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

  • First of its kind: Governor skipping the text of customary address to the assembly

    Power

    Context

    • Governor of Tamil Nadu left the assembly session of house while chief minister was point out that governor skip the certain portion of the speech which he was suppose to read. This has again raised the questions over powers and functions of governor.

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    History about powers of governor and assembly address

    • Non-interference of Governors under British: A good governor must stay above politics and manifestly be seen as impartial and fair. In 1937, when the Congress won elections in seven provinces, it took office on the condition that the British governors would not interfere in the functioning of its ministries and refrain from exercising “discretion and special powers”.
    • Special powers under the constitution: However, after Independence, India conferred the same special powers on governors.
    • Yogender Singh Handa v. State of Rajasthan (1967): In 1967, Rajasthan Governor Sampuranand skip a part the speech. In Yogender Singh Handa v. State of Rajasthan (1967), the Rajasthan High Court held that some portion read by the governor was good enough to deem the whole address as read.
    • Governor Padmaja Naidu case: On February 8, 1965, when her request for “silence, silence, permit me to address” was ignored, West Bengal Governor Padmaja Naidu left the assembly without delivering the ceremonial address. The Speaker took the chair and announced that the governor had been pleased to make her speech and lay a copy of her speech on the table of the House.

    Powers and functions of the governor

    • Integral part of assembly: The governor is an integral part of the legislative assembly. He calls its sessions and he dissolves the House.
    • Right to address first session of the house: Under Article 176(2(b), he has the right to address the first session of the House. This address is an integral part of constitutional symbolism and has huge significance.
    • Powers of cabinet, not Governor’s: The Constitution gives no discretion to governors in the matter of convening the session of the assembly. Parliamentary democracy being the basic structure of our Constitution, this is the prerogative of the Cabinet though Article 174 does say that the governor from time to time summons the assembly to meet at such time and place “he thinks fit”.
    • Nabam Rebia (2016) case: Governors have no business to question the purpose of convening the sessions of the House. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia (2016) had observed that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, J P Rajkhowa, who advanced the session of the assembly without the advice of the chief minister, had exceeded his jurisdiction as he had no discretion in convening the assembly session.

    Legality of governor skipping the mandatory speech to assembly

    • Governor cannot decline to give a speech: Justice B N Banerjee of the Calcutta High Court in Andul Gafoor Habibullah v. Speaker, West Bengal Assembly (1966) held that the governor cannot decline to deliver his address and refuse to fulfil his constitutional duty.
    • Failure to address is irregularity not legality: The address under Article 176 is mandatory. However, the HC held that when the governor fails to deliver his address under Article 176 and walks out of the House after laying down the address on the table of the House, this is mere irregularity, not illegality.
    • Non-judiciable in court: It cannot be questioned under Article 212, wherein the validity of the House proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of mere irregularity in the procedure. The petitioner’s claim, in this case, was that since the House did not start its proceedings with the customary address by the governor, it has vitiated the proceedings of the House.

    Implications: If governor refuses/fails to deliver assembly address?

    • Possibility of constitutional crisis: Governors editing/deleting the speech may indeed create a constitutional crisis. The chief minister may refuse to defend the address in his response at the end of the debate on the governor’s address and with the chief minister commanding a majority, the House may reject the resolution on the governor’s speech.
    • CM may need to resign: When the governor’s/president’s address faces such a defeat, it is considered a no-confidence motion and the chief minister or the prime minister as the case may be, needs to resign.
    • Resignation over irregularity: Such a resignation for something that the government did not include in the ceremonial address but the governor had said on its own would not only be grossly unjust and unethical but absolutely undemocratic.
    • Past precedence of resignation: Chief Minister Gurnam Singh of Punjab in 1967 had resigned when the governor’s address was defeated on the floor of the House. UP CM C B Gupta too had to resign in similar circumstances when a resolution thanking the governor was defeated in the UP assembly. Thus, the governor has no discretion in editing the address.

    assembly

    Conclusion

    • Governor is neither a decorative emblem nor a glorified cipher. His powers are limited but he has an important constitutional role to play in the governance of the state and in strengthening federalism. He is the head of the state and all chief ministers, including the Tamil Nadu chief minister, must remember it. All governors too must remain true to their oath of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

    Mains Question

    Q. What are the functions of the Governor with respect to addressing the assembly of the state? What may be the implications of the Governor skipping the address to assembly?

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) and their concerns

    overseas

    Context

    • Government will observe the 17th Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (PBD) in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The day is meant to celebrate the contributions of India’s diaspora. The theme for this year’s event is, “Diaspora: Reliable Partners for India’s Progress in Amrit Kaal”.

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    Pravasi Bhartiya Diwas

    • Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (Non-Resident Indian Day) is a celebratory day observed (starting in 2003) on 9 January by the Republic of India to mark the contribution of the overseas Indian community towards the development of India. The day commemorates the return of Mahatma Gandhi from South Africa to Mumbai on 9 January 1915.

    overseas

    Who are the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI)?

    • OCI are not citizens: Overseas Citizenship of India is a form of permanent residency available to people of Indian origin and their spouses which allows them to live and work in India indefinitely. Despite its name, OCI status is not citizenship and does not grant the right to vote in Indian elections or hold public office.
    • It can be revoked: The Indian government can revoke OCI status in a wide variety of circumstances. As of 2020, there are 6 million holders of OCI cards among the Indian Overseas diaspora.

    What are the concerns of OCI/NRI persons?

    • Scheme for dual citizenship: Originally conceptualised in 2003 by the then NDA government led by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the OCI scheme was envisaged as a dual-citizenship project.
    • All rights of citizen of India: OCIs would enjoy all rights as normal citizens except the right to hold public office and cast their vote.
    • Citizenship to OCI from certain countries: The Vajpayee government introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003 in Parliament. The statement accompanying the Bill, that was passed by Parliament in December that year clearly stated that it was meant to provide dual citizenship to persons of Indian origin from certain countries.
    • Present government Downgraded OCI status: Nearly two decades later, the Union Home Ministry is downgrading the OCI scheme from dual-citizenship to virtually a residency permit scheme. The ministry’s statements in circulars and courts declaring that OCIs are not Indian citizens and that they would not enjoy any fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution have been particularly disheartening.

    overseas

    What are the ambiguities about the downgrading of OCI status?

    • Confusion over rights: There is considerable legal confusion about the status of OCIs. Can they practice certain professions like journalism without prior government permission? Do contributions by OCIs residing in India to charities/schools violate the country’s laws?
    • Problem in donation: During the pandemic, resident OCIs had to ensure their donations went only to NGOs that had FCRA clearance. As a result, many local level initiatives could not be supported with their monetary contributions.
    • Confusion over the status: Very often OCIs have been confronted with remarks, including at courts, that we are foreigners in India. Unlike several other countries, the Indian Constitution does not have exhaustive provisions on citizenship.

    overseas

    Making a case of citizenship for OCI

    • Vasudaiva kutumbakam philosophy: The Government of India announced that India’s Presidency of G20 will be grounded in the principles of “Vasudaiva kutumbakam” wherein the entire world is considered as one family.
    • Push to Mobility for diaspora: Hopefully such political homilies are reflected in the way the government thinks about the idea of citizenship in relation to the increasingly mobile Indian diaspora.
    • Injustice to people born in India: Clearly, an elemental question is whether it is proper to cancel the citizenship of people born in the country, and who have continued engagement with it, merely because they have acquired foreign citizenship. No other progressive democracy does that today, even though most countries had similar laws when India enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955.
    • Removing the outdated laws: In a recent address, Prime Minister Narendra Modi advised Chief Secretaries of states and Union Territories to focus on quality of service over outdated laws and rules, to achieve the goal of making India a developed country by 2047. Realising the essence of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 is in the spirit of the PM’s directive.

    Conclusion

    • OCI contribute immensely to India at home and abroad. But granting a citizenship to Overseas citizens of India will create structural asymmetry in economic, social, political life of ordinary people of India. It will open the flood gates for demand for dual citizenships from other sections of diaspora.

    Mains Question

    Q. What are problems of Overseas Citizens of India? Discuss why OCI deserve the better status in India?

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Centre seeks 6 more months to frame CAA rules

    The Union Home Ministry has sought another extension of 6 months to frame the rules of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), without which it cannot be implemented.

    Why in news?

    • This is the seventh such extension sought by the Ministry.
    • The legislation is contentious issue in West Bengal.
    • The Act is aimed at giving citizenship to the Matua community in West Bengal who trace their origins to present day Bangladesh.

    What is Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019?

    • The act is sought to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 to make Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, eligible for citizenship of India.
    • In other words, it intends to make it easier for non-Muslim immigrants from India’s three Muslim-majority neighbours to become citizens of India.
    • Under The Citizenship Act, 1955, one of the requirements for citizenship by naturalization is that the applicant must have resided in India during the last 12 months, as well as for 11 of the previous 14 years.
    • The amendment relaxes the second requirement from 11 years to 6 years as a specific condition for applicants belonging to these six religions, and the aforementioned three countries.
    • It exempts the members of the six communities from any criminal case under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport Act, 1920 if they entered India before December 31, 2014.

    Key feature: Defining illegal migrants

    • Illegal migrants cannot become Indian citizens in accordance with the present laws.
    • Under the CAA, an illegal migrant is a foreigner who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period.
    • Illegal migrants may be put in jail or deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

    Exceptions

    • The Bill provides that illegal migrants who fulfil four conditions will not be treated as illegal migrants under the Act.  The conditions are:
    1. they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians;
    2. they are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan;
    3. they entered India on or before December 31, 2014;
    4. they are not in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, or areas under the “Inner Line” permit, i.e., Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.

    Controversy with the Act

    • Country of Origin: The Act classifies migrants based on their country of origin to include only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
    • Other religious minorities ignored: It is unclear why illegal migrants from only six specified religious minorities have been included in the Act.
    • Defiance of purpose: India shares a border with Myanmar, which has had a history of persecution of a religious minority, the Rohingya Muslims.
    • Date of Entry: It is also unclear why there is a differential treatment of migrants based on their date of entry into India, i.e., whether they entered India before or after December 31, 2014.
    • Against the spirit of Secularism: Further, granting citizenship on the grounds of religion is seen to be against the secular nature of the Constitution which has been recognised as part of the basic structure that cannot be altered by Parliament.

    Conclusion

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

     

     

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Free speech of Ministers, restrictions and the opinion of the court

    restrictions

    Context

    • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously and rightly ruled out any additional curbs on free speech by ministers. It said, like other citizens, they are guaranteed the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1) (a), governed by the reasonable restrictions laid out in Article 19(2) and those are enough.

    Crack Prelims 2023! Talk to our Rankers

    What is the issue of freedom of speech to Ministers?

    • Scope: Ministers and lawmakers enjoy the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution as other citizens and additional restrictions cannot be imposed to curb their right to free speech.
    • Restrictions: A five-judge Constitution bench held that curbs on free speech cannot extend beyond what is prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions and applies equally on all citizens.

    What the court said?

    • Rights are not residual privileges: Court said that the role of the court is to protect fundamental rights limited by lawful restrictions and not to protect restrictions and make the rights residual privileges.
    • Distinction on government’s responsibility and remarks by individual minister: The ruling also made a valid distinction on the government’s vicarious responsibility for ill-judged or hateful remarks made by its individual ministers, the flow of stream in collective responsibility is from the Council of Ministers to the individual ministers. The flow is not on the reverse, namely from the individual ministers to the Council of Ministers.
    • Clarification on the concept of collective responsibility: It is not possible to extend the concept of collective responsibility, it said, to “any and every statement orally made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative Assembly”.
    • Public functionaries should be more responsible while they speak: Even while agreeing with the majority ruling, however, it is possible to underline the concern articulated in the minority judgment over a hateful public discourse “hate speech, whatever its content may be, denies human beings the right to dignity”. And to agree with it when it speaks of the special duty of public functionaries and other persons of influence to be more responsible and restrained in their speech, to “understand and measure their words”.

    What is ‘Hate Speech’?

    • There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’.
    • The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.
    • Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.
    • In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity

    Brief Analysis: Hate speech by Ministers

    • Problem is real but primarily political: The problem of hate speech by ministers and others belonging to the party in power is real, but it is primarily political.
    • Solution is not in new law as, there are enough provisions to deal with it: The solution is not for the court to draw a new line, or even, as the minority judgment proposed, for Parliament to make another law. There are enough provisions in the statute book to deal with speech that promotes enmity and violence or results in cramping the freedoms of others.
    • Legal provisions can be weaponised so what is needed is a political resolve: What is missing is the political resolve and will of governments to act on instances of hate speech, especially when they involve one of their own, and there are no legal shortcuts to make up for that absence. In fact, the same legal provisions that are designed to curb hate speech can be twisted and turned and weaponised by governments against citizens who dissent and disagree.

    Conclusion

    • The problem of hate speech by ministers and others associated with the party in power is real, but it is primarily political. The solution lies not in making new laws, but in individual responsibility and collective political resolve.

    Mains question

    Q. How do you understand hate speech? Do ministers and MLAs have freedom of speech? Discuss the recent court ruling on free speech restrictions on ministers.

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Ministers’ Right to Free Speech and Issues

    minister

    The Supreme Court has held that there is no reason to impose “additional restrictions” on the right to free speech of Ministers and the government is not vicariously liable for disparaging remarks made by them, even if the comments are traceable to state affairs or meant to protect the government.

    Why are we discussing this?

    • Many politicians make unwarranted statements and tender an apology in return.
    • The PM or the CM does not have disciplinary control over the members of the Council of Ministers.
    • In a country like ours, where there is a multi-party system and where coalition Governments are often formed, it is not possible at all times for the whip to control the politician’s behavior.
    • A derogatory speech that closely resembles hate speech cannot fall within the ambit of the free speech right.

    Do ministers and lawmakers have absolute freedom of speech?

    • Scope: Ministers and lawmakers enjoy the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution as other citizens and additional restrictions cannot be imposed to curb their right to free speech.
    • Restrictions: A five-judge Constitution bench held that curbs on free speech cannot extend beyond what is prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution imposes reasonable restrictions and applies equally on all citizens.

    What is the case?

    • The proceedings in the case began when the top court took cognisance of a controversial statement made by former UP minister in July 2016.
    • He had allegedly termed a gang rape case as part of a “political conspiracy”. While he was let off with an unconditional apology, the Court agreed to examine the larger issue.
    • In October 2017, a three-judge bench referred the matter to the constitution bench to decide on various aspects of the matter.

    Key issues examined

    • Free speech and sensitive issues: The top priority was to examine whether ministers, public functionaries and lawmakers can claim freedom of speech while expressing views on sensitive matters.
    • Free speech and state matters: Another key aspect of the matter was whether a statement by a minister in relation to any affairs of the State or for the protection of government can be attributed vicariously to the government itself.

    What does Article 19 say?

    • Freedom: Article 19(1) (a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. It is the first condition of liberty and plays an important role in forming public opinion.
    • Restrictions: As per Article 19(2), restrictions can be imposed upon the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of:
    1. Sovereignty and integrity of India,
    2. Security of the state,
    3. Friendly relations with foreign states,
    4. Public order, decency or morality, or
    5. In relation to contempt of court,
    6. Defamation, or
    7. Incitement to an offense

    What does the judgment say about free speech restrictions?

    • Citizens had the right to petition the Court for violations of Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 21 (right to life).
    • A statement made by the Minister, inconsistent with the rights of the citizens, may not by itself be actionable.
    • It is not possible to extend this concept of collective responsibility to any and every statement orally made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative Assembly.

    Way forward

    • Legal framework: A proper legal framework was necessary before taking action as a constitutional tort.
    • Political will: Parliament could enact legislation or code to restrain citizens in general and public functionaries in particular from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens.
    • Code of conduct: Likewise, political parties should come up with a code of conduct to regulate and control the actions and speech of their functionaries and members.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Sixth Schedule and Ladakh

    ladakh

    A high-powered committee to ensure protection of land and employment for the people of Ladakh does not address the demand for inclusion of State under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

    What is the Sixth Schedule?

    • The Sixth Schedule under Article 244 provides for the formation of autonomous administrative divisions — Autonomous District Councils (ADCs).
    • ADCs have some legislative, judicial, and administrative autonomy within a state.
    • The Sixth Schedule applies to the NE states of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram (three Councils each), and Tripura (one Council).

    Composition of ADCs

    • ADCs have up to 30 members with a term of five years.
    • It can make laws, rules and regulations with regard to land, forest, water, agriculture, village councils, health, sanitation, village- and town-level policing, inheritance, marriage and divorce, social customs and mining, etc.
    • The Bodoland Territorial Council in Assam is an exception with more than 40 members and the right to make laws on 39 issues.

    Why does Ladakh want to be part of the Sixth Schedule?

    • Tribal populations: According to the 2011 Census, the tribal population in the UT of Ladakh is 79.61% of the total population.
    • Local aspirations: There was much enthusiasm initially, mostly in Leh, after the repeal of Art. 370 which created two new UTs.
    • Negligence in erstwhile J&K state: Buddhist-dominated Leh district had long demanded UT status because it felt neglected by the erstwhile state government.
    • Denial of Legislature: The enthusiasm waned as it was understood that while the UT of J&K would have a legislature, the UT of Ladakh would not.
    • Inadequate representation: The administration of the region is now completely in the hands of bureaucrats with only 1 MP.
    • New domicile criteria: The changed domicile policy in Jammu and Kashmir has raised fears in the region about its own land, employment, demography, and cultural identity.
    • Statehood demands: A coalition of social, religious, and political representatives in Leh and Kargil has demanded full statehood for Ladakh.

    Cultural significance of Ladakh

    • Ladakh is historically perceived as a cosmopolitan region with centuries of multiple cultural settings.
    • It was an Asian pivot – the people here traversed diverse cultural boundaries and engaged with ideas.

    Can Ladakh be included in Sixth Schedule?

    • NCST Recommends: In September 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended the inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule.
    • Distinct culture: It was predominantly tribal (more than 97%), people from other parts of the country had been restricted from purchasing or acquiring land there, and its distinct cultural heritage needed preservation.

    Legal hurdles

    • Fifth schedule as an alternative: The Constitution is very clear, Sixth Schedule is for the Northeast. For tribal areas in the rest of the country, there is the Fifth Schedule.
    • Exclusive provision for NE: Notably, no region outside the Northeast has been included in the Sixth Schedule.
    • Requires Constitutional Amendment: It remains the prerogative of the government. For this, a constitutional amendment is required.

     

    Try this question from CSP 2015:

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

    (a) Protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes

    (b) Determine the boundaries between States

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

    (d) Protect the interests of all the Border States

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”auf90w3qys” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Why courts keep striking down OBC reservation in local polls?

    The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed the state government’s draft notification on urban local body elections and ordered that the polls be held without reservation for OBCs.

    Precursor to the news

    • The Uttar Pradesh government had issued a draft notification for the reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in urban local body elections.

    Why did the HC strike the draft down?

    • The verdict comes on the back of PILs challenging the state’s OBC reservation draft.
    • It was alleged that it was prepared without following the “triple test” formula prescribed by the Supreme Court.
    • The Court said that OBC reservation in local body polls cannot be provided until conditions mandated in the “triple test” are complied with.

    What’s the Triple Test formula?

    • A five-judge Constitution Bench in the K. Krishnamurthy (Dr.) v. Union of India (2010) judgment said that barriers to political participation are not the same as barriers to education and employment.
    • While deciding on the legality of OBC reservations in Maharashtra local body elections in March 2021, the Supreme Court set out a three-layered test – also called triple test.
    • This is something that State governments have to follow to provide reservations-
    1. Step 1: States must set up a dedicated commission to examine backwardness in local bodies.
    2. Step 2: they must determine the size of the quota for communities on the basis of data collected by the commission.
    3. Step 3: These reservations, combined with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes quotas, cannot exceed 50% of the total seats in the local body.

    What did the court observe now?

    • Reservation to OBCs in local body elections without empirical base can no more be sustainable in law.
    • The latest order in RR Wagh v. State of Maharashtra & others makes it mandatory that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for providing reservation to OBCs in local bodies shall be scrupulously followed across the country.

    Major takeaways of K. Krishnamurthy Case

    In this case, the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 243D(6) and Article 243T(6), which permit reservation by enactment of law for backward classes in local bodies respectively.

    • It held that barriers to political participation are not the same as that of the barriers that limit access to education and employment.
    • However, for creating a level playing field, reservation may be desirable as mandated by the aforementioned conditions.
    • Above articles provide a separate constitutional basis for reservation, as distinct from what are conceived under Article 15 (4) and Article 16 (4) which form the basis for reservation in education and employment.

    Reception of the Krishnamurthy Judgment

    • The Indian political class usually displays apathy to the law declared by the courts as contrary to the enacted law.
    • The 2010 judgment was not acted upon and the constitutionality of the enacted reservation was challenged.
    • This resulted in the 2021 judgment of a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

    What about other states?

    • In 2021, OBC reservations in local bodies were set aside in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh too on similar grounds by courts.
    • Earlier this year, the Karnataka and Patna high courts have set aside notifications reserving seats for OBCs in municipal elections in Bengaluru and Bihar.
    • In May this year, the top court, however, allowed local body polls with OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh after it proved compliance to the triple test formula.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • What is Public Financial Management System (PFMS)?

    pfms

    The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), in its report found that the tasks related to the implementation of the PFMS appeared to have been dealt with a casual approach and there was no proper financial planning.

    Public Finance Management System (PFMS)

    • PFMS is an online platform developed and implemented by the office of the Controller General of Accounts (CGA) under the Union Ministry of Finance.
    • The PFMS portal is used to make direct payments to beneficiaries of government schemes.
    • PFMS initially started as a Plan scheme named CPSMS of the Planning Commission in 2008-09 as a pilot in four States of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab and Mizoram.
    • It was for four Flagship schemes e.g. MGNREGS, NRHM, SSA and PMGSY.
    • In December, 2013 the Union Cabinet approved the national roll out of PFMS for all States.

    Mandate of PFMS

    PFMS has been mandated the following:

    • It acts as a financial management platform for all plan schemes and allows for efficient and effective tracking of fund flow to the lowest level of implementation for the planning scheme of the Government.
    • It is mandated to provide information on fund utilization leading to better monitoring, review, and decision support system to enhance public accountability in the implementation of plan schemes.
    • To result in effectiveness and economy in Public Finance Management through better cash management for Government transparency in public expenditure and real-time information on resource availability and utilization across schemes.

    Achievements of PFMS

    • PFMS can be credited to the transformation of Direct Beneficiary Transfers space in financial governance in India.
    • An estimated 102 crore DBT transactions were done through PFMS in FY 19-20 amounting to about ₹2.67 lakh crore.
    • Through efficient use of technology, PFMS is estimated to have saved about ₹1 lakh crore in direct beneficiary transfers.

    Factors that could determine the successful evolution of PFMS in future

    • Agility in terms of Onboarding/Integrating all Govt. accounts: Only after ensuring significant coverage, the true execution of the concept will take place.
    • Effective data management capabilities: PFMS will have to add significant data management capabilities in order to ensure better monitoring/review to deliver on the idea of a decision support system for effective cash management or management of idle float in the system.
    • Constantly upgrading: Adaption to rapid changes in technology is another key area that would call for a considerable amount of focus both in terms of gradation and monitoring.
    • Collaboration with the banking system: Lastly, one of the most critical factors for the successful execution of PFMS is its integration with the banking systems.

    What did PAC observe now?

    • PAC is concerned over data security of PFMS.
    • It observed that in the absence of a dedicated workforce, a key strategic system like the PFMS could possibly encounter new threats every now and then owing to the advancements in technology.
    • It stressed the need for a thorough assessment of physical and technical infrastructure along with back-up arrangements required in the PFMS scheme.

    Conclusion

    • The PFMS has revolutionized the ways public finances are managed in the country.
    • With constant improvement and increasing coverage, the scope of PFMS is ever-increasing.

    Back2Basics: Public Accounts Committee

    • The PAC is a committee of selected members of parliament constituted for the purpose of auditing the revenue and the expenditure of the Government of India.
    • It was established in 1921 after its first mention in the Government of India Act, 1919.
    • PAC is one of the parliamentary committees that examine the annual audit reports of CAG, which the President lays before the Parliament of India.
    • It seeks to examines public expenditure.
    • Those three reports submitted by CAG are:
    1. Audit report on appropriation accounts
    2. Audit report on finance accounts
    3. Audit report on public undertakings

    Its members-

    • It consists of not more than twenty-two members, fifteen elected by Lok Sabha and not more than seven members of Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament.
    • The members are elected every year from amongst its members of respective houses according to the principle of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote.
    • None of its members are allowed to be ministers in the government.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    (Click) FREE 1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Karnataka-Maharashtra border Dispute: Is it just a political tool?

    border

    Context

    • The eruption of strong language chauvinism on the border of Karnataka and Maharashtra is neither sudden nor primarily linguistic. The number of speakers of both of Marathi and Kannada languages has been overwhelmingly large. If it is not language, is it the sudden memory of a badly mangled territorial border that has irked people?

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    What is the dispute in short?

    • A petition filed by the Maharashtra government, challenging some provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and demanding 865 villages from five districts of Karnataka. The five districts are Belagavi, Karwar, Vijayapura, Kalaburagi and Bidar.,
    • In Karnataka, tensions are high, especially in Belagavi district, which borders Maharashtra

    border

    When did the dispute begin?

    • Since the State Reorganisation Act passed in 1956: Maharashtra and Karnataka have sparred over the inclusion of some towns and villages along the state border ever since the State Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament in 1956. The Act was based on the findings of the Justice Fazal Ali Commission, which was appointed in 1953 and submitted its report two years later.
    • Erstwhile Mysore renamed and formed State of Karnataka and the differences erupted: On November 1, 1956, Mysore state later renamed Karnataka was formed, and differences between the state and the neighbouring Bombay state later Maharashtra erupted.
    • View of Maharashtra: Maharashtra was of the view that the northwestern district of Karnataka, Belagavi, should be part of the state, leading to a decade-long violent agitation and formation of Maharashtra Ekikaran Samithi (MES), which still holds sway in parts of the district and the eponymous city

    border

    What was the Centre’s response?

    • Union government ste up a Commission in 1966: Amid protests and pressure from Maharashtra, the Union government set up a commission under retired Supreme Court judge Justice Meharchand Mahajan on October 25, 1966. S Nijalingappa was the karnataka Chief minister then and VP Nayak was his Maharashtra counterpart.
    • Report come up with a settlement on merging of towns and villages: The report was expected to be a binding document for both states and put an end to the dispute. The commission submitted its report in August 1967, where it recommended merging 264 towns and villages of Karnataka (including Nippani, Nandgad and Khanapur) with Maharashtra, and 247 villages of Maharashtra (including South Solapur and Akkalkot) with Karnataka.
    • Report tabled in 1970 but no implementation took place as it became a poll issue: Though the report was tabled in 1970 in the Parliament, it was not taken up for discussion. Without the implementation of the recommendations, demands of Marathi-speaking regions to be part of Maharashtra and Kannada-speaking regions to be part of Karnataka continued to grow. MES made it a poll issue in many parts of Belagavi and won successive elections from constituencies in the district.

    Bilingualism: an essential element of the culture of the area

    • Extended families on both sides: The castes and communities on both sides of the disputed border have their extended families spread on either side of it.
    • Harmonious Cultural exchange: All of the harmoniums and sitars played by the greatest among Karnataka’s singers have been made in Maharashtra’s Miraj town for the last 120 years.
    • Influence of Bhakti movement on one another: In the past, the bhajans of Tukaram have made their way into the hearts of the Kannada speakers with as much ease as did the vachanas of Basaveshwar’s saint-followers into the minds of Marathi speakers.
    • Influence of one another’s language: Thousands of Marathi words are of Kannada origin and a similar number of words in Kannada have assimilated the Indo-Aryan roots through Marathi.

    Critique: Dispute is more of a political tool

    • Dispute is visible but not in the essence: The dispute is in the name of language, but it is not linguistic in essence. It is in the name of a border, but it is not territorial in essence.
    • The dispute is becoming more of a political demand: People know that the area will see disturbance when politicians want to unleash it. Appealing to language chauvinism acquires an instrumentalist-political demand.
    • Diverting the discontent: The truth is, neither the language nor the people along the state border are an issue for them, as they should be. What matters to the political war-lords is to find a way of diverting the discontent, no matter what harm it brings to the harmony of communities in the area.

    Conclusion

    • Almost two decades after the petition, its maintainability remains challenged. Karnataka has resorted to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution to argue that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the borders of states, and only Parliament has the power to do so. Maharashtra has referred to Article 131 of the Constitution, which says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases related to disputes between the Union government and states.

    Mains Question

    Q. There seems the cultural, traditional and lingual exchange in the border areas of the states in India. Despite of the cultural amity, disputes resurface time ang again. Discuss with a case of Maharashtra Karnataka border dispute.

    (Click) FREE1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Religious conversion and Fundamental right to freedom of religion

    religion

    Context

    • While hearing a petition seeking a ban on forced conversions, Division Bench judge of the apex court said, “The purpose of charity should not be conversion. Every charity or good work is welcome, but what is required to be considered is the intention,” The observation, loaded with significant implications, is to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Constitution relating to people’s fundamental right to freedom of religion, its legislative history and judicial interpretation.

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

    Fundamental right to freedom of religion

    • Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion before the constitution of India: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, which was before the makers of the future Constitution for independent India had proclaimed: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” [Article 18].
    • Extensive debate on religious freedom as a people’s right in the Constituent Assembly: Keeping this in mind, religious freedom as a people’s right was repeatedly debated in the Constituent Assembly. In cognisance of Christianity’s traditions of evangelism and proselytisation, it was to include the right to propagate religion.

    religion

    Journey of a Right to freedom of religion before and after The Constitution

    • British rulers facilitated conversion to their religion: The British rulers of India, who were never shy of introducing measures to facilitate the conversion of others to their faith.
    • British rulers enacted Native Converts Marriage Dissolution Act in 1866: They had enacted in 1866 a Native Converts Marriage Dissolution Act to provide the facility of divorce to married Indians who converted to Christianity and were thereupon deserted by their non-converting spouses.
    • The Act recently dropped which was once thought to by the law commission of India: After Independence, the Law Commission of India recommended that this Act be revised to make it a general law on the effect of post-marriage change of religion, but the government did not take any action on it. The original Act remained in force till recently but was eventually dropped from the statute book by the Repealing and Amending Act of 2017.
    • Alerted by the missionaries’ princely states enforced anti conversion laws: Alerted by the missionaries’ evangelistic activities, several princely states of the pre-Independence era had enforced anti-conversion laws Raigarh, Udaipur and Bikaner among them.
    • Constitution Bench in case where state freedom of religion Acts was challenged: During 1967-68, state legislatures in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh enacted similar laws, both ostensibly titled as Freedom of Religion Act. Christian leaders lost no time in challenging their constitutional validity in the Supreme Court. Heading a Constitution Bench, Chief Justice of the time AN Ray, argued that converting people interfered with their religious freedom and held that Article 25 granted “not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion but (only) to transmit and spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets” .
    • The Constitution Bench decision inspired some other states to enact similar laws: Beginning with the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 1978. Today there are such laws in about half of our states. Some of these have been either newly enacted or made more stringent, since the beginning of the present political dispensation in 2014. All of them prohibit converting people from one to another religion without their free will and, to indicate this, use various expressions like force, fraud, inducement and allurement.
    • Drafts on the conversion: While the first draft of the future Constitution proposed to restrain conversion except by one’s own free will, the second was to recognise the “right to preach and convert within limits compatible with public order and morality.”
    • Constitution recognised the right to propagate: Eventually, the Constitution recognised the right to propagate, along with freedom of conscience and the right to profess and practice, one’s religion as people’s fundamental right. Prima facie, individuals’ right to forsake their religion by birth and embrace another faith was integral to freedom of conscience
    • Supreme Courts observations regarding the right to propagate: As regards the propagation of religion, in two cases decided in 1954, the apex court observed that Article 25 covered every individual’s right “to propagate his religious views for the edification of others” (RP Gandhi) and that “it is the propagation of belief that is protected, no matter whether the propagation takes place in a church or monastery, or in a temple or parlour meeting” (Shirur Math).

    Do you know this interesting news?

    • The Bombay High Court has recently held that the freedom of conscience of a person “includes a right to openly say that he does not believe in any religion”

    religion

    Mahatma Gandhi’s view on freedom of religion

    • Mahatma Gandhi once said that “all faiths are equally true though equally imperfect”
    • He had pleaded that, instead of converting others to one’s own faith, “our innermost prayer should be that a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim and a Christian a better Christian” (Young India, 1924).
    • He had also once said: “If I had power and could legislate I should stop all proselytising” (Harijan, 1935).

    How is religious freedom protected under the Constitution?

    • Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees the “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”.
    • It is a right that guarantees a negative liberty — which means that the state shall ensure that there is no interference or obstacle to exercise this freedom.
    • However, like all fundamental rights, the state can restrict the right for grounds of public order, decency, morality, health and other state interests.

    Conclusion

    • An observation made by the Supreme Court on “forced conversions” is to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Constitution relating to people’s fundamental right to freedom of religion, its legislative history and judicial interpretation and set the future roadmap to make. Pluralism and inclusiveness are characterized by religious freedom. Its purpose is to promote social harmony and diversity.

    Mains question

    Q. What is Fundamental right to freedom of religion? What was Mahatma Gandhi’s view on religion? How it is interpreted in the constitution of India?

    (Click) FREE1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more