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

  • Tamil Nadu legislature turns 100

    The Assembly chambers at Fort St. George, the 17th-century vestige of the colonial era, and Tamil Nadu’s seat of power have completed 100 years of existence.

    Do you know?

    Fort St. George is the first English fortress in India, founded in 1639 at the coastal city of Madras, the modern city of Chennai. The construction of the fort provided the impetus for further settlements and trading activity, in what was originally an uninhabited land.

    Elections in Tamil Nadu

    • Tamil Nadu witnessed elections in November 1920 as a result of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report and the Government of India Act of 1919.
    • The electors included only men, accounting for just 3% of the population.
    • The concept of dyarchy came into being with Ministers, who were Indians, gaining limited control over certain subjects, such as local self-government and education.
    • It was then that the office of the Chief Minister, also called Premier, got instituted.

    Key works accomplished

    • Reservations in public employment: For the first time, caste became the basis for appointment to public services. It took over 70 years for the Central government to follow the principle in its institutions for education and employment.
    • Above 50% cap in reservation: In December 1993, the scheme of 69% reservation for Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, SCs and STs got legal safeguard. The law was subsequently included in the IX Schedule of the Constitution, through an amendment passed in Parliament, so that its validity could not be challenged.

    Other facts

    • Women’s suffrage: In early 1927, Muthulakshmi Reddy, the well-known medical practitioner and social activist, became the first woman member of the Council and, in no time, became the Deputy President of the Council.
    • Gopuram as an emblem: The symbol features a ‘gopuram’ (temple tower) – characteristic of south Indian temples has been adopted as the state emblem.
    • Change of name: During the two-year rule of the DMK founder C.N. Annadurai, the Assembly, in July 1967, adopted a motion renaming Madras State as Tamil Nadu, which later got the approval of Parliament.
    • Social reforms: It has passed several landmark laws for the welfare of women, such as Devadasi abolition, equal rights to women in property and the constitution of the State Commission for Women.

    Back2Basics: Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

    Central Legislature thereafter called the Indian Legislature was reconstituted on the enlarged and more representative character.

    • Bicameral legislature: The act set up bicameral legislatures at the centre consisting of two houses- the Council of the States (Upper House) and the Central Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
    • Election and nominations: It consisted of the Council of State consisted of 60 members of whom 34 members were elected and the Legislative Assembly consisted of about 145 members, of whom about 104 were elected and the rest nominated.
    • Separation of power: The central and provincial subjects were demarcated and separated.
    • Diarchy: The Provincial subjects were further divided into Transferred Subjects and Reserved Subjects, the legislative council had no say in the latter.
    • Communal representation: The principle of separate electorate was further extended to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans.
    • Working review: It provided for the appointment of a statutory commission to report the working of the act after ten years.

  • India at 75 is ready for a sedition-less future

    Context

    Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has ignited a passionate debate during a preliminary hearing concerning whether “sedition” should be an offence at all, and how to prevent its misuse or abuse, were it to remain

    Issues with the sedition under Section 124A

    • Against fundamental right: The meandering meanings of expressions such as “disaffection” towards the government, “hatred”, “contempt” etc. constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the authors of the amended Article 19(2) included “sedition” as a ground for “reasonable restriction” to freedom of speech and expression.
    • Colonial past: CJI Ramana in preliminary hearings has pointedly asked the Attorney General whether “sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is still required after 75 years of independence from colonial rule.
    • Prone to misuse: The lack of definition of terms used in the section leaves vide the scope for interpretation and thus rampant misuse and abuse.

    Way forward

    • Some law luminaries have found new stirrings of hope in the Supreme Court to strike it down.
    • Find means to prevent misuse and abuse: Alternative way,as the learned attorney general observed is to find constitutional ways and practical means to prevent the abuse and misuse of law.
    • Forbid rampant private complaints:  A most immediate step is to forbid rampant private complaints by citizens and authorise only very senior police officials to take appropriate action.

    Conclusion

    What Gandhiji said — the law may not be used to “manufacture affection” under pain of a penal sanction — was as true then as it remains now. It is high time to realise that the law of “sedition” must go, even when it may strictly not even exist!

  • Explained: Creamy Layer in OBCs

    A proposal to revise the criteria for defining the “creamy layer” among OBCs has been pending for years, and MPs have raised the issue during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament.

    What is the Creamy Layer?

    • Creamy Layer is a concept that sets a threshold within which OBC reservation benefits are applicable.
    • While there is a 27% quota for OBCs in government jobs and higher educational institutions, those falling within the “creamy layer” cannot get the benefits of this quota.

    Basis of Creamy Layer

    • It is based on the recommendation of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission).
    • The government in 1990 had notified 27% reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in vacancies in civil posts and services that are to be filled on direct recruitment.
    • After this was challenged, the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer.

    How is it determined?

    • Following the order in Indra Sawhney, an expert committee headed by Justice (retired) R N Prasad was constituted for fixing the criteria for determining the creamy layer.
    • In 1993, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) listed out various categories of people of certain rank/status/income whose children cannot avail the benefit of OBC reservation.
    1. For those not in government, the current threshold is an income of Rs 8 lakh per year.
    2. For children of government employees, the threshold is based on their parents’ rank and not income.
    3. For instance, an individual is considered to fall within the creamy layer if either of his or her parents is in a constitutional post; if either parent has been directly recruited in Group-A; or if both parents are in Group-B services.
    4. If the parents enter Group-A through promotion before the age of 40, their children will be in the creamy layer.
    5. Children of a Colonel or higher-ranked officer in the Army, and children of officers of similar ranks in the Navy and Air Force, too, come under the creamy layer.
    6. Income from salaries or agricultural land is not clubbed while determining the creamy layer (2004).

    What is happening now?

    • MPs have raised questions about the pending proposal for revising the criteria.
    • They have asked whether the provision of a creamy layer for government services only for OBC candidates is rational and justified.

    Has it ever been revised?

    • Other than the income limit, the current definition of the creamy layer remains the same as the DoPT had spelled out in 1993 and 2004.
    • The income limit has been revised over the years.
    • No other orders for the definition of the creamy layer have been issued.
    • While the DoPT had stipulated that it would be revised every three years, the first revision since 1993 (Rs 1 lakh per year) happened only in 2004 (Rs 2.50 lakh), 2008 (Rs 4.50 lakh), 2013 (Rs 6 lakh), and 2017 (Rs 8 lakh).
    • It is now more than three years since the last revision.

    What does the government propose to do about the revision?

    • A draft Cabinet note has stated that the creamy layer will be determined on all income, including salary calculated for income tax, but not agriculture income.
    • The government is considering a consensus on Rs 12 lakh but salary and agriculture income are also being added to the gross annual income.

  • Right to be Forgotten in India

    A TV celebrity has approached the Delhi High Court with a plea saying that his videos, photographs, and articles, etc. be removed from the internet citing his “Right to be Forgotten”.

    What is the plea about?

    • The plea mentions that the posts and videos on the internet related to him have caused the petitioner psychological pain for his diminutive acts.
    • The plea also states that the petitioner’s mistakes in his personal life become and remains in public knowledge for generations to come.
    • Consequently, the values enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the emergent jurisprudential concept of the Right to be Forgotten becomes extremely relevant in the present case.”

    What is the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in the Indian context?

    • The Right to be Forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by Parliament.
    • In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.

    What does the Personal Data Protection Bill say about this?

    • The Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019, and it aims to set out provisions meant for the protection of the personal data of individuals.
    • Clause 20 under Chapter V of this draft bill titled “Rights of Data Principal” mentions the “Right to be Forgotten.”
    • It states that the “data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by a data fiduciary”.
    • Therefore, broadly, under the Right to be forgotten, users can de-link, limit, delete or correct the disclosure of their personal information held by data fiduciaries.
    • A data fiduciary means any person, including the State, a company, any juristic entity, or any individual who alone or in conjunction with others determines the purpose and means of the processing of personal data.

  • Surveillance Laws in India and Individual Privacy

    After alleged WhatsApp snooping cases the government has claimed that all interception in India takes place lawfully.

    Try this question in the comment box:

    Q.There should be some reasonable basis or some tangible evidence to initiate or seek approval for interception by State authorities. Critically comment with respect to individual privacy and surveillance laws in India. (250W)

    What are the laws covering surveillance in India?

    Communication surveillance in India takes place primarily under two laws:

    1. Telegraph Act, 1885: It deals with interception of calls.
    2. Information Technology Act, 2000: It was enacted to deal with surveillance of all electronic communication, following the Supreme Court’s intervention in 1996.

    [I] Telegraph Act, 1885

    • Call interception: Under Section 5(2) of this law, the government can intercept calls only in certain situations.
    • For sovereignty: They include the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offense.
    • Free speech restrictions: These are the same restrictions imposed on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
    • Exceptions for journalists: A provision in Section 5(2) states that even this lawful interception cannot take place against journalists.

    Supreme Court intervention

    • In Public Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court pointed out the lack of procedural safeguards in the provisions of the Telegraph Act.
    • The court noted that authorities engaging in interception were not even maintaining adequate records and logs on an interception.
    • It noted that- tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy.
    • The Supreme Court’s guidelines formed the basis of introducing Rule 419A in the Telegraph Rules in 2007 and later in the rules prescribed under the IT Act in 2009.
    • Rule 419A states that a Secretary in the MHA can pass orders of interception in the case of the Centre, and a secretary-level officer who is in charge of the Home Department can issue such directives in States.

    [II] IT Act, 2000

    • Electronic surveillance: Section 69 of the IT Act and the IT (Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 were enacted to further the legal framework for electronic surveillance.
    • Data interception: Under the IT Act, all electronic transmission of data can be intercepted.
    • Section 69 of the IT Act adds another aspect that makes it broader — interception, monitoring, and decryption of digital information “for the investigation of an offense”.

    Identifying the gaps

    • In 2012, the Planning Commission was tasked with identifying the gaps in laws affecting privacy.
    • It pointed out divergence in-laws on permitted grounds, “type of interception”, “granularity of information that can be intercepted”, the degree of assistance from service providers, and the “destruction and retention” of intercepted material.
    • Although the grounds of selecting a person for surveillance and the extent of information gathering have to be recorded in writing, the wide reach of these laws has not been tested in court against the cornerstone of fundamental rights.

    Only inference: Right to Privacy is not absolute

    • Only in such exceptional circumstances, however, can an individual’s right to privacy be superseded to protect the national interest.
    • In today’s times, when fake news and illegal activities such as cyber terrorism on the dark web are on the rise, the importance of reserving such powers to conduct surveillance cannot be undermined.

    What is our concern?

    • For Pegasus-like spyware to be used lawfully, the government would have to invoke both the IT Act and the Telegraph Act.
    • There is no comprehensive data protection law leaving ambiguities over several laws.
    • A comprehensive data protection law to address the gaps in existing frameworks for surveillance is yet to enact.

    What should be the basis for surveillance?

    • There should be some reasonable basis or some tangible evidence to initiate or seek approval for interception by State authorities.
    • Any action without such evidence or basis would be struck down by courts as arbitrary, or invasive of one’s right to privacy.
    • Any digression from the ethical and legal parameters set by law would be tantamount to a deliberate invasion of citizens’ privacy and make India a surveillance state.

    Way forward

    • The security of a device becomes one of the fundamental bedrock of maintaining user trust as society becomes more and more digitized.
    • There is an urgent need to take up this issue seriously by constituting an independent high-level inquiry with credible members and experts that can restore confidence and conduct its proceedings transparently.

    Conclusion

    • We must recognize that national security starts with securing the smartphones of every single Indian by embracing technologies such as encryption rather than deploying spyware.
    • This is a core part of our fundamental right to privacy.
    • This intrusion by spyware is not merely an infringement of the rights of the citizens of the country but also a worrying development for India’s national security apparatus.

    Back2Basics: Right to Privacy

    • Right to Privacy can be defined as:
    1. a right to be let alone;
    2. the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity;
    3. the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned”.
    • Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.
    • The right to privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India.
    • After reading Article 21, it has been interpreted that the term ‘life’ includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living.
    • The scope of this right first came up for consideration in Kharak Singh’s Case which was concerned with the validity of certain regulations that permitted surveillance of suspects.
    • The 1978’s judgment in Maneka Gandhi Case established the new doctrine that the distinct fundamental rights are not carved out from each other but overlap paving way for the Right to Privacy.
    • The latest interpretation included the Naz Foundation Case (2009) in which Delhi HC gave the landmark decision on consensual homosexuality.

  • SC quashes some provisions of 97th Amendment dealing with co-operative societies

    In a major boost for federalism, the Supreme Court has struck down parts of the 97th Constitution amendment which shrank the exclusive authority of States over their cooperative societies.

    Background

    • The Gujarat High Court in 2013 had held that the amendment, to the extent it introduced conditions for state laws on co-operative societies, was liable to be struck down.
    • This amendment was passed without the ratification of one-half of the state legislatures as mandated by Article 368(2) of the Constitution.
    • As per Article 368(2), ratification of one-half of state legislatures is required for an amendment that makes changes to an entry in the state list.
    • Since co-operative societies were a state subject as per Entry 32 in List II of the Seventh Schedule, the amendment introducing Part IX B required ratification as per Article 368(2), the High Court ruled.

    What was 97th Amendment about?

    • The 97th constitutional amendment dealt with issues related to the effective management of cooperative societies in the country.
    • It was passed by Parliament in December 2011 and had come into effect from February 15, 2012.
    • Part IXB, introduced in the Constitution through the 97th Amendment of 2012, dictated the terms for running cooperative societies.
    • The provisions in the amendment went to the extent of determining the number of directors a society should have or their length of tenure and even the necessary expertise.

    What is the recent Judgement?

    • In a majority judgment, the supreme court has held that cooperative societies come under the “exclusive legislative power” of State legislatures.
    • The judgment may be significant in the background of fears voiced by the States whether the new Central Ministry of Cooperation would disempower them.
    • The change in the Constitution has amended Article 19(1)(c) to give protection to the cooperatives and inserted Article 43 B and Part IX B, relating to them.
    • The Centre has contended that the provision does not denude the States of its power to enact laws with regard to cooperatives.

    Exceptions to the amendment

    • The Supreme court did not strike down the portions of Part IXB of the Amendment concerning “Multi-State Cooperative Societies” due to the lack of ratification.
    • When it comes to Multi-State Co-operative Societies (MSCS) with objects not confined to one State, the legislative power would be that of the Union of India.

    What was the dissenting opinion?

    • In his dissent, Justice K.M. Joseph said the doctrine of severability would not operate to distinguish between single-State cooperatives and MSCS.
    • The judge said the entire Part IXB should be struck down on the ground of absence of ratification.

    Back2Basics: Doctrine of Severability

    • Article 13 deals with laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights.
    • It also deals with all laws enforced in India, before the commencement of the Constitution.
    • The doctrine of Severability in Article 13 can be understood in two dimensions
    1. Article 13(1) validates all Pre-Constitutional Law and thereby declares that all pre-Constitutional laws in force before the commencement of the Indian Constitution shall be void if they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights.
    2. Article 13(2) mandates the State that it shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Indian Constitution and any law contraventions this clause shall be void.
    • This doctrine widens the scope for Judicial Review on unconstitutional parts of any law.

  • Explained: Shreya Singhal case that struck down Section 66A of IT Act

    Six years after it struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Supreme Court earlier this month termed its continued use by law enforcement agencies of various states as “a shocking state of affairs” and sought a response from the Centre.

    What did Section 66A do?

    • Introduced in 2008, the amendment to the IT Act, 2000, gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly “offensive and menacing” online posts, and was passed without discussion in Parliament.
    • Section 66A empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.
    • It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.
    • In 2015, the apex court struck down the law in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague”, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet.

    Why was the law criticized?

    • The problem was with the vagueness about what is “offensive”.
    • The word having a very wide connotation was open to distinctive, varied interpretations.
    • It was seen as subjective, and what might have been innocuous for one person, could lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest arbitrarily.

    So, how did 66A come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

    • The first petition came up in the court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post.
    • The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a political leader.
    • The arrests triggered outrage from all quarters over the manner in which the cyber law was used.
    • The petition was filed by Shreya Singhal, then a 21-year-old law student.

    What were the grounds for the challenge?

    • The objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of information technology, particularly through social media.
    • The petitioners argued that Section 66A came with extremely wide parameters, which allowed whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.
    • Most of the terms used in the section had not been specifically defined under the Act.
    • The law was a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online and to curtail freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution, going far beyond the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom.

    What did the Supreme Court decide?

    • In March 2015, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman ruled in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India declared Section 66A unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”
    • Article 19(1)(a) gives people the right to speech and expression whereas 19(2) accords the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.
    • The decision was considered a landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.
    • The bench also read down Section 79– now at the centre of the ongoing “intermediary liability” battle between the Centre and micro-blogging platform Twitter– defining key rules for the relationship between governments and commercial internet platforms.
    • Section 79 says that any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.

  • Sedition Law and its discontents

    The CJI is now convinced that sedition law (IPC 124A) is being misused by the authorities to trample upon citizens’ fundamental rights of free speech and liberty.

    What does Section 124A of the IPC say?

    • The section deals with the offence of sedition, a term that covers speech or writing, or any form of visible representation, which brings the government into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards the government, or attempts to do so.
    • It is punishable with three years in prison or a life term.
    • “Disaffection”, it says, includes disloyalty and feelings of enmity.
    • However, it also says expressing disapproval of government measures or actions, with a view to getting them changed by lawful means, without promoting hatred or disaffection or contempt towards the government will not come under this section.

    What is its origin?

    • Colonial past: Sedition was introduced in the penal code in 1870, a decade after the Indian Penal Code came into force.
    • It was a colonial law directed against strong criticism of the British administration.
    • Putting curb on Freedom fighters: Its most famous victims included Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.
    • Gandhi called it “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

    Is it constitutionally valid?

    • Violative of FRs: Two high courts had found it unconstitutional after Independence, as it violated the freedom of speech and expression.
    • Reasonable restrictions: The Constitution was amended to include ‘public order’ as one of the ‘reasonable restrictions’ on which free speech could be abridged by law.
    • Kedar Nath Case: Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld its validity.
    • At the same time, it limited its application to acts that involve “intention or tendency to create disorder” or incitement to violence.
    • Thus, even strongly worded remarks, as long as they do not excite disloyalty and enmity, or incite violence, are not an offence under this section.

    Why the controversy now?

    • Frequent use: In recent times, the resort to this section is seen as disturbingly frequent.
    • Curbing dissent: Activists, cartoonists and intellectuals have been arrested under this section, drawing criticism from liberals that it is being used to suppress dissent and silence critics.
    • Misuse for propaganda: Authorities and the police who invoke this section defend the measure as a necessary step to prevent public disorder and anti-national activities.
    • Irrelevance: Many of them have also been detained under the National Security Act and UAPA.

    What is being debated about it?

    • Liberals and rights activists have been demanding the scrapping of Section 124A.
    • It is argued that the provision is “overbroad”, i.e., it defines the offence in wide terms threatening the liberty of citizens.
    • The Law Commission has also called for a reconsideration of the section.
    • It has pointed that Britain abolished it more than a decade ago and raised the question of whether a provision introduced by the British to put down the freedom struggle should continue to be law in India.
    • Some argue that a presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or bodies.

    What has the apex court observed?

    • Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had flagged the indiscriminate use of the sedition law against people who aired their grievances about the government’s COVID management.
    • People have been charged even for seeking help to gain medical access, equipment, drugs and oxygen cylinders, especially during the second wave of the pandemic.
    • Justice U.U. Lalit, in his recent judgment, quashed a sedition case against a person for his alleged remarks about the PM and the Union Government.

    Way forward

    • The time is long past when the mere criticism of governments was sufficient to constitute sedition.
    • The right to utter honest and reasonable criticism is a source of strength to a community rather than a weakness, the CJI has recorded.

    Try answering this PYQ:

    Q.With reference to Rowlatt Satyagraha, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. The Rowlatt Act was based on the recommendations of the ‘Sedition Committee’.
    2. In Rowlatt Satyagraha, Gandhiji tried to utilize the Home Rule League.
    3. Demonstrations against the arrival of Simon Commission coincided with Rowlatt Satyagraha.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • [pib] Commission for Sub-categorization within OBCs gets another extension

    The Union Cabinet has approved of the term of the Commission constituted under Article 340 of the Constitution to examine the issue of Sub-categorization within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the Central List.

    What is the Sub-categorization of OBCs?

    • OBCs are granted 27% reservation in jobs and education under the central government.
    • In September 20202, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reopened the legal debate on the sub-categorization of SCs and STs for reservations.
    • The debate arises out of the perception that only a few affluent communities among over 2,600 included in the Central List of OBCs have secured a major part of this 27% reservation.

    Need for sub-categorization

    • The argument for sub-categorization — or creating categories within OBCs for reservation — is that it would ensure “equitable distribution” of representation among all OBC communities.
    • To examine this, the Rohini Commission was constituted on October 2, 2017.
    • At that time, it was given 12 weeks to submit its report but has been given several extensions since, the latest one being the 10th.
    • Before the Rohini Commission was set up, the Centre had granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

    Why so many extensions are being given?

    • In process of preparing the sub-categorized central list of OBCs, the Commission has noted several ambiguities in the list as it stands now.
    • The Commission is of the opinion that these have to be clarified/rectified before the sub-categorised central list is prepared.
    • A hurdle for the Commission has been the absence of data for the population of various communities to compare with their representation in jobs and admissions.
    • Many groups of OBCs have been demanding enumeration of OBCs in the Census.

    Back2Basics: Article 340

    • Article 340 of the Indian Constitution lays down conditions for the appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions of the backward classes.
    • The President may by order appoint a Commission consisting of such persons as he thinks fit to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India.

  • Issues in Ladakh after abolition of Art. 370

    When Jammu and Kashmir were bifurcated into two UTs, Ladakh was seen welcoming the reorganization. However, different demands are coming from its two districts of Ladakh, Leh and Kargil.

    Leh and Kargil, not alike

    • The leaders from Kargil demanded that the district should remain part of J&K.
    • The Leh-based Ladakh Buddhist Association has put forth its demand for an autonomous hill council under the Sixth Schedule, modelled on the lines of the Bodoland Territorial Council in Assam.
    • But what Leh leaders did not bargain for was the complete loss of legislative powers.
    • Earlier, the two districts each sent four representatives to the J&K legislature. After the changes, they were down to one legislator — their sole MP— with all powers vested in the UT bureaucracy.
    • Unlike the UT of J&K, Ladakh was a UT without an assembly.

    What are their concerns?

    • What both Ladakh districts fear is the alienation of land, loss of identity, culture, language, and change in demography.
    • They fear that it will follow their political disempowerment.

    Hill Development Councils

    • Leh and Kargil have separate Autonomous Hill Development Councils, set up under the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997.
    • However, the AHDCs have no legislative powers.
    • The councils are elected and have executive powers over the allotment, use and occupation of land vested in them by the Centre, and the powers to collect some local taxes, such as parking fees, taxes on shops etc.
    • But the real powers are now wielded by the UT administration, which is seen as even more remote than the erstwhile state government of J&K.

    What is the sixth schedule?

    • The Sixth Schedule is a provision of Article 244(A) of the Constitution, originally meant for the creation of autonomous tribal regions in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura.
    • Hill councils under this provision have legislative powers.

    Evolving demands

    • But with no progress on Leh’s demand for Sixth Schedule protections, the Leh leadership has now upped its demands.
    • Other issues under discussion are protections for language, culture, land and jobs, plus a long-standing demand for a route between Kargil and Skardu in territory under Pakistan in Gilgit- Baltistan.