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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • Corrective voice from Supreme Court against stereotyping of women

    A judgment by the Supreme Court forbidding judges from making gender-stereotypical comments came as a corrective voice from within the highest judiciary.

    Q.Discuss the need for gender sensitization of the judicial institutions.

    What is the news?

    • The judgment came days after the CJI, during a virtual hearing reportedly asked an alleged rapist’s lawyer to enquire whether his client would marry the survivor.
    • His statement coincided with International Women’s Day.
    • Days later, a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat urged courts to avoid using reasoning/language which diminished a sexual offence and tended to trivialize the survivor.

    What did the Court say?

    • The greatest extent of sensitivity is to be displayed in the judicial approach, language and reasoning adopted by the judge.
    • Even a solitary instance of such order or utterance in court, reflects adversely on the entire judicial system of the country, undermining the guarantee to fair justice to all, and especially to victims of sexual violence.
    • This judgment is one among a series of interventions with which the apex court has clamped down on abuse and sex stereotyping of women.

    No institution is mightier than the modesty of a woman.

    SC against stereotyping

    Some of the notable judgments which have lashed out at sex stereotyping include:

    1. The framing of the Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment of women in working places, and
    2. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s historic judgment giving women Armed Forces officers’ equal access to Permanent Commission while debunking the establishment’s claim that women were physiologically weaker than men
    3. In the Anuj Garg case, the Supreme Court had rebuked “the notion of romantic paternalism”, which, “in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage”

    Avoid gender stereotypes such as:

    The courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order, to the effect that

    • women are physically weak and need protection;
    • men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family;
    • women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture;
    • “good” women are sexually chaste;
    • motherhood is the duty and role of every woman and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother;
    • being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make women responsible for being attacked;
    • lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman.

    Conclusion

    • Stereotyping compromises the impartiality and integrity of the justice system, which can, in turn, lead to miscarriages of justice, including the re-victimization of complainants.
    • Often judges adopt rigid standards about what they consider to be appropriate behaviour for women and penalize those who do not conform to these stereotypes.

    There should be gender sensitization

    • The court-mandated that a module on gender sensitization is included, as part of the foundational training of every judge.
    • This module must aim at imparting techniques for judges to be more sensitive in hearing and deciding cases of sexual assault, and eliminating entrenched social bias, especially misogyny.

  • How scarcity of jobs is fuelling nativism in the States

    The article examines the factors contributing to the States pursuing domicile based employment policies.

    What is driving states to provide reservation to locals in private jobs

    • The Haryana government has recently passed legislation that mandates companies in Haryana to provide jobs to local Haryanvis first.
    • The unemployment rate in Haryana is the highest of all States in India, as per data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, or CMIE.
    • The cabinet of the government of Jharkhand approved similar legislation to reserve jobs for Jharkhand residents.
    • The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu announced a similar proposal in its manifesto for the upcoming Assembly elections.
    • Such moves have attracted criticism from economists and commentators
    • Creating more jobs, not on reserving the few available ones’ is the popular refrain.
    • Creation of new jobs is not entirely in the control of State governments. It is a complex interplay of multitude of factors.

    Factors playing role in job creation

    • Job creation is obviously an outcome of the performance of the larger economy.
    • Chief Minister of a State in India has limited control over the management of the larger economy and thereby, attract new investors and businesses who can create jobs.
    • Businesses need abundant high quality skilled and unskilled labour, land at affordable prices, uninterrupted supply of electricity, water and other such ‘ease of business’ facilities for its expansion.
    • State governments in India can theoretically compete with each on these parameters.
    • Further, any tax advantages that a particular State can provide vis-à-vis others will increase its attractiveness.
    • But, realistically in India, in very few of these parameters can a poorer State compete against a richer State.

    Issues faced by the States

    • The availability of skilled local labour is a function of many decades of social progress of the State and cannot be retooled immediately.
    • After the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), State governments in India have lost their fiscal autonomy and have no powers to provide any tax concessions to businesses.
    • Beyond all these, the most critical factor in the choice of a location for a large business is what economists term as the ‘agglomeration effect’
    • Agglomeration effect is the ecosystem of supply chain, talent, good living conditions and so on attracting the other businesses.
    • So, a State with an already well-established network of suppliers, people, schools, etc. are at a greater advantage to attract even more businesses.
    • It is due to this agglomeration effect that the three richest large States (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) are three times richer than the three poorest large States (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh), in per-capita income, compared to 1.4 times in 1970.
    • In the absence of a level playing field and with no fiscal autonomy, it is enormously difficult for developing States in India to attract new investments and create new jobs.

    Consider the question “Examine the factors contributing to the nativist tendencies in the employment within the States. Suggest the measures to deal with the issue.”

    Conclusion

    Until the economic playing fields for the various States are levelled and much greater fiscal freedom provided to the States, “don’t protect but create jobs” will only remain a topic of a hollow lecture and moral sermons.

  • The IT Rules 2021 seek regulatory parity, but threaten to curb creative freedom

    The article argues that IT Rules 2021 far exceeds the rulemaking power granted under Section 69A of the IT Act.

    Censoring online video streaming

    • Online video streaming platforms have marked a new dawn for the Indian entertainment industry.
    • The spectre of government regulation and criminalisation haunts this fledgling industry.
    • There have been various efforts to censor online video streaming platforms by petitioning the courts for a long time.
    • At least 23 petitions were being heard by different high courts on the issue of regulation of online video streaming platforms.
    • The grievances range from wounded religious sentiments to moral outrage against depictions of sexuality but the common thread that unites them is a desire to control what other citizens may watch in the privacy of their homes.
    • In addition to petitions seeking heavy-handed regulation, criminal proceedings have been initiated against employees of companies like Netflix and Amazon Prime.
    • While such FIRs may be in the context of specific films or shows, they cause substantial harassment and threaten the personal liberty of content creators and company executives.

    IT Rules 2021 exceeds the rulemaking power under Section 69A of IT Act

    • The imposition of any kind of criminal liability under the IT Rules 2021 would far exceed the central government’s rule-making power under Section 69A of the IT Act.
    • The existing three-tier regulatory mechanism and content classification system prescribed under the rules are also unconstitutional for the same reason.
    • The following three issues need to be considered while considering the IT Rules 2021.
    • First, the powers under Section 69A can be exercised only in the interest of the sovereignty, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement etc.
    • The implication is that the powers under Section 69A cannot be used to regulate online content which may be obscene or sexually explicit.
    • Second, Section 69A states that the central government may direct “any agency of the Government or intermediary” to block access to online content but online video streaming platforms do not fall into either of these two categories.
    • Companies like Netflix and Amazon Prime commission or license the films and shows available on their platforms, and they are not an “intermediary” under the IT Act.
    • Third, Section 69A only grants the central government the power to “block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.”
    • However, the range of powers granted under the IT Rules 2021 is much broader and includes requiring an apology or disclaimer, re-classification of content and deletion or modification of content.
    • As a result, the IT Rules 2021 significantly expand the scope of powers available under Section 69A.

    Issues with the three-tier regulatory framework

    • The three-tier regulatory framework created under the rules suffers from the substantive problem of lack of independence.
    • The third tier, which is the Inter-Departmental Committee, comprises entirely of bureaucrats and there is no guaranteed representation from the judiciary or civil society.
    • The Review Committee constituted under Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 also solely consists of officials belonging to the executive branch.

    Way forward

    • The solution is to start afresh with publication of a white paper which clearly outlines the harms that are sought to be addressed through regulation of online video streaming platforms and meaningful public consultation which is not limited to industry representatives.
    • If regulation is still deemed to be necessary, then it must be implemented through legislation that is debated in Parliament instead of relying upon Section 69A of the IT Act.

    Consider the question “The IT Rules 2021 have been criticised for exceeding the rulemaking power under Section 69A of the IT Act. Examine the scope of the criticism.”

    Conclusion

    Many of the changes that the central government seeks to implement through the IT Rules 2021 may be well-intentioned and desirable. However, constitutional due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency

  • Issues with Master of the Roaster power of CJI

    CJI’s power as Master of Roaster and issues with it

    • The Supreme Court recently closed the proceedings enquiring into a conspiracy to threaten the independence of the judiciary on the basis of sexual harassment allegations against the former CJI.
    • The singular power of the CJI as the Master of the Roster – i.e., the vests exclusive discretion in the Chief Justice to constitute benches and allocate cases.
    • While the CJI’s other powers such as recommending appointments to constitutional courts are shared with other senior judges, the power of Master of the Roster is enjoyed without scrutiny.
    • This power enabled Justice Gogoi to institute suo motu proceedings despite being an accused; label the case as a matter of judicial independence; and preside over it.
    • This power lay at the heart of the controversy surrounding the proceedings the Court has now closed.

    Implications for independence of judiciary

    • From the standpoint of judicial independence, the Master of the Roster power makes the CJI’s office a high stakes one.
    • It makes the CJI the sole point of defence of the Court against executive interference.
    • However, this has a flip side.
    • With the CJI as the sole Master of the Roster, any executive seeking to influence the Supreme Court needs only a pliant CJI.
    • Yet, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to dilute this power.
    • In Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018), a three-judge bench of the Court held that Master of the Roster is the CJI’s exclusive power.
    • Thereafter, a two-judge bench in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018) rejected the plea that the Master of the Roster should be interpreted as the collegium.

    Need for the reforms

    • The collegium system has failed to keep executive interferences at bay from the Supreme Court.
    • This is for two reasons:
    • First, as Justice Gogoi’s case shows, there is an attractive lure of post-retirement jobs.
    • Second, as the privilege of Master of the Roster shows, the CJI’s allocation of cases is an unchecked power.
    • The continuing project of judicial reforms should then address these two issues.

    Way forward

    • A cooling-off period between retirement and a post-retirement appointment has often been suggested as a way to deal with the first problem.
    • For the second, the power of Master of the Roster needs to be diversified beyond the CJI’s exclusive and untrammelled discretion.

    Consider the question “What are the issues with the Master of the Roaster power of the Chief Justice of India? Suggest the ways to deal with the issue.” 

    Conclusion

    We need to carry out these reforms make the judiciary less prone to interference from the executive.

  • The IT Act new rules and the challenge of Big Tech

    The article discusses the issues with the new rules issues under the IT Act.

    Issues with the new rules

    1) No discussion

    • Last week, the Union Government issued a set of rules under the Information Technology Act, superseding rules issued under Section 79 of that statute in 2011. 
    • This has happened in the absence of open and public discussion and without any parliamentary study and scrutiny.

    2) Concerns over legal basis

    • The Union Government has chosen to pass these rules under the requirement to outline the due diligence that Internet intermediaries have to follow in order to be able to claim their qualified legal immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act.
    • These rules at the outset appear unlawful even with respect to whether they could have been issued under the Information Technology Act in the manner chosen by the government, leave alone their constitutionality with respect to fundamental rights.
    • The government’s gazette notification has further claimed that the rules were also issued under the legal authority to specific procedure for blocking web content under Section 69A of the IT Act.
    • However,  rules overseeing government web content blocking powers have already been issued for that section in 2009, and not superseded.

    3) Using rule making power to issue primary legislation

    • The ability to issue rules under a statute — i.e. to frame subordinate legislation — is by its nature a limited, constrained power.
    • The executive branch is subordinate to what Parliament has permitted it and cannot use its rule-making power to seek to issue primary legislation by itself.
    • With the present Internet content and social media rules, the Union Government has done precisely that.
    • The executive branch has created new rules that apply only to “significant social media intermediaries” — a term that appears nowhere in the Information Technology Act.
    • The rules have grown to include a chapter on how digital news sites have to be registered before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
    • However, digital news service registration is not required under the IT Act and streaming video content has not been included under the ambit of the Cinematograph Act.

    Consider the question “What are the challenges in the regulation of Big Tech to democracies? Suggest the measures to deal with these challenges.”

    Conclusion

    Instead of advancing Internet content control, India needs to advancing surveillance law reform or enacting a strong statutory data protection framework.

  • Who gets to decide what is legitimate free speech

    The article highlights the challenges in regulating the Big Techs.

    Controlling Big Tech

    • Recently, the Indian government announced a sweeping array of rules reining-in social media.
    • Specifically, social media platforms are required to become “more responsible and more accountable” for the content they carry.
    • India is by no means alone in taking steps to regulate at Big Tech.
    • The social media companies would argue that they are self-regulating.
    • The problem is that their actions are ad hoc, inconsistent and reactive 

    Issues

    • A user can be removed from the platform if his post threatens the “unity, integrity, defence, security or Sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any foreign States”.
    • In other words, the government is giving itself plenty of room to cut Big Tech down to size.

    Why the issue needs government intervention: 3 arguments

    1) Conflict of interest

    • The government intervention rests on the presumption that it is never in the commercial interest of Big Tech to remove offensive speech.
    • This is because as such content goes viral more readily, bringing in more eyeballs, more data and more advertising revenue.
    • Big Tech proponents would contend that the companies are getting smarter about the risks of allowing such content on their systems and will inevitably find it in their self-interest to pre-emptively kill it.

    2) State is the guardian of public interest

    • A second argument in favour of government would be as follows: States are the guardians of the public interest.
    • In democratic societies, governments are elected to represent the will of the people.
    • So if there is a hard choice to be made about curtailing speech or permitting it, it seems only natural to turn to the public guardian.
    • The counter to this theory would be that, in practice, even democratically elected governments are far from perfect.
    • In fact according to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, both India (ranked 53rd ) and the US (ranked 25th) are “flawed democracies”.
    • In parallel, the argument for Big Tech to be the upholder of the public interest could rest on the theory that well-functioning markets are superior to flawed democracies in optimising social welfare.
    • The counter-argument to this view would be that the tech industry is itself deeply flawed.
    • There is a lack of sufficient choice of platforms; there are asymmetries in power between the companies and users and Big Tech is amassing data on the citizens and using this information for its own purposes, which makes the disparity even greater.

    3) Bargaining power of BigTech

    • A third perspective is to acknowledge it doesn’t matter who is the “true” upholder of the public interest.
    • For all practical purposes, the outcome of the struggle between Big Government and Big Tech will be determined by relative bargaining power.
    • While governments technically have the ability to take entire platforms offline within the borders of their countries, these platforms are now so enormous that their users would revolt.
    • This is why we witnessed the audacity, recently, of Google and Facebook, threatening to de-platform Australia.

    Consider the question “What are the challenges in the regulation of Big Techs? Suggest ways to deal with these challenges.”.

    Conclusion

    While governments technically have the ability to take entire platforms offline within the borders of their countries, these platforms are now so enormous that their users would revolt. This is why we witnessed the audacity, recently, of Google and Facebook, threatening to de-platform Australia.

  • A fine balance in digital age

    The Digital Media Code seeks to balance the priorities and interests of several stakeholders. The article explains the various aspects of the code.

    Guidelines and ethics code

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India (MeitY) has announced the proposed Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code. 
    • The guidelines will cover social networks, digital media companies, and OTT platforms.
    • The guidelines will also make the nation’s sovereign stance clear on matters of ethics and the protection of freedom of expression of creators, publishers, and digital platform companies.
    • The guidelines and ethics code seek to balance the questions of accountability and grievance redressal that are posed by the citizens of the country.

    Balancing many priorities

    • The ministry’s announcement reveals an approach that is aligned with the thinking of today without imposing unreasonable boundaries on the innovation and expression.
    • The guidelines are designed to carefully balance the many priorities and contexts of all stakeholders.
    • With this move, India continues to deepen its position as a leader in digital policy and technological innovation.
    • These guidelines have been intentionally designed so that India’s next-gen digital media innovators can propel the acceleration of value generation and inclusive empowerment of their local users.
    • Global companies that have large user bases in the country can also align with a common framework that protects creators and consumers alike.

    Grievance redressal mechanism

    • The proposal has mechanisms that empower every social and digital media intermediary to self-enforce effective mechanisms to address complaints from users.
    • With a special focus on protecting the online safety and dignity of users, especially women, the guidelines have prioritised affirmative addressal of the most serious issues that have affected India’s digital population.
    • The digital platform companies are empowered to report the first originator of the grievance-causing information.
    • This will ensure that liability is limited while the country’s laws can be fully and effectively enforced on the actual perpetrators.

    Addressing the arbitrary censorship

    • Guidelines provide users with an opportunity to be heard — a vital defence against the arbitrary censorship that several social media platforms are increasingly embracing globally.
    • The need of the hour is for every country to have a body of clearly-defined policy that is consistent with the principles of their democracies.
    • The country’s guidelines will ensure that unlawful information has clear boundary conditions, liability is defined, the process for enforcement of orders is transparent.
    • The guidelines will also ensure that all social and digital media companies can rely on a consistent definition of the ethics code that protects all participants in the digital ecosystem.

    Conclusion

    This light-touch, empowering, and inclusive regulatory architecture is exactly what the country was hoping for, and India’s citizens will applaud this move as a foundational pillar towards an Atmanirbhar India.

  • Contours of Twitter-government faceoff

    What is the faceoff about

    • Recently, Indian government issued direction to Twitter, ordering it to shut down user accounts connected with farmers’ protests.
    • The government has to exercise powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block user accounts critical of the farm bills.
    • The accounts which were sought to be censored are back online.
    • This is due to Twitter’s evident refusal to comply with the directions after a constitutional appraisal.
    • It has, as per press statements, cited the doctrine of proportionality in its defence.

    Concerns with the directive

    • This direction presents a clear breach of fundamental rights but also reveals a complex relationship between the government and large platforms on the understanding of the Constitution of India.
    • The specific legal order issued is secret.
    • This brings into focus the condition of secrecy that is threshold objection to multiple strands of our fundamental rights.
    • It conflicts against the rights of the users who are denied reasons for the censorship.
    • Secrecy also undermines the public’s right to receive information, which is a core component of the fundamental freedom to speech and expression.
    • This is an anti-democratic practice that results in an unchecked growth of irrational censorship but also leads to speculation that fractures trust.
    • The other glaring deficiency is the complete absence of any prior show-cause notice to the actual users of these accounts by the government.
    • This is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
    • This again goes back to the vagueness and the design faults in the process of how directions under Section 69A are issued.

    Constitutionality of Section 69A of IT Act

    • The secrecy clause represents a failure on the part of the Union executive, which framed the process for blocking websites in 2009.
    • he Supreme Court also failed to substantively examine the clause.
    • This is despite the opportunity offered by its celebrated judgment Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, when it struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional.
    • At the same time, the court stated in Shreya Singhal, that an aggrieved party could approach a court for remedy if their website or user account was blocked under Section 69A.
    • More recently, the court, when adjudicating the constitutional permissibility of the telecommunications shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir by its judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India directed pro-active publication of all orders for internet shutdowns.
    • After this, a decent argument may be made that directions for blocking now need to be made public. 
    • However, several state governments are actively refusing compliance on the publication of orders on internet shutdowns.

    Consider the question “Use of Section 69 of the IT Act to suspend the account of the users on a social media platform has raised concern. Examine these concerns.”

    Conclusion

    The episode leaves a sense of confusion and wonder about why our own government formed under the Constitution may be failing to fulfil its obligations when strangers who trade in our data for profit are seemingly more eager.

  • POCSO doesn’t brook dilution

    The recent Bombay High Court judgement has raised controversy for its interpretation of certain Section of the POCSO Act. The article deals with this issue.

    Object of the POCSO Act

    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted in 2012 especially to protect children (aged less than 18) from sexual assault.
    • The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act admitted that a number of sexual offences against children were neither specifically provided for in extant laws nor adequately penalised.
    • The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by India in 1992, also requires sexual exploitation and sexual abuse to be addressed as heinous crimes.

    Issues with Bombay High Court’s Judgement

    • The Bench acquitted a man under the POCSO Act found guilty of assault on the grounds that he groped his victim over her clothes and there was no skin-to-skin contact between them.
    • As this judgment was likely to set a dangerous precedent, the apex court stayed the acquittal.
    • Section 7 of the POCSO Act, along with other things, says that whoever with sexual intent touches the breast of the child is said to commit sexual assault.
    • Whereas Section 8 of the Act provides minimum imprisonment of three years for sexual assault.
    • Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lays down a minimum of one year imprisonment for outraging the modesty of a woman.

    Difference between IPC and POCSO

    • The difference between POCSO and IPC, as far as the offence of sexual assault is concerned, is two-fold.
    • One, the definition of ‘assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’ given in the IPC is generic.
    • Whereas in POCSO, the acts of sexual assault are explicitly mentioned such as touching various private parts.
    • ‘Sexual assault’ in POCSO specifically excludes rape which requires penetration; otherwise the scope of ‘sexual assault’ under POCSO and ‘outraging modesty of a woman’ under the IPC is the same.
    • Two, whereas the IPC provides punishment for the offence irrespective of any age of the victim, POCSO is specific for the protection of children.
    • Higher punishment is provided under POCSO not because more serious allegations of sexual assault are required but because the legislature wanted punishment to be more deterrent if the victims are children.

    Conclusion

    In the absence of any specific provision in the POCSO Act which requires skin-to-skin touch as a mandatory element of an offence, any interpretation which dilutes protection to children must be declared ultra vires.

  • Need for rigorous scrutiny of constitutionality of the bills

    Farmers’  protests against the farm laws and staying of  implementation of these laws by the judiciary have once again brought into focus the process followed in the passage of laws by the parliament. This article highlights the importance of parliamentary committees.

    Need for introspection on the role of parliament

    • The Supreme Court’s order on the farm laws staying their implementation crossed the line of separation between the legislature and judiciary.
    • The order should trigger introspection in Parliament.
    • Since 2019, the constitutionality of statutes passed by it, like the abrogation of Article 370, the Citizenship Amendment Act and recently the farm laws, has been challenged before the SC.
    • The highest lawmaking body should be asking itself whether it rigorously scrutinises the constitutionality of bills.

    Three mechanisms to examine the constitutionality

    • Parliament has three mechanisms for examining whether a government bill adheres to constitutional principles.
    • First, any member of the Parliament can oppose the introduction of a bill by stating that it initiates legislation outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.
    • Second, MPs also get an opportunity to discuss a bill’s constitutionality while debating it in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
    • But on both these occasions, the strength of the argument does not determine the legislative outcome.
    • The Parliament’s decision depends on the numbers that the treasury and opposition benches command on the house floor.
    • Third, the opportunity for probing a bill’s constitutionality arises when a parliamentary committee is examining it.

    Advantages of scrutiny of the bill by  parliamentary committee

    • The most important opportunity of the above mentioned three opportunities is scrutiny by the parliamentary committee.
    • In the past too, the parliamentary committees have subjected the bills to strict scrutiny on the issue of constitutionality.
    • For example, the committee examining the land acquisition bill 2011 was concerned about the bill infringing upon the state governments’ power.
    • Similarly, during the deliberations on the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016, the joint committee explicitly asked the government whether the bill would violate the spirit of Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution.
    • The committee process also has the advantage of drawing on constitutional expertise outside of the law ministry.
    • The government has also fielded the attorney general to appear before parliamentary committees.

    Weakness of parliamentary committee process

    • Our parliamentary committee process has a fatal flaw.
    • Government bills do not automatically go to committees for examination.
    • Ministers get an option to refer their bill to a select committee, they often don’t exercise this option.
    • While countries like Sweden and Finland pass their bills through two parliamentary committees.
    • One committee looks at the technical aspects of a proposed law, and a specialised committee focuses on a bill’s constitutional validity.

    Consider the question “Several laws passed by the government have been challenged before the judiciary on the ground of unconstitutionality. This highlights the importance of strict scrutiny of the bills by the Parliament. In light of this, examine the role played by the parliamentary committees in the scrutiny of the bills.” 

    Conclusion

    Lack of robust scrutiny processes weakens Parliament’s image as the highest legislative institution and encourages judicial encroachment on its powers. After all, lawmaking should not be a mechanical stamping of the government’s legislative proposals but their careful examination by the Parliament.