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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Federalism

  • With India’s demographic transition, come challenges

    Context

    Recent results from National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5) suggest that we are entering an era where we will have to tackle these challenges.

    A milestone in India’s demographic history: TFR at 2.0

    • NFHS-5 places the total fertility rate (TFR) at 2.0.
    • With two parents having two children, we have reached a replacement level of fertility.
    • Due to many young people, the population will continue to grow, but the replacement level fertility is a significant milestone in India’s demographic history.
    • This decline is spread evenly across the country, with 29 states and UTs having a TFR of 1.9 or less, with seven below 1.6.
    • All southern states have a TFR of 1.7-1.8, similar to that of Sweden.
    • Even states that have not reached replacement fertility — Bihar and Uttar Pradesh — seem to be headed in that direction.
    • Part of the original coterie of lagging states, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan both have achieved TFRs of 2.0.

    Challenge: Supporting the ageing population

    • Supporting ageing population: As fertility declines, the proportion of the older population grows, and societies face the challenge of supporting an ageing population with a shrinking workforce.
    • This challenge is greater for leaders at the beginning of the demographic transition — Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
    •  Interestingly, these are also among the more prosperous states in India, whose economic activities increasingly rely on migrant labour from other states.
    • Many industries such as auto parts manufacturing and construction in southern states rely on semi-skilled migrants, often transported under contractual arrangements, from northern and eastern states, particularly Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha.

    Rethinking the critical dimension of Indian federalism

    • Dependence on migrat workforce: Many industries such as auto parts manufacturing and construction in southern states rely on semi-skilled migrants, often transported under contractual arrangements, from northern and eastern states, particularly Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha.
    • Allocation of political power: While the Indian constitution mandates allocation of Lok Sabha seats across states in proportion to their population via the Delimitation Commission, the Emergency-era 42nd amendment froze seat allocation to the population share of states in the 1971 Census.
    • Equity consideration in central allocation to states: The division of central allocation to states is another area where population concerns have dominated equity considerations.
    • Much of the Centre-state revenue sharing occurs through recommendations of various Finance Commissions.
    • The sixth to fourteenth Finance Commissions allocated resources between states using the 1971 population shares of various states.
    • The Fifteenth Finance commission used Census data from 2011, but it also added the criteria of demographic performance, rewarding states with lower TFR.

    Type of demographic policy India needs to pursue

    • Pursue policy followed by China? Does India want to pursue China’s route of sharply lower fertility, with a large number of families stopping at one child, or are we content with moderately below replacement fertility of about 1.7-1.8?
    • If the latter, we are well-positioned to head in this direction.
    • Issues faced by China: while very low fertility provides a temporary demographic dividend with a reduced number of dependents to workers, the increased burden of caring for the elderly may become overwhelming over the long term.
    • Advantage of Regional demographic variation in India: India is fortunate that its demographic dividend may be smaller, but is likely to last for a more extended period due to regional variation in the onset of the fertility decline.
    • As southern states struggle with the growing burden of supporting the elderly, northern states will supply the workforce needed for economic growth.
    • Economic expansion: The increasing pace of migration may help shore up economic expansion in the south with its shrinking workforce augmented by workers from other states.

    Consider the question “Examine the influence of regional demographic variation on the fedaralism in India? How such variation can help India?”

    Conclusion

    The Sixteenth Finance Commission and the next Delimitation Commission must be freed from the burden of managing the demographic transition, focused on carrying out their tasks in the best interests of Indian federalism.

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

  • Mumbai-Karnataka Region renamed as Kittur Karnataka

    Karnataka has renamed the Mumbai-Karnataka region, consisting of seven districts, as Kittur Karnataka.

    What is the Mumbai-Karnataka Region?

    • The erstwhile Mumbai-Karnataka region consisted of Uttara Kannada, Belagavi, Dharwad, Vijayapura, Bagalkote, Gadag and Haveri districts.

    Reasons behind renaming

    • The Karnataka government has meant to dissociate itself from any ties with the erstwhile Presidency or colonial-era nomenclature in regions that came under the newly formed state of Karnataka in 1956.
    • The renaming is also to detach itself from any ties with Maharashtra.

    Claims made by Maharashtra

    • Maharashtra has staked claim to an area of over 7,000 sq. km along its border with Karnataka.
    • It comprised 814 villages in the districts of Belagavi, Uttara Kannada, Bidar and Gulbarga, and the towns of Belagavi, Karwar and Nippani.
    • Maharashtra wants to annex all these areas.
    • The erstwhile Bombay Presidency, a multilingual province, included present-day Karnataka districts of Vijayapura, Belagavi, Dharwad and Uttara Kannada.
    • The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 made Belagavi and 10 talukas of Bombay State a part of the then Mysore State (which was renamed Karnataka in 1973).

    A case pending in the Supreme Court

    • Successive governments in Maharashtra have demanded their inclusion within the state– a claim that Karnataka contests.
    • In 2004, the Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court for a settlement of the border dispute under Article 131(b) of the Constitution.
    • It demanded 814 villages from Karnataka on the basis of the theory of village being the unit of calculation, contiguity and enumerating linguistic population in each village.
    • The case is pending in the apex court.

     

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

  • Bengal can’t bar CBI, Centre tells Supreme Court

    The Union Government has told the Supreme Court West Bengal state govt does not have any “absolute” power to keep the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from investigating crimes inside the State.

    What is the issue?

    • A case of post-poll violence was transferred to the CBI by the Calcutta High Court.
    • Hence the State Police is under a cloud.
    • In a response to this, the West Bengal had filed a suit against the Union of India under Article 131 of the Constitution.

    What is Article 131 of Indian Constitution?

    • Article 131 states talks about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on matters subject to the provisions of Constitution between the Government of India and one or more States.
    • Thus, the Article allows a state to file a suit in the Supreme Court in case of any dispute that it may have with the central government, invoking the court’s “original jurisdiction”.

    Why WB challenged the Union govt?

    • The State has challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction to register FIRs and conduct investigations in the State in myriad cases.
    • West Bengal said it had withdrawn “general consent” to the CBI way back in 2018.
    • The State said the CBI’s actions were a direct attack on the federal structure of governance.

    What is this ‘General Consent’ about?

    • Unlike the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is governed by its own NIA Act and has jurisdiction across the country, the CBI is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
    • This makes consent of a state government mandatory for conducting an investigation in that state.
    • Hence the CBI has jurisdiction only over central government departments and employees.
    • However, it can investigate a case involving state government employees or a violent crime in a given state only with the consent of state government.

    Arguments made by Centre

    • The Centre said that the CBI was an autonomous body not controlled by the Union Government.
    • Hence the suit was misplaced and should be dismissed.

    Back2Basics:

    Central Bureau of Investigation: Composition, Functions

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

  • Naga Peace Accord

     

    Tamil Nadu Governor has resigned as interlocutor for the Naga peace talks.

    What is the Naga Peace Process?

    (A) Issue

    • It refers to ongoing talks between the Indian government and Naga insurgent groups, in particular the NSCN(IM), since 1997 with the aim to sign a Naga Peace Accord.
    • The Naga insurgency, rooted in Naga nationalism, is one of the oldest insurgencies in the country.
    • The Naga-inhabited areas of the Northeast never considered themselves part of British India, and on August 14, 1947, the Naga National Council (NNC) declared independence for Nagaland.
    • It formed an underground Government (NFG) and an Army in 1952, in response to which the Centre sent in the Army and enacted the Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act, or AFSPA.

    (B) Shillong Agreement

    • After years of talks, the Shillong Accord was signed in 1976 with underground groups of Nagaland.
    • But it was rejected by many top NNC leaders on the ground that it did not address the issue of Naga sovereignty and forced Nagas to accept the Indian Constitution.
    • Since then the Naga groups have split into various factions.

    (C) The Peace Accord

    • There have been nearly 100 rounds of talks.
    • In August 2015, the group signed a framework agreement with the Indian government for the Naga Peace Accord.

    How did things go wrong?

    • Sources say even the various competencies of the accord had been agreed upon, although a few bones of contention remained.
    • The groups were insistent on a Naga constitution and were pushing for a Greater Nagalim stretching beyond the boundaries of the present Nagaland state.
    • The state panel rejected the demand for a separate flag and constitution outright, and warned that “any misadventure to disintegrate this great nation shall not be tolerated”.

    Amid all this, what are the real issues?

    • The enthusiasm with which the framework agreement was announced led to unreasonable expectations of an imminent Accord.
    • There is no way the government would accept a separate constitution for Nagaland. This was never under discussion.
    • There was, indeed, an opinion that the flag could be given.
    • But that went off the table after August 5, 2019 when the Kashmiri flag was taken away.

    Best way forward

    • It is important to understand that there cannot be an accord without the militant factions.
    • Some demands that need ironing out include one for a bicameral Assembly with at least 40 nominated members representing different tribes; absorption of cadres as local armed forces or in the Indian paramilitary.
    • There is a need for setting up of autonomous councils in Naga-dominated areas of neighbouring states; and the use of the Naga flag for at least customary events.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] Naga Peace Talks

     

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

  • 50th anniversary of Meghalaya’s Statehood

    The Meghalaya Assembly has given an indigenous touch to the National Anthem ahead of the 50th anniversary of Meghalaya’s Statehood in 2022.

    About Meghalaya

    • Meghalaya meaning “abode of clouds” was formed by carving out two districts from the state of Assam: the United Khasi Hills and Jaintia Hills, and the Garo Hills on 21 January 1972.
    • It was previously part of Assam, but on 21 January 1972, the districts of Khasi, Garo and Jaintia hills became the new state of Meghalaya.
    • It is the wettest region of India, with the wettest areas in the southern Khasi Hills recording an average of 12,000 mm (470 in) of rain a year.
    • About 70 percent of the state is forested.
    • The Meghalaya subtropical forests ecoregion encompasses the state; its mountain forests are distinct from the lowland tropical forests to the north and south.

    Note the chronology of reorganization states in India

    State Formation Year Status prior to the formation
    Andhra 1953 Part of the state of Madras
    Gujarat 1960 Part of the state of Bombay
    Maharashtra 1960 Part of the state of Bombay
    Kerala 1956 State of Travancore and Cochin
    Nagaland 1963 Union territory
    Haryana 1966 Part of Punjab
    Karnataka 1956 State of Mysore was formed in 1953, enlarged Mysore in 1956 which was renamed in 1973.
    Himachal Pradesh 1971 Union Territory
    Manipur, Tripura 1972 Union Territories
    Meghalaya 1972 Autonomous state within state of Assam
    Sikkim 1975 Associate state since 1974 and a protectorate of India before that.
    Mizoram 1987 District of Assam till 1972 and Union Territory from 1972 to 1987.
    Arunachal Pradesh 1987 Union Territory
    Goa 1987 Union Territory
    Uttarakhand 2000 Part of Uttar Pradesh
    Chhattisgarh 2000 Part of Madhya Pradesh
    Jharkhand 2000 Part of Bihar
    Telangana 2014 Part of Andhra Pradesh

     

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

  • In Manipur, a case for asymmetric federalism

    As a normative idea and an institutional arrangement that supports the recognition and provision of an expansive ‘self-rule’ for territorially concentrated minority groups, asymmetric federalism has recently received bad press in India.

    India’s Federalism: A backgrounder

    • Nations are described as ‘federal’ or ‘unitary’, depending on the way in which governance is organised.
    • In a unitary set-up, the Centre has plenary powers of administration and legislation, with its constituent units having little autonomy.
    • In a federal arrangement, the constituent units are identified on the basis of region or ethnicity and conferred varying forms of autonomy or some level of administrative and legislative powers.
    • In India, the residuary powers of legislation, that is the power to make law in a field not specified in the Constitution, is vested in Parliament.
    • Hence India has a quasi-federal framework.

    Why is it said that India has asymmetric federalism?

    • The main forms of administrative units in India are the Centre and the States.
    • Just as the Centre and the States do not have matching powers in all matters, there are some differences in the way some States and other constituent units of the Indian Union relate to the Centre.
    • This creates a notable asymmetry in the way Indian federalism works.
    • But there are other forms, too, all set up to address specific local, historical and geographical contexts.

    The asymmetric structure

    • Besides the Centre and the States, the country has Union Territories with a legislature, and Union Territories without a legislature.
    • When the Constitution came into force, the various States and other administrative units were divided into Parts A, B, C and D.
    • Part A States were the erstwhile provinces, while Part B consisted of erstwhile princely states and principalities. Part C areas were the erstwhile ‘Chief Commissioner’s Provinces’.
    • They became Union Territories, and some of them initially got legislatures and were later upgraded into States.
    • Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa belong to this category.

    Power apparatus in these asymmetries: Sixth Schedule

    • The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution contains provisions for the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
    • These create autonomous districts and autonomous regions.
    • Any autonomous district with different Scheduled Tribes will be divided into autonomous regions.
    • These will be administered by District Councils and Regional Councils.
    • These Councils can make laws with respect to allotment, occupation and use of land, management of forests other than reserve forests and water courses.
    • Besides they can regulate social customs, marriage and divorce and property issues.

    An integrationist approach adopted by the Constituent Assembly

    • Post-independence, India was criticized for arguably becoming a ‘homogenous Hindu nation’ after Partition.
    • To counter this, the Gopinath Bordoloi Committee, a sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly sought to accommodate the distinctive identity, culture and way of life of tribal groups in the NE by envisioning ‘self-rule’.
    • This distinctive constitutional status to territorially concentrated minorities fosters centrifugal tendencies.
    • Asymmetric federalism fosters subversive institutions, political instability and breakup of States.

    Curious case of Manipur: Recent developments

    • Article 371 gives expansive constitutional powers to Manipur’s Hill Areas Committee (Article 371C) over tribal identity, culture, development and local administration, are exemplars.
    • The integrationist approach resonates powerfully in two recent attempts by Manipur’s government to
    1. stall the introduction and passage of the Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council (Amendment) Bill, 2021, and
    2. induct nine Assembly members from the valley areas into the Hill Areas Committee.
    • This move is being perceived as a “malicious” and “direct assault” on the Hill Areas Committee and the constitutional protection accorded to the Hill Areas of Manipur under Article 371C.

    A determined move

    • These moves marks a calculated initiative to use this as a double-edged sword to simultaneously set apace electoral agenda for the upcoming Assembly elections in early 2022 and reclaim its agency to fortify state-level constitutional asymmetry.
    • The attempt to increase membership of the six district councils to 31 members each and secure more powers to the councils by giving more developmental mandate are welcome.

    Managing HAC: A difficult task

    • If history is any guide, the task of reclaiming the Hill Areas Committee’s agency is not going to be easy.
    • Its members often leverage tribe/party loyalty over-commitment to protect constitutional asymmetry and common tribals’ cause.
    • How the HAC and various tribal groups strategically navigate their politics to offset the majoritarian impulse to manipulate the legal and political process to dilute/dissolve extant constitutional asymmetry remains to be seen.

    Way forward

    • There should be sincere commitment to promote tribal development, identity and culture that Article 371C seeks to bridge.
    • Recognizing and institutionally accommodating tribal distinctiveness is not just as a matter of political convenience
    • This valuable and enduring good will be key to promote the State’s integrity, stability and peace in the long run.

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

  • Spirit of federalism lies in consultation

    Context

    Recently, various State governments raised concerns about Central unilateralism in the enactment of critical laws on subjects in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.

    Objection of the state against Centre legislating on the subject in Concurrent List without consulting States

    • Unilateral legislation on subjects in Concurrent list: Kerala Chief Minister stated that it is not in the essence of federalism for the Union government to legislate unilaterally, on the subjects in the Concurrent List.
    • Encroaching on powers of States: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister raised the issue by calling on other Chief Ministers against the Union government encroaching on powers under the State and Concurrent Lists.
    • The Kerala Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution against the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
    • The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution against the controversial farm laws.

    Background of the Concurrent List

    • The Concurrent List gives the Union and the State Legislatures concurrent powers to legislate on the subjects contained in it.
    • Purpose of Concurrent List: The fields in the Concurrent List were to be of common interest to the Union and the States, and the power to legislate on these subjects to be shared with the Union so that there would be uniformity in law across the country.

    Union government extending its control on subjects in the Concurrent List and State list

    1) Farm laws: Encroaching on the powers of States

    • Parliament passed the farm laws without consulting the States.
    • State List subject: The laws, essentially related to Entry 14 (agriculture clause) belonging to the State List.
    • However, Parliament passed the law citing Entry 33 (trade and commerce clause) in the Concurrent List.
    • Against legal principle set by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court, beginning from the State of Bombay vs F.N. Balsara case, said that if an enactment falls within one of the matters assigned to the State List and reconciliation is not possible with an entry in the Concurrent or Union List after employing the doctrine of “pith and substance”, the legislative domain of the State Legislature must prevail.

    2) Major Port Authorities Act 2021 and Indian Ports Bill: Centre taking away the power of State

    • The Major Ports Authorities Act, 2021, was passed by Parliament earlier this year.
    • Goa objected to the law, stating that it would lead to the redundancy of the local laws.
    • Concurrent List subject: When it comes to non-major ports, the field for legislation is located in Entry 31 of the Concurrent List. 
    • The Indian Ports Act, 1908, presently governs the field related to non-major ports.
    • As per the Indian Ports Act, 1908, the power to regulate and control the minor ports remained with the State governments.
    • The new draft Indian Ports Bill, 2021, proposes the Maritime State Development Council (MSDC), which is overwhelmingly controlled by the Union government.

    3) Electricity (Amendment) Bill,2020: Centre taking away powers of State

    • Various States like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have also come forward against the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
    • The field related to electricity is traceable to Entry 38 of the Concurrent List.
    • The power to regulate the sector was vested with the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs), members of which were appointed by the State government.
    • The proposed amendment seeks to establish National Selection Committee, dominated by members nominated by the Union government that will make appointments to the SERCs.
    • The amendment also proposes the establishment of a Centrally-appointed Electricity Contract Enforcement Authority (ECEA).
    • In effect, the power to regulate the electricity sector would be taken away from the State government.

    Way forward

    • Consultation with States: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), or the Venkatachaliah Commission, had recommended that individual and collective consultation with the States should be undertaken through the Inter-State Council established under Article 263 of the Constitution.
    • Coordination of policy and action in concurrent jurisdiction: The Sarkaria Commission Report had recommended that there should be a coordination of policy and action in all areas of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction through a process of mutual consultation.
    • Limit powers to ensuring uniformity: The Sarkaria Commission further recommended that the Union government, while exercising powers under the Concurrent List, limit itself to the purpose of ensuring uniformity in basic issues of national policy and not more.
    • Responsibility of Centre: The Supreme Court itself had held in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case, the States are not mere appendages of the Union.
    • The Union government should ensure that the power of the States is not trampled with.

    Consider the question “There has been instances of protest by the State government against Centre legislating unilaterally on subjects in Concurrent List. What are the implications of this for the federalism? Suggest the way forward.”

    Conclusion

    The essence of cooperative federalism lies in consultation and dialogue, and unilateral legislation without taking the States into confidence will lead to more protests on the streets.

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

     

  • Resolving the Assam-Mizoram issue

    Context

    The violent stand-off between the Assam and Mizoram armed policemen at Vairengte in Mizoram, on July 26, took six lives and left over 50 injured is the culmination of a long-standing border dispute.

    History of the boundary issue

    • The ‘inner line’ boundary of the Lushai hills was ‘fixed’ in 1875 on the southern border of Assam’s Cachar district.
    • In line with the colonial practice of ‘fixing’ borders, this boundary was however not ‘precise’ as it was drawn largely using natural markers such as rivers and hills.
    • In post-independent India, the Mizoram government has accepted this boundary in preference over the subsequent revisions made by the colonial government.
    • There was a change in boundary when the Inner Line Permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 was extended to the Lushai hills district in 1930 and 1933.
    • The Mizoram government perceives that the boundary instituted by these revisions amounted to unilateral superimposition.
    • These revisions are also seen to conspicuously fail to recognise the Mizo’s long-standing historical rights to use the un-demarcated southern border of Cachar as their hunting ground, for jhum cultivation, and as sites of their resource extraction including rubber and timber.
    • However, considering that borders cannot be driven by perception but by institutionalised rules and laws, Assam’s government continues to refuse to accept Mizoram’s standpoint.
    • The Assam government considers Mizo plantation and settlements in the Inner Line Reserve Forest areas as an ‘encroachment’.

    People-centric Vs. State-centric approach in dispute

    • At the heart of this dispute is the contending approaches of the Assam and Mizoram governments to ‘borders’, namely ‘state-centric and ‘people-centric approaches.
    • The Assam government represent a continuum of the colonial ‘state-centric’ approach to borders which gives premium to legal, juridical and administrative recognition and protection of the border.
    • The Mizoram government advocate a ‘people-centric approach seeks to give a premium to the historical and traditional rights of the local indigenous people.
    • The Mizoram government also advocate the principle of uti possidetis juris (‘as you possess under law’, including customary law) on the other hand.

    Way forward

    • Historical context: Fixing the Assam-Mizoram border and resolve the dispute need to be sensitive to the historical context.
    • Deep historical knowledge, sensitivity and an accommodative spirit need to inform dialogue and negotiation under the neutral supervision of the Centre.
    • Inter-governmental forum: It is about time that the Centre sets up a permanent inter-governmental forum to involve important stakeholders in order to effectively manage border and territorial conflicts.
    • Quick-fix solution should be avoided: Any quick-fix solution driven by temporal electoral considerations should be avoided if we were to resuscitate and sustain interdependent Assam-Mizoram borders and beyond.

    Conclusion

    The resolution should be sensitive to the possibility of fluid and overlapping sovereignty, where forest ‘commons’ are seen not simply as sites of revenue-extraction but as powerful symbols of identity and sustainable livelihood resources for the local people.

  • CJI recuses himself from Andhra-Telangana Case

    The Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana (who hails from AP) recused himself from hearing Andhra Pradesh’s plea after it said “no” to the Supreme Court’s suggestion to go for mediation over a dispute with Telangana over the Krishna River dispute.

    Q. Can you list down some basic principles of judicial conduct?

    Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Competence and diligence and Equality are some of them as listed under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

    What is the Recusal of Judges?

    • Recusal is the removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a particular matter, especially because of a conflict of interest.
    • Recusal usually takes place when a judge has a conflict of interest or has a prior association with the parties in the case.
    • For example, if the case pertains to a company in which the judge holds stakes, the apprehension would seem reasonable.
    • Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call for recusal may seem right.
    • A recusal inevitably leads to delay. The case goes back to the Chief Justice, who has to constitute a fresh Bench.

    Rules on Recusals

    • There are no written rules on the recusal of judges from hearing cases listed before them in constitutional courts.
    • It is left to the discretion of a judge.
    • The reasons for recusal are not disclosed in an order of the court. Some judges orally convey to the lawyers involved in the case their reasons for recusal, many do not. Some explain the reasons in their order.
    • The decision rests on the conscience of the judge. At times, parties involved raise apprehensions about a possible conflict of interest.

    Issues with recusal

    • Recusal is also regarded as the abdication of duty. Maintaining institutional civilities is distinct from the fiercely independent role of the judge as an adjudicator.
    • In his separate opinion in the NJAC judgment in 2015, Justice Kurian Joseph highlighted the need for judges to give reasons for recusal as a measure to build transparency.
    • It is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

    Back2Basics:

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/krishna-water-dispute/

  • Pakistan grants statehood to Gilgit-Baltistan

    Pakistan has finalized draft legislation to incorporate Gilgit-Baltistan, the region known before 2009 as Northern Areas, as a province of the country.

    Gilgit-Baltistan: History of the region

    • Gilgit was part of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir but was ruled directly by the British, who had taken it on lease from Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of the Muslim-majority state.
    • When Hari Singh acceded to India on October 26, 1947, the Gilgit Scouts rose in rebellion, led by their British commander Major William Alexander Brown.
    • The Gilgit Scouts also moved to take over Baltistan, which was then part of Ladakh, and captured Skardu, Kargil and Dras.
    • In battles thereafter, Indian forces retook Kargil and Dras in August 1948.

    Accession with Pakistan

    • In November, 1947, a political outfit called the Revolutionary Council of Gilgit-Baltistan had proclaimed the independent state of Gilgit-Baltistan.
    • It declared GB was acceding to Pakistan only to the extent of full administrative control, choosing to govern it directly under the Frontier Crimes Regulation.
    • It was a law devised by the British to keep control of the restive tribal areas of the northwest.
    • Following the India-Pakistan ceasefire of January 1, 1949, Pakistan entered into an agreement with the “provisional government” of “Azad Jammu & Kashmir”.
    • Much of its parts had been occupied by Pakistani troops and irregulars and were later taken over by Pak defence and foreign affairs.
    • Under this agreement, the AJK government also ceded administration of Gilgit-Baltistan to Pakistan.

    Not being incorporated as a province

    • In 1974, Pakistan adopted its first full-fledged civilian Constitution, which lists four provinces —Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakthunkhwa.
    • Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit-Baltistan were not incorporated as provinces.
    • One reason ascribed to this is that Pakistan did not want to undermine its international case that the resolution of the Kashmir issue had to be in accordance with UN resolutions that called for a plebiscite.
    • In 1975, PoK got its own Constitution, making it an ostensibly self-governed autonomous territory.
    • This Constitution had no jurisdiction over the Northern Areas, which continued to be administered directly by Islamabad (the Frontier Crimes Regulation was discontinued in 1997)
    • In reality, PoK too remained under the control of Pakistani federal administration and the security establishment, through the Kashmir Council.

    Reasons behind

    • The main difference was that while the people of PoK had rights and freedoms guaranteed by their own Constitution, which mirrors the Pakistan Constitution.
    • However the people of the minority Shia-dominated Northern Areas did not have any political representation.
    • Although they were considered Pakistani, including for citizenship and passports, they were outside the ambit of constitutional protections available to those in the four provinces and PoK.

    Why GB is in focus now?

    • Pakistan began considering changes to its administrative arrangements with increasing Chinese involvement in strategic development ventures.
    • GB was vital to those projects, given that it provides only land access between the two countries.
    • Since 2009, it has had a namesake legislative assembly.

    Suppression of a movement

    • There is anger against Pakistan for unleashing sectarian militant groups that target Shias, but the predominant sentiment is that all this will improve once they are part of the Pakistani federation.
    • There is a small movement for independence, but it has very little traction. Some factions argue for its accession with India.
    • While some reports have suggested that Pakistan’s decision is under pressure from China, wary that Gilgit-Baltistan’s ambiguous status might undermine the legality of its projects there.

    Significance for India

    • Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of India by virtue of the legal, complete and irrevocable accession of Jammu & Kashmir to the Union of India in 1947.
    • The area’s strategic importance for India has increased in light of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor agreement.
    • India is also concerned of a two-front war (with China as well as Pakistan) after the standoff in Eastern Ladakh last year.