Monday, April 05, 2021
IISc tops ARWU ranking 2020, Calcutta University best Indian varsity
ARWU ranking 2020: The Indian Institute of Science (IISc Bangalore) has secured the top position among the best higher education institutes in India, while Calcutta University became the best varsity in the country, as per the recently published Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU 2020).
As per the recently published Shanghai Ranking, the other top higher educational institutions in the country are- Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-Madras) (rank 2-4), University of Delhi (rank 2-4), Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-Delhi) (rank 5-7), Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-Kharagpur) (rank 5-7), Jawaharlal Nehru University (rank 5-7), Aligarh Muslim University (rank 8-9), Vellore Institute of Technology (rank 8-9), All India Institute of Medical Sciences (rank 10-15), Anna University (rank 10-15), Bharathiar University (rank 10-15), Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur (rank 10-15), Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (rank 10-15), Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) (rank 10- 15).
Meanwhile worldwide, the Indian institutes are not even in the top 100 list, the best higher education institute, (IISc Bangalore) is in the category of 501- 600. West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee congratulated Calcutta University for securing the top position.
Source: Indian Express, 3/04/21
Lightning may have sparked life on Earth, study finds
- Phosphorus is a vital building block of life as we know it, forming basic cell structures and the double helix shape of DNA and RNA.
Lightning strikes may have supplied primordial Earth with enough phosphorus to support the emergence of life, according to new research Tuesday that offered an alternative explanation as to how living organisms were born.
Phosphorus is a vital building block of life as we know it, forming basic cell structures and the double helix shape of DNA and RNA.
Billions of years ago on early Earth, most of the available phosphorus was locked away in insoluble minerals.
However one mineral, schreibersite, is highly reactive and produces phosphorus capable of forming organic molecules.
Since most schreibersite on Earth comes from meteorites, the emergence of life here has long been thought to be tied to the arrival of extraterrestrial rocks.
But schreibersite is also contained within the glass-like rock formed by lightning strikes in some types of clay-rich soils.
Researchers in the US and Britain used state of the art image techniques to analyse the amount of the phosphorus-giving mineral formed in each lightning strike.
They then estimated how much schreibersite could have been produced over the eons before and around the time of the emergence of life on Earth, around 3.5 billion years ago.
"Lightning strikes on early Earth may have provided a significant amount of reduced phosphorus," Benjamin Hess, lead study author from Yale's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, told AFP.
"And by synthesising the best of our knowledge of the conditions of early Earth, I think our results bear out this hypothesis."
Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Hess and his colleagues estimated that lightning strikes could have produced between 110 and 11,000 kilogrammes of phosphorus a year.
Using simulations of the climate on early Earth, they said that while meteor strikes began to decline after the Moon was formed 4.5 billion years ago, lightning strikes surpassed space rocks for phosphorus production around 3.5 billion years ago.
That timing coincides with the origin of life.
Hess said that the research didn't entirely discount meteorites as another source of life-giving phosphorus.
"Meteor impacts around the time of the emergence of life are far less than thought a decade ago," he said.
"But I don't see our work as a competition against meteorites as a source of phosphorus. The more sources, the better."
He said that he wanted to find out whether lightning strikes produce trace amounts of phosphorous on other planets where meteor strikes are rare.
"Meteor impacts decrease through time whereas lightning, at least on Earth, is relatively constant through time," Hess added.
Source: Hindustan Times, 16/03/21
The fight for gender equality
India has slipped 28 places to rank 140 among 156 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2021, becoming the third-worst performer in South Asia. According to the report, India has closed 62.5% of its gender gap. Among India’s neighbours, Bangladesh is ranked at 65, Nepal at 106, Pakistan at 153, Afghanistan at 156, Bhutan at 130, and Sri Lanka at 116, making the region the second-lowest performer on the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI). GGGI is based on four parameters: Economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
The world has fared the worst on the economic participation and opportunity sub-index. India has only closed 31.6% of the gap on this sub-index. Interestingly, this gap is not just seen in unskilled/low-skill segments but is equally pronounced in high-skill job segments. There is also a deeper problem. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2018-19, the female labour force participation rates among women aged above 15 years are as low as 26.4% in rural areas and 20.4% in urban areas in India. A 2018 report of the NITI Aayog, which reviewed the performance of states on Sustainable Development Goals, showed all states performed poorly on gender equality.
Both supply and demand factors, economists point out, contribute to the low levels of employment of women — from domestic responsibilities to the lack of demand for their labour to inadequate support infrastructure. There has also been movement out of agriculture into informal and casual jobs. These challenges have now been exacerbated by the pandemic, which is likely to have a scarring effect on women’s future economic opportunities, risking inferior re-employment prospects and a persistent drop in income. Over the years, legal reforms, gender-responsive social protection and public service delivery systems, quotas for women’s representation, and support for women’s movements have made a difference. It is now more important than ever to scale up these gender-positive recovery policies and practices, and provide enabling conditions for women to be employed, including better and safer transport, provision of hostels, and social security. Women’s participation in the economy must improve substantially, as must India’s record on other parameters. The country’s development potential will remain unmet if half its citizens are excluded.
Source: Hindustan Times, 1/04/21
Thursday, April 01, 2021
Quote of the Day April 1, 2021
“Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions - why am I doing it, what the results might be and will I be successful. Go ahead only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions.”
Chanakya
“कोई भी काम शुरु करने से पहले स्वयं से तीन प्रश्न पूछें - मैं यह काम क्यों कर रहा हूं, इसके क्या परिणाम हो सकते हैं और क्या मैं सफ़ल रहूंगा। इन तीनों प्रश्नों पर गहरे विचार के बाद यदि आप इनके उत्तर संतोषप्रद पाएं तभी आगे बढ़ें।”
चाणक्य
Copyright and Trademark Offences – Bailable or Not?: Bombay HC Also Weighs In
Recently, the Bombay High Court was faced with a controversial question of law while hearing an anticipatory bail application. The bail application was filed in response to a criminal report registered, inter alia, under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act. The primary issue addressed by the court was whether these offences are bailable in nature or non-bailable. The court ruled on the side of the latter, holding these offences to be non-bailable. In this post, I shall analyse this order and situate it in the context of its implications for free speech in the country.
Background
The above mentioned provisions deal with the infringement of copyright and trademarks respectively. Both of them prescribe a punishment of “not less than six months but which may extend to three years” in addition to the fine. The First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) provides for a three category classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable in accordance with the prescribed punishment. The second category in this classification states that offences “punishable with imprisonment for 3 years, and upwards but not more than 7 years” are non-bailable. The third category, on the other hand, states that offences “punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only” are bailable in nature. As the offences of copyright and trade marks have a maximum possible punishment of 3 years, it has led to a confusion as to which category they will fall under (see earlier posts on the blog here and here for more detailed context). Accordingly, different high courts have reached contrasting conclusions on this. While Andhra Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court (here and here) have held these offences to be bailable due to the possibility of less than 3 years of punishment, they have been held to be non-bailable by Gauhati High Court, Kerala High Court (here and here), and Rajasthan High Court, in light of the possibility of a 3 year punishment.
The Order
In the proceedings before the Bombay High Court, the State submitted that “this issue is no more res-integra” as different courts have held that offences punishable with up to 3 years of imprisonment are non-bailable in nature. The court sided with this interpretation, by relying upon a series of its earlier decisions dealing with the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966, where the classification was decided based on the maximum possible punishment. It also referred to the recent Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Nathu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, where on a reference it was held that offences for which imprisonment “may extend to three years” would fall in the second category, and thereby non-bailable and cognizable.
Missed Points
The above assessment of the Bombay High Court selectively considers only authorities supporting the final outcome arrived at by it, and ignoring the authorities that arrive at a contrary result. Two particularly relevant arguments raised in these orders that were not considered by the court are as follows.
First, the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi (‘Rajeev Chaudhary’) has not been addressed. The decision was rendered in the context of Section 167 of the CrPC and the court held that “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” will not include the offence of extortion that provides “imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years”. This has been distinguished by the Delhi High Court by considering that the language of the classification of offences in the First Schedule is “materially different” to the term “not less than” used in Section 167. The Rajasthan High Court similarly distinguished this decision considering it to be “in different context”. This, however, involves a discussion that does not consider the specific wording of the First Schedule. To reiterate, it uses the phrase “punishable with imprisonment for 3 years, and upwards but not more than 7 years.” (emphasis supplied). There is a deliberate use of the term ‘and’ in the classification. This possibly implies that the concerned offence must be punishable for 3 years and above, and not merely 3 years. A different interpretation would render the term ‘and’ redundant. If the view of the courts classifying these intellectual property offences in the second category were correct, then the term ‘and’ would have to be instead read as an ‘or’ which cannot be the case here. Accordingly, if the use of ‘and’ is considered deliberate, this makes the provisions in line with that in Rajeev Chaudhary since the effective interpretation of both provisions is the same. This interpretation should be favoured, as rightly pointed out by the Andhra High Court, in light of the fact that criminal provisions are required to be interpreted strictly.
Second, the Supreme Court decision in Avinash Bhosale v. Union of India has not been discussed. This was rendered in relation to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. It prescribes for a punishment of “imprisonment which may extend to three years” (identical to the intellectual property offences being discussed in this post). The apex court had held this to be a bailable offence. As the language of both the copyright and the trademark offences is identical, this interpretation would squarely apply to them and they must be considered as bailable. A similar view was also taken by the Delhi High Court.
In light of the non-consideration of the above Supreme Court judgments, it appears that the Bombay High Court order might be considered per incuriam and not good law.
Impact on Free Speech
Holding copyright and trademark offences to be cognizable and non-bailable in nature has a significantly high impact on freedom of speech and expression in the country. Six particular issues need consideration in this regards.
Dissuading Creativity
First of all, as Bhavik rightly argues, the essence of copyright law is to spur creativity and facilitate access to works. With the threat of a police arrest and the absence of bail as a right, creators would indulge in self-censorship lest they might need to serve jail time for their actions. This is particularly true in the modern day hostile environment in the country where creators are regularly targeted for their content. Particularly, there has recently been an increase in what are known as SLAPP litigation (‘strategic lawsuit against public participation’) where several cases have been filed against creators such as comedians.
Silencing Criticism
Secondly, this will also lead to suppression in criticism of unfair practices or government’s policies for fear of retaliation. This is because copyright law in the present day is being used as a means of censorship by both private players and the government. The excessive and unreasonable copyright infringement claims raised by WhiteHateJr to shut down all negative comments are an example of the former. The latter can be seen from recent reports hinting towards false invocation of copyright infringement by the Bangladesh government to take down content criticising the government’s functioning. This would, thus, further reduce the already narrowing boundaries of free speech in the country.
Hampering fair use
Thirdly, this would also dissuade carrying out activities which can be covered within the exceptions to the copyright law as provided in Section 52. This is because the determination of whether the concerned activity falls under the exception or not will happen only at a later stage of trial. Until such determination takes place, the threat of being booked under a cognizable, non-bailable offence and thereby the possibility of serving jail time looms large. For instance, consider an individual who runs a photocopying shop in Delhi where they photocopy entirety of books for the aid of students of a nearby university. If a copyright infringement suit is filed against them invoking Section 63, then there is a high probability that they will not be held guilty for the same in light of the D.U. Photocopy judgment. However, until the court rules so, the individual can be potentially arrested and put behind bars without any fault of theirs.
Trademark Bullying
Fourthly, even in context of trademarks, similar concerns persist. As the recent BigBasket-Daily Basket dispute indicates, big players regularly indulge in trademark bullying to drive smaller players out of the market or to make their business suffer. If such measures are resorted to, then legitimate trade mark owners also are exposed to the threats of being booked by a cognizable, non-bailable offence. A determination of whether there was indeed any infringement or not, or even whether the original mark itself is a generic mark and hence not protected, will only take place later during the trial. The situation is worsened by the absence of a consistent principle-based approach taken by Indian courts while dealing with issues such as likelihood of confusion. This further raises the possibility of harassment being suffered by legitimate trade mark owners.
Redundancy of Differentiated Culpability Model
Fifthly, it must be noted that both the legislations provide for differentiated punishment levels in that punishment of less than six months of imprisonment could also be imposed in adequate and special circumstances. The Copyright Act to this end, specifies that a precursor to this is that the “infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business”. Hence, both the legislations envision that certain actions are at a lower level of culpability than others and should be treated liberally. This provision of lesser penalty, however, would become redundant if the offence is considered a cognizable, non-bailable one. This is because in such circumstances the process itself would be highly challenging and excruciating even if the final punishment awarded is minimal. This is because the alleged infringer would need to undergo unreasonable prison time at the whims of the police, thereby probably suffering more than what the punishment would have subjugated them to.
Impact on Vulnerable Groups
Finally, this has special implications for a country like India where the majority of the population is unaware of the functioning of intellectual property legislations. In such a scenario, if police is given unbridled power to arrest individuals without warrant and if bail for the same is made difficult, it could potentially be used as a weapon for harassment with no available remedy for the victims. The large extent of possible intellectual property violations in India and the lack of interpretive clarity on their defences just sets up a system where vulnerable groups can selectively be targeted. It could, thereby, become a mild version of sedition laws with even the private players with high social capital being able to unduly harass their critics.
Conclusion
The constant widening of the scope of criminal provisions concerning intellectual property rights poses significant challenges to the growth of both creativity and freedom of speech in the country. If this is coupled with making these offences as cognizable and non-bailable, it further entrenches the problems posed by this criminalisation. It raises additional questions about the shaky grounds on which criminalisation of intellectual property rights raises as possibly the harms sought to be reduced are countered by much higher harms that are caused by criminalisation in the first place. It is, thus, hoped that a shift towards decriminalisation of intellectual property offences takes place soon. Additionally, it is necessary that some certainty is provided in the interpretive exercise involving the classification of offences under the CrPC, particularly for those offences that do not strictly fall within the ambit of any of the prescribed categories.
by
Source: spicyip.com, 25/03/21
James Wilson, the British economist who presented India’s first ‘budget’
In 1859, as the British Crown was still recovering from the injuries caused to it by the mutiny of 1857, it appointed a Scottish businessman to find a solution to India’s financial crisis. James Wilson, better known at that time as the founder of The Economist newspaper, had a credible presence in England for his firm grasp over economic theory and policy as well as a practical knowledge of commercial affairs. Karl Marx in his ‘Capital’ had described Wilson as ‘an economic mandarin of high standing’.
Wilson would go on to present the first-ever budget in India in 1860. He is credited with introducing a financial budget in India framed upon the English model. Although Wilson’s budget did receive some criticism for not taking into consideration Indian conditions, it did lay down the foundations of the way in which several economic institutions in India would go on to function, especially that of the income tax.
Who was James Wilson?
Wilson was born in Hawick, a town at the Scottish borders in 1805, to a Quaker family. At the young age of 16, he became an apprentice at a hat factory. While he worked through the day, Wilson would spend tHis father, a woollen manufacturer, went on to buy the factory for Wilson and his brother. In 1824, the two brothers shifted the business to London where it flourished.
During the economic crisis of 1837, Wilson lost most of his wealth. He sold most of his remaining property to avoid bankruptcy.
A decade later in 1853, Wilson founded the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, which later became the Standard Chartered Bank in 1969.
A strong critic of the Corn Laws which imposed heavy restrictions on imported food and grain, Wilson in 1843 founded The Economist as a newspaper to campaign for free trade.
Wilson’s intellectual engagements with the economic issues of the time were reflected in his writings including ‘The influence of Corn laws’ (1839), ‘Fluctuations of currency’ (1840) and ‘Capital, currency and banking’ (1847).
He entered the House of Commons as a Liberal member of Parliament from Westbury in 1847. Given his economic expertise, Wilson was appointed Secretary of the Board of Control, which oversaw the activities of the EIC in British India. Incidentally, he played a leading role in the organisation of railway construction in India during this period. He also served as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury from 1853 to 1858.
In August 1859, Wilson resigned from his seat in the Parliament as he was sent off to India, to remodel the country’s financial system which remained battered after the Mutiny.
What were the changes brought about by Wilson’s budget of 1860?
The crisis being faced by the British empire post the Mutiny is well evidenced by the enormous increase in annual military expenses. “The annual expenditure for the army, military police, new levies, police, and military public works went up from R. 13.2 crores (1856-57), to Rs. 17.2 crores (1857-58) and Rs. 24.7 crores (1858-59) and in the same period the debts of the government of India increased by 36 percent,” writes historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya in his book, ‘The Financial foundations of the British Raj: Ideas and interests in the reconstruction of Indian public finance (1858-1872).he nights reading up on economics.
Reacting to the needs of the time, Wilson wrote, “reforms become possible only when an emergency arises. Such an emergency has now arisen and reform and changes are now possible that have not been possible in our day.”
As the Indian Finance Member, the man appointed to solve the Mutiny crisis, Wilson resolved to introduce major institutional changes and hoped to ensure the influence of economic principles in the financial management of India. The major proposals made by Wilson included taxing the trading classes, a government paper currency, reform of the financial system with budgets, estimates and auditing, creation of a civil police, and a department for public works and roads. He is also credited for having set up a military finance commission and a civil finance commission.
Wilson presented his budget on February 18, 1860. He introduced three kinds of taxes- income tax, license tax and tobacco duty. However, only the first one went through, as the other two were dropped on the demand of the governor-general of India, Charles Canning.
The budget did receive some criticism, chief among them being from the governor of Madras, Charles Trevelyan, found Wilson to be too ‘theoretical’ with a tendency to ignore ‘Indian conditions’. Wilson’s biographer, Walter Bagehot, however, acknowledged the thought put by him in formulating the budget: “Although the people had to be gently led towards the path of economic science, yet he wished to show the kindest consideration towards the thought and sentiments springing from their historical antecedents.” Bhattacharya in his book notes that Wilson “took enormous care to establish the view that income tax was in consonance with the ancient Hindu laws codified in Manusmriti.”
Wilson died the same year he presented the budget, having contracted dysentery in the scorching heat of Calcutta. Despite the prominent public role he played in the economic history of India, he was buried inconspicuously at the Scottish cemetery in Mullick Bazaar in Calcutta. It was only in 2007 that the grave happened to be discovered by C P Bhatia, a joint commissioner of income tax who was researching for a book on India’s taxation history.
Written by Adrija Roychowdhury
Source: Indian Express, 1/02/21
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)