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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Fundamental Rights,DPSP

1. History + Evolution
2. Features
3. Amendments
4. Basic Structure

  • [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    PYQ Relevance:

    Mains:
    1. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine (2018)

    2. What are the two major legal initiatives by state since Independence, addressing discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (ST)? (2017)

    3. Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment. (2016)

    Prelims:
    Under the Indian Constitution, the Concentration of Wealth violates​ (2021)
    a) the Right to Equality​
    b) the Directive Principles of State Policy​
    c) the Right to Freedom​
    d) the Concept of Welfare
    From The Hindu

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Minority sections of the society and their Empowerment; Judiciary; State government;

    Prelims: Fundamental rights; Important judgements by SC; State government;

    Mentor comments: Recently, the case of ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ revolves around the question of whether State governments can make sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for public employment. The Supreme Court is set to deliver a judgment on this matter, addressing the issue of intra-group variances and the power of States to recognize them. We need to analyze this issue as it is sub-classified SC reservations which are leading to legal challenges and subsequent legislative actions.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    The SC is set to deliver a judgment on whether State governments can make sub-classifications within SCs and STs, addressing the varying levels of development and discrimination within these groups. 

    Context:

    • The ongoing case of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh has brought to light the complexities surrounding sub-classification within reserved categories.
    • The central question revolves around whether a group within a reserved category can be further sub-classified and granted reservations.
    • Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups, addressing the issue of backwardness within backwardness.
    • On the other hand, opponents contend that the existing reservation scheme already ensures adequate representation for historically disadvantaged groups, making sub-classification unnecessary.
    JUDICIARY ON SUB-CATEGORIZATION WITHIN RESERVED CATEGORIES:

    1) State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case (1975):

    – In 1975, the Government of Punjab issued a circular that reserved 50% of SC seats for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, leading to legal challenges culminating in the Supreme Court’s involvement.

    – The case questions whether sub-classifications are constitutionally permissible within SCs and STs, challenging the notion that these groups are homogenous.

    – The debate involves revisiting past judgments like E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibited sub-classifications within SCs but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

    2) Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case (1992):

    – The SC cited its judgment which arose out of the Mandal Commission’s report. There, a nine-judge Bench had held that sub-classifications within socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) for services under the government was permissible.

    – The case introduced the concept of the “creamy layer,” excluding affluent sections within backward classes (limited it to not exceed 50%) from reservation benefits.

    – The genesis of this debate dates back to 1980 when the Second Backward Classes Committee, chaired by BP Mandal, recommended 27% reservation for OBCs and 22.5% for Scheduled Castes.

    3) About E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh Case (2004):

    – A five-judge Bench quashed the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000. The Act was challenged before the High Court and later the Supreme Court, which declared it ‘ultra vires the Constitution’ as it offended Article 341 of the Constitution.

    – This provision allows the President of India to notify a list of SCs for each State, and stipulates that the list can only be modified by Parliament.

    – The case prohibited sub-classifications within SCs as it was found to violate constitutional provisions but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It emphasized that SCs and STs are homogeneous groups incapable of further regrouping or classification.

    – The Court found that the State government had no power to tinker with the list because it was clear on a bare reading of Article 341 that such authority vested only with Parliament.

    What is the difference between a homogenous class and a sub-classification within reserved categories?

    • A homogenous class refers to a group that is considered uniform or undifferentiated, where all individuals within the group are treated equally.
    • The Sub-classification within reserved categories involves categorizing a larger group into smaller sub-groups based on specific criteria, allowing for differential treatment or preferences within the overall category.
    • The distinction lies in how individuals within a larger reserved category are treated – either uniformly as a single homogenous group or with differentiated preferences based on sub-classifications.

    What are the arguments for and against sub-classification within reserved categories?

    Arguments for Sub-classification:

    • Ensuring Adequate Representation: Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups within reserved categories.
    • Tailoring Criteria for Sub-classification: The court needs to tailor criteria for sub-classification to prevent leaving out certain groups while granting benefits to the most backward.
    • State’s Ability to Identify Backwardness: The states needs to be best positioned to judge the backwardness of communities and should have the authority to create sub-classifications within reserved categories without violating constitutional provisions.

    Arguments against Sub-classification:

    • Presumption of Backwardness: Opponents argue that while there is a presumption of backwardness with Scheduled Castes (SCs), individual castes within SCs cannot be considered separate classes under Article 16(4), suggesting that making laws for specific castes within SC lists could violate Article 16(2).
    • Violation of Equality Principle: Critics assert that sub-classification would violate the right to equality by treating communities within the category differently, potentially leading to discrimination based on caste, which is prohibited under Article 16(2).
    • Stigma and Exclusion: Those against sub-classification argue that if certain Scheduled Castes do not receive reservation benefits, they may be left with the stigma of being a Scheduled Caste without access to affirmative action measures, highlighting concerns about exclusion and inequality.

    What are the challenges faced by Sub-Classifications within Reserved Categories in India?

    • Lack of Equal Opportunities: Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution promises of substantive equality. The absence of sub-classification perpetuates inequality within reserved categories, hinders the framing of appropriate government policies.
    • Legal and Constitutional Complexities: The states face challenges as they lack legislative competence to create sub-classifications within reserved categories, raising questions about the constitutionality of such measures.
    • Addressing Backwardness: The issue of “backwardness within backwardness” has been acknowledged, emphasizing the need to address the most disadvantaged communities effectively.

    Way Forward

    Considering the above challenges, they highlight the complexities and nuances involved in addressing sub-classifications within reserved categories in India. Hence it is necessary to emphasize on careful consideration and legal clarity in policy-making and implementation. The SC’s decision in cases like ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ will play a crucial role in shaping affirmative action discourse and addressing issues of social justice within reserved categories

  • Unpacking the CAA Rules

    caa rules

    In the news

    • The long-awaited Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been set into motion by the Centre, marking a significant step forward in India’s legislative landscape.
    • Enacted in December 2019, the CAA aims to provide citizenship to certain migrants from neighboring countries, sparking debates and controversies nationwide.

    Making of the CAA, 2019: A Timeline

     

    2002: Initial efforts were made to address the challenges faced by Pakistani Hindus seeking Indian visas and citizenship.

    2004: Amendments to Citizenship Rules empowered district magistrates to grant Long Term Visas (LTVs) and citizenship to migrants in border districts.

    2010: The Ministry of Home Affairs eased restrictions on LTV extensions for certain categories of Pakistani nationals.

    2014: Notification allowed citizenship for select migrant communities, excluding Jains and Parsis.

    2018: Government extended LTV eligibility to communities seeking Indian citizenship, offering various benefits.

    New Citizenship Law: Eligibility and Required Documentation

    • Beneficiaries: The CAA primarily benefits Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014.
    • Documentation: Applicants need to provide proof of their country of origin, religion, date of entry into India, and knowledge of an Indian language.
    • Proof of Country of Origin: Acceptable documents include birth certificates, educational institution certificates, identity documents, licenses, certificates, or any other document issued by Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan.
    • Establishing Date of Entry: Applicants can provide a range of documents such as visas, residential permits, census slips, driving licenses, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, or any letter issued by the government or court to prove their entry date.
    • Generational Proof: Applicants can also provide documents indicating familial ties to these countries, such as those showing ancestry, expanding the scope of eligibility.

    Application Processing Mechanism

    [A] Empowered Committees

    • Role of Empowered Committee: This committee is tasked with overseeing the entire process, from receiving to processing applications. It ensures that all procedures are followed diligently and efficiently.
    • Membership: The Empowered Committee is headed by a Director (Census Operations) and comprises representatives from various government bodies, including the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Office (FRRO), the National Informatics Centre (NIC), and the Postmaster General.
    • Responsibilities: The committee members are responsible for verifying the authenticity of documents submitted by applicants, conducting background checks, and making final decisions on citizenship applications.

    [B] District Level Committees (DLC)

    • Composition: The DLC consists of the District Informatics Officer or District Informatics Assistant and a nominee of the central government.
    • Functions: DLCs serve as the initial point of contact for applicants, receiving their submissions and ensuring they are complete and accurate before forwarding them to the Empowered Committee for further processing.
    • Oversight: While DLCs handle the initial stages of application processing, they operate under the supervision and guidance of the Empowered Committee. This hierarchical structure ensures uniformity and consistency in decision-making across different regions.

    [C] Electronic Submission and Processing

    • Digital Platform: To streamline operations and minimize paperwork, the application process is conducted electronically. Applicants submit their documents and forms through an online portal managed by the government.
    • Efficiency: Electronic submission allows for faster processing times and reduces the risk of errors associated with manual data entry. It also enables real-time tracking of application status, providing transparency to applicants throughout the process.
    • Data Security: The government ensures robust cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information submitted by applicants. Encryption protocols and secure servers safeguard data integrity and confidentiality.

    Conclusion

    • The implementation of the CAA signifies a significant policy shift aimed at addressing the plight of persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries.
    • While the rules have sparked debates and opposition, they also represent India’s commitment to humanitarian values and providing refuge to those in need.
    • As the citizenship application process unfolds, it will be crucial to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures to uphold the principles of justice and inclusivity.

  • Centre notifies Implementation of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules

    In the news

    • Just days ahead of the announcement of Lok Sabha election, the Union Home Ministry notified the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024.
    • This would now enable the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed by Parliament in 2019.

    Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019: Key Provisions

    • Basic idea: CAA, 2019, aims to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, to grant Indian citizenship to specific categories of illegal migrants.
    • Eligible Religions: CAA targets Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, making them eligible for Indian citizenship.
    • Objective: The primary objective is to facilitate citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from India’s three Muslim-majority neighboring countries.
    • Residence Requirement: The Citizenship Act, 1955, normally requires 11 of the previous 14 years of residence in India as a condition for naturalization.
    • Amendment: CAA reduces this requirement to 6 years for applicants belonging to the specified religions and countries.
    • Exemption from Criminal Cases: Members of the designated communities are exempted from criminal cases under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1920, if they entered India before December 31, 2014.

    Defining Illegal Migrants

    • Status under Present Laws: Existing laws prohibit illegal migrants from acquiring Indian citizenship.
    • CAA’s Definition: CAA classifies an illegal migrant as a foreigner who enters India without valid travel documents (passport and visa) or overstays beyond the allowed period.
    • Penalties: Illegal migrants can face imprisonment or deportation under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

    Exceptions under CAA

    • Conditions for Exemption: CAA outlines four conditions that, if met, exempt certain individuals from being treated as illegal migrants:
      1. They belong to the specified religions (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian).
      2. They hail from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
      3. They entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
      4. They are not in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura (Sixth Schedule) or “Inner Line” permit areas (Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland).

    Controversies Surrounding CAA

    • Country of Origin: CAA categorizes migrants based on their country of origin, specifically Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
    • Religious Exclusivity: It raises questions about why only six specified religious minorities have been considered in the Act.
    • Omission of Rohingya: The Act doesn’t address the Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, who have faced persecution.
    • Entry Date Differentiation: The differential treatment of migrants based on their entry date, i.e., before or after December 31, 2014, has generated debate.
    • Secularism Concerns: Critics argue that granting citizenship based on religion contradicts the secular principles of India’s Constitution, considered part of the unalterable basic structure.

    Constitutionality Check

    • The challenge may rest primarily on the grounds that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees that no person shall be denied the right to equality before law or the equal protection of law in the territory of India.
    • The Supreme Court has developed a Two-Pronged Test to examine a law on the grounds of Article 14.
    1. First, any differentiation between groups of persons must be founded on “intelligible differentia”
    2. Second, differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act
    • Simply put, for a law to satisfy the conditions under Article 14, it has to first create a “reasonable class” of subjects that it seeks to govern under the law.
    • Even if the classification is reasonable, any person who falls in that category has to be treated alike.

    Impact on Assam and Assam Accord

    • Intersection with Section 6A: The CAA intersects with Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, which determines citizenship criteria in Assam.
    • Assam Accord: Section 6A, linked to the Assam Accord, sets criteria for determining citizenship in Assam, posing potential conflicts with the CAA’s provisions.
    • Base Cut-off Date and Regularization: The Assam Accord establishes a base cut-off date for identifying and regularizing foreigners in Assam, impacting the implementation of the CAA in the state.

    Way forward

    • India is a constitutional democracy with a basic structure that assures a secure and spacious home for all Indians.
    • Being partitioned on religious grounds, India has to undertake a balancing act to protect the religious minorities in its neighbourhood.
    • These minorities are under constant threat of persecution and vandalism.
    • India needs to balance its civilization duties to protect those who are prosecuted in the neighbourhood.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2021:

    Q.With reference to India, consider the following statements:​

    1. There is only one citizenship and one domicile.​
    2. A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.​
    3. A foreigner once granted the citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.​

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?​

    (a) 1 only ​

    (b) 2 only​

    (c) 1 and 3 ​

    (s) 2 and 3​

  • France enshrines Right to Abortion in Constitution

    abortion

    In the news

    • France’s historic decision to enshrine the right to abortion in its constitution marks a pivotal moment in the global struggle for women’s reproductive rights.
    • Against the backdrop of International Women’s Day, this groundbreaking amendment underscores France’s commitment to upholding women’s autonomy and healthcare choices.

    Debate:

    1. Right to ‘Bodily Autonomy’ of Women is paramount.
    2. ‘Right to Life’ of the foetus is paramount.

    France’s constitutional council previously upheld abortion rights based on the notion of Liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.

    Why discuss this?

    • The legislative journey leading to this transformative reform and its implications resonate far beyond France’s borders, resonating with ongoing debates on reproductive rights worldwide.

    Abortion in France: Legislative Progression

    • National Assembly and Senate Approval: Initially passed by the National Assembly in January, the amendment received unanimous support from the Senate last week, culminating in a joint parliamentary session for final ratification.
    • Bipartisan Consensus: With an overwhelming majority of legislators voting in favor, the reform underscores broad bipartisan consensus on safeguarding women’s reproductive freedoms.
    • Constitutional Modification: The amendment elevates abortion from a statutory right to a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, solidifying its legal protection against potential legislative changes.

    Amendment Provisions

    • Constitutional Revision: The amendment revises Article 34 of the French constitution, stipulating that women’s freedom to terminate pregnancies is constitutionally guaranteed.
    • Preservation of Existing Rights: By mandating that future legislation uphold existing abortion laws, the amendment ensures continuity and stability in reproductive healthcare policies.
    • Global Context: Acknowledging global trends of encroachment on abortion rights, the legislation reaffirms France’s commitment to resisting regressive measures that curtail women’s autonomy.

    Global Implications

    • Unprecedented Precedent: France becomes the first nation to embed abortion rights in its constitution, setting a groundbreaking precedent for global reproductive justice movements.
    • European Landscape: Amidst escalating efforts to restrict abortion access in some European countries, France’s bold initiative offers a beacon of hope and inspiration for defenders of reproductive rights across the continent.
    • European Charter of Fundamental Rights: The amendment’s resonance with fundamental rights principles may catalyze broader efforts to incorporate abortion protections into the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    Public Reception and Political Landscape

    • Public Support: Reflecting widespread public sentiment, opinion polls indicate overwhelming support for constitutionalizing abortion rights, with 81% of respondents endorsing the reform.
    • Political Consensus: Unlike the polarized discourse on abortion in some countries, France’s political spectrum exhibits remarkable unity in upholding women’s reproductive autonomy.
    • Criticism and Allegations: While critics decry the reform as a political maneuver by President Macron to court left-leaning factions, its substantive impact on women’s rights remains undeniable.

    Global Abortion Landscape

    • European Context: Against the backdrop of escalating abortion restrictions in some European nations, France’s progressive stance contrasts starkly with regressive measures adopted elsewhere.
    • Global Reverberations: France’s pioneering initiative may reverberate globally, emboldening movements to advance abortion rights and combat legislative regressions worldwide.

    India’s Abortion Policies

    • Legal Framework: India implemented the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in 1971, allowing abortions under specific conditions up to 20 weeks, with recent amendments extending the limit to 24 weeks in certain cases.
    • Recent Amendments: The 2021 amendment extends the permissible gestational limit for abortions and streamlines the approval process for certain categories of pregnancies.
    • Continued Advocacy: While India’s legal framework for abortion is comparatively progressive, ongoing advocacy efforts seek to further enhance access to safe and legal abortion services nationwide.

    Pregnancy Laws in India:

     

    • The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, enacted on April 1, 1972, applied to all of India except Jammu and Kashmir.
    • Section 312 of IPC Code, 1860, criminalizes voluntarily causing miscarriage, even with the pregnant woman’s consent, except to save her life, leading to potential prosecution for abortion.
    • The MTP Act, 1971, permitted pregnancy termination in two stages:
    • Up to 12 weeks after conception, abortion required a single doctor’s opinion.
    • Between 12 to 20 weeks, two doctors’ opinions determined if continuing the pregnancy posed risks to the woman’s life or mental/physical health or if the child would be seriously handicapped.

    Amendments in 2021:

    • The law now allows abortions up to 20 weeks based on one doctor’s advice.
    • For pregnancies between 20 to 24 weeks, two doctors’ opinions are needed.
    • Specific categories eligible for termination under section 3B of the MTP Act rules include survivors of sexual assault, minors, marital status changes, physically disabled women, mentally ill women, foetuses with severe abnormalities, and pregnancies in humanitarian settings.

    Conclusion

    • By embedding abortion rights within its constitutional fabric, France sets a transformative precedent for advancing women’s autonomy and healthcare choices worldwide.
    • As the international community grapples with escalating threats to reproductive rights, France’s bold stance offers a beacon of hope and solidarity for women everywhere, underscoring the imperative of safeguarding reproductive freedoms as fundamental human rights.

  • Sudha Murthy nominated to Rajya Sabha

    sudha murthy

    What is the news?

    • Noted author and philanthropist Sudha Murthy has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India on International Women’s Day.

    Nominated Members to Rajya Sabha

    • 12 members are nominated to the RS by the President of India for six-year term.
    • This is for their contributions towards arts, literature, sciences, and social services.
    • This right has been bestowed upon the President according to the Fourth Schedule under Articles 4(1) and 80(2) of the Constitution of India.

    Normal composition

    • The present strength is 245 members of whom 233 are representatives of the states and UTs and 12 are nominated by the President.
    • The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution; one-third of its members retire every second year.

    Constitutional provisions for nominated members

    • 80(1)(a) of the Constitution of India makes provision for the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India under provisions of Article 80(3).
    • 80(3) says that the persons to be nominated as members must possess special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following namely: Literature, science, art and social service.

    Powers and privileges of such members

    • A nominated member enjoys all the powers and privileges and immunities available to an elected Member of Parliament.
    • They take part in the proceedings of the House as any other member.
    • Nominated members are however not entitled to vote in an election of the President of India.
    • They however have rights to vote in the vice presidential election.
    • As per Article 99 of the Constitution, a nominated member is allowed six months’ time should he join a political party.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2013:

    Consider the following statements:

    1. The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are not the members of that House.
    2. While the nominated members of the two Houses of the Parliament have no voting right in the presidential election, they have the right to vote in the election of the Vice President.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”biuh1wymo0″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Rethinking Caste Dynamics: Judicial Reflections and Societal Realities

    In the news

    • In a noteworthy observation, Justice Anita Sumanth of the Madras High Court delved into the complex interplay between caste, societal benefits, and historical contexts while addressing quo warranto pleas against three lawmakers.
    • Her remarks shed light on the multifaceted nature of caste dynamics in contemporary Tamil Nadu.

    Quo Warranto: A Writ Jurisdiction

     

    • Definition: This legal remedy allows the court to investigate the legality of an individual’s claim to a public office, preventing unauthorized individuals from unlawfully occupying such positions.
    • Scope: It applies to substantive public offices of a permanent nature established by statute or the Constitution, excluding ministerial or private roles.
    • Applicability: Unlike other writs, Quo Warranto can be sought by any interested party, not limited to the aggrieved party.

     

    Constitutional Provisions

     

    • Authority: The power to issue writs, including Quo Warranto, was bestowed upon the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) by the Constitution.
    • Objective: Quo Warranto aims to halt usurpers from wrongfully holding public office and exercising its privileges without lawful authority.

     

    Conditions for Issuing Quo Warranto

     

    • Public Office: The office in question must be public, established by law or the Constitution.
    • Permanent Tenure: It should entail permanent tenure not subject to arbitrary termination.
    • Actual Possession: The individual against whom the writ is sought must have the office and actively utilizing its powers.
    • Disqualification: Quo Warranto can also be issued if a disqualified individual continues to hold the office illegally.

     

    Circumstances for Refusal

     

    • Ineffectiveness: The court may refuse to grant Quo Warranto if its intervention would not alter the outcome or if the situation is deemed inconsequential.
    • Non-public Office: If the office in question is private, the writ cannot be issued.

     

    Landmark Judgments

     

    1. Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha vs. Dr. D Rama (1954): The court declined to issue the writ against a private entity, emphasizing its inapplicability to non-public offices.
    2. Niranjan Kumar Goenka vs. The University of Bihar, Muzzfarpur (1971): Established that Quo Warranto cannot be invoked against individuals not holding a public office.

     

    Judicial Insights on Castes

    • Caste and State Benefits: Justice Sumanth highlighted the nexus between caste-based divisions and state-provided benefits, suggesting that the fervour surrounding caste issues is fueled by socio-economic advantages conferred by the state on different caste groups.
    • Historical Perspective: While acknowledging the prevalence of caste divisions in society, the judge emphasized that the present-day caste system is relatively recent, tracing its origins to less than a century ago, rather than being solely rooted in ancient Varna Dharma principles.
    • Varna Dharma vs. Caste System: Drawing a distinction, Justice Sumanth elucidated that Varna Dharma, historically, delineated societal roles based on occupation rather than birth, contrasting it with the entrenched birth-based caste system prevalent today.

    Societal Realities

    • Cacophony of Castes: Tamil Nadu, with its 370 registered castes, witnesses a cacophony of societal pressures and pulls from various caste groups, reflecting the complexities of caste dynamics in the state.
    • Benefits and Ferocity: The judge noted that the ferocity among different caste groups partly stems from the benefits accorded to them by the state, raising questions about the fairness and equity of resource distribution.

    Key Recommendations

    • Acknowledgment of Past Injustices: While refraining from detailing past atrocities, the judge emphasized the need for acknowledging and deprecating historical injustices, calling for ongoing efforts towards repair and damage control.
    • Forward-looking Approach: Justice Sumanth advocated for sincere introspection among lawmakers to evolve methods for correcting injustices and fostering equality in the present and future.

    Conclusion

    • In her nuanced reflections, Justice Sumanth highlighted the need for a holistic approach towards addressing caste-related issues.
    • She emphasized the importance of societal introspection, equitable resource distribution, and leadership accountability in fostering a more inclusive and just society.

  • Ladakh and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution

    In the news

    • A shutdown and protest rally in Ladakh recently demanded statehood for the newly created Union Territory (UT) and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
    • This highlights a broader issue concerning governance and autonomy in the region.

    Centre’s Offer to Ladakh Representatives

    • Article 371-like Protections: MHA offered to extend Article 371-like protections to Ladakh, addressing concerns raised by the Leh Apex Body (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA).
    • Exclusion from Sixth Schedule: While acknowledging concerns, the government opts against including Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule, indicating a different approach to address regional issues.

    Background: Ladakh’s Governance Post Article 370 Repeal

    • Recognition as Union Territory: Post the repeal of Article 370, Ladakh was recognized as a separate Union Territory “without legislature,” akin to UTs like New Delhi and Pondicherry.
    • Demand for Sixth Schedule Inclusion: Organizations like ABL and KDA have advocated for Ladakh’s inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, seeking greater autonomy in governance.

    What is the Sixth Schedule?

    • Article 244 in Part X of the Constitution outlines a special system of administration for designated ‘scheduled areas’ and ‘tribal areas.’
    • The Fifth Schedule deals with scheduled areas and tribes in states except Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram (ATM2).
    • The Sixth Schedule focuses on tribal areas in these four northeastern states.

    Salient Features of Sixth Schedule:

    (1) Autonomous Districts

    • Tribal areas are constituted as autonomous districts within the executive authority of the state.
    • The governor holds powers to organize and re-organize these districts, including boundary changes and division into autonomous regions.

    (2) District and Regional Councils:

    • Each district council consists of 30 members, including nominated and elected
    • Regional councils also exist within autonomous regions.
    • These councils administer areas under their jurisdiction, making laws on specific matters with the governor’s assent.
    • They can establish village councils or courts for dispute resolution, with specified jurisdiction over appeals.
    • District councils manage various facilities and services within their areas, including education and healthcare.
    • They also have the authority to impose taxes and regulate certain activities.

    (3) Laws Exemptions and Modifications:

    • Acts of Parliament or state legislatures may not apply directly or may apply with modifications.
    • The president or governor holds the power of direction in this regard, depending on the region.

    (4) Governor’s Authority:

    • The governor may appoint a commission to examine and report on matters concerning autonomous districts or regions.
    • He/she also has the authority to dissolve a district or regional council based on commission recommendations.

    Tribal Areas under Sixth Schedule

    • Assam: North Cachar Hills District, Karbi Anglong District, Bodoland Territorial Areas District.
    • Meghalaya: Khasi Hills District, Jaintia Hills District, Garo Hills District.
    • Tripura: Tripura Tribal Areas District.
    • Mizoram: Chakma District, Mara District, Lai District.

    Reasons for such Demands in Ladakh

    • Cultural Autonomy: Tribes in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram maintain distinct cultures, customs, and civilizations. Unlike tribes in other parts of India, they have not assimilated much with the majority population.
    • Meeting tribal aspiration: The Parliamentary standing committee recommended including of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule because its tribal communities account for 79.61% of its total population.
    • Autonomy and self-governance: Extending the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh could provide greater autonomy and self-governance to the local tribal communities.
    • Cultural preservation: It could also help to protect the unique cultural identity of the local communities and preserve their traditional practices and customs.

    Challenges posed by this demand

    • Fragmentation: The demand to extend the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh has faced some opposition from certain quarters, who argue that it could lead to further fragmentation of the region and create new administrative challenges.
    • Losing political capital: There are also concerns over the potential impact of the demand on the political and administrative structure of the region.

    Conclusion

    • While stopping short of Sixth Schedule inclusion, MHA’s move demonstrates a commitment to balancing local autonomy with national governance priorities.
    • If implemented, it would mark the first instance of special provisions being introduced for a Union Territory, potentially setting a precedent for future governance arrangements in such regions.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelim 2015:

    Q.The provisions in the Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution of India are made to:

    (a) Protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes

    (b) Determine the boundaries between states

    (c) Determine the powers, authorities, and responsibilities of Panchayats

    (d) Protect the interests of all the Border States

  • SC ends Immunity for Legislators taking Bribes

    In the news

    • A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a significant judgment regarding parliamentary privilege and criminal prosecution.
    • The verdict overturned a 1998 ruling in PV Narasimha Rao Case that granted immunity to lawmakers accepting bribes if they subsequently voted or spoke in the House

    Also read:

    Legislators Immunity against Criminal Prosecution

    What are Parliamentary Privileges?

    Details
    Definition Special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by Parliament, its committees, and members.

    Defined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution.
    Scope Applies to Parliament, committees, and members.
    Freedom of Speech Guaranteed under Article 105(1).

    Subject to rules and procedures of Parliament (Article 118).
    Limitations to Free Speech Speech must comply with constitutional provisions.

    Cannot discuss judges’ conduct (Article 121), except for motions for their removal.
    Freedom from Arrest Immunity from arrest in civil cases 40 days before and after sessions.

    House permission needed for arrest within Parliament limits.
    Notification of Arrest Chairman/Speaker must be informed of any member’s arrest.
    Right to Prohibit Publication No liability for publishing reports, discussions under member’s authority (Article 105(2)).
    Right to Exclude Strangers Members have power to exclude non-members from proceedings.

     

    Immunity against Bribe: Constitutional Provisions Examined

    • Article 105(2): This article grants immunity to members of Parliament from court proceedings concerning their actions (speech or votes) in Parliament.
    • Article 194(2): Similarly, this article extends immunity to members of state assemblies.

    Court’s Review and Interpretation

    • PV Narasimha Rao Case: In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled with a 3:2 majority that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain.
    • Judicial Scrutiny of Privilege: The Court revisited the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), challenging the traditional understanding of absolute immunity for lawmakers.
    • Historical Context: It noted that India’s parliamentary privileges stem from statutory and constitutional sources, unlike the UK’s House of Commons, which has ancient and undoubted rights.

    Key Findings and Interpretations

    • Necessity Test Applied: The Court applied a “necessity test” to determine the legitimacy of claims to parliamentary privilege, emphasizing that accepting bribes cannot be deemed necessary for lawmakers to discharge their duties.
    • Emphasis on Probity: The ruling underscored the importance of probity in public life, highlighting the corrosive impact of corruption on democratic ideals.
    • Interpretation of Offense: It clarified that the act of accepting a bribe constitutes an offense, regardless of subsequent actions by the lawmaker in the House.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant departure from past precedent, affirming the principle that no individual, including legislators, is above the law.
    • By asserting the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing claims of parliamentary privilege, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of constitutional values and accountability in governance.
    • This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and combating corruption, thereby bolstering India’s democratic foundations.

  • Legislators Immunity against Criminal Prosecution

    In the news

    • The Supreme Court is set to decide if legislators (MPs and MLAs) enjoy immunity from bribery charges in connection with votes made in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

    Legislators Immunity: Background and Context

    • Constitutional Provisions: Articles 194(2) (for MLAs) and 105(2) (MPs) of the Constitution grant legislators immunity from legal proceedings concerning their speeches and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
    • P.V. Narasimha Case: In 1998, the Supreme Court upheld this immunity in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE), ruling that legislators are shielded from criminal prosecution for bribery linked to their parliamentary actions.

    Reasons for Reconsideration

    • Sita Soren’s Case: The appeal by JMM MLA Sita Soren, accused of accepting bribes during Rajya Sabha elections, prompted a reevaluation of the Narasimha verdict.
    • Interpretation Issues: Concerns were raised about the broad interpretation of immunity and its implications for combating bribery in legislative bodies.

    Arguments Supporting Immunity

    • Absolute Protection: Advocates contend that legislators enjoy complete immunity from legal action under constitutional provisions. They argue that the Speaker holds authority to address moral infractions through expulsion.
    • Interpretation of Articles: The dissenting opinion in Narasimha sought to narrow the scope of immunity, but proponents stress adherence to the literal interpretation of constitutional language.

    Arguments against

    • Completion of Offence: Critics argue that the offence of bribery is consummated upon acceptance of the bribe, irrespective of subsequent actions. They advocate holding legislators accountable from the moment the bribe is accepted.
    • Legitimate Legislative Actions: Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate actions, advocates assert that actions stemming from criminal conduct, such as vote-buying, should not be shielded by immunity.

    Legal Interpretation and Statutory Compliance

    • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Critics highlight inconsistencies between the Narasimha ruling and the provisions of the PCA, emphasizing the need for alignment with anti-corruption legislation.
    • Intent and Performance: Solicitor General Mehta underscored the disconnect between the Narasimha verdict and the intent of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly regarding the timing of criminal liability.

    P.V. Narasimha Case (1998) Analogy

    Judgement protects bribe-takers after there is “performance” (a speech or vote is given based on the bribe), even though Section 7 of the PCA specifically punishes public servants who accept bribes “to” or “as a reward for” performing their public duty improperly or dishonestly.

    Way Forward

    • Balancing Integrity and Immunity: The court’s ruling will determine the delicate balance between upholding legislative immunity and ensuring accountability for criminal acts.
    • Interpretative Scrutiny: A nuanced interpretation of constitutional provisions is essential to address the evolving complexities of legislative conduct and accountability.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on legislators’ immunity from bribery charges holds significant ramifications for India’s legal landscape.
    • Balancing constitutional provisions, legislative intent, and anti-corruption imperatives, the court’s ruling will shape the accountability framework for lawmakers and the integrity of the legislative process.

  • Defamation in the Digital Age: The Case of Arvind Kejriwal

    In the news

    Try this question from CS Mains 2014:

    What do understand by the concept of “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss.

    What is the Right to Free Speech?

    • Freedom: Article 19(1) (a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. It is the first condition of liberty and plays an important role in forming public opinion.
    • Restrictions: As per Article 19(2), restrictions can be imposed upon the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of:
    1. Sovereignty and integrity of India,
    2. Security of the state,
    3. Friendly relations with foreign states,
    4. Public order, decency or morality, or
    5. In relation to contempt of court,
    6. Defamation, or
    7. Incitement to an offense
    • Online Discourse: The proliferation of social media platforms necessitates a nuanced understanding of free speech rights in the digital realm, balancing individual liberties with societal interests.
    • Immunity for Politicians: For politicians, while they enjoy the right to free speech, they are also subject to certain limitations. Criticism of the government or its policies is generally allowed as long as it does not incite violence or hatred.

    Legal Conundrum over Digital Defamation

    • Background: Kejriwal faced defamation charges for retweeting a video by a YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, alleging defamatory statements against the BJP’s IT cell.
    • Legal Proceedings: The Delhi High Court upheld the summons issued to Kejriwal, citing the widespread impact of retweets by public figures.
    • Constitutional Considerations: The right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, is subject to reasonable restrictions, including defamation laws under Article 19(2).
    • Retweeting vs. Endorsement: The court’s intervention underscores the distinction between retweeting and endorsing content. While retweeting may not always signify endorsement, public figures are held to a higher standard of responsibility for their online actions.
    • Defamation Laws: Indian law, as delineated in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, criminalizes statements intended to harm an individual’s reputation. However, applying these laws to online communication poses unique challenges.

    Legal Precedents and Interpretations

    • Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015): Section 66A of The IT Act, 2000, had criminalised sending “offensive messages” utilizing “a computer resource or a communication device”. This provision was quashed by the SC given the ambiguity in the definition of the term “offensive”.
    • Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016): The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of criminal defamation laws, balancing the right to reputation with freedom of expression.
    • Kaushal Kishore vs. Union of India (2017): The Court clarified that additional restrictions on free speech must align with Article 19(2) and cannot be arbitrarily imposed.

    Implications for Online Discourse

    • Scope of Defamation: Online retweets amplify the dissemination of allegedly defamatory content, raising questions about liability and accountability.
    • Responsibility of Public Figures: Public figures like Kejriwal face heightened scrutiny for their online activities, given their influence and reach on social media platforms.

    Conclusion

    • This defamation case underscores the evolving dynamics of communication in the digital age.
    • As online discourse continues to shape public opinion, striking a balance between freedom of expression and legal safeguards against defamation remains a pressing challenge.
    • The Supreme Court’s intervention provides an opportunity to reassess existing laws and norms governing online speech, ensuring that rights and responsibilities are harmonized in the digital realm.