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

In the news

• In a noteworthy observation, Justice Anita Sumanth of the Madras High Court delved into the complex interplay between caste, societal benefits, and historical contexts while addressing quo warranto pleas against three lawmakers.
• Her remarks shed light on the multifaceted nature of caste dynamics in contemporary Tamil Nadu.

Quo Warranto: A Writ Jurisdiction   Definition: This legal remedy allows the court to investigate the legality of an individual’s claim to a public office, preventing unauthorized individuals from unlawfully occupying such positions. Scope: It applies to substantive public offices of a permanent nature established by statute or the Constitution, excluding ministerial or private roles. Applicability: Unlike other writs, Quo Warranto can be sought by any interested party, not limited to the aggrieved party.   Constitutional Provisions   Authority: The power to issue writs, including Quo Warranto, was bestowed upon the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) by the Constitution. Objective: Quo Warranto aims to halt usurpers from wrongfully holding public office and exercising its privileges without lawful authority.   Conditions for Issuing Quo Warranto   Public Office: The office in question must be public, established by law or the Constitution. Permanent Tenure: It should entail permanent tenure not subject to arbitrary termination. Actual Possession: The individual against whom the writ is sought must have the office and actively utilizing its powers. Disqualification: Quo Warranto can also be issued if a disqualified individual continues to hold the office illegally.   Circumstances for Refusal   Ineffectiveness: The court may refuse to grant Quo Warranto if its intervention would not alter the outcome or if the situation is deemed inconsequential. Non-public Office: If the office in question is private, the writ cannot be issued.   Landmark Judgments   Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha vs. Dr. D Rama (1954): The court declined to issue the writ against a private entity, emphasizing its inapplicability to non-public offices. Niranjan Kumar Goenka vs. The University of Bihar, Muzzfarpur (1971): Established that Quo Warranto cannot be invoked against individuals not holding a public office.

 

Judicial Insights on Castes

• Caste and State Benefits: Justice Sumanth highlighted the nexus between caste-based divisions and state-provided benefits, suggesting that the fervour surrounding caste issues is fueled by socio-economic advantages conferred by the state on different caste groups.
• Historical Perspective: While acknowledging the prevalence of caste divisions in society, the judge emphasized that the present-day caste system is relatively recent, tracing its origins to less than a century ago, rather than being solely rooted in ancient Varna Dharma principles.
• Varna Dharma vs. Caste System: Drawing a distinction, Justice Sumanth elucidated that Varna Dharma, historically, delineated societal roles based on occupation rather than birth, contrasting it with the entrenched birth-based caste system prevalent today.

Societal Realities

• Cacophony of Castes: Tamil Nadu, with its 370 registered castes, witnesses a cacophony of societal pressures and pulls from various caste groups, reflecting the complexities of caste dynamics in the state.
• Benefits and Ferocity: The judge noted that the ferocity among different caste groups partly stems from the benefits accorded to them by the state, raising questions about the fairness and equity of resource distribution.

Key Recommendations

• Acknowledgment of Past Injustices: While refraining from detailing past atrocities, the judge emphasized the need for acknowledging and deprecating historical injustices, calling for ongoing efforts towards repair and damage control.
• Forward-looking Approach: Justice Sumanth advocated for sincere introspection among lawmakers to evolve methods for correcting injustices and fostering equality in the present and future.

Conclusion

• In her nuanced reflections, Justice Sumanth highlighted the need for a holistic approach towards addressing caste-related issues.
• She emphasized the importance of societal introspection, equitable resource distribution, and leadership accountability in fostering a more inclusive and just society.

In the news

• A shutdown and protest rally in Ladakh recently demanded statehood for the newly created Union Territory (UT) and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
• This highlights a broader issue concerning governance and autonomy in the region.

Centre’s Offer to Ladakh Representatives

• Article 371-like Protections: MHA offered to extend Article 371-like protections to Ladakh, addressing concerns raised by the Leh Apex Body (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA).
• Exclusion from Sixth Schedule: While acknowledging concerns, the government opts against including Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule, indicating a different approach to address regional issues.

Background: Ladakh’s Governance Post Article 370 Repeal

• Recognition as Union Territory: Post the repeal of Article 370, Ladakh was recognized as a separate Union Territory “without legislature,” akin to UTs like New Delhi and Pondicherry.
• Demand for Sixth Schedule Inclusion: Organizations like ABL and KDA have advocated for Ladakh’s inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, seeking greater autonomy in governance.

What is the Sixth Schedule?

• Article 244 in Part X of the Constitution outlines a special system of administration for designated ‘scheduled areas’ and ‘tribal areas.’
• The Fifth Schedule deals with scheduled areas and tribes in states except Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram (ATM2).
• The Sixth Schedule focuses on tribal areas in these four northeastern states.

Salient Features of Sixth Schedule:

(1) Autonomous Districts

• Tribal areas are constituted as autonomous districts within the executive authority of the state.
• The governor holds powers to organize and re-organize these districts, including boundary changes and division into autonomous regions.

(2) District and Regional Councils:

• Each district council consists of 30 members, including nominated and elected
• Regional councils also exist within autonomous regions.
• These councils administer areas under their jurisdiction, making laws on specific matters with the governor’s assent.
• They can establish village councils or courts for dispute resolution, with specified jurisdiction over appeals.
• District councils manage various facilities and services within their areas, including education and healthcare.
• They also have the authority to impose taxes and regulate certain activities.

(3) Laws Exemptions and Modifications:

• Acts of Parliament or state legislatures may not apply directly or may apply with modifications.
• The president or governor holds the power of direction in this regard, depending on the region.

(4) Governor’s Authority:

• The governor may appoint a commission to examine and report on matters concerning autonomous districts or regions.
• He/she also has the authority to dissolve a district or regional council based on commission recommendations.

Tribal Areas under Sixth Schedule

• Assam: North Cachar Hills District, Karbi Anglong District, Bodoland Territorial Areas District.
• Meghalaya: Khasi Hills District, Jaintia Hills District, Garo Hills District.
• Tripura: Tripura Tribal Areas District.
• Mizoram: Chakma District, Mara District, Lai District.

Reasons for such Demands in Ladakh

• Cultural Autonomy: Tribes in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram maintain distinct cultures, customs, and civilizations. Unlike tribes in other parts of India, they have not assimilated much with the majority population.
• Meeting tribal aspiration: The Parliamentary standing committee recommended including of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule because its tribal communities account for 79.61% of its total population.
• Autonomy and self-governance: Extending the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh could provide greater autonomy and self-governance to the local tribal communities.
• Cultural preservation: It could also help to protect the unique cultural identity of the local communities and preserve their traditional practices and customs.

Challenges posed by this demand

• Fragmentation: The demand to extend the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh has faced some opposition from certain quarters, who argue that it could lead to further fragmentation of the region and create new administrative challenges.
• Losing political capital: There are also concerns over the potential impact of the demand on the political and administrative structure of the region.

Conclusion

• While stopping short of Sixth Schedule inclusion, MHA’s move demonstrates a commitment to balancing local autonomy with national governance priorities.
• If implemented, it would mark the first instance of special provisions being introduced for a Union Territory, potentially setting a precedent for future governance arrangements in such regions.

---

Try this PYQ from CSE Prelim 2015:

Q.The provisions in the Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution of India are made to:

(a) Protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes

(b) Determine the boundaries between states

(c) Determine the powers, authorities, and responsibilities of Panchayats

(d) Protect the interests of all the Border States

In the news

• The Supreme Court is set to decide if legislators (MPs and MLAs) enjoy immunity from bribery charges in connection with votes made in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

Legislators Immunity: Background and Context

• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 194(2) (for MLAs) and 105(2) (MPs) of the Constitution grant legislators immunity from legal proceedings concerning their speeches and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
• P.V. Narasimha Case: In 1998, the Supreme Court upheld this immunity in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE), ruling that legislators are shielded from criminal prosecution for bribery linked to their parliamentary actions.

Reasons for Reconsideration

• Sita Soren’s Case: The appeal by JMM MLA Sita Soren, accused of accepting bribes during Rajya Sabha elections, prompted a reevaluation of the Narasimha verdict.
• Interpretation Issues: Concerns were raised about the broad interpretation of immunity and its implications for combating bribery in legislative bodies.

Arguments Supporting Immunity

• Absolute Protection: Advocates contend that legislators enjoy complete immunity from legal action under constitutional provisions. They argue that the Speaker holds authority to address moral infractions through expulsion.
• Interpretation of Articles: The dissenting opinion in Narasimha sought to narrow the scope of immunity, but proponents stress adherence to the literal interpretation of constitutional language.

Arguments against

• Completion of Offence: Critics argue that the offence of bribery is consummated upon acceptance of the bribe, irrespective of subsequent actions. They advocate holding legislators accountable from the moment the bribe is accepted.
• Legitimate Legislative Actions: Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate actions, advocates assert that actions stemming from criminal conduct, such as vote-buying, should not be shielded by immunity.

Legal Interpretation and Statutory Compliance

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Critics highlight inconsistencies between the Narasimha ruling and the provisions of the PCA, emphasizing the need for alignment with anti-corruption legislation.
• Intent and Performance: Solicitor General Mehta underscored the disconnect between the Narasimha verdict and the intent of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly regarding the timing of criminal liability.

P.V. Narasimha Case (1998) Analogy Judgement protects bribe-takers after there is “performance” (a speech or vote is given based on the bribe), even though Section 7 of the PCA specifically punishes public servants who accept bribes “to” or “as a reward for” performing their public duty improperly or dishonestly.

Way Forward

• Balancing Integrity and Immunity: The court’s ruling will determine the delicate balance between upholding legislative immunity and ensuring accountability for criminal acts.
• Interpretative Scrutiny: A nuanced interpretation of constitutional provisions is essential to address the evolving complexities of legislative conduct and accountability.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on legislators’ immunity from bribery charges holds significant ramifications for India’s legal landscape.
• Balancing constitutional provisions, legislative intent, and anti-corruption imperatives, the court’s ruling will shape the accountability framework for lawmakers and the integrity of the legislative process.

In the news

• The Karnataka government’s recent move to amend the law governing the taxation of Hindu temples sparked significant debate and controversy.
• It aims to overhaul the existing framework, particularly in terms of income allocation and management.

Proposed Changes in Temple Taxation

The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 aimed to modify several provisions in the existing law:

• Income Allocation: The proposed change sought to divert 10% of the gross income of temples earning over Rs 1 crore annually to a common pool for temple maintenance. Section 19 of the Act outlines the purposes for which the common fund may be utilized, including religious studies, temple maintenance, and charitable causes.
• Shift in Calculation: This change would shift from the previous norm of allocating 10% of the net income of temples with earnings over Rs 10 lakh annually.
• Dedicated Common Pool: Additionally, 5% of the income of temples earning between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 1 crore annually would have been dedicated to the common pool.
• Priests Welfare: The Congress government proposed utilizing the enhanced funds to support lower-income temples, provide assistance to ailing priests, and offer scholarships to priests’ families.

Additional Amendments Proposed:

• Committee of Management: The Bill proposed including a member skilled in Vishwakarma Hindu temple architecture and sculpture within the committee of management for temples.
• Authority of Rajya Dharmika Parishat: It granted the Rajya Dharmika Parishat the power to appoint the chairman of temple management committees.
• Infrastructure Oversight: The Bill mandated the creation of district-level and state high-level committees to oversee infrastructural projects facilitating temple pilgrimage.

Criticism and Opposition

• Interference into Religious Matters: BJP leaders accused the government of attempting to “rob” Hindu temples and questioned the selective targeting of Hindu institutions.
• Questioning Motives: Concerns were raised regarding the selective taxation of Hindu temples, prompting questions about the government’s intentions.

Constitutional Insights into the Issue   The proposed Bill, which aimed to divert a percentage of temple income to a common pool, raised concerns about government interference in temple finances, potentially infringing on these constitutional rights under: Article 25: Ensures individuals’ freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 26: Grants religious denominations autonomy to manage their religious affairs and establish institutions for religious and charitable purposes.

Comparison with Other States

• Telangana’s Model: Similar to Karnataka, Telangana also mandates temple contributions towards a common good fund, utilized for temple maintenance and related expenses.
• Kerala’s Devaswom Boards: Kerala’s temples are managed by state-run Devaswom Boards, each with its own budget and administrative laws, overseen by government-appointed nominees.

Issues with the Bill

• Government Interference: The appointment of members from Hindu and other religions to temple management committees raises concerns about state involvement in temple affairs.
• Contradiction to Secularism: Perceived as contradicting the principle of secularism advocating for a separation of religion and state involvement in religious matters.
• Conflict with Autonomy: Opposition to the diversion of temple income for a common pool fund highlights concerns about encroachment on religious autonomy and financial mismanagement by the state.

Conclusion

• The Karnataka temple bill controversy underscores the complex interplay between governance, religion, and finance.
• While intended reforms aimed to enhance temple infrastructure and support, differing interpretations and political alignments led to its rejection.
• As states grapple with temple management, a balance between tradition, governance, and public welfare remains a constant challenge.

---

Try this Question from CS Mains 2018:

Q.How the Indian concept of secularism different from the western model of secularism? Discuss. (10)

 

[wpdiscuz-feedback id=”ba3uieqcag” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your responses here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

Introduction

• Against the backdrop of significant judicial pronouncements, including recent decisions on the electoral bond scheme and the Aadhaar Act, the Supreme Court grapples with a pivotal question: the delineation of a money Bill.

Why discuss this?

• The ongoing examination before a seven-judge constitution bench highlights the crucial need to define the scope of a money Bill and its broader implications.
• This issue carries substantial weight for legislative efficiency and constitutional adherence.

What are Money Bills?

	Description
About	A financial legislation exclusively dealing with revenue, taxation, government expenditures, and borrowing.
Constitutional Basis	Article 109: Specifies special procedure for Money Bills. Article 110(1): Specifies matters related to taxation, borrowing, and appropriation of funds. Article 110(3): Grants the Speaker of the Lok Sabha the final decision on whether a bill qualifies as a Money Bill.
Procedure	Introduction in Lok Sabha with the President’s recommendation. Consideration and passage in Lok Sabha. Transmission to Rajya Sabha for recommendations (no amendments). Return to Lok Sabha for consideration of recommendations. Acceptance or rejection of recommendations by Lok Sabha. Assent by the President without the power to return for reconsideration.
Criteria for a Money Bill	Imposition, abolition, or regulation of taxes. Regulation of borrowing or giving guarantees by the Government of India. Custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India. Appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund of India. Declaration of any expenditure as expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Receipt of money into or out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India. Any matter incidental to the specified criteria.
Decision Authority	Speaker of the Lok Sabha has the final decision on whether a bill qualifies as a Money Bill.
President’s Role	President can either accept or reject a Money Bill but cannot return it for reconsideration.
Joint Sitting	No provision for Joint sitting for the passage such Bill.

 

Key Legal Precedents

[1] Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) Amendments:

• Amendments introduced since 2015 to the PMLA expanded the Enforcement Directorate’s powers, triggering concerns over their passage as Money Bills.
• Critics argue that such significant alterations should have undergone standard parliamentary scrutiny involving both houses.

[2] Finance Act of 2017:

• The Finance Act of 2017, designated as a Money Bill, attracted scrutiny for purportedly aiming to reshape appointments to 19 crucial judicial tribunals.
• Allegations surfaced suggesting a deliberate manoeuvre to enhance executive authority over these tribunals by categorizing the Act as a Money Bill.
• Additionally, changes within the Act relaxed qualifications and experience prerequisites for staffing these pivotal judicial entities, raising concerns of dilution.

[3] Aadhaar Act, 2016:

• The Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling upheld the validity of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill, despite lingering legal and procedural uncertainties.
• The government’s argument hinged on the Act’s nexus to subsidies disbursed from the Consolidated Fund of India, justifying its classification as a Money Bill.
• However, the verdict prompted calls for a comprehensive reevaluation, reflecting lingering doubts over the Act’s classification and its implications for parliamentary oversight.

Legal Implications  

• Parliamentary Bypass: By categorizing crucial amendments as Money Bills, the standard legislative process involving both houses of Parliament is bypassed, limiting comprehensive scrutiny and deliberation.
• Eroding Rajya Sabha Scrutiny: Critics argue that such amendments, which often encompass far-reaching implications, should undergo thorough examination and debate in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
• Hasty Lawmaking: Designating important legislations as Money Bills undermines the role of the Rajya Sabha, curtailing its authority in the lawmaking process.
• Against Democratic-Ethos: This erosion of parliamentary oversight raises concerns about the equitable distribution of legislative power and the preservation of democratic principles.
• Lack of Judicial Scrutiny: The judiciary plays a crucial role in adjudicating the legality and constitutional conformity of categorizing amendments as Money Bills.

Future Prospects

• Impending Legal Clarity: The anticipated verdict by the seven-judge bench holds the potential to reshape legislative dynamics, potentially paving the way for renewed challenges against contentious enactments.
• Judicial Review: The judiciary’s vigilance in scrutinizing the validity of money Bills underscores its commitment to upholding constitutional principles and safeguarding legislative integrity.
• Democratic Accountability: The evolving jurisprudence surrounding money Bills epitomizes the judiciary’s role in navigating complex constitutional nuances, ensuring robust legislative frameworks and institutional accountability.

Conclusion

• As the legal saga unfolds, the apex court’s forthcoming pronouncement holds profound implications for India’s legislative landscape and institutional accountability, heralding a new chapter in the nation’s constitutional journey.

---

Try this PYQ:

Q. Regarding the Money Bill, which of the following statements is not correct? (CSP 2018)

(a) A bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions relating to the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax.

(b) A Money Bill has provisions for the custody of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Contingency Fund of India.

(c) A Money Bill is concerned with the appropriation of money out of the Contingency Fund of India.

(d) A Money Bill deals with the regulation of borrowing of money or giving of any guarantee by the Government of India.

 

[wpdiscuz-feedback id=”qt8pwrsy49″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]