Today's Headlines - 05 August 2023
Govt’s Bill on IIMs over their autonomy
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The government has brought a Bill in Parliament giving itself significant say in the appointment and removal of Directors of the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), and in initiating inquiries. The Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Bill, 2023, introduced in Lok Sabha, seeks to make changes in the law that governs the administration and running of IIMs. The proposed changes have triggered concern over their potential to erode the autonomy of the IIMs.
What is the purpose of the Bill?
The Bill seeks to amend the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 which declared 20 existing IIMs as “institutions of national importance with a view to empower these institutions to attain standards of global excellence in management, management research and allied areas of knowledge.
Under the 2017 Act, the Director of an IIM is appointed by a Board of Governors, and the government has a limited say in the process.
The proposed amendments essentially seek to alter this situation, and to give the government an expanded role in the appointment of the IIM Director.
How is this change proposed to be effected?
Section 5 of the amendment Bill says that “After section 10 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely— ’10A. (1) The President of India shall be the Visitor of every Institute’” covered under the IIM Act.
The Bill prescribes three primary roles for the Visitor: to make appointments, to audit the working of institutions, and to conduct an inquiry.
What is the current process of appointment of the Director?
Section 16(2) of the 2017 Act says “the Director shall be appointed by the Board, on such terms and conditions of service as may be prescribed.”
Section 16(1) says the “Director shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute and shall provide leadership to the Institute and be responsible for implementation of the decisions of the Board”.
Section 16(3) says “the Director shall be appointed out of the panel of names recommended by a search-cum-selection committee to be constituted by the Board”.
The Board chairperson will head the search-cum-selection committee, which will also have “three members chosen from amongst eminent administrators, industrialists, educationists, scientists, technocrats and management specialists”.
#upsc #news #headline #govtbill #autonomy #polity #parliament #institutes #management #IIMS #loksabha #purpose #bill #global #governors #section16 #chief #executive #officer #panel #eminent #administrators #educationists #scientists #technocrats
Govt’s Bill on IIMs over their autonomy
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The government has brought a Bill in Parliament giving itself significant say in the appointment and removal of Directors of the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), and in initiating inquiries. The Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Bill, 2023, introduced in Lok Sabha, seeks to make changes in the law that governs the administration and running of IIMs. The proposed changes have triggered concern over their potential to erode the autonomy of the IIMs.
What is the purpose of the Bill?
The Bill seeks to amend the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 which declared 20 existing IIMs as “institutions of national importance with a view to empower these institutions to attain standards of global excellence in management, management research and allied areas of knowledge.
Under the 2017 Act, the Director of an IIM is appointed by a Board of Governors, and the government has a limited say in the process.
The proposed amendments essentially seek to alter this situation, and to give the government an expanded role in the appointment of the IIM Director.
How is this change proposed to be effected?
Section 5 of the amendment Bill says that “After section 10 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely— ’10A. (1) The President of India shall be the Visitor of every Institute’” covered under the IIM Act.
The Bill prescribes three primary roles for the Visitor: to make appointments, to audit the working of institutions, and to conduct an inquiry.
What is the current process of appointment of the Director?
Section 16(2) of the 2017 Act says “the Director shall be appointed by the Board, on such terms and conditions of service as may be prescribed.”
Section 16(1) says the “Director shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute and shall provide leadership to the Institute and be responsible for implementation of the decisions of the Board”.
Section 16(3) says “the Director shall be appointed out of the panel of names recommended by a search-cum-selection committee to be constituted by the Board”.
The Board chairperson will head the search-cum-selection committee, which will also have “three members chosen from amongst eminent administrators, industrialists, educationists, scientists, technocrats and management specialists”.
#upsc #news #headline #govtbill #autonomy #polity #parliament #institutes #management #IIMS #loksabha #purpose #bill #global #governors #section16 #chief #executive #officer #panel #eminent #administrators #educationists #scientists #technocrats
Today's Headlines - 22 August 2023
Violation of privacy in caste survey
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The Supreme Court asked the petitioners challenging the Bihar caste survey what was the violation of privacy in asking people to disclose their caste after the latter contended that the exercise was clearly in violation of the top court’s nine-judge decision in the privacy case wherein it was held that the state cannot encroach on the privacy of individuals without a law to back it.
What
If somebody is asked to give caste or sub-caste, in a state like Bihar, caste is known to neighbours… Which of these 17 questions (asked as part of the survey) invades privacy, asked Justice Sanjeev Khanna, presiding over a two-judge Bench, and said the exercise was carried out on the strength of an executive order.
The Bench commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the 1 August decision of the Patna High Court, which gave the go-ahead to the caste survey.
Some of these petitions have claimed the exercise was an infringement of the people’s right to privacy.
The SC, he pointed out, had said that “while it intervenes to protect legitimate state interests, the state must nevertheless put into place a robust regime that ensures the fulfillment of a threefold requirement.
These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and content based mandate of Article 21.
The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21.
For, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement.
The caste survey, however, was carried out on the basis of an executive order, which does not even set out the aim of the exercise.
Puttaswamy judgment says privacy can be intruded upon only by a just fair and reasonable law, with a legitimate aim, which has to stand the test of proportionality.
#upsc #news #violation #privacy #castesurvey #polity #supremecourt #bihar #caste #neighbours #patna #highcourt #pleas #caste #survey #requirement #interests #threefold #restraints #encroachment #puttaswarmy #judgment #law #proportionality #executive #order #article #decision #polity
Violation of privacy in caste survey
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The Supreme Court asked the petitioners challenging the Bihar caste survey what was the violation of privacy in asking people to disclose their caste after the latter contended that the exercise was clearly in violation of the top court’s nine-judge decision in the privacy case wherein it was held that the state cannot encroach on the privacy of individuals without a law to back it.
What
If somebody is asked to give caste or sub-caste, in a state like Bihar, caste is known to neighbours… Which of these 17 questions (asked as part of the survey) invades privacy, asked Justice Sanjeev Khanna, presiding over a two-judge Bench, and said the exercise was carried out on the strength of an executive order.
The Bench commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the 1 August decision of the Patna High Court, which gave the go-ahead to the caste survey.
Some of these petitions have claimed the exercise was an infringement of the people’s right to privacy.
The SC, he pointed out, had said that “while it intervenes to protect legitimate state interests, the state must nevertheless put into place a robust regime that ensures the fulfillment of a threefold requirement.
These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy (not just informational privacy). They emanate from the procedural and content based mandate of Article 21.
The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article 21.
For, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The existence of law is an essential requirement.
The caste survey, however, was carried out on the basis of an executive order, which does not even set out the aim of the exercise.
Puttaswamy judgment says privacy can be intruded upon only by a just fair and reasonable law, with a legitimate aim, which has to stand the test of proportionality.
#upsc #news #violation #privacy #castesurvey #polity #supremecourt #bihar #caste #neighbours #patna #highcourt #pleas #caste #survey #requirement #interests #threefold #restraints #encroachment #puttaswarmy #judgment #law #proportionality #executive #order #article #decision #polity