💥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

  • What does the SC’s advisory opinion imply?

    INTRODUCTION

    The advisory opinion of the Supreme Court was sought to address concerns raised by delays in assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies and the earlier judicial attempt to impose fixed timelines on Governors. The reference involved 14 constitutional questions focused on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 and the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene. The new opinion aims to clarify the contours of discretionary powers while protecting legislative authority under the Constitution.

    WHY IN THE NEWS

    The Supreme Court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Article 143, reversing the April 2025 ruling that introduced the concept of “deemed assent” and mandated a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills. The Court has clarified that while Governors ordinarily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, their powers under Articles 200 and 201 are discretionary, without any judicially enforceable time limits. This ruling has reshaped the dynamics between constitutional heads and elected State governments, impacting legislative functioning and federal balance.

    What triggered the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion

    1. Presidential reference origin: Resulted from the two-judge bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025).
    2. Three-month timeline mandate: The earlier ruling specified that Governors and the President must act on Bills within three months.
    3. Deemed assent invocation: The bench used Article 142 to grant deemed assent for Tamil Nadu Bills pending with the Governor.
    4. Government concern: The Union Government sought clarity on whether Bills become justiciable before enactment and whether courts can prescribe time limits.
    5. Magnitude of reference: A total of 14 constitutional questions were raised relating to Articles 200 and 201 and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

    What were the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s opinion?

    1. Three constitutional choices under Article 200: The Governor may assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration.
    2. Discretion of Governor: The Governor exercises discretion in choosing among the three options and is not necessarily bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    3. Non-justiciability before enactment: Courts cannot compel Governors to act before a Bill becomes law due to absence of constitutionally prescribed timelines.
    4. Autonomy of President under Article 201: The President’s powers operate independently and cannot be substituted by judicial directives.
    5. Absence of deemed assent: The Constitution does not provide for deemed assent; judicial power under Article 142 cannot be used to invent such a mechanism.

    Does this opinion contradict earlier judicial interpretations?

    1. Earlier judicial logic: Decisions in Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) held that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    2. Present reinterpretation: The Court has held that Article 200 functions fall within discretionary power despite the general rule of acting on ministerial advice.
    3. Shift in constitutional balance: The new interpretation expands discretionary authority when dealing with State legislation.
    What about time limits for Governors and the President?
    1. Punchhi Commission recommendation (2010): Suggested that the Governor should decide on assent within six months.
    2. Precedent in K.M. Singh case (2020): The Court had earlier prescribed a three-month limit for the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions; however, no such limit exists for Governors.
    3. Current ruling: The Supreme Court held that no enforceable time limit applies because the Constitution does not prescribe one.
    4. Implication: The possibility of prolonged delays in assent continues to exist, which may contribute to legislative gridlock.
    What concerns emerge from the current interpretation
    1. Democratic risk: Legislative functioning may be hindered when Bills remain pending without a time frame for disposal.
    2. Centre-State tension: Expanded discretion may tilt the institutional balance toward appointed constitutional heads over elected State governments.
    3. Potential politicisation: Use of gubernatorial office could intensify where State and Union Governments are politically opposed.
    Way Forward
    1. Introduce timelines: Fix a statutory/constitutional time limit for assent to Bills.
    2. Record reasons: Make reservation of Bills and delays explainable in writing.
    3. Structured coordination: Establish periodic Raj Bhavan-State Government consultation mechanism.
    4. Federal ethics: Encourage Governors to follow constitutional neutrality over political alignment.
    5. Legislative reporting: Present pendency reports of Bills before the State Legislature annually.
    6. Capacity building: Train Raj Bhavan staff on constitutional conventions and cooperative federalism.
    CONCLUSION
    The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion carefully aligns with constitutional text by overturning “deemed assent” and reaffirming discretion under Articles 200 and 201. However, it leaves unresolved the core challenge of prolonged delays in gubernatorial action on Bills passed by elected Assemblies. While the opinion respects constitutional separation of powers and prevents judicial overreach, it simultaneously highlights the need for clearer institutional safeguards to protect democratic accountability and cooperative federalism.
    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.
    Linkage: This PYQ connects directly to current debates on Governors’ discretionary powers, assent to Bills, and constitutional limits on ordinance-making. It is highly relevant after the Supreme Court’s recent advisory opinion on Articles 200 and 201, which redefines executive-legislature balance and safeguards federalism.

  • Presidential Reference on Governors & State Bills (2025)

     Why in the news?
     Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, on November 23, 2025, clarified the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in the 2025 Presidential Reference regarding timelines for Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills.

    What is a Presidential Reference?

    • Made under Article 143 of the Constitution.
    • The President can seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or matters of public importance.
    • Not binding, but carries high persuasive value.
    • Cannot overrule an existing judgment, but can clarify the law.

    CJI Gavai emphasised that the advisory opinion is not a judicial review judgment.

    Background: 

    Tamil Nadu Governor Case (April 8 Judgment) The April 8, 2025 Supreme Court judgment held:
    • Governors/President must act on pending Bills within 3 months,
    • Or else the Bill would be “deemed to have received assent”.

    This introduced a judicially created timeline not explicitly present in the Constitution. This triggered the Presidential Reference seeking clarity.

    Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion (November 20, 2025)

    A five-judge Bench led by CJI Gavai issued the following clarifications:

    a) No Mandatory Timeline: The Constitution does not prescribe specific timelines for Governors or the President. Judiciary cannot read timelines into the Constitution.

    b) “Reasonable Period” Standard: Governors and President must act within a “reasonable period”. However, the Court did not define what constitutes “reasonable”.

    c) No Endless Delay: Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills. Courts may exercise limited judicial review in extreme delay cases.

    d) Context Matters: Routine Bills → 1 month may be reasonable. Bills related to internal/external emergency → may require more time.

    Key Constitutional Provisions Involved

    Article 200 – Governor’s options on State Bills
    1. Give assent
    2. Withhold assent
    3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill)
    4. Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration
    Article 201 – President’s powers over reserved Bills
    • Grant or withhold assent
    • No fixed timeline prescribed
    Article 143 – Presidential Reference
    • Supreme Court gives advisory opinion

    Why is this Important for UPSC Prelims?

    This case clarifies the separation of powers, federalism, and the role of constitutional authorities.

    Prelims often tests:

    • Powers of Governor
    • Assent procedures for Bills
    • Nature of advisory jurisdiction
    • Limits of judicial interpretation

    Other Key Statements by CJI Gavai (Factual Highlights)

    a) Advisory Opinion vs Judgment: Advisory opinion cannot overturn a judgment.

    b) Judiciary–Executive Relations: CJI rejected the idea that “friction” is necessary between judiciary and government.

    c) Judicial Independence: A judge’s independence is not measured by ruling against the government.

    d) High Court Judge Transfers: Transfers made for administrative reasons and sometimes due to complaints after verification.

    e) Personal Note: CJI forgave a lawyer who threw an object at him: “It’s how I was brought up.”

    Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State? (PYQ 2014)

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule 

    2. Appointing the Ministers 

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India 

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

    (a) 1 and 2 only 

    (b) 1 and 3 only 

    (c) 2, 3 and 4 only 

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • Independence of Election Commission Of India(ECI)

    Why in the news?

    Amidst SIR exercise, the Opposition raised questions on the independence of ECI.

    About Election Commission of India(ECI)

    The Election Commission of India (ECI), established under Article 324, is responsible for ensuring free, fair, and impartial elections. Its independence is essential for democratic legitimacy.

    Constitutional Safeguards Ensuring Independence

    1.Security of Tenure – CEC-The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) can be removed only through a process similar to that of a Supreme Court judge- by a special majority of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

    2.Protection for Election Commissioners (ECs)-ECs can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC, preventing arbitrary dismissal by the executive.

    3. Financial Independence-ECI’s expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, insulating it from executive control through budget cuts.

    4. Plenary Powers under Article 324-ECI can act when existing laws are inadequate, allowing it functional autonomy during elections

    Independence After the 2023 Act

    Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. This Act overrides the 2023 Supreme Court directive that required a three-member committee :PM + Leader of Opposition + CJI.

    Key Provisions and Their Impact

    1.New Appointment Committee-Appointments to CEC and ECs now made by a three-member panel:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM

    Impact: Replaces the CJI with a Cabinet minister, increasing executive dominance over appointments, raising concerns about ECI independence.

    2. Service Conditions-CEC and ECs will have the same salary and perks as Cabinet Secretary.

    Impact: This equates their status with high-ranking executive officers, which critics argue may reduce institutional insulation from the government.

    3.Term of Office-Fixed tenure of 6 years or until age 65, whichever earlier.

    Impact: Fixed tenure supports stability, but early retirement age could shorten term length.

    4. Removal & Suspension-No change: CEC retains constitutional protection; ECs removable only on CEC’s recommendation.

    Challenges to Independence (Post-2023 Act)

    • Executive-Dominated Appointments: A selection panel with a government majority may undermine the Commission’s neutrality.
    • Exclusion of CJI: Removing the Chief Justice from the panel weakens institutional checks and balances.
    • Status Dilution: Equating the CEC/ECs with a bureaucratic rank risks undermining their constitutional stature.
    • Post-Retirement Incentives: Possibility of government-appointed positions may affect independent decision-making.
    • Administrative Dependence: Continued reliance on government machinery for staffing and logistics limits functional autonomy.

    The Election Commission of India, protected by the Constitution, ensures free elections; the 2023 Act clarifies appointments, and strengthening autonomy and capacity can further reinforce its credibility and democratic role.

    [UPSC 2012] Consider the following statements:

    1. Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate election disputes.
    3. According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) None*

     

     

  • What is needed from a Governor is reticence

    M.K. Stalin | Governor R N Ravi 'instigates' communal hatred, is threat to Tamil Nadu's peace: CM Stalin tells President Droupadi Murmu - Telegraph India

    Central Idea:

    The article discusses the controversial statements made by the Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi, regarding the factors leading to India’s Independence. Despite his background in physics and a career in the Intelligence Bureau, Mr. Ravi expressed views on historical events, specifically downplaying the impact of the Quit India movement and attributing British departure to factors like Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s actions and the Naval Mutiny.

    Key Highlights:

    • Governor R.N. Ravi, in breach of the expected reticence of constitutional authorities, delves into historical interpretations related to India’s Independence.
    • Ravi suggests that the Quit India movement had minimal impact on the British decision to leave, attributing it more to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s Azad Hind Government and the 1946 Naval Mutiny and Air Force Rebellion.
    • Ravi’s views are reportedly based on Intelligence Bureau files, raising questions about his in-depth study of India’s national movement.

    Key Challenges:

    • Constitutional authorities, like Governors, should refrain from publicly expressing opinions on historical matters unrelated to their duties, especially without comprehensive knowledge.
    • Ravi’s assertion regarding the Quit India movement and the reasons for British departure may stir controversy and be seen as an attempt to rewrite historical narratives.

    Key Terms/Phrases:

    • Quit India movement
    • Intelligence Bureau (IB)
    • Azad Hind Government
    • Naval Mutiny and Air Force Rebellion
    • Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
    • Mahatma Gandhi
    • Indian National Army (INA)
    • Constitutional authority

    Key Quotes:

    • “The Quit India movement made little impact on the British decision to leave India.” – Governor R.N. Ravi
    • “The British left because they felt ‘insecure’ after the ‘Naval Revolt and the Air Force Rebellion.’” – R.N. Ravi on British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s alleged statement.

    Anecdotes:

    • The article mentions the lawyer Bhulabhai Desai, Jawaharlal Nehru, and others defending INA officers at their court martial, emphasizing the united front among leaders despite ideological differences.

    Key Statements:

    • Constitutional authorities, like Governors, are expected to maintain reticence and avoid public expressions of opinions on historical events.
    • Mr. Ravi’s views on the Quit India movement and the reasons for British departure may not align with historical consensus.

    Key Examples and References:

    • Reference to the impact of INA trials on British rule withdrawal, as noted in Kailas Nath Katju’s unpublished biography.
    • Mention of historical leaders’ admiration for Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, despite ideological differences.

    Key Facts/Data:

    • Mr. Ravi’s background in physics and a career in the Intelligence Bureau.
    • INA trials and their impact on public sentiment, as highlighted in Kailas Nath Katju’s biography.

    Critical Analysis:

    • The article criticizes Mr. Ravi for venturing into historical interpretations without a detailed study, emphasizing the need for constitutional authorities to exercise restraint.
    • It questions the validity of Ravi’s claims regarding the Quit India movement’s impact and the factors influencing the British decision to leave.

    Way Forward:

    • Constitutional authorities should adhere to their roles and avoid making public statements on historical events.
    • Encourage informed discussions on historical matters and ensure that statements align with widely accepted historical narratives.

  • Eknath Shinde, the ‘real’ Shiv Sena and a new Maharashtra model

    Anti Defection Law - Civilsdaily

    Central Idea:

    The article criticizes the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Rahul Narwekar, for his decision to recognize Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who left the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena group, as the legitimate leader of the party. The author argues that the Speaker’s decision, influenced by political affiliations, undermines legislative procedures and regulations, creating legal inconsistencies and setting a concerning precedent for future political maneuvering.

    Key Highlights:

    • Speaker Narwekar’s decision favors Chief Minister Shinde, who defected from the Uddhav Thackeray-led group, causing a split in the Shiv Sena.
    • The article points out three major flaws in the Speaker’s decision, including the misinterpretation of majority support, violation of Supreme Court guidelines on the appointment of a whip, and contradictory handling of the Thackeray camp’s violation of the whip.
    • The Speaker’s political affiliation with the BJP raises concerns about impartiality and adherence to constitutional principles.

    Key Challenges:

    • The Speaker’s decision raises questions about the integrity of legislative procedures and the potential influence of political considerations on constitutional matters.
    • Legal inconsistencies, including the misinterpretation of majority support and the violation of Supreme Court guidelines, create challenges for maintaining the rule of law.
    • The article suggests that the decision might lead to prolonged legal battles and sets a precedent for party splits orchestrated by external political forces.

    Key Terms:

    • Defection: The act of switching allegiance from one political party to another.
    • Whip: An official in a political party responsible for ensuring party members vote in line with party decisions.
    • Constitutional Morality: Adherence to ethical and constitutional principles in decision-making.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Recognition of the split as a textbook example of disregard for legislative procedure.”
    • “Craters, not holes, in the Speaker’s order.”
    • “Political heavyweights absent during the crucial decision.”

    Key Quotes:

    • “To hold that it is the legislature party which appoints the whip would be to sever the figurative umbilical cord…”
    • “The Speaker’s decision is bound to trigger yet another legal battle.”
    • “The BJP has perfected the art of engineering defections.”

    Key Statements:

    • “Speaker Narwekar’s decision may be seen as a mockery of the Constitution.”
    • “The Speaker’s affiliation with the BJP adds to suspicions of bias.”
    • “Legal inconsistencies and violations of Supreme Court guidelines are evident in the decision.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • Chief Minister Shinde’s defection from Shiv Sena and the subsequent split.
    • The Speaker’s acceptance of a new whip in violation of Supreme Court guidelines.
    • The contradiction in handling the Thackeray camp’s violation of the whip.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • Speaker Rahul Narwekar is a member of the BJP.
    • Chief Minister Shinde initially had 16 out of 55 MLAs when he left Shiv Sena.
    • The BJP’s success in engineering defections in Maharashtra is highlighted as a concerning trend.

    Critical Analysis: The article criticizes the Speaker’s decision for favoring the ruling party, creating legal loopholes, and potentially setting a precedent for orchestrated party splits. It emphasizes the need for judicial intervention to uphold constitutional morality and address the flaws in the decision.

    Way Forward:

    • The judiciary should play a proactive role in addressing the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of constitutional principles.
    • Political leaders and legislative bodies should prioritize the adherence to established procedures and guidelines.
    • Public awareness and scrutiny can contribute to holding political figures accountable for decisions that may undermine democratic values.

    In conclusion, the article highlights the importance of upholding constitutional principles in the face of political maneuvering, urging judicial intervention and public vigilance to safeguard the integrity of legislative processes.

  • After ECI guidelines, charting a path to disability inclusion in politics

    Don't use derogatory terms for disabled, EC tells political parties | India News - Times of India

    Central Idea:

    The Election Commission of India issued guidelines advising political parties on using disability-sensitive language and practices. These guidelines cover inclusive communication, accessible information, and integrating people with disabilities (PwDs) within party structures. The aim is to counter derogatory remarks and stereotypes against PwDs in politics. However, concerns about the effectiveness of these guidelines arise, demanding further refinement and their inclusion in the Model Code of Conduct.

    Key Highlights:

    • The guidelines address disability-inclusive communication, information accessibility, and inclusion within political party frameworks.
    • Recent derogatory remarks by political leaders underscore the necessity for these guidelines.
    • Derogatory language contributes to attitudinal barriers under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
    • The guidelines are advisory, lacking uniformity and needing a more definitive mandate.
    • Absence of these guidelines in the Model Code of Conduct reduces their enforceability.
    • Ambiguities in language usage and terminology require clarification to avoid misinterpretation.
    • Political inclusion of PwDs is not addressed in the draft National Policy for PwD.
    • Lack of data on legislators with disabilities and the absence of a disability column in election forms hinder political inclusion.

    Key Terms:

    • Disability-sensitive language
    • Inclusive communication
    • Attitudinal barriers
    • Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
    • Model Code of Conduct
    • Derogatory remarks
    • National Policy for Persons with Disabilities
    • Political inclusion

    Key Phrases:

    • “Advisory guidelines”
    • “Attitudinal barrier”
    • “Model Code of Conduct”
    • “Political inclusion”
    • “Derogatory remarks”
    • “Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016”
    • “National Policy for Persons with Disabilities”

    Key Quotes:

    • “These guidelines are only an ‘advisory,’ though the phraseology of a few guidelines is in mandatory language.”
    • “Instances have underlined the need for these guidelines, such as derogatory remarks by political leaders.”
    • “Political inclusion is an ignored aspect within the Indian realm of disability.”

    Key Statements:

    • “A uniform mandate under all three heads is needed for effective implementation.”
    • “Guidelines must be included within the Model Code of Conduct to enhance their enforceability.”
    • “The lack of data has contributed significantly to the political exclusion of PwDs.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • A Raja’s derogatory comparison of Sanatan Dharma to people with leprosy and HIV in September 2023.
    • Lack of a disability column in nomination forms and affidavits filed by contestants during elections.

    Key Facts:

    • The guidelines cover disability-inclusive communication, information accessibility, and inclusion within party frameworks.
    • Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is mentioned as a punitive measure for breaching guidelines related to disability-inclusive communication.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article critically examines the advisory guidelines, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. It emphasizes the need for a more robust and enforceable framework within the Model Code of Conduct and addresses ambiguities in language usage.

    Way Forward:

    • Refine and make the guidelines mandatory under all three categories.
    • Incorporate guidelines into the Model Code of Conduct for enhanced enforceability.
    • Provide a detailed list of disability-sensitive words and phraseology.
    • Include a chapter on political inclusion in the National Policy for Persons with Disabilities.
    • Introduce a disability column in election nomination forms to collect data on legislators with disabilities.

  • Enhancing representation, for a just electoral system

    New Parliament Building of India - Interesting Facts & Controversies

    Central idea

    The article discusses the inadequate representation of citizens by Members of Parliament in India, highlighting challenges of malapportionment and proposing solutions such as delimitation, state reorganization, and local governance empowerment. It emphasizes the need for a more representative and efficient electoral system to strengthen India’s democracy.

    What is Malapportionment?

    • Malapportionment refers to the unequal distribution of representation or political power among different constituencies or districts within a legislative body.
    • It occurs when the number of representatives assigned to a particular area is not proportionate to its population or voting strength.

    Key Highlights:

    • Representation Disparity: The article highlights the disproportionate representation of citizens by Members of Parliament (MPs) in India, compared to the U.S. and other countries.
    • Malapportionment Concerns: Malapportionment, favoring certain states, is discussed as a potential issue in India’s political system.
    • Delimitation Challenge: The potential consequences of delimitation, freezing the number of Lok Sabha seats until 2031, are examined, considering the changing demographics of states.
    • Federalism Promotion: The need for promoting federalism in India’s electoral system is emphasized to give states better representation and a platform to voice their interests.
    • Electoral System Reform: Suggestions for electoral system reforms include reconsidering the Rajya Sabha’s representation method and exploring proportional representation for more equitable outcomes.
    • State Reorganization Proposal: Proposes the idea of creating more states in India, addressing concerns about governance efficiency and democratic accountability.

    Challenges:

    • Representation Deficit: India faces a deficit in adequate representation at various levels of governance, impacting the ability to address critical issues and make effective laws.
    • Malapportionment Risks: The political system in India is at risk of malapportionment, especially with the growing political culture differences between the south, northeast, and the rest of India.
    • Consequences of Delimitation: Delimitation, while necessary, might lead to biases favoring certain regions and political outfits over others.

    Key data from article for mains value addition

    • An average Indian Member of Parliament (MP) represents approximately 2.5 million citizens.
    • In contrast, a U.S. House of Representatives member represents around 700,000 citizens.
    • India has around 4,126 Members of the Legislative Assembly.
    • Proposed increase in parliamentary seats to at least 848 to avoid any state losing seats during delimitation.
    • Potential rise in seats for certain states, e.g., Karnataka by 11%, and for northern states like Uttar Pradesh by 63%.
    • Suggests the potential creation of more states, moving from 29 to 50 or even 75 states.
    • Calls for a New State Reorganization Commission to evaluate the viability of new states.
    • The 2021 Census, delayed and likely to be conducted in 2024, with results potentially published by 2026, provides a window for delimitation.

    Key Phrases for improving your mains score:

    • Malapportionment in the U.S. Senate.
    • Disproportionate allocation of power.
    • Consequences of unleashing delimitation.
    • Historical form of delimitation.
    • Fiscal impact of delimitation on future transfers to States.
    • Promotion of federalism.
    • Electoral system reforms.
    • Proportional representation consideration.

    Analysis:

    • Representation Deficit Impact: Limited representation in India’s democratic setup is identified as a default preference, impacting the effectiveness of governance.
    • Malapportionment Dynamics: India’s heterogeneous political system raises concerns about the potential bias in favor of certain political outfits due to malapportionment.
    • Delimitation Challenges: Delimitation is seen as a potential solution but must be approached cautiously to minimize deleterious consequences.

    Way Forward:

    • Increase in Parliamentary Seats: Proposes a significant increase in the number of seats in Parliament to enhance democratic representation ratios.
    • Consideration Beyond Population: Delimitation should consider factors like geographical determinism, economic productivity, linguistic history, and fairness, not solely based on population.
    • State Reorganization Commission: Suggests the creation of a new State Reorganization Commission to evaluate the socio-economic and administrative viability of potential new states.
    • Empowerment of Local Governance: Advocates for direct elections of mayors in urban areas with enhanced decision-making powers, promoting efficiency and accountability.
    • Focus on Local Democratic Representation: Enhancing local democratic representation is seen as a crucial step to strengthen India’s democracy.

    In essence, the article emphasizes the need for a more representative and efficient electoral system in India, advocating for reforms in delimitation, federalism promotion, state reorganization, and empowerment of local governance.

  • S Y Quraishi writes: On electoral bonds, Supreme Court must uphold Right to Information

    Central idea 

    The Supreme Court’s delayed review of electoral bonds probes the tension between voter information rights and donor confidentiality in a scheme initiated by Arun Jaitley in 2017. Despite its aim to enhance political funding transparency, electoral bonds are criticized for facilitating substantial anonymous donations, prompting a reassessment.

    Key Highlights:

    • Long Overdue Scrutiny: The Supreme Court belatedly addresses the electoral bonds case, underscoring the clash between voters’ right to information and donors’ right to confidentiality.
    • Judicial Focus: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud leads a Constitution Bench, signaling a renewed focus on resolving the inherent tensions within the electoral bonds scheme.
    • Intent vs. Reality: Arun Jaitley’s 2017 introduction aimed at enhancing transparency in political funding, yet it paradoxically raised concerns about anonymity in substantial donations.
    • Unintended Consequences: The unexpected fallout prompts a reassessment of the electoral bonds’ actual impact on the transparency landscape.

    Challenges:

    • Unmasking Anonymity Issues: Electoral bonds permit significant anonymous donations, opening avenues for potential quid pro quo transactions.
    • Transparency Dilemma: The challenge lies in striking a balance between protecting donor identities and ensuring transparency in political contributions.
    • Commission’s Conundrum: The Election Commission’s reversal from initial skepticism to support introduces a new layer of complexity and skepticism.
    • Trust Deficit: The sudden shift erodes trust in the consistency and impartiality of regulatory bodies, complicating the ongoing discourse on political funding transparency.

    Concerns:

    • Unraveling Legal Changes: The Finance Act of 2017’s amendments, while enabling electoral bonds, raise concerns about potential misuse and their overall impact on transparency.
    • Legislative Tightrope: Striking a balance between facilitating political funding and safeguarding against misuse becomes a critical concern.
    • International Implications: Changes in legislation raise apprehensions about unchecked foreign contributions, bringing to light potential implications for the integrity of Indian elections.
    • National Security Nexus: The secrecy surrounding foreign funding raises concerns not just about transparency but also the broader national security landscape.

    Analysis:

    • Paradoxical Outcome: Electoral bonds, designed to enhance transparency, face criticism for paradoxically diminishing it by facilitating undisclosed, large-scale donations.
    • Reassessing Intentions: An in-depth analysis of how the scheme’s intentions align with its real-world impact on political funding transparency.
    • Reimagining Funding Landscape: Urgent calls for reconsideration of private funding advocate exploring alternatives like public funding or a National Election Fund.
    • Navigating Change: The urgency lies in navigating a transformed funding landscape that prioritizes fairness, accountability, and public trust.

    .

    Way Forward:

    • Disclosing Donor Identities: A reevaluation of the use of electoral bonds, emphasizing transparency through the disclosure of donor identities.
    • Stakeholder Collaboration: Collaborative efforts between regulatory bodies, political stakeholders, and the public to shape more transparent political funding mechanisms.
    • Alternatives to Private Funding: Advocating for a shift towards public funding or the establishment of a National Election Fund to address concerns about donor reprisals.
    • Balancing Act: Striking a balance between the need for funding and the imperative of transparency in reshaping the political funding landscape.

     

  • Using AI for audit techniques

    What’s the news?

    • The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), Girish Chandra Murmu, who chairs the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of the G20, has raised a crucial concern regarding the increasing reliance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) for auditing purposes

    Central idea

    • The CAG has warned that the absolute dependence on AI may result in inaccurate audit findings and emphasized the significance of ethics as the foundation of responsible AI. In the realm of auditing, where transparency, objectivity, fairness, and bias avoidance are paramount, addressing these challenges is imperative.

    The Imperative of Responsible and Ethical AI

    • Credibility and Trust in Auditing: The credibility and trustworthiness of audit findings hinge on responsible AI practices. Without ethical AI, there is a risk of generating inaccurate audit results, which could undermine trust in the auditing process.
    • Data Integrity: The utmost importance is placed on data integrity in AI auditing. Responsible AI dictates that audit data must be complete, accurate, and relevant. Ensuring data integrity is paramount to prevent potentially misleading audit findings.
    • Ethical Data Usage: Responsible AI practices demand the use of data only from authorized and reputable sources. Leveraging data from unverified or unauthorized sources, such as social media, introduces biases and threatens the audit process’s integrity.
    • Regulation in India: It is imperative to address the need for AI regulation in India, drawing inspiration from the European Union’s AI Act as a pioneering example. Such regulations are seen as essential for promoting responsible and ethical AI use across various domains, including auditing.
    • Challenges for Auditors: Auditors at the CAG face an array of challenges when auditing AI systems. These include the imperative for data standardization, regulatory compliance, and the development of auditor expertise. These challenges underscore the significance of adhering to ethical AI practices.
    • International Audit Framework: The establishment of a common international audit framework for AI is deemed crucial. Such a framework would provide auditors with guidance on navigating the complexities of AI auditing while ensuring ethical standards are upheld.
    EU AI Act as a Pioneering Example

    The approval of the EU AI Act by the European Parliament serves as a pioneering example of comprehensive AI regulation.

    It introduces stringent restrictions and scrutiny for generative AI tools, like ChatGPT.

    India can learn from the EU’s approach to regulate AI technologies effectively.

    Challenges faced by the CAG in auditing AI systems

    • AI Regulation and Data Standardization: Establishing effective AI regulations and data standardization for consistent and accurate AI audits.
    • Data Source Authentication: Verifying the authenticity and reliability of data sources, especially those from unauthorized origins, impacting audit accuracy.
    • Data Integration and Cross-Referencing: Managing the complexity of integrating and cross-referencing data from diverse government sources and platforms, affecting audit efficiency.
    • Data Platform Synchronization: Achieving synchronization of data platforms across government entities through IT policies to streamline the audit process.
    • Digitalization Challenges: Addressing security concerns associated with digitalization initiatives, particularly in defense audits.
    • Lack of Precedents for AI Audits: Adapting existing IT frameworks and regulations for AI audits due to the absence of established precedents, adding complexity to the process.

    Compliance Issues in Auditing AI Systems

    • Variety of AI Auditing Frameworks: Global organizations have developed multiple AI auditing frameworks, including the COBIT framework for AI audit, the US Government Accountability Office framework, and the COSO ERM Framework. These diverse frameworks can lead to challenges in standardization and consistency in AI auditing practices.
    • Draft Guidance from the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office: The U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office has published draft guidance on the AI auditing framework. While this guidance is a step forward, it may not provide comprehensive and universally accepted standards, leading to potential inconsistencies in AI audits.
    • Data Protection Impact Assessments: Organizations are legally required to conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments when using AI systems that process personal data. Ensuring compliance with these assessments adds complexity to AI audits, particularly regarding data privacy and security.

    Measures to Address these Challenges

    • Establish Clear AI Regulations and Data Standards: Advocate for the development and implementation of clear and comprehensive AI regulations and data standards to ensure audit consistency.
    • Implement Robust Data Verification Procedures: Implement robust data verification procedures and protocols, emphasizing the use of reliable and authorized data sources.
    • Develop Standardized Data Integration Methods: Develop standardized data integration methods and tools to simplify the process of cross-referencing data from various sources.
    • Enforce Data Platform Synchronization: Prioritize the synchronization of data platforms across government entities through the formulation and enforcement of IT policies.
    • Enhance Security Measures for Digitalization: Continuously assess and enhance security measures for digitalization initiatives, especially when dealing with sensitive data in defense audits.
    • Engage with Stakeholders to Develop AI-Specific Frameworks: Engage with relevant stakeholders, including government agencies and AI experts, to develop AI-specific auditing frameworks and standards, adapting existing IT frameworks as needed.

    The Need for AI Regulation in India

    • Ensuring Accuracy and Fair Use of Data: AI-generated content may raise issues related to copyright infringement and intellectual property rights. Regulatory frameworks can address these concerns and establish guidelines for the ethical and lawful use of data and content generated by AI systems.
    • Mitigating AI Bias: AI bias, which often stems from human bias in training data, poses inherent risks. Regulations can stipulate measures to mitigate bias and promote fairness in AI algorithms and decision-making processes.
    • Protection of Privacy: As AI technologies increasingly interact with personal data, privacy concerns arise. Regulatory frameworks can establish clear guidelines for data protection and privacy, safeguarding individuals’ personal information.
    • Consumer Protection: Regulations can protect consumers from AI-driven practices that may be deceptive or harmful. This includes measures to ensure transparency and fairness in AI-powered products and services.
    • Harmonious Fusion of Technology and Ethics: Achieving a harmonious fusion of technological progress and ethical considerations, as envisioned by Elon Musk, requires a multifaceted approach. Regulations can provide a structured framework for achieving this balance.

    What else?

    • Innovations in Ethical AI: Innovations like Elon Musk’s “Truth GPT,” aimed at creating a “maximum truth-seeking AI,” underscore the need for ethical AI development. Regulations can encourage and guide such innovations to align with ethical considerations and safety standards.
    • Global Trend Towards AI Regulation: Prominent global leaders, including the U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, are actively pursuing AI safety regulation. India can follow suit to ensure that it remains aligned with international AI standards and fosters collaboration in AI safety measures.

    Conclusion

    • As AI continues to play an increasingly significant role in auditing, the CAG must navigate complex challenges to ensure the credibility and accuracy of audit findings. India, too, needs to consider robust AI regulation while upholding ethics and data integrity to safeguard the integrity of the audit process and maintain public trust.

  • What the 16th Finance Commission needs to do differently

    What’s the news?

    • India’s fiscal landscape, transformed by GST, calls for a comprehensive reevaluation of fiscal federalism to address tax-sharing challenges and regional disparities.

    Central idea

    • The 122nd Constitutional Amendment of 2016 and the subsequent introduction of the GST regime in 2017 reshaped India’s fiscal landscape, replacing production-based taxation with a consumption-oriented approach. This shift highlights the importance of reevaluating fiscal federalism as the 16th Finance Commission forms, addressing tax-sharing principles and regional balance in taxation.

    What is meant by fiscal federalism?

    • Fiscal federalism refers to the division of financial responsibilities and resources between different levels of government within a federal or decentralized system.
    • It encompasses the principles and mechanisms by which revenues are generated, collected, shared, and spent by various levels of government, typically at the national (central) and subnational (state or regional) levels.
    • India operates as a federal republic with a multi-tiered system of governance, and fiscal federalism is an essential aspect of this arrangement.

    Potential challenges faced by the 16th Finance Commission

    • Revisiting Tax-sharing Principles: The 16th Finance Commission faces the challenge of reexamining and redesigning tax-sharing principles due to the shift from production-based to consumption-based taxation under the GST regime.
    • Efficient Tax Collection: Variations in the cost of tax collection (ranging from 7 to 10 percent) have emerged as a challenge, given the joint collection of taxes by the Union and states under GST.
    • Redesigning Horizontal Distribution: The Commission must address the challenge of redesigning criteria for distributing the divisible pool among states to ensure equitable distribution of tax revenues and grants.
    • Reviewing the Compensation Scheme: The necessity, viability, and desirability of the GST compensation scheme must be reviewed by the Commission, considering the performance of GST revenues over the past six years.
    • Institutional Relationships: Establishing formalized institutional relationships between the GST Council and the Finance Commission presents a challenge in the evolving federal financial structure.

    The need for a comprehensive reevaluation of India’s fiscal federalism

    • Shift to the GST Regime: The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime represents a monumental shift in India’s taxation system. This change from a production-based tax system to a consumption-based one necessitates a reevaluation of fiscal federalism to align with this new tax paradigm.
    • Impact on Vertical and Horizontal Imbalances: The transition from a production-based to a consumption-based tax system has the potential to rectify historical vertical imbalances in tax revenue distribution. However, it also introduces new horizontal imbalances among states due to varying consumption patterns and economic development levels.
    • Equitable Resource Allocation: To ensure a fair distribution of resources among states, it is imperative to revisit the criteria for resource allocation. The reevaluation should consider the principles of fiscal federalism and the specific needs of each state within the GST framework.
    • Efficiency and Transparency: An updated fiscal federalism framework can lead to increased efficiency and transparency in revenue collection, sharing, and utilization. This can help streamline fiscal processes and reduce inefficiencies.
    • Adaptation to Changing Economic Realities: India’s economic landscape is dynamic, with evolving challenges and opportunities. A comprehensive reevaluation allows fiscal policies to adapt to these changes, ensuring they remain relevant and effective.
    • Fiscal Responsibility: To ensure fiscal sustainability, a reevaluation should assess the long-term fiscal health of both the central government and state governments. It can recommend measures to manage fiscal deficits and public debt responsibly.

    Way forward

    • Mandate of the 16th Finance Commission: The government should promptly constitute the 16th Finance Commission with a clear mandate to reexamine the tax-sharing principles and other related fiscal matters.
    • Define Comprehensive Terms of Reference (ToR): The ToR for the 16th Finance Commission should be carefully formulated to guide the Commission in addressing the challenges posed by the GST regime and its impact on fiscal federalism.
    • Pooling of Indirect Tax Sovereignty: Given the significant changes in the tax landscape, the Commission should comprehensively assess the pooling of indirect tax sovereignty between the Union and states under the GST system.
    • Redesign Tax-sharing Principles: The Commission should undertake a thorough review and redesign of tax-sharing principles, especially with regard to the divisible pool, unsettled IGST, and settlement frequencies, in alignment with the GST structure.
    • Distribution Criteria Reevaluation: Reevaluate the criteria for distributing the divisible pool among states, particularly for equalizing grants, to ensure that they align with the new consumption-based tax system and address regional imbalances effectively.
    • Formalize Institutional Relationships: Formalize and strengthen the institutional relationship between the GST Council and the Finance Commission to facilitate seamless coordination, information exchange, and alignment of fiscal policies.
    • Engage with Stakeholders: Engage in extensive consultations with relevant stakeholders, including state governments, economists, and experts, to gather diverse perspectives and insights.

    Conclusion

    • The 16th Finance Commission must reshape India’s fiscal federalism for the GST era by redefining the divisible pool, improving tax collection efficiency, revisiting distribution criteria, reviewing compensation, and formalizing institutional relationships. Flexible terms of reference are crucial for these essential reforms to align the fiscal system with the new tax paradigm and promote equitable growth.

    Also read:

    Finance Commission and the Challenges of Fiscal Federalism