The Supreme Court has set aside the one-year suspension of 12 MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.
What was the case?
A petition was filed against the suspension.
It stated the move as “grossly arbitrary and disproportionate”.
The challenge relied mainly on grounds of denial of the principles of natural justice, and of violation of laid-down procedure.
What did the judgment observe?
The apex court observed the decision to suspend them for a year was ‘unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational’.
What did the court say about members being suspended beyond an ongoing session?
(A) Arbitrary Action
The court agreed with the MLAs’ contention that the suspension has to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 53.
It said that the suspension of a member must be preferred as a short term or a temporary, disciplinary measure for restoring order in the Assembly.
Anything in excess of that would be irrational suspension, the court said.
It said that Rule 53 only provides for the withdrawal of a member for the remainder of the day or in case of repeat misconduct in the same session, for the remainder of the session.
(B) Defining ‘disorderly behaviour’
The court said that as per this rule, withdrawal of a member can only be done in case of the member’s conduct being “grossly disorderly”.
It relied on definitions of the two words and said that the conduct has to be considered in a graded objective manner.
It is not a punishment like expulsion but more a direction to ensure that the business of the House can be carried on smoothly, without any disruption.
(C) Violative of Fundamental Rights
The MLAs were not given an opportunity to present their case and that the suspension violated their fundamental right to equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution.
They also submitted that they were not given access to video of the proceedings of the House, and it was not clear how they had been identified in the large crowd that had gathered in the chamber.
(D) Against constitutional ethos
It termed the one-year suspension worse than expulsion or disqualification or resignation as far as the rights of the constituency to be represented in the House are concerned.
It would also impact the democratic setup.
(E) Immunity of the state legislature
It also considered whether the legislature had complete immunity from judicial review in matters of irregularity of procedure.
It ruled that procedures are open to judicial review on the touchstone of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal, irrational or arbitrary.
Legal basis of the Judgment
Ans. The bench referred to Article 190 (4) of the Constitution
It says- if for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.
Under Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, “a bye-election for filling any vacancy shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy”.
This means that barring exceptions specified under this section, no constituency can remain without a representative for more than six months.
What was the Assembly’s response to the judicial enquiry?
It argued that the House had acted within its legislative competence.
Under Article 212, courts do not have jurisdiction to inquire into the proceedings of the legislature.
Article 212 (1) states that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure”.
It also said that a seat does not automatically become vacant if the member does not attend the House for 60 days but it becomes vacant only if declared so by the House.
It was submitted that the House is not obligated to declare such a seat vacant.
Why was this suspension controversial?
manipulation: A thin majority coalition government could use such suspensions to manipulate the number of Opposition party members.
Avoiding legislative scrutiny: With prominent members suspended, opposition will not be able to effectively participate in discussions/debates in the House fearing suspension of its members for a longer period.
Enmity among legislators: The court pointed out that Parliament and Assemblies were becoming more and more an intransigent place.
Way forward
A nation aspiring to be a “world leader” should debate on the welfare of its citizens rather than make Parliament/State Assemblies a stage to exchange jeers and launch personal attacks.
The members must maintain statesmanship and not brinkmanship in the House, said the apex court.
For becoming world leaders and self-dependent/reliant, quality of debates in the House ought to be of the highest order.
Conclusion
Parliament or the State legislatures are no places to create a ruckus.
It is a place where policies and laws are propounded for governing the citizenry.
Aggression during the debates has no place in the setting of country governed by the Rule of Law.
Even a complex issue needs to be resolved in a congenial atmosphere by observing collegiality and showing full respect and deference towards each other.
The Supreme Court has refused to lay down the criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation for granting reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in government jobs.
What did the court held?
The court stuck firm by the decisions of its Constitution Benches in the Jarnail Singh and M. Nagaraj case that the question of adequate representation of SC/ST communities ought to be left to the respective States to determine.
It held ‘cadre’, and not class or group or the entire service, as the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data for giving promotion quotas.
Why such decision?
Determination of inadequate representation depends upon myriad factors of states which this Court cannot envisage.
Laying down of criteria for determining the inadequacy of representation would result in curtailing the discretion given to the State governments.
Quota in Promotions: A timeline
What was the case?
The Union government has been pressing for reservation in promotion proportionate to the population of SCs and STs as per a 1995 judgment by the top court in the RK Sabharwal case.
It wants it to be left open to the Centre and states to decide on promotional avenues for SCs and STs.
It claims that the condition regarding the collection of quantifiable data to show the inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs is “vague”.
Advocates representing the general category have contended that the reservation cannot be for an indefinite period and that it must stop as soon as the upper ceiling has been reached.
Further, they have emphasized that reservation in promotion should be cadre-based only after quantifiable data is collected and the creamy layer has been excluded.
Defying the need for quantifiable data
Attorney General sought to convince the court that the roster system, based on the proportionate population of SCs/STs, has been working quite well in all government departments.
The condition of collecting quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs may not be required at all.
He urged that there is no need to verify any further or collect quantifiable data after the roster system.
What is the Nagraj Case?
Article 16(4A) of Indian Constitution allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.
In 2006, a Constitution bench’s ruling in the M Nagaraj case made it incumbent upon the state to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation in public employment.
This was to be done in addition to maintaining overall administrative efficiency.
Related amendments
77th Amendment: It introduced Clause 4A to the Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately represented.
81st Amendment: It introduced Clause 4B, which says unfilled SC/ST quota of a particular year, when carried forward to the next year, will be treated separately and not clubbed with the regular vacancies of that year to find out whether the total quota has breached the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court.
82nd Amendment: It inserted a proviso at the end of Article 335 to enable the state to make any provision for SC/STs “for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.
85th Amendment: It said reservation in the promotion can be applied with consequential seniority for the SC/ST employee.
Why such demand for quotas in promotion?
The Attorney General has said that it is tough for a member of the SC/ST to reach the ‘Group A’ category jobs.
The time has come for the apex court to firm up and draw the basis for reservation in promotions for SC/ST candidates to fill up vacancies in top jobs.
The Bench referred to records filed before it to note that there was low representation of SC/ST category in Group A jobs.
Instead of improving the situation in the Group A ranks, the court said, efforts are on to ensure adequate representation in Groups B and C.
The Supreme Court refused to lay down the “yardstick” for determining the inadequacy of representation for granting reservation in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in government jobs.
The court’s judgement came in a batch of petitions from across the country seeking further clarity on the modalities for granting reservation in promotion.
Current Scenario of Reservations in Promotions for SC/ST
The 2006 verdict on Nagaraj vs Union of India brought in a creamy layer filter for promotions for SC/ST employees.
Also, the judgement ruled that the state had to collect ‘quantifiable data on backwardness’ of the SC/ST class if it wished to provide reservation in promotions.
The judgement finally held that when it comes to promotion of SC/ST employees, the creamy layer concept does apply.
So now, only in direct recruitment of the SC/STs, the creamy layer concept does not apply.
What does the Supreme Court rule?
Cadre for Collecting Data
It held ‘cadre’ and not class, group or the entire service as the unit for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data for giving promotion quotas.
It said otherwise the entire exercise of reservation in promotions would be rendered meaningless if data pertaining to the representation of SCs and STs was done with reference to the entire service.
No Yardstick
The question of adequate representation of an SC/ST community ought to be left to the respective States to determine and it cannot lay down any yardstick for determining the inadequacy of representation.
Set Aside the Judgement in B.K. Pavithra Case (2019)
With the recognition of ‘cadre’ as the unit for collection of quantifiable data, the court set aside its earlier judgement in the B.K. Pavithra case.
SC held that the conclusion of this court approving the collection of data on the basis of groups and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by the SC in Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh judgments.
The court held that the Nagaraj judgement would have “prospective effect.”
Review Ordered
The SC ordered that a review had to be conducted regarding the data for the purpose of determining the inadequacy of representation in promotions.
However, the court left it to the Union government to fix a “reasonable” time for the States to conduct the review.
What does the Constitution say on reservations?
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws to everyone.
Similarly, Article 16(1) and 16(2) assure citizens equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to any government office.
Article 15(1) generally prohibits any discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, caste, sex or place of birth.
However, Articles 15(4) and 16(4) state that these equality provisions do not prevent the government from making special provisions in matters of admission to educational institutions or jobs in favor of backward classes, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Article 16(4A) allows reservations to SCs and STs in promotions, as long as the government believes that they are not adequately represented in government services.
What do the precedents say?
(1) Reservation in Promotions
The Central and the State Government since the 1950s have been following a policy of reserving seats in promotions in favours of SC and ST communities on the ground that they are not adequately represented at the decision making level of public services.
(2) Mandal judgment/ Indra Sawhney case 1992
The Supreme Court’s Indra Sawhney vs Union of India(1992) has been hailed as a landmark judgment as it upheld reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
However, this judgment also held that reservations in appointments, under Article 16(4) of the constitution, don’t apply to promotions.
The Supreme Court upheld the Mandal Commission’s 27% quota for backward classes, as well as the principle that the combined SC, ST and backward-class beneficiaries should not exceed 50% of cap.
The court also struck down the government notification reserving 10% government jobs for economically backward classes among the higher castes in 1992.
It held that, backward classes of the citizens of in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of caste and not only on the economic basis.
Reservation shall not exceed 50%. The court said that this rule should be applied every year. However, it may be relaxed in favour of people from far-flung and remote areas because of their peculiar conditions.
Carry forward rule is valid but it is subject to 50%. There should be NO reservation in the Promotions.
(3)77th and 85th Constitutional Amendment Acts
The Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995
According to this Act, the Government has decided to continue the existing policy of reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
It inserted Article 16(4A) which allows the State to provide reservations to SCs/STs in matters of promotion, as long as the State believes that this category of the marginalized populations –the SCs and STs – aren’t adequately represented.
The Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 provided for consequential seniorityin the case of promotion by the virtue of rule of reservation for the government servants belonging to the SCs and STs with retrospective effect from June 1995.
(4)Nagraj Case
In this case applying the creamy layer concept in SC/ST reservation in promotions, the SC reversed its earlier stance in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), in which it had excluded the creamy layer concept on SCs/STs (that was applicable on OBCs).
The SC had upheld the Constitutional amendments by which Articles 16 (4A) and 16 (4B) were inserted, saying they flow from Article 16 (4) and do not alter its structure.
It also laid down three conditions for promotion of SCs and STs in public employment.
The SC and ST community should be socially and educationally backward.
The SC and ST communities are not adequately represented in Public employment.
Such a reservation policy shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.
The court held that the government cannot introduce a quota in promotion for its SC/ST employees unless it proves that the particular community was backward, inadequately represented and providing reservation in promotion would not affect the overall efficiency of public administration.
The opinion of the government should be based on quantifiable data.
(5) Jarnail Singh Case 2018
Later in 2018, in the Jarnail Singh case, SC modified the Nagaraj judgement to the extent that State need not produce quantifiable data to prove the “backwardness” of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in order to provide quota in promotion in public employment.
The court had given a huge fillip to the government’s efforts to provide “accelerated promotion with consequential seniority” for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) members in government services.
(6) Karnataka’s Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation act 2017
It was passed by the Karnataka Government to protect thousands of SC/ST employees who faced demotion in view of the 2017 judgment.
It allows the reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with consequential seniority(Consequential seniority is seniority given to employees from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities in government jobs as a consequence of reservation. It provides reservation in the first promotion as well as subsequent ones. This is not the case for general category employees).
It gives the state government to make rules to carry out the purpose of this act.
The repeals the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2002
Arguments against Quota in Promotions
Not a Fundamental Right: The Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment that reservation in promotion in public posts cannot be claimed as a fundamental right.
Impact on Efficiency: Promotions to SCs and STs during appointments to services and promotions may make it difficult to maintain the efficiency of administration.
Redundancy of Reservation: The SCs and STs are getting the benefits of reservation in the appointments to various servicers. Therefore, it is undesirable and inefficient to provide quota in promotions for key posts.
Not a Compulsion for Government: The Constitution empowers the State to make reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only “if in the opinion of the State they are not adequately represented in the services of the State”.
Need for Quota in Promotions
Representation in Higher Echelons: The main reason for giving promotions in promotions is that there are very few SC/ST candidates in the higher echelons of government.
Proper Access to Opportunity: Centuries of discrimination and prejudice suffered by the SCs and STs in a feudal, caste-oriented societal structure poses real barriers of access to opportunity.
Constitutional Mandate: Constitution mandates realisation of substantive equality in the engagement of the fundamental rights with the directive principles
Special Measures Needed: Unless special measures are adopted for the SCs and STs in promotions also, the mandate of the Constitution for the consideration of their claim to appointment will remain illusory.
False Notion of Efficiency: The Constitution does not define what the framers meant by the phrase efficiency of administration. It is a stereotypical assumption that the promotees drawn from the SCs and STs are not efficient or that efficiency is reduced by appointing them.
Why does reservation matter for equality?
Reservation is no more seen by the Supreme Court as an exception to the equality rule; rather, it is a facet of equality.
The terms “proportionate equality” and “substantive equality” have been used to show that the equality norm acquires completion only when the marginalized are given a legal leg-up.
Substantive Equality under question
Formal equality is about treating all people alike and distributing resources equally among them.
However, someone at a disadvantage needs support to a greater extent than someone who is comfortably placed. Substantive equality recognizes this qualitative difference.
Unlike formal equality, it classifies the prospective beneficiaries on the basis of their need and the likely scope of benefit to them.
It takes into account people’s location along an axis of advantages and disadvantages. If substantive equality is part of our right to equality, it is untenable to insist that reservation is not a right.
While a limited interpretation of fundamental rights may be technically correct, it will not make for sound policy.
Way forward
Meanwhile, calls for reform and rethinking reservation policies get louder; one question is whether there’s a need to continue with reservation and if benefits have reached targets.
The challenge for India is that while many sections of the society remain disadvantaged, political action has resulted in the relative discrimination within reserved groups.
As the reservation pie grows larger, in effect, it becomes a method of exclusion rather than inclusion.
It is time that India has to make a critical assessment of its affirmative action programs.
Simplification, legislative sunsets, and periodic reviews should be important principles in the redesign.
There are recent reports in the media about serious concerns of several state governments on Government of India’s proposed move to amend the IAS service rules to meet the shortage of officers at various levels at the Centre.
How does central deputation work?
Voluntary: Under the current dispensation, officers opt for central deputation from the states voluntarily.
The Centre then makes a selection from among these officers for posts which are vacant or are likely to be vacant in the near future.
While doing so, it considers the suitability of the officer based on his/her past experience.
Once the selection is finalised, orders are issued, requesting the state government to relieve the officer concerned.
Quota for each state: Each state has a certain quota beyond which its officers are not accepted by the Centre.
Shortage of officers on central deputation
In the last decade, there has been a gradual decline in the number of officers who opt for central deputation.
Generally, of the total cadre strength of the states, about 25-30 per cent used to be on central deputation.
Currently, less than 10 per cent are working in various central ministries.
According to certain reports, in states like UP, Bihar, Odisha and Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the number is between 8 per cent and 15 per cent.
One of the reasons for this non-availability of officers for central deputation is the inadequate recruitment more than a decade and half ago.
But an important reason is also the comparatively better service conditions in the states.
So, what do the proposed rules seek to achieve?
While fixing the cadre strength of states, about 40 per cent posts of senior duty are earmarked for central deputation.
Shortage to be shared equitably: Considering that recruitments in the past were not adequate, the proposed change in rules provides for shortage to be shared equitably between the Centre and states.
Time limit to relieve officers: Also, since vacancies need to be filled in time, there is a suggestion of a time limit in which states must respond and relieve the officer selected.
Way forward
Respect the views of State: It has to be clearly understood that when states give the list of officers they wish to offer for central deputation, it will be the decision of the states alone.
The Centre, if it wishes to have an officer work for it, can suggest so to the state.
If the state does not wish to suggest his name for deputation, the Centre should respect their views, even though they have the power under cadre rules to do so.
Improving working conditions for officers: The Centre has to realise that improving working conditions for officers at the deputy secretary and director levels is critical to the success of cadre management.
Many of the officers at this level have concerns regarding education of their children, transport and the higher cost of living in Delhi.
A deputation allowance for the period of deputation in Delhi could be an option.
Non-adversarial manner: The states also have to look at this issue in a non-adversarial manner, where needs of both the Centre and the state have to be matched and met.
The Centre should dispel fears of states about misuse of central power.
Conclusion
Proposed amendment to service rules is needed to meet shortage of personnel, but Centre must dispel states’ fears about overreach.
The US has unveiled the Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength (COMPETES) Act of 2022 that proposes to open up new vistas for talented individuals from across the world with a new start-up visa.
What is the COMPETES Act?
The bill provides $52 billion to encourage more semiconductor production in the US, and $45 billion for grants and loans to improve supply chain resilience and manufacturing, among other programs.
It also includes funding to address social and economic inequality, climate change, and immigration.
For instance, it provides an exemption for STEM PhDs from the green card cap and creates a new green card for entrepreneurs.
The bill also authorizes $600 million a year to construct manufacturing facilities to make the US less reliant on solar components made in Xinjiang, China.
Key provisions in the Act
The Act amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new classification of “W” non-immigrants for entrepreneurs with an ownership interest in a start-up entity.
It seeks to establish procedures for foreign nationals with an ownership interest in a start-up entity to self-petition for lawful permanent resident status as an immigrant entrepreneur.
The bill exempts from the numerical limits on immigrant visas certain foreign nationals (and the spouses and children of such aliens) who have earned a doctoral degree in STEM.
Implications for Indians
It would mean more opportunities in the US for Indian talent, and for skilled workers.
Every year, the US administration issues 85,000 H-1B work permits.
Every year, Indians and Indian companies corner a lion’s share of the H-1B work permits issued that year.
With this new category, Indian professionals will likely have a better shot at opportunities that the Act is likely to provide.
The government has tweaked spending norms for Contingency Fund of India, allowing 40% of the total corpus to be placed at disposal of the Expenditure Secretary.
What are the proposed changes?
Budget 2021-22 proposed to enhance the Contingency Fund of India from ₹500 crore to ₹30,000 crore through Finance Bill.
An amount equivalent to 40 per cent of the Fund corpus shall be placed at the disposal of the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
This would serve the purpose of meeting unforeseen expenditure.
What is Contingency Fund of India?
Contingency is a negative event which may occur in future, like recession or pandemic.
The Constitution has a provision for a contingency fund. Its corpus is always kept intact.
Article 267 of the Constitution mandates formation of a corpus under Contingency Fund of India to deal with any emergency situation.
It is placed at the disposal of the President of India.
Government cannot withdraw funds from it without authorization of the Parliament.
And the corpus has to be replenished with the same amount later.
Management of the fund
The fund is held by the Department of Economic Affairs on behalf of the President of India and it can be operated by executive action.
The fund can be increased through a Finance Bill when Parliament is in the session.
Or through Ordinance if the House is not in session and situation warrants.
Withdrawal from the fund takes place with the approval of the Secretary of Department of Economic Affairs, in terms of the Contingency Fund of India Act, 1950.
An amount equivalent to 40% of the corpus has now been placed at the disposal of the Expenditure Secretary.
All further Contingency Fund releases beyond this limit will require the approval of the Expenditure Secretary in addition to the Economic Affairs Secretary’s approval.
Back2Basics:
Consolidated Funds of India
The provision for this fund is given in Article 266(1) of the Constitution of India.
The government meets all its expenditure from this CFI.
It receives money from:
Direct and indirect taxes Loans taken by the Indian government
Returning of loans/interests of loans to the government by anyone/agency that has taken it
The government needs parliamentary approval to withdraw money from this fund.
Each state has its own Consolidated Fund of the state with similar provisions.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India audits these funds and reports to the relevant legislatures on their management.
Public Account of India
All other public money (other than those covered under the Consolidated Fund of India) received by or on behalf of the Indian Government are credited to this account/fund.
It is constituted under Article 266(2) of the Constitution.
This is made up of:
Bank savings account of the various ministries/departments
National small savings fund, defense fund
National Investment Fund (money earned from disinvestment)
National Calamity & Contingency Fund (NCCF) (for Disaster Management)
Provident fund, Postal insurance, etc.
Similar funds
The government does not need permission to take advances from this account.
Each state can have its own similar accounts.
CAG makes audit of all the expenditure from the Public Account of India.
The central government has announced the names of Padma awardees for this year.
What are Padma awards?
The Padma awards are the highest civilian honor of India after the Bharat Ratna.
They are announced every year on the eve of Republic Day.
The awards are given in three categories:
Padma Vibhushan (for exceptional and distinguished service)
Padma Bhushan (distinguished service of higher order) and
Padma Shri (distinguished service)
The award seeks to recognize achievements in all fields of activities or disciplines where an element of public service is involved.
Note: During the years 1978 and 1979 and 1993 to 1997, Padma awards were not announced.
Who are the awardees?
The awards are given in certain select categories which include Art, Social Work, Public Affairs, Science & Engineering, Trade & Industry, Medicine, Literature & Education, Civil Service and Sports.
Awards are also given for propagation of Indian culture, protection of human rights, wild life protection among others.
Its constitution
The PADMA Awards were instituted in 1954 along with Bharat Ratna.
At that time only Padma Vibhushan existed with three sub-categories – Pahela Varg, Dusra Varg and Tisra Varg.
These were subsequently renamed as Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri vide Presidential Notification issued on January 8, 1955.
Particulars of the awards
The awardees do not get any cash reward but a certificate signed by the President apart from a medallion which they can wear at public and government functions.
The awards are, however, not a conferment of title and the awardees are expected to not use them as prefix or suffix to their names.
A Padma awardee can be given a higher award only after five years of the conferment of the earlier award.
Terms of awarding
Not more than 120 awards can be given in a year but this does not include posthumous awards or awards given to NRIs and foreigners.
The award is normally not conferred posthumously.
However, in highly deserving cases, the Government could consider giving an award posthumously.
Who is eligible for Padma awards?
All persons without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex are eligible for these awards.
However, government servants including those working with PSUs, except doctors and scientists, are not eligible for these awards.
The award seeks to recognize works of distinction and is given for distinguished and exceptional achievements or service in all fields of activities and disciplines.
According to Padma awards selection criteria, the award is given for “special services” and not just for “long service”.
It should not be merely excellence in a particular field, but the criteria has to be ‘excellence plus’.
Who nominates the awardees?
Any citizen of India can nominate a potential recipient.
One can even nominate one’s own self. All nominations are to be done online where a form is to be filled along with details of the person or the organisation being nominated.
An 800-word essay detailing the work done by the potential awardee is also to be submitted for the nomination to be considered.
The government also writes to various state governments, governors, Union territories, central ministries and various departments to send nominations.
Who selects the awardees?
All nominations received for Padma awards are placed before the Padma Awards Committee, which is constituted by the Prime Minister every year.
The Padma Awards Committee is headed by the Cabinet Secretary and includes Home Secretary, Secretary to the President and four to six eminent persons as members.
The recommendations of the committee are submitted to the Prime Minister and the President of India for approval.
The antecedents of the selected awardees are verified using the services of central agencies to ensure nothing untoward has been reported or come on record about them.
A final list is then prepared and announced.
Is the recipient’s consent sought?
There is no provision for seeking a written or formal consent of the recipient before the announcement of the award.
However, before the announcement, every recipient receives a call from the Ministry of Home Affairs informing him or her about the selection.
In case the recipient expresses a desire to be excluded from the award list, the name is removed.
Try this question from CSP 2021
Q.Consider the following statements in respect of Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards
Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards are titles under the Article 18(1) of the Constitution of India.
Padma wards, which were instituted in the year 1954, were suspended only once.
The number of Bharat Ratna Awards is restricted to a maximum of five in a particular year.
Which of the above statements are not correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
[wpdiscuz-feedback id=”q2fw95675q” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]
The 2021 Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International places India 85th on a list of 180 countries, one position above last year.
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)
The CPI is an index which ranks countries “by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.”
The CPI generally defines corruption as an “abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.
The index is published annually by the non-governmental organisation Transparency International since 1995.
The index ranks 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption according to experts and business people.
It uses a scale of 0 to 100 to rank CPI, where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean.
What kind of corruption does the CPI measure?
The data sources used to compile the CPI specifically cover the following manifestations of public sector corruption:
Bribery
Diversion of public funds
Officials using their public office for private gain without facing consequences
Ability of governments to contain corruption in the public sector
Excessive red tape in the public sector which may increase opportunities for corruption
Nepotistic appointments in the civil service
Laws ensuring that public officials must disclose their finances and potential conflicts of interest
Legal protection for people who report cases of bribery and corruption
State capture by narrow vested interests
Access to information on public affairs/government activities
The CPI does NOT cover:
Citizens’ direct perceptions or experience of corruption
Tax fraud
Illicit financial flows
Enablers of corruption (lawyers, accountants, financial advisors etc)
Money-laundering
Private sector corruption
Informal economies and markets
Highlights of the 2021 Report
The top-performing countries were Denmark, Finland and New Zealand — all having a corruption perceptions score of 88 — followed by Norway, Singapore and Sweden, all of them scoring 85.
In contrast, the worst-performing countries were South Sudan with a corruption perceptions score of 11, followed by Syria (13), Somalia (13, Venezuela (14) and Afghanistan (16).
India’s performance
In 2021, India ranked 86th with the same CPI score of 40.
The report highlighted concerns over the risk to journalists and activists who have been victims of attacks by the police, political militants, criminal gangs and corrupt local officials.
Civil society organizations that speak up against the government have been targeted with security, defamation, sedition, hate speech and contempt-of-court charges, and with regulations on foreign funding.
A republic is made robust and kept alive by its people. In its current form, the Indian republic marks 73 years of maintaining a dynamic balance.
Directly elected representation
It is to the credit of our people that today we have a pyramidal three-layered elected representative system that governs us.
This system today has over 3 million elected representatives (a million of them women), over 4,000 elected to the state legislatures and over 500 in the Parliament.
This scale of directly elected representation, perhaps, can be seen nowhere else in the world.
Moral and spiritual basis of the Constitution
In Pilgrimage to Freedom, K M Munshi writes, “our Constitution has a moral background — to secure justice for every section of our society; as also a spiritual basis — to preserve and protect all religions in the exercise of their functions”.
The challenges continue in securing justice for every section of our society.
The Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the poor across all categories clamour for better opportunities and affordable justice.
What Munshi calls the spiritual basis of our Constitution in having to preserve and protect all religions is also seen under stress.
When the right to practise one’s religion is denied or threatened, the silence of the thinking public or the media weakens that constitutionally embedded protection.
Challenges posed by social media
Through the power of technology and its capacity to broadcast at mass scale, an otherwise useful tool, social media, has become a challenge and sometimes a threat to one or several of the rights enshrined in our Constitution.
Curtailing them to protect the rights of citizens is seen as trampling upon the right to free speech.
Without any action, the damage caused to social harmony by such rampant false news can result in people losing faith in the Constitution itself.
Constitution as a living, dynamic process
Our Constitution is the most amended of all constitutions in the world.
If there are more than 100 amendments made to the Constitution, there are more than 1,500 laws that have been repealed because they have outlived their times.
These deadwood laws, by remaining on paper, occasionally became a weapon in the hands of rent-seekers.
Their removal, as a part of administrative reform, has kept the role of the executive transparent and accountable.
That the Constitution is always evolving is best exemplified by the 101st amendment which rolled out the Goods and Services Tax.
his amendment brought in a unified indirect tax regime by subsuming most of the indirect taxes of the Centre and the states.
Yet to complete five full years, the GST Council has stood the test of challenging times even in its initial years.
It augurs well for cooperative federalism.
Conclusion
Our Constitution has served us well in these seven decades. Several republics in the post-imperial era have rejected their earlier constitutions and tested new ones. It is the people who can keep the republic robust and alive.
This year we are celebrating our 73rd Republic Day. The Constitution has been our guiding force in the journey of the nation as a mature democracy among comity of nations.
Historical background
The Constituent Assembly undertook intensive deliberations over a period of two years, 11 months and 18 days spread over 11 sessions, during which the Constitution of India took shape.
Our Constituent Assembly played a dual role after Independence, given the insurmountable task of nation-building.
Our Constituent Assembly had performed the functions of the provisional Parliament of India in the interval between the time our Constitution was enforced and the day when the new Parliament was formed following the first General Elections (October 25, 1951-February 21, 1952).
The Constituent Assembly of India acted as the first Parliament of independent India.
Role of the Parliament
Representative institutions and democratic traditions have always been an integral part of our rich heritage
Our Parliament has been playing a pivotal role in the all-round development of the nation by adopting many parliamentary devices for ensuring free and fair discussions and dialogue.
We have to ensure that our institutions and governance ensure inclusivity and the participation of our population in our developmental journey, particularly our women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and all other marginalised sections become equal partners in our growth story.
Ensuring the best legislative practices
Repository of the proceedings: To ensure that best legislative practices are shared, a national portal is being planned to serve as a repository of the proceedings of Parliament and all State/Union Territory legislatures in the country.
Research support is being provided to Members to help them participate better and meaningfully in matters brought before Parliament.
Review of the laws to make them relevant: It is also time in the journey of our nation to take stock and review laws that were enacted during the pre-Independence era so as to make them more relevant to our current requirements and future challenges.
Conclusion
Republic Day is an occasion for people’s representatives and all citizens of this proud nation to reaffirm faith in the ideals enshrined in our Constitution.
