Dear Reader,

Over the past decade, members of the Association of Power Producers—an industry lobby whose members include India’s top corporates—have lobbied the Indian government to relax emission norms established in 2015 through the Environment (Protection) Amendment Rules. These norms sought to reduce sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The Reporters’ Collective finds that this lobbying by the industry—through more than a dozen letters—led to the compliance deadline of the Rules being extended not once but four times since 2015. Now, it has been extended to 2027, on the plea that the power sector faces “significant constraints.” At the end of 2024, only 8% of 537 thermal power units in India have installed the required devices to cut sulphur dioxide emissions—seven years after the first deadline imposed by the Union Environmental Ministry.

Despite clear evidence that India's proposed standards are less strict than those in China, the EU, or the US, the government has seemingly yielded to industry pressure. More alarmingly, the NITI Ayog seems to be in denial on the potential threats from unmitigated pollution, even suggesting that sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-based plants may not significantly impact air quality.

In 2018, when Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) was launched, it had the noblest intention—to provide guard rails to over 60 million Indians who were pushed to poverty by “catastrophic health expenditure”. Notwithstanding these ambitious aspirations, the “world’s largest health insurance scheme” is increasingly seen to be beset with challenges.

With over 600 million beneficiaries, the Scheme has successfully created a demand for health insurance. However, the supply of authorised hospital beds is at a premium, with fewer than half of the estimated 70,000 hospitals in India empanelled. Additionally, the Scheme has been weighed down by delays in reimbursements to hospitals, disputes over treatment costs, and the less-than-sustainable hospitalisation costs set by the government.

A recent survey by a non-profit in south Bengaluru revealed large sections of the marginalised and the poor remain excluded from the Scheme and, even if included, have to bear a substantial portion of the costs from their own pockets. Article 14 looks at the deficiencies in Ayushman Bharat and how the Scheme can be fortified.

In Jharkhand’s Pathna block of Sahibganj district, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), Sauriya Pahariya, is facing severe hardships. The rampant and unbridled mining and blasting in Pathna has severely disrupted natural water sources, leading to an acute water crisis, while pervasive dust and particulate matter has caused a surge in respiratory illnesses. These environmental upheavals not only threaten to upend their health but also disrupt their traditional way of life. Despite their vulnerability, the crisis remains unaddressed. Main Bhi Bharat brings you this in-depth report, highlighting the need for immediate intervention to safeguard the community.

The removal of, or punitive action against, judges in India has been made intentionally difficult. The stringent constitutional provisions and intricate procedural requirements for impeachment are designed to ensure ironclad protection of judicial independence to bolster the independent functioning of the justice system. Therefore, since independence, only four judges of the higher judiciary have been sought to be impeached, with not one of the efforts succeeding.

In the latest instance, the order of an inquiry into Allahabad High Court’s sitting judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s, “communal” comments, on the content of the Uniform Civil Code raised hackles. Even as some MPs demanded his impeachment, the Chief Justice of India announced an in-house inquiry after the judge refused to rescind or apologise for his comments.

The Supreme Court Observer looks at how this procedure of “inquiry” by the apex court developed compared to the recourse to formal impeachment and why the outcome of the present case has implications for defining the boundaries of judicial misdemeanour in India.

For more such stories from the grantees this week, please read on.

Warmly,

Sunil Rajshekhar
IPSMF