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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Parliament & State Legislatures

  • Supreme Court cleared New Delhi’s Central Vista Project

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the central vista project to go ahead.

    Try this MCQ first:

    Q.The architecture of the present Parliament House of India is inspired from:

    a) Ekattarso Mahadeva Temple

    b) Virupaksa Temple

    c) Dilwara Temples

    d) Brihaddeswara Temple

    The Central Vista Project

    • The project aims to renovate and redevelop 86 acres of land in Lutyens’s Delhi.
    • In this, the landmark structures of the government, including Parliament House, Rashtrapati Bhavan, India Gate, North Block and South Block, etc. stand.
    • This dream project of redeveloping the nation’s administrative heart was announced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs on September 13, 2019.

    Litigation over the project

    • A petition was filed in the Supreme Court in April 2020, challenging the Centre’s change-of-land-use notification of March 2020 with regard to the 86 acres of land.
    • The petitioner submitted that the order violated the citizen’s Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 by depriving people of open and green spaces.
    • The petition also argued that the notification violated the Master Plan of Delhi 2021.
    • Subsequently, the court heard the challenge on three main grounds: change of land use; violations of municipal law; and violations of environmental law.

    What has the court held?

    • In a 2:1 majority verdict, the court has held that there are no infirmities in the approvals granted.
    • The verdict held that the central government’s change of land use for the project in the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 is also a lawful exercise of its powers.

    History of Lutyens’s Delhi

    • At his coronation as Emperor of India on December 12, 1911, Britain’s King George V had announced the transfer of the seat of the Government of India from Calcutta to the ancient Capital of Delhi.
    • Thereafter, a 20-year-long project to build modern New Delhi was spearheaded by architects Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker.
    • They built Parliament House, Rashtrapati Bhavan, North and South Blocks, Rajpath, India Gate, National Archives and the princes’ houses around India Gate.
    • New Delhi was unveiled in 1931.

    Must read:

    New Parliament Building

  • Declining seating of the state legislature and issues with it.

    Recently, Governor turned down the recommendation of the Kerala government to convene the session of the state legislature. It also points to the trend of declining seating of the state legislature and issues with it.

    Governor-Government conflict

    • The Kerala government made a recommendation to the governor for summoning the state’s legislature for a one-day session.
    • The government wanted to discuss the situation arising out of the farmers’ protest in the legislative assembly.
    • Media reports suggest that the governor turned down the government on the grounds that there is no emergent situation for which the state assembly should be called to meet at short notice.
    • Earlier this year, the Rajasthan governor had rejected the recommendation of the government to call a session.
    • The chief minister wanted a session of the legislature called so that he could prove his majority on the floor of the house.

    Constitutional provisions

    • The Constitution is clear: The government has the power to convene a session of the legislature.
    • The council of ministers decides the dates and the duration of the session.
    • Their decision is communicated to the governor, who is constitutionally bound to act on most matters on the aid and advice of the government.
    • The governor then summons the state legislature to meet for a session.
    • The refusal of a governor to do so is a matter of concern.

    Declining sittings of the state legislature

    • In the last 20 years, state assemblies across the country, on average, met for less than 30 days in a year.
    • But states like Kerala, Odisha, Karnataka are an exception.
    • The Kerala Vidhan Sabha, for example, has on average met for 50 days every year for the last 10 years.
    • The trend across the country is that legislatures meet for longer budget sessions at the beginning of the year.
    • Then for the rest of the year, they meet to fulfill the constitutional requirement that there should not be a gap of six months between two sessions.

    Why is it a matter of concern

    • Close scrutiny: Continuous and close scrutiny by legislatures is central to improving governance in the country.
    • Voice to public opinion: Legislatures are arenas for debate and giving voice to public opinion.
    • Accountability institutions: As accountability institutions, they are responsible for asking tough questions of the government and highlighting uncomfortable truths. So, it is in the interest of a state government to convene lesser sittings of the legislature and bypass their scrutiny.
    • Prevent ordinance: Lesser number of sitting days also means that state governments are free to make laws through ordinances. And when they convene legislatures, there is little time for MLAs to scrutinize laws brought before them.

    Way forward

    • Convening legislatures to meet all around the year.
    • In many mature democracies, a fixed calendar of sittings of legislatures, with breaks in between, is announced at the beginning of the year.
    • It allows the government to plan its calendar for bringing in new laws.
    • It also has the advantage of increasing the time for debate and discussion in the legislative assembly.
    • And with the legislature sitting throughout the year, it gets rid of the politics surrounding the convening of sessions of a legislature.

    Conclusion

    Continuous and close scrutiny by legislatures is central to improving governance in the country. Increasing the number of working days for state legislatures is a first step in increasing their effectiveness.

  • Key lesson from farmers’ protest

    A key lesson from the farmers’ opposition to the farm laws is that following the parliamentary procedure in the passage of legislation always pays dividend more so if the changes introduced by the legislation bring substantial changes. 

    Vested interests resulting in opposition to legislation

    • There are strong indications that the new legislation is desirable and will bring in much-needed market reforms in the overregulated farm sector.
    • There is no contrary evidence that the new proposals will adversely affect farmers in the long run.
    • There is no justification for a minimum support price regardless of demand and supply.
    • Legislation that benefits the nation but hurts vested interests will always meet with vehement opposition.

    How liberalisation helps: Lessons from non-agricultural sector

    • The benefits of liberalising the non-agricultural sector of the economy in 1991 established that market forces cannot be ignored.
    • For the first 30 years, under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, several control orders were passed.
    • Orders under ECA were passed on products such as cement and steel, and these were intended to ensure their availability at fair prices.
    • The result was just the opposite: Severe shortages, a huge black market and massive corruption.
    • Equally disastrous were laws relating to monopolies and industrial development.

    Importance of parliamentary procedures

    • At the heart of a constitutional democracy based on the Westminster model is the importance of Parliament, which is the fountainhead of all laws.
    • But, Parliament includes the Opposition as well and even though a bill may be certain to become the law, it is necessary that the established procedure is followed.
    • In the face of opposition to the farm laws, it is necessary that the benefits of a new law are demonstrated through debate and discussion.
    • There must be empirical or other evidence that shows the deleterious economic consequences of continuing with the status quo.
    • As the farm bills marked a radical departure from the existing system of selling agricultural produce, the least that could have been done was to refer them to a Select Committee.
    • It is a matter of concern that fewer and fewer bills are being referred to Select Committees or even deliberated upon.
    • While 71 per cent of the bills were referred to a Select Committee in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14), only 25 per cent were so referred in the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-19).

    Way forward

    • A new law can always come into force at a later date and can even be made applicable piecemeal.
    • It is also possible to notify it to apply to select states or districts.
    • If laws are likely to meet with opposition by vested interests, the best way to demonstrate their beneficial effects is to implement the laws in select states or districts for a year. 
    • It is worthwhile considering the implementation of a controversial law on a trial basis.

    Consider the question “Describe the important role played by the Select Committee in the passage of the bill. Why the decline in the number of bills referred to the Select Committees is the matter of concern?” 

    Conclusion

    The biggest lesson for the goverment is that following constitutional conventions always pays dividends — it benefits the nation and preserves the dignity of Parliament.

  • How Parliament meets

    The centre has said that there will be no winter session of Parliament this time due to the COVID despite the ‘success’ in curbing the pandemic. This year, the Parliament has met for only 33 days!

    Q. The undue delays and inactions by the constitutional functionaries threaten to widen the constitutional faultlines among the Executives. Critically comment.

    Sessions of Parliament

    • The power to convene a session of Parliament rests with the government. But it is the President who summons Parliament.
    • The decision is taken by the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs, which currently comprises nine ministers, including those for Defence, Home, Finance, and Law.
    • The decision of the Committee is formalized by the President, in whose name MPs are summoned to meet for a session.
    • A general scheme of sittings was recommended in 1955 by the General Purpose Committee of Lok Sabha.
    • It was accepted by the government of PM Jawaharlal Nehru but was not implemented.

    No fixed calendar

    • India does not have a fixed parliamentary calendar.
    • By convention, Parliament meets for three sessions in a year.
    • The longest, the Budget Session, starts towards the end of January and concludes by the end of April or first week of May.
    • The session has a recess so that Parliamentary Committees can discuss the budgetary proposals.
    • The second session is the three-week Monsoon Session, which usually begins in July and finishes in August.
    • The parliamentary year ends with a three-week-long Winter Session, which is held from November to December.

    What the Constitution says

    • The summoning of Parliament is specified in Article 85 of the Constitution. Like many other articles, it is based on a provision of The Government of India Act, 1935.
    • This provision specified that the central legislature had to be summoned to meet at least once a year and that not more than 12 months could elapse between two sessions.
    • Dr B R Ambedkar stated that the purpose of this provision was to summon the legislature only to collect revenue and that the once-a-year meeting was designed to avoid scrutiny of the government by the legislature.
    • His drafting of the provision reduced the gap between sessions to six months and specified that Parliament should meet at least twice a year.

    Convening a Session: The debate

    • During the debate, members of the Constituent Assembly highlighted three issues: (i) the number of sessions in a year, (ii) the number of days of sitting and, (iii) who should have the power to convene Parliament.
    • Prof K T Shah from Bihar was of the opinion that Parliament should sit throughout the year, with breaks in between.
    • Others wanted Parliament to sit for longer durations and gave examples of the British and American legislatures which during that time were meeting for more than a hundred days in a year.
    • Prof Shah also wanted the presiding officers of the two Houses to be empowered to convene Parliament in certain circumstances. These suggestions were not accepted by Dr Ambedkar.

    Moved, delayed, stretched

    • Over the years, governments have shuffled around the dates of sessions to accommodate political and legislative exigencies.
    • Sessions have also been cut short or delayed to allow the government to issue Ordinances.

    Fewer House sittings

    • Over the years, there has been a decline in the sittings days of Parliament.
    • During the first two decades of Parliament, Lok Sabha met for an average of a little more than 120 days a year.
    • This has come down to approximately 70 days in the last decade.

    Why sittings are reducing day by day?

    • One institutional reason given for this is the reduction in the workload of Parliament by its Standing Committees, which, since the 1990s, have anchored debates outside the House.
    • However, several Committees have recommended that Parliament should meet for at least 120 days in a year.

  • Demand for repeal of the law and importance of parliamentary scrutiny

    The article explains in detail the functioning of committees in the scrutiny of the Bills and underscores the importance of scrutiny of the Bills at the committee levels.

    Growing trend of bypassing the scrutiny at committee level

    • Data show that very few Bills are referred to the Parliamentary Committees now.
    • Ministers are generally reluctant to send their Bills to the committees because they are in a hurry to pass them.
    • They often request the Presiding Officers not to refer their Bills to the committees.
    • But the Presiding Officers are required to exercise their independent judgment in the matter and decide the issue.
    • They need to keep in mind the fact that the Bills which the government brings before the Houses often have serious shortcomings.

    Why scrutiny by the House committee matters

    • The demand for the repeal of the laws passed by Parliament only recently essentially points to a serious lapse in the management of the legislative work in Parliament.
    • Parliament has put in place a large machinery of committees to scrutinise the Bills which are brought before it by the government as a part of its legislative programme.
    • Rules of the Houses leave it to the Speaker or the Chairman to refer the Bills to the Standing Committees for a detailed scrutiny thereof.
    • After such scrutiny, the committees send their reports containing their recommendations on improvements to be made in the Bills to the Houses.
    • While undertaking such scrutiny, the committees invite various stakeholders to place their views before them.
    • Only after elaborate consultation do the committees formulate their views and recommendations.
    • Free India’s Parliament established a vast network of committees to undertake scrutiny of various aspects of governance including the Bills.
    • Prior to the formation of Standing Committees, the Indian Parliament used to appoint select committees, joint select committees, etc. for detailed scrutiny of important legislative proposals of the government.
    • With the formation of standing committees, the occasions for appointing select or joint select committees are few.

    Example of the Bills made better by suggestions of committe

    • The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Bill was introduced in 1999 in the Lok Sabha and was immediately referred to a joint committee of both Houses.
    • This Bill was meant to develop new varieties of plants and protect the rights of farmers and breeders.
    • The committee completed its work in eight months and made many improvements by way of bringing greater clarity into various terms and concepts.
    • The Seeds Bill, 2004 was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture which obtained the views from diverse sources.
    • Through the process of consultation with a wide range of experts and research organisations and farmers, the committee made significant improvements in the Bill; as a result, there was a better law on seeds.
    • It was the same case with the Companies (Amendment) Bill, the Information Technology Bill, and the Goods and Services Tax Bill.
    • The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill which was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 2011, which was referred to the Committee, was again referred to a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha when it was transmitted to that House after being passed by the Lok Sabha.
    • Thus, this Bill underwent double security by two committees of Parliament.

    Conclusion

    Our Parliamentary Committees have a tradition of working in a non-party manner. The reports of these Committees are based on consensus. It may be a bit difficult for people to believe that the instrumentalities of Parliament could rise above parties. But that is how they function.

  • New Parliament Building

    PM would on December 10 lay the foundation stone for the new Parliament building, which would be a symbol of “Atmanirbhar Bharat” and a “temple of democracy” for Independent India.

    Try this MCQ first:

    Q.The architecture of the present Parliament House of India is inspired from:

    a) Ekattarso Mahadeva Temple

    b) Virupaksa Temple

    c) Dilwara Temples

    d) Brihaddeswara Temple

    The new Parliament Building

    • The building, to be constructed by Tata Projects Ltd. would have a built-up area of 64,500 square metres over four floors and would be built adjacent to the existing building over 22 months.
    • Artisans and sculptors from across the country would contribute to the new building, showcasing the diversity and making it a symbol of “Atmanirbhar Bharat”.
    • The building would have modern equipment, be earthquake-safe and accommodate up to 1,224 MPs during joint sessions in the Lok Sabha chamber.
    • The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha chambers themselves would accommodate 888 and 384 MPs respectively.

    Issues with the old building

    • The existing British-built Parliament building, built in the 1920s, was designed for the Imperial Legislative Council and not for a bicameral Parliament.
    • The building has been modified over the years, including in 1956 when two floors were added.
    • While the number of Lok Sabha seats has remained 545 based on delimitation carried out on the basis of the 1971 Census, it is likely to increase after 2026 as the number of seats has been frozen till then.
    • The sources said the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha halls are packed and would not be able to accommodate additional seats when the number of seats goes up.

    Back2Basics: Parliament House (Sansad Bhavan)

    • The Sansad Bhavan is the seat of the Parliament of India. It houses the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha which represent lower and upper houses respectively in India’s bicameral parliament.
    • The existing building draws inspiration from Ekattarso Mahadeva Temple (in M.P.) and was built under the British empire for its Imperial Legislative Council in 1927.
    • The opening ceremony, which then housed the Imperial Legislative Council, was performed on 18 January 1927 by Lord Irwin, Viceroy of India.
    • Following the end of British rule in India, it was taken over by Constituent Assembly of India which was succeeded by the parliament of India once Constitution of India came into force in 1950.
    • In the 2010s, a proposal was introduced to revamp Central Vista and re-build or relocate a number of administrative buildings which initiated a program expecting completion in 2024.

    Architectural details:

    • Originally called the House of Parliament, it was designed by the British architects’ Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker in 1912-1913.
    • It was held as part of their wider mandate to construct a new administrative capital city for British India.
    • The perimeter of the building is circular, with 144 columns on the outside.
    • The building is surrounded by large gardens and the perimeter is fenced off by sandstone railings (jali).
    • Construction of the House began in 1921 and it was completed in 1927.

  • 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.

  • Taxes and the fundamental rights

    The article deals with the issue of a petition challenging the imposition of 5% GST on mobility aids used by disabled citizens.

    Background

    • The petitioner, in Nipun Malhotra vs. Union of India, argued in Supreme Court that the tax imposed on mobility aids used by disabled citizenswas patently discriminatory.
    • A decision to impose a tax, the Court said, was a matter of policy over which the judiciary ought not to ordinarily interfere.
    • In adjourning the case, it suggested that the petitioner exhaust his options by submitting his grievances to the GST Council, which is the governing body responsible for determining which products are taxed, and at what rate.

    Should the Courts test the legitimacy of the tax

    • It might be keen to ensure that the judiciary does not sit on judgment over matters that fall within the domain of legislative and executive competence.
    • There is nothing inherently distinct about taxing laws; they are in no way plenary and unamenable to judicial review.
    • Quite to the contrary, taxes have a direct bearing on how society is arranged.
    • The nature and rate of tax imposed on a product can impinge both on a person’s freedom and on a person’s right to be treated with equal care and concern.
    • Therefore, it ought to be well within an independent judiciary’s province — as the top courts in Canada and Colombia, among others, have recently held — to examine whether or not an imposition of a tax violates a fundamental right.

    Why government impose tax on mobility aids?

    • Until the advent of the GST, mobility aids were almost entirely immune from indirect taxes.
    • In virtually every State, exemptions were granted on the payment of value-added-tax on such goods.
    • However, under GST 18% tax was imposed on these devices and subsequently reduced to 5%.
    • The government claims that it cannot relieve mobility aids from taxation, because to do so will disincentivise domestic manufacturers.
    • Domestic manufacturers can claim “input tax credit” on taxes paid on raw material in the process of manufacturing when it remits the levy collected from the eventual purchaser of the product.
    •  The State’s argument is that in the absence of a levy of GST on the final product, the manufacturer will be burdened with input taxes.
    • Since it cannot claim any credit for those taxes paid, the prices of the final product would have to be concomitantly higher.
    • As a result, the manufacturer will be placed in a relative position of disadvantage to foreign makers.

    Issues with the government’s argument

    • This argument, though, suffers from at least two fallacies. First, a reading of the various notifications issued by the GST Council shows that many other products that are essential to human needs are exempt from tax.
    • Second, that the grant of an exemption in cases such as these would disentitle manufacturers from claiming input tax credit is a matter of legislative design.

    Way forward

    • Parliament can find other ways to ensure that domestic manufacturers are granted credit for the taxes that they pay on inputs.
    • A decision taken on exempting goods from taxation is a matter of classification.
    •  Given that the classification rests on a state of disability, it must be seen, on any sensible consideration of our equality jurisprudence, as, at least facially, inequitable.
    • The onus must, therefore, rest on the government to show the Court that it had cogent reasons for treating these goods as distinct from other commodities that are exempt from tax.
    • A failure to discharge this onus ought to render the levy illegitimate.
    • The GST Council can take a leaf out of the books of Canada and Australia, and grant a complete exemption on the levy imposed on mobility aids.

    Conclusion

    It is time we recognised that an unreasonable levy can deeply compromise fundamental human needs. To free taxing statutes from the ramparts of the Constitution is to risk the entrenching of inequality.

  • Issues related to the Office of Governor

    The article deals with the role of Governor in the state and issue of misuse of discretionary power vested in him.

    Constitutional provision related to Governor

    • Various Raj Bhavans have become embroiled in controversies over the decade.
    • This is partly because the Constitution of India does allow a certain discretion to the Governor.
    • And a discretion invariably does get abused.
    • The framers of the Constitution had rejected an elected Governor because they were unambiguously clear that political power would only be vested with elected executives.
    • Yet, they were not inclined to put in a formal Instrument of Instructions for the Governors and were content to believe that political decencies and correctness would be observed both by the Governor and the Chief Minister.

    As the distinguished constitutional expert, Nani A. Palkhivala explained it “the Constitution intended that the Governor should be the instrument to maintain the fundamental equilibrium of the people of the State and to ensure that the mandates of the Constitution are respected in the State”. 

    Misuse of ‘discretion’ by Governors

    • As an appointee of the Union Government, the Governors have been prone to act on the instructions by ruling party at the Centre.
    • Inevitably the “discretion” in choosing a Chief Minister, or requiring a Chief Minister to prove his/her majority, or dismissing a Chief Minister, dissolving the legislature, recommending President’s Rule — came to be tainted with partisan political considerations.
    • More often than not, the governor’s discretion was abused, sometimes absurdly, even whimsically.
    • In the S.R. Bommai case, the Supreme Court did try through its judgment to prevent the misuse of power.

    Conclusion

    The guidelines given in the S.R. Bommai case should be adhered to by the Governor and should avoid conflict with the elected governments in the States.

  • Provisions for platform workers in the labour code and issues with them

    The article examines the provision made for the platform workers and the gig workers in the labour codes passed by the Parliament recently and explains the issues with it.

    Context

    • The three new labour codes passed by Parliament recently acknowledge platform and gig workers as new occupational categories in the making.

    Definition issue

    • The specific issues of working in factories, the duration of time needed on a factory floor, and associated issues are recognised as the parameters for defining an ideal worker.
    • The Code on Wages, 2019, tries to expand this idea by using ‘wages’ as the primary definition of who an ‘employee’ is.
    • Yet, the terms ‘gig worker’, ‘platform worker’ and ‘gig economy’ not defined with in connection with their wages.
    • The new Code on Social Security allows a platform worker to be defined by their vulnerability — not their labour, nor the vulnerabilities of platform work.

    Issues with the code

    • Since the laws are prescriptive, what is written within them creates the limits to what rights can be demanded, and how these rights can be demanded.
    • Platform delivery people can claim benefits, but not labour rights.
    • This distinction makes them beneficiaries of State programmes.
    • This does not allow them to go to court to demand better and stable pay, or regulate the algorithms that assign the tasks.
    • This also means that the government or courts cannot pull up platform companies for lapses[ ex. choice of pay, work hours etc].

    Benefits with no guarantee

    • In the Code on Social Security, 2020, platform workers are now eligible for benefits like maternity benefits, life and disability cover, old age protection, provident fund, employment injury benefits, and so on.
    • None of these are secure benefits.
    • This means that from time to time, the Central government can formulate welfare schemes that cover these aspects of personal and work security, but they are not guaranteed.
    • Actualising these benefits will depend on the political will at the Central and State government-levels and how unions elicit political support.
    • The language in the Code is open enough to imply that platform companies can be called upon to contribute either solely or with the government.

    Consider the question “What are the provisions for gig workers and platform workers in the new labour code? What are the issues with the provision?”

    Conclusion

    The ‘platform worker’ identity has the potential to grow in power and scope, but it will be mediated by politicians, election years, rates of under-employment, and large, investment- heavy technology companies that are notorious for not complying with local laws.