Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Editorial
India’s digital economy is set to reach a whopping $1 trillion by 2026. People are going digital rapidly for everything — from shopping and socialising to education and government services.
But, as we embrace convenience, we are also generating massive amounts of personal data. Understanding how this data is handled and protected is fast becoming critical.
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill 2022, that was proposed recently, comes after five years of discussion and deliberation on a framework to safeguard citizens’ information from misuse and unauthorised access.
Even as the Bill outlines citizens’ rights over their personal data and the responsibilities of data collectors, it lacks specificity in certain clauses such as the interaction with sectoral data protection regulations.
The current draft of the Bill tries to tackle the issue of conflicting sectoral regulations; in Section 29, it states that the provisions of the Bill will complement and not create exemptions from existing regulations, but in case of conflict, the Bill will take precedence.
The first part allows the Bill to fill in any regulatory gaps, but the second part raises concerns about sectoral regulations that may go beyond what the Bill provides.
Data protection and privacy are highly dependent on context, including the type of data collected, how it is collected, the intended use and the associated risks.
This makes sectoral expertise crucial to regulate effectively. Sectoral expertise offers a deep understanding of a particular sector, including its market dynamics, technologies, risks and business models. It also enables regulators to engage with stakeholders and industry experts in a well-informed and productive manner.
The global community has adopted two major approaches to regulate privacy and protect data: comprehensive legislation and sector-specific regulations.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) embodies the comprehensive approach, offering the strongest and most stringent framework to date.
Explainer
The quota kerfuffle in Karnataka (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
At the Cabinet meeting in Karnataka on Friday, the BJP government did away with the nearly three-decade-old 4% reservation for Muslims in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and distributed it equally among the Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas, two dominant land-owning communities in the State, at 2% each. Quick on its heels, the government also accorded internal reservation for 101 Scheduled Castes (SC). Both these decisions have come under intense political debate.
The Cabinet decided to exclude Muslims from the OBC category and scrapped the 4% reservation given to them under Category 2B.
This has been divided equally among Vokkaligas and Veerashaiva-Lingayats for whom new categories of 2C and 2D have been created respectively.
Following the change, the reservation quantum for Vokkaligas and others in the group went up from 4% to 6% and for Veerashaiva-Lingayats and others in the group, from 5% to 7%.
Earlier, the two communities were under 3A and 3B respectively, which stand scrapped. The Cabinet also recommended internal reservation among the 101 SCs, a long pending demand of the SC (left) faction to the Union Government.
Of the 17% reservation given to SCs in Karnataka, it has sliced up 6% to SC (left), 5.5% to SC (right), 4.5 % to SC (touchable) and 1% to SC (others).
While the basis for internal reservation was the recommendation of the A. J. Sadashiva Commission report of 2012 when reservation to SCs was pegged at 15%, the Government has adjusted the share, based on a Cabinet sub-committee report, as per the new reservation quota that has been hiked to 17%.
What does Muslim personal law say on inheritance? (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
A Muslim couple from Kerala, advocate C. Shukkur and his wife Sheena, former Pro Vice-Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University, recently decided to get their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), almost 30 years after having solemnised their nikaah according to Islamic principles.
Mr. Shukkur claimed to have got the marriage registered under SMA, so that principles of the secular Act could apply to matters of inheritance in his family, and enable his daughters to inherit the couple’s property under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The couple has three daughters and no sons.
This decision has put the spotlight on Islamic principles of inheritance. The Koran, through Surah Nisa clearly outlines the principles of inheritance for both direct and indirect heirs. Verse 7 states, “For men there is a share in what their parents and close relatives leave, and for women there is a share in what their parents and close relatives leave — whether it is little or much.
According to unanimously agreed rules on the division of property in Islam, a daughter gets half the share of the son. So, if a son inherits a plot of 100 metres from the father, the daughter gets a plot of 50 metres or half the value of the 100-metre plot.
On marriage, according to Islam, it is the man who is supposed to bear the family expenses, including residence, food, clothing and medicine besides maintenance of his wife, education of his children and looking after his parents.
If the husband predeceases his wife, she gets a one-eighth share of his property, if the couple has children. Otherwise, she gets one-fourth.
There is also a share for paternal uncles, aunts, etc, as long as they are blood relatives. Same for grandparents if they are alive. Each parent gets one-sixth if the son passes away before them, and leaves children behind.
The problem, as in the case of the Kerala couple arises, when a couple has only a daughter or daughters. The daughters can inherit only two-thirds of father’s property, as the holy book says, “If you leave only two or more females, their share is two-thirds of the estate.” Beyond that, the shares are for the mother and for paternal blood relatives.
News
Prices of essential medicines set to see a hike from April 1 (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Health)
Prices of 384 essential drugs and over 1,000 formulations are set to see a hike of over 11%, due to a sharp rise in the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).
The price surge to set in from April 1 will mean that consumers have to pay more for routine and essential drugs, including painkillers, anti-infection drugs, cardiac drugs, and antibiotics.
Annual hikes in the prices of drugs listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) are based on the WPI. In its communication dated March 25, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority said the annual change in WPI was 12.12% for the calendar year 2022.
Last year, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) announced a 10.7% change in the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).
Every year, the NPPA announces a change in the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) in accordance with the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013, or DPCO, 2013.
A senior Health Ministry official said that the price hike was to ensure that there would be no shortage of medicines in the market, and that manufacturers and consumers mutually benefit.
Manufacturers will not sell at a loss and we must ensure a steady supply of essential medicines in the country. Additionally, the prices are allowed to rise in a controlled manner.
The source added that previously when a 10% hike was allowed, several manufacturers kept the rate under 5% because of market forces. “We are expecting a similar trend with this hike as well.
Malini Aisola, co-convener of the All India Drug Action Network, a group that works to promote affordable healthcare, expressed concern that the new WPI would trigger increases in the ceiling prices under the DPCO provisions for fixing prices for scheduled formulations.
Business
India urges G20 meet to find ways to reduce widening trade finance gap (Page no. 16)
(GS Paper 2, International)
The first Trade and Investment Working Group (TIWG) meeting under India’s G20 Presidency started in Mumbai with Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal emphasising the need for trade finance cooperation among members to help reduce the widening trade finance gap.
Trade finance gap is widening.” Mr. Barthwal said, speaking at the International Conference on ‘Trade Finance, organised by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGC) and India’s EXIM Bank. As estimated by ADB, the gap which was $1.5 trillion in 2018 has now increased to $2 trillion.
Observing that it was the right time to discuss the issues facing trade finance, the Commerce Secretary underscored the importance of finding the right solutions.
Panelists discussed the role banks, financial institutions, development finance institutions, and export credit agencies could play to identify gaps and address challenges in trade finance amid the uncertain global trade landscape.
The need to accelerate digitalisation and the adoption of fintech solutions for improving access to finance, was also stressed.
Digitalisation of international trade is possibly an effective solution towards achieving cost reduction in trade and trade finance.
The challenges to be addressed in digitalising trade were identified as international cooperation in harmonising definitions, standards and data sharing across the borders digitally.
Panelists recommended that all nations should endeavour to adopt enabling legislation in the next few years to achieve paperless international trade.
India under fire at WTO for avoiding questions on MSP (Page no. 16)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
India has come under fire at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for avoiding questions raised by members on its minimum support price (MSP) programmes for food grains, particularly rice, where subsidies have breached prescribed limits. Some countries have alleged that India did not give sufficient replies to their concerns.
Members such as the U.S., Australia, Canada, the EU, and Thailand, said at a WTO agriculture committee meeting on Monday, that India must reply to questions asked on its public stockholding (PSH) programmes at the committee, according to sources. India, however, stuck to its guns and insisted that it provided the best possible information and clarifications at the consultations held with interested members based on available information.
India’s MSP programmes are under scrutiny as it is the first country to invoke the Bali ‘peace clause’ to justify exceeding its 10% ceiling (of the total value of rice production) for rice support in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.
While the ‘peace clause’ allows developing countries to breach the 10% ceiling without invoking legal action by members, it is subject to onerous conditions such as not distorting global trade and not affecting the food security of other members.