The Vice President of India, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu has said that people of the country must be active participants in governance to fast-track the process of development. He said that merely enacting legislations would not create solutions to problems and stressed that laws must be backed by political skill and administrative will.

 

The Vice President was addressing the gathering at the 117th Birth Anniversary celebrations of Shri Gujar Mal Modi, after presenting the Gujar Mal Modi Innovative Science and Technology Awards 2019 to Prof. S.K. Satheesh and Dr. Maharaj Kishan Bhan (Padma Bhushan) at Vigyan Bhawan, here today. Shri. Naidu lauded the Gujar Mal Modi Science Foundation for their initiative of encouraging scientists and innovators and said that we must preserve the age old Indian tradition of honouring excellence, to motivate the younger generations to do well.

Shri Naidu called for innovative and out-of-box solutions to formidable challenges like poverty, pollution, climate change, diseases, not-so-profitable agriculture and low-efficiency industrial processes.

Calling for a culture of innovation, the Vice President said that innovation was imperative to address these challenges and take India forward on the path to inclusive and sustainable development at a faster pace.

The Vice President called for a reorientation of the education system to promote creativity. Asserting that foundations for the culture of innovation must be laid in our schools and colleges, he observed that a ‘new model of education’ was needed.

“We must build on the ‘best practices’ we have developed over centuries as learners, and create ‘next practices’ that would suit our vision for our future,” he added.

Saying that research in basic sciences forms the bedrock of all technological advancement, Shri Naidu said that it was crucial to create an environment where the government, universities, corporate houses, and others come together to propel the entire science eco-system forward with special emphasis on sustainability.

Expressing his desire to develop Indian universities into centers of excellence in basic sciences as well as cutting edge technology, Shri Naidu said that our universities must become the power houses of research and development.

Observing that innovation and entrepreneurship must hand in hand, the Vice President said that universities must serve as safe spaces for entrepreneurship to flourish.

The Vice President presented Gujar Mal Modi Innovative Science and Technology Awards to Prof. S.K. Satheesh and Dr. Maharaj Kishan Bhan (Padma Bhushan). The President of the Gujar Mal Modi Science Foundation, Shri. Satish Kumar Modi, trustees of the foundation, Shri. Krishan Kumar Modi, Shri. Umesh Kumar Modi and others were present on the occasion.

Following is the text of Vice President’s address:

“I am delighted to be with the Modi family and all of you to participate in the 117th Birth Anniversary celebrations of late Shri Gujar Mal Modi, and to felicitate Prof. S.K. Satheesh and Dr. Maharaj Kishan Bhan (Padma Bhushan) with the ‘Gujar Mal Modi Award-2019’.

On this occasion, I pay tribute to Shri Gujar Mal Modi, the founder of the Modi Group of Industries, who was a great humanitarian. He was one of the prominent architects of modern industrial India

I am told that Bahadur Gujar Mal Modi undertook several welfare initiatives for his employees and their families. He built schools, educational institutions, hospitals, temples and residential complexes for them. He believed in taking peoples’ wealth back to people and made conscious efforts to plough back a large part of the profit made by his business undertakings for social good.

Shri Gujar Mal Modi was presented the prestigious Padma Bhushan by the Government of India, in recognition of his achievements as an enterprising industrialist and for his immense philanthropic work.

Today, the Modi Family is celebrating the 117th birth anniversary of this great philanthrope.

I am glad to know that, since 1988, the Foundation has already recognized thirty three personalities of the country who have excelled in their respective fields. The list includes Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Prof. M.G.K. Menon and Dr. Kasturirangan.

I am happy to know that the Jury, under the chairmanship of Dr. K. Kasturirangan, former Member, Planning Commission, has decided to honour Prof. S.K. Satheesh and Dr. Maharaj Kishan Bhan this year.

Prof. S.K. Satheesh, the Chairman of Divecha Centre for Climate Change and Professor of Centre for Atmosperic and Oceanic Sciences at Indian Institute of Science (IISc), has made outstanding contributions to understanding the significant impact of light – absorbing atmospheric aerosol particles on the radiation balance of the Earth-atmosphere system and regional climate.

Prof. Satheesh’s efforts in the assessment of the radiative impact of aerosols, which is widely used in climate models to study monsoon, are indeed praiseworthy. I extend my hearty congratulations to him for the honour that he received today.

I am glad to note that his pioneering research lead to development of a Rotavirus vaccine from a novel virus strain he isolated at AIIMS, New Delhi. The vaccine developed through a decade long effort is now delivered through the country’s immunization program and used in other developing countries. Over 100 million of this vaccine doses given to children in last few years has saved countless lives. His efforts have inspired translational biomedical science and innovation by Indian academia and industry.

He is globally recognized as an innovation leader in medical research and technology development. I congratulate Dr. Bhan on his outstanding achievements.

It is common knowledge that research in basic sciences form the bedrock of all technological advancement. It is crucial to create an environment where the government, universities, corporate houses and others come together to propel the entire science eco-system forward with special emphasis on sustainability.

One way to motivate and encourage talented youngsters is by recognizing and applauding the accomplishments of our researchers and scientists, a step taken by the G.M. Modi Foundation years ago. My congratulations to this Foundation for encouraging scientists in the way you have been doing for the past 31years.

My dear brothers and sisters,     

I am sure that all of you are aware of the tremendous progress that our country is making on several fronts. We have a stable democracy and a vibrant economy. We have huge potential in our demography with 65% of the population being below 35 years of age.

I strongly believe that for India to move ahead on the path of inclusive and sustainable development, at a faster pace, innovation is an imperative. Today, we face a number of formidable challenges like poverty, pollution, climate change, diseases, not-so-profitable agriculture, and low-efficiency industrial processes.

We have to find solutions to these problems using the limited resources that are available to us.

Innovation and out-of-box solutions are the only way forward.

Innovation is a culture, a mindset.

Once you have an innovation culture, even those who are not scientists or engineers would also embrace innovation and scientific literacy. Thus innovation would get embedded as one of the core values of a society, promoting economic growth and development.

This culture of constant innovation is what India needs today, it is what will make India a global leader.

Investing in innovation is investing in a bright future.

The foundation for this culture of innovation must be laid in our schools and colleges.

Children are born with a natural curiosity about the world around us. This curiosity is the foundation of all invention. We must encourage our children to ask questions, to critique and to reject the irrational.

Our education system must be overhauled to inspire creativity and curiosity. It must seek to turn this native curiosity among children into knowledge that gives us the power to invent, to find solutions to problems.

We must build a new model of education together, a model that does not resist change but remains forever open and adaptable. We must build on the ‘best practices’ we have developed over centuries as learners, and create ‘next practices’ that would suit our vision for our future.

A start has been made through initiatives like ‘Atal Tinkering labs’ set up in more than 5500 schools in India, under the Atal Innovation Mission, to foster curiosity, creativity, and imagination in young minds and inculcate skills such as design mindset, computational thinking, adaptive learning, physical computing etc.. Many more such initiatives which serve as platforms for innovation, should come up.

Our universities must serve as centres for excellence in basic sciences as well as cutting edge technology. They must be power houses of research and development.

To meet this objective, the research projects that are undertaken by our universities must live up to international standards and benchmarks. It has very often been said that a major weakness of Indian education and research is the relatively very small part played by the universities in the sum total of Indian research.

At the institutional level, there is a need to link teaching with research. The government needs to invest in faculty development, provide incentives for research, promote collaborative efforts between institutions in research.

Our universities must move beyond adopting technology to embracing it.

Initiatives such as outcome based research financing, setting up of Incubation Centers for innovative research and setting up Research Parks in central educational institutions can go a long way in making our universities thriving knowledge-creation centres.

Unlike in the past, tight boundaries between various disciplines have almost disappeared. Today’s researchers cannot confine themselves to compartmentalized silos and must have a basic understanding of other related disciplines. The issues are also no longer discipline-specific and cut across several disciplines. A holistic research approach needs to be adopted in an inter-disciplinary manner.

For example, health, education and environment are of immense concern to all and cannot be confined to particular disciplines.

The canvas of new research both in science and social science is vast and will definitely help young researchers to get a wider perspective on various phenomena. The emerging areas in bio-technology, genetic engineering, biodiversity, new materials, micro-machines, bio-medical simulations and equipment, new dominions in space research and technology including permanent human habitat in space, and similar new frontiers in oceans, are some of the examples.

I urge our educational institutions to come together for creating new knowledge at the intersections of existing disciplines.

My dear sisters and brothers,

Much is being said about promoting entrepreneurship. The priority accorded by the government to innovation is clearly reflected in missions such as ‘start-up India’ and Stand-up India’.

I strongly believe that innovation and entrepreneurship go hand in hand. Our universities must serve as safe spaces for entrepreneurship to flourish. We must encourage our brilliant youngsters to collaborate and work together in teams to come up with business ideas that are feasible, sustainable and most importantly, socially relevant.

The ultimate aim of all innovation is the betterment of the human condition, the alleviation of suffering and the promotion of stability, peace and harmony.

I urge all of you, especially young innovators to have a big vision and then take small steps to realize your vision. Sometimes, innovation is not about cutting edge technology, it is about simple solutions to complex problems. India is a country that is well known for its frugal innovations. We must keep this competitive advantage of ours alive and use it to the best possible extent to defeat challenges.

Let me also caution you that every single cutting edge technology brings with it its own disruptive interventions. We as a society must be mature and prudent enough to manage these disruptions which are very often paradigm altering.

Let me impress upon you that Science is a moving target, forever advancing and progressing. We need to keep ourselves updated and be ready to work hard.

I once again congratulate Prof. S.K. Satheesh and Dr. Maharaj Kishan Bhan. I hope that the legacy of philanthropic activities left behind by Bahadur Gujar Mal Modi will be carried forward by his family in the times to come. I wish all of you all the very best in your future endeavours.

Thank You!

Jai Hind!”

NITI Aayog, the premier think tank of the Government of India, has launched the Fourth Edition of Women Transforming India (WTI) Awards, in collaboration with the United Nations in New Delhi today. UN Resident Coordinator in India, Ms. Renata Lok-Dessallien, opened the nomination process for WTI Awards 2019, in the presence of CEO NITI Aayog, Mr. Amitabh Kant, senior government officials and partners of Women Entrepreneurship Platform (WEP).

The applications for the awards are now live, and nominations can be filed on behalf of individuals or by the individual themselves at https://wep.gov.in.

The WTI Awards, since its inception in 2016, has been recognising and celebrating stories of exemplary women from across India. The theme for WTI Awards 2019 is “Women and Entrepreneurship”, in continuation with last edition’s theme that recognizes women entrepreneurs who are breaking the glass ceiling and challenging stereotypes, through businesses and enterprises and are providing innovative developmental solutions to building a dynamic New India.

Whatsapp has collaborated with the WEP for the WTI Awards of 2019, and will be providing support equivalent toUS$100,000 to the winners.

The campaign builds on the success of the WTI Awards for the past three years. WTI Awards 2018 received more than 2,300 nominations. Through a highly objective and rigorous selection process, 15 women entrepreneurs doing inspirational work from diverse sectors viz. Renewable Energy, Education, Sanitation, Art and Culture, Social Innovation and Impact, were recognised. The first two editions of the WTI Awards felicitated 12 phenomenal stories each of women undertaking phenomenal work to transform societies across India’s cities, towns and villages; and empowering themselves and their communities.

Addressing on the occasion, Mr. Amitabh Kant CEO NITI Aayog said,“WTI Awards is a flagship initiative of NITI Aayog. For the past three years, we have been celebrating the power of women and recognising their efforts in championing the cause of their societies. The next wave of disruption in India’s start-up ecosystem would be led by women-led enterprises. I am personally invested in ensuring the success of winners of the WTI Awards”.

 

Calling Women Transforming a movement, Ms Dessallien said, “We chose women’s entrepreneurship as our theme because at the heart of these Awards, this movement rather, is the idea that women lead change. I believe that if there is any one group, which can decisively accelerate India, and the world’s, achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, it is India’s women. The over half a billion women are not a target audience. They are not the recipients of development. They are stakeholders. Their full and equal participation changes conversations, the way we talk about development; it transforms politics and decision making; it improves policy.”

About WEP

WEP is one of its kind facilitation platform, which enables convergence of multiple stakeholders on a single platform, work in collaboration with these stakeholders to bridge the gap in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, host relevant information about several schemes and partner organizations on WEP website to connect women entrepreneurs with relevant partners.

Established under the leadership of Ms. Anna Roy, Sr. Adviser of NITI Aayog, WEP focuses on both reaching out to the community through online means as well as increasing interaction of stakeholders with grass root women entrepreneur community through offline activities so that the benefits can reach the bottom-most of the pyramid. WEP, through its partners, in various verticals such as Finance, Marketing and Networking, Entrepreneurship Development, Mentoring, Incubation and Acceleration aims at providing services such as free credit ratings, skill development, local support, corporate partnerships, funding support etc. to women entrepreneurs.

WEP also works to enable sharing of best practices amongst women entrepreneurs and partner organizations and act as a facilitation platform through which relevant data can be collected and research activities can be undertaken, in association with partner organizations to understand and provide solution to women centric problems in entrepreneurial space.

In the span of past 15 months, WEP has seen several success stories emerging. WEP has more than 5,000 women entrepreneurs registered on the platform, more than 30 partners and has committed funding of more than US$10mn for these startups.

Prime
Minister Shri Narendra Modi paid tributes to former External Affairs
Minister Sushma Swaraj, at her residence in New Delhi today.

Expressing
condolence over her demise, Prime Minister said, “A glorious chapter in
Indian politics comes to an end. India grieves the demise of a
remarkable leader who devoted her life to public service and bettering
lives of the poor. Sushma Swaraj Ji was one of her kind, who was a
source of inspiration for crores of people.

Sushma
Ji was a prolific orator and outstanding Parliamentarian. She was
admired and revered across party lines. She was uncompromising when it
came to matters of ideology and interests of the BJP, whose growth she
immensely contributed to.

An
excellent administrator, Sushma Ji set high standards in every Ministry
she handled. She played a key role in bettering India’s ties with
various nations. As a Minister we also saw her compassionate side,
helping fellow Indians who were in distress in any part of the world.

I
can’t forget the manner in which Sushma Ji worked tirelessly as EAM in
the last 5 years. Even when her health was not good, she would do
everything possible to do justice to her work and remain up to date with
matters of her Ministry. The spirit and commitment was unparalleled.

Sushma
Ji’s demise is a personal loss. She will be remembered fondly for
everything that she’s done for India. My thoughts are with her family,
supporters and admirers in this very unfortunate hour. Om Shanti”.

Former External Affairs Minister Ms. Sushma Swaraj passed away last night in New Delhi.

The
Union Ministry of Women and Child Developments organizing a
felicitation and award function for those Districts and States who have
successfully implemented the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP)scheme in the country. The function will be held on 7thAugust, 2019 in New Delhi.

The
objective of the programme is to felicitate States and Districts which
are performing well in improving Sex Ratio at Birth as per Health
Management Information System (HMIS) of Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare data and excellent performance in awareness generation and
outreach.Union Ministerof Women and Child Development, Smriti Zubin
Irani will grace the occasion as chief guest and Minister of State,
Debasree Chaudhuri,will be guest of honour at the event.

The BBBP scheme launched on 22ndJanuary,
2015 has been implemented in phases. Currently, it is being implemented
in 640 districts (as per census 2011). All 640 districts are covered
through advocacy and media campaign. Moreover, out of these 640
districts, 405 districts are covered under Multi- Sectoral Intervention
in which 100% Centrally Sponsored Schemes grant is provided directly to
DM/DC for BBBP.

On
this occasion,Union Minister of WCD will be felicitating Principal
Secretaries/ Commissioners of the 5 States and District
Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners of 10 Districts (covering 9 States)
forconsistent improvement inSex Ratio at Birth. District
Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners of 10additional districts (covering 8
States)will also be felicitated for outstanding performance under
awareness generation and outreach activities.

Another
important activity on the occasion will be aslide show of innovations
by States/ Districts under Beti Bachao Beti Padhao followed by short
videos of innovative interventions undertaken by the winning States and
Districts.

The
latest reports on State/UT-wise Sex Ratio at Birth data for the period
2014-15 and 2018-19, reveal that SRB increased from 918 to 931 showing
improving trends at the national level.

Union
Minister for Home Affairs, Shri Amit Shah, introduced two bills and two
resolutions regarding Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in Lok Sabha today.
These are as follows:

Article
370(3) provides President of India has the powers to amend or repeal
the article by issuing a notification, based on a recommendation of
Constituent Assembly of J&K. President of India signed the
Constitution Order 2019
yesterday regarding Article 370(1), under which all the provision under
article 4 would be applicable to J&K. J&K constituent assembly
would be read as J&K Legislative Assembly. Similar changes to
article 370 have been done in the past as well.Now since President’s
rule is in force in the state, implementation of article 370 would cease
to exist when President of India issues the notification in this
regard, after this House passes the resolution.

Replying
to the debate, Shri Shah stated,”I want to state that J&K is an
inalienable part of India. There are no two versions about
that”.Parliament is the highest and fully competent bodyto make laws and
bring resolutions regarding a state of India including J&K. There
can be no question to this power of the Parliament. Shri Shah said that
for 70 years, people of India have harboured this aspiration in their
hearts that Kashmir must be an integral part of India. Article 370 was
the only roadblock to realize this goal. Home Minister thanked the Prime
Minister for this historic step to remove this roadblock for ever.

Leader
of Main Opposition Party in Lok Sabha raised the issue of how the
Centre can take this step unilaterally when Kashmir is a bilateral issue
between India and Pakistan and when the matter is pending in UN.
To this, Shri Shah retaliated and challenged the opposition that they
must clarify their stand on the floor of the House whether they support
UN meditation in Kashmir.The opposition in a way has questioned the
competence of the Parliament by raising this point, he stated.

Shri
Shah asked the members, “How can patriots of India who can sacrifice
their lives for the country not get perturbed by such a question?”In
India, things do not function on whims and fancies but on laws. I am
always ready for constructive discussion but never for destructive
debate, he added.

Speaking
on the applicability of United Nations charter on India and Pakistan to
J&K, Shri Shah said thatunder this charter, neither armed forces
would violate the territorial integrity of other country. The day in 1965
Pakistan violated this provision, the charter was violated. The
question of a referendum ended with the Pakistani aggression. Hence, the
Government of India has full rights to take any decision regarding its
territorial integrity. This was even agreed to by the UN, Home Minister
added.

Shri Shah reminded the opposition and asked who took Kashmir matter to UN and who brought a unilateral cease fire in 1948? “Had our forces given a free hand to deal with the situation, PoK would have been a part of India today”, he stated.

Introducing
the resolutions and bills on the floor of the House, Shri Shah said
that the House has been witness to many historical moments. Today once
again this House is witness to a golden day when we are going to bring
J&K truely into India’s fold.Now, local representatives would have a
voice in the hill councils. The governments would be democratically
elected and would run the local government and administration in
J&K.

Several
members have raised the apprehension about the period for which the
Union Territory status will continue for J&K. Shri Shah saidthat
regarding Ladakh, it wasa long standing demand. Further he said, “I want
to assure the people of J&K that the status of State would be
restored once the situation normalises. Secondly, PoK and Aksai Chin are
an inalienable part of JK and the seats are still part of the
legislature.J&K would have a Legislative Assembly with elected
representatives and it is a misnomer that the administration would be
run by the Centre, he assured the House.

Home
Minister explained the difference between articles 370 and 371. Article
370 was originally a temporary provision. He informed that because of
article 370, the laws of Union of India did not apply to J&K,
corruption and terrorism flourished there. Article 371 relates to
special provisions to special clauses favouring development to backward
regions in some states. Why would the Government repeal article 371 and
why is the opposition equating articles 370 and 371, he asked. Home
Minister assured the people of these states that this Government has no
intention of repealing article 371.Further, Shri Shah also classified
that Naga Accord and article 370 have no relation and no mistake
committed in the past would not be repeated by this Government.

Regarding
troop deployment and no internet facilities in J&K currently, Shri
Shah assured that there is no reason other than preventing some
nefarious elements from instigating violence in the State and no one can
stop the government to take precautionary measures to protect the peace
inside the country. He made it clear that the government would never
talk with separatist elements and those who back cross border terrorism.
The government would only talk with anyone once they are committed for
peace and development in J&K.

Taking
on the opposition about the division of erstwhile state of Andhra
Pradesh, the Home Minister said that the proposal was rejected by the
State Assembly by two-thirds majority. Even then the earlier Government
went ahead with the division without consulting all political parties.

Removing
article 370 has no communal agenda as a number of communities and
religious groups are resident of J&K that are affected equally.
Article 370 has perpetuated discrimination against the minorities
including Sikhs, Buddhists admin others. Further, Shri Shah said, in the
past 70 years over 41500
people have been killed. Should we continue on the same path and let
people die. Who is responsible for this state of affairs? Are not the
youth of J&K and Ladakh require development. For how long would we
deprive them only for vote bank politics. Repealing article 370 is not a
historic blunder, rather it is historic step to correct this historic
blunder. Such bold steps are not taken for vote bank but for the
betterment of people of J&K and for three Nation, Home Minister
stated.

Shri
Shah further said that those who favour article 370 are in opposition
to the Prevention of Child Marriage Act which could not be applied to
J&K due to article 370. Similarly other laws like Right to
Education, Land Accusation Act, Multiple Disability Act, Senior Citizens
act, Delimitation act, Whistle Blower Protection act, laws enacted for
empowerment of tribals, National Commission for Minorities, National
Council for Teacher Education, among others, could not be applied to
J&K.
How is this in favour of the people of JK to not apply these laws in the
state, Home Minister asked the House. The reason, he said, is simply
that after President’s rule was applied in J&K, all corruption cases
were opened and those who were at the receiving end are opposing the
repealing of article 370. Democracy was strangulated by the use of
article 370 for 70 years. Today, after this government came to power,
over 40000 panch and sarpanches are taking the democratic process forward and development has started.

Taking
on the cross border terrorism, Shri Shah stated that Pakistan has
misused the presence of article 370 to sow the seeds of separatism and
terrorism in J&K. I appeal to all those who favour article 370, to
ponder what benefits did the provision bring to the state. It only
prevented development and facilitated terrorism there. Only by repealing
this provision, we can bring the people to the mainstream and embrace
them with open arms.J&K is the heaven on earth and I assure everyone
that it would continue to remain so when all the laws of Union of India
become applicable to the state, he said.

The
Home Minister appealed to the House to once again ponder on all these
points and join hands with the Government to bring the people of J&K
in the mainstream of development.

India
has a doctor-population ratio of 1:1456 as compared with the WHO
standards of 1:1000. In addition, there is a huge skew in the
distribution of doctors working in the Urban and Rural areas with the
urban to rural doctor density ratio being 3.8:1.
Consequently, most of our rural and poor population is denied good
quality care leaving them in the clutches of quacks. It is worth noting
that at present 57.3% of personnel currently practicing allopathic medicine does not have a medical qualification.       

The
ambitious Ayushman Bharat initiative announced by GoI in this year’s
Budget Speech needs 1,50,000mid-level providers within the next 3-5
years to provide comprehensive primary and preventive care.It will take
7-8 years to ramp up the supply of doctors, therefore, in the interim we
have no option but to rely upon a cadre of specially trained mid-level
providers who can lead the Health and Wellness Centres.

There
are international examples of Health Systems permitting such Community
Health workers. Countries such as Thailand, United Kingdom, China, and
even New York have permitted Community Health Workers/Nurse
Practitioners into mainstream health services, with improved health
outcomes. Since we haveshortage of doctors and specialists, the task
shifting to Mid- level Provider will relieve the overburdened
specialists. This is merely an enabling provision to grant limited licence only in primary and preventive healthcare to practice medicine at mid-level
to such persons, who qualify such criteria as may be specified by
regulations which will have an overwhelming representation of Doctors.
Chhattisgarh and Assam have experimented with the Community Health
Workers. As per independent evaluations (carried out by Harvard School
of Public Health), they have performed very well and there is no ground
of concern if the quality of personnel is regulated tightly.

Medical
Education (ME) is a specialized area with high focus on technical skill
sets. A common final year undergraduate examination (NEXT) withcommon
standards of knowledge and skills for Doctors on a Nation-wide basis.

An
enabling provision has been made to ensure common standards.
Regulations for operationalizing the NEXT would be made in due course
keeping in mind importance of both theoretical as well as clinical skill
setsrequired at the level of UG. Composition of NMC includes 75%
doctors representing Central and States Institutions/Councils and health
universities. Such a composition of NMC will ensure that due weightage
to theoretical as well as clinical skill sets is adhered to. There is a 3
year window before NEXT becomes operational, leaving ample scope for
detailed negotiations on the contours of the exam.

IMC
Act, 1956 has no provision for regulation of fees. As a result, some
states regulate the fees of some seats in private colleges through MoUs
signed with college managements. In addition, the Supreme Court has set
up committees chaired by retired High Court Judges to fix fees in
private colleges as an interim measure. Deemed to be Universities claim
that they are not covered by these committees.

Nearly
50% of the total MBBS seats in the country are in government colleges,
which have nominal fees. Of the remaining seats, 50% would be regulated
by NMC. This means that almost 75% of total seats in the country would be available at reasonable fees.
 In the spirit of federalism, the State governments would still have
the liberty to decide fees for remaining seats in private medical
colleges on the basis of individual MOUs signed with colleges on the
basis of mutual agreement.

States
also have been providing scholarships on the basis of merit cum means
and would normally continue to do so in order to make medical education
affordable to all students. We need to balance the interests of the poor
but meritorious students and the promoters of the private medical
colleges in order to expand the number of seats on offer. It is not
correct to assume that colleges would be free to arbitrarily raise the
fees for unregulated seats. The transparency provided by NEXT results
would lead to regulation of fees through market forces. Colleges would
have to provide quality of education commensurate to the fees charged by
them, otherwise there would be no takers for their management quota
seats.

Rating
would be provided by MARB for medical institutions based on the
standard of education/training.  This will serve to regulate fee through
market forces.

Any
affirmative action has to meet the test of reasonability. India has a
large middle class population. The government of the day is duty bound
to create infrastructure for all segments of society.

While
we solicit private investment in the medical education sector and want
private medical colleges to be financially viable, this government has
not shied away from its responsibility to create more seats in the
government sector. We have invested more than Rs 10,000 crores in
creating government seats in the past five years, and are also setting
up 21 new AIIMS at a cost of over Rs 30,000 crores to boost the medical
education sector. This trend of creating government seats will continue
in future.

There
is no question of NMC Bill making medical education a preserve of the
rich. On the contrary, it is common knowledge that before the reforms of
NEET and common counseling were introduced by our government, rich
students who could afford to pay huge and unrecorded capitation fees
were able to secure admission to private medical colleges. Our reforms
have eliminated the role of black money in medical education and the NMC
Bill will provide statutory force to the reforms which have been
carried out.

Another
bogey which is being raised is that merit will be given a go by in the
proposed dispensation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
earlier provision was that any student who obtains 50% marks at class 12
level could gain admission to MBBS courses. Colleges negotiated with
students and conducted their own admission tests in a totally
non-transparent manner. As a result, many undeserving students got
admission. Now only NEET qualified students can get admission, which
ensures that merit prevails in admissions.

We all had either read or are fully well acquainted with the famous judgment titled Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr vs Union of India and others delivered on August 24, 2017 about two years back in which a 9-Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court including the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar had unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right. The other Judges in this landmark and extremely laudable judgment praised all over were Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Sharad A Bobde, Justice RK Agrawal, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S Abdul Nazeer. It was applauded not just in India but all over the world for upholding that the right to privacy is fundamental right. Very rightly so!

However, it must be mentioned here that in a latest and noteworthy judgment titled Ritesh Sinha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9671 of 2017], Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2225 of 2018] and Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3272 of 2018], a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of CJI Ranjan Gogoi along with Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjeev Khanna have on August 2, 2019 held unambiguously and unanimously that the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest thus reaffirming what was laid down earlier also in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) case as also in other cases. This it held while holding that a Judicial Magistrate can order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Very rightly so!

To start with, this notable and laudable judgment authored by CJI Ranjan Gogoi for himself, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjeev Khanna sets the ball rolling in para 1 by observing that, “Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 9671 of 2017, 1048 of 2018, 2225 of 2018 and 3272 of 2018.”

While dwelling on the facts of Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2012, Para 2 then illustrates stating that, “On 7th December, 2009 the In-charge of the Electronics Cell of Sadar Bazar Police Station located in the district of Saharanpur of the State of Uttar Pradesh lodged a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) alleging that one Dhoom Singh in association with the appellant – Ritesh Sinha, was engaged in collection of monies from different people on the promise of jobs in the Police. Dhoom Singh was arrested and one mobile phone was seized from him. The Investigating Authority wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation in the mobile phone was between Dhoom Singh and the appellant – Ritesh Sinha. They, therefore, needed the voice sample of the appellant and accordingly filed an application before the learned jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate (“CJM” for short) praying for summoning the appellant to the Court for recording his voice sample.”

What we then see unfolding in para 3 is this: “The learned CJM, Saharanpur by order dated 8th January, 2010 issued summons to the appellant to appear before the Investigating Officer and to give his voice sample. This order of the learned CJM was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). The High Court having negative the challenge made by the appellant by its order dated 9th July, 2010, the present appeal has been filed.” Para 4 then also further states that, “The appeal was heard and disposed of by a split verdict of a two Judge Bench of this Court requiring the present reference.”

Be it noted, it is then envisaged in para 5 that, “Two principal questions arose for determination of the appeal which have been set out in the order of Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai dated 7th December, 2012 in the following terms.

‘(1) Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends to protecting such an accused from being compelled to give his voice sample during the course of investigation into an offence?

(2) Assuming that there is no violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, whether in the absence of any provision in the Code, can a Magistrate authorize the investigating agency to record the voice sample of the person accused of an offence?’”

As it turned out, para 6 then reveals that, “While the first question was answered in the negative by both the learned Judges (Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Aftab Alam) following the ratio of the law laid down in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808, difference of opinion has occurred insofar as second question is concerned.”

On the one hand, para 7 points out that, “Justice Desai took the view that voice sample can be included in the phrase “such other tests” appearing in Explanation (a) to Section 53 Cr.P.C. by applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis and, therefore, the Magistrate would have an implied power under Section 53 Cr.P.C. to pass an order permitting taking of voice sample in the aid of criminal investigation.”

On the contrary, para 8 then observes that, “On the other hand, Justice Aftab Alam took the view that compulsion on an accused to give his/her voice sample must be authorized on the basis of a law passed by the Legislature instead of a process of judicial interpretation. In this regard, the learned judge (Aftab Alam, J.) also took note of the amendments in Sections 53, 53A and 311-A of the Cr.P.C. by Act No. 25 of 2005 introduced with effect from 23rd June, 2006 which amendments did not bring, within the fold of the aforesaid provisions of the Cr.P.C., any power in the trial Court to compel an accused to give sample of his/her voice for the purpose of investigation of a criminal charge.”

To put things in perspective, it is then explained in para 11 that, “Medical examination of an accused for the purposes of effective investigation of a criminal charge has received a wider meaning by the amendment to the Explanation to Section 53 Cr.P.C. made by Act No. 25 of 2005 with effect from 23rd June, 2006. Similarly, Section 53A has been inserted by the same Amending Act (No. 25 of 2005) to provide for examination of a person accused of rape. Likewise, by insertion of Section 311-A by the same Amending Act (No. 25 of 2005) a Magistrate has been empowered to order any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Cr.P.C.”

To be sure, it is then clarified in para 12 that, “None of the said amendments specifically authorize or empower a Magistrate to direct an accused person or any other person to give his/her voice sample for the purposes of an inquiry or investigation under the Code. “Omission” of the Legislature to specifically so provide has led the learned Judge (Justice Aftab Alam) on the two judge Bench to doubt as to whether legislative wisdom was in favour of a specific exclusion or omission so as to make a judicial exercise through a process of interpretation impermissible.”

More importantly, it is then envisaged in para 13 that, “The Law Commission of India in its 87th report dated 29th August, 1980, also had an occasion to deal with the question presently confronting the Court. The Law Commission examined the matter (almost four decades earlier) in the context of the working of the provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. The view taken was that a suitable legislation which could be in the form of an amendment to Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 would be appropriate so as to specifically empower a Judicial Magistrate to compel an accused person to give a sample of his voice. The following extract from the 87th Report of the Law Commission dated 29th August, 1980 would be relevant.

“A voice print is a visual recording of voice. It mainly depends on the position of “formats”. These are concentrates of sound energy at a given frequency. It is stated that their position is the “frequency domain” is unique to each speaker. Voice prints resemble finger prints, in that each person has a distinctive voice with characteristic features dictated by vocal cavities and articulates.

Voice-print Identification seems to have a number of practical uses. In England, in November 1967, at the Winchester Magistrate’s Court, a man was accused of making malicious telephone calls. Voice-print Identification (spectrograph) was used and the accused was found guilty.” [Paragraphs 5, 27, 87th Report of the Law Commission of India]

*** *** ***

“Often it becomes desirable to have an accused person speak for the purposes of giving to the police an opportunity to hear his voice and try to identify it as that of the criminal offender. A comparison may even be desired between the voice of an accused person and the recorded voice of a criminal which has been obtained by, say, telephone tapping. To facilitate proof of the crime the police may like that the accused should be compelled to speak, and even that his voice as recorded may be converted into a “voice print”.

……………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………

However, if the accused refuses to furnish such voice, there is no legal sanction for compelling him to do so, and the use of force for that purpose would be illegal.”

*** *** ***

“The scope of Section 5 needs to be expanded in another aspect. The general power of investigation given to the police under the Criminal Procedure Code may not imply the power to require the accused to furnish a specimen of his voice. Cases in which the voice of the accused was obtained for comparison with the voice of the criminal offender are known but the question whether the accused can be compelled to do so does not seem to have been debated so far in India.

There is no specific statutory provision in India which expressly gives power to a police officer or a court to require an accused person to furnish a specimen of his voice.” [Paragraph 5, 26, 87th Report of the Law Commission of India].”

It cannot be missed out that para 14 then holds that, “Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 coincidentally empowers the Magistrate to order/direct any person to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding. It may be significant to note that the amendments in the Cr.P.C., noticed above, could very well have been a sequel to the recommendation of the Law Commission in its Report dated 29th August, 1980 though the said recommendation was in slightly narrower terms i.e. in the context of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. In this regard, it may also be usefully noticed that though this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Babu Misra AIR 1980 SC 791 after holding that a Judicial Magistrate has no power to direct ac accused to give his specimen writing for the purposes of investigation had suggested to Parliament that a suitable legislation be made on the analogy of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 sp as to invest a Magistrate with the power to issue directions to any person including an accused person to give specimen signatures and writings. The consequential amendment, instead, came by way of insertion of Section 311-A in the Cr.P.C. by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No. 25 of 2005) with effect from 23rd June, 2006.”

As things stand, para 15 then points out that, “The legislative response in remaining silent or acting at a “slow” pace can always be explained by legislative concerns and considerations of care and caution. It is in the aforesaid context and in the admitted absence of any clear statutory provision that the question arising has to be answered which is primarily one of the extent to which by a process of judicial interpretation a clear gap in the statute should be filled up pending a formal legislative exercise. It is the aforesaid question that we shall now turn to.”

Needless to say, it is then made clear in para 16 that, “ “Procedure is the handmaid, not the mistress, of justice and cannot be permitted to thwart the fact-finding course in litigation”. [AIR 1975 SC 349 (Vatal Nagaraj vs R. Dayanand Sagar)]. We would like to proceed in the matter keeping the above view of this Court in the backdrop.”

More to the point, it is then observed in para 18 that, “In the present case, the view that the law on the point should emanate from the Legislature and not from the Court, as expressed in the judgment of this Court from which the reference has emanated is founded on two main reasons, viz., (i) the compulsion to give voice sample does in some way involve an invasion of the rights of the individual and to bring it within the ambit of the existing law would require more than reasonable bending and stretching of the principles of interpretation and (ii) if the legislature even while making amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. 25 of 2005), is oblivious and despite express reminders chooses not to include voice sample either in the newly introduced explanation to Section 53 or in Sections 53A and 311A of Cr.P.C., then it may even be contended that in the larger scheme of things the legislature is able to see something which perhaps the Court is missing.”

It cannot be lost on us that it is then observed in para 19 that, “Insofar as the first reservation is concerned, the same would stand dispelled by one of the earlier pronouncements of this Court on the subject in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra), relevant extracts of which judgment has already been set out. The following views in the concurring opinion of Justice K.C. Das Gupta in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra) would further strengthen the view of this Court to the contrary.

“(32) ………..It has to be noticed that Article 20(3) of our Constitution does not say that an accused person shall not be compelled to be a witness. It says that such a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. The question that arises therefore is: Is an accused person furnishing evidence against himself, when he gives his specimen handwriting, or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot? The answer to this must, in our opinion, be in the negative.

(33) ………..the evidence of specimen handwriting or the impressions of the accused person’s fingers, palm or foot, will incriminate him, only if on comparison of these with certain other handwritings or certain other impressions, identity between the two sets is established. By themselves, these impressions or the handwritings do not incriminate the accused person, or even tend to do so. That is why it must be held that by giving these impressions or specimen handwriting, the accused person does not furnish evidence against himself. So, when an accused person is compelled to give a specimen handwriting or impressions of his finger, palm or foot, it may be said that he has been compelled to be a witness; it cannot however be said that he has been compelled to be a witness against himself.”

[Emphasis is ours]”

What’s more, it is then pointed out in para 20 that, “So far as the second basis for the view taken is concerned, we have already expressed an opinion that what may appear to be legislative inaction to fill in the gaps in the Statute could be on account of justified legislative concern and exercise of care and caution. However, when a yawning gap in the Statute, in the considered view of the Court, calls for temporary patchwork of filling up to make the Statute effective and workable and to sub-serve societal interests a process of judicial interpretation would become inevitable.”

Truth be told, it is then rightly advised in para 21 that, “The exercise of jurisdiction by Constitutional Courts must be guided by contemporaneous realities/existing realities on the ground. Judicial power should not be allowed to be entrapped within inflexible parameters or guided by rigid principles. True, the judicial function is not to legislate but in a situation where the call of justice and that too of a large number who are not parties to the lis before the Court, demands expression of an opinion on a silent aspect of the Statute, such void must be filled up not only on the principle of ejusdem generis but on the principle of imminent necessity with a call to the Legislature to act promptly in the matter.”

Furthermore, it would be of immense significance to note here that it is then observed in para 24 that, “Would a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, is the next question. The issue is interesting and debatable but not having been argued before us it will suffice to note that in view of the opinion rendered by this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC 353, Gobind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (1975) 2 SCC 148 and the Nine Judge’s Bench of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy and another vs. Union of India and others (2017) 10 SCC 1 the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. We refrain from any further discussion and consider it appropriate not to record any further observation on an issue not specifically raised before us.”

Finally and most importantly, it is then held in the last para 25 that, “In the light of the above discussions, we unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We order accordingly and consequently dispose the appeals in terms of the above.”

In essence, this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment very rightly takes the logical stand that though right to privacy is a fundamental right but it cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest. Right to privacy cannot trample compelling public interest and has to step aside whenever it is in conflict with it! Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.