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

  • What is the debate around ‘one nation, one election’?

    What’s the news?

    • The government forms a committee to explore the possibility of One Nation, One Election.

    Central idea

    • On September 1st, the Central government established a committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind to assess the viability of the ‘one nation, one election’ (ONOE) proposal. This concept revolves around synchronizing the timing of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections across all states to reduce the frequency of electoral processes across the country.

    What is the ONOE plan?

    • Concept: The ONOE plan aims to synchronize the timing of the Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections across all states in India to reduce the frequency of election cycles nationwide.
    • Historical Context:
      • After the enforcement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950, the first-ever general elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies occurred simultaneously in 1951-1952.
      • This practice continued for the following three Lok Sabha elections until 1967, streamlining the election process.
    • Disruption:
      • In 1959, the cycle was disrupted as the Central government invoked Article 356 of the Constitution, leading to the dismissal of the Kerala government, due to a perceived failure of constitutional machinery.
      • Subsequent to 1960, defections and counter-defections among political parties led to the dissolution of several State Legislative Assemblies.
      • This fragmentation resulted in separate election cycles for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
    • Current Scenario: Presently, only specific States such as Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha conduct their assembly polls concurrently with the Lok Sabha elections.

    Reports and Perspectives on ONOE

    • Law Commission of India (LCI) Report – 2018:
    • The LCI, led by Justice B. S. Chauhan, issued a draft report in August 2018 that scrutinized simultaneous elections.
    • The report acknowledged the constitutional and legal complexities surrounding this proposal.
    • It emphasized that the current constitutional framework necessitates amendments for the plan to be realized.
    • The LCI also recommended seeking approval from at least 50% of the States for such an overhaul.
    • Despite feasibility challenges, the report recognized potential benefits, including cost savings, reduced administrative burden, timely policy execution, and focused governance.
    • Historical Context – LCI Report 1999:
    • Notably, the LCI, headed by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, supported the concept of simultaneous elections as early as 1999.
    • This historical context underscores that the idea has been debated over time.
    • Balancing Perspectives:
    • The reports and perspectives reveal a dualistic landscape: ONOE offers advantages like efficient governance and reduced election strain, but it’s hampered by practical and constitutional complexities.
    • In assessing ONOE’s viability, the focus is on a well-rounded understanding that considers both the potential benefits and the intricate challenges.

    Concerns Regarding the One Nation, One Election Plan

    • Feasibility and Constitutional Implications:
      • The Constitution outlines fixed tenures (Article 83(2) and 172) for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, raising doubts about the feasibility of simultaneous elections.
      • The possibility of mid-term government collapse necessitates a clear mechanism for holding fresh elections or imposing the President’s rule.
    • Federalism and Conceptual Incompatibility:
      • ONOE seems to conflict with the federal structure, contradicting the idea of India as a Union of States (Article 1).
      • Altering this balance might affect the autonomy and authority of state governments.
    • Frequency, Accountability, and Blending of Issues:
      • Frequent elections allow citizens to address national and state issues separately, enhancing accountability.
      • ONOE’s merging of issues might dilute accountability mechanisms and lead to a less-focused governance approach.
    • Cost Misconceptions:
      • While the Central government highlights the substantial costs of frequent elections, critics argue that the actual expenses are not as massive.
      • The analysis questions whether the Election Commission’s expenditure of ₹8,000 crore over five years, amounting to ₹1,500 crore annually or ₹27 per voter per year, is a significant expense for maintaining India’s democratic pride.

    Way forward

    • Comprehensive Constitutional Review:
      • Engage legal experts to meticulously assess necessary constitutional amendments for ONOE.
      • Develop a contingency plan to handle midterm government collapses, ensuring stability and smooth transitions.
    • Balancing Federalism and Centralization:
      • Initiate dialogues with state governments to understand and address their concerns about centralization.
      • Craft a balanced framework that respects both federal principles and national electoral efficiency.
    • Hybrid Accountability Model:
      • Explore a hybrid approach that retains staggered elections for select states while implementing ONOE for others.
      • Maintain distinct accountability mechanisms for national and state issues, promoting effective governance.
    • Transparent Cost-Benefit Analysis:
      • Conduct an independent and transparent assessment of the costs and savings associated with ONOE.
      • Present factual data to address misconceptions and inform stakeholders about the financial implications.
    • Pilots and Gradual Implementation:
      • Begin ONOE implementation through pilot projects in a limited number of states.
      • Assess challenges, gather insights, and refine the approach before nationwide adoption.

    Conclusion

    • The proposal for one nation, one election envisions synchronizing Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections to curtail the frequency of polls. The Indian democracy’s complex dynamics and diverse contexts warrant a comprehensive assessment before implementing such a transformative change.

  • Mercy Petitions in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

    Central Idea

    • The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 seeks to replace the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and introduces significant changes to the mercy petition process for death sentence cases.
    • These changes impact core aspects like justiciability, time limits, and the execution process.

    Background on Mercy Petitions

    • The Constitution granted the President (Article 72) and Governor (Article 161) the power to grant pardons or commute sentences.
    • In the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maru Ram vs. Union of India (1981), it was established that the President must act based on the Council of Ministers’ advice in mercy petitions.

    New Mercy Petition Provision in BNSS

    • Under BNSS Section 473(1), convicts can file mercy petitions within 30 days after specific events.
    • Convicts can petition the President or Governor based on dismissal of appeals or confirmation of sentences.
    • For cases with multiple convicts, they all must file petitions within 60 days.

    Centre’s Role in Mercy Petitions

    • The Centre seeks the state government’s comments, reviews the case, and makes recommendations to the President within 60 days.
    • No time limit is specified for the President’s decision.

    Exclusion of Appeals against President’s Decision

    • BNSS Section 473(7) states that the President’s decisions on mercy petitions are final.
    • Courts cannot question or review the grounds for President’s pardons or commutations.
    • Unlike the Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India (2014) ruling that mandated a 14-day gap between the rejection of mercy petitions and execution, BNSS doesn’t mention such a provision.

    Delay in Mercy Petition Disposal

    • The Shatrughan Chauhan case highlighted the need to avoid undue delay in mercy petition disposal.
    • BNSS lacks a time limit for the President to decide mercy pleas.

    Conclusion

    • The proposed BNSS’s alterations to mercy petitions raise concerns about transparency, judicial review, and the protection of prisoners’ rights.
    • Balancing constitutional powers with timely justice remains a challenge in these proposed changes.

  • A progressive UCC must protect the child’s best interests

    Central Idea

    • In the backdrop of a potential UCC being brought to the fore during a special parliamentary session from September 18 to 22, 2023, it’s crucial to transcend the traditional discourse surrounding polygamy and divorce. The forthcoming UCC must delve deeper into issues beyond these and prioritize the well-being of children in custody.

    What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?

    • The UCC is a framework aimed at replacing personal laws based on religious customs and traditions with a unified set of civil laws applicable to all citizens of a country, regardless of their religion or background.
    • The goal of a UCC is to provide a common set of laws for matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, among others.
    • This unified code is intended to promote equality, justice, and uniformity in personal matters while respecting individual rights and cultural diversity.

    Reimagining child custody

    • The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, fundamentally prioritizes the child’s welfare when determining custody.
    • Within the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 asserts the father’s status as the natural guardian, followed by the mother. However, this distinction should not be interpreted as lifetime primacy but rather ‘in the absence of’ the father.
    • A more holistic UCC should move beyond this binary.

    Exploring Islamic Law

    • Intriguingly, custody under Islamic law centers on the child’s rights rather than the parents. The father’s custody right ranks sixth, following the mother, maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother, sister, maternal aunt, and paternal aunt.
    • Different schools of thought allocate custody at varying ages or events. Notably, the Hanafi school does not strip the mother of custody upon ceasing to be Muslim.
    • Such varied approaches provide a lens for crafting a comprehensive UCC.

    Nuanced Issues in Child Custody

    • Complexities Beyond Conventional Disputes:
      • Child custody disputes involve intricate challenges that go beyond the typical battles between fathers and mothers.
      • The complexities arise from scenarios involving biological parents’ rights after adoption and situations related to a biological father accused of rape.
    • Favoring biological parents over adoptive ones:
      • Courts are increasingly leaning towards granting custody to biological parents, often at the expense of adoptive parents.
      • The growing concern is that the child’s best interests might be overlooked in such cases.
    • Case of Custody to the Biological Father:
      • In a specific case where the Bombay High Court granted custody of an adopted child to the biological father.
      • This decision was made despite the biological father facing rape charges that led to the child’s birth.
    • Balancing Biological and Adoptive Rights:
      • The case underscores the importance of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) addressing the rights of both biological and adoptive parents.
      • The primary focus should be on the child’s well-being and best interests.
    • Biological Mother’s Situation:
      • Another case involves a 17-year-old biological mother who allegedly eloped with an accused rapist, resulting in the birth of a child.
      • Despite the biological mother’s subsequent marriage and decision to surrender the child for adoption, the High Court awarded custody to the biological father.
    • A Holistic Approach to Custody Decisions:
      • These instances highlight the need for custody decisions to consider not only legal aspects but also the child’s welfare and the well-being of all parties involved.
      • Advocates for the UCC to address such nuanced scenarios and ensure that custody decisions are guided by the principle of prioritizing the best interests of the child.

    Significance of a Progressive UCC

    • A Holistic Approach to Custody:
      • A progressive UCC goes beyond superficial changes, addressing custody beyond the father’s role.
      • It ensures the “best interests of the child” principle in custody disputes, balancing parental rights.
    • Balancing Biological and Adoptive Parents:
      • The UCC’s recognition of both biological and adoptive parents prevents favoring one over the other.
      • It prioritizes child welfare over parental status.
    • Reflecting on a Changing Society:
      • A progressive UCC adapts to evolving family dynamics and structures.
      • It caters to diverse familial arrangements, avoiding outdated norms.
    • Protection Against Discrimination:
      • The UCC safeguards individual rights, preventing discrimination based on religion, gender, or background.
      • It ensures equal treatment in family matters.
    • Empowering Children’s Interests:
      • The UCC’s child-centric approach minimizes the adverse effects of custody disputes on children.
      • It promotes a healthier environment for their growth.
    • Encouraging Equitable Gender Roles:
      • A progressive UCC challenges traditional gender roles, empowering individuals to make choices.
      • It dismantles biases, promoting gender equality.
    • Legal Clarity and Unity:
      • Uniform laws reduce legal complexities, providing clarity for the individuals involved.
      • They foster a sense of unity by treating all citizens equally.
    • Recognition of Modern Family Models:
      • LGBTQ+ relationships, single parenthood, and non-traditional families gain legal recognition.
      • The UCC acknowledges diverse family structures.
    • Enhancing Adoption and Surrogacy Regulations:
      • A progressive UCC offers comprehensive guidelines for adoption and surrogacy.
      • It safeguards the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved.

    Conclusion

    • As the horizon of legal reform broadens, a child-centric approach should be at the heart of the UCC. The UCC should not only evolve with changing societal dynamics but also serve as a testament to the nation’s commitment to nurturing the best interests of its children.

  • Appointing Election Commissioners: The government must not control the watchdog

    What’s the news?

    • The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, introduced in the Rajya Sabha on August 10, seeks to alter the control dynamics of the Election Commission (EC) by increasing political executive influence.

    Central idea

    • The proposed legislation establishes a Selection Committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a nominated Cabinet minister as its members. This change excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the committee and overturns a prior Supreme Court ruling.

    Background

    • To ensure the EC’s impartiality and independence in conducting free and fair elections, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India on March 2, established interim guidelines.
    • This mandates a three-member committee composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India for appointments.
    • The Court specified that this composition would remain until a corresponding law is passed by Parliament.

    Historical Context

    • The Constituent Assembly aimed to ensure the EC’s independence. B. R. Ambedkar stressed that elections must be conducted by an independent body separate from the government.
    • While the Constitution left legislative room for future parliamentary intervention, it was expected to uphold fairness and reason.

    Constitutional Provisions and Autonomy

    • Article 324 Authority: The Constitution assigns the Election Commission (EC) the crucial responsibility of Superintendence, direction, and control of elections, granting it the power to oversee and manage various aspects of the electoral process.
    • Composition Defined: Article 324, clause 2, outlines the composition of the EC, comprising the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and a determined number of other Election Commissioners (ECs) as determined by the President.
    • Autonomy Safeguarded:
    • Article 324(5) serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure the autonomy and independence of the EC. It stipulates that the removal process for the CEC mirrors the procedure applicable to a judge in the Supreme Court.
    • By mirroring the removal process of a Supreme Court judge, the Constitution seeks to shield the EC from arbitrary or partisan influences.
    • EC Member Removal: While the same level of security of tenure is not extended to other Election Commissioners, their removal remains contingent on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. This provision reflects the intent to uphold an EC that operates independently and free from external political pressures.
    • Precedent and Autonomy: The case of T N Seshan vs Union of India (1995) further establishes the notion that any removal of EC members must be grounded in intelligible and cogent considerations.

    Concerning Provisions of the Bill

    • Shift in Selection Committee Composition: The proposed bill introduces a new Selection Committee responsible for appointing the CEC and ECs. However, the composition of this committee excludes the CJI, a departure from established practices. This shift raises concerns about reduced judicial participation in the appointment process.
    • Quorum Dynamics and LoP’s Role: The bill sets a quorum requirement for the Selection Committee, consisting of two members – the Prime Minister and a Cabinet Minister. This setup potentially diminishes the Leader of the Opposition’s (LoP) role to a mere formality, impacting the balanced representation and input from all relevant stakeholders.
    • Consideration Beyond Search Committee Recommendations: Section 8(2) of the bill allows the Selection Committee to consider candidates not recommended by the Search Committee. This provision conflicts with the transparency objective set out in Section 8(1) and raises concerns about the potential for arbitrary appointments and favoritism.
    • Procedure Regulation and Lack of Transparency: Section 8(1) empowers the Selection Committee to regulate its own procedure. This provision introduces the possibility of an unregulated decision-making process lacking transparency and potentially leading to an opaque and subjective appointment process.

    Potential adverse impact of the bill

    • EC Autonomy Erosion: The proposed bill threatens to undermine the autonomy of the EC. The changes in the appointment process and composition of the SC could expose the EC to increased political influence, potentially compromising its impartiality.
    • Reduced Judicial Oversight: Exclusion of the CJI from the SC reduces judicial oversight in appointments. This could lead to a lack of checks and balances, eroding the credibility of the appointment process.
    • Executive Dominance: The quorum dynamics favoring the PM and CM could result in executive dominance over appointments. This could weaken the EC’s ability to function independently and impartially.
    • Impaired Democracy: If the EC’s autonomy and credibility are compromised, the democratic process itself could be undermined, with elections losing their impartiality and fairness.
    • Precedent from the Ashok Lavasa Case: The case of Ashok Lavasa, whose independent stance led to cases against his family members, illustrates the potential repercussions of dissenting voices within the EC. In the context of such cases, the proposed bill could further discourage independent decision-making within the EC, impacting its ability to operate freely.

    Way Forward

    • Reconsider Composition: Reevaluate the composition of the Selection Committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). Consider reintroducing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to ensure balanced participation and uphold checks and balances.
    • Balanced Quorum: Revise the quorum requirement of the Selection Committee to include the LoP as a full participant. This balanced representation will ensure a comprehensive decision-making process.
    • Transparency in Selection: Implement measures to maintain transparency in the appointment process. Avoid considering candidates not recommended by the Search Committee, preserving the fairness and credibility of appointments.
    • Clarity in Procedure: Establish clear and transparent procedures for the Selection Committee. Providing well-defined guidelines will ensure an objective and equitable appointment process.
    • Parliamentary Scrutiny: Subject any proposed changes to thorough scrutiny by the Parliament. A comprehensive debate involving various political parties will help ensure the legitimacy of the amendments.
    • Uphold Constitutional Values: Prioritize adherence to constitutional principles when considering changes to the appointment process. Upholding the autonomy and integrity of the EC is paramount.

    Conclusion

    • The CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, threatens the fundamental autonomy of the Election Commission. Upholding the EC’s independence is vital for maintaining the integrity of India’s democratic process and ensuring the equal representation of all citizens and political parties in elections.

  • What is Preventive Detention?

    Preventive Detention

    Central Idea

    • Ahead of a religious procession, a few people were taken into preventive custody (preventive detention) in Haryana.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    • Arrest occurs when an individual is charged with a crime.
    • Preventive Detention involves detaining individuals to prevent them from engaging in actions that could disrupt law and order, without them being charged with a specific crime.

    Preventive Detention in Indian Law

    • Detention without Magistrate’s Order: Police officers can arrest individuals without a magistrate’s order or warrant if they suspect potential criminal behavior.
    • Preventive Detention Law, 1950: This law permits arrest and detention if an individual’s freedom threatens national security, foreign relations, public interests, or the country’s well-being.
    • Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1968: UAPA empowers the state to imprison individuals who question Indian sovereignty territorially or belong to organizations declared illegal.

    Constitutional Safeguards and Exceptions:

    • Article 22(1) and 22(2): These constitutional provisions ensure that arrested persons are informed of the charges, can seek legal representation, and are presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.
    • Article 22(3): However, these safeguards do not apply to enemy aliens or persons arrested under specific laws for preventive detention.

    Preventive Detention Statistics

    • Increasing Trend: The NCRB report reveals a surge in preventive detentions, with over 24,500 individuals detained at the end of 2021 – the highest number since 2017.
    • National Security Act (NSA): Among these detentions, over 483 were under the National Security Act, with almost half still detained by the end of 2021.
    • Historical Perspective: In 2017, 67,084 people were detained preventively, out of which 48,815 were released within six months, while 18,269 remained in custody.

    Concerns and Legal Perspectives

    • Increasing cases: The number of preventive detentions has been rising since 2017, with a significant surge in 2021.
    • Supreme Court’s Stand: The Supreme Court has emphasized that preventive detention is only justifiable to prevent public disorder and should not replace ordinary laws for maintaining law and order.
    • Balancing Civil Liberties: While preventive detention serves to curb anti-social and subversive elements, concerns arise about potential abuse, arbitrariness, and violations of civil liberties.

  • In news: President’s Rule

    Central Idea

    • Amidst an escalating confrontation, Punjab Governor gave stern warning of invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule) in the state.

    Grim Situation in Punjab

    • Rampant Drug Abuse: The Governor cites reports from various agencies indicating widespread drug abuse in Punjab, raising significant concerns.
    • New Drug Sales Trend: An emerging trend of selling drugs within government-controlled liquor vends is noted by the Governor.
    • Ludhiana Liquor Vend Incident: Specific instances like the sealing of 66 liquor vends in Ludhiana by the Narcotics Control Bureau [NCB] and Chandigarh Police highlight the gravity of the issue.
    • Disturbing Law and Order Indicators: The Governor references a recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee indicating alarming drug exposure or addiction levels, implying a breakdown in law and order.
    • Public Response: The Governor underscores villagers’ resorting to street protests and forming their own defence committees against drug-related threats.

    Governor’s Discontent

    • Unfulfilled Information Requests: The Governor expresses dissatisfaction with CM’s reluctance to provide the requested information, highlighting Article 167’s mandate for the CM to respond to the Governor’s requests.
    • Alleged Deliberate Silence: The Governor implies that the Chief Minister’s apparent failure to respond might be a deliberate act of evasion.

    About President’s Rule

    • Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, commonly known as President’s Rule, empowers the President to impose central rule in a state where the constitutional machinery has broken down.
    • While initially intended for extraordinary circumstances, it has often been misused by central governments for political purposes.

    Provisions of Article 356:

    • Imposition of President’s Rule: Article 356 allows the President to withdraw the executive and legislative powers of a state government when it cannot function in accordance with the Constitution.
    • Triggering factors: The President can invoke Article 356 based on a report from the Governor or suo motu if the constitutional machinery has broken down in the state.
    • Duration: It can be imposed for six months at a time, with a maximum duration of three years.
    • Parliamentary approval: Every six months, Parliament’s approval is required to continue the imposition of the President’s Rule.

    Historical Origins

    • Inspiration from the Government of India Act, 1935: Article 356 was inspired by Section 93 of this act, which allowed the Governor of a province to assume the powers of the government under certain circumstances.
    • Controlled democracy: The provision provided some autonomy to provincial governments while enabling British authorities to exercise ultimate power when necessary.

    Political Misuse of Article 356

    • Early instances: During Congress’s dominance, Article 356 was used against governments of the Left and regional parties in states. Jawaharlal Nehru’s government utilized it six times until 1959, including to dislodge Kerala’s elected communist government.
    • Increasing misuse: In subsequent decades, Article 356 was used frequently against state governments by various central governments, including those led by Indira Gandhi and the Janata Party.

    Landmark Judgment: S R Bommai Case

    • Landmark Supreme Court ruling: In the 1994 R. Bommai v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines on the use of Article 356.
    • Specific instances for imposition: The court stated that the President’s Rule can be invoked in cases of physical breakdown of the government or a ‘hung assembly.’
    • Curbing arbitrary use: The judgment emphasized the need to give the state government a chance to prove its majority or instances of violent breakdown before imposing the President’s Rule.

     

  • Special Provisions of NE States under Article 371

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court recently assured that special constitutional provisions protecting the interests of northeastern states under Article 371 will remain untouched.
    • As the Constitution Bench deliberates the challenge to Article 370’s abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir, we delve into the significance of these assurances and their implications.

    What is Article 371?

    • Article 371 of the Indian Constitution grants special provisions to various states to protect their unique cultural and tribal identities.
    • These provisions are aimed at preserving local customs, social practices, and land ownership.

    Preserving Tribal Culture

    • Context: Article 371 provides special provisions for several states, particularly in the northeast, to safeguard their tribal cultures and unique identities.
    • Article 371(A) – Nagaland: Article 371(A) ensures that acts of Parliament do not apply to Nagaland concerning Nagas’ religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice based on Naga customary law, and land and resource ownership.
    • State Assembly’s Role: These provisions only apply to Nagaland after the State Assembly passes a resolution to that effect.
    • Development Impediment: Some stakeholders, like Neikiesalie Nicky Kire of the NDPP, argue that Article 371(A) hampers development by preventing the government from carrying out development activities due to landowner preferences.

    Similar Provisions in Other States

    • Article 371-G – Mizoram: Similar to Nagaland, Article 371-G provides special provisions for Mizoram to protect Mizo religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice, and land ownership.
    • Article 371B – Assam: Article 371B facilitates the creation of the sub-state ‘Meghalaya,’ aiming to provide special provisions with respect to Assam.

    State-Specific Provisions

    • Article 371C – Manipur: This article addresses special provisions for Manipur, a state that was formed in 1972.
    • Article 371F and 371H – Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh: These articles discuss special provisions for Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, respectively, to address their unique needs.
    • Article 371 – Separate Development Boards: Article 371 empowers the President to establish separate development boards for specific regions within Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh, promoting balanced growth.

    Further State-Specific Provisions except NE

    • Articles 371D and 371E – Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa: These articles provide special provisions for these states to ensure their cultural and economic development.
    • Articles 371J and 371I – Karnataka and Goa: These articles grant special provisions to Karnataka and Goa, respectively, to address their specific requirements.

  • Article 370 Abrogation: KN Rajagopal v. M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

    Central Idea

    • A landmark Supreme Court judgment from over four decades ago has become an obstacle to the Centre’s assertion that the “breakdown of constitutional machinery” in J&K.
    • Over this, the centre had justified the events leading to the abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019.
    • This judgment poses a significant challenge to the narrative surrounding the abrogation.

    Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

    • Governor’s Role: The judgment underscores that the Governor, though appointed by the President, does not lead to a breakdown of constitutional machinery when a legislative Assembly is dissolved.
    • Historical Precedent: The Constitution Bench judgment in K.N. Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi, authored by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri in 1971, supports this view.

    Essence of the Judgment

    • Central Tenet: The judgment clarifies that when a Governor dissolves a State’s legislative Assembly and assumes its powers, the premise of “failure of constitutional machinery” under Article 356 becomes untenable.
    • Absurdity of Claim: It is pointed out that it’s illogical for the President to assert a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” when the Governor, whom the President appointed, already holds control.

    Application to J&K’s Scenario

    • J&K’s Timeline: In Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor dissolved the State legislative assembly on November 21, 2018.
    • President’s Rule: A proclamation of President’s rule was issued on December 19, 2018, followed by Parliament’s approval on January 3, 2019. Extension of President’s rule occurred on July 3, 2019.
    • Abrogation of A370: The Centre, on August 5, 2019, introduced the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, changing the provisions of Article 370.
    • Legislating the abrogation: The next day, Parliament abrogated Article 370, reorganizing the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

    Legal issues with Article 370 Abrogation

    • Challenging Constitutionality: Litigants argues that beneath the perceived constitutionality, there lies evident illegality. Once the State Assembly was dissolved, there was no breakdown of machinery.
    • Governor’s Powers: The Governor’s assumption of powers contradicts such a breakdown, making the President’s proclamation under Article 356 jurisdictionally flawed.
    • Constitutional Entity: Referring to the S.R. Bommai case, it is highlighted that a State as a “constitutional entity” should outlast Article 356’s intervention.

  • Tamil Nadu vs. NEET: Balancing Equity and Autonomy

    Central Idea

    • The conflict between Tamil Nadu and the Centre over the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) has intensified.
    • It has reignited discussions about the transfer of education back to the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

    Why in news?

    • Educational Autonomy: Chief Minister M.K. Stalin called for education’s transfer back to the State List, originally placed in the Concurrent List during the Emergency.
    • NEET Controversy: Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEET escalated dramatically after the tragic suicides of a student and his father due to exam-related stress.

    Why Tamil Nadu Opposes NEET?

    • Undue competition: NEET, a centralised entrance exam for medical courses, faces opposition in Tamil Nadu due to its mechanical focus on marks.
    • Impact on Local Models: NEET disrupted models like Christian Medical College (CMC) Vellore, known for emphasizing aptitude over marks.
    • In-Service Quota Impact: NEET dismantled Tamil Nadu’s in-service quota for medical graduates, adversely affecting healthcare quality.
    • Disadvantages Marginalized: The exam favours affluent sections who affords lakhs worth coaching (esp. repeaters), disadvantaging underprivileged groups and hindering their aspirations.

    Emotive Nature of the Issue

    • Equity and Social Justice: Opposition to NEET is deeply rooted in demands for educational equity and autonomy, driven by social justice concerns.
    • Kamaraj’s Vision: Tamil Nadu’s education vision, shaped by Chief Minister K. Kamaraj, emphasized accessibility and empathy for unlettered masses.

    Legislative Struggles

    • AIADMK Bills: The previous AIADMK government introduced Bills in 2017 seeking state autonomy in medical admissions. They were returned by the President.
    • Stalin’s Efforts: In 2021, CM M.K. Stalin’s government passed the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021, aiming to abolish NEET and base admissions on Class 12 marks for social justice.
    • Governor’s Opposition: Governor R.N. Ravi, opposed to the anti-NEET Bill, delayed its forwarding to the President, leading to political tensions.

    Justice A.K. Rajan Committee

    • Committee Formation: The Justice A.K. Rajan Committee was established in 2021 to assess NEET’s fairness in medical admissions.
    • Critical Findings- Rich vs. Poor: The committee criticized NEET for favouring repeaters and coached students while disadvantaging first-time applicants, leading to reduced admissions among marginalized groups.

    Why is TN now fuming?

    • Concurrent List: Medical course admissions fall under the Concurrent List (Entry 25), allowing states to legislate on these matters.
    • Amending Central Laws: States can enact laws related to admissions and amend central laws on admission procedures, as long as they don’t contradict parliamentary laws.

    Current Scenario

    • Historic Public Health Practices: Tamil Nadu’s public health infrastructure thrived on retaining PG doctors, indicating the state’s effective healthcare practices.
    • Balancing Uniformity and Fairness: The NEET stalemate reflects the challenge of balancing uniformity with local values and needs.
    • Clash of Values: The conflict highlights the broader tension between central standardization and local autonomy, revealing deeper debates about democracy, equality, and social justice in India.

    Conclusion

    • The NEET controversy in Tamil Nadu is not merely about an entrance exam; it represents a larger struggle for educational equity, autonomy, and social justice.
    • The state’s commitment to its unique vision of education and healthcare clashes with central standardization, sparking a crucial dialogue about the nature of democracy and fairness in the country.

    Back2Basics: Seventh Schedule

    • The Seventh Schedule under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution is a pivotal component that delineates the allocation of powers between the central government and the states.
    • This framework ensures an efficient governance structure by classifying subjects into three lists:
    1. Union List: The Union List outlines subjects on which only the Parliament can legislate. This list includes crucial aspects like defense, foreign affairs, currency, communication, and more.
    2. State List: The State List enumerates matters solely under the jurisdiction of state legislatures. It encompasses areas such as public health, agriculture, police, local government, and others.
    3. Concurrent List: The Concurrent List incorporates subjects on which both Parliament and state legislatures can enact laws. However, in case of a conflict, federal supremacy grants authority to the Parliament’s law.

    Evolution and Dynamics

    • Over time, the Union List expanded to encompass significant areas such as defense, banking, and foreign affairs.
    • The State List’s scope included subjects like public order, police, and agriculture, critical for regional governance.
    • The Concurrent List reflects matters of shared importance like criminal law, civil procedure, population control, and more.

    Amendments and Special Provisions:

    • 42nd Amendment Act (1976): It transferred select subjects like education, forests, and administration of justice from the State List to the Concurrent List.
    • 101st Amendment Act (2018): It introduced a special provision for Goods and Services Tax (GST), allowing both Parliament and state legislatures to make laws regarding GST.

    Power Distribution and Conflict Resolution:

    • Parliament’s jurisdiction prevails over the State List and the Concurrent List in cases of overlap.
    • In cases of overlap between the Union List and the State List, the Union List takes precedence.
    • If there’s a conflict between the Union List and the Concurrent List, the Union List prevails.
    • In situations of conflict between central and state laws on a Concurrent List subject, central law prevails. An exception exists if the state law has the president’s assent.

    Consultative Approaches

    • Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended maintaining the existing list allocation, emphasizing the absence of a strong case for transferring items from the Concurrent List to the State List.
    • Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) underscored the lack of a formal institution requiring consultation between the Union and states while legislating under the Concurrent List.

  • Supreme Court questions selective Remission

    remission

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court bench handling petitions related to the early release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case raised concerns about the selective application of remission policies in Indian jails.
    • Justices on the two-judge bench questioned why the policy is not uniformly implemented and sought clarifications from the Additional Solicitor General representing the Gujarat government.

    Also read:

    What is Bilkis Bano Case?

    Bilkis Bano Case and Remission

    • Background of the Case: Bilkis Bano was a victim of gangrape during the 2002 riots in Gujarat, where her three-year-old daughter was also killed by a mob. She was pregnant at the time.
    • Remission and Release: All 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case were granted remission by the Gujarat government, leading to their release on August 15, 2022.
    • Justification for Release: The Additional Solicitor General defended the state’s decision, explaining that remission is distinct from sentencing and that guidelines are being considered to address concerns about its application.

    Inquiry into Remission Policy Application

    • Selective Implementation Query: The Supreme Court inquired why the policy of remission, aimed at granting convicts early release, is applied selectively across jails and states.
    • Overcrowding and Undertrials: The court raised concerns about the overcrowding of jails, especially with undertrials, and questioned the reasons behind the policy not being consistently applied.
    • Justice Nagarathna’s Query: Justice B V Nagarathna, leading the bench, emphasized that state-wise statistics are needed to understand the extent to which the remission policy is applied and whether every eligible prisoner is given an opportunity to reform.
    • Relevance of Rudul Sah Case: Referring to the Rudul Sah case, where an individual remained in jail for 14 years despite acquittal, the court highlighted extreme cases where the prison system failed to provide justice. The court emphasized that fairness should prevail in both conviction and acquittal scenarios.

    What is Remission?

    • Stay of Execution: Remission involves suspending or postponing the execution of a sentence.
    • Reduced Duration: It reduces the sentence’s duration while maintaining its original nature.
    • Unchanged Sentence Nature: The sentence’s fundamental characteristics remain intact; only the duration is shortened.
    • Release Date Determined: Remission sets a specific date for the prisoner’s release, marking their legal freedom.
    • Conditional Release: Any breach of remission conditions cancels it, necessitating the completion of the original sentence.

    Constitutional Framework for Remission:

    • Prisons as State Subject: Prisons fall under the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
    • Pardoning Power: Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor) grant pardoning, suspending, remitting, or commuting powers for sentences issued by courts.

    New Norms for Remission:

    (A) Eligibility Criteria

    • Women and transgender convicts aged 50 and above
    • Male convicts aged 60 and above, completing 50% of their sentence (excluding general remission period)
    • Physically challenged convicts with 70% or more disability, completing 50% of their sentence
    • Terminally ill convicts
    • Convicts serving two-thirds (66%) of their sentence
    • Indigent prisoners completing their sentence but detained due to unpaid fines
    • Offenders aged 18-21 with no criminal involvement, completing 50% of their sentence

    (B) Exceptions

    • Excluded: Death sentence convicts, life imprisonment convicts, and those convicted under specific acts.
    • Prohibited Acts: Terrorism-related offences, acts under anti-terror and security legislation, explosives, national security, official secrets, and anti-hijacking.

    Implications and Benefits

    • Justice and Equity: The new norms aim to provide justice to certain categories of prisoners and address their specific circumstances.
    • Overcrowding Mitigation: By releasing eligible convicts, the policy seeks to alleviate prison overcrowding.
    • Reformation Focus: Remission offers prisoners an opportunity to reform, especially those who demonstrate good behaviour or require medical attention.
    • Humanitarian Approach: The policy recognizes the needs of the physically challenged, terminally ill, and aged prisoners.
    • Respecting Youth: Young offenders with no further criminal engagement are given a chance for early rehabilitation.

    Back2Basics: Pardoning Powers in India

    • Pardoning powers in India, enshrined in Article 72 for the President and Article 161 for Governors, provide a mechanism for granting leniency, reducing sentences, or offering reprieves to convicted individuals.
    • These powers play a crucial role in the justice system, allowing for the reconsideration of punishments in specific cases.

    Presidential Pardoning Powers

    • Scope and Authority: Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons, respites, reprieves, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute sentences.
    • Types of Pardoning:
    1. Pardon: Complete exoneration, restoring the person’s status as a normal citizen.
    2. Commutation: Reducing the severity of punishment, e.g., converting a death penalty to life imprisonment.
    3. Reprieve: Delaying execution to allow time for further legal remedies or evidence presentation.
    4. Respite: Reducing the punishment’s degree due to specific circumstances.
    5. Remission: Altering the punishment’s quantum without changing its nature.

    Cases Covered by Article 72

    1. Cases tried by court-martial.
    2. Cases involving offences under Union’s executive power.
    3. Cases with a death sentence.

    Governor’s Pardoning Powers

    • Governor’s Authority: Article 161 grants the Governor the power to pardon, commute, suspend, or remit sentences.
    • Scope and Limitation: Pardoning authority extends to offences within the state’s executive jurisdiction.
    • Exclusion: Governors lack the authority to grant pardons in cases of death sentences.

    Nature of Pardoning Power

    • Presidential Advice: Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the President exercises pardoning powers based on the Council of Ministers’ advice.
    • Governor’s Power: The Governor’s pardoning power is also guided by the principle of seeking advice.
    • Judicial Review: The Epuru Sudhakar case highlighted the possibility of limited judicial review over the pardon powers exercised by the President and Governors. This review aims to prevent arbitrariness.
    • Judicial Retained Power: Despite these powers vested in the Executive, the judiciary retains a measure of authority for judicial review, ensuring fairness and constitutionality.