💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • India, Pak, China must build on de-escalation

    Three power, India, Pakistan and China need to take a new look at the factors underlying their relationship with each other. The article deals with this issue.

    Hope for regional politics to turn a new leaf

    • The announcement by India and Pakistan of strict observance of all agreements, understandings and cease firing along the Line of Control is a welcome step.
    • It is premature to conclude what all this will amount to in the long term.
    • But if all three powers, China, Pakistan and India, can draw the appropriate lessons in humility, there is hope for regional politics to turn over a new leaf.

    Lessons for India

    • First, the belligerent use of foreign policy in domestic politics has unintended effects on your international standing.
    • In 2019, the official rhetoric was promising India retaking PoK and putting more military pressure on Pakistan.
    • In contrast, the discourse on foreign policy since the Chinese pressure on the LAC has been one of marked sobriety scaling back all expectations of a flippant militarism.
    • Second, the standoff with China has brought home some stark realities. We can speculate on Chinese motives.
    •  The LAC standoff considerably released the pressure on Pakistan.
    • We were reminded that the LAC and LoC can be linked; that the zone around Kashmir was a trilateral and not a bilateral contest, and that India will need significant resources to deal with China.
    • In the matter of the CAA the talk of evicting Bangladeshis has been starkly checkmated by the need to placate Bangladesh, which is vital to our strategic interests.

    Lessons for Pakistan

    • First, India now has enough weight in the international system that any attempts to internationalise Kashmir are a non-starter.
    • Second, the revocation of Article 370 did not unleash the kinds of fissures and cycle of violence within the Valley that Pakistan might have been hoping to exploit.
    • Third, the pandemic is a great opportunity for Pakistan to recognise that opening up to the South Asian region is in its interest in the long term than acting on the coattails of China.

    Lessons for China

    • India may not have, in a literal sense, restored the status quo ante on the LAC, the fact of the matter is that it has stood up with enough firmness to send the signal that it will not be a pushover.
    • India signalled a resolve that Chinese military and economic hegemony can be resisted.
    • China cannot wish away considerable Indian power.
    • In fact, by concentrating India’s mind on the China challenge, it may have unwittingly done India a favour.

    Way forward

    • So this moment can be a constructive one if everyone understands the one lesson in world politics: There are diminishing returns to belligerence.
    • With Pakistan, India should seize the moment and build on the de-escalation.
    • The pandemic offers an opportunity for greater economic cooperation.
    • Political establishments of both countries will have to think of what is a win-win political narrative they can legitimately offer their citizens.

    Consider the question “If all three powers, China, Pakistan and India, can draw the appropriate lessons in humility, there is hope for regional politics to turn over a new leaf. Comment.“

    Conclusion

    The region will be better off with a humility that tries to align them, rather than a hubris that exults in unilateral triumphalism.

  • Issues with Master of the Roaster power of CJI

    CJI’s power as Master of Roaster and issues with it

    • The Supreme Court recently closed the proceedings enquiring into a conspiracy to threaten the independence of the judiciary on the basis of sexual harassment allegations against the former CJI.
    • The singular power of the CJI as the Master of the Roster – i.e., the vests exclusive discretion in the Chief Justice to constitute benches and allocate cases.
    • While the CJI’s other powers such as recommending appointments to constitutional courts are shared with other senior judges, the power of Master of the Roster is enjoyed without scrutiny.
    • This power enabled Justice Gogoi to institute suo motu proceedings despite being an accused; label the case as a matter of judicial independence; and preside over it.
    • This power lay at the heart of the controversy surrounding the proceedings the Court has now closed.

    Implications for independence of judiciary

    • From the standpoint of judicial independence, the Master of the Roster power makes the CJI’s office a high stakes one.
    • It makes the CJI the sole point of defence of the Court against executive interference.
    • However, this has a flip side.
    • With the CJI as the sole Master of the Roster, any executive seeking to influence the Supreme Court needs only a pliant CJI.
    • Yet, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to dilute this power.
    • In Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018), a three-judge bench of the Court held that Master of the Roster is the CJI’s exclusive power.
    • Thereafter, a two-judge bench in Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018) rejected the plea that the Master of the Roster should be interpreted as the collegium.

    Need for the reforms

    • The collegium system has failed to keep executive interferences at bay from the Supreme Court.
    • This is for two reasons:
    • First, as Justice Gogoi’s case shows, there is an attractive lure of post-retirement jobs.
    • Second, as the privilege of Master of the Roster shows, the CJI’s allocation of cases is an unchecked power.
    • The continuing project of judicial reforms should then address these two issues.

    Way forward

    • A cooling-off period between retirement and a post-retirement appointment has often been suggested as a way to deal with the first problem.
    • For the second, the power of Master of the Roster needs to be diversified beyond the CJI’s exclusive and untrammelled discretion.

    Consider the question “What are the issues with the Master of the Roaster power of the Chief Justice of India? Suggest the ways to deal with the issue.” 

    Conclusion

    We need to carry out these reforms make the judiciary less prone to interference from the executive.

  • Swiss Neutrality in World Affairs

    Switzerland’s traditional foreign policy of neutrality has become attractive again because of the changing political reality in the world, said its Ambassador recently.

    Q.In context to foreign policy, discuss the relevance, benefits and limitations of Swiss Neutrality.(150 W)

    What is Swiss Neutrality?

    • Swiss neutrality is one of the main principles of Switzerland’s foreign policy which dictates that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed or political conflicts between other states.
    • This policy is self-imposed, permanent, and armed, designed to ensure external security and promote peace.
    • Under this, Switzerland pursues an active foreign policy and is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.

    Historic significance

    • Switzerland has the oldest policy of military neutrality in the world; it has not participated in a foreign war since its neutrality was established by the Treaty of Paris in 1815.
    • The European powers (Austria, France, the UK, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain and Sweden) agreed at the Congress of Vienna in May 1815 that Switzerland should be neutral.
    • But final ratification was delayed until after Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated so that some coalition forces could invade France via Swiss territory.

    Swiss moves for the status

    • Since World War II, Switzerland has taken a more active role in international affairs by aiding with humanitarian initiatives, but it remains fiercely neutral with regard to military affairs.
    • It has never joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the European Union, and only joined the United Nations in 2002.

    Relevance today

    • Neutrality has become necessary as a foreign policy tool as the phase of power politics has returned in world affairs.
    • Now with big power politics, Switzerland’s neutrality and Switzerland as a place to meet is much more attractive again.

  • The IT Act new rules and the challenge of Big Tech

    The article discusses the issues with the new rules issues under the IT Act.

    Issues with the new rules

    1) No discussion

    • Last week, the Union Government issued a set of rules under the Information Technology Act, superseding rules issued under Section 79 of that statute in 2011. 
    • This has happened in the absence of open and public discussion and without any parliamentary study and scrutiny.

    2) Concerns over legal basis

    • The Union Government has chosen to pass these rules under the requirement to outline the due diligence that Internet intermediaries have to follow in order to be able to claim their qualified legal immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act.
    • These rules at the outset appear unlawful even with respect to whether they could have been issued under the Information Technology Act in the manner chosen by the government, leave alone their constitutionality with respect to fundamental rights.
    • The government’s gazette notification has further claimed that the rules were also issued under the legal authority to specific procedure for blocking web content under Section 69A of the IT Act.
    • However,  rules overseeing government web content blocking powers have already been issued for that section in 2009, and not superseded.

    3) Using rule making power to issue primary legislation

    • The ability to issue rules under a statute — i.e. to frame subordinate legislation — is by its nature a limited, constrained power.
    • The executive branch is subordinate to what Parliament has permitted it and cannot use its rule-making power to seek to issue primary legislation by itself.
    • With the present Internet content and social media rules, the Union Government has done precisely that.
    • The executive branch has created new rules that apply only to “significant social media intermediaries” — a term that appears nowhere in the Information Technology Act.
    • The rules have grown to include a chapter on how digital news sites have to be registered before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
    • However, digital news service registration is not required under the IT Act and streaming video content has not been included under the ambit of the Cinematograph Act.

    Consider the question “What are the challenges in the regulation of Big Tech to democracies? Suggest the measures to deal with these challenges.”

    Conclusion

    Instead of advancing Internet content control, India needs to advancing surveillance law reform or enacting a strong statutory data protection framework.

  • ‘Lateral Entry’ into Bureaucracy: Reason, Process, and Controversy

    This newscard is an excerpt from the original article published in the Indian Express.

    Background

    • Earlier this month, the UPSC issued an advertisement seeking applications for the posts of Joint Secretary and Director in central government Departments.
    • These individuals, who would make a “lateral entry” into the government secretariat, would be contracted for three to five years.
    • These posts were “unreserved”, meaning were no quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs.

    UPSC begins lateral entry

    • The new ad is for the second round of such recruitments.
    • Earlier, the government had decided to appoint experts from outside the government to positions of Joint Secretary in different Ministries/Departments and at the level of Deputy Secretary/Director in 2018.

    Q.In light of the growing need for Lateral Entry in top secretarial posts, discuss the need for enhancing the professional competence of Civil Servants in India.(150W)

    What is ‘Lateral Entry’ into government?

    • NITI Aayog, in 2017 had recommended the induction of personnel at middle and senior management levels in the central government.
    • These ‘lateral entrants’ would be part of the central secretariat which in the normal course has only career bureaucrats from the All India Services/ Central Civil Services.

    What are the ranks invited for this entry?

    • A Joint Secretary, appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), has the third-highest rank (after Secretary and Additional Secretary) in a Department.
    • It functions as the administrative head of a wing in the Department.
    • Directors are a rank below that of Joint Secretary.

    What is the government’s reasoning for lateral entry?

    • Lateral recruitment is aimed at achieving the twin objectives of bringing in fresh talent as well as augments the availability of manpower.
    • Government has, from time to time, appointed some prominent persons for specific assignments in government, keeping in view their specialised knowledge and expertise in the domain area.
    • Indeed, the first ARC had pointed out the need for specialization as far back as 1965.
    • The Surinder Nath Committee and the Hota Committee followed suit in 2003 and 2004, respectively, as did the second ARC.
    • In 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended an institutionalized, transparent process for lateral entry at both the Central and state levels.

    Why is lateral entry sometimes criticised?

    • Groups representing SCs, STs and OBCs have protested the fact that there is no reservation in these appointments.
    • Some argue that the government is opening back doors to bring its own lobby openly.

    Mentor’s comment: Why is lateral entry necessary?

    For the sake of political economy

    • Pushback from bureaucrats, serving and retired, and the sheer institutional inertia of civil services has existed largely unchanged for decades have prevented progress.
    • The importance of economic effectiveness has risen concurrently.
    • That stagnation means the civil services as they exist today—most crucially, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS)—are unsuited to the country’s political economy in many ways.
    • The need for having bureaucrats act as binding agents, no longer exist.
    • Others, such as socioeconomic development, have transmuted to the point where the state’s methods of addressing them are coming in for a rethink.

    Conclusion

    • Pushback is inevitable since every smallest policy change is resisted in our country.
    • It is both a workaround for the civil services’ structural failings and an antidote to the complacency that can set in a career-based service.
    • The second ARC report points out that it is both possible and desirable to incorporate elements of a position-based system where lateral entry and specialization are common.

    Way forward

    • India’s civil services need reform. There is little argument about this.
    • These are not entirely new in India.
    • Domain experts have been brought in from outside the services to head various committees, advisory bodies and organizations.
    • Internal reforms—such as insulation from political pressure and career paths linked to specialization—and external reforms such as lateral entry are complementary.

  • IAEA

    The move by the US administration under Biden to revive the Iran nuclear deal has once again turned the spotlight on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which played a key role in enforcing the original nuclear deal from which Trump withdrew the US in 2018.

    Try this question from CSP 2020:

    Q.In India, why are some nuclear reactors kept under “IAEA Safeguards” while others are not?

    (a) Some use Uranium and others use thorium.

    (b) Some use imported uranium and others use domestic supplies.

    (c) Some are operated by foreign enterprises and others are operated by domestic enterprises.

    (d) Some are State- owned and others are privately-owned.

    What is IAEA?

    • The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons.
    • As the preeminent nuclear watchdog under the UN, the IAEA is entrusted with the task of upholding the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970.
    • It was established as an autonomous organisation on July 29, 1957, at the height of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
    • Though established independently of the UN through its own international treaty, the agency reports to both the UN General Assembly and the UNSC.

    What are its safeguards?

    • Safeguards are activities by which the IAEA can verify that a State is living up to its international commitments not to use nuclear programmes for nuclear-weapons purposes.
    • Safeguards are based on assessments of the correctness and completeness of a State’s declared nuclear material and nuclear-related activities.
    • Verification measures include on-site inspections, visits, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation.

    Basically, two sets of measures are carried out in accordance with the type of safeguards agreements in force with a State.

    1. One set relates to verifying State reports of declared nuclear material and activities.
    2. Another set enables the IAEA not only to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material but also to provide assurances as to the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in a State.

    Why in news again?

    • The IAEA and Iranian diplomats struck a “temporary” deal to continue inspection of Iran’s nuclear plants for three more months, which keeps at least the diplomatic path to revive the deal open.
    • However, there have always been questions about the Agency’s ability to work independently, without being drawn into big power rivalries.

    IAEA success: Civil nuclear solution

    • The IAEA is active in championing civil nuclear solution to a number of areas like health, which is one of the main areas of peaceful application of nuclear know-how.
    • That apart, in recent years, the IAEA is also active in dealing with climate change, pandemic containment and in the prevention of Zoonotic diseases.
    • The IAEA was the first to announce that the North Korean nuclear programme was not peaceful.
    • North Korea finally expelled IAEA observers and as a result, there are no on-the-ground international inspectors in North Korea.
    • The world is reliant on ground sensors and satellite imageries to observe North Korea’s nuclear actions.

    Issues with IAEA

    • What the IAEA missed in terms of real authority over sovereign states, it compensated for that by cultivating some tall leadership whose actions kept the issue of non-proliferation on the multilateral table.
    • It proved to be ineffective to prevent power politics from influencing nuclear negotiations.
    • This was particularly visible when Pakistan pursued a nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s and despite overwhelming evidence in possession of the American authorities.
    • They did not pursue the case effectively through the IAEA because of the cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan on the Afghan front.
    • IAEA does not have any power to override the sovereign rights of any member nation of the UN.
    • The uneven authority produced results when in the case of Iran when the Agency’s efforts were backed by big powers.
    • One major criticism of the IAEA is that it never challenges the nuclear dominance of the five permanent members of the UNSC, who themselves hold some of the biggest nuclear arsenals of the world.

    IAEA and India

    • The IAEA-certified the nuclear power plant at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan in 2012, which drew criticism as the power plant had two incidents of leakage of nuclear material earlier that year.
    • The second incident affected at least four workers who worked in the nuclear power plant and had caused concern among the scientific community.

    Iran challenge

    • The coming weeks will, however, test the 63-year old organisation as Iran remains suspicious of the exact intentions of the Biden administration.
    • The current episode, which involves regional political concerns like Saudi-Iran and Iran-Israel rivalries as well as the American interests in the region, will certainly test the IAEA.
    • It will also test the ability of the IAEA to deal with powerful states from its position of “uneven authority”.
    • The main negotiation on this front is dependent on Tehran’s demand for lifting American sanctions. Iran has said its compliance will depend on the lifting of sanctions.

    Future prospects

    • The issues involved between Iran and the U.S. indicate that they are not part of the mandate of the IAEA.
    • Iran also requires assurance that once activated, the deal will not be abandoned in future by an American President in the way that Trump had done in 2018.
    • Tying all the loose ends of this difficult negotiation will be the biggest challenge for all parties.

  • Who gets to decide what is legitimate free speech

    The article highlights the challenges in regulating the Big Techs.

    Controlling Big Tech

    • Recently, the Indian government announced a sweeping array of rules reining-in social media.
    • Specifically, social media platforms are required to become “more responsible and more accountable” for the content they carry.
    • India is by no means alone in taking steps to regulate at Big Tech.
    • The social media companies would argue that they are self-regulating.
    • The problem is that their actions are ad hoc, inconsistent and reactive 

    Issues

    • A user can be removed from the platform if his post threatens the “unity, integrity, defence, security or Sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any foreign States”.
    • In other words, the government is giving itself plenty of room to cut Big Tech down to size.

    Why the issue needs government intervention: 3 arguments

    1) Conflict of interest

    • The government intervention rests on the presumption that it is never in the commercial interest of Big Tech to remove offensive speech.
    • This is because as such content goes viral more readily, bringing in more eyeballs, more data and more advertising revenue.
    • Big Tech proponents would contend that the companies are getting smarter about the risks of allowing such content on their systems and will inevitably find it in their self-interest to pre-emptively kill it.

    2) State is the guardian of public interest

    • A second argument in favour of government would be as follows: States are the guardians of the public interest.
    • In democratic societies, governments are elected to represent the will of the people.
    • So if there is a hard choice to be made about curtailing speech or permitting it, it seems only natural to turn to the public guardian.
    • The counter to this theory would be that, in practice, even democratically elected governments are far from perfect.
    • In fact according to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, both India (ranked 53rd ) and the US (ranked 25th) are “flawed democracies”.
    • In parallel, the argument for Big Tech to be the upholder of the public interest could rest on the theory that well-functioning markets are superior to flawed democracies in optimising social welfare.
    • The counter-argument to this view would be that the tech industry is itself deeply flawed.
    • There is a lack of sufficient choice of platforms; there are asymmetries in power between the companies and users and Big Tech is amassing data on the citizens and using this information for its own purposes, which makes the disparity even greater.

    3) Bargaining power of BigTech

    • A third perspective is to acknowledge it doesn’t matter who is the “true” upholder of the public interest.
    • For all practical purposes, the outcome of the struggle between Big Government and Big Tech will be determined by relative bargaining power.
    • While governments technically have the ability to take entire platforms offline within the borders of their countries, these platforms are now so enormous that their users would revolt.
    • This is why we witnessed the audacity, recently, of Google and Facebook, threatening to de-platform Australia.

    Consider the question “What are the challenges in the regulation of Big Techs? Suggest ways to deal with these challenges.”.

    Conclusion

    While governments technically have the ability to take entire platforms offline within the borders of their countries, these platforms are now so enormous that their users would revolt. This is why we witnessed the audacity, recently, of Google and Facebook, threatening to de-platform Australia.

  • E-Daakhil portal for consumer grievance redressal

    The Union Government has informed that the ‘E-Daakhil’ portal for consumer grievance redressal is now operational in 15 states and Union Territories (UTs).

    Try this question from our AWE initiative:

    What are the objectives sought to be achieved through The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 to regulate commercial transactions? What are the issues with the rules? 10 marks

    E-Daakhil

    • The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which came into force on July 20, 2020, has a provision for e-filing of consumer complaints in the consumer commissions and online payment of the fees for filing a complaint.
    • A web application for e-filing of consumer complaints named ‘edaakhil.nic.in’ has been developed by NIC for the purpose.
    • E-filing was launched by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on September 7, 2020.
    • Delhi was the first state to implement it on September 8, 2020.

    Features of the portal

    • The E-Daakhil portal empowers the consumer and their advocates to file the consumer complaints along with payment of requisite fees online from anywhere for the redressal of their complaints.
    • It facilitates the consumer commissions to scrutinise the complaints online to accept, reject or forward the complaint to the concerned commission for further processing.
    • The digital software for filing consumer complaints has many features like e-notice, case document download link and virtual hearing link, filing written response by the opposite party, fling rejoinder by complainant and alerts via SMS/e-mail.
    • To facilitate the rural consumers for e-filing, it has been decided to integrate the common service centres (CSC) with the E-Daakhil portal.

  • A fine balance in digital age

    The Digital Media Code seeks to balance the priorities and interests of several stakeholders. The article explains the various aspects of the code.

    Guidelines and ethics code

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India (MeitY) has announced the proposed Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code. 
    • The guidelines will cover social networks, digital media companies, and OTT platforms.
    • The guidelines will also make the nation’s sovereign stance clear on matters of ethics and the protection of freedom of expression of creators, publishers, and digital platform companies.
    • The guidelines and ethics code seek to balance the questions of accountability and grievance redressal that are posed by the citizens of the country.

    Balancing many priorities

    • The ministry’s announcement reveals an approach that is aligned with the thinking of today without imposing unreasonable boundaries on the innovation and expression.
    • The guidelines are designed to carefully balance the many priorities and contexts of all stakeholders.
    • With this move, India continues to deepen its position as a leader in digital policy and technological innovation.
    • These guidelines have been intentionally designed so that India’s next-gen digital media innovators can propel the acceleration of value generation and inclusive empowerment of their local users.
    • Global companies that have large user bases in the country can also align with a common framework that protects creators and consumers alike.

    Grievance redressal mechanism

    • The proposal has mechanisms that empower every social and digital media intermediary to self-enforce effective mechanisms to address complaints from users.
    • With a special focus on protecting the online safety and dignity of users, especially women, the guidelines have prioritised affirmative addressal of the most serious issues that have affected India’s digital population.
    • The digital platform companies are empowered to report the first originator of the grievance-causing information.
    • This will ensure that liability is limited while the country’s laws can be fully and effectively enforced on the actual perpetrators.

    Addressing the arbitrary censorship

    • Guidelines provide users with an opportunity to be heard — a vital defence against the arbitrary censorship that several social media platforms are increasingly embracing globally.
    • The need of the hour is for every country to have a body of clearly-defined policy that is consistent with the principles of their democracies.
    • The country’s guidelines will ensure that unlawful information has clear boundary conditions, liability is defined, the process for enforcement of orders is transparent.
    • The guidelines will also ensure that all social and digital media companies can rely on a consistent definition of the ethics code that protects all participants in the digital ecosystem.

    Conclusion

    This light-touch, empowering, and inclusive regulatory architecture is exactly what the country was hoping for, and India’s citizens will applaud this move as a foundational pillar towards an Atmanirbhar India.

  • The absurdity of the anti-defection law

    The article highlights the shortcomings of the anti-defection law and its failure in ensuring the stability of the government.

    Background of anti-defection law

    • The anti-defection law was included in the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule in 1985.
    • The main purpose was to preserve the stability of governments and insulate them from defections of legislators from the treasury benches.
    • The law stated that any Member of Parliament (MP) or that of a State legislature (MLA) would be disqualified from their office if they voted on any motion contrary to the directions issued by their party.

    Issues with the anti-defection law

    1) Against the concept of representative democracy

    • The provisions of the anti-defection law is not limited to confidence motions or money bills.
    • It applies to all votes in the House, on every Bill and every other issue.
    • It even applies to the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Councils, which have no say in the stability of the government.
    • Therefore, an MP (or MLA) has absolutely no freedom to vote their judgement on any issue.
    • They have to blindly follow the direction of the party.
    • This provision goes against the concept of representative democracy.

    2) The act turns legislator to be an agent of  the party

    • There are two broadly accepted roles of a representative such as an MP.
    • One is that they are agents of the voters and are expected to vote according to the wishes and for the benefits of their constituents.
    • The other is that their duty to their constituents is to exercise their judgement on various issues towards the broader public interest.
    • In this, they deliberate with other MPs and find a reasonable way through complex issues.
    • The anti-defection law makes the MP neither a delegate of the constituency nor a national legislator but converts them to be just an agent of the party.

    3) Broken chain

    • The legislator is accountable to voters, and the government is accountable to legislators.
    • In India, this chain of accountability has been broken by making legislators accountable primarily to the party.
    • This means that anyone from the party having a majority in the legislature is unable to hold the government to account.
    • This negates the concept of them having to justify their positions on various issues to the people who elected them to the post.

    4) No incentive for MPs to understand policy choices

    • If an MP has no freedom to take decisions on policy and legislative proposals, there would be no incentive to put in the effort to understand the different policy choices and their outcomes.
    •  The MP becomes just another number to be tallied by the party on any vote that it supports or opposes.

    5) Weakening of the accountability mechanism

    • While introducing the draft Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that the presidential form (such as in the United States) had higher stability but lower accountability.
    • This is because the President is elected for four years, and cannot be removed except for proven misdemeanour.
    • In the parliamentary form, the government is accountable on a daily basis through questions and motions and can be removed any time it loses the support of the majority of members of the Lok Sabha.
    • The drafting committee believed that India needed a government that was accountable, even at the cost of stability.
    • The anti-defection bill weakens the accountability mechanism.

    6) The act fails to provide stability

    • The political system has found ways to topple governments by reducing the total membership through resignations.
    • In other instances, the Speaker — usually from the ruling party — has delayed taking a decision on the disqualification.
    • The Supreme Court has tried to plug this by ruling that the Speaker has to take the decision in three months, but it is not clear what would happen if a Speaker does not do so.
    • The premise that the anti-defection law is needed to punish legislators who betray the mandate given by the voters also seems to be flawed.
    • We have seen many of the defectors in States such as Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh being re-elected in the by-polls, which were held due to their disqualification.

    Way forward

    • The problem arises from the attempt to find a legal solution to what is essentially a political problem.
    • If stability of government is an issue due to people defecting from their parties, the answer is for parties to strengthen their internal systems.
    •  If parties attract members on the basis of ideology, and they have systems for people to rise within the party hierarchy on their capabilities rather than inheritance, there would be a greater exit barrier.

    Consider the question “How far has the anti-defection law succeeded in preventing the destabilisation of the governments? Give reasons in support of your argument.”

    Conclusion

    The anti-defection law has been detrimental to the functioning of our legislatures as deliberative bodies which hold the executive to account on behalf of citizens. It has turned them into fora to endorse the decision of the government on Bills and budgets. And it has not even done the job of preserving the stability of governments. The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution must be repealed.