Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

GS Paper: GS2-01.Indian Constitution-Historical underpinnings & evolution; Features, amendments, significant provisions, basic structure of Constitution

  • Kerala to challenge withholding of Presidential Assent for its Bills

    Why in the news? 

    The unusual move of the Kerala Government will open doors for a Constitutional debate on the scope of a Judicial Review of the decisions of the President of India.

    Context-

    • The President had withheld assent to Kerala University Laws (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2022, University Law Amendment Bill, 2022, and the University Law Amendment Bill, 2021 from the seven Bills that were referred to her in November 2023.

    Key issues as per this situation- 

    • Legal Challenge by Kerala: Kerala plans to challenge the legality of President Droupadi Murmu withholding her assent for certain Bills passed by the Kerala Legislature.
    • Scope of Judicial Review: Kerala’s move will open doors for a Constitutional debate on the scope of judicial review of the decisions of the President of India. The state argues that the legality of the President’s decisions and the factors influencing them can be judicially reviewed.

    The power of the President to withhold assent to a state bill is derived from the Constitution of India:

    • Constitutional Authority: The power of the President to withhold assent to a state bill is outlined in Article 201 of the Constitution of India.
    • Procedure: According to Article 200, when a bill is passed by the state legislature, it is presented to the Governor for assent. The Governor then forwards the bill to the President for consideration.
    • Discretionary Power: The President has discretionary authority to either give assent to the bill or withhold it. This means the President can refuse to approve the bill if deemed necessary.
    • Reasons for Withholding Assent: The President may choose to withhold assent for various reasons, such as if the bill violates constitutional provisions, conflicts with central legislation, or is against public interest.
    • Constitutional Morality: The President’s decision to withhold assent should be guided by constitutional principles and morality. This ensures that the exercise of this power is in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

    What are the Implications of the President withholding assent to a state bill?

    • Legislative Stalemate: Withholding assent to a state bill effectively prevents it from becoming law. This can lead to a legislative stalemate, especially if the bill is crucial for the functioning of the state government or addresses pressing issues.
    • Impact on State Governance: The inability to enact a state bill due to the President’s refusal to give assent can hinder the governance and administration of the state. It may delay or impede the implementation of policies and measures intended to address local challenges or meet the needs of the state’s residents.
    • Constitutional Conflict: The withholding of assent by the President may lead to constitutional conflicts between the state government and the Union government. It raises questions about the division of powers between the Centre and the states and the extent of the President’s authority to state legislation.
    • Political Implications: The President’s decision to withhold assent to a state bill can have political repercussions. It may strain the relationship between the state government and the central government, especially if there are underlying political tensions or differences in ideology.
    • Legal Challenges: The state government may choose to challenge the President’s decision to withhold assent through legal means. This could involve seeking judicial review to determine the legality and constitutionality of the President’s action, especially if it is perceived as arbitrary or mala fide.

  • Citizenship Amendment Act: Legal issues and status of judicial proceedings

    Why in the news? 

    • The Ministry of Home Affairs notified the rules to implement the CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from neighbouring countries. Despite delays, the Act faces challenges in the Supreme Court.

    Context

    • Petitions challenge the CAA’s constitutionality, arguing it violates Article 14 by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
    • Petitions seek a stay on the recently notified rules, criticizing the bypassing of tiered scrutiny for citizenship applications and the government’s decision to implement rules before a final court decision.

    About Citizenship Amendment Act 2019:

    • Origin- The citizenship laws in India find their roots in the constitution through Articles 5-11 and the Citizenship Act of 1955. This legislation outlines provisions for acquiring citizenship through birth, descent, registration, and naturalization.
    • Changes as per CAA 2019– It revised the Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

    Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024:

    Despite a delay of over four years, the Ministry of Home Affairs has officially issued the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024, facilitating the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

    The key provisions include:

    • Application Process: Eligible refugees are required to submit applications accompanied by affidavits verifying statements, character references from Indian citizens, and a declaration of proficiency in a designated Indian language for citizenship.
    • E-Application to District-Level Committee: The rules stipulate that applications must be submitted electronically to a district-level committee for verification of documents and administration of the oath of allegiance. Failure to appear in person may result in rejection of the application by the empowered committee following review by the district committee.
    • Supporting Documentation: Applicants are mandated to provide supporting documents such as passports, birth certificates, identity papers, land records, or evidence of ancestry from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh to substantiate their citizenship claims.
    • Verification of Entry Date: Applicants must furnish evidence of entry before December 31, 2014, through one of the 20 specified documents, including FRRO registration, Census slips, government-issued IDs (such as Aadhaar, ration card, driver’s license), or marriage certificates issued in India.

     

    What are the implications of CAA?

    • Potential Impact on Muslims: The CAA, when combined with the proposed National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC), has the potential to disproportionately affect Muslims residing in India. Non-Muslims may have an opportunity to obtain citizenship through the CAA, while Muslims may be denied this opportunity.
    • Exclusion from NRIC: In the event of people being excluded from the NRIC, non-Muslims may have a pathway to inclusion through the CAA, while Muslims may face barriers. The Supreme Court-monitored NRC exercise in Assam in 2021 left over 19 lakh people from the citizenship register, raising concerns about exclusion and discrimination.
    • Executive Order and Implementation: The Union government issued an order granting District Collectors in five states with high migrant populations the power to grant citizenship to groups identified in the CAA amendment. However, there were allegations that this order was a tactic to implement the CAA, which the government denied.
    • Relaxation of Citizenship Criteria: The newly notified rules under the CAA have eased the process of granting Indian citizenship to members of specified communities by excluding the requirement of a valid passport or visa. Instead, documents showing ancestry from designated countries are deemed sufficient.
    • Constitutional Challenges: The constitutionality of the CAA has been challenged in court, with petitions arguing that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
    • Impact on Assam Accord: The CAA has been criticized as undermining the Assam Accord of 1985, which does not differentiate on grounds of religion and deems any person who cannot prove ancestry beyond March 24, 1971, as an alien. Petitions contend that the law may lead to an increase in the influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam.

    How has the Supreme Court responded? (Judicial Stand)

    • December 2019: The Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde, refused to stay the operation of the CAA. Instead, the court suggested that the government should publicize the actual intent of the Act.
      • A similar plea for a stay was rejected by the court on January 22, 2020, with the court emphasizing the need to hear the government’s perspective first.
    • October 2022: A Bench led by former CJI U.U. Lalit ordered that final hearings in the case would commence on December 6, 2022.
      • However, since then, the case has not been listed. According to the Supreme Court’s website, the petitions are currently before a Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

    What is the significance of the challenge to Section 6A?

    • Dependence on Assam Accord: Section 6A was introduced in furtherance of the Assam Accord, a Memorandum of Settlement signed in 1985 to resolve issues related to immigration in Assam.
      • Therefore, the challenge to Section 6A is intricately linked to the implementation and interpretation of the Assam Accord.
    • Legal Implications: The challenges against Section 6A of the Citizenship Act and the CAA raise significant legal questions regarding their constitutionality and compatibility with existing laws and agreements.
      • These legal challenges highlight the need for clarity and consistency in India’s citizenship laws.
    • Interpretation of Assam Accord: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, introduced by the Assam Accord of 1985, establishes March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for determining citizenship in Assam.
      • The challenges against this provision and the CAA raise questions about the interpretation and implementation of the Assam Accord, which aimed to resolve issues related to immigration in Assam.

     

    Why are petitioners seeking a stay on the rules?

    • Changes in Scrutiny Process: The rules have reportedly eliminated the tiered scrutiny process of applications for citizenship by District Collectors.
      • Previously, District Collectors scrutinized applications, and state governments provided recommendations on granting citizenship. The removal of this scrutiny process is a concern for the petitioners.
    • Timing of their implementation: The petitioners highlight that the government had previously avoided a push for a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the Supreme Court five years ago by arguing that the rules for implementation had not been framed.
      • Now, with the rules in place, the petitioners question the timing of their implementation.
    • Pending Decision from Supreme Court: The petitioners argue that the government should have awaited a final decision from the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the CAA before implementing the rules.
      • They suggest that implementing the rules without a definitive ruling from the court could preempt its decision-making process.

    Conclusion:

    • Implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act and its accompanying rules faces legal challenges and societal implications.
    • Moving forward, ensuring fairness, inclusivity, and adherence to constitutional principles will be vital in resolving the complexities surrounding citizenship laws in India.

  • President approves Uttarakhand’s UCC Bill

    In the news

    • Under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution, the President gave assent to the ‘Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand 2024’ Bill passed by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly, on March 11 2024.

    What is the Uniform Civil Code?

    • The UCC is mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, that the state should work to establish a uniform civil code for all citizens across India.
      • However, the Constitution’s framers left it to the government’s discretion to implement the UCC.
    • Goa is the only state in India with a UCC, following the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867.

    What are the SC Observations?

    • The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of Governors promptly acting on Bills sent to them for assent after passage by Legislative Assemblies.
    • Bills should be returned “as soon as possible” to prevent undue delay, with significant constitutional intent behind this directive.

    Governor’s Power over State Bills

     

    [I] Article 200:

    • Article 200 delineates the process for State Legislative Assembly-passed Bills to be presented to the Governor for assent.
    • The Governor holds the authority to either assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration by the President.
    • Additionally, the Governor possesses the prerogative to return the Bill to the House or Houses with a message requesting reconsideration.

     

    [II] Article 201:

    • Article 201 stipulates the procedures concerning Bills reserved for the President’s consideration.
    • It allows the President to either assent to or withhold assent from the Bill.
    • If necessary, the President can direct the Governor to return the Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration.

     

    Governor’s Discretion 

    The Governor holds several options upon receiving a Bill:

    • Granting Assent.
    • Requesting the Assembly to reconsider specific provisions or the entire Bill.
    • Obligatory reservation for the President’s consideration, especially in cases posing a threat to the state high court or contravening constitutional provisions, DPSP, national interest, or Article 31A regarding compulsory property acquisition.
    • Although within the Governor’s authority, withholding assent is seldom practiced due to its contentious nature.

    Committee Recommendations:

     

    (1) Sarkaria Commission (1987):

    • It recommended that Governors exercise discretion in reserving Bills for Presidential consideration only in rare cases of unconstitutionality.
    • Bills should otherwise be processed as per ministerial advice, with a maximum six-month period for Presidential disposition.

     

    (2) Punchhi Commission (2010):

    • It proposed a six-month timeframe for Governors to decide on Bills presented for assent, emphasizing timely decision-making.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2016:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. The Chief Secretary in a State is appointed by the Governor of that State.
    2. The Chief Secretary in a State has a fixed tenure.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    PYQ Relevance:

    Mains:
    1. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine (2018)

    2. What are the two major legal initiatives by state since Independence, addressing discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (ST)? (2017)

    3. Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment. (2016)

    Prelims:
    Under the Indian Constitution, the Concentration of Wealth violates​ (2021)
    a) the Right to Equality​
    b) the Directive Principles of State Policy​
    c) the Right to Freedom​
    d) the Concept of Welfare
    From The Hindu

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Minority sections of the society and their Empowerment; Judiciary; State government;

    Prelims: Fundamental rights; Important judgements by SC; State government;

    Mentor comments: Recently, the case of ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ revolves around the question of whether State governments can make sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for public employment. The Supreme Court is set to deliver a judgment on this matter, addressing the issue of intra-group variances and the power of States to recognize them. We need to analyze this issue as it is sub-classified SC reservations which are leading to legal challenges and subsequent legislative actions.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    The SC is set to deliver a judgment on whether State governments can make sub-classifications within SCs and STs, addressing the varying levels of development and discrimination within these groups. 

    Context:

    • The ongoing case of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh has brought to light the complexities surrounding sub-classification within reserved categories.
    • The central question revolves around whether a group within a reserved category can be further sub-classified and granted reservations.
    • Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups, addressing the issue of backwardness within backwardness.
    • On the other hand, opponents contend that the existing reservation scheme already ensures adequate representation for historically disadvantaged groups, making sub-classification unnecessary.
    JUDICIARY ON SUB-CATEGORIZATION WITHIN RESERVED CATEGORIES:

    1) State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case (1975):

    – In 1975, the Government of Punjab issued a circular that reserved 50% of SC seats for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, leading to legal challenges culminating in the Supreme Court’s involvement.

    – The case questions whether sub-classifications are constitutionally permissible within SCs and STs, challenging the notion that these groups are homogenous.

    – The debate involves revisiting past judgments like E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibited sub-classifications within SCs but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

    2) Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case (1992):

    – The SC cited its judgment which arose out of the Mandal Commission’s report. There, a nine-judge Bench had held that sub-classifications within socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) for services under the government was permissible.

    – The case introduced the concept of the “creamy layer,” excluding affluent sections within backward classes (limited it to not exceed 50%) from reservation benefits.

    – The genesis of this debate dates back to 1980 when the Second Backward Classes Committee, chaired by BP Mandal, recommended 27% reservation for OBCs and 22.5% for Scheduled Castes.

    3) About E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh Case (2004):

    – A five-judge Bench quashed the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000. The Act was challenged before the High Court and later the Supreme Court, which declared it ‘ultra vires the Constitution’ as it offended Article 341 of the Constitution.

    – This provision allows the President of India to notify a list of SCs for each State, and stipulates that the list can only be modified by Parliament.

    – The case prohibited sub-classifications within SCs as it was found to violate constitutional provisions but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It emphasized that SCs and STs are homogeneous groups incapable of further regrouping or classification.

    – The Court found that the State government had no power to tinker with the list because it was clear on a bare reading of Article 341 that such authority vested only with Parliament.

    What is the difference between a homogenous class and a sub-classification within reserved categories?

    • A homogenous class refers to a group that is considered uniform or undifferentiated, where all individuals within the group are treated equally.
    • The Sub-classification within reserved categories involves categorizing a larger group into smaller sub-groups based on specific criteria, allowing for differential treatment or preferences within the overall category.
    • The distinction lies in how individuals within a larger reserved category are treated – either uniformly as a single homogenous group or with differentiated preferences based on sub-classifications.

    What are the arguments for and against sub-classification within reserved categories?

    Arguments for Sub-classification:

    • Ensuring Adequate Representation: Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups within reserved categories.
    • Tailoring Criteria for Sub-classification: The court needs to tailor criteria for sub-classification to prevent leaving out certain groups while granting benefits to the most backward.
    • State’s Ability to Identify Backwardness: The states needs to be best positioned to judge the backwardness of communities and should have the authority to create sub-classifications within reserved categories without violating constitutional provisions.

    Arguments against Sub-classification:

    • Presumption of Backwardness: Opponents argue that while there is a presumption of backwardness with Scheduled Castes (SCs), individual castes within SCs cannot be considered separate classes under Article 16(4), suggesting that making laws for specific castes within SC lists could violate Article 16(2).
    • Violation of Equality Principle: Critics assert that sub-classification would violate the right to equality by treating communities within the category differently, potentially leading to discrimination based on caste, which is prohibited under Article 16(2).
    • Stigma and Exclusion: Those against sub-classification argue that if certain Scheduled Castes do not receive reservation benefits, they may be left with the stigma of being a Scheduled Caste without access to affirmative action measures, highlighting concerns about exclusion and inequality.

    What are the challenges faced by Sub-Classifications within Reserved Categories in India?

    • Lack of Equal Opportunities: Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution promises of substantive equality. The absence of sub-classification perpetuates inequality within reserved categories, hinders the framing of appropriate government policies.
    • Legal and Constitutional Complexities: The states face challenges as they lack legislative competence to create sub-classifications within reserved categories, raising questions about the constitutionality of such measures.
    • Addressing Backwardness: The issue of “backwardness within backwardness” has been acknowledged, emphasizing the need to address the most disadvantaged communities effectively.

    Way Forward

    Considering the above challenges, they highlight the complexities and nuances involved in addressing sub-classifications within reserved categories in India. Hence it is necessary to emphasize on careful consideration and legal clarity in policy-making and implementation. The SC’s decision in cases like ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ will play a crucial role in shaping affirmative action discourse and addressing issues of social justice within reserved categories

  • Unpacking the CAA Rules

    caa rules

    In the news

    • The long-awaited Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been set into motion by the Centre, marking a significant step forward in India’s legislative landscape.
    • Enacted in December 2019, the CAA aims to provide citizenship to certain migrants from neighboring countries, sparking debates and controversies nationwide.

    Making of the CAA, 2019: A Timeline

     

    2002: Initial efforts were made to address the challenges faced by Pakistani Hindus seeking Indian visas and citizenship.

    2004: Amendments to Citizenship Rules empowered district magistrates to grant Long Term Visas (LTVs) and citizenship to migrants in border districts.

    2010: The Ministry of Home Affairs eased restrictions on LTV extensions for certain categories of Pakistani nationals.

    2014: Notification allowed citizenship for select migrant communities, excluding Jains and Parsis.

    2018: Government extended LTV eligibility to communities seeking Indian citizenship, offering various benefits.

    New Citizenship Law: Eligibility and Required Documentation

    • Beneficiaries: The CAA primarily benefits Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014.
    • Documentation: Applicants need to provide proof of their country of origin, religion, date of entry into India, and knowledge of an Indian language.
    • Proof of Country of Origin: Acceptable documents include birth certificates, educational institution certificates, identity documents, licenses, certificates, or any other document issued by Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan.
    • Establishing Date of Entry: Applicants can provide a range of documents such as visas, residential permits, census slips, driving licenses, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, or any letter issued by the government or court to prove their entry date.
    • Generational Proof: Applicants can also provide documents indicating familial ties to these countries, such as those showing ancestry, expanding the scope of eligibility.

    Application Processing Mechanism

    [A] Empowered Committees

    • Role of Empowered Committee: This committee is tasked with overseeing the entire process, from receiving to processing applications. It ensures that all procedures are followed diligently and efficiently.
    • Membership: The Empowered Committee is headed by a Director (Census Operations) and comprises representatives from various government bodies, including the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Office (FRRO), the National Informatics Centre (NIC), and the Postmaster General.
    • Responsibilities: The committee members are responsible for verifying the authenticity of documents submitted by applicants, conducting background checks, and making final decisions on citizenship applications.

    [B] District Level Committees (DLC)

    • Composition: The DLC consists of the District Informatics Officer or District Informatics Assistant and a nominee of the central government.
    • Functions: DLCs serve as the initial point of contact for applicants, receiving their submissions and ensuring they are complete and accurate before forwarding them to the Empowered Committee for further processing.
    • Oversight: While DLCs handle the initial stages of application processing, they operate under the supervision and guidance of the Empowered Committee. This hierarchical structure ensures uniformity and consistency in decision-making across different regions.

    [C] Electronic Submission and Processing

    • Digital Platform: To streamline operations and minimize paperwork, the application process is conducted electronically. Applicants submit their documents and forms through an online portal managed by the government.
    • Efficiency: Electronic submission allows for faster processing times and reduces the risk of errors associated with manual data entry. It also enables real-time tracking of application status, providing transparency to applicants throughout the process.
    • Data Security: The government ensures robust cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information submitted by applicants. Encryption protocols and secure servers safeguard data integrity and confidentiality.

    Conclusion

    • The implementation of the CAA signifies a significant policy shift aimed at addressing the plight of persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries.
    • While the rules have sparked debates and opposition, they also represent India’s commitment to humanitarian values and providing refuge to those in need.
    • As the citizenship application process unfolds, it will be crucial to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures to uphold the principles of justice and inclusivity.

  • India ‘one of the Worst Autocratisers’: V-Dem Democracy Report

    In the news

    • India, previously categorized as an “electoral autocracy” in 2018, has further declined to become one of the “worst autocratizers,” according to the ‘Democracy Report 2024’ by the Gothenburg-based V-Dem (or Varieties of Democracy) Institute.

    Key highlights on India

    • Deteriorating Status: India, previously downgraded to an electoral autocracy in 2018, has further declined to become “one of the worst autocratizers.”
    • Historical Comparison: India’s level of “liberal democracy” has regressed significantly, reaching levels last seen in 1975 during the state of emergency declared by Indira Gandhi.
    • Regime Classification: India falls into the category of electoral autocracy, characterized by multiparty elections alongside insufficient levels of freedom of expression and fair elections.
    • Erosion of Democratic Freedoms: The report highlights the gradual deterioration of freedom of expression, media independence, and attacks on civil society under the current government.

    About the V-Dem Democracy Report

    • Publication: The V-Dem Institute releases the Democracy Report annually, offering insights into the state of democracy worldwide, focusing on democratization and autocratization.
    • Regime Classification: Countries are categorized into four regime types based on their scores in the Liberal Democratic Index (LDI), encompassing a spectrum from liberal democracy to closed autocracy.

    What is Liberal Democratic Index (LDI)?

    • Comprehensive Assessment: The LDI evaluates both liberal (individual and minority rights) and electoral aspects (free and fair elections) of democracy.
    • Indicators: It comprises 71 indicators, encompassing the Liberal Component Index (LCI) and the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI), capturing various dimensions of democratic governance.
      1. LCI: Measures aspects like protection of individual liberties and legislative constraints on the executive.
      2. EDI: Considers indicators ensuring free and fair elections such as freedom of expression and association.
    • Components of the LDI include:
    1. Egalitarian Component Index: Assesses the extent of equality among different social groups within a democracy.
    2. Participatory Component Index: Evaluates the health of citizen groups and civil society organizations, indicating the degree of citizen engagement.
    3. Deliberative Component Index: Gauges whether political decisions are driven by public reasoning focused on the common good or influenced by emotional appeals, solidarity attachments, or coercion.
    4. Publication Schedule: The Democracy Report is typically published annually in March, presenting a comprehensive analysis of global democratic trends.

    Key Findings from the Democracy Report 2024:

    • Collaborative Effort: The report is a collaborative endeavour involving 4,200 scholars from 180 countries, leveraging 31 million datasets spanning from 1789 to 2023 to assess the democratic status of 202 countries.
    • Global Trends:
    1. Autocratization: In 2023, 42 countries, representing 35% of the world’s population, were undergoing autocratization.
    2. Population in Autocracies: Currently, 71% of the world’s population, amounting to 5.7 billion people, resides in autocracies, marking a significant increase from 48% a decade ago.
    3. Decline in Democracy: The level of democracy experienced by the average individual globally has regressed to 1985 levels, with Eastern Europe, South, and Central Asia experiencing the sharpest declines.

  • Centre notifies Implementation of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules

    In the news

    • Just days ahead of the announcement of Lok Sabha election, the Union Home Ministry notified the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024.
    • This would now enable the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed by Parliament in 2019.

    Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019: Key Provisions

    • Basic idea: CAA, 2019, aims to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, to grant Indian citizenship to specific categories of illegal migrants.
    • Eligible Religions: CAA targets Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, making them eligible for Indian citizenship.
    • Objective: The primary objective is to facilitate citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from India’s three Muslim-majority neighboring countries.
    • Residence Requirement: The Citizenship Act, 1955, normally requires 11 of the previous 14 years of residence in India as a condition for naturalization.
    • Amendment: CAA reduces this requirement to 6 years for applicants belonging to the specified religions and countries.
    • Exemption from Criminal Cases: Members of the designated communities are exempted from criminal cases under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1920, if they entered India before December 31, 2014.

    Defining Illegal Migrants

    • Status under Present Laws: Existing laws prohibit illegal migrants from acquiring Indian citizenship.
    • CAA’s Definition: CAA classifies an illegal migrant as a foreigner who enters India without valid travel documents (passport and visa) or overstays beyond the allowed period.
    • Penalties: Illegal migrants can face imprisonment or deportation under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

    Exceptions under CAA

    • Conditions for Exemption: CAA outlines four conditions that, if met, exempt certain individuals from being treated as illegal migrants:
      1. They belong to the specified religions (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian).
      2. They hail from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
      3. They entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
      4. They are not in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura (Sixth Schedule) or “Inner Line” permit areas (Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland).

    Controversies Surrounding CAA

    • Country of Origin: CAA categorizes migrants based on their country of origin, specifically Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
    • Religious Exclusivity: It raises questions about why only six specified religious minorities have been considered in the Act.
    • Omission of Rohingya: The Act doesn’t address the Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, who have faced persecution.
    • Entry Date Differentiation: The differential treatment of migrants based on their entry date, i.e., before or after December 31, 2014, has generated debate.
    • Secularism Concerns: Critics argue that granting citizenship based on religion contradicts the secular principles of India’s Constitution, considered part of the unalterable basic structure.

    Constitutionality Check

    • The challenge may rest primarily on the grounds that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees that no person shall be denied the right to equality before law or the equal protection of law in the territory of India.
    • The Supreme Court has developed a Two-Pronged Test to examine a law on the grounds of Article 14.
    1. First, any differentiation between groups of persons must be founded on “intelligible differentia”
    2. Second, differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act
    • Simply put, for a law to satisfy the conditions under Article 14, it has to first create a “reasonable class” of subjects that it seeks to govern under the law.
    • Even if the classification is reasonable, any person who falls in that category has to be treated alike.

    Impact on Assam and Assam Accord

    • Intersection with Section 6A: The CAA intersects with Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, which determines citizenship criteria in Assam.
    • Assam Accord: Section 6A, linked to the Assam Accord, sets criteria for determining citizenship in Assam, posing potential conflicts with the CAA’s provisions.
    • Base Cut-off Date and Regularization: The Assam Accord establishes a base cut-off date for identifying and regularizing foreigners in Assam, impacting the implementation of the CAA in the state.

    Way forward

    • India is a constitutional democracy with a basic structure that assures a secure and spacious home for all Indians.
    • Being partitioned on religious grounds, India has to undertake a balancing act to protect the religious minorities in its neighbourhood.
    • These minorities are under constant threat of persecution and vandalism.
    • India needs to balance its civilization duties to protect those who are prosecuted in the neighbourhood.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2021:

    Q.With reference to India, consider the following statements:​

    1. There is only one citizenship and one domicile.​
    2. A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.​
    3. A foreigner once granted the citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.​

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?​

    (a) 1 only ​

    (b) 2 only​

    (c) 1 and 3 ​

    (s) 2 and 3​

  • [11 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: France’s exceptional women, their imprint on diplomacy

    [11 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: France’s exceptional women, their imprint on diplomacy

    PYQ Relevance:
    Mains:
    1. Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Right to Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India. (UPSC CSE 2021)

    2. ‘Women’s movement in India has not addressed the issues of women of lower social strata.’ Substantiate your view. (UPSC CSE 2018)nt in the formal sector of the Indian economy? Is increased informalization detrimental to the development of the country? [UPSC CSE 2016]
    From The Hindu

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Social Issues and Justice; Women Issues;

    Prelims: Women’s rights in the Indian Constitution;

    Mentor comments: France became the first country to enshrine the freedom of women to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy in its Constitution. This decision is rooted in the groundbreaking work of French feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir, who in 1949 published “The Second Sex,” a philosophical work advocating for women’s right to choose and challenging societal norms around motherhood and abortion. Secondly, France’s commitment to women’s rights is reflected in its feminist foreign policy, advocating for gender equality globally. Through this Article, we need to study the collaboration between France and India that holds great potential to further advance women’s rights on a global scale, building on their shared commitments to gender equality and empowerment.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    On March 4, 2024, France became the first country to enshrine the “freedom of women to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy” in its Constitution, marking a historic moment that sends a universal message of solidarity to women worldwide.

    What is the recent groundbreaking Work on Women’s Rights in France?

    Legalization of Abortion in France: The constitutional amendment aims to safeguard abortion access amidst global threats and challenges to reproductive health rights. This step is crucial for ensuring autonomy and informed decision-making regarding sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.

    • Women’s right to choose: Simone de Beauvoir (1949), in her “The Second Sex,”(seminal work in feminist philosophy) challenged traditional views of women as solely mothers and caregivers, advocating for women’s right to choose.
    • Right to abortion: Simone de Beauvoir highlighted the need for free, safe, and legal abortion services to empower women in controlling their destinies. On this background, France recently enshrined the right to abortion in its constitution, a historic move to protect reproductive rights.

    What are the major two criticisms and challenges ahead?

    • Prevalent inequalities: Despite progress, France still faces barriers to abortion care and other women’s rights issues like violence and discrimination.
    • On setting priorities: The move has sparked debates about the government’s priorities and the actual accessibility of abortion services for all French women.
    What other rights are protected by the French constitution?
    The French Constitution protects a range of rights beyond the recent inclusion of the right to abortion.

    1. Safeguarding individual liberties: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a foundational document in French constitutional history, outlines key rights and principles.
    – These include the recognition that all men are born free and equal in rights, with social distinctions based only on public utility.
    – The aim of political associations is to preserve the natural and inalienable rights of man, which encompass liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression

    2. Promoting equality: The French Constitution emphasizes equality before the law for all citizens without distinction and guarantees fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, and opinion.

    3. Ensuring accountability: It establishes the right to property as inviolable unless public necessity requires its deprivation with just compensation.

    Additionally, the Constitution ensures that public taxes are equally apportioned among citizens according to their means and that society has the right to hold public agents accountable for their actions.

    What is France’s Commitment on feminist foreign policy?

    • France champions a feminist foreign policy, prioritizing gender equality and women’s rights in its diplomatic efforts.
    • The country integrates gender perspectives into bilateral relations, development aid, and advocacy at international forums.
    • France’s co-chairing of the Generation Equality Forum in 2021 underscores its dedication to advancing women’s rights globally.

    Impacts of such decisions:

    • Global Impact and Scenario:
      • France’s decision sets a precedent globally, emphasizing the importance of securing reproductive rights as fundamental freedoms.
      • The amendment reflects a broader international focus on advancing women’s rights and addressing gender disparities worldwide.
    • Indian Scenario:
      • India has a history of supporting women’s rights internationally, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 5 and participating in initiatives for Gender Equality.
      • India’s recent membership in the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women highlights its commitment to promoting gender equality on a global scale.

    Conclusion

    At a moment when women’s rights are under threat in many regions of the world, this decision also sends out a universal message of solidarity to women across the globe.

    • Learnings and Collaborative Potential:
      • There is significant potential for France and India to collaborate on advancing women’s rights worldwide through joint initiatives and partnerships.
      • By leveraging their shared values and commitments to gender equality, France and India can amplify their impact on promoting women’s empowerment and rights internationally.

    References

    https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/frances-exceptional-women-their-imprint-on-diplomacy/article67936231.ece

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/05/france-protects-abortion-guaranteed-freedom-constitution

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-abortion-right-constitution-international-womens-day-rcna142406

    https://www.thecollector.com/simone-de-beauvoir-and-feminism-contributions-and-controversies/

  • France enshrines Right to Abortion in Constitution

    abortion

    In the news

    • France’s historic decision to enshrine the right to abortion in its constitution marks a pivotal moment in the global struggle for women’s reproductive rights.
    • Against the backdrop of International Women’s Day, this groundbreaking amendment underscores France’s commitment to upholding women’s autonomy and healthcare choices.

    Debate:

    1. Right to ‘Bodily Autonomy’ of Women is paramount.
    2. ‘Right to Life’ of the foetus is paramount.

    France’s constitutional council previously upheld abortion rights based on the notion of Liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.

    Why discuss this?

    • The legislative journey leading to this transformative reform and its implications resonate far beyond France’s borders, resonating with ongoing debates on reproductive rights worldwide.

    Abortion in France: Legislative Progression

    • National Assembly and Senate Approval: Initially passed by the National Assembly in January, the amendment received unanimous support from the Senate last week, culminating in a joint parliamentary session for final ratification.
    • Bipartisan Consensus: With an overwhelming majority of legislators voting in favor, the reform underscores broad bipartisan consensus on safeguarding women’s reproductive freedoms.
    • Constitutional Modification: The amendment elevates abortion from a statutory right to a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, solidifying its legal protection against potential legislative changes.

    Amendment Provisions

    • Constitutional Revision: The amendment revises Article 34 of the French constitution, stipulating that women’s freedom to terminate pregnancies is constitutionally guaranteed.
    • Preservation of Existing Rights: By mandating that future legislation uphold existing abortion laws, the amendment ensures continuity and stability in reproductive healthcare policies.
    • Global Context: Acknowledging global trends of encroachment on abortion rights, the legislation reaffirms France’s commitment to resisting regressive measures that curtail women’s autonomy.

    Global Implications

    • Unprecedented Precedent: France becomes the first nation to embed abortion rights in its constitution, setting a groundbreaking precedent for global reproductive justice movements.
    • European Landscape: Amidst escalating efforts to restrict abortion access in some European countries, France’s bold initiative offers a beacon of hope and inspiration for defenders of reproductive rights across the continent.
    • European Charter of Fundamental Rights: The amendment’s resonance with fundamental rights principles may catalyze broader efforts to incorporate abortion protections into the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    Public Reception and Political Landscape

    • Public Support: Reflecting widespread public sentiment, opinion polls indicate overwhelming support for constitutionalizing abortion rights, with 81% of respondents endorsing the reform.
    • Political Consensus: Unlike the polarized discourse on abortion in some countries, France’s political spectrum exhibits remarkable unity in upholding women’s reproductive autonomy.
    • Criticism and Allegations: While critics decry the reform as a political maneuver by President Macron to court left-leaning factions, its substantive impact on women’s rights remains undeniable.

    Global Abortion Landscape

    • European Context: Against the backdrop of escalating abortion restrictions in some European nations, France’s progressive stance contrasts starkly with regressive measures adopted elsewhere.
    • Global Reverberations: France’s pioneering initiative may reverberate globally, emboldening movements to advance abortion rights and combat legislative regressions worldwide.

    India’s Abortion Policies

    • Legal Framework: India implemented the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in 1971, allowing abortions under specific conditions up to 20 weeks, with recent amendments extending the limit to 24 weeks in certain cases.
    • Recent Amendments: The 2021 amendment extends the permissible gestational limit for abortions and streamlines the approval process for certain categories of pregnancies.
    • Continued Advocacy: While India’s legal framework for abortion is comparatively progressive, ongoing advocacy efforts seek to further enhance access to safe and legal abortion services nationwide.

    Pregnancy Laws in India:

     

    • The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, enacted on April 1, 1972, applied to all of India except Jammu and Kashmir.
    • Section 312 of IPC Code, 1860, criminalizes voluntarily causing miscarriage, even with the pregnant woman’s consent, except to save her life, leading to potential prosecution for abortion.
    • The MTP Act, 1971, permitted pregnancy termination in two stages:
    • Up to 12 weeks after conception, abortion required a single doctor’s opinion.
    • Between 12 to 20 weeks, two doctors’ opinions determined if continuing the pregnancy posed risks to the woman’s life or mental/physical health or if the child would be seriously handicapped.

    Amendments in 2021:

    • The law now allows abortions up to 20 weeks based on one doctor’s advice.
    • For pregnancies between 20 to 24 weeks, two doctors’ opinions are needed.
    • Specific categories eligible for termination under section 3B of the MTP Act rules include survivors of sexual assault, minors, marital status changes, physically disabled women, mentally ill women, foetuses with severe abnormalities, and pregnancies in humanitarian settings.

    Conclusion

    • By embedding abortion rights within its constitutional fabric, France sets a transformative precedent for advancing women’s autonomy and healthcare choices worldwide.
    • As the international community grapples with escalating threats to reproductive rights, France’s bold stance offers a beacon of hope and solidarity for women everywhere, underscoring the imperative of safeguarding reproductive freedoms as fundamental human rights.

  • Sudha Murthy nominated to Rajya Sabha

    sudha murthy

    What is the news?

    • Noted author and philanthropist Sudha Murthy has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India on International Women’s Day.

    Nominated Members to Rajya Sabha

    • 12 members are nominated to the RS by the President of India for six-year term.
    • This is for their contributions towards arts, literature, sciences, and social services.
    • This right has been bestowed upon the President according to the Fourth Schedule under Articles 4(1) and 80(2) of the Constitution of India.

    Normal composition

    • The present strength is 245 members of whom 233 are representatives of the states and UTs and 12 are nominated by the President.
    • The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution; one-third of its members retire every second year.

    Constitutional provisions for nominated members

    • 80(1)(a) of the Constitution of India makes provision for the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India under provisions of Article 80(3).
    • 80(3) says that the persons to be nominated as members must possess special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following namely: Literature, science, art and social service.

    Powers and privileges of such members

    • A nominated member enjoys all the powers and privileges and immunities available to an elected Member of Parliament.
    • They take part in the proceedings of the House as any other member.
    • Nominated members are however not entitled to vote in an election of the President of India.
    • They however have rights to vote in the vice presidential election.
    • As per Article 99 of the Constitution, a nominated member is allowed six months’ time should he join a political party.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2013:

    Consider the following statements:

    1. The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are not the members of that House.
    2. While the nominated members of the two Houses of the Parliament have no voting right in the presidential election, they have the right to vote in the election of the Vice President.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”biuh1wymo0″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]