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

  • Why the minimum age for Indian MPs must be brought down to 21?

    What’s the news?

    • The 132nd Report on Election Process and Reform, presented to the Rajya Sabha in August 2023, recommends aligning the minimum age for candidacy with the voting age of 18.

    Central idea

    • A Parliamentary Committee has proposed reducing the age restriction on MPs and MLAs to 18 years. Though the EC has opposed the proposal, Constituent Assembly debates show several leaders back then favored lower age criteria for our lawmakers. Calling the current criteria outdated, the committee argued that legislative bodies could benefit from a wider range of perspectives.

    Background

    • On May 18, 1949, during the heated deliberations of India’s Constituent Assembly, responsible for drafting the nation’s Constitution, a pivotal debate emerged.
    • The focus was the insertion of an Article outlining criteria for prospective parliamentarians’ minimum age.
    • The motion proposed setting 25 years as the entry age for the Lok Sabha and 35 years for the Rajya Sabha.
    • Amidst this discourse, Durgabai Deshmukh, a prominent figure in India’s freedom struggle and an advocate for women’s emancipation, proposed an amendment.
    • Her amendment aimed to lower the minimum age for Rajya Sabha candidacy from 35 to 30, reflecting changing times and evolving youth engagement in civic matters.
    • The amendment’s adoption led to the incorporation of Article 84 and Article 173 in the Constitution, mandating 25 and 30 years as the minimum age for entry into the lower and upper houses, respectively, at both the central and state levels.

    A Global Perspective on Youth Participation

    • The United Nations Human Rights Council’s 2018 report highlights challenges faced by youth in accessing their rights.
    • Less than 2% of parliamentarians worldwide are under 30, indicating a lack of youth representation.
    • Countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada have embraced young candidates with innovative ideas and fresh perspectives.
    • European nations such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Ireland have set lower minimum age requirements for candidates.
    • Fridays for the Future, led by Greta Thunberg, exemplifies the influence of youth-led activism on global issues.

    Youth and Political Participation in India

    • Student Politics and University Campuses:
      • University campuses, traditionally seen as breeding grounds for free debate and critical thinking, have played a pivotal role in nurturing young leaders.
      • The Lyngdoh Committee’s recommendations in 2012, which introduced upper age limits for student union elections, marked a transformative shift.
      • Recent statistics reveal that student union office-bearers at top Indian universities have an average age of 22.5 years, reflecting more youthful leadership.
    • Panchayat-Level Representation:
      • At the grassroots level, efforts to infuse youth representation have resulted in significant positive changes.
      • In various states, a growing number of individuals aged 21 and above have found representation in roles such as village pradhan and block pramukh.
      • This demonstrates a trend towards acknowledging the capabilities and perspectives of younger individuals in local governance.
    • Parliamentary Representation:
      • However, this progressive trend is not consistently reflected at the national parliamentary level.
      • An analysis of India’s parliamentary history shows a decline in the percentage of MPs aged 25–40 from 26% in the first Lok Sabha to 12% in the current 17th Lok Sabha.
      • Despite India’s young country status, with 65% of the population below 35 years old, the average age of MPs remains relatively high.

    The Impact of Youth Representation: Amplifying Progressive Agendas

    • Visibility of Youth-Centric Issues:
      • Diverse representation in parliament ensures increased visibility of issues pertinent to youth.
      • The long-standing demand for women’s reservation quotas highlights the effectiveness of targeted representation in addressing gender-specific concerns.
      • Similarly, youth representatives can champion matters like technology, unemployment, and education, shaping policies that resonate with younger generations.
    • Contemporary Relevance and Innovation:
      • Young parliamentarians are poised to bring fresh perspectives and innovative solutions to complex problems.
      • Issues like climate change, technology, and socio-economic disparities require dynamic approaches that youth are well-equipped to provide.
      • Their engagement can foster debates that reflect the current aspirations and challenges of the population.
    • Empowerment of Underrepresented Groups:
      • Youth representation also holds the promise of empowering marginalized and minority groups.
      • The inclusivity brought about by youth engagement ensures that the concerns of various communities are adequately addressed.
      • This can contribute to a more equitable and diverse governance approach.
    • Challenging Traditional Notions:
      • The presence of young parliamentarians challenges traditional notions that associate political competence solely with age.
      • Global examples of successful young leaders breaking barriers underscores the capacity of youth to drive change.
      • Age should not be a barrier to representation when youth demonstrate awareness, dedication, and commitment to their responsibilities.

    Challenges Hindering Youth Inclusion

    • Experience and Maturity Concerns:
      • Critics contend that younger candidates may lack the life experience and maturity required to make informed decisions on complex issues.
      • The belief that political competence is directly proportional to age is deeply ingrained, presenting a challenge to reform efforts.
    • Entrenched Norms and Resistance:
      • Prevailing norms link effective leadership with advanced age, creating resistance to embracing younger candidates.
      • Societal skepticism toward entrusting significant responsibilities to youth can impede the acceptance of policy changes.
    • Divergence from International Trends:
      • The Election Commission’s cautious stance on lowering the minimum candidacy age contrasts with global trends.
      • Several democracies have successfully integrated younger leaders, tapping into their fresh perspectives and innovative thinking.
    • Balancing Youthful Vigor and Expertise:
      • Striking a balance between the energy of youth and the wisdom gained from experience remains a challenge.
      • Effective leadership requires not only innovative ideas but also a nuanced understanding of the intricacies of governance.
    • Perception of Representation Bias:
      • Concerns exist that youth-centric representation might overshadow the needs of other demographic groups.
      • Addressing this perception and ensuring comprehensive policy formulation are essential for garnering broad support.
    • Cultural and Mindset shifts:
      • Overcoming deep-rooted beliefs that equate age with political competence demands a cultural shift.
      • Effective awareness campaigns can challenge stereotypes and create a more inclusive environment for younger leaders.

    Addressing the Age Discrepancy

    • The 132nd Report on Election Process and Reform, presented to the Rajya Sabha in August 2023, recommends aligning the minimum age for candidacy with the voting age of 18.
    • The report highlights global practices and underscores the significance of young parliamentarians voicing contemporary issues.

    Way forward

    • Policy Alignment and Adaptation: Reassess existing policies to align the minimum candidacy age with the voting age, promoting consistency and inclusivity.
    • Youth-Centric Educational Initiatives: Establish comprehensive political education programs and leadership training to equip young aspirants with essential governance skills.
    • Cross-Generational Mentorship: Facilitate intergenerational dialogue to combine experience with innovation, allowing for a holistic approach to decision-making.
    • Incentivized Youth Participation: Encourage political parties to integrate young candidates into their election strategies through incentives and tangible support.
    • Collaborative Advocacy Efforts: Engage stakeholders in advocacy campaigns, leveraging global examples to advocate for reducing the minimum candidacy age.

    Conclusion

    • The need for a more inclusive and representative democracy demands a reevaluation of the minimum age requirements for parliamentary candidacy. As the world embraces youthful voices, India’s evolving landscape should not lag behind. A political consensus can pave the way for a more dynamic, inclusive, and progressive parliamentary system, with the potential to reshape the nation’s future.

  • What is President’s Assent?

    Central Idea

    • The President of India granted approval to four significant legislations, encompassing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and a law related to controlling services in Delhi.
    • These Bills, recently endorsed during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, signify the nation’s resolve to adapt its legal framework to contemporary challenges.

    Legislations receiving President’s Assent

    • The Digital Personal Data Protection Act: This law aims to establish a framework to prevent the misuse of individuals’ data by online platforms. It addresses issues related to data privacy and protection in the digital realm. Tap here to read more.
    • The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act: This act provides for the establishment of a three-member authority responsible for handling the transfer and postings of Group A officers under the Delhi government. It pertains to the administration of services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Tap here to read more.
    • The Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act: This act designates digital birth certificates as the exclusive conclusive proof of age, which can be used for various purposes. It introduces the concept of digital certificates for births and deaths. Tap here to read more.
    • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act: This act focuses on promoting ease of business by decriminalizing minor offenses. It introduces amendments to 183 provisions of 42 Acts to reduce legal complexities and facilitate business operations. Tap here to read more.

    What is President’s Assent?

    • Article 111 of the Indian Constitution governs the President’s assent to bills, which marks the final step in the legislative process.
    • The President possesses the power of veto, giving them three options under Article 111 when presented with a bill passed by Parliament:
      1. Assent: The President can give their approval to the bill, leading to its enactment as a law.
      2. Withhold Assent: The President can refuse to sign the bill, preventing it from becoming a law.
      3. Return for Reconsideration: If the bill is not a Money Bill, the President can send it back to Parliament for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the bill again, with or without amendments, the President must give their assent.

    Types of Veto

    • Absolute Veto: The President exercises this veto when refusing to sign a bill, causing it to be rejected and not turned into law. It is typically used when a Private Member’s Bill is used to pass a law or in the event of a change in the cabinet before the President’s signature, where the incoming government advises against signing the legislation.
    • Suspensive Veto: This allows the President to send a bill back to Parliament for further examination or deliberation. If Parliament reapproves the bill with or without amendments, it is adopted as law without the President’s veto.
    • Pocket Veto: In this form of veto, the President neither signs the bill nor sends it back to the legislature. The bill remains pending, and its outcome is uncertain. Unlike the U.S. President, the Indian President is not required to return the bill within a specific timeframe.
    • Qualified Veto: Unlike other types, this veto can be overridden by the legislature with a higher majority. However, this type of veto is not vested with the Indian President.

    [A] Assent to Ordinary Bill:

    For an ordinary bill, the President has three options:

    1. Assent: The President can sign the bill, transforming it into an act.
    2. Withhold Assent: The President can withhold their approval, resulting in the bill not becoming law.
    3. Return for Reconsideration: The President can send the bill back to the Houses for reconsideration. The Houses may amend the bill or not before returning it to the President for assent.

    [B] Assent to Money Bill:

    • The President can give or withhold assent to a Money Bill. However, a Money Bill cannot be returned by the President to the House for reconsideration under the Indian Constitution.

    [C] Assent to Constitutional Amendment Bill:

    • In the case of Constitutional Amendment Bills, the President’s assent is mandatory.
    • The President cannot withhold or return such bills; they become Constitutional Amendment Acts, modifying the Constitution in accordance with their provisions.

    Making a Law Operational

    • After receiving the President’s assent, a law becomes effective.
    • The government drafts guidelines and standards to operationalize the law.
    • Implementation requires the issuance of these guidelines.
    • Rules should be issued within 6 months of law passage, as recommended by the parliament.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2022:

    Q. Consider the following statements:

    1. A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
    2. When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
    3. A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”mauarwed43″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Bill to Redefine the Election Commission Selection Process

    Central Idea

    • A new Bill has been proposed in the Rajya Sabha aimed at reversing the impact of a Supreme Court ruling on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
    • The proposed legislation suggests a revamped selection process, featuring a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a nominated Cabinet Minister.
    • This initiative comes after a Supreme Court verdict that demanded the participation of the PM, Leader of Opposition, and ‘CJI’ in the selection of these crucial electoral positions.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legislative Vacuum

    • March 2 Verdict: A unanimous verdict by a SC bench this year mandated the involvement of the PM, Leader of Opposition, and CJI in the appointment of CEC and ECs.
    • Constitutional Vacuum: The Court intervened due to the absence of a parliamentary law as prescribed by Article 324 of the Constitution for the appointment process.

    New Legislative Approach

    • Aim of the Bill: The proposed Bill aims to address the constitutional vacuum and establish a structured legislative process for the appointment of members to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
    • Search Committee: The Bill establishes a Search Committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary and composed of two other government officials knowledgeable about election matters. The Committee is tasked with preparing a panel of five potential candidates for appointment.
    • Selection Committee: The core of the proposed process is the Selection Committee, composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This committee would finalize the appointment of CEC and ECs.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • Parliament’s Authority: The Parliament holds the power to address the issues highlighted by the Supreme Court ruling and nullify its impact through legislative action that aligns with the judgment’s intent.
    • Preserving Independence: The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized the need for an independent body overseeing elections, aligning with the Constitution’s original intent.

    Concerns raised

    • Composition of Selection Committee: The new Bill raises concerns about the independence of the selection process due to its composition.
    • Absence of LoP: With the PM and a nominated Cabinet Minister holding the majority in the three-member panel, the Leader of Opposition’s voice is marginalized even before the process begins.
    • Omits CJI: The Bill omits CJI from the panel counterviewing the 2nd March Judgment which prompted this legislation.

    Conclusion

    • The proposed Bill’s attempt to address the legislative vacuum created by the Supreme Court ruling is a significant step towards streamlining the appointment process for the Election Commission.
    • While the Parliament has the authority to shape the process, ensuring the true independence and integrity of the selection process remains a critical concern.
    • The balance between various stakeholders must be maintained to uphold the sanctity of India’s democratic electoral processes.

  • Renaming Kerala: From Kerala to Keralam

    kerala

    Central Idea

    • The Kerala Assembly’s recent unanimous resolution to rename the state as “Keralam” in the Constitution and official records has sparked discussions about the historical origins of the name and the process of renaming a state in India.

    Renaming Kerala: Resolution and Historical Context

    • Unanimous Decision: The Kerala Assembly, led by CM, passed a resolution urging the Centre to rename the state as “Keralam” in both the Constitution and official records.
    • Language Basis: The resolution highlights that the Malayalam name of the state is “Keralam,” and states were formed based on language on November 1, 1956. The resolution seeks alignment between the Malayalam name and its representation in official documents.

    Procedure for Renaming a State

    State Government’s Proposal: The proposal to rename a state originates from the state government. The Union MHA reviews the proposal and seeks No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from various agencies.

    Centre’s Approval: Unlike renaming cities, renaming a state requires approval from the Centre’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). A Constitutional amendment is necessary for this change (under Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution).

    Parliamentary Approval: If accepted, the proposal is introduced as a Bill in the Parliament. Upon becoming law, the state’s name is officially changed.

    Origin of the ‘Kerala’ Name

    • ‘Kerala’ and Asoka’s Edict: The earliest recorded mention of ‘Kerala’ is in Emperor Asoka’s Rock Edict II of 257 BC, where the local ruler is referred to as “Keralaputra” (son of Kerala) and “son of Chera” from the Chera dynasty.
    • ‘Keralam’ from ‘Cheram’: Scholars speculate that ‘Keralam’ could have derived from ‘Cheram.’ Dr. Herman Gundert, a German scholar, proposed that ‘keram’ is the Canarese (Kannada) form of ‘cheram,’ suggesting that ‘Keralam’ could mean the region between Gokarnam and Kanyakumari, stemming from the root ‘cher’ meaning to join.

    Demand for a Unified State

    • Aikya Kerala Movement: In the 1920s, the Aikya Kerala movement gained momentum, advocating for a unified state for Malayalam-speaking people. It aimed to integrate Malabar, Kochi, and Travancore into a single territory.
    • Cultural Unity: The movement was driven by the shared language, cultural traditions, history, and customs of the Malayalam-speaking population.

    Formation of Modern Kerala

    • Travancore-Cochin State: In 1949, Travancore and Kochi merged, forming the Travancore-Cochin State.
    • State Reorganisation Commission: The State Reorganisation Commission recommended the creation of Kerala as a state for Malayalam-speaking people. The inclusion of Malabar and Kasargod and the exclusion of certain areas were proposed.
    • Birth of Kerala: On November 1, 1956, the state of Kerala was officially formed, referred to as “Keralam” in Malayalam and “Kerala” in English.

    Conclusion

    • The resolution to rename Kerala as “Keralam” reflects the historical and cultural significance attached to the state’s name.
    • The process of renaming a state underscores the federal structure of India, where Centre-State collaboration is essential for such significant changes.

  • Explained: Delhi Services Bill, 2023

    delhi

    Central Idea

    • The Rajya Sabha passed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 four days after the Lok Sabha cleared the Bill.
    • It will promulgate into law once signed by the President of India.

    delhi

    Delhi Services Bill, 2023: A Backgrounder

    • In May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delhi government, granting it control over most services in the capital city, except for public order, land, and police cases.
    • However, the Centre introduced an ordinance on May 19 to override the top court’s order, giving more authority to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) in matters of appointments and transfers of bureaucrats.

    Key Features of the Bill

    • National Capital Civil Services Authority: The bill establishes the National Capital Civil Services Authority to make recommendations to the LG on certain service-related matters, including transfers, vigilance, and disciplinary proceedings.
    • Powers of the LG: The bill expands the discretionary role of the LG, allowing him to override the recommendations of the Authority and act on his sole discretion in certain matters.
    • Disposal of Matters by Ministers: The bill allows Delhi government ministers to issue standing orders for matter disposal, subject to consultation with the concerned Department Secretary. However, certain sensitive matters must be submitted to the LG for his opinion before issuing any order.
    • Duties of Secretaries: Department Secretaries must bring certain matters to the notice of the LG, Chief Minister, and Chief Secretary, particularly those that may lead to controversy with other state governments, courts, or the central government.

    Important changes related to Services

    • Removal of Clause 3A: The bill eliminates a provision from the ordinance that prevented the Delhi Assembly from creating laws related to ‘State Public Services and State Public Service Commission.’ This gives the assembly the authority to make regulations concerning services.
    • No Annual Report needed by NCCSA: The National Capital Civil Service Authority (NCCSA) will no longer be required to submit an annual report to Parliament and the Delhi Assembly, removing the obligation to present the report before these legislative bodies.
    • Modification in Appointment Cycle: The bill dilutes provisions related to the appointment of chairpersons and members of various authorities, boards, commissions, and statutory bodies in Delhi. It removes the requirement for “orders/directions of ministers” in matters that need to be sent to the central government before the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister.
    • Appointment of Delhi LG Powers: The bill empowers the Lieutenant Governor to select members of the Delhi government’s Boards and Commissions from a list of names suggested by the NCCSA, including recommendations from the Delhi Chief Minister. These Boards and Commissions are established by regulations passed by the Delhi Assembly.

    Constitutional Debate

    • Violation of Triple Chain of Accountability: Critics argue that the bill may violate the principle of parliamentary democracy by potentially giving the central government powers over services in Delhi, thereby breaking the triple chain of accountability between civil servants, ministers, and the electorate.
    • LG’s Discretionary Powers: The bill expands the LG’s discretionary powers, allowing him to override the decisions of the Council of Ministers, which could potentially impede the functioning of the democratically elected government.
    • Unclear Terms: Certain terms in the bill, such as “sole discretion” of the LG and criteria for matters brought to his notice, are considered vague and could lead to ambiguity in implementation.
    • Opposition’s Concerns: Opposition leaders have voiced strong opposition to the bill, claiming that it undermines democratic heritage, the spirit of federalism, and the powers of an elected government.

    Government’s Defense

    • The Centre has defended the bill, asserting that India has a quasi-federal structure where the Centre holds primacy.
    • The bill aims to balance the interests of Delhi and the nation.

    Conclusion

    • The Delhi Services Bill, 2023, has become a focal point of contention between the Delhi government and the central government.
    • While proponents argue that it brings clarity to the distribution of powers, opponents claim that it may infringe upon the principles of parliamentary democracy and the constitutional separation of powers.
    • As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the bill’s implementation will unfold and its impact on governance in the national capital.

    Back2Basics: Key Legislations and Judgements on Delhi

    Year Development
    1956 Delhi is classified as a Union Territory under the States Reorganization Act.
    1991-92 69th Constitutional Amendment (Article 239AA) passed, making Delhi a UT with legislature.

    Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act, 1991 is passed.

    70th Constitutional Amendment exempts certain laws from being considered constitutional amendments.
    2015 Ministry of Home Affairs takes control over services from Delhi legislature, empowering the LG.
    2016 Delhi High Court rules that services lie outside the Delhi legislative assembly’s purview.
    2018 Supreme Court rules that the LG must act on “aid and advice” of the Delhi council of ministers.
    2019 Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on the issue of services.
    2021 Union government amends the GNCTD Act, expanding the LG’s powers in certain matters.
    2023 Supreme Court rules that Delhi government has control over services.

    Central government promulgates an Ordinance to exclude “services” from Delhi legislature’s purview.

    GNCTD (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by the Parliament awaiting Presidents Assent.

  • Justice Rohini Panel on OBC Sub-Categorisation

    justice rohini
    Hon’ble Justice Rohini

    Central Idea

    • The Justice G. Rohini-headed Commission for the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups on July 31 submitted its report on the issue to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
    • This is nearly 6 years after the Union government first assigned the task to it — a task that was initially meant to be finished in 12 weeks.

    Who are the OBCs?

    • The Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are a group of socially and educationally disadvantaged castes in India.
    • They constitute a significant portion of the population and have been granted 27% reservation in jobs and education under the central government.
    • To ensure equitable distribution of benefits among all OBC communities, the idea of sub-categorization within the OBCs was proposed.
    • The Rohini Commission, established in 2017, was tasked with examining this issue.

    Understanding Sub-Categorization

    • Concept: Sub-categorization aims to create sub-groups within the larger OBC community for the purpose of reservation, addressing the issue of some affluent communities securing a major share of the reservation benefits.
    • Legal Debate: The concept of sub-categorization has also been a subject of legal debate for other reservation categories, such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and STs).

    Establishment of Rohini Commission

    • Purpose: The Rohini Commission was constituted on October 2, 2017, to examine the extent of inequitable distribution of reservation benefits among different OBC castes or communities.
    • Terms of Reference: Its primary terms of reference included evaluating the need for sub-categorization, working out a scientific approach for it, and identifying any discrepancies or errors in the Central List of OBCs.

    Timeline and Progress

    • Timeframe: Initially given 12 weeks to submit its report, the Commission has since been granted 10 extensions.
    • Draft Report: The Commission was ready with a draft report on sub-categorization.
    • Data Challenges: One of the challenges faced was the lack of data for the population of various OBC communities, making it difficult to compare their representation in jobs and admissions.
    • Multiple Extensions: The Commission’s report was submitted on the last day of its functioning after it had received up to 14 extensions from the government in the last six years.
    • Reason for Delays: At first, the government said that the COVID-19 pandemic had slowed down its working. However, after the second wave, the government has been saying that the Commission has been working on finalising its report.

    Findings of the Commission

    • Categorisation of Caste Groups: According to sources, the Commission has suggested breaking the caste groups into broad categories, with the dominant castes (with the most access to benefits) getting the smallest share of the 27% reservation, and the historically crowded-out caste groups getting the largest share of the reservation pie.
    • Unequal Distribution: The Commission’s analysis of 1.3 lakh central jobs and OBC admissions to central higher education institutions over a few years revealed that 97% of all jobs and educational seats were concentrated among just 25% of sub-castes classified as OBCs.
    • Dominant Communities: A significant portion of these opportunities (95%) went to only 10 OBC communities.
    • Underrepresented Groups: Nearly 37% (983) of OBC communities had zero representation in jobs and educational institutions, while 994 OBC sub-castes had a total representation of only 2.68% in recruitment and admissions.

    Implications and Future Steps

    • Census Enumeration: The Commission proposed an all-India survey to estimate the caste-wise population of OBCs, but the government has been silent on this while OBC groups demand the enumeration of OBCs in the Census.
    • Pending Decision: The report’s recommendations and findings will require careful deliberation by the government before any implementation.

    Conclusion

    • Now that the Commission’s report is with the Social Justice Ministry, the government is expected to hold deliberations on the recommendations contained in it, before thinking about implementing any part of it.
    • The report has not been made public yet.

     

  • Lowering the Minimum Age for Contesting Elections

    Central Idea

    • A Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended lowering the minimum age for contesting Lok Sabha and Assembly elections to 18 years, aligning it with the minimum age for voting in India.
    • The Committee believes that young individuals can be responsible political participants, supported by global practices and increasing political consciousness among youth.

    Current Minimum Age Requirements

    • Lok Sabha and Assembly Polls: According to Article 84 of the Indian Constitution and Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person must be at least 25 years old to contest elections to the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly.
    • Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council: As per Article 80(4) of the Constitution and Section 43 of the RP Act, 1951, a person must be at least 30 years old to become a member of the Rajya Sabha or the State Legislative Council.

    Parliamentary Committee’s View

    • Evidence from Global Practices: The Committee cited examples from countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where young individuals have proven to be reliable and responsible political participants.
    • Youth Representation: It supported lowering the minimum age for candidacy, citing global practices and the increasing political consciousness among young people. It believes that young individuals are more than capable of running for office in the 21st century due to increased education, globalization, and digitalization.
    • Age Disparity: The Committee expressed concern over the significant age gap between MPs and India’s median age, highlighting the need for greater youth representation.
    • Diverse Viewpoints: The Committee contends that reducing the minimum age would bring fresh perspectives to policy debates and address the underrepresentation of young voices in the political arena.

    Election Commission’s Perspective

    • Unrealistic Expectations: The EC disagrees with the proposal, stating that expecting 18-year-olds to possess the necessary experience and maturity for parliamentary responsibilities is unrealistic.
    • Current Age Requirements Appropriate: EC believes that the existing minimum age requirements for voting and contesting elections are appropriate.

    Recommended Actions

    • Delimitation Process: The Committee recommends that the EC collaborates with the legislative department to examine the effects of the delimitation process, especially in challenging terrains. Treating all regions in India as identical may pose risks, and tailored measures should be taken to address this reality.
    • Common Electoral Rolls: The Committee highlights the benefits of Common Electoral Rolls for State and Lok Sabha polls, which can be created through the collaborative participation of officials serving in both the ECI and State ECs.

    Conclusion

    • The debate on lowering the minimum age for contesting elections continues, with the Parliamentary Standing Committee favouring this move, considering global practices and youth representation.
    • Further discussions and careful consideration are needed to make an informed decision on this matter.

  • Parliamentary Privilege and the Privileges Committee: A Closer Look

    Central Idea

    • During the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, there were differences between the ruling and opposition parties, leading to complaints against 2 MPs.
    • These complaints were referred to the Privileges Committee.

    What is Parliamentary Privilege?

    • Definition: Parliamentary privilege refers to the rights and immunities enjoyed by legislators during the course of their legislative duties.
    • Protection: MPs/MLAs are protected from civil or criminal liability for actions or statements made while discharging their legislative functions.
    • Constitutional Basis: The powers, privileges, and immunities of both Houses of the Indian Parliament and their members are enshrined in Article 105 whereas Article 194 deals with State Legislatures.

    Understanding Privilege Motion

    • Breaching Privilege: Any disregard of the rights and immunities constitutes a breach of privilege and is punishable under parliamentary law.
    • Motion: A notice in the form of a motion can be moved by any member of either House against those held guilty of a breach of privilege.
    • Contempt Actions: The Houses also have the right to punish actions that may not be a specific breach of privilege but are offenses against their authority and dignity.

    Instances of Privilege Notices

    • Indira Gandhi’s Expulsion (1978): Indira Gandhi was expelled from the Lok Sabha for obstructing government officials from collecting information for a question on Maruti.
    • Subramanian Swamy’s Expulsion (1976): Subramanian Swamy faced expulsion from the Rajya Sabha for engaging in interviews perceived as “anti-India propaganda.”
    • Cash for Query Scandal (2005): Eleven “tainted” MPs involved in the cash for query scandal were expelled from the Lok Sabha.

    Rules Governing Privilege

    • Lok Sabha: Rule No. 222 in Chapter 20 of the Lok Sabha Rule Book governs privilege.
    • Rajya Sabha: Correspondingly, Rule 187 in Chapter 16 of the Rajya Sabha rulebook deals with privilege.
    • Scope of Notice: The notice must relate to a recent incident requiring the intervention of the House.
    • Timing: Notices must be given before 10 am to the Speaker or the Chairperson.

    Role of the Speaker/Rajya Sabha Chair

    • Scrutiny: The Speaker/RS Chairperson is the first level of scrutiny for a privilege motion.
    • Decision Making: They can decide on the privilege motion themselves or refer it to the Privileges Committee.
    • Opportunity to Speak: If consent is given under Rule 222, the member involved is given an opportunity to make a brief statement.

    Referring to the Privileges Committee

    • Composition: In the Lok Sabha, the Speaker nominates a 15-member Committee of Privileges based on respective party strengths.
    • Report Presentation: The Committee presents a report to the House for consideration. A half-hour debate may be permitted while considering the report.
    • Final Orders: The Speaker may pass final orders or direct that the report be tabled before the House.
    • Resolution: A resolution relating to the breach of privilege must be unanimously passed.
    • Rajya Sabha: In the Rajya Sabha, the Deputy Chairperson heads the 10-member Committee of Privileges.

  • Criminal Defamation in India

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay the conviction in a criminal defamation case has significant implications for the parliamentary representation of a prominent political leader.
    • The court highlighted the absence of valid reasons for awarding the maximum sentence and emphasized the need for mutual respect and caution in public speeches.

    Disqualification of Lawmakers

    • This is an important aspect of maintaining the integrity of the legislative bodies.
    • In India, disqualification can occur under constitutional provisions and the Representation of The People Act (RPA), 1951.
    • Additionally, the Tenth Schedule deals with defection-related disqualifications.

    Grounds for Disqualification

    • Constitutional Provisions: Disqualification under Articles 102(1) and 191(1) applies to members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Grounds include holding an office of profit, being of unsound mind, insolvent, or lacking valid citizenship.
    • Defection: The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for disqualification on the grounds of defection.
    • RPA, 1951: This Act mandates disqualification for conviction in criminal cases.

    Disqualification under RPA, 1951

    • Section 8: Section 8 of the RPA deals with disqualification for conviction of offences.
    • Objective: The provision aims to prevent the criminalization of politics and bar ‘tainted’ lawmakers from contesting elections.
    • Disqualification Period: Section 8(3) specifies that a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years will be disqualified from the date of conviction and for an additional six years after release.

    Appeal and Stay of Disqualification

    • Reversal: Disqualification can be reversed if a higher court grants a stay on the conviction or decides the appeal in favor of the convicted lawmaker.
    • Lok Prahari v Union of India: In a 2018 decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the disqualification will not take effect if the appellate court stays the conviction.
    • Appeals Process: For example, if a convicted lawmaker appeals, it would first go to the Surat Sessions Court and then to the Gujarat High Court.

    Changes in the Law

    • Section 8(4) of RPA: Previously, Section 8(4) stated that disqualification takes effect after three months from the date of conviction.
    • Lily Thomas v Union of India: In the landmark 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional.
    • Significance: The verdict aimed to prevent convicted politicians from continuing to hold public office while their appeals were pending, contributing to the purification of Indian politics.

    Supreme Court’s recent observations

    • Lack of Reasoning: The court noted that the trial judge failed to provide any reasons for awarding the maximum sentence, considering the penal code allowed various options for punishment.
    • High Court’s Omission: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, in its judgment, overlooked the crucial aspect of the lack of reasoning behind the severe punishment.
    • Impact on Representation: The court highlighted that disqualification from Parliament affects not only the individual but also the electorate represented by the person in question, raising concerns about unrepresented constituencies.
    • Exercise of Caution by Public Figures: While accepting the apology for his previous “thief” remarks during the general elections, the Court reminded him of the need for caution in public speeches due to his position in public life.

  • In news: Appointment of Election Commissioner

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the appointment of an Election Commissioner.
    • The court cited a previous Constitution Bench ruling that had already addressed the issue and decided not to quash the appointment.

    About Election Commission of India (ECI)

    • The ECI is a constitutional body was established by the Constitution of India to conduct and regulate elections in the country.
    • Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
    • The body administers elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, State Legislative Councils and the offices of the President and Vice President of the country.
    • Thus, the Election Commission is an all-India body in the sense that it is common to both the Central government and the state governments.
    • The Election Commission operates under the authority of Constitution per Article 324 and subsequently enacted Representation of the People Act 1951.

    Composition of ECI

    • The ECI was established in 1950 and originally only had one Chief Election Commissioner.
    • Two additional Commissioners were appointed to the commission for the first time during the 1989 General Election, but they had a very short tenure, ending on 1 January 1990.
    • The Election Commissioners are assisted by Deputy Election Commissioners, who are generally IAS officers.
    • They are further assisted by Directors General, Principal Secretaries, and Secretaries and Under Secretaries.
    • At the state level, Election Commission is assisted by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, who is an IAS officer of Principal Secretary rank.
    • At the district and constituency levels, the District Magistrates (in their capacity as District Election Officers), Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers perform election work.

    Tenure

    • The tenure of election commissioners is not prescribed by Indian Constitution.
    • However, the Election Commission conduct of service Act, 1991 prescribes the term of service.
    • Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner shall hold office for a term of six years, or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, from the date on which he/she assumes his/her office.

    Removal from office

    • The Chief Election Commissioner of India can be represented removed from their office in a manner similar to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court of India.
    • It requires a resolution passed by the Parliament of India a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    • Other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President of India on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
    • A Chief Election Commissioner has never been impeached in India.

    Recent incidence of criticisms of ECI

    Ans. Partiality in Elections

    • Over the last couple of years, several actions and omissions of the commission have come in for criticism.
    • Nearly 66 former bureaucrats in a letter addressed to the President, expressed their concern over the working of the Election Commission.
    • They felt was suffering from a credibility crisis, citing various violations of the model code of conduct during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections.

    Importance of ECI for India

    • Conduction of Election: The ECI has been successfully conducting national as well as state elections since 1952.
    • Electoral participation: In recent years, however, the Commission has started to play a more active role to ensure greater participation of people.
    • Discipline of political parties: It had gone to the extent of disciplining the political parties with a threat of derecognizing if the parties failed in maintaining inner-party democracy.
    • Upholds federalism: It upholds the values enshrined in the Constitution viz, equality,
      equity, impartiality, independence; and rule of law in superintendence, direction, and control over electoral governance.
    • Free and fair elections: It conducts elections with the highest standard of credibility, freeness, fairness, transparency, integrity, accountability, autonomy and professionalism.

    Issues with ECI

    • Flaws in the composition: The Constitution doesn’t prescribe qualifications for members of the EC. They are not debarred from future appointments after retiring or resigning.
    • No security of tenure: Election commissioners aren’t constitutionally protected with security of tenure.
    • Partisan role: The EC has come under the scanner like never before, with increasing incidents of breach of the Model Code of Conduct in the 2019 general elections.
    • Political favor: The opposition alleged that the ECI was favoring the ruling party by giving clean chit to the model code of conduct violations made by the PM.
    • Non-competence: Increased violence and electoral malpractices under influence of money have resulted in political criminalization, which ECI is unable to arrest.