1. Declining Maternity Entitlements in India – A Policy Concern
Introduction
Maternity entitlements are a crucial social welfare measure aimed at ensuring financial and nutritional support to pregnant women. However, recent trends indicate a decline in both the reach and financial support of maternity benefit schemes in India. The Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), the flagship scheme for maternity benefits, has been criticized for its restrictive provisions, low coverage, and reduced funding.
- Legal and Policy Framework
- The National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, mandates universal maternity benefits of ₹6,000.
- PMMVY, the government’s primary scheme, restricts benefits to ₹5,000 and only for the first child, which violates NFSA provisions.
- The Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act, 2017, ensures 26 weeks of paid maternity leave in the formal sector, but most women in the informal sector remain uncovered.
- Issues with PMMVY Implementation
- Low Financial Assistance: ₹5,000 is inadequate to cover essential maternity needs, especially considering inflation.
- Exclusion of Second Child: The scheme discriminates against women who have more than one child, particularly if the second child is a girl.
- Low Coverage: Only 9% of eligible women received PMMVY benefits in 2023-24, down from 27.6% in 2020-21.
- Administrative Hurdles: Aadhaar-based verification, delays in fund disbursement, and lack of proper data transparency hinder implementation.
- Comparison with Tamil Nadu and Odisha
- Tamil Nadu’s Dr. Muthulakshmi Maternity Benefit Scheme provides up to ₹24,000, covering over 64% of births in 2021-22.
- Odisha’s Mamata Scheme provides ₹10,000 for rural women and ₹18,000 for urban women, with coverage ahead of the NFSA mandate.
- These states demonstrate that well-funded and efficiently managed schemes can yield better results.
- Government’s Neglect and Policy Failure
- The central government has reduced PMMVY funding instead of expanding the scheme.
- Poor transparency and lack of public data on PMMVY hinder effective monitoring.
- Exclusion errors due to digital verification create unnecessary obstacles for pregnant women.
Conclusion
India’s maternity benefit schemes are failing to reach most of the women they intend to support. A substantial increase in funding, expansion of coverage beyond the first child, and reduction in bureaucratic hurdles are essential reforms. Learning from successful models in Tamil Nadu and Odisha, the government must ensure that all pregnant women receive their rightful entitlements under the NFSA.
Bottom of FormMains Practice Question |
Q. The decline in maternity entitlements in India contradicts the principles of the National Food Security Act. Critically analyze the effectiveness of PMMVY and suggest measures to improve its reach and impact. |
2. Legal and Administrative Aspects of Registering FIRs Under BNSS
Introduction
The recent registration of FIRs under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for violating District Magistrate’s orders has sparked debate on the legal limitations and procedural requirements for such cases. The issue also raises concerns about the criminalization of begging and the scope of executive authority in enforcing public order regulations.
- Legal Provisions Involved
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
- Section 223: Deals with violations of District Magistrate’s prohibitory orders.
- Section 215: Prevents the police from taking cognizance of certain offenses unless a complaint is made in writing by a public servant.
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973:
- Section 195: Prohibits courts from taking cognizance of certain offenses without a written complaint from a public servant.
- Indian Penal Code (IPC) (now replaced by BNS):
- Section 188: Punishes disobedience of orders promulgated by public authorities.
- Issue of Registering FIRs for Prohibitory Orders
- A District Magistrate can issue orders in cases of public disturbance or emergency under Section 163 of the BNS.
- However, an FIR cannot be registered directly for violation of these orders under Section 223 of the BNS unless a proper complaint is filed.
- The police cannot take suo motu action on such offenses.
- The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and Others (1994) ruled that prosecution under these sections requires careful scrutiny to prevent misuse.
- Implications of Criminalizing Begging
- The FIRs were registered as part of Indore’s anti-begging drive.
- Criminalizing begging raises ethical concerns, as many beggars are victims of poverty rather than deliberate lawbreakers.
- The Madras High Court in Jeevanandham v. State of Andhra (2018) held that criminal action should not be taken for minor violations of public order unless necessary.
- The government could consider rehabilitative approaches instead of strict criminal action.
- Judicial Precedents and Administrative Discretion
- Supreme Court rulings in Kunhipanan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) reinforced that procedural safeguards must be followed in registering FIRs.
- The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that failure to notify the appropriate authority before registering an FIR can invalidate the complaint.
- District Magistrates should ensure compliance with Section 215 of the BNS before initiating action.
Conclusion
While maintaining public order is essential, procedural safeguards must be followed to prevent misuse of criminal law. The government should focus on rehabilitative policies for beggars rather than punitive measures. Proper legal procedures, including obtaining written complaints from authorized officials, must be followed to ensure fair application of the law.
Mains Practice Question |
Q. The recent registration of FIRs under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita highlights concerns regarding the criminalization of minor offenses and procedural safeguards in law enforcement. Critically analyze the issue and suggest measures for improving legal compliance while ensuring justice. |
3. Indian Railways and the Challenge of Passenger Safety
Introduction
The recent stampede at New Delhi Railway Station on February 15 has exposed deep-rooted flaws in the Indian Railways’ passenger safety management. Despite repeated tragedies in the past, systemic inertia, inadequate crowd control measures, and poor planning continue to endanger lives. The incident highlights the urgent need for reforms in railway infrastructure, management, and accountability.
- Causes of the Stampede
- Poor Crowd Management: Sudden changes in platform usage without adequate information or safety measures led to chaos.
- Overcrowding and Ticket Sales: A large number of unreserved passengers were present due to a major pilgrimage event, but the railways failed to anticipate the surge.
- Inadequate Security and Infrastructure: Insufficient Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel, faulty escalators, and lack of barricading contributed to the disaster.
- Systemic Issues in Indian Railways
- Neglect of Safety Measures: Repeated railway tragedies, including those at Elphinstone Road (2017) and Allahabad (2013), indicate a failure to learn from past mistakes.
- Lack of Modernization in Crowd Control: Unlike airports or metro systems, railway stations lack structured passenger flow management.
- Accountability and Transparency Issues: Investigations are often led by railway officials rather than independent agencies, raising concerns about bias.
- Policy Gaps and Administrative Failures
- Failure to Implement Long-term Reforms: Simple crowd control measures such as designated areas for unreserved passengers, better ticketing systems, and real-time monitoring remain absent.
- Reactive Rather than Proactive Approach: The authorities’ response often includes blame-shifting, misinformation, and compensation payouts instead of preventive action.
- Inconsistent Safety Regulations: Indian Railways has different safety standards for different zones, leading to inefficiencies in crisis management.
- Need for Reforms
- Structural and Technological Upgrades: Implementation of AI-based crowd monitoring, automated announcements, and improved station layouts.
- Independent Safety Oversight: Establishment of an independent body to investigate accidents rather than relying on internal railway audits.
- Increased Staffing and Better Training: Deployment of trained personnel to manage passenger movement effectively, especially during peak travel periods.
Conclusion
The Indian Railways’ failure to ensure passenger safety stems not from a lack of resources but from administrative inertia and poor planning. Instead of treating stampedes and accidents as isolated incidents, systemic reforms in station management, crowd control, and accountability are needed. The government must act decisively to prevent such tragedies rather than merely responding to them.
Mains Practice Question |
Q. The repeated incidents of railway stampedes in India highlight serious deficiencies |
