💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2-09.Appointment to various Constitutional posts; Constitutional Bodies(powers, functions and responsibilities); Statutory, Regulatory and Quasi-judicial bodies

  • How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.

    Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to deliver specialized, speedy, and cost-effective justice in specific matters like taxation, service disputes, environment etc.

    Objectives of Tribunals

    Specialized Adjudication

    Speedy Justice Delivery

    Reduce Burden on Courts

    Cost-Effective Dispute Resolution

    Simplified Procedures – Principles of Natural Justice

    Decentralized Justice Access

    Efficient Enforcement of Rights – Eg- NGT

    Tribunals Curtailing the Jurisdiction of Ordinary Courts

    Exclusion of High Court Jurisdiction – Articles 323A & 323B permit exclusion of High Courts’ writ powers in tribunal matters.

    Executive Control over Appointments of tribunal members

    Creates Parallel Judicial System

    However, in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) Case, SC struck down exclusion of High Court jurisdiction as unconstitutional, reaffirming judicial review as part of basic structure.

    Constitutional Validity of Tribunals

    Constitutional Basis – Established under Articles 323A & 323B (42nd Amendment, 1976) for specialized adjudication.

    Legislative Competence – Parliament empowered to create tribunals for administrative and quasi-judicial functions under Entry 11A, Concurrent List.

    Judicial Endorsement – L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)- Upheld constitutional validity of tribunals.

    Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 – Reorganized and rationalized tribunals.

    Functional Validity – Tribunals are supplementary judicial mechanisms, constitutionally valid as long as they do not replace or restrict High Court or Supreme Court powers.

    Competency of Tribunals in India

    Limited Jurisdiction – Competency confined to specific subject matters. Eg- NGT on environment.

    Quasi-Judicial Powers – Empowered to summon witnesses, take evidence, and deliver binding decisions similar to civil courts.

    No Inherent Jurisdiction – Unlike High Courts, tribunals cannot exercise writ or contempt powers unless conferred by statute.

    Subject to Judicial Review – Decisions are reviewable by High Courts. (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997).

    Appellate and Supervisory Role – Certain tribunals (e.g., NCLAT, DRAT) exercise appellate functions over subordinate tribunals or authorities.

    Administrative Control – Function under ministries (NCLT under Corporate Affairs).

    Guided by Principles of Natural Justice – Must ensure fair hearing, reasoned orders, and impartial adjudication in all proceedings.

    Tribunals, in line with Article 39A, must enhance access to justice while upholding judicial independence and judicial review as constitutional safeguards.

  • How is the Finance Commission of India constituted? What do you about the terms of reference of the recently constituted Finance Commission? Discuss.

    The Finance Commission of India (FC), established under Article 280 of the Constitution, is a quasi-judicial body. It plays a vital role in maintaining the fiscal federal balance envisioned by the Constitution.

    Constitution of the Finance Commission

    Constitutional Provision- As per Article 280(1), the President of India constitutes the Finance Commission every five years or earlier if necessary.

    Composition-

    Consists of a Chairperson and four other members, appointed by the President.

    Their qualifications and terms of service are determined by the Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951.

    Tenure- The Commission usually has a tenure of five years, extendable by Presidential order.

    Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Recently Constituted Finance Commission

    The 16th Finance Commission was constituted in December 2023, chaired by Dr. Arvind Panagariya.
    Its recommendations will apply for the period 2026-2031.

    Division of Tax Proceeds

    Recommend the distribution of net tax proceeds between the Union and the States under Chapter I, Part XII of the Constitution.

    Determine the allocation of shares among individual States from the total divisible pool of central taxes.

    Principles for Grants-in-Aid

    Lay down the principles governing grants-in-aid to States from the Consolidated Fund of India.

    Recommend the amounts to be provided to States as grants under Article 275, for purposes other than those specified in the provisos to clause (1).

    Enhancing State Funds for Local Bodies

    Suggest measures to increase the Consolidated Fund of States to supplement resources of Panchayats and Municipalities.

    Base these recommendations on the inputs of respective State Finance Commissions, ensuring fiscal strengthening of local governance.

    Evaluation of Disaster Management Financing

    Review existing funding mechanisms for Disaster Management, particularly those created under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

    Recommend improvements in the structure, sharing pattern, and utilization of National and State Disaster Response Funds.

    Any Other Matters Referred by the President

    Examine and recommend on additional fiscal issues to ensure “sound finance,” including fiscal consolidation, resource augmentation, and expenditure efficiency.

    Challenges Ahead

    Data Gaps and Quality Issues- Relies on outdated and inconsistent official data, affecting fiscal assessments.

    Political Factors- Faces pressure to balance conflicting interests of Centre, States, and political stakeholders.

    Overlap with GST Council- GST decisions affect revenue flows and reduce FC’s fiscal autonomy.

    Limited Role in Local Governance- Depends on weak or irregular State Finance Commissions for data and recommendations.

    FCs have no enforcement power, as their recommendations are advisory in nature.

    Way Forward

    Ensuring state representation in decision making

    Permanence- Make FC a permanent body for continuous review and coordination. (Rajamannar Committee)

    Addressing Emerging Issues and Challenges – Factor in digital transformation and green financing for sustainable growth.

    Build data-driven analytical capacity with reliable and updated fiscal databases.

    The Finance Commission remains the keystone of India’s fiscal federalism, ensuring both equity and efficiency in resource distribution.

  • The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has a very vital role to play. Explain how this is reflected in the method and terms of his appointment as well as the range of powers he can exercise.

    CAG is established under Article 148 of the Constitution as the supreme audit authority of India. Ambedkar called it as most important officer under the Constitution of India

    Importance of the office of CAG

    Guardian of Public Purse – CAG ensures all government expenditure is sanctioned by law and used appropriately.

    Bulwark of Democracy along with ECI and SC

    Promotes Accountability – Eg: 2G Spectrum scam (2010)

    Strengthens Parliamentary Oversight – CAG reports form the basis for examination by Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and COPU.

    Ensures Financial Propriety – Audits whether expenditure follows financial rules, principles, and economy norms.

    Auditor of Federal Finances – Audits accounts of both Union and State Governments under Articles 149-151.

    Promotes Good Governance – Performance audits drive improvements in scheme design, implementation, and outcomes.

    Reflection of importance in method and terms of appointment

    Appointed by the President of India under Article 148(1) by warrant under his hand and seal.

    Oath of Office under Third Schedule to uphold the Constitution. The oath symbolises the solemn responsibility and independence of the office.

    Fixed Tenure – CAG holds office for 6 years or until age 65, whichever is earlier (Section 3, CAG Act 1971). Fixed tenure shields from executive pressure and ensures continuity.

    Removal Same as Supreme Court Judge- This stringent removal procedure protects CAG from arbitrary action by executive.

    Salary Charged on Consolidated Fund, not voted by Parliament (Article 148(3)).

    Service conditions cannot be varied to CAG’s disadvantage during tenure (Article 148(4)).

    No Eligibility for Further Government Office

    Reflection of importance in powers vested

    Comprehensive audit authority across federal levels. – CAG audits all expenditure from Consolidated Fund of India, Consolidated Funds of States, and UTs with legislatures.

    Audit of Contingency Fund and Public Account – Ensures complete coverage of government finances.

    Audit of Public Sector Undertakings- Eg: Audits LIC, ONGC, FCI, BHEL, Indian Railways under Companies Act provisions.

    Audit of Autonomous Bodies substantially financed by governmentEg: ICAR, CSIR

    Performance Audit evaluating economy, efficiency, effectiveness of schemes. Eg: Performance audits on MGNREGA, NHM, PMAY, Swachh Bharat Mission.

    CAG Standardises government accounting practices by prescribing form in which accounts of Union and States shall be maintained (Article 150).

    Independent Investigation Powers – CAG can call for any document, information, books, accounts from any government office without restriction.

    Discretionary Powers – Section 23, CAG (DPC) Act 1971 allows CAG to issue directions on accounting and audit principles.

    “The CAG is the conscience-keeper of public finance, ensuring not only lawful but also wise spending.” – 2nd ARC

  • Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine.

    The NCSC, established under Article 338, is a constitutional body mandated to safeguard the interests and rights of Scheduled Castes (SCs).

    Constitutional and Legal Position on reservation for the SC in the religious minority institutions

    Article 15(4) & 16(4)- Empower the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs.

    Article 30(1)- Grants minority communities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

    Article 338(5)- Authorizes NCSC to investigate, monitor, and report on safeguards provided for SCs.

    Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950- Restricts SC status to Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists, excluding Muslims and Christians.

    Key Judicial Pronouncements

    T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)- Minority institutions have the right to autonomy in administration under Article 30, though subject to reasonable regulation.

    P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)- State cannot impose reservation policy on unaided minority institutions.

    Analysis

    The NCSC can recommend or monitor steps for reservation in institutions, but it cannot enforce such provisions in minority institutions, as-

    Article 30(1) guarantees minorities autonomy in managing their educational institutions.

    Judicial precedents protect minority institutions from mandatory reservation.

    NCSC’s powers are recommendatory, not binding.

    Furthermore, since Scheduled Castes of minority religions (Muslims and Christians) are not constitutionally recognized as SCs, NCSC has no jurisdiction over them.

    The matter instead falls under the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) or policy domain of the Parliament, not NCSC’s enforcement powers.

    Any change in this framework requires constitutional amendment and judicial validation to balance SC Rights with Articles 29-30 protections.

  • “The Central Administration Tribunal which was established for redressal of grievances and complaints by or against central government employees, nowadays is exercising its powers as an independent judicial authority.” Explain.

    The CAT was established under Article 323A and Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to provide speedy and specialized justice in service matters of Central Government employees.

    Objectives of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

    Speedy Justice

    Reduce Burden on Courts

    Specialized Adjudication

    Ensure Administrative Fairness – Protect employees from arbitrary, unjust, or discriminatory administrative actions.

    Accessible and Affordable Justice

    Maintain consistency and coherence in decisions across departments.

    Promote Administrative Accountability

    Realize Article 39A by making justice accessible to all employees.

    CAT as Independent Judicial Authority

    Exclusive Jurisdiction-

    CAT adjudicates disputes on recruitment, promotion, transfer, service conditions, and disciplinary actions of Central employees.

    Its jurisdiction excludes ordinary civil courts in service matters.

    Powers of a Civil Court, including summoning witnesses, receiving evidence, and delivering binding orders.

    Though under the DoPT for administrative purposes, CAT functions judicially independent in decision-making.

    Judicial Review Authority- CAT can strike down administrative actions violating Articles 14, 16, or 21. Eg- It has quashed arbitrary transfer orders and disciplinary actions in several cases.

    Following L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), CAT decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226/227, ensuring accountability.

    CAT, in line with Article 39A, must ensure administrative justice while upholding judicial independence and judicial review as constitutional safeguards.

  • Which steps are required for constitutionalization of a Commission? Do you think imparting constitutionality to the National Commission for Women would ensure greater gender justice and empowerment in India? Give reasons.

    “The true measure of a democracy is how it treats its weakest members.” – Mahatma Gandhi

    The Indian state has established a network of statutory and constitutional commissions to uphold equality, dignity, and justice as envisioned in Articles 14-17, 21, and 46 of the Constitution.

    Steps Required for Constitutionalization of a Commission

    Constitutional Amendment Bill under Article 368 to insert a new article providing for the commission’s structure, powers, and functions.

    Parliamentary Approval- The bill must be passed by a special majority – i.e., a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, and a majority of the total membership of each House.

    After parliamentary passage, the bill must receive assent of the President of India.

    The amendment must be notified in the Gazette and necessary rules and procedures must be framed for operationalization.

    Would Constitutional Status to NCW Ensure Greater Gender Justice and Empowerment?

    Arguments in Favour

    Enhanced Autonomy and Authority- greater independence from executive control and political interference.

    Its reports and directives would carry greater legal and moral weight, improving government accountability.

    Funding and staffing could be constitutionally guaranteed, reducing dependence on yearly budgetary allocations.

    Symbolic Empowerment- signify strong political commitment to women’s rights and gender equality.

    Similar bodies like NCSC (Art. 338) and NCST (Art. 338A) already enjoy constitutional status; extending the same to women ensures institutional parity.

    Better Enforcement Mechanism- Constitutional backing can ensure stronger monitoring of gender-related laws (e.g., Domestic Violence Act, Sexual Harassment Act).

    Improved Coordination- With constitutional status, NCW could act as a nodal authority linking state commissions and ministries on gender issues.

    Arguments Against

    Constitutionalization won’t automatically improve outcomes unless implementation capacity and political will increase. Eg- non-binding recommendations

    Risk of politicization and executive interference in appointments like NHRC

    Existing Powers Underutilized- limited investigative capacity and enforcement follow-up.

    Risk of Bureaucratization- Constitutional status may make the body more formal.

    Institutional issues like vacancies, limited funding and delays in appointments may persist.

    Way Forward

    Create an Inter-Commission Coordination Council chaired by NHRC to avoid overlaps.

    Strengthen NCW’s investigative and enforcement powers within the existing legal framework.

    Ensure time-bound government response to NCW recommendations.

    Provide financial and staffing autonomy through statutory amendment.

    Simplify public interface through a single online grievance portal linked to all commissions.

    The 3R approach of Reform, Reorientation and Restructuring can enhance functioning of NCW as an effective Bulwark Of Democracy in India.

  • The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India.

    The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, is India’s premier investigating agency. It has become the issue of confrontational federalism in recent years.

    Legal Framework of CBI’s Jurisdiction

    Section 6 of DSPE Act – CBI requires State consent to investigate cases within that State

    General Consent – blanket permission for all cases (most States provide this).

    Case-specific Consent – given on a case-to-case basis if general consent is withdrawn.

    States’ Power to Withhold Consent

    Police and Public order is a State List subject, Entry 2, List II.

    Several States (e.g., West Bengal, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Punjab) have withdrawn general consent citing political misuse.

    However, States’ Power is Not Absolute

    Court’s Power –

    The Supreme Court and High Courts can direct the CBI to investigate without State consent under Articles 32 and 226. (State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010))

    Union Territories – CBI can operate without State consent in UTs.

    Inter-State and National Interest Cases – Involving corruption, national security, or cross-border crimes, Union may justify CBI probe to preserve national integrity.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the CBI can probe Central officials under Central laws without State consent.

    Impact on Federal Character of India

    Positive Aspects

    Judicial oversight – SC/HC powers to direct CBI investigations prevent misuse of State autonomy.

    Enables impartial probes in crimes affecting multiple States.

    National interest protection – accountability in cases threatening unity, security, or economy.

    Negative Aspects

    CBI entry without consent undermines State authority.

    Politicisation fears – Opposition-ruled States view CBI as a tool of the Centre

    SC criticized the CBI as a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice.” (Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) Case)

    Weakens cooperative federalism – Tensions between WB Govt and Centre

    Reinforces the unitary bias of the Constitution, reducing States to subordinate entities in criminal investigation matters.

    Way Forward

    Strengthen Autonomy – Implement Vineet Narain (1997) directives (“CVC-supervised model”).

    Statutory Backing – Replace DSPE Act, 1946 with a clear modern CBI law.

    Consultative Federalism – Respect States’ consent; use Inter-State Council for dialogue.

    Joint Collaboration – Form Centre-State task forces for investigation

    The need of the hour is strengthening institutional independence of CBI , and fostering cooperative federalism.

  • Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.

    NHRC is a statutory body, established under the Protection of Human Rights act 1993. It is established in conformity with Paris Principles 1991.

    Role Played by Human Rights Commissions in India

    Protection of Life and Liberty- Eg- NHRC intervention in Manipur fake encounter cases (2013) led to a Supreme Court-monitored CBI probe.

    Ensuring Accountability of State Machinery- Eg- NHRC recommended Rs. 10 lakh compensation to victims of the Hashimpura massacre (2015).

    Protection of Vulnerable Groups- Eg- NHRC’s recommendations against bonded labour led to several state-level rehabilitation programmes.

    Monitoring Custodial and Institutional Conditions- Eg- NHRC report on Muzaffarpur shelter home (2018) exposed severe human rights violations.

    Promoting Human Rights Awareness through training programmes, seminars, and media campaigns

    Policy and Legal Reforms- Eg- NHRC’s recommendations on prevention of manual scavenging and rehabilitation.

    Addressing Emerging Human Rights Issues – Eg- NHRC issued advisories on migrant workers’ rights during COVID-19 lockdown (2020).

    Collaboration with International and National Agencies – Eg- India’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reports before the UNHRC.

    Issues Associated with NHRC

    Statutory Limitations on Jurisdiction – NHRC cannot take up cases older than one year or matters pending before a court (sub judice).

    Cases involving military personnel often fall outside the NHRC’s purview

    The NHRC lacks the authority to punish violators, cannot directly impose penalties or award relief to victims.

    Observations by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of GANHRI

    Lack of Diversity – Only 95 out of 393 staff positions are held by women, violating the Paris Principles requirement of pluralism and representativeness.

    Government-Dominated Selection Committee curbs opposition input and reduces transparency in selection.

    Weak Investigation Mechanism – NHRC depends on police and government officials on deputation for investigation.

    Limited Engagement with Civil Society

    Additional Institutional Challenges

    Vacancies and Delays in appointments reduce capacity and response efficiency.

    Financial Dependence- Budgetary allocations come through the Ministry of Home Affairs, affecting autonomy.

    Poor Implementation of Recommendations- NHRC recommendations are advisory, often ignored or delayed by governments.

    Backlogs- Growing pendency of complaints due to limited staff and rising caseloads.

    Way Forward

    Strengthen Legal Powers- Amend the 1993 Act to make NHRC/SHRC recommendations legally binding.

    Independent Investigation Wing- Establish a separate cadre of trained human rights investigators.

    Expand Jurisdiction- Review restrictions on cases involving armed forces and paramilitary personnel.

    Financial Autonomy- Provide independent budgetary control, like constitutional bodies (e.g., EC, CAG).

    Empower State Commissions- Strengthen SHRCs through funding and capacity-building support.

    Enhance Awareness- Conduct public education campaigns with NGOs and media support.

    Regular Review Mechanism- Form a National Human Rights Coordination Council to monitor and evaluate performance.

    The 3R approach of Reform, Reorientation and Restructuring can enhance functioning of NHRC as an effective Bulwark Of Democracy in India.

  • How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the States to improve their fiscal position?

    The Constitution of India envisages the Finance Commission under Article 280 as the ‘balancing wheel of fiscal federalism’ in India.

    Key Recommendations & Impact

    Tax Devolution Raised to 42% – Increased untied resources, enhanced fiscal autonomy.

    Reduced Dependence on Central Grants – Gave States more predictable, formula-based transfers.

    Greater Spending Autonomy – Fewer tied schemes allowed States to set local priorities.

    Plan vs Non-Plan Expenditure removed – Simplified budgeting, better fiscal management.

    Incentives for Fiscal Discipline – FRBM compliance encouraged prudent debt management.

    Support to Local Bodies – Higher allocations improved grassroots fiscal health.

    Special Grants for Environment & Judiciary – Helped States strengthen governance and green initiatives.

    GST Compensation Mechanism (recommended later) – Protected States from revenue loss during tax transition.

    Positive Impact

    Strengthened fiscal federalism

    Improved fiscal indicators of states

    Encouraged competitive federalism

    Concerns

    Rise in Cesses & Surcharges – Cesses & surcharges rising from 12.8% (2015-20) to 18.5% (2020-24).

    States’ effective share shrank – Fell from 35% (2015-20) to ~31% (2020-24) of Centre’s gross tax revenue.

    GST Compensation Delays – Especially during COVID, strained States’ finances.

    Reduced Central Grants – Decline in discretionary and plan-based transfers cut flexibility.

    Borrowing Restrictions (Art. 293, FRBM) – Limited States’ ability to raise resources.

    High Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) – Continued tied funds reduced States’ expenditure autonomy.

    Way Forward

    Increase Devolution to 50% under 16th FC.

    Include Cess/Surcharge in divisible pool

    Restructure CSS – Consolidate into fewer umbrella schemes

    As the Punchhi Commission noted, “true federalism requires fiscal autonomy alongside political autonomy.”

  • Discuss the role of the National Commission for Backward Classes in the wake of its transformation from a statutory body to a constitutional body.

    The 102nd Constitution Amendment Act, 2018 inserted Article 338B, elevating the commission to par with the NCSC and NCST.

    Role of the National Commission for Backward Classes

    Investigating Constitutional Safeguards provided to backward classes under the Constitution.

    Exercising Civil Court Powers to summon officials, demand public records, and examine witnesses during active inquiries.

    Inquiry into Rights Violations: investigates specific citizen grievances regarding the outright denial or subversion of rights belonging to SEBCs.

    Advising on Socio-Economic Development: Formulates policy guidelines and advises both Union and State governments on targeted welfare planning for backward communities.

    Evaluating Departmental Progress: Reviews and audits the grassroots performance and execution speed of central and state-level affirmative action schemes.

    Presents comprehensive structural review reports to the President of India regarding the operational health of welfare frameworks.

    The Union and State governments consult the NCBC on all major policy matters affecting SEBCs.

    Enforcing Reservation Compliance: Monitors and checks public sector recruitment pipelines to guarantee strict adherence to the mandated 27% OBC quotas.

    Aids the institutional procedure of identifying and reviewing communities for the Central OBC list under Article 342A.

    Case Studies

    Enforcing Creamy Layer Compliance in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs)

    The commission played a central key role in implementation of the 27% OBC reservation within the All India Quota for undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses (NEET).

    Major issues

    Recommendations are not binding on executive

    Overlapping jurisdiction with other bodies like NHRX, NCW etc

    Lack of administrative and financial autonomy

    Strengthening the NCBC is essential to achieve constitutional objective of Social Justice