[Mission 2023] INSIGHTS DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS + PIB SUMMARY 28 November 2022

GS Paper 2

Syllabus: Structure, Organization, and Functioning of the Judiciary

Source: TH

 Direction: The article explains the issue of transfer of HC judges, i.e., procedure, need, and controversy.

 Context: The frequent criticism that the Collegium system of judicial appointments is opaque, appears to be more valid in the case of transfers of judges from one High Court to another.

Background:

• A fresh round of transfers among the many that have occurred in recent years has brought the contentious topic to the forefront once more.
• Lawyers recently raised the matter of the transfer of a Gujarat HC judge (Justice Kariel) to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), citing rumours that the Gujarat HC Chief Justice was uninformed of the impending transfer.

The Indian Constitution on the transfer of judges:

• Article 222: It provides for the transfer of HC judges, including the Chief Justice. The President, after consultation with the CJI, may transfer a judge from one HC to any other HC and a compensatory allowance is provided to the transferred judge.
• Interpretation: The executive could transfer a judge, but only after consulting the CJI.

The Supreme Court’s view on the issue:

• The SC (in 1977) rejected the idea that HC judges can be transferred only with their consent, as the transfer powers can be exercised only in the public interest. Also, the President is under an obligation to consult the CJI.
• In S.P. Gupta vs. President of India (1981), also known as the Judges Transfer Case/the First Judges Case, the SC ruled that the consultation with the CJI did not mean ‘concurrence,’ thus giving primacy to the executive in the matter of appointments and transfers.
• However, this position was overruled in the ‘Second Judges Case’ (1993). The opinion of the CJI, formed after taking into account the views of senior-most judges, was to have primacy.
• Since then, appointments are being made by the Collegium.

The current procedure for transfers:

• The proposal for transferring a HC judge (including a Chief Justice) should be initiated by the CJI and the consent of the judge is not required. All transfers are to be made in the public interest.
• For transferring a judge other than the Chief Justice, the CJI should take the views of –
  • The Chief Justice of the court concerned, as well as the Chief Justice of the court to which the transfer is taking place.
  • One or more SC judges
• The views, expressed in writing, should be considered by a full Collegium of five – the CJI + 4 senior-most judges of the SC.
• The recommendation is sent to the Union Law Minister → the Prime Minister → the President.

Need for the transfer of judges:

• To exchange talent across the country.
• To prevent the emergence of local grouping in the judiciary. There have been proposals that one-third of the composition of every HC should have judges from other States.

What makes transfers controversial?

• The public feel that there is a punitive element behind the decision.
• As a matter of practice, the SC and the government do not disclose the reason for a transfer.
• The power of transfer has always been seen as a possible threat to judicial independence.

Conclusion:

• Though judicial transfers spark suspicion that the reasons are either allegations against the judge or the inconvenience that his judicial orders cause the government, revelation of the exact reason may not always be possible.
• It must be emphasised that transfer cannot be used as a punitive measure. The moment may have come to thoroughly examine the provisions for the transfer.

Insta Links:

High Court

Mains Links:

Q. The debate on the working of the collegium of judges, especially on the issue of transfers in the judiciary and lack of transparency, has again come around. Examine. (250 words)

Prelims Links:

GS Paper 3

 Syllabus: Issues related to Direct and Indirect Farm Subsidies

Source: IE

 Direction: The article discusses the issue of tenant farmers in India. It highlights the need of including them under the current schemes before merging all agri-subsidies under DBT.

Context: Most economists advocate converting all agricultural subsidies into direct income assistance to farmers in the form of per-acre or per-farmer direct benefit transfers (DBT).

Agricultural/farm subsidies in India:

• These subsidies on inputs (fertiliser, power, water at below cost) or outputs (procuring crops at above market prices) is a government incentive paid to farmers (agribusinesses, agricultural organisations) to
  • Supplement their income,
  • Manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and
  • Influence the cost and supply of such commodities.
• Farm subsidies form about 2% of India’s GDP and the total subsidy to farmers form about 21% of their farm income.

Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT):

• In 2013, the Government of India, introduced the DBT scheme to transfer subsidy benefits from various Indian welfare schemes directly into the beneficiaries’ bank accounts.
• It was introduced with the objectives –
  • To streamline the transfer of government-provided subsidies in India.
  • To improve the delivery system and redesign the existing procedures in welfare schemes.

Benefits of DBT subsuming farm subsidies:

• Transparent and simple to administer.
• It is crop-neutral. For example, only rice, wheat and sugarcane farmers effectively get minimum support prices (MSPs) now.
• Does not cause distortions in input/output markets.

Some of the current agri-DBT schemes in India:

• The Centre’s Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-Kisan) – an annual income support of Rs 6,000 to all landholding farmer families in India.
• The Telangana government’s Rythu Bandhu – extends financial assistance of Rs 10,000 per acre, again to all farmers owning land and without any size limit.
• Andhra Pradesh’s YSR Rythu Bharosa – farmer families are paid Rs 13,500 per year, which includes Rs 6,000 through PM-Kisan and the AP government’s top-up of Rs 7,500.

Limitations of the present agri-DBT schemes:

• The exclusion of tenant farmers – who undertake cultivation on leased land.
  • According to the National Statistical Office’s (NSO) 2018-19 assessment, 3% out of the total estimated 101.98 million operational holdings in rural India were on leased lands.
  • Tenant farmers are on the rise, according to NSO surveys, and current estimates may be understated because farm tenancy arrangements are mostly oral, unwritten contracts.
  • The incidence of non-owners cultivating agricultural lands is the highest for Andhra Pradesh (42.4%) and Odisha (39%).
  • In terms of direct income support to farmers, both AP and Telangana have been trendsetters. However, neither has been able to solve the tenant issue.

Significance of leasing agri-land in India:

• Agriculture in India is increasingly seeing both “tenancy” (landless/marginal farmers leasing land to cultivate) and “reverse tenancy” (small landowners leasing to larger farmers seeking economies of scale).
• Farming may eventually become a specialised enterprise, as not everyone (including landowners), is skilled or desires to cultivate.
• Leasing can assist both tenant and reverse-tenant farmers in operating consolidated holdings while allowing owners to pursue non-agricultural work without fear of losing their properties.

Way ahead:

• Fixing the tenant problem first by expanding the scale and scope of current agri-DBT schemes.
• After this, subsuming all existing input and output subsidies under them.

Insta Links:

Understanding Subsidies in India

Mains Links:

Q. Do you think shifting to DBT for food and fertiliser subsidies may do more to bridge the gap with the doubling of farmers’ income goal? Give your opinion with suitable justifications. (250 words)