1. Universal Basic Income: The Philosophical and Fiscal Debate
- UPSC Relevance: GS-II (Welfare Schemes, Government Policies), GS-III (Indian Economy, Planning, Growth).
- Context and Introduction: The editorial re-ignites the debate on Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a potential centerpiece for India’s welfare architecture, moving away from fragmented, targeted subsidies. It suggests that amid widening wealth gaps and the precarity of the gig economy, UBI is a necessary moral, economic, and administrative reform.
- Arguments for UBI (The Moral & Administrative Strength):
- Dignity and Autonomy: UBI grants citizens a basic income floor unconditionally, transforming welfare from a political favour to a fundamental right, thereby restoring citizen dignity and empowering financial autonomy.
- Administrative Efficiency and Leakage Reduction: Its universality eliminates the need for complex, often corrupt, means-testing bureaucracies. Direct Cash Transfer (DCT) via the JAM Trinity (Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile) can drastically reduce leakage, exclusion errors (Type I), and corruption that plague existing schemes like the PDS.
- Economic Stability: UBI acts as an automatic economic stabilizer, especially during crises (like the pandemic), injecting demand directly into the economy’s base, thereby supporting local markets and consumption.
- Recognition of Unpaid Labour: It offers implicit recognition and support for unpaid care work, primarily done by women, which sustains the formal economy but remains invisible in national statistics.
- Fiscal and Logistical Challenges:
- Fiscal Sustainability: The primary hurdle is the sheer scale of the expenditure. Implementing a meaningful UBI requires either radical, unpopular measures like significant tax hikes or the rationalization/elimination of non-merit subsidies (e.g., heavily subsidized fuel, electricity, and even food beyond basic needs).
- Inflationary Risk: The large, one-time injection of cash into the economy could potentially lead to demand-pull inflation, which would negate the real value of the UBI, disproportionately hurting the poor and the middle class.
- Disincentive to Work: While international evidence is mixed, the philosophical concern persists that unconditional income might create a disincentive to engage in low-wage labour, particularly in the informal sector.
- Exclusion Error (Type II): Despite being universal, the most marginalized (e.g., the homeless, migrant workers, those without Aadhaar/bank accounts) can still be excluded, representing a Type II exclusion error.
- Policy Recommendations/Way Forward:
- Phased Implementation: India must adopt a ‘Quasi-UBI’ model initially, targeting high-vulnerability groups (elderly, single mothers, disabled) before attempting full universality.
- Transparent Funding: A dedicated UBI Fund should be created, directly linked to the savings from the comprehensive and transparent elimination of redundant subsidies to ensure public buy-in.
- Robust Digital Ecosystem: The JAM Trinity must be strengthened with better grievance redressal mechanisms to ensure seamless, real-time transfers and minimal exclusion of beneficiaries.
- Public Dialogue: An honest public dialogue on the necessary trade-offs (giving up current subsidies for UBI) is essential to build political and social consensus for the reform.
2. Mandatory Grounds of Arrest: Protecting Article 21
- UPSC Relevance: GS-II (Constitution – Fundamental Rights, Structure, Functioning of the Judiciary).
- Context and Introduction: The editorial discusses the Supreme Court’s critical ruling that makes the supply of written grounds of arrest mandatory for the accused in a language they understand, emphasizing that failure to do so violates the fundamental right to liberty.
- Constitutional and Legal Basis:
- The verdict reaffirms the sanctity of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), stating that life cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
- It directly enforces Article 22(1), which grants every arrested person the right “to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.”
- It also reiterates the principles laid down in the landmark D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal guidelines regarding the rights of the arrestee.
- Significance of the Judgment:
- Curb on Arbitrary Power: It acts as a powerful check on the State’s arbitrary use of police power and detention, making arresting agencies (Police, ED, etc.) more accountable.
- Effective Legal Defence: When the accused knows the specific grounds and charges, they are better equipped to seek legal aid, prepare a defense, and apply for bail or anticipatory bail.
- Language Barrier: The crucial addition is that the grounds must be provided in a language understood by the arrestee, which is vital in a linguistically diverse country, ensuring genuine information, not just a formal, incomprehensible document.
- Impact on Special Laws: The ruling has profound implications for special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) or the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), where arrests are often made without immediate clarity on the exact nature of the offense.
- Challenges in Implementation and Way Forward:
- Police Training and Sensitization: There is an urgent need for massive, mandatory training of police and central agency personnel on constitutional safeguards and adherence to procedural law, treating them as non-negotiable.
- Judicial Vigilance: Magistrates and Judges must exercise strict judicial oversight, systematically verifying whether the written grounds were supplied and understood by the accused before granting remand.
- Documentation in Local Languages: Investigating agencies must be equipped with resources for quick, accurate translation and documentation in various regional and tribal languages to comply with the “language understood” clause.
- Legal Aid Access: The right to be informed is meaningless without the right to act on that information. The provision of free and high-quality legal aid must be ensured immediately upon arrest to make the constitutional safeguard practically effective.
