What happened?

The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution that bestowed special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitions were last heard in March 2020.

Why does it matter?

Article 370 substantially limited Parliament’s power to legislate for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and gave greater power to the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature. In August 2019, through a Presidential order, the Centre scrapped the Article and bifurcated the state into two Union territories: J&K and Ladakh.

The Centre claims that after the abrogation of Article 370, life has returned to normalcy in the region after over three decades of turmoil. Stone pelting, bandhs and hartals have all stopped. But on the other hand, the people of J&K are questioning the Centre’s move to revoke Article 370 and divide Jammu and Kashmir without taking consent from the people.

Arguments from both sides:

Side 1 (The petitioners): Article 370 cannot be revoked

• J&K’s accession to India was conditional: When the erstwhile state of J&K acceded to India, it never completely integrated or merged but rather kept its autonomy intact through Article 370. Additionally, the Maharaja of Kashmir did not sign a revised instrument of accession like other states, giving complete control over its affairs to the Union government

• Article 370 was permanent: The petitioners argue that according to Article 370(3), the special status of Jammu and Kashmir could not be amended or repealed unless the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir recommended it. Even the motion to change, amend and abrogate it must be initiated by the Constituent Assembly. Since the Constituent Assembly of J&K operated only from 1951 to 1957 and ceased to exist after that, Article 370 had attained permanence.

• A Presidential order cannot remove it: Based on the premise that Article 370 was permanent, the petitioners argue that any attempt to change it would require a Constitutional amendment. But the revocation of 370 was done by dissolving the state legislature in J&K, imposing President’s Rule and passing the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019- hence it is against the principles of federalism.

Side 2: Article 370 can be revoked

• It was temporary: The intention of the framers of the Indian Constitution could be gathered from the placement and the language of Article 370 since it was referred to as a “temporary” provision. It existed merely to temporarily manage the situation and ensure that a wider time frame is provided to complete the process of further integration and uniformity in J&K.

• Parliament was not consulted while granting special status: The special status was bestowed on Jammu and Kashmir by incorporating Article 35A in the Constitution. It was incorporated by order of President Rajendra Prasad in 1954 on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The Parliament was not consulted when the President incorporated Article 35A into the Constitution through a Presidential Order.

What’s next?

The Supreme Court has held that the “complete integration” of J&K was done the moment Article 1 of the Indian Constitution (which reads that India shall be a ‘Union of States’) included J&K as a part of the Union of India. The case hearing is expected to continue throughout the month and will resume on Tuesday next week.

Doctors can now refuse abusive patients

What happened?

The National Medical Commission has come up with the new NMC Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations. These regulations prescribe a code of ethics mandatorily to be adopted by every practitioner of modern medicine registered under the NMC Act and practising in the country.

Under these regulations, doctors have the right to choose whom they will serve. Moreover, the doctors can refuse treatment if the patients are unruly and violent or if the agreed-upon fees are not paid. This is for the first time that doctors will have the right to refuse treatment. This provision, however, will not be applicable to government doctors or in case of emergencies.

Why does this matter?

In recent years, India has seen a growing number of attacks on medical professionals. Just three months earlier, a young doctor in Kerala was killed by a patient.

According to 2019 data, the IMA suggests that up to 75% of doctors have faced some kind of violence at work. This new regulation is being considered as a major step toward curbing the ongoing instances of violence against medical practitioners.

What’s next?

While the new regulations are a step in the right direction, experts say the violence can only be fixed by addressing problems in India's poorly funded public health system.

Government figures show there are 3.4 million registered nurses and 1.3 million allied and health care professionals, including doctors, in the country. That is far too few doctors for the population of India. Experts say that there is improper management due to limited resources and staff. Additionally, the high healthcare costs and extended stays in private hospitals lead to potentially violent situations.

Un-charted

These charts show how India has steadily managed to increase its use of hydropower and other renewable energy resources to meet its energy needs over the years. This year, about 25% of power generation in India was done using non-fossil fuel-based energy resources.

According to a report, by increasing its use of non-fossil fuel based energy resources, India has managed to bring down its rate of emissions intensity – the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted for every unit increase of gross domestic product (GDP) – by 33% from 2005 to 2019. This has been India’s fastest reduction so far and is largely attributable to the government’s push towards renewables.

This significant reduction has two major implications for India:

• First: Under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), India has pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 45% from the 2005 level by 2030. This reduction means that India is well on its way to meeting the commitment.

• Second: As you can see from the above chart, India is still largely dependent on coal to meet its energy needs. That is why at the international climate conference COP 26 held in Glasgow in 2021, India, along with China, advocated “phasing down” coal usage rather than “phasing out” coal. This invited international condemnation, and the COP26 president even said, “China and India will have to explain themselves and what they did to the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world”.

The progress made in reducing emissions intensity should help India avert pressure from developed nations to stop using coal.

SHARE THIS VICHAAR 🙌

If you enjoyed reading my newsletter, please consider sharing it with your loved ones.

Was this forwarded to you? Sign up here.

If you want to give us feedback, Click here.

Read our previous newsletters here