The Vision India@2047 plan, which aims to transform India into a developed nation with a $30 trillion economy by 2047.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to unveil a road map in early 2024 to transform India into a developed nation with a $30 trillion economy by the time it completes 100 years of Independence.
The plan, named Vision India@2047, has been in the works for nearly two years with officials brainstorming on how to take the country from its current level of development to where it aspires to be.
The NITI Aayog is giving the vision document a final shape and will seek input from top minds across sectors, including World Bank President Ajay Banga and Apple chief Tim Cook, to finetune the ideas and goals.
The plan may be viewed as the government's policy playbook promise for prospective voters ahead of the Lok Sabha election.
India's rise from 1.1% of the global economic output in 1991 to its current share of 3.5% as the world's fifth largest economy has been driven by governments sticking to the reform and liberalisation agenda.
However, there have been blips in the pace and vigour of reforms, including on changes needed in factor markets such as land and labour.
The final plan should focus on ensuring policy certainty for global investors in India.
The government's role should be minimized to that of an enabler rather than a micro-manager.
The plan aims to prevent India from slipping into a middle income trap by shifting the economy from farms to factories and reducing income inequality.
The 2047 plan should be revisited at suitable intervals to adjust goals based on global trends and unexpected events.
Aiming for a high 9% growth rate between 2030 and 2047 is commendable, but flexibility and adaptability are also important.
A recent Supreme Court judgment regarding the termination of pregnancy and the rights of the woman versus the rights of the foetus.
The Supreme Court of India declined permission to a woman seeking to terminate a 26-week-long pregnancy in the case of X vs Union of India.
The Court held that the woman's case fell outside the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
The MTP Act permits termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks only in cases where the foetus exhibits substantial abnormality or where the woman's life is under direct threat.
The Court rejected the plea to exercise its extraordinary powers as doctors would have to terminate a "viable foetus".
The judgment does not bestow explicit rights to the unborn but extinguishes a woman's right to choose when the foetus becomes viable.
The judgment fails to address the questions of the foetus's autonomous moral status, legal standing, and capability to exercise constitutional rights.
The judgment places the rights of the foetus above the rights of a pregnant woman to her privacy and dignity.
The Court is being criticized for not examining whether the MTP Act is an enabling legislation or if its exemptions constitute a conferral of rights.
The petitioner, a 27-year-old married woman, wants her pregnancy terminated at 24 weeks.
She argues that she is suffering from post-partum depression and her mental condition does not allow her to raise another child.
She also states that her husband is the only earning member of the family and they cannot afford to care for a third child.
On October 9, the Court ruled in her favor based on a report submitted by a medical board from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
The Court believes that allowing t
he pregnancy to continue could have a serious impact on the petitioner's mental health.
The Union government went back to Court to seek clarification on whether the termination could go ahead, given the viable status of the foetus.
Justice Kohli did not allow the abortion, while Justice Nagarathna held that the petitioner's decision must be respected and her right to reproductive health included a right to an abortion.
A separate Bench presided over by the CJI was constituted due to the impasse between the two judges.
The new report from the medical board confirmed that the foetus was viable and had no abnormalities, and the medication the petitioner was on would not endanger the pregnancy.
The Court ruled that its earlier order had to be recalled as neither of the exemptions available under the MTP Act were met.
The verdict goes against the Court's recent jurisprudence on the fundamental rights to privacy and dignity, which allows individuals to exercise autonomy over their body and mind and women to make reproductive choices.
The judgment recognizes a woman's right to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake.
The woman alone has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on whether she wants to undergo an abortion.
The MTP Act should be seen as an enabling legislation that provides a means to enforce a fundamental right.
The judgment fails to issue directions to further the exercise of a woman's right to choose.
The judgment implies that foetuses have constitutional rights, which goes against our jurisprudence on abortion.
The Constitution does not confer personhood to a foetus.
The MTP Act does not assert that foetuses have constitutional rights, as it creates exceptions in cases where a pregnant woman's life is under immediate threat.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that a foetus is dependent on the mother within the constitutional structure.
Viewing a foetus as a separate and distinct personality would grant it rights that are not granted to any other class of person.
This interpretation would undermine the jurisprudence that prioritizes a woman's freedom to make reproductive choices.
The right to make reproductive choices is inherent in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
It provides data on the increase in unknown sources of income for political parties after the introduction of electoral bonds and highlights the dominance of the BJP in receiving income through this scheme. Reading this article will help you understand the issues surrounding political funding and electoral reforms in the country.
Attorney General of India claims that electoral bonds promote contribution of "clean money" to political parties
Supreme Court raises concern about influential entities purchasing electoral bonds through verified accounts of other persons
Petitioners argue that unlimited and anonymous funding to political parties legitimizes corruption
Data from the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) shows that the share of "unknown sources of income" has increased after the introduction of electoral bonds
ADR categorizes income of political parties into known and unknown sources
Unknown income includes voluntary donations under ₹20,000, money obtained through electoral bonds, sales of coupons, and similar means where donor details remain undisclosed to the public.
The share of income from unknown sources for national parties increased from 66% to 72% between FY15-FY17 and FY19-FY22.
The BJP saw an increase in its share of unknown income from 58% to 68%, while the Congress' share remained around 80%.
Electoral bonds accounted for 58% of the national parties' total incomes in the FY19-FY22 period.
Electoral bonds formed 81% of the national parties' total income from unknown sources in the same period.
The BJP received ₹5,271 crores through electoral bonds between FY18 and FY22, which is over 57% of all parties' income through the scheme.
The composition of unknown income shifted from donations under ₹20,000 and coupon sales to predominantly electoral bonds after the introduction of the scheme.