Current Affairs for IAS Exams - 17 September 2013

Centre rejects Pachauri panel report, wants Sethusamudram project implemented

• The UPA government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, saying it wanted to implement the Sethusamudram project through the original alignment, cutting across the Ram Sethu.
• The Centre said it did not accept the recommendations of the expert committee, headed by Dr. Pachauri, that it was unlikely that public interest would be served if the project was implemented as per Alignment No. 4 A (an alternative route suggested by the court against the original alignment No. 6 that will cut through Ram Sethu.)
• It rejected Tamil Nadu’s stand that the project be scrapped as it “is of questionable economic value and not in public interest.

• “The project has strategic, navigational and socio-economic benefits and judging the economic viability of the project merely by the internal rate of return — which reflects only the commercial viability — may not be appropriate.”

• Faulting the Pachauri Committee’s recommendations, the Centre said: “Though the data did not support blocking of the project… and the evidence showed benefits from the project, the committee arbitrarily and contrary to its own studies has concluded that the project is not viable.
• The recommendation of the committee is not tenable and is not supported by scientific data and by environmental studies commissioned by the committee itself.
• “The Environment Appraisal Committee had examined the project and suggested various safeguards which were stipulated in the environmental clearance issued for the project
• The Centre contended that it would be wrong to state that the project had the potential of affecting the livelihood of fishermen because the expert committee, while commenting on the impact from land environment, indicated that the project would stimulate a lot of ancillary developments, leading to use of barren land for commercial activities.

• Tamil Nadu had sought a directive to the Centre to accept the Pachauri Committee’s report; direct the Centre not to implement the project by adopting either Alignment No. 4 A or No. 6, considering the eco-fragility of the surrounding area and the Gulf of Mannar and also as the project is of questionable economic value and not in public interest; to direct the Centre to declare Ram Sethu a national monument; and to restrain the Centre from undertaking any activity that will adversely affect Ram Sethu.

Panel recommends sweeping changes in clinical trials process

• An official expert committee has recommended major changes in the guidelines for approval of new drugs, clinical trials and banning of medicines.
• It suggested setting up of a council to oversee the accreditation of institutions, clinical investigators and institute ethics committees for clinical trials in the country.
• The six-member Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury Expert Committee, set up in February this year, said clinical trials can only be carried out at accredited centres.
• Both the principal investigator of the trial, and the ethics committee of the institute should be accredited.
• Only those trials conducted at such centres should be accepted by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI.
• Focussing on the importance of informed consent from each participant for clinical trials, the panel said any departure or violation from the approved process should result in blacklisting of the Principal Investigator for at least up to 5 years.
• In circumstances where special groups of people who have diminished capacity to protect their interests are involved, the guardian can give consent and this should be witnessed by an independent person who also has to sign the document.
• Audiovisual recording of the informed consent process should be undertaken and the documentation preserved, adhering to the principles of confidentiality,
• Further, it calls for replacing the existing 12 drug advisory committees by a single broad expertise-based Technical Review Committee to ensure speedy clearance of applications without compromising on quality of data and rules and regulations.

Grounds of land acquisition

• The amended version of the Land Acquisition Act has been passed, but it does not entirely settle the issues of dubious takeover of land and failure to pay fair compensation.

• Although renamed the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, it leaves open the possibility of the Central and State governments being able to bypass it and deny vulnerable property owners much-needed relief.

• The seriousness of the purpose behind bringing forward reforms in land acquisition was in doubt from the start. In 2011, when the government published the draft Bill for public comments, it was found to have exempted 16 Central Acts, including the infamous Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, 2005 from the proposed provisions. Given that reckless acquisition of land for SEZs had precipitated protests against forced acquisition, these exemptions understandably created outrage.

• As pointed out by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development that reviewed the draft Bill in 2012, as much as 95 per cent of all land acquisitions by the Central government were done through the 16 Central Acts, and that exempting them from their purview would make the proposed amendments meaningless.
• It recommended the removal of the exemption clause. It went further and suggested that the 16 Central Acts, which had provisions for acquiring land, should be amended to bring their compensation and entitlements package on a par with the proposed Bill.
• However, the United Progressive Alliance government decided to overlook the recommendation.
• In its final form, the Bill exempted 13 Central Acts from the new provisions. The fewer number of exemptions — from 16 down to 13 — did not indicate any change of heart.
• The government had to drop the SEZ Act since it could not defend it by any stretch of logic.
• Two other Acts — the Cantonments Act and the Works of Defence Act — were removed on the request of the Ministry of Defence
• The position of the State governments in this issue is no better.
• Land and development are State subjects, but acquisition is in the Concurrent List.
• State governments have their own pieces of legislation to take over property, and these too are riddled with problems.
• For instance, Maharashtra acquires large tracts of land under the provisions of its Industrial Development Act. It uses this Act to create exclusive industrial and economic zones
• It has started acquiring 67,500 acres from 78 villages to create a Mumbai-Delhi industrial corridor.
• Farmers are agitating against this and are concerned about forcible acquisition. Tamil Nadu too has a similar legislation. A few years ago, it creatively deployed the Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act to take over land for the expansion of Chennai airport. Affected residents unsuccessfully challenged such extended use of the Act.
• Many States try to justify such special Acts and use them frequently since it allows for speedy acquisition.
• The sad fact is that compensation offered under these Acts is low compared to the revised Central Act. And they hardly talk of rehabilitation and resettlement packages.
• Going by the deposition of State governments before the Standing Committee, and recent statements made by Chief Ministers, it would appear that States are not keen to amend their laws.
• For example, the Madhya Pradesh government told the Standing Committee that it did not want its own Municipal Corporation Act and the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which have provisions for land acquisition, to be affected by the stringent measures provided for in the new Bill.
• It argued that as in the case of 16 Central Acts, State Acts too should be exempted.

Sources: Various News Paper