Public Right Action Network (PRAN) is a blog dedicated to empowering citizens with knowledge on consumer protection, public health, and law. Managed by Advocate Amarjeet Singh, the blog simplifies complex legal issues into actionable insights.
This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or medical advice. Readers should consult qualified professionals before making decisions based on the information here.
Supreme Court Rules: Criminal Law Isn't a Tool for Civil Vendettas
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that criminal law cannot be misused to settle personal or commercial disputes. On September 24, 2025, in Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the Court quashed a criminal case, stressing that legal processes must not be weaponized for vengeance.
Case Overview
The dispute began with a loan repayment issue. Anukul Singh allegedly lent ₹1.4 lakh of a promised ₹2 lakh and reportedly secured post-dated cheques and a property deed. When the cheques bounced, Singh faced action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, resulting in a one-month jail term and ₹90,000 fine.
In retaliation, the complainant filed eight FIRs alleging cheating and forgery under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468. The Allahabad High Court initially refused to quash the FIRs, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Observations
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan observed:
Civil Nature of Dispute: Allegations arose from a commercial transaction, not criminal intent.
Bad Faith Indicators: FIRs were filed immediately after Singh’s conviction; eight FIRs suggested harassment.
Judicial Principle: Criminal law cannot serve as a shortcut for civil remedies or retaliation.
The Court highlighted:
"Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial/contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour….the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance."
This aligns with prior rulings like Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing Section 482 CrPC powers to quash abusive criminal proceedings.
Implications for Indian Justice
This ruling reinforces that:
Civil disputes should be resolved in civil courts, not through criminal complaints.
Misuse of criminal law diverts resources from genuine crimes and undermines justice.
High Courts must scrutinize complaints early when disputes are artificially criminalized.
For businesses and individuals, the message is clear: Not every breach of contract is a crime. Pursue civil remedies instead of criminal complaints.
Final Thoughts
The Anukul Singh judgment is a victory for fairness and judicial integrity. Criminal law exists to protect society, not settle personal scores or business conflicts.
If you are involved in a similar situation, consult a lawyer—civil courts are the appropriate forum, even if proceedings take longer.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your case, consult a qualified legal professional.
Child Rights and Laws in India: Safeguarding Future Generations
"Every child deserves protection, nurturing, and the freedom to
dream."
Despite India’s
extensive legal safeguards, millions of children continue to face abuse,
exploitation, and neglect. With nearly 472
million children (Census 2011)—almost one-third of the nation’s
population—failure to protect them weakens the very foundation of an equitable,
compassionate, and prosperous India.
India’s Constitution
and laws provide a strong framework for child rights, yet enforcement gaps,
limited awareness, and deep-rooted social practices hinder progress. This
article explores the constitutional
guarantees, key legislations, latest statistics, judicial updates, and
actionable steps needed to bridge the gap between policy and practice.
📌 Constitutional
Framework for Child Rights
The Indian Constitution recognizes children as
a vulnerable group requiring special protection:
·Article 14:
Equality before the law.
·Article
15(3): Permits the State to make special provisions for women and
children.
·Article
21A: Right to free and compulsory education (6–14 years).
·Article 24:
Prohibits child labor in hazardous industries.
·DPSP
(Articles 39, 45, 47): Oblige the State to secure children’s
nutrition, health, and development.
These provisions provide the bedrock for
India’s child protection regime.
📌 Key Child Protection
Laws in India
1. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
(PCMA)
·Minimum marriage ages: 18 (girls), 21 (boys).
·Child marriages are voidable at the instance of
the minor.
·Penalizes promoters, participants, and
solemnizers.
·Progress:
UNICEF (2023) notes prevalence dropped from 47% (2005–06) to 23% (2019–21)
among women 20–24.
·Judicial
Milestone: Independent Thought v.
Union of India (2017) – Sex with a minor wife declared rape.
2. Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
·Gender-neutral law covering assault, harassment,
pornography, and exploitation.
·Mandates child-friendly trials through special courts.
·2019
Amendment: Introduced harsher punishments, including death penalty for
aggravated assault.
·2025
Updates: SC directed use of the term CSEAM (Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material) instead
of "child pornography".
·Data:
NCRB (2022) recorded over 162,000 POCSO
cases (8.7% rise from 2021).
3. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of
Children) Act, 2015
·Governs children in conflict with law and those
in need of care/protection.
·Speak Up:
Reach out to trusted adults or helplines.
·Help Peers:
Support friends in unsafe situations.
📌 Key Helplines &
Reporting
·1098
– Childline (24×7)
·112
– Emergency number
·181
– Women & Child Helpline
·www.cybercrime.gov.in
– Online crime reporting
·NCPCR
Portal – Child rights violation complaints
✨ Conclusion: From Law to Lived
Reality
India’s child rights regime is comprehensive,
yet enforcement gaps, cultural barriers, and lack of awareness blunt its
impact. Recent Supreme Court interventions (2024–25) show a progressive shift
toward prioritizing child welfare.
To truly safeguard children, India must:
·Strengthen enforcement with technology and
trained manpower.
·Mainstream digital literacy in schools.
·Empower communities as watchdogs.
·Listen to children’s voices in policymaking.
Protecting
children today ensures empowered citizens tomorrow. Laws must move
from paper to practice to build a just, inclusive, and Viksit Bharat.
Debate Sparks Over Indian Judiciary's Role in Achieving Viksit Bharat
At the Nyaya Nirmaan 2025 event, Sanjeev Sanyal—economist and member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM)—set off a firestorm by calling India’s judiciary the “single biggest hurdle” to realizing the vision of Viksit Bharat, or a developed India by 2047. His remarks, made in the presence of Supreme Court judges, touched on sensitive issues: prolonged court vacations, colonial-era traditions, and procedural inefficiencies.
The comments drew sharp criticism from sections of the legal fraternity, yet also found support among reform advocates frustrated by systemic bottlenecks. The debate raises a critical question: is the judiciary holding India back, or is it being unfairly scapegoated for deeper structural challenges?
Sanyal’s Critique: A Call for Urgent Reform
Sanyal’s key argument is that India’s judicial system must align with the country’s ambitious economic and governance goals. He highlighted how delays in contract enforcement and dispute resolution discourage investment and slow growth.
Procedural delays: He criticized mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, calling it an added burden for businesses.
Vacations & rituals: He argued that long court vacations are untenable for a public institution, comparing courts to hospitals or police stations that cannot shut down for weeks. He also called colonial rituals like “My Lord” outdated and symbolic of stagnation.
Supporting Data
50 million+ cases are pending across India’s courts.
The World Bank’s Doing Business 2020 report ranked India 163rd of 190 countries in enforcing contracts.
Shamika Ravi’s analysis suggests that if the Supreme Court sat every alternate Saturday, it could have delivered 28% more judgments since 1950.
These inefficiencies affect not only businesses but also ordinary citizens, many of whom wait decades for resolution of land disputes, tenancy issues, or criminal cases. Supporters argue that an underperforming judiciary undermines both India’s economy and its social fabric.
The Pushback: Defending the Judiciary
Senior lawyers, bar associations, and judges have pushed back strongly, arguing that Sanyal’s critique oversimplifies the problem.
Systemic constraints: Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan emphasized that delays often stem from outdated laws, infrastructure shortages, and a lack of judicial appointments—issues that fall under the executive and legislature, not the courts.
Judges’ workload: Many judges reportedly work late nights and weekends, countering the perception of laxity.
Vacations explained: The Tamil Nadu Bar Council and others argue that vacations are essential for judges’ mental health given their heavy caseloads.
Data & Context
India has just 21 judges per million people, far below the global average.
Over 20 million cases are disposed of annually despite severe resource shortages.
Vacancies remain chronic: as of 2025, 5,000+ judicial posts are unfilled.
Critics warn that targeting the judiciary without addressing these constraints risks undermining public trust in an institution vital for safeguarding rights and checking executive excesses. Landmark rulings on privacy, environmental protection, and social justice illustrate the judiciary’s central role in shaping modern India.
The Democracy Angle: Delays by Design
It is worth noting that democracy itself can be “blamed” for delays. By design, democratic decision-making is slower—laws must go through debates, committees, and public scrutiny before they are enacted.
Coalition politics often stretches timelines as consensus is built among diverse parties.
Judicial review adds another check, as courts can stay or strike down laws.
Compared to authoritarian systems where decisions are swift but unchecked, democracies intentionally trade speed for legitimacy, inclusion, and stability. In that sense, delays are not just inefficiencies but a safeguard against hasty or arbitrary governance.
Beyond Judiciary: What Does Viksit Bharat Really Mean?
While judicial reforms are central to faster justice delivery, the government too must spell out what exactly Viksit Bharat 2047 means. The phrase has been used widely in policy speeches, but without clear, measurable definitions, it risks remaining an abstract slogan.
Is it about achieving a specific GDP size or per capita income?
Does it mean universal access to healthcare, education, and housing?
Are poverty elimination, infrastructure upgrades, and social equity included as milestones?
What institutional accountability mechanisms will track progress?
Without a transparent roadmap, citizens cannot meaningfully evaluate whether India’s democratic institutions—including the judiciary, legislature, and executive—are contributing effectively to this vision.
Viksit Bharat 2047: Measurable Indicators and Timeline
Achieving Viksit Bharat 2047 requires the government to define clear benchmarks and timelines. Key areas include:
Economic growth: per capita GDP, employment rates, ease of doing business
Social development: universal education, healthcare access, poverty reduction
Infrastructure & urban development: roads, digital connectivity, sustainable energy
Environmental sustainability: air and water quality, carbon emissions, biodiversity
Governance efficiency: judicial pendency, public service delivery, corruption indices
Short-term milestones (2025–2030) could focus on laying foundational reforms; medium-term goals (2030–2040) on scaling industrial, social, and infrastructure initiatives; and long-term objectives (2040–2047) on achieving developed-country benchmarks. Clear indicators and timelines would allow citizens to track progress and hold institutions accountable, ensuring that Viksit Bharat is more than a slogan.
Finding the Middle Path
The controversy highlights a larger truth: judicial reform is both necessary and complex.
Recent initiatives like the e-Courts project, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and digital filing systems show progress, but reforms are uneven and underfunded. Both supporters and critics of Sanyal agree on one point—India cannot achieve Viksit Bharat without a judicial system that is accessible, efficient, and modern.
The Way Forward
Increase judicial strength: Fill vacancies and raise the judge-to-population ratio.
Digitization & technology: Expand e-filing, AI-assisted case management, and virtual hearings.
Update laws: Repeal archaic statutes that clog the system.
Balanced reform: Preserve the judiciary’s independence while improving efficiency.
Conclusion
Sanyal’s blunt remarks may have stung, but they spotlight a debate India can no longer ignore. The judiciary is not merely an obstacle or a savior—it is a cornerstone institution that must evolve with India’s aspirations.
Just as democracy’s slower pace reflects the value of deliberation and consensus, so too must the judiciary balance independence with efficiency. A free and fair but also effective judiciary is the need of the hour.
If Viksit Bharat is to be more than a slogan, the judiciary, legislature, and executive must work in tandem. Mutual respect, evidence-based reform, and a focus on efficiency without compromising independence will determine whether India’s courts become a roadblock—or a catalyst—on the path to development.
India's Gaming Revolution: The PROGA Ban on Real-Money
Games – Boon or Bust?
Big thanks to the Modi government for
spearheading the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA) –
a bold and timely move that's putting player safety front and center while
nurturing India's digital future. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's
leadership, this law tackles the Wild West of online gaming head-on, shielding
vulnerable folks from addiction and fraud while boosting ethical sectors like
e-sports. It's a win for responsible governance in the tech age!
Hey gamers, tech enthusiasts, and
policy wonks! Imagine this: You're glued to your phone, building your dream
fantasy cricket team on Dream11, staking a few bucks for that adrenaline rush.
But poof – as of October 1, 2025, that's history in India. Enter the Promotion
and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (PROGA), a game-changer (pun
intended) that's flipping the script on India's booming online gaming scene.
Enacted on August 22, 2025, and signed off by President Droupadi Murmu, this
law slams the door on real-money gaming (RMG) – think fantasy sports, poker, rummy,
and betting – while opening doors to safer, non-monetary fun like e-sports and
educational games.
India's gaming industry was already
a beast, valued at around $3.7 billion (that's ₹31,000 crore) in 2024, with RMG
hogging 85-86% of the pie. Projections had it skyrocketing to $9.1 billion by
2029, but PROGA's ban is shaking things up big time. Is this a heroic save
against addiction and fraud, or a buzzkill for jobs and innovation? Let's dive
in, level by level, and unpack the highs, lows, and what it means for you.
The
Hero's Quest: Why Ban RMG? (The Upsides)
Picture RMG as that addictive side
quest that lures you in with promises of quick wins but often leaves you broke
and frustrated. PROGA steps in like a wise NPC, shielding players from the dark
side of gaming. Here's why it's scoring points:
Saving the Noobs (Consumer Protection): Ever heard of a kid blowing ₹13-14 lakh on an online
game? Tragically, it happened in Lucknow – a Class 6 student dipped into
his dad's medical savings, with heartbreaking results. PROGA targets
vulnerabilities, especially for youth aged 13-25, curbing addiction,
financial wipeouts, and mental health meltdowns. Early signs? Fewer
complaints rolling in since the announcement.
Battling the Bosses of Fraud: RMG platforms? Prime hideouts for money laundering
and cyber scams. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) flexed its muscles by
freezing ₹307 crore in the Fairplay app scandal – a betting ring tied to
illegal broadcasts. Offshore sites alone dodge ₹40,000 crore in taxes
yearly. PROGA arms agencies to shut this down.
Leveling Up Regulation: No more Wild West – a central authority under MeitY
will classify games, greenlight non-RMG ones, and pump up e-sports with
incentives. Enter the Indian Gaming Promotion and Development Authority
(IGPDA) – think of it as your new guild master for ethical gaming.
Guarding the Treasure (Financial Safeguards): Banks and fintechs can't touch RMG transactions
anymore. Payment volumes are already dipping, proving the ban's got teeth.
The
Plot Twists: Challenges Lurking in the Shadows
Every epic tale has its dragons,
right? PROGA's not all rainbows – it's stirring up storms in the industry. As
of September 24, 2025, with implementation looming on October 1, the debates are
heating up.
Fuzzy Rules of Engagement: What's an "online money game"? The vague
definition is tripping up skill-based platforms. States like Karnataka
(home to 30% of the market) are pushing back, eyeing regulation over
outright bans for "games of skill." Federal drama incoming?
Border Skirmishes:
The law reaches beyond India, but blocking sneaky foreign sites? Easier
said than done. This could funnel users to shady offshore realms, risking
more fraud – and costing the government ₹10,000-20,000 crore in lost
taxes.
Economic Boss Fight:
Boom to bust? The ban's already wiped ₹3,720 crore in revenue and 6,500
jobs since August. Up to 200,000 more jobs at risk, plus $2 billion in FDI
(shoutout to investors like Tiger Global). Ad spends (₹17,000 crore) and
fintech revenues are crumbling too.
The Underground Lair:
Ban one path, and players sneak to black-market apps, amping up scams.
Plus, whispers of insider trading pre-ban? Political eyebrows are raised.
The
Rulebook: PROGA's Legal Arsenal
PROGA isn't messing around – it's
got penalties sharper than a maxed-out sword. Here's the cheat sheet:
Section
What It Does
Penalty Punch
Section 3 – Prohibition
No offering or running RMG with stakes.
Up to 3 years in jail and/or ₹1 crore fine.
Section 4 – Advertising Ban
Zero promos or sponsorships for RMG.
Ditto above.
Section 7 – Financial Intermediaries
Banks/gateways: Hands off RMG cash.
Fines up to ₹3 crore; license KO.
Section 8 – Central Authority
Game classifying, non-RMG registering,
compliance watch.
Ops suspension; fines.
Section 12 – Repeat Offenders
Serial cheaters get extra hurt.
Beefed-up jail time and fines.
Ads and sponsors? They're in the
crosshairs too. Final tweaks drop before October 1.
How
to Fight Back (Complaints Guide)
Bumped by a rogue platform? Hit
MeitY's PROGA portal with evidence. Sketchy transactions? Ping your bank, Cyber
Crime Cell (cybercrime.gov.in), or the National Consumer Helpline (1915). For
big plays, rope in local cops, EOW, or ED – they can freeze assets faster than
a lag spike.
Real-World
Boss Battles: Case Studies
Dream11's Pivot Quest:
Ditched RMG for free-to-play vibes, raking in ads and sponsorships. Still
slaying with 10 million daily users.
Gameskraft's Downfall:
Axed 120 jobs in a restructure frenzy; RMG ops on ice.
Fairplay's Epic Fail:
ED seized ₹307 crore for RMG shenanigans.
Industry Echoes:
RummyCulture hits pause; PE firms stare at $2 billion black hole.
The
Endgame: Opportunities in the New World
PROGA's not all doom – it's
rerouting ₹15,000 crore+ from RMG to fresh frontiers like e-sports and gamified
learning, potentially spawning 250,000 jobs. With IGPDA leading the charge,
India could level up as a global gaming powerhouse, blending fun with safety.
Final
Boss Tips: Key Takeaways
Wins:
Player shields, fraud nukes, smart regs, cash guards.
Legal Lowdown:
Sections 3,4,7,8,12 – fines up to ₹3 crore.
Go Time:
October 1, 2025. Stay tuned to MeitY for patches.
What do you think – is PROGA a
high-score policy or a game over for India's gaming dreams? Drop your thoughts
below! For the full scoop, check MeitY's official notifications. Game on...
responsibly. 🚀
Free Treatment Is Still a “Service”: Patients Remain Consumers under Law
Introduction
The Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently reaffirmed an important principle in consumer jurisprudence: even if medical treatment is offered free of cost, the patient remains a consumer under consumer protection laws. This decision reinforces the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995), ensuring accountability of medical service providers irrespective of whether treatment is paid for or provided gratuitously.
The Gujarat Case: Bharatkumar Gorahva (Legal Heirs) v. Akshar Surgical Hospital, Botad
Background: In 2013, Bharatkumar Gorahva was admitted to Akshar Surgical Hospital in Botad for treatment of a fracture. He was treated without charges as part of a government medical scheme. Unfortunately, his condition worsened, leading to complications and eventual death.
District Forum Decision (2015): The Bhavnagar District Consumer Forum dismissed the family’s complaint on the ground that the treatment was provided free of cost and hence, Gorahva was not a “consumer.”
Appeal to State Commission (2025): The Gujarat SCDRC reversed the decision, holding that free treatment does not exclude a patient from the definition of “consumer.” It ruled that medical services, even when provided under government schemes or without fees, fall within the ambit of “service” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
Key Holding:
“Merely because treatment is offered without charges, a patient cannot be deprived of consumer rights. Medical services provided by hospitals, whether free or paid, are covered under the Act.”
Citation: Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bharatkumar Gorahva (Legal Heirs) v. Akshar Surgical Hospital, Botad, decision reported September 2025 (Times of India, Ahmedabad). Official case number pending publication.
Legal Provisions Involved
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (applicable when the case began):
Section 2(1)(d): Definition of “consumer.”
Section 2(1)(o): “Service” includes health care.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (present law):
Section 2(7): Consumer definition.
Section 2(42): Service includes health care “whether or not for consideration.”
This continuity ensures that patients, whether paying or receiving free treatment under charitable or government programs, retain consumer rights.
Judicial Precedents
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 651
The Supreme Court held that medical services fall under “service” in consumer law, except when rendered entirely free in a government hospital without cross-subsidization.
Vasantha P. v. Manoharan (1999, Tamil Nadu SCDRC)
Ruled that free treatment provided by a private charitable hospital was still “service,” as the hospital also charged other patients, thus maintaining accountability.
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384
Although about medical negligence and compensation, the Court reiterated the broad scope of consumer rights in medical services.
Even in government hospitals, where part of the services were subsidized or cross-funded, patients were considered consumers.
Implications of the Gujarat Decision
Patient Rights Strengthened: Individuals availing treatment under government health schemes, insurance programs, or charity initiatives cannot be excluded from consumer protection.
Hospital Accountability: Both private and government hospitals must maintain professional standards regardless of whether services are free or fee-based.
Public Health Schemes: Schemes like Ayushman Bharat or state insurance programs fall squarely within consumer law coverage.
Conclusion
The Gujarat State Commission’s ruling reaffirms that access to justice under consumer protection is universal—no patient can be denied rights merely because they did not pay for treatment. Coupled with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in V.P. Shantha, this decision strengthens accountability in India’s health care system, ensuring that medical negligence does not escape scrutiny under the pretext of “free treatment.”
This article is for information and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified legal professional.
References:
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651.
Lives vs Livelihoods: Rethinking Bidi Taxation in Rural India
India's Goods and Services Tax (GST) reforms, which took effect on September 22, 2025, represent a bold step toward curbing tobacco consumption through higher taxation on "sin goods." By imposing a 40% GST on cigarettes, pan masala, gutkha, and other processed tobacco products—up from the previous 28% plus cess—the government aims to make these items less affordable and reduce their public health burden. However, the decision to lower the GST on bidis to 18% from 28% has sparked debate, highlighting a stark trade-off between safeguarding rural livelihoods and protecting the health of millions who rely on this cheaper, yet highly dangerous, form of tobacco. This policy disparity risks exacerbating health inequities in rural India, where bidis dominate tobacco use.
The Recent GST Reforms: A Mixed Bag for Tobacco Control
The GST 2.0 framework simplifies India's tax structure while targeting harmful products. Key changes include:
40% GST on premium tobacco items: Cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, cigarillos, pan masala, gutkha, and chewing tobacco now face this steep rate, expected to generate additional revenue for public health initiatives while deterring consumption among price-sensitive urban and middle-income groups.
18% GST on bidis: This reduction makes bidis more affordable relative to other tobacco products, potentially encouraging a shift in consumption patterns.
5% GST on tendu leaves: Used in bidi production, this low rate supports the supply chain for rural workers.
While these reforms align with global efforts to use taxation as a tool for reducing tobacco use, the lenient treatment of bidis—India's most popular rural tobacco product—undermines the overall impact.
The Bidi Paradox: Consumption Patterns and Heightened Health Risks
Bidis, hand-rolled tobacco wrapped in tendu leaves, account for a significant portion of India's tobacco consumption, particularly in rural areas where they are cheap and culturally ingrained. Low-income groups, including daily wage laborers and farmers, favor bidis due to their affordability—often costing a fraction of cigarettes.
However, bidis pose severe health risks, often exceeding those of conventional cigarettes:
They deliver higher levels of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide per gram of tobacco, with no filters to mitigate harm.
Studies show bidis can be up to eight times more harmful than cigarettes, primarily due to deeper inhalation and the toxic properties of tendu leaves.
Bidi smoking is linked to elevated risks of lung cancer (higher than cigarettes), oral cancers, heart attacks, and respiratory diseases.
India bears a massive tobacco-related health burden, with approximately 1.35 million deaths annually—many in rural areas where healthcare access is limited. In 2021, tobacco was the fifth leading risk factor for death and disability in the country. Lower taxes on bidis could perpetuate this cycle, as smokers switch from pricier cigarettes to these "cheaper" alternatives, negating public health gains.
Why Low Taxes on Bidis? The Livelihood Imperative
The government's rationale for lighter taxation on bidis centers on economic protection. The bidi industry is a lifeline for rural economies:
It employs an estimated 7-8 million people, including 5.5 million registered workers, mostly women and marginalized communities in states like Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal.
Workers in bidi rolling and tendu leaf collection often operate in the informal sector, earning meager wages with little social security.
A sharp tax hike could lead to job losses, increased poverty, and a surge in illicit trade, as unregulated production evades oversight.
Politically, rural voters form a key constituency, and policies disrupting traditional livelihoods risk backlash. Thus, the 18% GST strikes a compromise: maintaining affordability to prevent black-market shifts while generating some revenue.
The Public Health Trade-Off: Lives at Stake
This approach creates a dangerous trade-off. While higher taxes on cigarettes may reduce urban consumption, rural populations—already facing higher tobacco prevalence—remain exposed. Differential taxation contravenes global standards, potentially leading to:
Product switching: Smokers opting for cheaper bidis, increasing overall harm.
Health inequities: Rural areas bear disproportionate costs, with limited access to cessation programs or treatment.
Economic fallout: Long-term healthcare expenses from tobacco-related illnesses could outweigh short-term livelihood gains.
Experts argue that protecting jobs shouldn't come at the expense of lives, especially when alternatives exist.
Best Practices from WHO and Global Examples
The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 6 advocates for uniform taxation across all tobacco products to maximize health benefits and minimize substitution. Key best practices include:
Simple, uniform tax structures: Apply equivalent rates to all variants (e.g., cigarettes and bidis) to prevent down-trading to cheaper options.
Earmarking revenues: Use tax proceeds for tobacco control, health programs, and alternative livelihoods.
Supporting transitions: Invest in skill development, non-tobacco crops (e.g., via microfinance), and rural quitlines using distance technologies.
Countries like Ukraine have harmonized taxes to reduce market segmentation and industry manipulation. In rural U.S. contexts, similar strategies—combining tax hikes with community education and retailer restrictions—have lowered tobacco use without devastating economies.
How Rethinking Bidi Taxation Contributes to Viksit Bharat @2047
Viksit Bharat, India's ambitious vision for becoming a developed nation by 2047—the centenary of independence—rests on key pillars such as a strong economy, world-class education, affordable and quality healthcare, social equity, sustainability, and empowerment of youth, women, farmers, and the poor. Rethinking bidi taxation through uniform, higher rates paired with livelihood transitions can directly advance these goals:
Enhancing Healthcare and Public Health: By reducing tobacco consumption, including bidis, India can avert 1.35 million annual deaths and lower the burden of diseases like CVD (where tobacco contributes to 60% of deaths), cancers, and respiratory issues. This aligns with Viksit Bharat's pillar of affordable, quality healthcare, freeing resources for infrastructure, advanced medical tech, and universal access—reducing long-term costs and boosting life expectancy.
Boosting Economic Growth and Productivity: A healthier workforce means higher productivity, fewer lost workdays, and reduced healthcare expenditures, contributing to the $30 trillion economy target. Tax revenues from uniform tobacco levies can be earmarked for development initiatives, echoing global practices where tobacco control supports broader SDGs integrated into Viksit Bharat.
Promoting Social Equity and Sustainable Livelihoods: Many bidi workers are women, poor, and rural—core focus groups in Viksit Bharat. Transitioning them to skill development, non-tobacco crops, microenterprises, or digital opportunities ensures inclusive growth without health trade-offs, fostering sustainability and reducing rural-urban disparities.
Advancing Governance and Research: Stronger enforcement of tobacco laws, as per WHO FCTC, supports transformed governance and research priorities for societal challenges, including health equity and 100% literacy through anti-tobacco education.
By addressing the bidi loophole, India can propel Viksit Bharat forward, turning tobacco control into a catalyst for holistic development.
Towards a Balanced Approach: Policy Recommendations
To resolve the lives vs. livelihoods dilemma, India should:
Implement uniform taxation: Gradually raise bidi GST to match cigarettes, phasing in changes to allow adaptation.
Launch alternative livelihood programs: Fund skill training, crop diversification, and microenterprises for bidi workers, drawing from successful models in tobacco-dependent regions.
Enhance enforcement and support: Strengthen rural tobacco control through awareness campaigns, quitlines, and smoke-free policies.
Monitor and evaluate: Track consumption shifts and health outcomes post-reform to refine policies.
Conclusion: Prioritizing Sustainable Health and Prosperity
The GST reforms are a commendable start, but the bidi exemption exposes a critical flaw in India's tobacco control strategy. By favoring short-term economic relief over long-term health, the policy risks millions of preventable deaths in rural communities. It's time for a holistic rethink: uniform taxes paired with robust livelihood transitions. Policymakers, NGOs, and communities must collaborate to ensure no one is left behind. The choice isn't lives or livelihoods—it's both, through smart, evidence-based action that advances Viksit Bharat's vision of a prosperous, equitable, and healthy India by 2047.
.jpeg)
