Indian Polity: October 2022 UPSC Current Affairs | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly PDF Download

First Amendment to the Indian Constitution

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has agreed to examine a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) challenging changes made to the right to freedom of speech and expression by the first amendment to the Constitution in 1951.

• The court said there is a legal issue, which arises for consideration, and has sought the Center’s views.

What are the Petitioner’s Arguments?

• Objectionable Insertions:
  • Section 3(1) of the amending Act substituted original Clause (2) of Article 19 with a new Clause (2), which contained two objectionable insertions.
  • Original Clause (2) of Article 19 was dealing with reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
  • New Clause (2), contained “two objectionable insertions” allowing restrictions also “in the interest of public order” and “in relation to incitement to an offence”
• Neglects National Security:
  • The amendment also neglects national security by dropping the expression ‘tends to overthrow the State’ which raises grave concern in the context of the dangers posed to the concept of secular democratic republic by radicalism, terrorism and religious fundamentalism.
• These two Insertions Protect Sections:
  • 124A: Sedition
  • 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
  • 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs)
  • 505: Statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code from the vice of unconstitutionality.
• Section 3 (1)(a)- 3 (2) Void:
  • The plea urged the court to declare Section 3 (1)(a) and 3 (2) of the First Amendment “beyond the amending power of Parliament” and void since the “same damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution and destroy its basic structure”.

What was the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951?

• About:
  • The First Amendment was passed in 1951 by the Provisional Parliament, members of who had just finished drafting the Constitution as part of the Constitutional Assembly.
  • The First Amendment Act amended articles 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 372 and 376.
  • Provided for the saving of laws providing for the acquisition of estates, etc.
  • Added Ninth Schedule to protect the land reforms and other laws included in it from the judicial review. After Article 31, Articles 31A and 31B were inserted.
• Reason for Amendments:
  • The immediate reason for the amendments were a series of Supreme Court and High Court judgments that had struck down provisions of public safety laws, press related laws and criminal provisions that were deemed to be incompatible with the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
• Implications:
  • Under the provisions of Article 31, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged in a court of law on the ground that they violated the fundamental rights of citizens.
  • Article 31(A), has vested enormous power to the State with respect to the acquisition of estates or taking over management of any property or corporation in public interest. It sought to exclude such acquisitions or from the scope of judicial review under Articles 14 and 19.
  • The Ninth Schedule was widely misused. Ninth Schedule contains more than 250 legislations receiving protection under Ninth Schedule from judicial scrutiny.

Way Forward

• The First Amendment debates, although conducted in a very different political context, remain relevant today, as democracy in India is going through difficult or uncertain times.
• The custodial death of Stan Swamy, and the recent revelations around the misuse of the Pegasus surveillance spyware against Opposition leaders, lawyers, and human rights defenders, highlights why institutional safeguards for freedom of speech must be protected and strengthened.
• Revisiting the First Amendment debates, 74 years after independence, could be one step in this direction.

To read more about amendments: Laxmikanth Summary: Amendment of the Constitution

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)

Why in News?
Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has extended the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland for another six months.

What are the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)?

• Background:
  • A reincarnation of the British-era legislation that was enacted to quell the protests during the Quit India movement, the AFSPA was issued by way of four ordinances in 1947.
  • The ordinances were replaced by an Act in 1948 and the present law effective in the Northeast was introduced in Parliament in 1958 by the then Home Minister, G.B. Pant.
  • It was known initially as the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958.
  • After the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland came into being, the Act was adapted to apply to these States as well
• About:
  • The AFSPA gives unfettered powers to the armed forces and the Central armed police forces deployed in “disturbed areas” to kill anyone acting in contravention of law and arrest and search any premises without a warrant and with protection from prosecution and legal suits.
  • The law first came into effect in 1958 to deal with the uprising in the Naga
  • The Act was amended in 1972 and the powers to declare an area as “disturbed” were conferred concurrently upon the Central government along with the States.
  • Tripura revoked the Act in 2015 and Meghalaya was under AFSPA for 27 years, until it was revoked by the MHA from 1st April 2018.
  • Currently AFSFA is in some parts of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.

What is the Controversy Around the Act?

• Human Rights Violations:
  • The law empowers security personnel, down to non-commissioned officers, to use force and shoot “even to the causing of death” if they are convinced that it is necessary to do so for the “maintenance of public order”.
  • It also grants soldiers executive powers to enter premises, search, and arrest without a warrant.
  • The exercise of these extraordinary powers by armed forces has often led to allegations of fake encounters and other human rights violations by security forces in disturbed areas while questioning the indefinite imposition of AFSPA in certain states, such as Nagaland and J&K.
• Recommendations of Jeevan Reddy Committee:
• In November 2004, the Central government appointed a five-member committee headed by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy to review the provisions of the act in the northeastern states.
• The committee recommended that:
  • AFSPA should be repealed and appropriate provisions should be inserted in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
  • The Unlawful Activities Act should be modified to clearly specify the powers of the armed forces and paramilitary forces and Grievance cells should be set up in each district where the armed forces are deployed.
  • Second ARC Recommendation: The 5^th report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) on public order has also recommended the repeal of the AFSPA. However, these recommendations have not been implemented.

What are the Supreme Court Views on the Act?

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of AFSPA in a 1998 judgment (Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India).

• In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that
  • a suo-motu declaration can be made by the Central government, however, it is desirable that the state government should be consulted by the central government before making the declaration;
  • the declaration has to be for a limited duration and there should be a periodic review of the declaration 6 months have expired;
  • while exercising the powers conferred upon him by AFSPA, the authorized officer should use minimal force necessary for effective action.

Way Forward

• The status quo of the act is no longer the acceptable solution due to numerous human rights violation incidents that have occurred over the years. The AFSPA has become a symbol of oppression in the areas it has been enacted. Hence the government needs to address the affected people and reassure them of favourable action.
• The government should consider the imposition and lifting of AFSPA on a case-by-case basis and limit its application only to a few disturbing districts instead of applying it for the whole state.
• The government and the security forces should also abide by the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court, Jeevan Reddy Commission, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Right to Privacy

Why in News?
The Supreme Court rejects WhatsApp-Meta pleas against Competition Commission of India (CCI) probe into privacy policy of 2021.

• Both WhatsApp and Meta have argued that the anti-trust watchdog cannot investigate the privacy policy as it has been kept in abeyance until the introduction of the revised data protection bill.
• The CCI is an independent authority to consider any violation of the provisions of the Competition Act of 2002 and cannot be dissuaded from investigation and alleged violation of Competition Act, 2002.

What are Issues with the Privacy Policy of WhatsApp?

• The information that WhatsApp automatically collects and will be sharing with Facebook includes the mobile phone number, user activity, and other basic information of the WhatsApp account.
  • WhatsApp’s privacy policy to share commercial user data with Facebook establishes that it is the owner of the data rather than an intermediary.
• The policy essentially takes away the choice users had until now to not share their data with other Facebook-owned and third-party apps.
• The Whatsapp policy contradicts the recommendations of the Srikrishna Committee report, which forms the basis of the Data Protection Bill 2019. For Example:
• The principle of Data Localisation, which aims to put curbs on the transfer of personal data outside the country, may come in conflict with WhatsApp’s privacy policy.

What was the Personal Data Protection Bill?

• The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, on December 11, 2019.
• Commonly referred to as the “Privacy Bill”, it intended to protect individual rights by regulating the collection, movement, and processing of data that is personal, or which can identify the individual.
• The govt withdrew the bill due to various concerns raised by technology giants and other issues raised by the common people.

What is Right to Privacy?

• Generally understood that privacy is synonymous with the right to be let alone.
• The Supreme Court described privacy and its importance in the landmark decision of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017 that - Right to Privacy is a fundamental and inalienable right and attaches to the person covering all information about that person and the choices that he/ she makes.
• The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
• Restrictions (as stated in the Judgement):
  • The right may be restricted only by state action that passes each of the three tests:
  • First, such state action must have a legislative mandate,
  • Second, it must be pursuing a legitimate state purpose, and
  • Third, it must be proportionate i.e., such state action- both in its nature and extent, must be necessary in a democratic society and the action ought to be the least intrusive of the available alternatives to accomplish the ends.

What are the Government Steps to Protect Privacy?

• B N Srikrishna Committee: Government appointed a committee of experts on data protection under the chairmanship of Justice B N Srikrishna that submitted its report in July 2018.
• Information Technology Act, 2000: The IT Act provides for safeguard against certain breaches in relation to data from computer systems. It contains provisions to prevent the unauthorized use of computers, computer systems and data stored therein.

What is the Competition Commission of India (CCI)?

• About:
  • The CCI was established in March 2009 by the Government of India under the Competition Act, 2002 for the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Act.
  • It primarily pursues three issues of anti-competitive practices in the market:
    • Anti-competitive agreements.
    • Abuse of dominance.
    • Combinations.
  • Objectives:
    • Eliminate practices having adverse effects on competition.
    • Promote and sustain competition.
    • Protect the interests of consumers.
    • Ensure freedom of trade in the markets of India.
    • Establish a robust competitive environment through:
    • Proactive engagement with all stakeholders, including consumers, industry, government, and international jurisdictions.
  • Composition:
  • The Commission consists of one Chairperson and six Members who shall be appointed by the Central Government.
    • The commission is a quasi-judicial body which gives opinions to statutory authorities and also deals with other cases.
    • The Chairperson and other Members shall be whole-time Members.

To Read more information on Fundamental Rights:

• Fundamental Rights- 1
• Fundamental Rights- 2
• Fundamental Rights- 3
• Fundamental Rights- 4

Swachh Survekshan Awards 2022 

Context

• Recently, the President of India presented the Swachh Survekshan Awards 2022.

About

• Cleanest City overall: Indore has been adjudged India’s cleanest city for the sixth time in a row, while Surat has retained the second position.
• Best performing states:
  • Madhya Pradesh secured the first position, followed by Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra in the category of best performing states in ‘Swachh Survekshan Awards 2022’.
  • Haryana was in the second position while Tamil Nadu was third.
  • Among smaller states and Union territories, Andaman and Nicobar secured the first position followed by Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu and Sikkim.
  • Telangana won the first prize under the large states category under the Swachh Survekshan Grameen (SSG) 2022 which looks into the sanitation status of rural areas.
• Cities with Population:
  • In the category of cities having a population fewer than one lakh, Maharashtra’s Panchgani was ranked number one, followed by Chhattisgarh’s Patan (NP) and Maharashtra’s Karhad.
  • Haridwar was adjudged the cleanest Ganga town in the category of more than 1 lakh population, followed by Varanasi and Rishikesh.
  • Tirupati received the best city award in Safai Mitra Suraksha category.
  • Bijnor was ranked the first among Ganga towns with fewer than one lakh population. followed by Kannauj and Garhmukhteshwar respectively.
  • In the survey, Maharashtra’s Deolali was adjudged the country’s cleanest Cantonment Board.

IMEI Number

Context

• The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has made the registration of IMEI number of all mobile phones mandatory before their sale in India on its anti-counterfeit and lost handset blocking portal from January 1, 2023. 
  • All mobile phones, whether made locally or imported, will need to be registered and get IMEI (International mobile equipment identity number) certificates from the Indian Counterfeited Device Restriction portal that is run by the DoT.

About IMEI

• The IMEI is a unique number that is used to identify a device on a mobile network. It has 15 digits and is like a phone’s unique identity. The number is used to verify the identity of a device when a user uses the Internet or places a call through it.
• Phones with a dual-SIM option have two IMEI numbers, one for each SIM. The IMEI number can help network providers track down a device in case it gets stolen or is lost. Once such loss or theft is reported, the carriers can deny the device access to the cellular network even with a new SIM card.

Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000

In News

• Recently, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over states continuing to register FIRs for offences under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act despite the court holding it unconstitutional in 2015.

About Section 66A of IT Act

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: 
  • In 2015, the apex court struck down the law in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, calling it open-ended and unconstitutionally vague, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet.
    • It was violative of Article 19(1) (a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
    • Article 19(1) (a) gives people the right to speech and expression whereas 19(2) gives the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.
• What did Section 66A do?
  • Introduced in 2008, the amendments to the IT Act, 2000, gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly “offensive and menacing” online posts.
• Punishment:
  • It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.
• Why was the law criticised?
  • The problem was with the vagueness about what is “offensive”. The word having a very wide connotation was open to distinctive, varied interpretations.
  • Most of the terms used in the section had not been specifically defined under the Act and the petitions argued that the law was a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online, and to curtail freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution.
• Section 79
• It is now at the centre of the ongoing intermediary liability battle between the Centre and micro-blogging platform Twitter defining key rules for the relationship between governments and commercial internet platforms.
  • Section 79 says that any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.