UPSC Key—22nd March, 2024: Arrest of the Sitting Chief Minister, Periyar and Delhi Excise Policy Case

• Can a sitting chief minister be arrested?

• Can a chief minister run office from behind bars?

• Why Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is arrested?

• What is the Delhi excise policy case?

• What are the accusations against Kejriwal?

• Do You Know-Two cases, one by CBI and one on alleged money laundering being investigated by ED, have been registered in relation to the excise policy. The case arose out of a report submitted by Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar to Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena in July 2022, pointing to alleged procedural lapses in the formulation of the policy.
The report said “arbitrary and unilateral decisions” taken by then Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in his capacity as Excise Minister had resulted in “financial losses to the exchequer” estimated at more than Rs 580 crore.

It alleged that “kickbacks…received by the AAP Delhi government and AAP leaders” from owners and operators of alcohol businesses for preferential treatment such as discounts and extensions in licence fee, waiver on penalties and relief due to disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, etc. were used to “influence” the Assembly elections held in Punjab and Goa in early 2022. The AAP went on to form the government in Punjab.

This report was referred to the CBI, and led to Sisodia’s arrest. Then, once the CBI named Sisodia and 14 other accused in its FIR, including AAP communications in-charge Vijay Nair, the ED told a court in March that the alleged proceeds of crime amounted to more than Rs 292 crore, and that it was necessary to establish the modus operandi.

The ED alleged that the “scam” was to give the wholesale liquor business to private entities and fix a 12% margin, for a 6% kickback. In its first prosecution complaint in November 2021, the ED said the policy was “formulated with deliberate loopholes” that “promoted cartel formations through the back door” to benefit AAP leaders. The ED also alleged that AAP leaders received kickbacks to the tune of Rs 100 crore from a group of individuals identified as the “South Group”.

Recently, K Kavitha, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader and daughter of former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, was arrested allegedly for being part of this ‘South Group’. Others alleged to be part of the group include Ongole MP Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy’s son Raghav Magunta, P Sarath Chandra Reddy, son of P V Ramprasad Reddy and co-founder of Hyderabad-based Aurobindo Pharma. According to the ED, this group “secured uninhibited access, undue favours, attained stakes in established wholesale businesses and multiple retail zones (over and above what was allowed in the policy)”.
It was after Kavitha’s arrest that the Enforcement Directorate alleged — for the first time — that Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was a conspirator in the case, on March 18.

“ED investigation revealed that Ms K Kavitha along with others conspired with the top leaders of AAP including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia for getting favours in the Delhi excise policy formulation and implementation. In exchange for these favours, she was involved in paying Rs 100 crore to the leaders of AAP,” alleged the ED spokesperson on Monday. “By the acts of corruption and conspiracy in the formulation and implementation of Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, a continuous stream of illegal funds in the form of kickback from the wholesalers was generated for AAP.”

Earlier, in a supplementary prosecution complaint, the ED had alleged that Kejriwal himself spoke to one of the main accused, Sameer Mahendru, over a video call and asked him to continue working with co-accused Vijay Nair whom he referred to as “his boy”.

• Which other chief ministers have been arrested in the past?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍How absence could be felt in governance

SC stays Govt fact check unit, says challenge involves free speech

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Main Examination: 

• General Studies II: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

• General Studies III: Awareness in the fields of IT

• What’s the ongoing story-A day after the Centre notified a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) to identify fake news about the government, the Supreme Court Thursday stayed the operation of the notification until the Bombay High Court takes a final decision on petitions challenging the 2023 amendments to the
Information Technology Rules.

• “The Supreme Court Thursday stayed the operation of the notification”-Why?

• For Your Information-Staying the operation of the March 20 notification on FCU by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the bench noted that the Centre had assured the High Court on April 27, 2023 that the FCU would not be notified until petitions challenging Rule 3 (1) (b) (v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 are decided by the High Court.

• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023-Know the Key Highlights

• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023-Compare and Contrast

• What are the proposed amendments in Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023?

• What exactly had the Bombay High Court said on this issue?

• Why comedian Kunal Kamra approached the Bombay High Court questioning its constitutional validity-What the issue here exactly?

• What is fact-checking unit?

• For Your Information-The Ministry of Electronics and IT notified amendments to the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which allows the Ministry to appoint a fact-check body which will take a call on whether online information related to the Central Government is accurate. The final rules come months after the Ministry, in January, had first proposed that any piece of news that has been identified as “fake” by the fact-checking unit of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) – the Centre’s nodal agency to share news updates – will not be allowed on online intermediaries. However, the final draft has removed the reference to PIB.

• The proposal drawn a lot of criticism-Why?

• What do the final rules say?

• The fact-checking unit (FCU) has been a contentious issue-why?

• The bench said “the challenges to Rule 3 (1) (b) (v) involves serious Constitutional questions. The impact of the Rule on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would call for analysis by the HC”-Explain

• Know the Background-The Union Electronics and IT Ministry had notified the FCU on March 20, as a statutory body under the Press Information Bureau with powers to flag what it believes is false information related to the central government and its agencies on social media sites.

The amendment to the IT Rules, 2021, which allowed the Ministry to appoint the FCU, were notified in April 2023. On January 31 this year, a two-judge Bench of the HC gave a split verdict on a challenge to the Rules. A third judge who was assigned to give an opinion on the split verdict is yet to give his final decision. However, on March 11, the third judge declined to stay the setting up of the FCU — and on March 13, the division Bench said by a 2-1 majority that it would not stay the notification of the FCU.

The amendment to The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 notified in April 2023 did two things: first, they brought in a legal framework for the online gaming eco-system and second, more crucially, introduced a legal mechanism for the government to fact-check online content pertaining to “government business”. Among other things, the Rules made it obligatory on intermediaries like social media platforms “to not to publish, share or host fake, false or misleading information in respect of any business of the Central Government”. The changes raised concern that the FCU will make the government the “sole arbiter of truth” in respect of any business related to itself. Subsequently, the rules were challenged before the Bombay High Court.

The petitioners, including standup comedian Kunal Kamra; Association of Indian Magazines, Editors Guild of India, news channel TV18 Broadcast Limited, and Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited challenged Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules 2021 as being violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(a) and (g), and Article 21 of the Constitution, and Section 79 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules 2021 essentially expanded the general term “fake news” to include fake news involving government business.

This provision, when enacted in 2021, referred to “…any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”. By the 2023 amendment, after the word “nature”, the words “or, in respect of any business of the Central Government, is identified as fake or false or misleading by such fact check unit of the Central Government as the Ministry may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify” were inserted.

The petitioners argued before the court that this would have a “chilling effect” upon the freedom of speech and expression.
Section 69 of the IT Act empowers the government to issue directions to block public access to any information through any computer resource. The Rules were framed essentially in exercise of this power. However, no rule-making or legislation-making powers can be exercised by Parliament in a manner that is contrary to Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights. The Bombay High Court examined if these Rules were violative of free speech, and were arbitrary in nature.

On 31 January, a division Bench comprising Justices G S Patel and Neela Gokhale delivered a split verdict in the case. While Justice Patel struck down the amended rules, Justice Gokhale upheld them. Justice Gokhale said that the “right of citizens to participate in the representative and participative democracy of the county is meaningless unless they have access to authentic information and are not misled by misinformation, information which is patently untrue, fake, false, or misleading, knowingly communicated with malicious intent”.

Justice Patel held that the “state cannot coercively classify speech as true or false and compel the non-publication of the latter. That is nothing but censorship.” Since a split verdict was delivered, as per rules of the Bombay High Court, the case had to be heard afresh by a third judge whose opinion would create a majority and bring about a 2-1 verdict. On February 7, Bombay HC Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya assigned Justice Atul S Chandurkar as the third judge in the case.

However, before beginning a substantial hearing, Justice Chandurkar had to decide if the Rules were to be stayed. After the central government told the court that the Rules were yet to be notified in the official gazette, Justice Chandurkar refused to grant an interim stay on the amended Rules.

Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the rejection of interim stay. However, just a day before the SC was to hear the appeal against rejection of stay, the Centre notified the 2023 Rules in the official gazette. With Lok Sabha elections less than a month away, the Rules are crucial for the government’s engagement with news about “government business”.

• Can the SC stay a law before it can rule it unconstitutional?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Why SC has stayed Govt’s ‘Fact Check Unit’ for now

EXPRESS NETWORK

Carnatic artistes object to award to T M Krishna; he glorified Periyar, say musician sister duo

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance

Mains Examination: General Studies I: Indian culture will cover the salient aspects of Art Forms, literature and Architecture from ancient to modern times.

• What’s the ongoing story- Three days after Chennai-based Music Academy awarded vocalist T M Krishna with the Sangita Kalanidhi, the highest recognition in the world of Carnatic classical music, an open war broke out in the Carnatic classical establishment with a number of musicians protesting against the move.

• Why an open war broke out in the Carnatic classical establishment with a number of musicians protesting against the move?

• Who are musician duo Ranjani and Gayatri and why they are protesting?

• “Mr TM Krishna’s glorification of a figure like EVR (Periyar) who openly proposed a genocide of brahmins”-Elaborate

• EV Ramasamy Naicker (EVR) or “Periyar”-Know in brief

• ‘Periyar is remembered for the Self Respect Movement’-what was that?

• For Your Information-Born in 1879, Periyar is remembered for the Self Respect Movement to redeem the identity and self-respect of Tamils. He envisaged a Dravida homeland of Dravida Nadu, and launched a political party, Dravidar Kazhagam (DK).
Periyar started his political career as a Congress worker in his hometown Erode. He quarrelled with Gandhi over the question of separate dining for Brahmin and non-Brahmin students at Gurukkulam, a Congress-sponsored school owned by nationalist leader V V S Iyer in Cheranmahadevi near Tirunelveli.

At the request of parents, Iyer had provided separate dining for Brahmin students, which Periyar opposed. Gandhi proposed a compromise, arguing that while it may not be a sin for a person not to dine with another, he would rather respect their scruples. After failing to bend the Congress to his view, Periyar resigned from the party in 1925, and associated himself with the Justice Party and the Self Respect Movement, which opposed the dominance of Brahmins in social life, especially the bureaucracy. The Justice Party had a decade earlier advocated reservation for non-Brahmins in the bureaucracy and, after coming to power in the Madras Presidency, issued an order to implement it.

Periyar’s fame spread beyond the Tamil region during the Vaikom Satyagraha of 1924, a mass movement to demand that lower caste persons be given the right to use a public path in front of the famous Vaikom temple. Periyar took part in the agitation with his wife, and was arrested twice. He would later be referred to as Vaikom Veerar (Hero of Vaikom).

During the 1920s and 30s, Periyar combined social and political reform, and challenged the conservatism of the Congress and the mainstream national movement in the Tamil region. He reconstructed the Tamil identity as an egalitarian ideal that was originally unpolluted by the caste system, and counterposed it against the Indian identity championed by the Congress. He argued that caste was imported to the Tamil region by Aryan Brahmins, who spoke Sanskrit and came from Northern India. In the 1930s, when the Congress ministry imposed Hindi, he drew a parallel with the Aryanisation process, and claimed it was an attack on Tamil identity and self-respect. Under him, the Dravidian Movement became a struggle against caste and an assertion of Tamil national identity.

In the 1940s, Periyar launched Dravidar Kazhagam, which espoused an independent Dravida Nadu comprising Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada speakers. The Dravidian linguistic family was the foundation on which he based his idea of a Dravida national identity. These ideas had a seminal influence on the shaping of the political identity and culture of the Tamil speaking areas of Madras Presidency, and continue to resonate in present-day Tamil Nadu. Periyar died in 1973 at the age of 94.
For the average Tamil, Periyar today is an ideology. He stands for a politics that foregrounded social equality, self-respect, and linguistic pride. As a social reformer, he focused on social, cultural and gender inequalities, and his reform agenda questioned matters of faith, gender and tradition. He asked people to be rational in their life choices. He argued that women needed to be independent, not mere child-bearers, and insisted that they be allowed a equal share in employment. The Self Respect Movement he led promoted weddings without rituals, and sanctioned property as well as divorce rights for women. He appealed to people to give up the caste suffix in their names, and to not mention caste. He instituted inter-dining with food cooked by Dalits in public conferences in the 1930s.

Over the years, Periyar has transcended the political divide as well as the faultlines of religion and caste, and come to be revered as Thanthai Periyar, the father figure of modern Tamil Nadu.

• “TM Krishna’s glorification of a figure like EVR (Periyar)”-Why controversial?

• Why TM Krishna’s Sangita Kalanidhi Award Has Upset Carnatic Musicians?

• Know in brief-Sangita Kalanidhi award and Madras Music Academy

• Indian Classical Music-Key Features

• Hindustani Music and Carnatic Music-Compare and Contrast

• Hindustani Music Gharanas-What do you understand by the term ‘Gharana’?

• How many types of Carnatic music are there?

• Genesis of Carnatic music-Is it mentioned in Bharata’s Natyashastra?

• Major Styles of Carnatic music-Know in Brief

• Can you name some Hindustani Music Gharanas?

• Why isn’t there a Gharana system in the Carnatic style of music, yet Gharanas exist in Hindustani classical music?

• Caste and gender politics in Carnatic music-what you know about the same?

• Objective of classical music in a social, political and economic context-elaborate

• Why is the notion of exclusivity still attached to classical music?

• How did Carnatic music come to be associated with the elite?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:  

📍T M Krishna gets Sangita Kalanidhi award

EXPLAINED

Aspects of inequality in India

Preliminary Examination: Economic and Social Development

Main Examination: General Studies III: Inclusive growth and issues arising from it

• What’s the ongoing story-A new working paper, titled “Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023: The Rise of the Billionaire Raj”, by World Inequality Lab has estimated that “inequality declined post-independence till the early 1980s, after which it began rising and has skyrocketed since the early 2000s”.

• “Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023: The Rise of the Billionaire Raj”-What are key takeaways?

• What is the World Inequality Lab report for India?

• Where is the World Inequality Lab?

• What exactly paper released by World Inequality Lab says?

• What are the reasons for Inequality?

• “One reason to be concerned with such high levels of inequality is that extreme concentration of incomes and wealth is likely to facilitate disproportionate influence on society and government”-Discuss

• For Your Information-According to WIL paper, between 1960 and 2022, India’s average income grew at 2.6% per year in real terms (that is, after removing the effect of inflation). This period can be broadly divided into two halves: “Compared to a real growth rate of 1.6% per year between 1960 and 1990, average incomes grew by 3.6% per year between 1990 and 2022”. It further states that the periods 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 saw the fastest growth at 4.3% and 4.9% per year respectively.

The period between 1990 to 2022 witnessed a rise in national wealth and the emergence of very high net worth individuals (those with net wealth exceeding $1 billion at market exchange rate; this number increased from 1 to 52 to 162 in 1991, 2011 and 2022 respectively.

The paper finds that the share of adult population that filed an income tax return — which had remained under 1% till the 1990s — also grew significantly with the economic reforms of 1991. By 2011, the share had crossed 5% and the last decade too saw sustained growth with around 9% of adults filing a return in the years 2017-2020.

The paper finds that in 2022-23, 22.6% of India’s national income went to just the top 1%, the highest level recorded in the data series since 1922 — this is higher than even during the inter-war colonial period. The top 1% wealth share stood at 40.1% in 2022- 23 — also at its highest level since 1961 when the data series on wealth began. In other words, states the paper, “the ‘Billionaire Raj’ headed by India’s modern bourgeoisie is now more unequal than the British Raj headed by the colonialist forces”. It also notes: “It is unclear how long such inequality levels can sustain without major social and political upheaval.”

The paper notes that a “key feature of the wealth accumulation process in India is the extreme concentration at the very top”. Between 1961 and 2023, the top 1% wealth share increased threefold, from 13% to 39% (see Figure 10a). Most of these gains came post-1991 after which point top 1% shares have been on a steep upward trend right until 2022-23. The wealth concentration within the top 1% as well is extreme. “Consider this: in 2022-23, the top 1% wealth share was 39.5%, 29 percentage points went just to the top 0.1%, 22 percentage points to just the top 0.01% and 16 percentage points to just the top 0.001%”.

In the paper, the authors put India’s income and wealth inequality levels (as of 2022) in global perspective by comparing India with Brazil, China, France, South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States. If one looks at the income share of the top 10%, India stands second only second to South Africa (Figure 15a). If, however, one compares the income share of the top 1%, India ends up having the highest levels at 22.6%. “As it happens, India’s top 1% income share appears to be among the very highest in the world based on World Inequality Database data, behind only perhaps Peru, Yemen and a couple of other small countries,” notes the paper.

The picture is slightly less extreme when wealth inequality is considered. “In terms of top wealth shares (Figure 15b), we see that both with top 10% and top 1%, India comes out in the middle of the pack, with Brazil and South Africa standing out with their extreme wealth concentration levels (85.6% and 79.7% top 10% shares respectively),” states the paper. Notwithstanding such stark findings, the authors “emphasize that the quality of economic data in India is notably poor and has seen a decline recently. It is therefore likely that our results represent a lower bound to actual inequality levels.”

“Implementing a super tax on Indian billionaires and multimillionaires, along with restructuring the tax schedule to include both income and wealth, so as to finance major investments in education, health and other public infrastructure, could be effective measures,” to address the rising inequalities.

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Income, wealth share of India’s top 1% among highest globally: World Inequality Lab paper

For any queries and feedback, contact priya.shukla@indianexpress.com
The Indian Express UPSC Key is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Updates.