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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • Allahabad HC verdict disqualifying then PM

    The 1975 verdict of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad high court, disqualifying then PM Indira Gandhi on charges of electoral malpractices was a judgment of “great courage” that “shook” the nation, said CJI in his speech.

    What was the case?

    • It all started with the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, where the Congress (R), which was the newly formed faction of the Congress party floated by Indira Gandhi after her expulsion from the party in 1969, won a landslide victory securing 352 out of the 518 seats in the lower house.
    • An election petition was filed directly before a High Court challenging the election of Indira Gandhi.

    What is an Election Petition?

    • Election Petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the election results.
    • The Representation of People (RP) Act of 1951 lists out the grounds on which the election of a candidate can be called into question.
    • Section 123 of the RP Act lists certain corrupt practices which, if proved successful, can be grounds to declare the election of a candidate void.
    • While hearing an election petition, the High Court being the court of first instance, exercises powers similar to a trial court.
    • Thus, there is cross-examination of witnesses and detailed examination of evidence which is normally employed in trial courts and not High Courts.

    Findings against Gandhi

    • Use of government machinery to set up stage, loudspeakers
    • Use of gazetted officer as an election agent

    A case that led to the promulgation of National Emergency

    The verdict is widely believed to have led to the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

    • A vacation bench of the Supreme Court allowed a partial stay of the judgment after Gandhi had appealed against the High Court verdict.
    • Then Justice VR Krishna Iyer, said that she could continue as Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha and could attend the House, but could not participate in its proceedings or vote as MP.
    • She also could not draw any remuneration as an MP.
    • Importantly, the apex court allowed her to continue as Prime Minister and allowed her to speak and participate in the proceedings of the House and to draw salary in her capacity as Prime Minister.
    • The order by the apex court, while not completely against Gandhi, did not satisfy her.
    • She wanted a blanket stay on the Allahabad High Court judgment.
    • Since the Supreme Court did not grant her that, National Emergency was proclaimed the very next day, June 25.

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

    Back2Basics: National Emergency

    • The Constitution employs the expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote National Emergency under Article 352.
    • Under Article 352, the president can declare a national emergency when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion.
    • The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war or armed rebellion or external aggression
    • When a national emergency is declared on the grounds of ‘war’ or ‘external aggression’, it is known as ‘External Emergency’.
    • On the other hand, when it is declared on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’, it is known as ‘Internal Emergency’.
    • The term ‘armed rebellion is inserted from the 44th amendment. Before this term, it was known as an internal disturbance.

     

  • The National Automated Facial Recognition System

    Context

    On June 23, 2021, the Joint Committee examining the Personal Data Protection Bill (2019) was granted a fifth extension by Parliament. While the Government has been simultaneously exploring the potential of facial recognition technology.

    Automatic Facial Recognition in India

    • To empower the Indian police with information technology, India approved implementation of the National Automated Facial Recognition System (NAFRS).
    • On its implementation, it will function as a national-level search platform that will use facial recognition technology.
    • It will help to facilitate investigation of crime or for identifying a person of interest regardless of face mask, makeup, plastic surgery, beard or hair extension.

    Issues with AFR technology

    • Intrusive in nature: The technology is absolutely intrusive, for the purposes of ‘verification’ or ‘identification’, the system compares the faceprint generated with a large existing database of faceprints typically available to law enforcement agencies.
    • Accuracy and bias: Though the accuracy of facial recognition has improved over the years due to modern machine-learning algorithms, the risk of error and bias still exists.
    • With the element of error and bias, facial recognition can result in profiling of some overrepresented groups (such as Dalits and minorities) in the criminal justice system.
    • Privacy: As NAFRS will collect, process, and store sensitive private information: facial biometrics for long periods; if not permanently — it will impact the right to privacy.
    • Accordingly, it is crucial to examine whether its implementation is arbitrary and thus unconstitutional, i.e., is it ‘legitimate’, ‘proportionate to its need’ and ‘least restrictive’?
    • The Supreme Court, in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment provided a three-fold requirement to safeguard against any arbitrary state action.
    • Unfortunately, NAFRS fails each one of these tests.
    • Any encroachment on the right to privacy requires the existence of ‘law’ (to satisfy legality of action); there must exist a ‘need’, in terms of a ‘legitimate state interest’; and, the measure adopted must be ‘proportionate’ and it should be ‘least intrusive.’
    • Lack of law: It does not stem from any statutory enactment (such as the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2018 proposed to identify offenders or an executive order of the Central Government.
    • Rather, it was merely approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in 2009.
    • Fails proportionality test: Even if we assume that there exists a need for NAFRS to tackle modern day crimes, this measure is grossly disproportionate.
    • For NAFRS to achieve the objective of ‘crime prevention’ or ‘identification’ will require the system to track people on a mass scale — avoiding a CCTV in a public place is difficult — resulting in everyone becoming a subject of surveillance: a disproportionate measure.
    • Impact on civil liberties: As anonymity is key to functioning of a liberal democracy, unregulated use of facial recognition technology will dis-incentivise independent journalism or the right to assemble peaceably without arms, or any other form of civic society activism.
    • Due to its adverse impact on civil liberties, some countries have been cautious with the use of facial recognition technology.
    • In the United States, the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2020 was introduced in the Senate to prohibit biometric surveillance without statutory authorisation.
    • Similarly, privacy watchdogs in the European Union have called for a ban on facial recognition.

    Way forward

    • Statutory basis: NAFRS should have statutory authorisation, and guidelines for deployment.
    • Data protection law: In the interest of civil liberties it is important to impose a moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology till we enact a strong and meaningful data protection law.

    Consider the question “What are the issues associated with the deployment of NAFRS? Suggest the way forward.”

    Conclusion

    In sum, even if facial recognition technology is needed to tackle modern-day criminality in India, without accountability and oversight, facial recognition technology has strong potential for misuse and abuse.

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

  • What Indian lawmaking needs: More scrutiny, less speed

    Context

    The recent Monsoon Session of Parliament is proof that the speed of passing laws trumps their rigorous scrutiny in our legislative process.

    Issues with lawmaking process in India

    1) Avoiding pre-legislative scrutiny

    • In our parliamentary system, a majority of laws originate from the government.
    • Each ministry decides the path its legislative proposals will take from ideation to enactment.
    • For example, last year, the Shipping Ministry requested public feedback on the two bills — Marine Aids and Inland Vessels.
    • This mechanism enables the strengthening of the legal proposal through stakeholder inputs before being brought to Parliament.
    • However, ministries expedite their bills by not putting them through a similar pre-legislative scrutiny process.

    2) Misuse of Ordinance route

    • Over the years, successive governments have exploited the spirit of this constitutional provision.
    • Governments have promulgated an ordinance a few days before a parliamentary session, cut a session short to issue one, and pushed a law that is not urgent through the ordinance route.
    •  But the executive sometimes fails to follow through on the legislative urgency.
    • Bringing in law through the ordinance route also bypasses parliamentary scrutiny.
    • But parliamentary committees rarely scrutinise bills to replace ordinances because this may take time and defeat the issuing of the ordinance.
    • Over the last few years, bills like GST, Consumer Protection, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Labour Codes, Surrogacy, and DNA Technology have benefited from parliamentary committees’ scrutiny.
    • Their closed-door technical deliberations, inputs from ministry officials, subject-matter experts, and ordinary citizens have strengthened government bills.

    3) Delay in rule framing

    • Unnecessary urgency in getting laws passed by Parliament does not result in their immediate implementation.
    • For the law to work on the ground, the government is supposed to frame rules.
    • Last year the Cabinet Secretary twice requested the personal intervention of secretaries heading the Union ministries to frame regulations for bringing into force the laws made by Parliament.
    • Before the Monsoon Session, he wrote a follow-up letter on similar lines to his colleagues.

    Implication of fast-tracking the law-making

    • Difficulty in achieving desired outcomes: Hurriedly-made and inadequately-scrutinised laws hardly ever achieve their desired outcomes.
    • Wastage of time of legislature: Enacting statutes without proper scrutiny also wastes the legislature’s time when the government approaches Parliament to amend such laws.
    • Loss of opportunity: But the unmeasurable cost of a poorly-made law is in the loss of opportunity to an entire nation that has to comply with it.

    Way forward

    • The government must ensure that it identifies the gaps in our legal system proactively.
    • All its bills should go through pre-legislative scrutiny before being brought to Parliament.
    • The legislature, on its part, should conduct in-depth scrutiny of government bills.
    • Mandatory scrutiny of bills by parliamentary committees should become the rule and not the exception.

    Conclusion

    India is in urgent need of course correction in its legislating process. What we need is a robust law-making process.

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

  • Supreme Court Collegium shows the way in judicial appointments

    Context

    For the first time ever, the Supreme Court Collegium led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) recommended/selected as many as nine persons at one go to be appointed to the apex court.

    Significance of the move

    • It is a happy augury that the present CJI, Justice N.V. Ramana, could, along with his colleagues in the Collegium, select the judges within a short period of his assumption of office.
    • It is a tough task to build a consensus around one person or a few persons, the CJI being the head of the Collegium, has an unenviable task in building that consensus.
    • Therefore, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the job of selecting as many as nine judges for appointment to the Supreme Court was done admirably well.
    •  The latest resolution of the Collegium gave effect to the multiple judicial pronouncements of the top court on the subject.
    • The selection of three women judges, with one of them having a chance to head the top court, a judge belonging to the Scheduled Caste and one from a backward community and the nine selected persons belonging to nine different States, all point towards an enlightened and unbiased approach of the members of the Collegium.
    • A needless controversy is sought to be raised by a section of the media about this round of selection citing the non-existing ‘Rule of Seniority’.

    Various norms to be followed in judicial appointment

    1) Consideration of merit

    • Article 142 (1) contains the concept of ‘complete justice’ in any cause or matter which the Supreme Court is enjoined to deliver upon.
    • So, while selecting a judge to adorn the Bench, the fundamental consideration should be his/her ability to do complete justice.
    • In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another vs Union of India (1993), the Court spelt out the parameters within which to accomplish the task of selecting candidates for appointment to the higher judiciary.
    • The most crucial consideration is the merit of the candidates.
    • The merit is the ability of the judge to deliver complete justice.

    2) Plurality

    • The nine judges who decided the above case were quite aware of these compelling realities.
    • So, they said, “In the context of the plurastic [pluralistic] society of India where there are several distinct and differing interests of the people with multiplicity of religions, race, caste and community and with the plurality of culture, it is inevitable that all people should be given equal opportunity in all walks of life and brought into the mainstream.”

    3) Transparency

    • India is perhaps the only country where the judges select judges to the higher judiciary.
    • It is, therefore, necessary to make the norms of selection transparent and open.
    •  In 2019, a five judge Bench of the Supreme Court, of which the present CJI was also a member, laid emphasis on this point.
    • The Bench observed: “There can be no denial that there is a vital element of public interest in knowing about the norms which are taken into consideration in selecting candidates for higher judicial office and making judicial appointments”.

    Thus, the essence of the norms to be followed in judicial appointments is a judicious blend of merit, seniority, interests of the marginalised and deprived sections of society, women, religions, regions and communities. 

    Consider the question “What are the various norms to be followed by the Collegium for judicial appointments? What are the issues with Collegium system of judicial appointment?”

    Conclusion

    The Collegium has started doing its job. Now, it is time for the Government to match the pace and take the process of appointments to its logical conclusion at the earliest.

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

  • It is time to end judicial feudalism in India

    Context

    The August 11 order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed that “hereinafter, all the courts in the state other than the high court shall be referred to as district judiciary”. Furthermore, “these courts shall not be referred to as subordinate court” but as trial courts.

    Issues with the judicial hierarchy Vs. hierarchy of judges

    • The expression “subordinate courts” used by Part VI, Chapter 6, of the Constitution of India cannot signify that judges are subordinate.
    • The term subordinate has implications for the independence of the judiciary, entrenched with and since Kesavananda Bharati (1973) as the essential feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
    • No judge is “subordinate” to any other, constitutionally judges are limited in the jurisdiction but also supreme within their own jurisdiction.
    • However, Article 235 speaks of “control over subordinate courts”.
    • This Article created the notion of subordination by describing these entities and agents as persons “holding a post inferior to the post of a district judge”.

    Constitutional provision

    • The Constitution no doubt contemplates a hierarchy of jurisdictions, but no judge, acting within her jurisdiction, is “inferior” or “subordinate”.
    • On appeal, or review, a court with ample jurisdiction may overturn and even pass judicial strictures but this does not make the concerned courts “lower” or “inferior” courts.
    • Supervisory powers: High courts always have considerable powers of superintendence on the administrative side but this “supervisory“ power has been recognised by the apex court as a “constitutional power” and subject to the right of appeal as granted by Article 235.
    • While the Constitution allows “supervision”, it does not sanction judicial despotism.
    • Despite this, arbitrary practices in writing confidential reports of district justices seem to continue.

    Way forward

    • Constitutional amendment: A complete recasting of Article 235 is needed, which does away with the omnibus expression of “control” powers in the high courts.
    • The amendment should specifically require the high courts to satisfy the criteria flowing from the principles of natural and constitutional justice and all judicial officers who fulfil due qualification thresholds should be treated with constitutional dignity and respect.
    • Collegiate system at high court’s level: For most matters (save elevation), senior-most district judges and judges of the high courts should constitute a collegiate system to facilitate judicial administration, infrastructure, access, monitoring of disposal rates, minimisation of undue delays in administration of justice, alongside matters concerning transfers, and leave.
    •  If an ACR is to be adversely changed in the face of a consistent award for a decade or more, it should be a collegiate act of the five senior-most justices, including the Chief Justice of the High Court.
    • CJI Ramana has recently agreed in principle, following the request of the Supreme Court Bar Association, that chief justices of the high courts should consider lawyers practising in the Supreme Court for elevation to the high courts.

    Consider the question “Do you agree with the view that the Constitution contemplates a hierarchy of jurisdictions, but no judge, acting within her jurisdiction, is “inferior” or “subordinate”. Give reason in support of your argument.”

    Conclusion

    The changes suggested here needs to be implemented to ensure the independence of the judiciary at all levels.

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

  • Collegium recommends nine judges for Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana has recommended to the government nine names for appointment as apex court judges.

    Significant appointments

    • The Collegium has for the first time, in one single resolution, recommended three women judges.
    • It has thus sent a strong signal in favor of the representation of women in the highest judiciary.
    • The process scripted history by naming Karnataka High Court judge B.V. Nagarathna, who may become India’s first woman CJI.

    What is Collegium System?

    • The Collegium of judges is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
    • It does not figure in the Constitution, which says judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President and speaks of a process of consultation.
    • In effect, it is a system under which judges are appointed by an institution comprising judges.
    • After some judges were superseded in the appointment of the CJI in the 1970s, and attempts made subsequently to effect a mass transfer of High Court judges across the country.
    • Hence there was a perception that the independence of the judiciary was under threat. This resulted in a series of cases over the years.

    Evolution: The Judges Cases

    • First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
    • However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
    • Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
    • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the Supreme Court.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    The procedure followed by the Collegium

    Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
    • As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
    • In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

    Other SC Judges

    • For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

    For High Courts

    • The CJs of High Courts are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
    • High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

    • Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
    • Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
    • When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
    • In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
    • However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
    • All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

    Loopholes in the Collegium system

    • Lack of Transparency: Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • Judges appointing Judge: The attempt made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
    • Criteria: Some do not believe in full disclosure of reasons for transfers, as it may make lawyers in the destination court chary of the transferred judge.

    Scope for transparency

    • In respect of appointments, there has been an acknowledgment that the “zone of consideration” must be expanded to avoid criticism that many appointees hail from families of retired judges.
    • The status of a proposed new memorandum of procedure, to infuse greater accountability, is also unclear.
    • Even the majority opinions admitted the need for transparency, now Collegium’s resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

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

    Back2Basics:

  • Parliament is abdicating its oversight role

    Context

    The monsoon session of Parliament which ended on Wednesday was a disappointment in several ways. This was the fourth straight session that ended ahead of the original schedule.

    No scrutiny of the Bills

    •  Both Houses were frequently disrupted as the Government and Opposition parties could not agree on the topics to be debated.
    • Shrinking worktime: The Lok Sabha worked for just 19% of its originally scheduled time, and the Rajya Sabha for 26%.
    • No examination of Bills by Parliament: Of the 18 Bills passed by the Lok Sabha, only one saw discussion over 15 minutes.
    • In 15 of these Bills, not even one member of the Lok Sabha spoke; each Bill was passed after a short statement by the respective Minister.
    • Every Bill introduced during the session was passed within the session.
    • This means that there was no time for any scrutiny by members.
    • In the period of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha (2009-14), 18% of the Bills were passed within the same session.
    • This rose to 33% in the Sixteenth Lok Sabha and is at 70% halfway through the current Parliament.
    • Thus, we see that, Bills are being passed without any serious examination by parliamentarians.
    • They are most often not being referred to committees, there is hardly any discussion on the floor of the House, and in most instances, Bills are passed within a few days of introduction.

    Bills not being referred to parliamentary committees

    • None of the Bills passed in this session was referred to a parliamentary committee for examination.
    • Important role of committee: Parliamentary committees provide a forum for parliamentarians to engage with experts, stakeholders and government officials to understand the implications of Bills.
    • They deliberate on the consequences of various provisions, and recommend amendments.
    • There has been a sharp downward trend in Bills being referred to them — from 71% in the Fifteenth Lok Sabha to 27% in the Sixteenth, and 12% in the current one till date.

    Important Bills passed

    • Allowing States to identify Backward Class: The Constitution was amended to allow States to identify backward classes (i.e., Other Backward Classes) for the purpose of providing reservations.
    • That amendment also specified that the President of India shall specify the list of OBCs.
    • Recently, the Supreme Court of India had interpreted this provision to imply that the State government cannot issue the list of backward classes.
    • Repealing retrospective taxation: In 2012, the Income Tax Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1961 to cover certain transactions.
    • A Bill passed this session reversed this provision of retrospective taxation. 
    • DICGC to pay within 90 days: The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation insures all bank deposits against default (currently up to ₹5 lakh).
    • The Act was amended to require an interim pay-out within 90 days if a bank was going through a liquidation or reconstruction.
    • The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act was amended to enable the Government to bring its shareholding in general insurance companies below 51%.
    • The Tribunals Reforms Bill was passed: The Bill replaced an ordinance which specified the process of appointment of members and their tenure and service conditions.
    • It retained two provisions struck down last month by the Supreme Court: the four-year tenure which the Court changed to five years, and a minimum age of 50 years for judicial members which the Court revised to allow lawyers with experience of 10 years.

    Conclusion

    The reason for having a legislature separate from the executive is to have a check on executive power.But the Parliament appears to be quite ineffective in all its functions and needs a course correction.

    Feeling anxious about your UPSC preparation? Don’t worry, speak with our mentors and get your problems resolved, personally! (Click here)

  • Issues related to Judicial appointment in India

    Context

    Recommendations of some judges for appointment by the collegium raises the issue of changes in the collegium system.

    Background of the collegium system

    • During the 1970s, the political leaning of a candidate had become a major consideration in the matter of appointment of judges.
    • Therefore, it was felt that the role of the state in the appointment of judges in terms of Article 124 (2) and 217 needed to be reconsidered.
    • But then, in 1982 in S P Gupta’s case, the Supreme Court bench of five judges gave its approval to the primacy of the state in the matter of appointment of judges.
    • However, that judgment was overturned subsequently by a bench of nine judges.
    • Primacy of CJI:  It held that the provisions for consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and the Chief Justices of the high courts in Articles 124 (2) and 217 of the Constitution were introduced because of the realisation that the Chief Justice is best equipped to know and assess the worth of a candidate, and his/her suitability for appointment as a superior judge.
    • Initiation of proposal by CJI: It also held that the initiation of the proposal for appointment of a judge to the SC must be made by the CJI after wider consultation with senior judges, and likewise in the case of high courts.
    • Confirmation of CJI: It was also held that no appointment of any judge to the SC or any high court can be made unless it conforms with the opinion of the CJI.
    • Thus, what is known as the “collegium system” was born.
    • Striking down of NJAC: In 2014, the government tried to make changes to the collegium system by introducing Article 124 (A) by a constitutional amendment, and by enacting National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014.
    • The SC has struck down both the amendment and the Act.

    Has the collegium system succeeded?

    • Nepotism: There have been cases where the nearest relative of Supreme Court judges has been appointed as a high court judge, ignoring merit.
    • Ignoring the merit: Judges far lower in the combined All India Seniority of High Court judges were appointed to SC, and the reason assigned was that those selected were found more meritorious.

    Conclusion

    The collegium system is still the best, but it needs to weed out what is wrong in its actual working. It is hoped that the system will make course corrections in deserving cases.

  • No fundamental right to strike

    Context

    Recently, the Minister of Defence introduced the Essential Defence Services Bill, 2021.

    About the Essential Defence Services Bill, 2021

    • The Bill seeks to provide for the maintenance of essential defence services so as “to secure the security of nation and the life and property of the public at large”.
    • Prohibit strike by ordinance factory staff: It prevents staff of the government-owned ordnance factories from going on strike.
    • Power to declare essential service: The Bill seeks to empower the government to declare services mentioned in it as “essential defence services” and prohibit strikes and lockouts in any industrial establishment or unit engaged in such services.

    No fundamental right to strike

    • There is no fundamental right to strike under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
    • Under Article 33 of the Constitution, Parliament, by law, can restrict or abrogate the rights of the members of the armed forces or the forces charged with the maintenance of public order.
    • Thus, for the armed forces and the police, where discipline is the most important prerequisite, even the fundamental right to form an association can be restricted under Article 19(4) in the interest of public order and other considerations.

    Supreme Court judgements on the issue

    • Many states prohibit strikes: This is not for the first time that strikes by government employees are being made explicitly illegal by the government, many states have similar provisions.
    • The Supreme Court in Delhi Police v. Union of India (1986) upheld the restrictions to form association by the members of the non-gazetted police force.
    • While the right to freedom of association is fundamental, recognition of such association is not a fundamental right.
    • Parliament can by law regulate the working of such associations by imposing conditions and restrictions on their functions, the court held.
    • In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), the Supreme Court held that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike.

    Conclusion

    Strikes cannot be justified on any equitable ground. Strike as a weapon is mostly misused which results in chaos

  • 2 years of Repeal of Article 370

    Context

    Two years ago, India bid farewell to Articles 370 and 35 (A), marking the start of a new era in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir.

    Assessing the impact of changes on five parameters

    1) National unity

    • Articles 370 and 35 (A) created an unnatural and unhealthy divide in our nation.
    • For every law passed, every rule made, we had to ascertain whether it applied to J&K or not.
    • Today, such distinctions are history, J&K has been fully integrated with the other states and Union Territories.

    2) Democracy at the grass-root level

    • A healthy culture of grassroots-level participation was absent.
    • Panchayat polls held: One of the critical deliverables for J&K was to hold panchayat polls, which were finally held in 2020.
    •  This one step will go a long way in shaping the development paradigm in Jammu and Kashmir.
    • Political activity has also picked up across Jammu and Kashmir.
    • The Centre’s emphasis on a proper delimitation followed by full-fledged elections is in line with the commitments made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

    3) Peace

    • The third parameter is that of peace.
    • The memories of 2008, 2010 and 2016 are still fresh in the minds of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
    • An effort was made to reignite such sparks of tension after the decisions on Article 370 and 35 (A) but the Valley as well as Jammu have remained peaceful.

    4) People’s aspirations

    • Jammu and Kashmir did not have RTI laws and its SC, ST and OBC communities were not able to get the benefits of reservation
    • The fact that the most marginalised groups can now get reservation benefits is a major leap forward in fulfilling the aspirations of the people of J&K.

    5) Economic growth

    • The Valley is today abuzz with news of action against corruption in key departments and financial bodies in the state.
    • Money being sent for public good was being misused by vested interest groups.
    • The economic upliftment in the Valley began with the Prime Minister’s Package of 2015.
    • This set the stage for extensive spending on physical and social infrastructure.
    • With the going of 370 and 35 (A) there is great hope that tourism will pick up in the Valley.
    • Incentives given to different sectors of the economy — be it saffron farmers or those who fish trout — combined with a largely peaceful environment is empowering many lives.
    • With corruption and leakages drastically reduced, resources are reaching the intended beneficiaries.

    Conclusion

    The situation in Jammu and Kashmir was never easy. As we enter the Amrut Mahotsav, it is for us to see the new realities in J&K. The people of the state have got the wings to fly and, in the years to come, J&K will make even greater contributions to India’s growth and development.