💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • In India, the steady subversion of equality

    Context

    The sharp turns away from democracy seen recently in the country must jolt citizens into stopping the descent.

    Equality in democracy

    • The central edifice of a democracy, or what makes it a revolutionary idea, is equality, or that it accords an equal status to all its people.
    • The promise of the far-sighted Indian Constitution was of equal rights to all.
    • If any benefit was accorded to smaller groups, religious or linguistic minorities or Dalits, it was in order to achieve substantive equality.

    Faith as a differentiator

    • The basis of citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, allowing for non-Muslims from three countries to fast-track their citizenship, was the most serious push to introduce religion into citizenship.
    • Impact on marital choice: In terms of marital choices, laws in the country in States where the national ruling party holds sway have drawn harsh attention on inter-faith couples.
    • The Gujarat law criminalising inter-faith marriages has been called out by the Gujarat High Court.
    • But the ordinance introduced in Uttar Pradesh (Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020) is now a law.
    • Food has been criminalised: Stringent laws on cattle end up penalising those who have a certain diet, namely beef. The mood in the country created and abetted by people close to the powers that be, has led to lynchings.
    • State governments and the Union government have mostly ignored the Supreme Court’s directions in 2018 to set up fast track courts, advice to take steps to stop hate messages on social media, or compensation to victims, or bringing in an anti-mob lynching law.
    • Circumscribe where on can reside: The Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, popularly known as the Disturbed Areas Act, circumscribes where one can reside.
    • The act was brought in an atmosphere where there was communal rioting and forced displacement, to ostensibly protect communities from distress sales, the twist accorded to it over the years firmly makes the forced separation of communities. evident.

    Hostile environment

    • Scholars like Thomas Blom Hansen and Paul Brass have unhesitatingly pointed to the role of violence that has historically been acceptable in Indian society and politics.
    • Scholars like Christophe Jaffrelot have pointed out that there will not be a seamless transition to an “ethnic democracy”.
    • The Indian nation is one formed on the promise of shared and participatory kinship, which recognised Indian nationalism as being distinct from the faith you practised at home.
    • Prioritising any one identity will have disastrous consequences and history provides enough evidence of this.

    Conclusion

    The mobs read together with actions of the Union government and that of State governments mark a sharp turn away from the democracy India claims it is. That must jolt us into recognising the distance we have already travelled down the wrong path. That may be the first step to try to wrest the descent into the darkness of an apartheid state.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Karnataka Gambling Law: Ambit and the High Court Challenge

    Last month, the Karnataka legislature passed a legislation to amend the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, making all forms of gambling, including online, a cognisable and non-bailable offence.

    Gambling Law

    • The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 was notified and came into force.
    • It is aimed for broadening the scope of gambling beyond what has been defined by law.
    • It was passed despite similar laws introduced in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Telangana having faced legal challenges.

    What forms of gambling does the new law cover?

    • The amended law covers all forms of wagering or betting “in connection with any game of chance” with the exception of horse racing and lotteries.
    • It also puts betting on the skills of others in the category of gambling.
    • It provides an exception only to any pure game of skill and not to “wagering by persons taking part in such game of skill”.

    Penalties prescribed

    • It enhances maximum punishment for owners of gambling centres from one year to three years of imprisonment and fines from Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 lakh.
    • The minimum punishment proposed is six months instead of the current one month and the fine is Rs 10,000 instead of Rs 500.

    Implications of the law

    • Since the new law came into effect, several online gaming firms have geo-locked their apps and sites in Karnataka to prevent attracting police action if customers access the sites.

    Legal issues raised by the amended laws

    One of the primary grounds on which the new gaming laws in these states has been challenged is:

    • Games of skill: This been clubbed along with games of chance in the definition of gaming, if the games of skill are played for prizes or bets.
    • Violation of FR: Gaming companies have argued — successfully that competitive games of skill are business activities protected under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
    • Other examples: Rummy and horse racing have been classified by the courts as games of skill that do not come under the purview of gaming laws.
    • Competence of the state: It has been argued that states do not have “legislative competence” to prohibit games of skill and that only games of chance can be regulated for gambling and betting.

    Why has Karnataka amended the law?

    • Ban on online gambling: The statement of objects and reasons justify that the new law is needed to make gambling a cognisable and non-bailable offence (gambling in public streets remains cognisable and bailable).
    • More power to Police: Other reasons cited is that police cannot raid gambling dens without a formal written order from a magistrate, since gambling is a non-cognisable and bailable offence.
    • Public demands for ban: Recent public interest litigations seeking a ban on online gaming and betting, too, have been a trigger for the amendments.
    • Illicit use of cyber-space: The new law has also been introduced to include the use of cyberspace as defined in the IT Act 2000 to curb the menace of gaming through internet.

    Will these amendments stand the test of law?

    • As mentioned, a similar law in Tamil Nadu was struck down by the Madras High Court as being ultra vires after it was challenged by online gaming firms.
    • The court ruled that- Games and sporting activities in the physical form cannot be equated with games conducted in virtual mode or in cyberspace.
    • However, when it comes to card games or board games such as chess or Scrabble, there is no distinction between the skill involved in the physical form of the activity or in the virtual form.
    • The HC said both rummy and poker are games of skill.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • What India’s new water policy seeks to deliver

    Context

    Over a period of one year, the committee set up to draft the new National Water Policy (NWP) received 124 submissions by state and central governments, academics and practitioners. The NWP is based on the striking consensus that emerged through these wide-ranging deliberations.

    Major suggestion in NWP

    Demand-side: Diversification of public procurement operations

    • Irrigation consumes 80-90 per cent of India’s water, most of which is used by rice, wheat and sugarcane.
    • Thus, crop diversification is the single most important step in resolving India’s water crisis.
    • The policy suggests diversifying public procurement operations to include nutri-cereals, pulses and oilseeds.
    • This would incentivise farmers to diversify their cropping patterns, resulting in huge savings of water.

    2) Reduce-Recycle-Reuse

    • Reduce-Recycle-Reuse has been proposed as the basic mantra of integrated urban water supply and wastewater management, with treatment of sewage and eco-restoration of urban river stretches, as far as possible through decentralised wastewater management.
    • All non-potable use, such as flushing, fire protection, vehicle washing must mandatorily shift to treated wastewater.

    3) Supply-side measure: Using technology to utilised stored water in dams

    • Within supply-side options, the NWP points to trillions of litres stored in big dams, which are still not reaching farmers.
    • NWP suggests how the irrigated areas could be greatly expanded at very low cost by deploying pressurised closed conveyance pipelines, combined with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and pressurised micro-irrigation.

    4) Supply of water through “nature-based solutions”

    • The NWP places major emphasis on supply of water through “nature-based solutions” such as the rejuvenation of catchment areas, to be incentivised through compensation for ecosystem services.
    • Specially curated “blue-green infrastructure” such as rain gardens and bio-swales, restored rivers with wet meadows, wetlands constructed for bio-remediation, urban parks, permeable pavements, green roofs etc are proposed for urban areas.

    5) Sustainable and equitable management of groundwater

    • Information on aquifer boundaries, water storage capacities and flows provided in a user-friendly manner to stakeholders, designated as custodians of their aquifers, would enable them to develop protocols for effective management of groundwater.

    6) Rights of Rivers

    • The NWP accords river protection and revitalisation prior and primary importance.
    • Steps to restore river flows include: Re-vegetation of catchments, regulation of groundwater extraction, river-bed pumping and mining of sand and boulders.
    • The NWP outlines a process to draft a Rights of Rivers Act, including their right to flow, to meander and to meet the sea.

    7) Emphasis on water quality

    • The new NWP considers water quality as the most serious un-addressed issue in India today.
    • It proposes that every water ministry, at the Centre and states, include a water quality department.
    • The policy advocates adoption of state-of-the-art, low-cost, low-energy, eco-sensitive technologies for sewage treatment.
    • Widespread use of reverse osmosis has led to huge water wastage and adverse impact on water quality.
    • The policy wants RO units to be discouraged if the total dissolved solids count in water is less than 500mg/L.
    • It suggests a task force on emerging water contaminants to better understand and tackle the threats they are likely to pose.

    8) Reforming governance of water

    • The policy makes radical suggestions for reforming governance of water, which suffers from three kinds issues: That between irrigation and drinking water, surface and groundwater, as also water and wastewater.
    • Government departments, working in silos, have generally dealt with just one side of these binaries.
    • Dealing with drinking water and irrigation in silos has meant that aquifers providing assured sources of drinking water dry up because the same aquifers are used for irrigation, which consumes much more water.
    • And when water and wastewater are separated in planning, the result is a fall in water quality.

    9) Creation of National Water Commission

    • The NWP also suggests the creation of a unified multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder National Water Commission (NWC), which would become an exemplar for states to follow.
    • Governments should build enduring partnerships with primary stakeholders of water, who must become an integral part of the NWC and its counterparts in the states.

    Conclusion

    The new National Water Policy calls for multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach to water management.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Analysing the Supreme Court’s Pegasus order

    Context

    The Supreme Court of India has appointed a committee presided by Justice (Retd.) R V Raveendran to inquire into the Pegasus revelations.

    Terms of reference

    • The court’s terms of reference include queries on, “What steps/actions have been taken by the Union of India after reports were published in the year 2019 about hacking of WhatsApp accounts”, and, “Whether any Pegasus suite of spyware was acquired by the Union of India, or any State Government, or any central or state agency for use against the citizens of India”.
    • The constitution of this committee marks an important step towards accountability for the victims and the larger public on the use of Pegasus.

    Significance of the committee on Pegasus issue

    1) Transparency and disclosure

    • The order of the court constituting the committee attains significance for three clear reasons.
    • The first is the court’s continuing insistence on transparency and disclosure by the Union government.
    • The only filing made in court by the government was a limited affidavit, containing short paragraphs of generalised denials and the sole annexure of a statement by the Minister for Electronics and IT before Parliament.
    • Immediately, the Supreme Court pointed out that these are inadequate and provided further time.

    2) The SC’s approach towards national security

    • The second reason is the Supreme Court’s firm approach towards the national security submissions by the Union government.
    • The court correctly applied the settled convention on legal pleadings and affidavits by asking the government to, “necessarily plead and prove the facts which indicate that the information sought must be kept secret as their divulgence would affect national security concerns.”
    • The second aspect of the national security argument is how the court balances it with the fundamental right to privacy.
    • Here, drawing from the framework of the K S Puttaswamy judgment the court specifically states that, “national security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning” and, “mere invocation of national security by the State does not render the Court a mute spectator”.
    • These are significant observations that, when followed as precedent, will bolster confidence in constitutional adjudications especially when courts demand evidence on arguments of “national security” to avoid generalised statements made to evade accountability.

    3)  Rejection of the suggestion by the Solicitor-General to constitute a government committee of experts

    • The court correctly notes that even though the Pegasus revelations were first made on November 1, 2019, there has been little movement on any official inquiry.
    • It also records the genuine apprehension of the petitioners, many of whom are victims of Pegasus, that since the sale of this malware can only be made to governments, they fear the involvement of state agencies.

    Challenges

    • These include the functioning of the committee and the cooperation of government witnesses, the publication of the report so as to ensure public confidence and, ultimately, the directions and remedy provided by the Supreme Court.

    Conclusion

    Hence, the constitution of this committee provides hope. At the same time, any honest assessment should consider the more challenging tasks ahead.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Supreme Court forms committee to examine Pegasus allegations

    The Supreme Court has appointed an independent expert technical committee overseen by a former apex court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, to examine allegations that the government used Israeli spyware, Pegasus, to snoop on its own citizens.

    Why need a committee?

    • Decisions in cases seeking enforcement of fundamental rights are based on facts.
    • The task of determining these facts, when they are disputed or unknown, are often assigned to committees, which act as an agent of the court.
    • Such committees or fact-finding teams can summon individuals, prepare ground reports, and inform the court.
    • The Pegasus case involves technical questions, and requires extensive fact-finding for the court to determine whether fundamental rights were violated, and to pass suitable orders.

    Functions of the committee:

    What is Pegasus?

    • All spyware do what the name suggests — they spy on people through their phones.
    • Pegasus works by sending an exploit link, and if the target user clicks on the link, the malware or the code that allows the surveillance is installed on the user’s phone.
    • A presumably newer version of the malware does not even require a target user to click a link.
    • Once Pegasus is installed, the attacker has complete access to the target user’s phone.

    Why in news?

    • The three-judge bench, headed by CJI N V Ramana rejected the government’s plea to let it constitute an expert panel to investigate the issue.

    What did the SC rule?

    • The SC order broadly addresses three issues that have been flagged in the Pegasus row:
    1. Citizen’s right to privacy (Article 21)
    2. Judicial review when the executive invokes national security (Article 13, Article 32)

    (Article 13: declares that any law which contravenes any of the provisions of the part of Funda­mental Rights shall be void.

    Articles 32 and 226 entrusts the roles of the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights to the Supreme and High Courts.)

    1. Implications of surveillance on free speech

    [A] Upholding Right to Privacy

    • The Court, pointing to its own judgment in K S Puttaswamy Case (2017) has said that “right to privacy (under Article 21) is as sacrosanct as human existence.
    • It is inalienable to human dignity and autonomy.
    • While agreeing that it is not an absolute right, the Court has said any restrictions “must necessarily pass constitutional scrutiny”.
    • Any surveillance or snooping done on an individual by the state or any outside agency is an infringement of that person’s right to privacy.
    • Hence, any violation of that right by the state, even in national interest, has to follow procedures established by the law.

    [B] Linking surveillance and censorship

    • The Court has also drawn a link between:
    1. Surveillance, especially the knowledge that one is under the threat of being spied on”, and
    2. Censorship, particularly self-censorship, to reflect on the potential chilling effect that snooping techniques may have
    • The chilling effect surveillance can produce, is an assault on the vital public-watchdog role of the press, which may undermine the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information.

    [C] Constituting a panel

    • The Court has constituted a panel of experts under former SC judge Justice R V Raveendran.
    • It has sharply defined the questions it needs to ask and find answers to: Was any Pegasus suite of spyware acquired by the central or any state government for use against the citizens of India.
    • It would inquire under what law, rule, guidelines, protocol or lawful procedure was such deployment made.
    • These are vital questions at the heart of a citizen’s basic rights.

    Significance of the Judgement

    • The order is a strong rebuttal of the government’s specious and self-serving use of national security.
    • The Court has ruled that the state does not get a free pass every time the spectre of ‘national security’ is raised.
    • This also means “no omnibus prohibition can be called for against judicial review” if the matter impinges on national security.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • SC introduces FASTER system to send records

    The Supreme Court has given its nod for e-transfer of orders to jails through the FASTER system for quick prisoner release.

    What is the FASTER system?

    • FASTER is an acronym form Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records.
    • The system is meant to ensure that undertrials are not made to wait for days on end behind bars to be released because the certified hard copies of their bail orders took time to reach the prison.
    • It is conceived for delivery of orders to concerned prisons, District Courts, High Courts, as the case may be, for instantaneous delivery of orders passed by apex court through a secure communication channel.
    • The process to develop the FASTER system began with the CJI’s observations in court on July 16 this year.

    Benefits offered

    • With FASTER, crucial decisions, including orders on bail and stay of arrest, can be communicated electronically to prison authorities and investigating agencies through a secure channel.
    • The system would also prevent unnecessary arrests and custody of people even after the court had already granted them its protection.
    • It may even communicate a stay on an execution ordered by the final court on time.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Judicial selection needs more than a tweak

    In recent weeks, the Supreme Court of India’s collegium has been busy. New judges have been appointed to the Court on its advice and long overdue vacancies have been filled up.

    Read this before proceeding:

    Collegium recommends nine judges for Supreme Court

    What is the matter of concern?

    Ans. Transparency in appointments

    • These recommendations are seen as reflective of a new and proactive collegium.
    • What ought to concern us, though, is that long-standing apprehensions about the collegium’s operation remain unaddressed: specifically, its opacity and a lack of independent scrutiny of its decisions.
    • These misgivings are usually seen in the context of a battle between the executive and the judiciary.
    • Less evident is the effect that the failings have on the status of the High Courts.
    • Today, even without express constitutional sanction, the collegium effectively exercises a power of supervision over each of the High Courts.

    No specified reasons for Exclusion

    • For nearly two years, despite vacancies on the Bench, the collegium made no recommendations for appointments to the Supreme Court.
    • The conjecture in the press was that this logjam owed to a reluctance amongst some of its members to elevate Justice Akil Kureshi to the Court.
    • Indeed, it was only after a change in its composition that the panel recommended on August 17 a list of names for elevation. This list did not contain Justice Kureshi’s name.
    • The perfunctory nature of the collegium’s resolutions means that we do not know the reasons for his exclusion.
    • We also do not know why five Chief Justices, including Justice Kureshi, and several other puisne judges are now being transferred to different courts.

    The public has right to know

    • This is not to suggest that these decisions are unfounded. It is possible that each of the choices made is predicated on administrative needs.
    • But whatever the rationale, surely the public has a right to know.

    What is needed?

    Ans. Striking a balance in Separation of Power

    • Separation of powers is a bedrock principle of Indian constitutionalism. Inherent in that idea is the guarantee of an autonomous judiciary.
    • To that end, the process of appointing and transferring judges assumes salience.
    • But the question of how to strike a balance between the sovereign function of making appointments and the need to ensure an independent judiciary has long plagued the republic.

    As suggested by Dr. Ambedkar

    • The Constitution’s framers wrestled over the question for many days. Ultimately, they adopted what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as a “middle course”.
    • That path stipulates the following: Judges to the Supreme Court are to be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such other judges that he deems fit.
    • Judges to the High Courts are to be appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of that court.
    • In the case of transfers, the President may move a judge from one High Court to another, after consulting the CJI.

    Where does primacy rest?

    Ans. In a transparent Collegium system

    • In this design, there is no mention of a “collegium”.
    • But since 1993, when the Supreme Court rendered a ruling in the Second Judges Case, the word consultation has been interpreted to mean “concurrence”.
    • What is more, that concurrence, the Court held there, ought to be secured not from the CJI alone, but from a body of judges that the judgment described as a “collegium”.
    • Thus, the Court wound up creating a whole new process for making appointments and transfers and carved out a system where notional primacy came to rest in the top echelons of the judiciary.

    This procedure has since been clarified.  But there is, in fact, no actual guidance on how judges are to be selected.

    The NJAC and after

    • In 2015, Parliament sought to undo the procedures put in place by the Court through the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
    • The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), that the law created, comprised members from the judiciary, the executive, and the lay-public.
    • But the Court scrapped the efforts to replace the collegium and it held in the Fourth Judges Case that judicial primacy in making appointments and transfers was an essential feature of the Constitution.
    • In other words, the Court held that a body that found no mention in the actual text of the Constitution had assumed a position so sacrosanct that it could not be touched even by a constitutional amendment.

    Assessing the NJAC

    Ans. The NJAC was far from perfect

    • There were legitimate fears that the commission might have resulted in the appointment of malleable judges.
    • Therefore, it is plausible to argue that until a proper alternative is framed, the collegium represents the best solution.
    • This is that allowing senior judges of the Supreme Court primacy in matters of appointments and transfers is the only practical way to guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

    Promises are yet unfulfilled over transparency

    • When the Court struck down the NJAC, it also promised to reform the existing system. Six years down the line those promises have been all but forgotten.
    • The considerations that must go into the procedure for selecting judges is left unexplained.
    • The words “merit” and “diversity” are thrown around without any corresponding debates on what they, in fact, mean.
    • Somehow, amidst all of this, we have arrived at a consensus that enveloping a veil over the process of selection is essential to judicial autonomy, and that there is no legitimate reason why the public ought to know how judges are chosen and transferred.

    Way forward

    • It is clear that we have come a long way from a time when Chief Justices of High Courts declined invitations to the Supreme Court, because they valued the work that they were already entrusted with.
    • Restoring High Courts to that position of prestige must be seen as essential to the process of building trust in our Constitution.
    • Achieving this will no doubt require more than just a tweak in the process of appointments.

    Conclusion

    • It is clear is that the present system and the mysteries underlining the decision-making only further dilute the High Courts’ prominence.
    • At some point we must take seriously the task of reforming the existing scheme because the status quo is ultimately corrosive of the very institutions that it seeks to protect.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Need for ‘Indianization’ of Legal System: CJI

    Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has asserted the need for the “Indianisation of our legal system”, pointing out that the colonial system being followed currently may not be best suited to the complexities of India.

    Prospects of Indianization by CJI

    • CJI meant that the need to adapt to the practical realities of our society and localize our justice delivery systems.
    • For example, parties from a rural place fighting a family dispute are usually made to feel out of place in the court.
    • They do not understand the arguments or pleadings which are mostly in English, a language alien to them.
    • These days judgments have become lengthy, which further complicates the position of litigants.
    • For the parties to understand the implications of a judgment, they are forced to spend more money.
    • For whom do the court’s function, the CJI asked. For the litigants, who are the “justice seekers”. They are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    What did CJI say?

    • CJI has said the ordinary Indian feels out of place in our courts where proceedings are lengthy, expensive and in English.
    • Besides, judgments are either too long or technical or manage to be both.
    • It is time for courts to wake up from their colonial stupor and face the practical realities of Indian society.
    • Rules and procedures of justice delivery should be made simple.
    • The ordinary, poor and rural Indian should not be scared of judges or the courts.

    Reasons for Indianization

    • Multiple barriers continue to thwart the citizen’s way to the courts.
    • The working and the style of courts do not sit well with the complexities of India.
    • The systems, practices and rules of courts are foreign and sourced from our colonial days. They do not take care of the practical realities of India.

    Major suggestions by CJI:

    (A) Simplification

    • The simplification of justice delivery should be our pressing concern.
    • It is crucial to make justice delivery more transparent, accessible and effective.
    • Procedural barriers often undermine access to justice.
    • The Chief Justice said both judges and lawyers have to create an environment which is comforting for the litigants and other stakeholders.

    (B) Alternate dispute mechanisms

    • The CJI said alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation and conciliation would go a long way in reducing pendency, unnecessary litigation and save resources.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Slide in democratic values, India must work to fix it

    Context

    India has performed poorly in every major global democracy report in the past few years.

    India’s declining performance

    • The Freedom House Index for 2021 pushed India down four points from last year, bringing its score from 71 to 67.
    • V-Dem, the world-renowned think-tank from Sweden, has similarly downgraded India.
    • It has labelled India an “electoral autocracy”.
    • The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) study has shown India’s ranking has taken a nosedive from 27 to 53 out of 167 countries.
    • The Reporters without Borders’ Press Freedom Report has placed India 167th out of 183 countries.
    • Freedom House has also given India a score of 2 out of 4 in terms of press freedom.

    Factors pointed out by the rating agencies

    • The country has seen increased pressure being put on human rights organisations and civil rights groups.
    • Journalists and activists have been intimidated and incarcerated, and minorities have been specifically targeted.
    • Hate and polarisation are rampant.
    • The most worrying trend has been the crackdown on freedom of speech, with statistics showing a 165 per cent increase in sedition cases between 2016 and 2019.

    Issues with rejecting of global democratic indexes

    • Indian government sought to challenge the rating of EIU after it released its 2021 report earlier this year.
    • An offer made by the Indian government to supply ‘accurate’ data pertaining to the democratic index was firmly refused by the EIU.
    • Shooting the messenger: This seeming retraction of Indian democratic values in global reports and the Indian indignation regarding it seems to be a clear case of shooting the messenger.
    • Harming democracy: The Indian refusal to acknowledge and remedy them is irreparably harming its democracy.
    • Trying to influence the rating agencies to doctor data to suit us is reprehensible.
    • Difficulty for policymakers: Kaushik Basu, formerly the chief economist of the World Bank, commenting on this episode has said that the tendency of fabricating data to present an alternative image has beset the Indian administration.
    • Not showcasing actual data is making it difficult for policymakers to attempt to remedy the situation.

    Way forward

    •  A committee of secretaries’ meeting on January 30, 2020 discussed how India fared on various important parameters based on 32 internationally recognised indices in order to improve the performance on these indices.
    • The desire to introspect and analyse what needs to be done to improve is correct and laudable.
    •  Let NITI Aayog and all concerned organisations focus on improving our performance in all the declining indicators.

    Consider the question “Ranking of the various agencies shows the declining trend of democratic values in India. What are the reasons for such decline?vSuggest the steps to arrest this decline.” 

    Conclusion

    Instead of denying these rankings and the reports of these agencies, India must work on fixing them.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • State control over Temples

    Context

    On August 14, 2021, the Tamil Nadu government appointed 24 trained archakas (priests) in temples across the State. In the weeks since, a series of writ petitions have been filed before the Madras High Court assailing these appointments.

    Administration of  Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu by government and challenges to it

    • The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE), 1959, is the governing law on the administration of Hindu temples and religious institutions.
    • In 1971, Section 55 of the HR&CE Act was amended to abolish hereditary priesthood.
    • Removal of caste-based discrimination: In 2006, the amendment provided for the appointment of sufficiently trained Hindus irrespective of their caste as archakas to Hindu temples by the government.
    • Challenges in the Court: Challenges to both amendments were taken to the Supreme Court, which upheld the law, as amended.
    •  In Seshammal v. Union (1972), the Supreme Court observed that the amendment to the HR&CE Act abolishing hereditary priesthood did not mean that the government intended to bring about any “change in the rituals and ceremonies”.
    • Constitutional legitimacy: In Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2015), the Supreme Court observed that “the constitutional legitimacy, naturally, must supersede all religious beliefs or practices”.
    • The Court further went on to state that appointments should be tested on a case-by-case basis and any appointment that is not in line with the Agamas will be against the constitutional freedoms enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

    Judicial balancing of the various rights by the Supreme Court

    • In Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (the Sabarimala case) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court reiterated the need to eliminate “historical discrimination which has pervaded certain identities”’, “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups”.
    • In these cases the Supreme Court rejected stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination.
    • In all these cases, the Court prioritised judicial balancing of various constitutional rights.
    • The constitutional order of priority: In the Sabarimala case, it held that “in the constitutional order of priorities, the individual right to the freedom of religion was not intended to prevail over but was subject to the overriding constitutional postulates of equality, liberty and personal freedoms recognised in the other provisions of Part III”.

    Way forward

    • Building on the Sabrimala case: The constitutional courts will now be called upon to build on the gains of the Sabarimala case when it comes to administration of temples, insofar as it concerns matters that are not essentially religious.
    • Dealing with the gender bias: The Supreme Court, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), interpreted Article 15 as being wide, progressive and intersectional.
    • Today, while most of the debate is around whether men from all caste groups can become archakas, we have failed to recognise the gender bias inherent in these discussions.

    Consider the question “We have been witnessing the evolution of rights-based jurisprudence in the various judgements of the Supreme Court. This will help to eliminate “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups”, and reject stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    At once, caste orthodoxy and patriarchy entrenched within the realm of the HR&CE Act can be eliminated and supplanted with a vision of a just, equal and dignified society.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)