đŸ’„Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • What is the ‘Office of Profit’?

    The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Office of Profit has deliberated on whether a Parliamentarian can continue to teach at University and if this draws the provisions of “Office of Profit” rules.

    Note: The Constitution of India does not define the Office of Profit. It has only mentioned it under Article 102 (1) and Article 191 (1).

    The concept of ‘Office of Profit’

    • MPs and MLAs, as members of the legislature, hold the government accountable for its work.
    • The essence of disqualification is if legislators hold an ‘office of profit’ under the government, they might be susceptible to government influence, and may not discharge their constitutional mandate fairly.
    • The intent is that there should be no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member.
    • Hence, the office of profit law simply seeks to enforce a basic feature of the Constitution- the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.

    What governs the term?

    • At present, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, bars an MP, MLA or an MLC from holding any office of profit under the central or state government unless it is exempted.
    • However, it does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit.
    • Legislators can face disqualification for holding such positions, which bring them financial or other benefits.
    • Under the provisions of Article 102 (1) and Article 191 (1) of the Constitution, an MP or an MLA (or an MLC) is barred from holding any office of profit under the Central or State government.

    An Un-defined term

    • The officials of the law ministry are of the view that defining an office of profit could lead to the filing of a number of cases with the Election Commission and the courts.
    • Also, once the definition is changed, one will also have to amend various provisions in the Constitution including Article 102 (1) (a) and Article 109 (1) (a) that deal with the office of profit.
    • It will have an overarching effect on all the other sections of the Constitution.

    Factors constituting an ‘office of profit’

    • The 1959 law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit but the definition has evolved over the years with interpretations made in various court judgments.
    • An office of profit has been interpreted to be a position that brings to the office-holder some financial gain, or advantage, or benefit. The amount of such profit is immaterial.
    • In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the test for determining whether a person holds an office of profit is the test of appointment.

    Several factors are considered in this determination including factors such as:

    1. whether the government is the appointing authority,
    2. whether the government has the power to terminate the appointment,
    3. whether the government determines the remuneration,
    4. what is the source of remuneration, and
    5. the power that comes with the position.

  • National Digital Health Mission

    The National Digital Health Mission will soon be ready for a nationwide roll-out, confirmed the Chairman of National Health Authority and CEO of Ayushman Bharat.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] Rolling-out of National Digital Health Mission

    National Digital Health Mission

    • Our PM has launched the National Digital Health Mission on 15th August 2020.
    • The mission aims to create an integrated healthcare system linking practitioners with the patients digitally by giving them access to real-time health records.
    • It is a complete digital health ecosystem. The digital platform will be launched with four key features — health ID, personal health records, Digi Doctor and health facility registry.
    • At a later stage, it will also include e-pharmacy and telemedicine services, regulatory guidelines for which are being framed.

    Its implementation

    • The NDHM is implemented by the National Health Authority (NHA) under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    • The National Health Authority (NHA), is also the implementing agency for Ayushman Bharat.

  • Divided democracies

    Democracies across the world are facing several challenges. The article examines these challenges.

    Threats to democracy

    • Efforts by Donald Trump, to negate the result of the recently held presidential elections, indicates a new set of tactics, previously seen only in dictatorships.
    • In the case of the U.S., one of the world’s oldest democracies, what we are witnessing is a deep divide.
    • This division is evident in many other democratic nations today.
    • This is true of many other democracies as well and must be viewed as a wake-up call.
    • What is evident is that issues of identity, or threats to identity, are becoming an important issue in elections across democracies.
    • Democracies already confront such problems, but it will become still more evident as time passes.
    • Manipulation of grievances by using psychometric techniques (as done by Cambridge Analytica), and the use of ‘deep fakes’ made possible through Artificial Intelligence, further enhances the threat to current notions of democracy.

    Troubles to democracy in Europe

    • Europe will have to deal with the declining importance of America in global politics.
    • An uncertain Brexit will further damage the prospects of both the United Kingdom and Europe.
    • Russia, under Vladimir Putin, remains an enigma, for despite its military strength and strategic congruence with China, its future appears increasingly uncertain.
    • France displays even greater fragility and French values appear to be undergoing major changes.
    • The recent wave of terrorist attacks has been a major trigger, raising questions about long-held secular beliefs.

    Return of terrorism

    • Terrorism is resurfacing, and with renewed vigour.
    • The al-Qaeda is again becoming prominent. The IS, which many thought had been vanquished has returned in full force.
    • Recently IS has carried out spectacular attacks in France and in Austria which is a reminder of the transnational character of the threat it poses to democratic countries.
    • They combine symbolism with spectacular violence.
    • The intent is to shock the public at large, and produce a reaction across the entire Muslim world, reigniting the fading embers of a religio-cultural conflict.

    Information manipulation

    • Alongside the above issues, there is a growing concern across the globe about increasing efforts to manipulate information in order to perpetuate power.
    • Manipulation of information — and also events — to achieve certain desired ends, is becoming the stock-in-trade of many a democratic regime as well.
    • Many democratic nations today resort to manipulating data to support or prop up the government’s version of events. Informational autocracy is, hence, the latest danger that threatens democracies.

    India’s challenges

    1) Threat to democracy

    • In some regions, especially where mid-term elections are scheduled, as in West Bengal, the atmosphere today is highly polarised.
    • The ghosts of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens have by no means been laid to rest.
    • Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is witnessing a kind of surface calm, but beneath this, there are evident tensions.
    • Aggravating this situation are Pakistan’s efforts to push in terrorists in ever larger numbers.

    Uncertain external environment

    • The downward spiral in its relations with China has not been arrested.
    • 15 Asia-Pacific nations, including China, have signed on to the world’s biggest trade bloc, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) — from which India has been excluded.
    • The RCEP, which covers almost a third of the world’s economy, is perceived as the springboard for future economic recovery across the region.
    • India’s absence from RCEP represents a cardinal failure of India’s bargaining strategy.
    • India’s isolation is evident from the fact that even a weak Pakistan is pursuing a policy of provocation— the latest provocation being the holding of Assembly elections in Gilgit-Baltistan.
    • India is again being steadily marginalised in Afghanistan, where the control of the Taliban is increasing, with all other players accomodating Taliban.

    Consider the question “What are the various challenges faced by the democracies across the world and India is no exception to it. In the context of this, examine the issues facing democracy in India.”

    Conclusion

    Though democracies across the world are facing several issues, resilience inherent in them will help them clear the chaos created by these issues.

  • Personal Vehicle on a Public Road

    The Delhi government has told the Delhi High Court that a personal vehicle on a public road cannot be said to be a private zone — rather, it is a public space.

    Do you know?

    India sees the largest number of road fatalities in the world. More than 1.5 lakh people lost their lives in road crashes in the country in 2018, according to government data.

    Why such an argument?

    • The argument was given to defend its decision of making it compulsory for people to wear masks when they are travelling.

    Supreme Court’s definition of ‘public space’

    • The Supreme Court in one of its ruling has said defined a “public place” to mean any place to which the public has access, whether as a matter of right or not — and includes all places visited by the general public, and also includes any open space.
    • The keywords are “any place to which public have access”, which phrase is further qualified by the phrase “whether as a matter of right or not”, the court noted.
    • When a private vehicle is passing through a public road it cannot be accepted that the public has no access.
    • It is true that the public may not have access to a private vehicle as a matter of right but definitely, public has the opportunity to approach the private vehicle while it is on the public road, said the court.

  • Places in news: Luxembourg

    Prime Minister has pitched for strengthening ties to further ramp up economic engagement between India and Luxembourg.

    Mark the location of Luxembourg. Since it is a landlocked country, there can be a question asking its bordering states.

    Luxembourg

    • Luxembourg is a small European country, landlocked by Belgium, France and Germany.
    • It’s mostly rural, with dense Ardennes forest and nature parks in the north, rocky gorges of the Mullerthal region in the east and the Moselle river valley in the southeast.
    • Its capital, Luxembourg City, is famed for its fortified medieval old town perched on sheer cliffs

    Why Luxembourg?

    • Luxembourg is one of the most important financial centres globally.
    • Several Indian companies have raised capital by issuing Global Depositary Receipts at the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.
    • Luxembourg-based investment funds hold substantial banking and asset management market share in portfolio investments in India.
    • It is also the third-largest source of Foreign Portfolio Investments (FPI) in India.

  • Inter state water Sharing disputes

    The article highlights the issue of challenges facing the water governance in India, how need for more coordination between the Centre and the States.

    Objectives of the two bills

    • Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2019 and the Dam Safety Bill 2019 were passed by Lok Sabha and awaits Rajya Sabha nod.
    • The Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2019 seeks to improve the inter-state water disputes resolution by setting up a permanent tribunal.
    • The Dam Safety Bill 2019 aims to deal with the risks of India’s ageing dams, with the help of a comprehensive federal institutional framework comprising.
    • The other pending bills also propose corresponding institutional structures and processes.

    Challenges to the federal water governance

    • The agenda of future federal water governance is not limited to the above cited issues.
    • These include emerging concerns of long-term national water security and sustainability, the risks of climate change, and the growing environmental challenges, including river pollution.
    • These challenges need systematic federal response where the Centre and the states need to work in a partnership mode.
    • Greater Centre-states coordination is also crucial for pursuing the current national projects — whether Ganga river rejuvenation or inland navigation or inter-basin transfers.

    Challenges to water governance

    • Water governance is perceived and practiced as the states’ exclusive domain, even though their powers are subject to those of the Union under the Entry 56 about inter-state river water governance.
    • The River Boards Act 1956 legislated under the Entry 56 has been in disuse.
    • No river board was ever created under the law.
    • The Centre’s role is largely limited to resolving inter-state river water disputes by setting up tribunals for their adjudication.
    • Combined with the states’ dominant executive power, these conditions create challenges for federal water governance.
    • This state of affairs puts the proposed bills at a disadvantage.

    Bridging the water governance gap

    • Each bill proposes their own institutional mechanisms and processes leaning on closer Centre-state coordination and deliberation.
    • The disputes resolution committee and dam safety authority rely on active Centre-states participation.
    • Segmented and fragmented mechanisms bear the risks of the federal water governance gap.

    Way forward

    • The massive central assistance (Rs 3.6 lakh crore- Centre and states together) through  Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), is an opportunity to open a dialogue with the states to address this governance gap.
    • Globally, federated systems with comparable organisation of powers have used similar investments to usher key water sector reforms.
    • The symbiotic phase of implementing JJM can be productively used to engage in a dialogue with the states about the larger water resources management agenda, beyond the mission’s goals.
    • The Centre can work with the states in building a credible institutional architecture for gathering data and producing knowledge about water resources.

    Consider the question “Water governance in the country requires greater Centre-State coordination to deal with the current issues as well as future challenges. In light of this, examine the challenges and suggest the strategies to deal with it.”

    Conclusion

    Bridging the governance gap between the Centre and State and creation of institutional framework is at the heart of addressing the future challenges to the federal water governance in the country.

    Back2Basics: River Board Act 1956

    • The act to provide for the establishment of River Boards for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
    • It empowers the Central Government, on a request received in this behalf from a State Government to establish a River Board for advising the Governments on regulation or development of an inter-State river or river valley or any specified part thereof.

  • Mahajan Commission Report on Maha-K’taka boundary dispute

    A Maharashtra leader has sparked a controversy, when he called the incorporation of Belgaum (Belagavi), Karwar and Nipani areas of Karnataka into Maharashtra, as a dream of the ruling party.

    Try answering this

    Q.The linguistic re-organization of India in the post-Independence period has prevented its balkanization, unlike our neighbourhood. Comment.

    Maha-K’taka boundary dispute

    • The erstwhile Bombay Presidency, a multilingual province, included the present-day Karnataka districts of Vijayapura, Belagavi, Dharwad and Uttara-Kannada.
    • In 1948, the Belgaum municipality requested that the district, having a predominantly Marathi-speaking population, be incorporated into the proposed Maharashtra state.
    • However, the States Reorganization Act of 1956, which divided states into linguistic and administrative lines, made Belgaum and 10 taluka of Bombay State a part of the then Mysore State

    The Mahajan Commission

    • While demarcating borders, the Reorganization of States Commission sought to include talukas with a Kannada-speaking population of more than 50 per cent in Mysore.
    • Opponents of the region’s inclusion in Mysore argued, and continue to argue, that Marathi-speakers outnumbered Kannadigas who lived there in 1956.
    • In September 1957, the Bombay government echoed their demand and lodged a protest with the Centre, leading to the formation of the Commission under former CJI Mehr Chand Mahajan in October 1966.

    Beginning of the dispute

    • The Commission recommended that 264 villages be transferred to Maharashtra (which formed in 1960) and that Belgaum and 247 villages remain with Karnataka.
    • Maharashtra rejected the report, calling it biased and illogical, and demanded another review.
    • Karnataka welcomed the report and has ever since continued to press for implementation, although this has not been formally done by the Centre.

    A case pending in the Supreme Court

    • Successive governments in Maharashtra have demanded their inclusion within the state– a claim that Karnataka contests.
    • In 2004, the Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court for a settlement of the border dispute under Article 131(b) of the Constitution.
    • It demanded 814 villages from Karnataka on the basis of the theory of village being the unit of calculation, contiguity and enumerating linguistic population in each village.
    • The case is pending in the apex court.

  • Article 32 and the Supreme Court

    A Supreme Court bench headed by CJI has observed that it is “trying to discourage” individuals from filing petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.Which of the following is included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

    1. Dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
    2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the parliament or that of Legislature of a State
    3. A dispute between the Government of India and Union Territory
    4. A dispute between two or more States.

    Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

    (a) 1 and 2

    (b) 2 and 3

    (c) 1 and 4

    (d) 3 and 4

    What is Article 32?

    • Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
    • It is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled.
    • It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”.
    • The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
    • Dr B R Ambedkar has called it the very soul and heart of the Constitution. It cannot be suspended except during the period of Emergency.

    Rights protected by A32

    • The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including to Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion.
    • Only if any of these fundamental rights is violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

    Types of Writs under it

    Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court can be approached for violation or enactment of fundamental rights through five kinds of writs:

    1. Habeas corpus (related to personal liberty in cases of illegal detentions and wrongful arrests)
    2. Mandamus — directing public officials, governments, courts to perform a statutory duty;
    3. Quo Warranto — to show by what warrant is a person holding public office;
    4. Prohibition — directing judicial or quasi-judicial authorities to stop proceedings which it has no jurisdiction for; and
    5. Certiorari — re-examination of an order given by judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authorities.
    • In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court.
    • When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

    Supreme Court’s recent observations

    • The observation came during the hearing of a petition seeking the release of a journalist, who was arrested while reporting on an alleged gangrape and murder.
    • The court asked why the petitioners could not go to the High Court first.
    • In another case invoking Article 32, a Nagpur-based man was arrested for alleged defamatory content against Maharashtra CM, the same Bench directed him to approach the High Court first.

  • ‘Myths of Online Education’ Report

    The Azim Premji University has published the report titled “Myths of Online Education”, on the efficacy and accessibility of e-learning.

    We have studied the Impacts of COVID-19 on Education. https://www.civilsdaily.com/burning-issue-education-in-times-of-covid-19/
    This report provides decent data about the woes of online education and is easy to remember.

    About the study

    • The study was undertaken in five States across 26 districts and covered 1,522 schools. More than 80,000 students study in these government schools.
    • It examined the experience of children and teachers with online education.

    Highlights of the study

    • More than 60% of the respondents who are enrolled in government schools could not access online education.
    • Children with disabilities in fact found it more difficult to participate in online sessions.
    • 90% of the teachers who work with children with disabilities found their students unable to participate online.
    • Almost 70% of the parents surveyed were of the opinion that online classes were not effective and did not help in their child’s learnings.
    • 90% of parents of government school students surveyed were willing to send their children back to school.
    • The survey also revealed that around 75% of the teachers spent, on an average, less than an hour a day on online classes for any grade.

    Online classes are less effective

    • Teachers as well as students their expressed frustration with online classes.
    • More than 80% surveyed said they were unable to maintain emotional connect with students during online classes, while 90% of teachers felt that no meaningful assessment of children’s learning was possible.
    • Another hurdle that teachers found during the online classes was the one-way communication, which made it difficult for them to gauge whether students understood what was being taught.
    • Teachers also reported that they were ill-prepared for online learning platforms.

  • Governor’s inaction and judicial scrutiny

    The inaction by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on advice to free the convict has raised the possibility of judicial intervention due to undue delay.

    Inaction by Governor on advice

    • The Governor of Tamil Nadu has continued to withhold his decision on an application seeking pardon by one of the seven prisoners convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
    • In September 2018, the Supreme Court (SC) had observed, while hearing a connected writ petition, that the Governor should take a decision
    • The inaction by the Governor now has given rise to constitutional fault lines within the Executive arm of the government.

    Past judgements on pardoning power

    • In Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981)  Supreme Court held that the pardoning power “under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and the State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own.”
    • The majority judgment had said that the “advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the State”.
    • Therefore, a Governor is neither expected, nor is empowered, to test the constitutionality of the order or resolution presented to her.

    Issue of delay in decision of mercy petition

    • Recently, the Supreme Court, had examined the inordinate delay by the President and the Governor — in taking decisions on mercy petitions.
    • The Supreme Court, in the case of Shatrugan Chouhan v. Union of India, laid down the principle of “presumption of dehumanising effect of such delay”.
    • The Supreme Court confirmed that the due process guaranteed under Article 21 was available to each and every prisoner “till his last breath”.

    Judicial scrutiny of the actions of Speakers

    • It was hitherto believed that the powers of the Speaker, holding a constitutional office and exercising powers granted under the Constitution, were beyond the scope of a ‘writ of mandamus’.
    • In the recent case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker (2020), the Supreme Court was asked to examine the Speaker’s inaction with regard to disqualification proceedings.
    • However, the apex court, referering to Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), had confirmed its view that the “failure on the part of the Speaker to decide the application seeking a disqualification cannot be said to be merely in the realm of procedure”
    • Consequently, breaking years of convention, the SC set the time period of four weeks to decide the disqualification petition.
    • By doing so, the Supreme Court has indicated that it would not be precluded from issuing directions in aid of a constitutional authority “arriving at a prompt decision”.

    Consider the question “The undue delays and inactions by the constitutional functionaries threaten to widen the constitutional faultlines among the Executives. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    Instead of relying on the judicial intervention in the event of delays, it would be better to have a set time limit for arriving at decision by the constitutional judiciary.