10 January 2025 : The Hindu Editorial Analysis

1. We need accessibility rules that are based on principles

(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)

Topic: GS2 – Social Justice

Context

The Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) held Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Rules, 2017, violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Supreme Court’s Judgment on Rule 15 of RPwD Rules, 2017

• The Court highlighted that Rule 15 was discretionary, whereas the Act’s provisions (Sections 40, 44, 45, 46, 89) mandated strict obligations on the government.
• Accessibility guidelines issued under Rule 15, such as those by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, lost statutory authority after the Rule was struck down.
• The Court gave the government three months to draft mandatory minimum accessibility standards for all sectors.

Accessibility: A Principle-Based Approach

• The judgment underlined the fragmented approach to accessibility guidelines, urging a shift to a principle-based framework.
• Accessibility should ensure universality and intersectionality to address the diverse needs of persons with disabilities.

Differentiating Accessibility and Reasonable Accommodation

• Accessibility builds a foundation for inclusion through standardised measures, while reasonable accommodation tailors solutions for specific challenges.
• Both are interdependent, fostering substantive equality as recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Evolution of Accessibility Standards

• Accessibility is dynamic, evolving with advancements like AI and the Internet of Things.
• Minimum standards must adopt a phased realisation approach with periodic updates, inspired by countries like Canada, which aims for full accessibility by 2040.

Broadening the Concept of Barriers

• The RPwD Act identifies both tangible barriers (e.g., infrastructure) and intangible barriers (e.g., societal attitudes).
• Accessibility guidelines should address these challenges to ensure inclusivity for all, including women, children, and the elderly.
• Disability is increasingly seen as arising from environmental factors rather than individual incapacity.

Compliance Through Social Audits

• Section 48 of the RPwD Act mandates social audits to ensure schemes and programs meet the needs of persons with disabilities.
• Lack of standardised guidelines for these audits leads to inconsistencies across states, limited awareness, and insufficient training for auditors.
• Clear audit frameworks can help identify changing disability-related challenges and enhance service delivery.

Simplifying Accessibility Rules

• Earlier rules suffered from bureaucratic complexity and overlapping mandates from various ministries, leading to confusion and high compliance costs.
• New guidelines should be direct, practical, and easy to implement with a nodal authority for adjudication, such as the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Conclusion

• The deadline for the new guidelines is February, with the possibility of an extension.
• Both public and private sectors must collaborate to create inclusive financial, technological, and transport systems.
• Accessible products and services are not just a legislative mandate but also a market opportunity to cater to a larger population base.

Practice Question:  Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) in reinforcing mandatory accessibility standards under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (150 Words /10 marks)

2. Section 152 of BNS should not become a proxy for sedition

(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)

Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity

Context

The Rajasthan High Court, in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024), highlighted concerns over the potential misuse of Section 152 of the BNS to suppress legitimate dissent.

High Court Observations

• In 2022, the Supreme Court had suspended pending trials under Section 124A of the IPC (sedition) while the government reconsidered the law.
• Although the BNS does not use the term “sedition,” Section 152 criminalises acts inciting secession, rebellion, subversive activities, and separatism, raising fears of continued misuse under a different label.

Problems with Section 152

1. Vague Terminology
   1. Section 152 criminalises acts “endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,” but does not define what constitutes such endangerment.
   1. This vagueness allows for expansive interpretations by authorities, enabling prosecution for criticism of political or historical figures or controversial opinions.
   1. In a fragmented sociopolitical climate, such a stringent provision without safeguards risks being used to stifle dissent.
2. Lowered Threshold for Liability
   1. The term “knowingly” in Section 152 lowers the standard for determining liability, especially in the context of social media.
   1. Sharing a post, even without malicious intent, may be sufficient for prosecution if the post could provoke prohibited activities.
   1. This provision does not require prima facie evidence of a causal link between speech and actual consequences, allowing authorities to deprive individuals of liberty without strong justification.
3. Potential for Abuse
   1. Historical data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shows high arrest rates under Section 124A of the IPC but low conviction rates (12 convictions in 548 arrests between 2015-2020).
   1. Section 152 is broader and more ambiguous than Section 124A, increasing the likelihood of misuse and a chilling effect on free speech.

Way Forward

1. Judiciary’s Role in Balancing Interests
   1. Courts have historically used consequentialist interpretations to balance national interests with free expression, emphasizing the actual impact of speech.
   1. Precedents like Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), and Javed Ahmad Hazam v. State of Maharashtra (2024) stress the need for a causal nexus between speech and its consequences.
2. Guidelines for Enforcement
   1. The Supreme Court should issue clear guidelines defining the boundaries of terms used in Section 152 to prevent abuse, similar to its approach in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
3. Encouraging Free Expression
   1. A liberal space for diverse thoughts and criticism is crucial, especially in the age of social media.
   1. The concept of a “marketplace of ideas,” as envisioned by Justice Holmes in Abrams v. United States, should guide enforcement to ensure democratic dialogue and truth.

Conclusion

• The lack of safeguards in Section 152 increases the risk of its misuse as a sedition proxy.
• Judicial intervention and clear guidelines are essential to protect free speech while upholding national interests.

PYQ: What do you understand about the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. (200 words/12.5m) (UPSC CSE (M) GS-2 2014)

Practice Question:  How does Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) impact the right to free speech in India? Analyze its potential for misuse and propose safeguards to address the concerns. (250 Words /15 marks)

3. Is India open to the idea of dual citizenship?

(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 9)

Topic: GS2 – Indian Polity – Constitutional Provisions

Context

The article discusses the possibility of granting dual citizenship to the Indian diaspora.It explores constitutional, legal, and political concerns and the potential risks for India’s sovereignty.

Constitutional and Legal Perspectives

• The Indian Constitution clearly defines citizenship under Part II, specifically Article 5, which outlines citizenship through birth, parentage, or residence.
• There is a distinction between domicile and citizenship; one may reside in India but not be a citizen.
• The distinction was reinforced by the Supreme Court in a 1955 judgment.
• The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 allows for expedited citizenship for minorities from neighboring countries, but this does not imply a shift toward dual citizenship.

Distinction Between NRIs and PIOs

Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) hold Indian passports and enjoy all rights of Indian nationals except the right to vote abroad. Special arrangements allow NRIs to vote by registering at Indian missions. People of Indian Origin (PIOs) are not Indian nationals and, thus, do not have political rights in India. However, they benefit from economic facilities and are granted Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cards, which offer certain privileges but do not include political rights like voting. The term “citizenship” in the OCI card is misleading, as it does not confer political attributes such as the right to vote, which is inherent in full citizenship.

Risks of Dual Citizenship

• Granting dual citizenship would allow individuals to hold political rights in India while retaining allegiance to another country, which could lead to divided loyalties.
• Political participation by dual citizens could undermine national sovereignty, especially if foreign interests influence decisions within India.
• There are concerns about creating a “comprador” class, where certain individuals might prioritize foreign interests over India’s national interests, potentially leading to the recolonization of the country.

Commitment to Indian Citizenship

• To retain the loyalty and dedication of citizens, India has maintained the principle that individuals must relinquish foreign citizenship to acquire Indian citizenship.
• Countries with more flexible citizenship policies, such as the U.S., still impose restrictions on holding multiple citizenships for high-ranking positions, ensuring a commitment to the nation’s political process.

Role of the Indian Diaspora

• The Indian diaspora plays a crucial role in fostering bilateral relations, attracting foreign investments, and contributing to India’s economic growth without holding dual citizenship.
• While their influence is valuable, empowering the diaspora with political rights through dual citizenship could create risks for India’s sovereignty and political stability.

Conclusion

• The debate on dual citizenship for Indians living abroad continues, with concerns about divided loyalties and foreign influence.
• While the diaspora’s role in strengthening India’s international presence is acknowledged, the idea of granting dual citizenship remains contentious – with a clear preference for maintaining India’s political integrity and sovereignty.

Practice Question:  Critically examine the challenges and implications of granting dual citizenship to the Indian diaspora, with reference to political loyalty, legal concerns, and potential impact on India’s sovereignty. (250 Words /15 marks)

For more such UPSC-related The Hindu editorial analysis: Check Out- 9 January 2025 : The Hindu Editorial Analysis