Daily Current Affairs

E-Commerce cargo movement sets course for Ganga (NW 1) as IWAI and Amazon signs MoU (GS Paper 3, Economy)

Why in news?

• Recently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI) and Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (Amazon) for promoting cargo movement and transportation of customer shipments & products via inland waterways using river Ganga (National Waterway 1).

 

Significance:

• This partnership seeks to harness the efficiency and sustainability of water transport to optimize logistics, diminish environmental footprints, and promote economic development.
• According to a World Bank Report, rail and road transport consume 18.5% and 91.6% more fuel than water transport, making it the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation.

 

Enhancing inland waterways:

• The collaboration between Amazon India and IWAI is another step towards realizing the  Prime Minister’s Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision 2047 of enhancing inland waterways as an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation and promoting cargo movement and transportation of customer shipments/products through Inland Water Transport using National Waterway-1.
• The Amrit Kaal Vision 2047 was launched by the Prime Minister of India during Global Maritime India Summit 2023 on 17th October 2023 at Mumbai.
• To accelerate water transport within the country Sagarmala has embarked upon 113 projects worth Rs. 7,030 Crores related to RoRo/RoPax and Inland Water Transport. Out of these projects 15 projects worth Rs. 1,100 Crores have been completed and 32 projects worth Rs. 3,900 crores are under implementation.

 

Prospects for Amazon:

• Amazon will be able to utilize all possible modes of transport in the country, including Rail, Air, Water, and Surface, to ensure faster, cost-effective, sustainable and more reliable delivery of customer packages and provide a wider reach to its millions of sellers.
• This partnership will not only benefit Amazon by lowering their transportation cost but also open up new possibilities for all e-commerce companies to leverage the extensive inland waterways in India.

 

Key Highlights:

• Upto 2023, the cargo handled by the Inland Waterways is 126 MMT and as per the Maritime India Vision 2030, launched during the Maritime India Summit 2021, Ministry aims to increase inland water transport volumes by more than 200 MMT by 2030 and to achieve a target of more than 500 MMT by 2047.
• The plan also includes increasing the number of operational waterways to 23 by 2030, in which 24 waterways are already operational till date which is planned to be increased to more than 50 by 2047 as per the Vision Document.
• This mode is anticipated to become regular with shipments from other e-commerce platforms as well through the Inland Waterways Transport (IWT) mode.

 

Way Forward:

• Collaboratively, IWAI and Amazon are poised to explore and implement state-of-the-art solutions, addressing the evolving needs of the e-commerce industry and contributing to a greener and more resilient logistics ecosystem.

 

Haryana employment reservation law

(GS Paper 2, Governance)

Why in news?

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a law enacted by the Haryana government in 2021 that guaranteed 75% reservation to locals in private sector jobs in Haryana.
• It ruled that the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights.

What does the reservation law say?

• In November 2020, the Haryana Assembly passed the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Bill which made it mandatory for employers in the State to reserve 75% of jobs paying a monthly salary of less than ₹30,000 (originally ₹50,000) for local residents of the State.
• The Bill received the Governor’s assent on March 2, 2021, and came into effect in January 2022. The law is applicable to all private entities in the State including companies, trusts, societies, partnerships, and limited liability partnerships.

 

Key features:

• It also covers any person employing 10 or more persons for the purpose of manufacturing or providing any service.
• A ‘local candidate’ has been defined under the law as anyone domiciled in Haryana for the past five years. Such candidates will have to mandatorily register themselves on a designated portal in order to avail benefits and employers have to make recruitments only through this portal.
• Companies can seek an exemption if they do not find local candidates of a desired skill or qualification, but this claim can be rejected by government officials if they doubt its legitimacy. Employers found to be violating the Act are liable to a fine between ₹10,000 and ₹2 lakh.

 

Why was the law challenged?

• Several industry associations challenged the validity of the law on the ground that it violates Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom, including to reside and settle in any part of the Indian territory and practise any profession, business or trade.
• They also contended that the law was an infringement of Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• The court was also apprised that the reservation creates a wedge between persons domiciled in different States and is contrary to the concept of common citizenship envisaged in the Constitution.

 

How has the State defended it?

• The State government contended that the law intends to ‘protect the right to livelihood of people domiciled in the State’, and that the enactment was rooted in the rising unemployment in Haryana.
• It was also asserted that the government is empowered to create such reservations under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which stipulates that the right to equality in public employment does not prevent the State from ‘making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State’.

 

Have other States enacted such laws?

• States such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have enacted laws providing reservations for their local residents in the private sector.
• In November 2019, the Andhra Pradesh Assembly passed the Andhra Pradesh Employment of Local Candidates in the Industries/Factories Bill, 2019, reserving three-fourths of jobs for local candidates within three years of the commencement of the Act.
• The law was subsequently challenged in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which opined that ‘it may be unconstitutional’. However, the challenge is yet to be heard on its merits.

 

Has the Supreme Court intervened?

• On February 3, 2022, the High Court passed an interim order staying the law following which a division Bench of the Supreme Court bench set it aside on the ground that the High Court had not provided ‘sufficient reasons’ for putting the law on hold.
• The High Court was ordered to expeditiously decide the petition and the Haryana government was also directed to not take any coercive steps against companies for non-compliance until the matter is finally decided upon.

 

Why did the High Court quash it?

• The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional to the extent that ‘a person’s right to carry on occupation, trade, or business’ under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution was being impaired.
• It also highlighted that the law discriminates against individuals who do not belong to a certain State by ‘putting up artificial walls throughout the country’.
• Placing reliance on Article 35 of the Constitution, the court outlined that the provision bars the State legislature from legislating on matters that fall within the purview of Article 16(3) of the Constitution (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) since only the Parliament can pass laws on such subjects.
• Referring to Section 6 of the Act which requires employers to submit quarterly reports with details of local candidates employed and Section 8, under which officers could call for documents to ensure the law was being implemented, the court said that these restrictions amounted to ‘Inspector Raj’ that furthered State control over private employers.

 

Ruling against the U.K. Rwanda deal

(GS Paper 2, International Relation)

Why in news?

• The government policy of the U.K., of creating a mechanism for the transfer of asylum seekers not considered by the U.K. to Rwanda, has been ruled as unlawful by the U.K. Supreme Court.

 

What is the Rwanda deal?

• The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) was announced in April 2022 by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
• The objective of the deal is to “create a mechanism” for the transfer of asylum seekers not considered by the UK into Rwanda.
• The inadmissibility clause of the UK’s asylum system plays a key role in categorising people who enter the U.K. through “irregular journeys” such as the English Channel.
• According to the Memorandum of Understanding between the two nations, the U.K. will screen asylum seeker applications and arrange for safe transport to Rwanda. On arrival of the refugees, Rwanda is obliged to provide accommodation for every individual and protect them from ill-treatment and refoulement.
• Rwanda will be the sole authority to recognise or not recognise the refugee status of an individual. If an individual is not recognised, they will be moved to their country of origin.

 

Why did the U.K. choose Rwanda?

Rwanda offers three solutions for those sent out by the U.K:

1. It facilitates returning them to their country of origin;
2. helps in moving them to a third country; or
3. helps them settle in Rwanda with decent housing, access to universal health insurance and the right to work.

• The U.K. will bear the accommodation and transit costs. Rwanda was not the first country to be approached. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to persuade Tanzania for asylum claims but failed.
• Britain’s colonial history aligns with the current scenario where it used to move particular sections of migrant labour to certain territories.
• The U.K. has, in the past, moved refugees to colonised countries under the guise of development and economic growth. The MEDP arrangement resonates with this colonial scheme of dispersing refugees.

 

Why was it ruled unlawful?

• The ruling was based on two major issues:

1. The Court of Appeal’s entitlement to intervene in the High Court’s ruling, and
2. If the Court of Appeal had looked into the real risk for asylum seekers when moved to Rwanda.

• The Supreme Court found the High Court decision to be “erred,” due to its failure to consider the evidence of the risk of refoulement. Under the European Court, it is the U.K.s responsibility as a removing state to protect the refugee from refoulement and ensure asylum. Instead, the High Court recognised the expertise and promise of Rwanda.
• The Supreme Court found evidence that asylum seekers face a real risk of ill-treatment from refoulement. Rwanda’s track record on human rights and its non-compliance with assurances were taken as instances for considering the real risk of refoulement.
• While Rwanda has become a key partner of the U.K., the court highlighted the periods of violence in Rwanda since 1994 and how its human rights record was viewed as critical for the ruling.

 

Why are domestic responses mixed?

• The reason behind different perceptions is the uncertainty over the legality of the arrangement and treatment of the refugees in Rwanda.
• The double voluntarism from the U.K. and Rwanda to create a safe transit or guaranteeing rights is impossible.
• The UNHCR clearly states that once a refugee enters a territory via land or sea it becomes the responsibility of the respective country to ensure the safety of the refugee. In this case, the U.K. cannot be relieved from this duty even after the transfer of the refugee to Rwanda.
• While the U.K. government argues over simultaneous investment in refugees and Rwanda’s economy for development, the doubts over refoulement and the implications to other EU countries do not seem to end.
• This might trigger other EU nations to consider such deportation schemes leading to a decline in humanitarian standards and creating risks for refugees in third-party countries.