Current Affairs 21 March 2025

Content:

1. X Corp. challenges content blocking orders, opposes Centre’s ‘censorship portal’
2. How do habitual offender laws discriminate?
3. ‘Land acquired for public purpose can’t be returned to owner through private deal’
4. Should immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens?
5. The TB crisis and women: why gender issues matters more than ever
6. Engaged communities are key to ending TB

X Corp. challenges content blocking orders, opposes Centre’s ‘censorship portal’

Context : X Corp has challenged the Indian government’s content blocking orders and the Sahyog portal, raising concerns over digital censorship, legal overreach, and freedom of speech. 

Relevance : GS-2 (Governance, Constitution, Polity & Social Justice )

X Corp’s Legal Challenge:

• X Corp (formerly Twitter) has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court against the Indian government’s content blocking orders.
• The company is opposing the Centre’s newly introduced Sahyog portal, calling it a “censorship portal”.
• X Corp argues that the portal allows excessive government control over content removal by enabling all government agencies, including local police, to issue blocking orders.

Legal Provisions in Question:

• Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000:
  • Allows the Union government to block public access to content for reasons like sovereignty, security, public order, or preventing incitement.
  • Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) judgment laid down procedural safeguards to prevent misuse.

• Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000:
  • States that intermediaries (like social media platforms) lose protection from liability if they fail to remove unlawful content when notified by the government.
  • X Corp argues that this does not grant the government the power to issue blocking orders.

X Corp’s Concerns:

• The Union Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) misused Section 79(3)(b) by allowing various government agencies to issue blocking orders.
• The Sahyog portal was created to enforce such orders without the procedural safeguards required under Section 69A.
• X Corp fears coercive action if it does not comply with orders issued via Sahyog or fails to appoint a nodal officer for coordination.

Government’s Standpoint:

• Officials claim that Section 79 orders do not mandate blocking, but merely notify intermediaries about illegal content.
• The government insists that the Sahyog portal is not a censorship tool, but a mechanism to ensure faster compliance.

Legal and Expert Opinions:

• Prasanth Sugathan (Software Freedom Law Centre, India):
  • Expressed concerns over the Sahyog portal allowing mass complaints without procedural safeguards.

• Government’s Argument in Court:
  • The Additional Solicitor-General argued that no interim relief was required as there was no immediate action against X Corp.

Next Steps:

• Karnataka High Court hearing scheduled for March 27 to determine the legal standing of Sahyog and the government’s blocking mechanism.

How do habitual offender laws discriminate?

Context : Supreme Court’s Stand on Habitual Offender Laws

• SC questioned the constitutional validity of these laws in Oct 2023, calling them “constitutionally suspect.”
• Observed that such laws target Denotified Tribes (DNTs) and reinforce historical discrimination.
• Urged states to review the necessity of these laws.

Relevance : GS 1(Society ) , GS 2(Governance , Polity)

Origin of the ‘Habitual Offender’ Concept

• Colonial Beginnings: Started with Regulation XXII of 1793, allowing imprisonment of communities based on suspicion.
• Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) 1871: Marked entire tribes as “criminal” by birth.
• Repeal in 1952: CTA was repealed, and affected communities were classified as Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs, NTs, SNTs).
• Post-Independence Continuation: States enacted new “habitual offender” laws, shifting from community-based classification to individual-based classification.

Discriminatory Application of the Laws

• Despite repealing CTA, states continued surveillance of DNT communities under habitual offender laws.
• Crimes listed under these laws include vague terms like “being a thug,” “lurking,” and “belonging to a gang of dacoits.”
• Rajasthan’s prison manuals explicitly allowed DNT community members to be labeled habitual offenders.

Historical and Contemporary Backlash

• 1998 Case of Budhan Sabar: A custodial death that sparked outrage over the misuse of these laws.
• Formation of DNT-RAG (Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Rights Action Group): Advocacy led by Mahasweta Devi and G.N. Devy.
• UN Committee on Racial Discrimination (2007): Called for repeal of such laws.
• Virginius Xaxa Committee (2014): Noted persistent stigma due to habitual offender laws.

Current Status in States

• Repealed or Discontinued: Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha (not implemented in 5+ years).
• States Defending the Law:
  • Gujarat: Claims “intent” is not to harass DNTs.
  • Goa: Argues no DNTs exist in the state, so misuse is not possible.
  • Telangana: Calls it a preventive measure.
  • Uttar Pradesh: States it is covered under the Goondas Act.

Data on Habitual Offenders

• NCRB 2022 Data: 1.9% of India’s 1.29 lakh convict population classified as habitual offenders.
• Delhi: Highest proportion, with 21.5% of convicts labeled as habitual offenders.

Key Concerns and the Way Forward

• Structural Discrimination: Continues targeting marginalized DNT communities.
• Legal Ambiguity: Vague definitions allow arbitrary application.
• Need for Repeal: SC and international bodies advocate for abolition to prevent abuse.
• State Accountability: Ensuring legal reforms align with constitutional principles and human rights.

‘Land acquired for public purpose can’t be returned to owner through private deal’

The Supreme Court ruled that land acquired for public purposes cannot be returned to the original owner through private deals, calling it a fraud on the state’s power of eminent domain.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance , Constitution )

Judgment Highlights

• The Supreme Court ruled that land acquired for public purposes cannot be returned to the original owner through a private deal.
• The judgment emphasized that such transactions amount to fraud on the state’s power of eminent domain.
• The case involved the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, which had agreed to return half of the acquired land to the original owner after acquisition.
• The court stated that this violates the principle of eminent domain, which justifies compulsory acquisition for public benefit.

Legal and Constitutional Aspects

• Eminent Domain Principle: The state has the power to acquire private land for public use, but it must be used strictly for the intended purpose.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The land was acquired under this Act for a grain market in Narela, Delhi.
• Fraudulent Use of Sovereign Power: The SC held that allowing such private transactions would undermine public interest and state authority.

Implications of the Judgment

• Prevention of Misuse: The ruling curbs potential misuse of land acquisition laws by statutory bodies.
• Transparency in Land Acquisition: Reinforces the need for accountability and adherence to public purpose in government land acquisitions.
• Future Precedent: Strengthens legal safeguards against arbitrary transfers of acquired land, ensuring it is not misused for private gain.

Conclusion

The SC’s judgment reinforces constitutional morality in land acquisition, ensuring that public interest is upheld and preventing the misuse of state power for private benefit.

Should immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens?

The debate over whether immigrants should have the same right to protest as citizens gains prominence amid recent U.S. crackdowns on foreign student activists.

Relevance : GS 2(Rights , Governance , International Relations)

Legal Basis Under International Law

• Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees freedom of expression for both citizens and immigrants.
• However, restrictions can be imposed for national security or public order reasons.
• Some countries enforce stricter regulations, while liberal democracies are more permissive.

National Security and Foreign Policy Constraints

• Governments often prioritize security over free speech when it comes to non-citizens.
• U.S. legal tradition supports free speech, but non-citizens may not have equal protection.
• The legal status of the individual (citizen, green card holder, or visa holder) determines their rights.

First Amendment Rights and U.S. Law

• First Amendment protects non-citizens in criminal cases, but deportation cases are different.
• The Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 allows the deportation of non-citizens for supporting designated terrorist organizations.
• Past precedents (e.g., Cold War deportations) show that legal aliens can face action for ideological affiliations.

Impact on International Students & U.S. Soft Power

• Visa revocations and funding cuts to universities may deter international students in the long run.
• The U.S. risks losing credibility on free speech advocacy if it selectively suppresses dissent.
• Such actions could legitimize authoritarian measures globally, weakening democratic norms.

Executive Control Over Immigration Judges

• Immigration judges in the U.S. operate under the Department of Justice, making them vulnerable to executive influence.
• While the judicial system provides checks and balances, the process can feel politically motivated for immigrants.

Controversy Over Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the 1952 Act

• This provision allows deportation if an immigrant’s actions “adversely affect foreign policy”.
• It is criticized as vague and susceptible to misuse.
• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) upheld free speech protections unless material support for terrorism is proven.

Broader Implications

• If the U.S. weaponizes its immigration laws to silence dissent, it risks undermining its own global influence.
• The current legal battles over student activists will be a test of U.S. constitutional principles.

Indian Perspective

• India’s Legal Framework: ICCPR protects free speech, but the Foreigners Act, 1946, allows restrictions on foreign protesters.
• Visa Regulations: Foreigners in India, especially on student/work visas, are generally barred from political protests.
• Past Incidents: German IIT student deported (2020) for anti-CAA protests; Bangladeshi national faced similar action.
• National Security: India strictly controls protests linked to China, Pakistan, and insurgencies.
• Impact on Indians Abroad: U.S. crackdown may set a precedent affecting Indian students.
• Diplomatic Response: India may raise concerns if Indian students face action abroad while restricting protests domestically.

Conclusion

While international law supports equal rights to protest, domestic legal frameworks often limit non-citizens’ rights based on national security concerns. The balance between free speech and security remains a key legal and ethical debate.

The TB crisis and women: why gender issues matters more than ever

Context : Gender Disparities in TB Burden

• Women face unique challenges in TB diagnosis and treatment due to social and economic barriers.
• The India TB Report 2023 states men are more affected due to smoking, drug use, and occupational exposure, but women face under-diagnosis and delayed care.

Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues , Health )

Stigma and Discrimination

• Women with TB often face social isolation, loss of employment, and abandonment by families.
• Post-treatment challenges include skin discoloration, physical weakness, and mental health struggles.
• Cultural norms discourage open discussion of TB, leading to hidden cases and late-stage detection.

Barriers to Accessing Treatment

• Financial dependence makes it difficult for women to afford treatment and nutritious food.
• Caregiver burden forces many women to prioritize family duties over their health.
• Lack of awareness and healthcare-seeking behavior leads to untreated TB cases.

Government Initiatives and Shortcomings

• Nikshay Poshan Yojana provides ₹1,000/month for TB patients, but access remains inconsistent.
• Pradhan Mantri TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyan mobilizes community support for nutritional assistance.
• The National TB Elimination Program (NTEP) targets 2025 for TB elimination, but challenges in implementation persist.

India’s TB Burden: The Bigger Picture

• India accounts for 27% of global TB cases; 331,000 deaths occurred in 2022.
• Drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) is rising, with 2.5% of new cases and 13% of treated cases affected.
• HIV-TB co-infection complicates treatment for around 2% of TB patients.

The Way Forward

• Strengthen gender-sensitive healthcare policies to ensure early diagnosis and support.
• Improve financial and social assistance programs to prevent treatment abandonment.
• Enhance community awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and misinformation.
• Ensure robust implementation of benefit schemes with active monitoring and accountability.

Engaged communities are key to ending TB

Despite being preventable and treatable, tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global health challenge, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and requiring a community-driven approach for effective eradication.

Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues , Health)

Global TB Burden

• Prevalence: TB remains a major global health challenge, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
• Statistics: WHO Global Tuberculosis Report 2024 states:
  • 10.8 million people developed active TB in 2023.
  • 1.25 million deaths globally.
• Contradiction: Despite being preventable and treatable, TB continues to cause high mortality.

The Role of Community Engagement

• Beyond medical treatment – TB exists in a social context; families and communities are crucial in the fight.
• Key aspects of community participation:
  • Co-designing care models.
  • Shaping awareness campaigns.
  • Creating treatment support programs that address medical, social, and economic barriers.

• Impact of lived experiences:
  • Helps identify challenges and gaps in TB care.
  • Ensures culturally relevant support systems.
  • Strengthens treatment adherence through survivor-led initiatives.

Addressing TB-Related Stigma

• Stigma discourages diagnosis & treatment: Fear of discrimination leads to delays in seeking medical help.
• Community-driven solutions:
  • Survivor-led advocacy raises awareness and changes public perceptions.
  • Family and community narratives help normalize conversations about TB.

• Policymaking gaps:
  • Those affected by TB are excluded from advocacy and communication efforts.
  • Medicalised, top-down approach limits community participation.
  • Tokenistic engagement reduces the effectiveness of TB programs.

Challenges in Community Engagement

• Lack of institutional support:
  • Community participation is often symbolic rather than meaningful.
  • Grassroots organizations struggle with funding constraints.

• Rigid, expert-led structures:
  • National TB programs fail to fully integrate community voices.
  • Policies are created without grassroots input, leading to weak implementation.

Successful Community-Driven Models

• India – Survivors Against TB (SATB):
  • First survivor-led advocacy movement.
  • Focus on patient rights, policy changes, nutritional & mental health support.

• South Africa – Desmond Tutu TB Centre:
  • Integrates research, community participation, and policy advocacy.
  • “Kick TB” campaign uses soccer to educate schoolchildren about TB.

• Key takeaway: Community leadership drives sustainable change.

The Way Forward: Rethinking TB Care

• Shift from tokenism to substantive engagement.
• Prioritize affected communities over numerical targets.
• Holistic TB response: Integrate medical, social, and psychological support.
• Empathy & equity in TB care – A person-centered approach is essential for elimination.