As of May 22, 2020, there are 1,18,447 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in India, which is 76% higher than the cases on May 11, 2020 (67,152). Out of total confirmed cases, there are 66,330 active cases, 48,354 patients have been cured/discharged and 3,583 have died (Figure 1). As the spread of COVID-19 has increased across India, the central government has continued to announce several policy decisions to contain the spread, and support citizens and businesses who are being affected by the pandemic. In this blog post, we summarise some of the key measures taken by the central government in this regard between May 11 and May 22, 2020.
Figure 1: Number of day wise COVID 19 cases as on May 22, 2020
Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan
On May 12, the Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi, announced a special economic package of Rs 20 lakh crore (equivalent to 10% of India’s GDP) aimed towards making the country ready for the tough competition in the global supply chain and empowering the poor, labourers, migrants who have been adversely affected by COVID-19. Following this announcement, the Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, in five press conferences, announced the detailed measures under the economic package. The economic package includes earlier measures taken by the government to support the citizens and businesses of India. A break-up of the package is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Break-up of stimulus from Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan package
|
Item |
Key Topics covered |
Amount (in Rs crore) |
|
Stimulus from earlier measures |
Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, Tax Concessions, and the Prime Minister's announcement for health sector |
1,92,800 |
|
Part 1 |
Business including Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) |
5,94,550 |
|
Part 2 |
Poor people including migrants and farmers. |
3,10,000 |
|
Part 3 |
Agriculture and allied sectors. |
1,50,000 |
|
Part 4 and Part 5 |
Part 4: Coal and mineral sectors, defence sector, civil Aviation, airports and aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO), power sector, social infrastructures, space, atomic energy. Part 5: Government reforms and other provisions including public health and education, additional allocation to MGNREGS |
48,100 |
|
Sub Total |
|
1,295,400 |
|
RBI Measures (Actual) |
Reduction in Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR), Special Liquidity Facility (SLF) for mutual funds, Special refinance facilities for NABARD, SIDBI and NHB at policy repo rate |
8,01,603 |
|
Grand Total |
|
20,97,053 |
Note: Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the table above represents the five press conferences conducted by the Finance Minister to announce the details of the economic package.
Source: Presentation made by Union Finance & Corporate Affairs Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman under Aatmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan to support Indian economy in fight against COVID-19, Ministry of Finance, May 13, 2020, PRS.
For more information on the details of the announcements made under Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan, please see here.
Finance
Following the Prime Minister’s and Finance Minister’s announcements, further announcements were also made.
Lockdown 4.0
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) passed an order extending the lockdown till May 31, 2020. This lockdown will have more relaxations compared to earlier lockdowns.
Zoning of areas
The new guidelines have authorised states/union territories (UTs) to define the red, green and orange zones based on the parameters prescribed by the Health Ministry. The states/UTs can define a district, or a municipal corporation/ municipality or even smaller administrative units such as sub-divisions, etc. as a red or green or orange zone.
The prohibition of certain activities or restrictions in various zones within a state will be at the discretion of the state/union territory as deemed necessary.
Prohibited Activities
Some activities will continue to remain prohibited throughout the country. These include:
Online/ distance learning is encouraged and permitted; and, restaurants will be allowed to operate kitchens for home delivery of food items.
National Directives for COVID Management
The Ministry of Home Affairs issued the National Directives for COVID Management, which apply to public places and work places. As per these guidelines:
Guidelines for workplaces include:
Aarogya Setu
The District authorities will ensure installation of the Aarogya Setu application on compatible mobile phones of all individuals and will have to regularly update their health status on the app.
Aarogya Setu Data access and knowledge sharing protocol, 2020
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India issued a notification on the data access and knowledge sharing protocol, 2020 in reference to the Aarogya Setu mobile application. The protocol will: (i) ensure secure collection of data by the mobile application, (ii) protect the personal data of individuals, and (iii) ensure efficient use and sharing of personal or non-personal data of the application users. The protocol provides principles for: (i) collection and processing of response data, (ii) sharing of response data, (iii) obligations of entities with whom the data will be shared, and (iv) sharing of data for research purpose. A sunset clause is applicable to the protocol subjecting it to a review after 6 months unless there is any extension of sunset clause in wake of the pandemic.
Travel and Movement
Health
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued: (i) updated containment plan on COVID-19, and (ii) updated containment plan for large outbreaks of COVID 19. These plans provide information on various scenarios of COVID-19 and strategies to control the spread of the disease including definitions, action plans and specific details on (i) identification of containment zones and buffer zones; (ii) perimeter control; (iii) support from various stakeholders such as testing laboratories and hospitals; (iv) pharamaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; and (v) risk communication.
For more information on the spread of COVID-19 and the central and state government response to the pandemic, please see here.
In a landmark judgment on April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision in the Right to Education Act, 2009 that makes it mandatory for all schools (government and private) except private, unaided minority schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children belonging to “weaker section and disadvantaged group”. The verdict was given by a three-judge bench namely Justice S.H. Kapadia (CJI), Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan. However, the judgment was not unanimous. Justice Radhakrishnan gave a dissenting view to the majority judgment. According to news reports (here and here), some school associations are planning to file review petitions against the Supreme Court order (under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review any judgment or order made by it. A review petition may be filed if there is (a) discovery of new evidence, (b) an error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) any other sufficient reason). In this post, we summarise the views of the judges. Background of the petition The 86th (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution which makes it mandatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children from the age of six to 14 years (fundamental right). The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to give effect to this amendment. The Act provides that children between the ages of six and 14 years have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school. It also lays down the minimum norms that each school has to follow in order to get legal recognition. The Act required government schools to provide free and compulsory education to all admitted children. Similarly, aided schools have to provide free and compulsory education proportionate to the funding received, subject to a minimum of 25%. However, controversy erupted over Section 12(1)(c) and (2) of the Act, which required private, unaided schools to admit at least 25% of students from SCs, STs, low-income and other disadvantaged or weaker groups. The Act stated that these schools shall be reimbursed for either their tuition charge or the per-student expenditure in government schools, whichever is lower. After the Act was notified on April 1, 2010, the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this provision on the ground that it impinged on their right to run educational institutions without government interference. Summary of the judgment Majority The Act is constitutionally valid and shall apply to (a) government controlled schools, (b) aided schools (including minority administered schools), and (c) unaided, non-minority schools. The reasons are given below: First, Article 21A makes it obligatory on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between 6 and 14 years of age. However, the manner in which the obligation shall be discharged is left to the State to determine by law. Therefore, the State has the freedom to decide whether it shall fulfill its obligation through its own schools, aided schools or unaided schools. The 2009 Act is “child centric” and not “institution centric”. The main question was whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(g) which gives every citizen the right to practice a profession or carry out any occupation, trade or business. However, the Constitution provides that Article 19(1)(g) may be circumscribed by Article 19(6), which allow reasonable restriction over this right in the interest of the general public. The Court stated that since “education” is recognized as a charitable activity [see TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481] reasonable restriction may apply. Second, the Act places a burden on the State as well as parents/guardians to ensure that every child has the right to education. Thus, the right to education “envisages a reciprocal agreement between the State and the parents and it places an affirmative burden on all stakeholders in our civil society.” The private, unaided schools supplement the primary obligation of the State to provide for free and compulsory education to the specified category of students. Third, TMA Pai and P.A. Inamdar judgments hold that the right to establish and administer educational institutions fall within Article 19(1)(g). It includes right to admit students and set up reasonable fee structure. However, these principles were applied in the context of professional/higher education where merit and excellence have to be given due weightage. This does not apply to a child seeking admission in Class I. Also, Section 12(1)(c) of the Act seeks to remove financial obstacle. Therefore, the 2009 Act should be read with Article 19(6) which provides for reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g). However, the government should clarify the position with regard to boarding schools and orphanages. The Court also ruled that the 2009 Act shall not apply to unaided, minority schools since they are protected by Article 30(1) (all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice). This right of the minorities is not circumscribed by reasonable restriction as is the case under Article 19(1)(g). Dissenting judgment Article 21A casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The obligation is not on unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions. Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act can be operationalised only on the principles of voluntariness, autonomy and consensus for unaided schools and not on compulsion or threat of non-recognition. The reasons for such a judgment are given below: First, Article 21A says that the “State shall provide” not “provide for”. Therefore, the constitutional obligation is on the State and not on non-state actors to provide free and compulsory education to a specified category of children. Also, under Article 51A(k) of the Constitution, parents or guardians have a duty to provide opportunities for education to their children but not a constitutional obligation. Second, each citizen has the fundamental right to establish and run an educational institution “investing his own capital” under Article 19(1)(g). This right can be curtailed in the interest of the general public by imposing reasonable restrictions. Citizens do not have any constitutional obligation to start an educational institution. Therefore, according to judgments of TMA Pai and PA Inamdar, they do not have any constitutional obligation to share seats with the State or adhere to a fee structure determined by the State. Compelling them to do so would amount to nationalization of seats and would constitute serious infringement on the autonomy of the institutions. Rights guaranteed to the unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30(1) can only be curtailed through a constitutional amendment (for example, insertion of Article 15(5) that allows reservation of seats in private educational institutions). Third, no distinction can be drawn between unaided minority and non-minority schools with regard to appropriation of quota by the State. Other issues related to the 2009 Act Apart from the issue of reservation, the RTE Act raises other issues such as lack of accountability of government schools and lack of focus on learning outcomes even though a number of studies have pointed to low levels of learning among school children. (For a detailed analysis, please see PRS Brief on the Bill).
