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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Federal System

  • Jammu and Kashmir notifies amended domicile certificate rules

    The J&K administration has notified the J&K grant of domicile certificate procedure rules 2020 and set a fast track process in motion to issue the certificates within a stipulated time of 15 days.

    Practice mains question:

    Discuss how the new domicile rules for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir would enable its full integration with the mainstream India.

    New domicile rules

    • Domicile certificates have now been made a basic eligibility condition for appointment to any post under the Union Territory of J&K following the amendments in the previous Act.
    • These rules provide a simple time-bound and transparent procedure for issuance of domicile certificates in such a manner that no category of person is put to any inconvenience.
    • There is a timeline of 15 days for issuance of certificates. Under the amended rules, eligible non-locals can also apply for the certificate.
    • To make the process transparent and time-bound, any officer not able to issue the certificate would be penalized ₹50,000. The amount would be recovered from his salary.
    • The new process will allow West Pakistan refugees, safai karamcharis and children of women who married non-locals to apply for jobs here.

    Who can avail the domicile certificates?

    • All Permanent Resident Certificate holders and their children living outside J&K can apply for the certificates.
    • Kashmiri migrants living in or outside J&K can get domicile certificates by simply producing their Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC), ration card copy, voter card or any other valid document.
    • A special window is also provided to migrants who have not registered with the Relief and Rehabilitation department.
    • Bonafide migrants can apply with the Relief and Rehabilitation department by providing documents like electoral rolls of 1988, proof of registration as a migrant in any State in the country or any other valid document.

    Earlier Criteria for Domiciles

    Satisfying any of the criteria mentioned below, a person would be deemed as a domicile of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir:

    • A person who has resided for a period of 15 years in the UT of J&K or
    • A person who has studied for a period of seven years and appeared in Class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the UT of J&K
    • Someone who is registered as a migrant by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants)
    • Children of Central government officials, All India Services, PSUs, autonomous body of Centre, Public Sector Banks, officials of statutory bodies, Central Universities, recognised research institutes of Centre who have served in J&K for a total period of 10 years
    • Children of such residents of J&K who reside outside J&K in connection with their employment or business or other professional or vocational reasons but their parents fulfil any of the conditions provided

    Job criteria for new domiciles

    • The domiciles will be eligible for the purposes of appointment to any post carrying a pay scale of not more than Level 4.
    • The Level 4 post comprises positions such as gardeners, barbers, office peons and waterman and the highest rank in the category is that of a junior assistant.
    • The reservation for domiciles would not apply to Group A and Group B posts, and like other UTs, recruitment would be done by the UPSC.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issues] J&K New Domicile Rules

  • Cooperative Federalism in the Time of Covid-19

    Federalism is part of Basic Structure (Doctrine) of the Constitution. The article is about the lack of cooperative federalism in some of the Central Government’s actions in its fight against the corona crisis. What are those actions? Read to know…

    Opinion of political thinkers on federalism in India

    • K.C. Wheare notes, federalism traditionally signifies the independence of the Union and State governments of a country, in their own spheres.
    • The members of India’s Constituent Assembly carefully studied the Constitutions of other great federations like the US, Canada, Australia and Switzerland.
    • However, they adopted a ‘pick and choose’ policy to formulate a system suited uniquely to the Republic’s need.
    • As a result, India’s Constituent Assembly became the first-ever constituent body in the world to embrace what H. Birch and others have referred to as ‘cooperative federalism’.
    • ‘Cooperative federalism’ is administrative cooperation between the Centre and the States, and a partial dependence of the States upon payments from the Centre.
    • Accordingly, Indian constitutional law expert Granville Austin remarks that despite a strong Centre, cooperative federalism doesn’t necessarily result in weaker States.
    • He also said that the progress of the Republic rests upon active cooperation between the two.

    Lack of consultation with States under DMA 2005

    • The zone classifications into ‘red’ and ‘orange’ has evoked sharp criticisms from several States.
    • The States have demanded more autonomy in making such classifications.
    • The Disaster Management Act of 2005 under which binding COVID-19 guidelines are being issued by the Centre to the States mandates consultation with the States.
    • The Act envisages the creation of a ‘National Plan’ under Section 11, as well as issuance of binding guidelines by the Centre to States under Section 6(2), in furtherance of the ‘National Plan’.
    • The ‘National Plan’ then is a broader vision document while the binding guidelines are its enforcement mechanism.
    • Now, Section 11(2) of the Act mandates State consultations before formulating a ‘National Plan’.
    • And when such binding guidelines are ultimately issued under it, they are expected to represent the views of the States.
    • However, the Centre has not formulated the ‘National Plan’, and has chosen instead to respond to COVID-19 through ad hoc binding guidelines issued to States.
    • Such guidelines thereby circumvent the legislative mandate of State consultations.
    • This selective application of the Act serves to concentrate all decision-making powers with the Centre.

    Lack of funds

    • The Centre has declared that corporations donating to PM-CARES can avail CSR exemptions, but those donating towards any Chief Minister’s Relief Fund cannot.
    • This directly disincentivises donations to any Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.
    • And diverts crores in potential State revenues to PM-CARES; and makes the States largely dependent upon the Centre.
    • Further, the revenue streams of several States have dried up because of the liquor sale ban; negligible sale of petrol/diesel; no land dealings and registration of agreements.
    • States’ GST collections have also been severely affected with their dues still not disbursed by the Centre.
    • All this has made it difficult for States to defray expenses of salaries, pensions and welfare schemes.
    • As it is the States which act as first responders to the pandemic, supplying them with adequate funds becomes a pre-requisite in effectively tackling the crisis.
    • This requires the Centre to view the States as equals, and strengthen their capabilities, instead of increasing their dependence upon itself.

    Consider the question-“Cooperative federalism is the key in the country’s fight against the corona pandemic. Critically examine.”

    Conclusion

    Keeping the spirit of cooperative federalism alive whether in consultation with the States or taking care of their finances is essential as the country is fighting the pandemic. The Centre must realise that we have the best chance of winning the war against pandemic when we are united.

  • Should Rajya Sabha be abolished?

    This article is about Rajya Sabha, the second chamber of our union legislature. Its utility was intensely debated in the Constituent Assembly. Now, after almost seven decades of its existence, we know that the house has proved its utility. So, what was the reasoning of those who were in support of its creation and what those who opposed its creation had on their mind? How bicameralism is connected to federalism? You’ll come to know the answers to these questions after reading the article.

    Historical background

    • The Rajya Sabha came into being on April 3, 1952 and held its first session on May 13 the same year.
    • The central legislature that came into being under the Government of India Act, 1919 was bicameral.
    • Under 1919 Act, Council of States had 60 members and Legislative Assembly had 145 members.
    • The membership and voting norms for the Council of States were restrictive.
    • These restrictions meant only wealthy landowners, merchants and those with legislative experience could enter it.
    • Women could neither vote nor seek membership.
    • The Government of India Act, 1935 proposed an elaborate and improved version of the second chamber, but this never materialised.
    • The Constituent Assembly, which was formed in 1947, after adoption of the Constitution became the Provisional Parliament and made laws till 1952.

    Bicameralism and the utility of second house

    • Bicameralism is a principle that requires the consent of two differently constituted chambers of Parliament for making or changing laws.
    • This principle came into operation in 1787 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
    • At present, 79 Parliaments of the world (41% of the total number) are bicameral.
    • In The Federalist, the famous essay, it was stated that the second chamber enables a second and reflective expression of representative opinion besides checking the propensity to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions.
    • French philosopher Montesquieu who said, “The legislative body being composed of two parts, they check one another by the mutual privilege of rejecting”.
    • Walter Bagehot later noted that the retarding chamber will impede minor instances of parliamentary tyranny, though it will not prevent or really impede revolution.

    Federalism and link with bicameralism

    • Federalism has been in vogue since ancient times when some states got together to confer the power of law-making on a central authority.
    • But modern federalism is entirely different given the complexity of geographical, regional, social and economic diversities marking the constituent units of a federation or a union.
    • It is more so in India. The U.S. is a federation and so is India — each unit has a set of unique features.
    • Federalism and bicameralism are linked because the federal character of a nation comprising constituent units can be reflected in, and secured by, a bicameral legislature.

    Debate in the Constituent Assembly over need for the second house

    • The proposal for the Rajya Sabha as a second chamber was subjected to serious argumentation and had a narrow escape.
    • Opponents’ stand: A member of the Constituent Assembly asserted that an Upper House was not essential and viewed it as a creation of imperialism.
    • Other member warned that such a chamber would only prove to be a “clog in the wheel of progress” of the nation.
    • The proponents’ stand: A supporter of idea felt that it would introduce an element of sobriety and second thought besides lending voice to the constituent units in the legislative scheme of things.
    • Ananthasayanam Ayyangar argued that a second chamber would enable the genius of the people to have full play besides checking hasty legislation.
    • Replying to the debate on the motion N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar had to make a strong case for the second chamber.
    • He argued that the most that we expect the Second Chamber to do is 1) to hold dignified debates on important issues 2) to delay legislation which might be the outcome of passions of the moment until the passions have subsided.

    Consider the question, “Examine the role played by the Rajya Sabha as a law-making body. Do you agree that the Rajya Sabha has been successful in fulfilling the role expected of it by the makers of our Constitution?”

    Conclusion

    The mandate of the Rajya Sabha, as can be gleaned from the Constituent Assembly debates and the experiences of other Parliaments, is legislation — to revise or delay legislation without proving a clog in the wheel of the progress; to represent the interests of the States as a federal chamber, and be a deliberative body holding high-quality debates on important issues.

  • Opportunity to strengthen the 73rd and 74th amendment

    The article brings to the fore untapped potential held by the panchayats and municipalities. However, there is a need for devolution in letter and spirit by the states to tap this potential. The article explains how the panchayats and municipalities could contribute effectively in the fight against Covid-19.

    Cooperative federalism amid COVID-19

    • An unintended but welcome consequence of the struggle against COVID-19 is that the “confrontational federalism” is on the decline with the revival of “cooperative federalism”.
    • There is a realisation that there is no way the COVID-19 situation can be tackled except through a measure of cooperation between the Centre and the states.
    • Consultative process: The Centre is offering flexibility to states to adopt guidelines to their respective circumstances and states are accepting guidelines from the Centre.
    • A principal reason for Kerala’s amazing performance in “flattening the curve” is their robust system of effective devolution. Such devolution helped the Kudumbashree programme to function in association with the panchayats.

    The concept of 3 tier devolution: Centre-State-Panchayats

    • Article 243G provides that state legislatures “may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government”. 
    • This means state governments cannot and must not treat panchayats as extensions of the state government but as “institutions of (local) self-government”.
    • The logic of “cooperative federalism” is that states must function not as implementation arms of the central government but as autonomous units within the federation.
    • By the same logic panchayats too must be conceived not as an extension of state governments but as “units of self-government”. 
    • It is thus that panchayats need to be brought into the three-tier devolution system envisaged in the Constitution: Centre-State-Panchayats (and municipalities).

    How could devolution help in the fight against Covid-19?

    • In line with the rising cooperation between the Centre and the states, the focus should be on further devolution in keeping with the constitutional obligations under the 73rd and 74th amendments.
    • The starting point could best be Entry 23 of the Eleventh Schedule that reads, “Health, sanitation, including hospitals, primary health centres and dispensaries”
    • Entry 23 is among the list of 29 subjects illustratively set out for devolution to the panchayats, subject to conformity legislation being enacted by state legislatures.
    • All state legislation has included this subject for devolution.
    • Therefore, empowering the panchayats in this regard with functions, finances and functionaries is now a statutory obligation under state law under Article 243G.
    • With the migrant workers returning to their native villages, it is important to fully involve village panchayats and municipalities as “institutions of self-government” – 243W in the anti-COVID-19 campaign.
    • Entry 28 of the Eleventh Schedule mentions the “public distribution system” as among the subjects for devolution.
    • There are many other entries in the Schedule that are relevant to this exercise.
    • There is an army of 32 lakh elected representatives in the panchayats and about two lakh more in the municipalities to contribute in the fight against Covid-19.
    • Well over a third of them, some 10-12 lakh, are drawn from the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and, therefore, in touch with the most destitute in every village and town.
    • There are some 14 lakh women who have established themselves by election as village leaders. 
    • Imagine a constructive role such women can play as “front-line workers” in the battle against the coronavirus.
    • The most important requirement is planning to receive the migrant labour influx.
    • Last-mile delivery can only be comprehensively ensured by empowered panchayats and municipalities reporting to their respective gram sabhas and ward sabhas mandated under Articles 243 A and 243 S.
    • Planning for withstanding the ingress of COVID-19 requires the full deployment of the mechanisms for district planning envisaged in Article 243 ZD.

    Consider the question asked by the UPSC in 2018-“Assess the importance of the Panchayat system in India as a part of local government. Apart from government grants, what sources the Panchayat can look out for financing developmental projects?”

    Conclusion

    As the cooperative federalism underlines India’s fight against Covid-19, devolution to the third tier –panchayats and municipalities would give a much needed fillip to the fight against Covid-19.

    Back2Basics: 73rd and 74th Amendments

    • 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments were passed by Parliament in December, 1992.
    • Through these amendments local self-governance was introduced in rural and urban India.
    • The Acts came into force as the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 on April 24, 1993 and the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 on June 1, 1993.
    • These amendments added two new parts to the Constitution, namely, 73rd Amendment added Part IX titled “The Panchayats” and 74th Amendment added Part IXA titled “The Municipalities”.
    • The Local bodies–‘Panchayats’ and ‘Municipalities’ came under Part IX and IXA of the Constitution after 43 years of India becoming a republic.

    Salient Features

    • Basic units of democratic system-Gram Sabhas (villages) and Ward Committees (Municipalities) comprising all the adult members registered as voters.
    • Three-tier system of panchayats at village, intermediate block/taluk/mandal and district levels except in States with population is below 20 lakhs (Article 243B).
    • Seats at all levels to be filled by direct elections [Article 243C (2)].
    • Seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and chairpersons of the Panchayats at all levels also shall be reserved for SCs and STs in proportion to their population.
    • One-third of the total number of seats to be reserved for women. Onethird of the seats reserved for SCs and STs also reserved for women. One-third offices of chairpersons at all levels reserved for women (Article 243D)
    • Uniform five year term and elections to constitute new bodies to be completed before the expiry of the term. In the event of dissolution, elections compulsorily within six months (Article 243E).

  • What is Darbar Move?

    The Jammu and Kashmir High Court asked the Centre and the Union Territory (UT) administration to take a final call on the continuation of the 148-year-old practice Darbar Move i.e. shifting of capitals between Jammu and Srinagar.

    Possible mains question:

    Discuss the feasibility, benefits and constraints caused by multiple administrative capitals in Indian states with special context to Jammu and Kashmir and the state of Andhra Pradesh. (250W)

    Darbar Move

    • Darbar Move is the name given to the bi-annual shift of the secretariat and all other government offices of Jammu and Kashmir from one capital city to another.
    • From May to October, governmental offices are housed in the state’s summer capital, Srinagar, and the other six months in its winter capital, Jammu.
    • The tradition was started during Dogra rule in 1872 by Maharaja Ranbir Singh.
    • It involved shifting of the Maharaja’s government to Jammu to escape the harsh winters of the Kashmir Valley, which, in the 19th century, used to result in the Valley being cut off from outside the world.
    • It is advocated that the continuation of the practice helped in the emotional integration between two diverse linguistic and cultural regions of Jammu and Kashmir.

    A costly practice

    • Ahead of the Darbar Move, Srinagar usually receives a facelift every year. Over 10,000 employees shift capital annually.
    • Roads around and leading to the Civil Secretariat, the seat of the government, are being renovated now.
    • Besides, the government offices and quarters have been renovated and the streetlights restored.
    • Hundreds of trucks are usually plied to carry furniture, office files, computers, and other records to the capital.
    • Over the years, there have been voices raised against the century-old practice which involves heavy funding towards ensuring the smooth conduct of the move.

    Why scrap Darbar Move?

    • If this practice is rationalized, the amount of money, resources and time which could be saved, could be utilized towards the welfare and development of the Union Territory.
    • It could be utilized for the protection and propagation of culture and heritage of the communities.
    • No reason or justification at all is available for requiring the judiciary to shift with the ‘Darbar Move’. The same negatively impact justice dispensation and impedes judicial administration.

  • ECI vague on whether J&K is part of Electoral College of President’s election

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) has replied ambiguously to an RTI query if the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir will be part of the Electoral College for the election of the President of India.

    This newscard invokes our basic GYAN acquired from the holy ‘Indian Polity’ by M. Laxmikanth. After reading this, ask yourself questions about the following :

    1) What comprises the electoral college of the President of India?

    2) Cases where the Constitutional Amendment Acts are required and wherever not

    What did ECI say?

    • The RTI request sought a list of the State and UTs Legislative Assemblies which were part of the Electoral College for the election of the President.
    • The query also asked the EC to clarify whether the newly-formed UT of Jammu and Kashmir was part of the Electoral College.
    • The EC sent a single-line response, merely saying- for the information, the applicant may be informed to refer Article 54 of the Constitution of India.

    What is Article 54 of the Constitution?

    • Under Article 54, the President is elected by an Electoral College, which consists of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of all the States and also of NCT of Delhi and the UT of Puducherry.
    • The art. 54, thus, only specifically mentions NCT of Delhi and Puducherry as eligible to be part of the Electoral College.
    • There is no word about the newly-formed UTs of J&K and Ladakh.

    Ambiguity over J&K

    • The J&K Reorganization Act, which came into existence from August 2019, does not specify anything about whether the legislature of J&K would be able to vote in the election for a President.
    • A passing mention is made in Section 13 of the 2019 Act, which claims that J&K Legislature would have the same powers as its Puducherry counterpart.
    • The astonishing thing to note is that not a single MP in the parliamentary debate has pointed out this fact yet.

    A constitutional amendment is required

    • Inclusion of new members in the Electoral College in Article 54 would require a Constitutional Amendment to be carried out through two-thirds majority in Parliament and ratification by over 50% of the States.
    • This matter involves principles of federalism, hence constitutional amendment is a must.
    • Delhi and Puducherry were included as Electoral College members under Article 54 through the Constitution (Seventieth) Amendment Act of 1992.
    • Before that, Article 54 consisted of only the elected Members of Parliament as well as the Legislative Assemblies of the States.

    Back2Basics: Presidential Election in India

    • The President is elected by an Electoral College, which consists of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of all the States and also of NCT of Delhi and the UT of Puducherry.
    • The authority to conduct elections to the Office of President is vested in the Election Commission of India.
    • The election of the President is held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot.

    • The notification calling the election to the office of the President can be issued by the Election Commission on any day within the period of sixty days before the expiry of the term of office.
    • The election schedule shall be so fixed, that the President-elect is able to enter upon his office on the day following the expiry of the term of the outgoing President.

    With inputs from: TOI

  • Needed, greater decentralisation of power

    Context

    Even as States have taken up positions of leadership in the pandemic response, federal limitations are becoming hurdles.

    State governments at the position of leadership

    • In the fight against the pandemic, one of the striking features of governance has been the signal role played by State Chief Ministers across India.
    • Proactive measures: Even before the Union government invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005, many State governments triggered the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and installed a series of measures to combat what was then an oncoming onslaught of COVID-19.
    • These actions have not always been perfect. Some of them have even disproportionately trenched upon basic civil liberties.
    • But, by and large, they have been tailored to the reality faced on the ground by the respective governments.
    • Policies to address local concerns: States such as Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, and Karnataka have shaped their policies to address their direct, local concerns.
    • They have communicated these decisions to the public with clarity and consideration, helping, in the process, to lay out a broad framework for the nation.
    • Not just the laboratories of democracy: In doing so, they have acted not merely as “laboratories of democracy”, to paraphrase the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, but also as founts of reasoned authority.

    Federal arrangements placing limitations on the states

    • Equally, though, as much as State governments have taken up positions of leadership, they have repeatedly found themselves throttled by the limitations of the extant federal arrangement.
    • The Centre for Policy Research has pointed out at least three specific limitations.
    • Funds and structuring own package: The inability of States to access funds and thereby structure their own welfare packages.
    • Curbs imposed by PFMS: The curbs imposed by a public finance management system (PFMS) that is mired in officialdom.
    • This has prevented States from easily and swiftly making payments for the purchase of health-care apparatus such as ventilators and personal protective equipment.
    • Disruption of supply chains: Three, the colossal disruption of supply chains not only of essential goods and services but also of other systems of production and distribution, which has placed States in a position of grave economic uncertainty.
    • Need to decentralise: As these limitations demonstrate an urgent need to decentralise administration, where States — and local bodies acting through such governments — are allowed greater managerial freedom.
    • Under such a model, the Union government will command less but coordinate more.

    Indian federalism-two distinct levels

    • There are varying accounts of what Indian federalism truly demands.
    • Two levels: What is manifest from a reading of the Constitution is that it creates two distinct levels of government: one at the Centre and the other at each of the States.
    • The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution divides responsibilities between these two layers.
    • The Union government is tasked with matters of national importance, such as foreign affairs, defence, and airways.
    • But the responsibilities vested with the States are no less important. Issues concerning public health and sanitation, agriculture, public order, and police, among other things, have each been assigned to State governments.
    • In these domains, the States’ power is plenary.
    • This federal architecture is fortified by a bicameral Parliament.
    • Significantly, this bicameralism is not achieved through a simple demarcation of two separate houses, but through a creation of two distinct chambers that choose their members differently-
    • A House of the People [Lok Sabha] comprising directly elected representatives and a Council of States [Rajya Sabha] comprising members elected by the legislatures of the States.

    Financial autonomy of the states

    • Ensuring financial autonomy: In formulating this scheme of equal partnership, the framers were also conscious of a need to make States financially autonomous.
    • No overlap: To that end, when they divided the power to tax between the two layers of government they took care to ensure that the authority of the Union and the States did not overlap.
    • Therefore, while the Centre, for example, was accorded the power to tax all income other than agricultural income and to levy indirect taxes in the form of customs and excise duties, the sole power to tax the sale of goods and the entry of goods into a State was vested in the State governments.
    • The underlying rationale was simple: States had to be guaranteed fiscal dominion to enable them to mould their policies according to the needs of their people.

    History of paradox in federal system of India

    • Despite this plainly drawn arrangement, the history of our constitutional practice has been something of a paradox.
    • It is invariably at the level of the States that real development has fructified.
    • But the Union has repeatedly displayed a desire to treat States, as the Supreme Court said in R. Bommai v. Union of India, as mere “appendages of the Centre”.
    • Time and again, efforts have been made to centralise financial and administrative power, to take away from the States their ability to act independently and freely.
    • Following five examples demonstrated that the point made here.

    1 Matters of finance-what was expected in theory did not realise

    • Consider the widely hailed decision to accept the 14th Finance Commission’s recommendation for an increase in the share of the States in total tax revenues from 32% to 42%.
    • While, in theory, this ought to have enabled the States to significantly increase their own spending, in reality, as a paper authored by Amar Nath H.K. and Alka Singh of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy suggests, this has not happened.
    • What went wrong? Gains made by the States, as the paper underlines, have been entirely offset by a simultaneous decline in share of grants and by a concomitant increase in the States’ own contribution towards expenditures on centrally sponsored schemes.

    2. Goods and Service Tax

    • The decline in the sovereignty of the states: Notably, the creation of a Goods and Services Tax regime, which far from achieving its core purpose of uniformity has rendered nugatory the internal sovereignty vested in the States.
    • By striking at the Constitution’s federal edifice, it has made the very survival of the States dependent on the grace of the Union.
    • The tension today is so palpable that a number of the States are reported to have written to the Union Finance Ministry.
    • More than four months’ worth of Goods and Services Tax compensation to the States — reportedly totalling about a sum of ₹40,000 crore — remains unreleased.

    3. Passing a bill as a money bill

    • The Union government’s centralising instinct, though, has not been restricted to matters of finance.
    • It has also introduced a slew of legislation as money bills, in a bid to bypass the Rajya Sabha’s sanction, even though these laws scarcely fit the constitutional definition.

    4. Role of the Governors

    • Similarly, the role of the Governors has been weaponised to consolidate political power.

    5. Article 370

    • But perhaps most egregious among the moves made is the gutting of Article 370 and the division of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
    • It was done without securing consent from the State Legislative Assembly.

    Conclusion

    Perhaps a crisis of the kind that COVID-19 has wrought will show us that India needs greater decentralisation of power; that administration through a single central executive unit is unsuited to its diverse and heterogeneous polity. We cannot continue to regard the intricate niceties of our federal structure as a nettlesome trifle. In seeing it thus, we are reducing the promise of Article 1 of the Constitution, of an India that is a Union of States, to an illusory dream.

  • J&K Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020

    • The Ministry of Home Affairs has promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020, which comes into force with immediate effect.
    • Earlier this month order for an adaptation of Central Laws was also promulgated. It ordered application of 37 central laws envisaged in the Concurrent List to the newly formed UT.

    About the Order

    • Issued by the Department of J&K and Ladakh Affairs, the Order stems from Section 96 of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019.
    • The Act was a consequence of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and it reorganized the State into two UTs.
    • The Order notifies changes in the J&K Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act (hereafter, “Civil Services Act”), which defines “domicile” for employment in the region
    • Domicile Criteria
      Under the newly inserted Section 3A of the Civil Services Act which is regarding domicile for purposes of appointment to any service in UT of J&K.A person will have to fulfill the following conditions to be deemed to be a domicile of the UT of J&K:
    • She/he has to have resided for period of 15 years in the UT of J&K or has studied for a period of 7 years and appeared in Class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the UT of J&K; or
      She/he is registered as a migrant by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants) in the UT of J&K.
    • Scope of Section 3A
    • Children of those fulfilling the aforementioned conditions are also deemed to be included.
    • Section 3A also goes on to include children of those Central Government Officials, All India Services Officers, Officials of PSUs and Autonomous body of Central Government, PSBs, etc. who have served in J&K for a total period of ten years.
    • Additionally, it includes those children of such residents of UT of J&K who reside outside the UT of J&K in connection with their employment or business or other professional and vocational reasons, but the parents fulfill the conditions provided under Section 3A(1).

    Job reservations

    • Section 5A provides for the domicile reservation for the purpose of appointment of any post carrying a pay scale of not more than Level-04 under the UT of J&K or under local or any other (other than cantonment board) within the UT of J&K.
    • Therefore, lowest level of non-gazetted rank jobs would be reserved exclusively for the Jammu and Kashmir domiciles.

  • After the lockdown

    Context

    Lockdown announcement has not been matched by national strategy — on containing fallout for poor.

    Two arguments advanced against lockdown

    • India’s decision to lock down was necessary. Two arguments are being advanced against it.
    • The first argument: India is a poor economy, with millions at the margins of subsistence, who cannot bear the consequences of a lockdown. The density and living conditions in India make social distancing difficult in many cases.
    • The second argument: It is that the extent of community transmission does not justify such drastic measures.

    What are the justifications for the lockdown?

    • The only hope: Precisely because millions in India are vulnerable and will not later have the possibilities of quarantining or medical care, the only hope we have of securing their lives is to slow down the spread of the virus as much as possible.
    • And the only shot you have at it is when community transmission is possibly still at manageable levels.
    • There is, therefore, a bit of bad faith in using the poor as the basis for expressing scepticism at the need for a lockdown. That is the most insidious form of privilege.
    • The risks of any catastrophic spread will be even more incalculable for the poor.

    Underscoring the importance of federalism and decentralisation

    • States responding in innovative ways: One of the more encouraging things has been the way in which several state governments like Punjab, Odisha, Kerala, Delhi and others have come into their own, innovating under difficult circumstances.
    • Role of panchayat and local officials: The much-neglected panchayat and local officials are key nodes in keeping track of possible cases and the creation of quarantining infrastructure.
    • Role of frontline workers: It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the ways in which most of the frontline workers of the state are responding, learning and innovating in this situation.
    • Federalism and decentralisation: If anything, this crisis is bringing home the importance of both federalism and decentralisation as central to a resilient governance architecture.

    The preparation and follow-up of the lockdown

    • But the national preparation and follow-up to take full advantage of the lockdown do not inspire full confidence.
    • Lack of strategy: The announcement of the lockdown has not been matched by a commensurate national strategy.
    • This is manifest, in the early signals on the following two important aspects:
    • Containing the economic fallout for the poor.
    • Building up the health infrastructure.
    • It is, admittedly, early days; but the signs are not good.

    Economic fallout for the poor

    • Focus is not on the poor: In the entire framing of the problem, the poor have been at best an afterthought, at worst expendable damage.
    • Steps taken not adequate: Steps like health insurance cover for frontline workers, increased food rations, are welcome steps. But a crisis of this magnitude required assurance to the most vulnerable that no stops will be pulled to secure their futures.
    • Instead, what you got was incrementalism of the worst kind, masquerading as a big commitment.
    • Low cash transfer: The cash transfers, in particular, through different schemes, are shockingly low.
    • Need for the unprecedented social security support: This crisis is one of the rare instances where economists and even bankers, from across the political spectrum, have rallied around the intellectual argument for unprecedented levels of social security support.
    • So the government’s “support by stealth” strategy is even more mystifying.
    • Impact of lockdown on migrant labour: The magnitude of the crisis unleashed for migrant labour could have been avoided with a little forethought.
    • What could have been done? Early announcement of cash transfers, shelter and food availability, would have obviated the need for migration.

    Opacity on the health infrastructure side

    • Issue of testing: Opacity is often a consequence of scarcity. And nowhere is this more manifest than in our discussion of testing.
    • Underutilisation of capacity: Everyone understands that India has the scarce testing capacity, though it seems it is also under-utilising what it has.
    • No clear testing strategy: The government is procuring more testing kits. But what is worrying is that there seems to be no publicly articulated statement of what exactly our testing strategy is, given the scarce resources.
    • But there is still no sense of how we plan to put a testing strategy in place (not just numbers of tests, but where can they be optimally deployed), that will minimise the need for future lockdowns.
    • What objectives is it trying to meet? There is more than a whiff of suspicion that there is a view that more testing might spread more panic.
    • Or it might put more pressure on the health care system than it can handle.
    • India has never understood that health expenditure is not an expenditure; it is an investment.
    • Building up of health infrastructure: The success of the lockdown strategy is premised on an unprecedentedly vigorous building up of health infrastructure to fight the pandemic.
    • There is a commitment by the Centre to infuse an extra Rs 15,000 crore in this sector. Some steps are being taken in building up capabilities, including ramping up production of ventilators and masks.
    • Need for warlike mobilisation: This is an area where India needs almost a warlike mobilisation, to make sure we have enough testing, tracking, frontline workers, logistics and equipment in place to make sure that the duration of a lockdown is minimised or a repeat is not necessary.
    • The creation of this kind of infrastructure will pay huge dividends even in non-pandemic times.

    Conclusion

    The prime minister is constantly asking the citizens to mobilise, and most of them respond. But it about time the state mobilises: On an economic stimulus that is truly meaningful and health infrastructure push that inspires confidence.

  • Speaker vs Governor Tussle

    With the Supreme Court set to hear on a plea seeking a directive to the government in Madhya Pradesh to take a floor test “within 12 hours”, the spotlight is back on the legal debate on the powers of the Governor and the Speaker under the Constitution.

    Primacy to Floor Test

    • Since 2014, the legal-political tussle between the Governor and Speaker has prompted the Supreme Court’s intervention in three major instances — in the Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand cases in 2016 and in the Karnataka case in 2019.
    • In all three cases, the court emphasised the primacy of the floor test.
    • In the Arunachal and Uttarakhand cases, the House was in suspended animation as President’s Rule had been imposed.
    • The Supreme Court ordered that the House be summoned and a floor test held to end the impasse.
    • But Article 212 of the Constitution bars courts from inquiring into proceedings of the Legislature.

    Earlier instances

    • Earlier, the Sarkaria Commission had recommended that, if the CM neglects or refuses to summon the Assembly for a floor test, the Governor should summon the Assembly.
    • If the House is adjourned sine die or prorogued without holding a floor test, then all options are open before the Governor.
    • However, when the House is in session, the question of whether the court can direct the Speaker to hold a floor test is yet to be settled.
    • In 1998, in the Jagadambika Pal case, the SC had ordered a composite floor test when the House was in session.
    • However, in that case, there were two claimants to the chief minister’s post.