Social Welfare Measures and Legislations

The UPA government brought in some important social welfare measures in its second term. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, known as the RTE

Act, came into being in 2009. The Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 had already inserted Article 21-A in the Constitution of India to provide free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a Fundamental Right in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine. The RTE Act, 2009 put in place what is envisaged under Article 21-A; it means that every child has a right to full time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school, which satisfies certain essential norms and standards. All private schools (except those recognised as ‘minority’ educational institutions) are required to enrol children from weaker sections and disadvantaged communities in their incoming class to the extent of 25 per cent of the school enrolment, through the means of simple random selection. These children are to be treated on par with other children in the school, but they will be subsidised by the State. Article 21-A along with the RTE Act came into effect on April 1, 2010.

An attempt was made to get the bill on reserving 33 per cent of seats in the union and state legislatures passed; the bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, but the government was compelled to shelve it as its own allies, especially the Rashtriya Janata Dal, refused to support it.

The government was, in a way, forced to formulate the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 to deal with sexual offences against women.

One night in December 2012, a horrific gang rape of a young woman took place in Delhi. Jyoti Singh, accompanied by her friend, got onto a private bus, which had some other men in it. These men, one of whom was a juvenile, with the collusion of the driver and the conductor, brutally raped and tortured the woman and beat up the young man accompanying her as the bus travelled around, even passing police check posts. In the end, the woman and her friend were thrown out onto the roadside. They were found by a passerby who notified the police, and the victims were taken to hospital. Doctors could not save Jyoti. According to police reports,

Jyoti had bravely attempted to fight off her attackers, hence she came to be called ‘Nirbhaya’ in the media as the real name of the rape victim could not be published. (Her real name was later revealed openly by her mother.) The police were quick to arrest the six culprits. In March 2014, the Delhi High Court found all the defendants guilty of rape, murder, unnatural offences, and destruction of evidence. The high court confirmed death sentence for all four men convicted earlier. (The juvenile was tried under a different law and escaped with a few years in prison, and one of the accused died in jail.) The case went in appeal to the Supreme Court. [It was not till 2018 that the case was finally settled. In May 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the convicts’ appeal, and upheld the death sentence of the four who had been charged in the murder. The convicts exercised their right to file a review petition to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court rejected the review petition in July 2018.]

The gang rape incident led to widespread protests in Delhi and in many other places in India, in spite of the police arresting the culprits quickly. (Incidentally, the protests in India sparked protests across South Asia; marches and rallies took place in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.) The demonstrators who came from all walks of life, but mostly from among the youth, wanted the death penalty to be meted out to the criminals. The protestors in Delhi turned violent and clashed with the security forces. The government was initially high-handed, but ultimately it was forced to climb down.

The government appointed a three-member judicial committee on December 22, 2012. It was headed by J.S. Verma, a former Chief Justice of India and an eminent jurist, and was asked to recommend amendments to the criminal law so as to provide for quicker trial and greater punishment for criminals accused of committing sexual assault against women. In its report, submitted in January 2013, the committee was critical of the government, the police, and even the public for its apathy. It identified ‘failure of governance’ as the

fundamental cause for sexual crime. The committee made recommendations on laws related to rape, sexual harassment, trafficking, child sexual abuse, medical examination of victims, police, electoral and educational reforms.

The committee did not recommend the death penalty for rapists. It suggested a range of prison sentences–from seven years to life–for different situations arising from rape and gang rape. Recognising the need to curb all forms of sexual offence, the committee recommended suitable punishments for acid attacks and trafficking. It made it incumbent on the police to register every complaint of rape. It called for the police to be sensitised and trained to handle sexual assault cases appropriately. Civil society, it said, should report every case of rape that came to its knowledge. It wanted all marriages to be registered. Under the Indian Penal Code, though sexual intercourse without consent is prohibited, an exception is made for sexual intercourse without consent within marriage. The committee recommended that there should be no such exception to marital rape.

Besides suggesting time-bound trials for rape cases and

the need for stringent punishment for all forms of sexual harassment, including stalking and groping, the committee also called for a review of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in conflict areas so that sexual offences by those in the forces are brought under ordinary criminal law. The panel strongly recommended that ‘law enforcement agencies do not become tools at the hands of political masters.’ It pointed out that members of the police force must understand ‘their accountability is only to the law and

to none else in the discharge of their duty.’

The committee also observed that the primary responsibility of the judiciary is to enforce fundamental rights. It called upon the judiciary to be vigilant.

Calling for reforms to deal with criminalisation of politics, the committee suggested that a candidate be disqualified from participating in the electoral process for

sexual offences, and that filing of a charge sheet and cognizance by the court should be sufficient for disqualification of a candidate.

The committee wanted education facilities to be provided by the State to the homeless and abandoned children.

In February 2013, the government promulgated an ordinance amending the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in matters relating to sexual offences. In March 2013, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament to replace the ordinance. Several new sections were inserted in the existing laws to define and bring within the ambit of law such offences as acid attack, which would attract a 10-year jail term extendable to life imprisonment or fine or both; sexual harassment, with punishment of imprisonment ranging from 1 year to 3 years, fine or both; voyeurism, punishable with imprisonment from 3 years to 7 years; stalking, punishable with imprisonment of 1 year to 5 years; and gang rape, punishable with imprisonment up to 20 years extendable to life imprisonment. The age of consent has been increased from 16 years to 18 years. Repeat offences in certain cases have been made punishable with life imprisonment or death. Besides, a quick trial and conviction is called for in cases of rape.

The law has been criticised mainly for not bringing marital rape within its ambit, and for doing away with gender neutrality in the cases of sexual offences and rape because it recognises these offences only against women.

In 2013, the government pushed through the National Food Security Act and the Right to Food Act. This was aimed at providing subsidised food grains to the beneficiaries of the targeted public distribution system. Though it was pointed out that this kind of distribution may not reach the targeted population due to the corrupt and inefficient functioning of the public distribution system, NAC did not

favour the idea of cash transfers/ food coupons. As one critic has observed, the contribution of the NAC to the agenda of ‘inclusive growth’ was to ensure that inclusiveness was to be through patronage and protection rather than promotion of livelihood and employment opportunities for the poor. Clearly, the government faced some difficulties is reconciling its own priorities with those of the NAC.