbolism.
Modi’s true commitment to the Sena
can be judged from the following: Four
defence ministers in five years; lowest
defence budgets since 1962; condemned
by his own party stalwarts heading the
parliamentary standing committee on
defence (Maj Gen BC Khanduri, who
was sacked) and Estimates Committee
of Parliament (Murli Manohar Joshi,
now sidelined); aborting appointment of
CDS (after Parrikar had promised it); no
measures to simplify, fast track and
depoliticise defence acquisition; imple-
menting only a one-time OROP and
blocking award of Non Functional
Upgrade recommended by the Seventh
Pay Commission which has been given
to all Grade A services, including the
central police.
The last two issues have been taken
to court by the military and are being
opposed by the government.
How can the government fight this
election on a national security plank
when it does not even have a national
security strategy? Yes, Modi delivered
on the National War Memorial, but
muddied the sacrosanct event by politi-
cising it. Veterans were angry and took
to social media, slamming Modi for
being insensitive.
In his interview to The Times of
India (April 17), Modi asked: “Who are
the people claiming politicisation of the
armed forces?” and answered himself:
“They are the same people who took
credit for victory in the 1971 war.”
No, Prime Minister Modi, these are
also veterans (not just the opposition
parties), including former Service Chiefs
who have never earlier collectively com-
plained about the politicisation of the
forces. This is not “desh bhakti” by any
stretch of imagination.
You’re on the slippery slope of politi-
cising the only institution the country
trusts. Ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, a
survey by Lokniti and the Azim Premji
University indicated that the Army is
the most trusted institution (88 percent)
and political parties the least (minus 55
percent). Service Chiefs should find this
an opportune moment to make Modi
walk the talk on Sena ki Jai.
—The writer has fought in all the wars
after 1947, is a founder member of the
Defence Planning Staff in 1986 and
served extensively in Kashmir and the
North east. He was Commander of the
Indian Peace Keeping Forces (South) in
Sri Lanka and is currently engaged in
Track Two conflict resolution
InMarch1977,ArmyChiefGenTNRaina(right)didnotobligePrimeMinisterIndira
Gandhiwithanelection-relatedandpoliticallymotivatedrequest.Theprevious
evening,hehadsaidinNewDelhithattheIndianArmyisanapoliticalinstitution.

Courts/ Delhi-Haryana Tussle
36 April 29, 2019
T is that time of the year when
temperatures in the northern parts
of India see a sudden and sharp
rise. It is also the time when there
is a corresponding rise in the politi-
cal temperatures between the Har-
yana and Delhi governments over the
supply of potable water to the national
capital. Allegations and counter-allega-
tions fly thick and fast about untreated
water, leakage from canals and quantum
of water supply despite agreements
signed and sealed detailing sharing of
waters from various sources.
In the latest move, the Delhi Jal
Board (DJB), in charge of supplying wa-
ter to the denizens of the capital, plead-
ed before the Delhi High Court that the
central government be asked to super-
vise water supply from Haryana to
Delhi. While arguing against any reduc-
tion in the water level of the Wazirabad
reservoir, the DJB painted an alarming
picture. It said that the areas which
would be affected by the water crisis
include large parts of Lutyens’ Delhi,
home to VVIPs, including the Rashtra-
pati Bhavan, the prime minister’s resi-
dence, the bungalows of the Supreme
Court and High Court judges as well as
central ministers.
The DJB pleaded that “an imminent
water crisis is likely to hit the New Delhi
area in the next few weeks owing to the
failure of state of Haryana to supply
water as required pursuant to orders of
the Supreme Court”. It contended that
the issue of water supply assumed im-
portance in the 100-day-long lean sea-
son till the arrival of the monsoon and
Haryana ought to strictly comply with
the Supreme Court’s directive to keep
the Wazirabad reservoir full during
this period.
The Haryana government has, how-
ever, informed the High Court that
Delhi was “wasting around 300 cusecs
of water due to leakage and pilferage
and the amount of wastage would be
more if the availability from other
sources were added”. In its affidavit filed
before the division bench of the High
Court comprising Chief Justice Rajen-
dra Menon and Justice Anup J Bham-
bhani, the state argued that the national
capital was “discharging substantial
quantity of water to the downstream of
Wazirabad causing huge loss of precious
water” and added that “despite this, the
state of Haryana constantly maintained
supply to Delhi”.
The state went on to say that in the
October-December period “when there
is enough water regeneration in river
Yamuna, the Delhi Jal Board is dis-
charging a huge quantity of water in the
downstream of Wazirabad, which is
huge waste of priceless water”. It under-
lined that as per the “economic survey of
Delhi for the year 2017-18, it is categori-
cally mentioned that the loss of treated
War
Over
Water
Asthe long“leanseason”tillthe
arrivalofthemonsoonbegins,the
DelhiJalBoardwantstheDelhi
HighCourttodirectthecentreto
supervisewatersupplyfrom
Haryanatothenationalcapital
By Vipin Pubby
in Chandigarh
I
PLAINTIVE CRY
The Delhi Jal Board has asked that the level
in Wazirabad reservoir should not be reduced
mapio.net

water due to leakage and pilferage is 30
percent. That means around 300 cusecs
of water supplied by Haryana to Delhi is
being wasted by Delhi due to leakage
and pilferage”.
The DJB had earlier filed an applica-
tion in the High Court alleging that
Haryana was not allowing passage of
clean water into the Yamuna, making
the water meant for the national capital
more polluted, and had pointed out that
it would lead to a massive water prob-
lem in central Delhi. It had said that the
channel which supplies additional water
to the Yamuna to dilute its pollution lev-
els “had been blocked by Haryana”, and
that the water being received at Wazi-
rabad was unusable for treatment as it
had high levels of ammonia.
The application further said that the
water treated at Wazirabad is supplied
to central Delhi where all major govern-
ment offices, bungalows and the Sup-
reme Court and the High Court are
located. It had pleaded that if Haryana
cannot control the pollutants being dis-
charged into the river, then it should
increase the clean water being supplied
into the Yamuna to dilute the pollution.
It said that Haryana had blocked the
DD-8 channel and had pointed out that
obstructing any water channel attracted
provisions under Section 431 of the IPC,
which lays down the punishment—a
maximum jail term of five years—for
making any road, bridge or river impa-
ssable or unnavigable. It also argued
that blocking of the DD-8 channel vio-
lated the orders of the Supreme Court,
to ensure the Wazirabad reservoir is
always kept full of water.
U
nder an MoU signed on May 12,
1994, by the chief ministers of
Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajas-
than, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi in
the presence of then Union minister for
water resources in the government of
PV Narasimha Rao, the partner states
had agreed on their share of Yamuna
water. It was agreed that the allocation
of water among beneficiary states will be
regulated by the Upper Yamuna River
Board (UYRB) within the overall frame-
work of the agreement.
However, the Delhi and Haryana
governments have remained at logger-
heads over the issue of sharing water for
a long time. Delhi has been demanding
more water in view of its increasing
population and the consequent increase
in demand. Haryana, on the other hand,
has been citing its own needs and has
been telling the courts that it cannot
supply more water to Delhi.
There was also an acrimonious ex-
change when Delhi’s ruling party, the
Aam Aadmi Party, had taken a public
stand in favour of Punjab and against
Haryana on the water dispute between
the two states during the run-up to the
assembly elections in Punjab in 2017.
AAP had then contested the assembly
polls in the state and was even hopeful
of forming the government. However, it
finished a poor second to the Congress.
Later, some Haryana ministers had said
that the state would stop supply of
Satlej water through its network of
canals to Delhi.
In another case filed in the Supreme
Court to demand that Haryana be direc-
ted to release more Yamuna water to
Delhi, the top court had asked why it
should pass only Delhi-centric orders.
“The concept of water conservation
must be followed instead of demanding
it from the neighbouring state,” a bench
of Justices Madan B Lokur, Deepak
Gupta and Hemant Gupta told the
Delhi government in December last
year. While referring to the explosive
population growth of Delhi, the Court
said, “The answer to this is water con-
servation and not water generation.”
DRY DAYS COMING
The Board said Lutyens’ Delhi, including
Rashtrapati Bhavan, may face water issues
ThepleasfromtheDelhiJal
BoardandtheHaryana
governmentcameupbeforea
divisionbenchoftheDelhi
HighCourtcomprisingChief
JusticeRajendraMenon
(farleft)andJusticeAnup
JBhambhani.
Anil Shakya

38 April 29, 2019
HE Supreme Court last
week indicated that it in-
tends to take a close look at
the powers of the Election
Commission of India (EC)
to deal with politicians vio-
lating the Model Code of Conduct
(MCC) by making hate speeches and
appealing for votes on the basis of reli-
gion and caste. The pronouncement
came on a day when the apex court put
the poll body through the wringer for its
weak-kneed response to blatant instan-
ces of violation of the MCC by leaders of
almost all political parties.
When Chief Justice of India Ranjan
Gogoi asked, “What action have you ta-
ken other than issuing notices and advi-
sories?”, EC counsel Amit Sharma
replied that the Commission had “no
power to disqualify” errant candidates
or “derecognise” political parties and it
could only issue notices and advisories
over violation of the poll code and file
complaints for a repeat violation. That
brought forth a sharp retort from the
CJI: “So you are basically saying you are
toothless and powerless against hate
speeches? The most you can do is send a
notice to the offending candidate. If the
candidate replies, send him or her an
advisory. Despite this, if there is viola-
tion of Model Code of Conduct, you may
then file a criminal complaint. That is
all? Those are your powers under the
law?” Sharma could do little but concur.
The apex court’s anger was under-
standable. Last week, newspapers across
the country front-paged instances invol-
ving hate speeches and campaigning on
the basis of religion which have become
the norm this electoral season. Yet the
EC found it fit to pursue only four such
offenders—Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister
Yogi Adityanath (BJP), Bahujan Samaj
Party (BSP) supremo Mayawati, Maneka
Gandhi (BJP) and Azam Khan (Samaj-
wadi Party).
The EC is a constitutional body res-
ponsible for administering elections in
India. As per Article 324 of the Consti-
tution, it has powers of superinten-
dence, direction and control over the en-
tire process for the conduct of elections
to Parliament and state legislatures as
well as the offices of the president and
vice-president of India.
The key functions of the EC include
acting as the guardian of free and fair
elections and issuing MCC for political
parties and candidates during elections
so that the decorum of democracy is
maintained. Other powers of the poll
body include regular auditing of
finances of political parties and repress-
ing unfit opinion polls in the interest of
democracy, along with recommending
the disqualification of members if they
have violated guidelines. The body has a
massive responsibility and is meant to
be entirely apolitical.
The MCC clearly prohibits political
parties or candidates from aggravating
existing differences or creating mutual
Omissions of Commission
TheongoingpollcampaignhasseenseniorleadersofnationalpartiesviolatingtheModelCode
ofConductwithimpunity,butthepollbodyhasbeenfrugalinhandingoutpunishment
Column/ Election Commission Maithili Shaan Katari Libby
T
SELECTIVE PUNISHMENT?
(Clockwise from top left) UP CM Yogi
Adityanath, BSP chief Mayawati, Azam Khan
of the SP and Maneka Gandhi from the BJP
were issued notices for MCC violations

hatred between different religions,
castes and communities. It bars candi-
dates and parties from criticising leaders
or workers regarding their personal life.
It forbids ministers to use official mach-
inery for election work and combine
official visits with electioneering.
While, as pointed out earlier, the
Commission usually uses moral sanction
to get political parties and candidates to
fall in line, it also has the power to rec-
ommend disqualification. The question
thus arises: why has this power never
been used?
A
few days ago, BJP President
Amit Shah brazenly announced a
National Register of Citizens
that he will set up for all “refugees” and
then listed all religions in India except
Islam. Does this not warrant his dis-
qualification? Why are these people
being permitted to tear this country ap-
art based on religion? We have separa-
tion of powers enshrined in our Consti-
tution. We are a secular nation. Why is
the EC not doing its job?
We have laws in the books that are
simply not being used. Section 123 (3A)
of the Representation of the People (RP)
Act, 1951, states that any activity which
may aggravate existing differences or
create mutual hatred or cause tension
between different castes and communi-
ties, religious or linguistic, is an elec-
toral offence and a corrupt practice.
There can be no appeal to caste or
communal feelings for securing votes
and use of mosques, churches, temples
or other places of worship as a forum for
election propaganda (Section 125 of the
RP Act, 1951). Yet, the Ram temple and
promises about it are being widely pub-
licised. Action taken? None that we are
aware of.
Section 125 of the RP Act clearly
states that promoting enmity between
classes in connection with elections is
prohibited. “Any person who in connec-
tion with an election under this Act
promotes or attempts to promote on
grounds of religion, race, caste, commu-
nity or language, feelings of enmity or
hatred, between different classes of the
citizens of India shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.”
One hears many a time—how we are
a “young” democracy and must go
through this period of greed and chaos,
with criminals and thugs running the
country and dividing it for their own
purposes. Corruption and money-mak-
ing will be rampant at the expense of
the environment and harmony. There is
no room in a young democracy for ideal-
ism or liberalism, we are told. And on a
day-to-day basis one turns a blind eye,
accepts this, and plods on.
However, as the world’s largest dem-
ocracy, it is often said that somehow the
public gets it right. And this is some-
thing we take pride in. But, when we
read about EVMs being tampered with
to the extent that every vote goes to the
BJP, when our people don’t come to
work because they are being paid `600
to skip work and wave a flag, when
there is talk of a National Register of
Citizens that excludes millions, when
there are lynchings based on religion
and what you eat, how much more are
we, the ordinary citizens, meant to
absorb? This affects the very core of our
nation and all that it once stood for. f
Gandhi is absolutely right—we do tell
our children to leave this country as
soon as possible and to never come
back. India is the loser in the long run—
not that anyone in politics cares.
With the apex court taking a good
look at the EC’s powers, it is hoped that
measures will be taken to give it more
teeth so that the electoral process is reg-
ulated in a better way. That should help
restore its autonomy and credibility.
—The author is a leading advocate in
Chennai. With inputs from
E Karthikeyan and S Kaavya
TheSupremeCourtbenchheadedbyCJI
RanjanGogoirecentlyexpresseditsanger
overtheElectionCommissionbeing
weak-kneedintakingactionagainst
politiciansblatantlyviolatingtheMCC. RIGHT TO CHOOSE
Voters showing identity cards at a polling
booth in the first phase of the Lok Sabha polls
UNI

India's GDP Figures Seem Manipulated

India's GDP Figures Seem Manipulated

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (11)

Semelhante a India's GDP Figures Seem Manipulated

Semelhante a India's GDP Figures Seem Manipulated (20)

Mais de ENC

Mais de ENC (20)

Último

Último (20)

India's GDP Figures Seem Manipulated