💥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

  • Give up impropriety, demonstrate impartiality

    Central idea

    The Chief Justice of India expresses concern over the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s inaction on pending disqualification petitions since July 2022, emphasizing the importance of upholding the court’s orders. The article highlights the historical evolution of the Speaker’s role, citing instances of misuse, partisanship, and delays in addressing disqualification petitions, posing a threat to the stability of elected governments.

    Key Themes:

    • The Supreme Court consistently emphasizes the need for an unbiased mechanism, possibly an independent tribunal, to handle disqualification cases.
    • Concerns about the Speaker’s delay in addressing disqualification petitions and potential challenges in the certification of Bills as Money Bills.

    Data Highlights from the Article:

    • Parliamentary Standing Committees Referral: During 2004-14, over 60% of Bills in the Lok Sabha were referred to committees for detailed scrutiny. However, from 2014-2023, this referral rate dropped to less than 25%.
    • Suspension Instances: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury (Congress) swiftly suspended for remarks against the PM, later revoked. Ramesh Bidhuri (BJP) faced no swift action for passing communal slurs against an MP.
    • Challenges in Maharashtra Assembly: Unconstitutional suspension of 12 BJP MLAs for a year in July 2021, set aside by the Supreme Court.
    • Defection Decision Delays: Inaction by the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on disqualification petitions pending since July 2022. Supreme Court recommends an independent tribunal for timely decisions on defection cases.
    • Certification of Bills Challenges: Ongoing challenges in the Court regarding the certification of certain Bills as Money Bills by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
    • International Speaker Practices: In Britain, the Speaker resigns from their political party upon election and seeks re-election as an impartial Speaker. This practice is not followed in India.

    Speaker’s Functions and Gaps:

    • Dual functions of certifying Bills as Money Bills and deciding on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
    • Misuse of suspension provisions against Opposition members, highlighting instances of bias.
    • Failure to refer significant Bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees affecting parliamentary functioning.
    • Custodianship of the rights and privileges of the House, its committees, and members.

    Challenges in Deciding Disqualification:

    • Misuse of powers against Opposition members, unequal treatment for remarks against leaders.
    • Delayed or inadequate actions on disqualification petitions, undermining stability in governance
    • Past instances show Speakers favoring ruling dispensation, raising concerns over neutrality.
    • Proposal for an independent tribunal, recommended by the Supreme Court, to handle disqualification cases.
    • Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s inaction on pending disqualification petitions despite court directions.

    Key Supreme Court Judgments Simplified

    Kihoto Hollohan (1992):

    • Minority judges believed that giving the Speaker power to decide defections violated democratic principles.
    • The case suggests the need for an independent tribunal, headed by judges, to handle defection cases.

    Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur (2020):

    • The Supreme Court recommended a constitutional amendment for an independent tribunal to decide defections.
    • The ongoing inaction of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on disqualification petitions was highlighted.

    Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker:

    • Comparison with Britain’s practice where the Speaker resigns from the political party for impartiality.
    • Indian Speakers rarely exercise the option to resign from their political party, impacting perceived impartiality.

    Way Forward and Reforms:

    • Adoption of British practices to instill confidence, emphasizing Speaker’s impartiality.
    • Urgent need for Speakers to demonstrate impartiality, even if formal reforms are pending.
    • Consideration of reforms such as an independent tribunal for handling disqualification cases.
    • Urgent measures needed to address challenges and restore faith in the institution of the Speaker.
    • Speakers must commit to displaying impartiality, aligning their functions with democratic principles.

  • Back in news: Article 142 of the Constitution

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has used its extraordinary constitutional power under Article 142 to do complete justice for a 50-year-old man who fought for nearly three decades against the postal department’s refusal to give him a job despite his name figuring high on the merit list.

    What is Article 142?

    Article 142 titled ‘Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.’ has two clauses:

    [1] Article 142(1)

    • The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
    • Any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India.
    • It may be in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

    [2] Article 142(2)

    • The Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

    Important instances when Article 142 was invoked

    • Bhopal Gas tragedy case: The SC awarded a compensation of $470 million to the victims and held that “prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142.”
    • Babri Masjid demolition case: The Supreme Court ordered framing of a scheme by the Centre for formation of trust to construct Ram Mandir at the Masjid demolition site in Ayodhya.
    • Liquor sale ban case: The Supreme Court banned liquor shops within a distance of 500 metres from National as well as State highways in order to prevent drunken driving.
    • Ex-PM Assassin case: In the case of Perarivalan, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142(1) under which it was empowered to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any matter pending before it.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2019:

    Q.With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

    (a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.

    (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.

    (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.

    (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”qhatf1pn71″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Article 142 of Indian Constitution

    Central idea:  Supreme Court has ruled that it can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, using its power under Article 142(1), without referring the parties to family court for waiting period of 6-18 months for mutual consent divorce.

    What is Article 142?

    Article 142 titled ‘Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.’ has two clauses:

    [1] Article 142(1)

    • The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
    • Any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India.
    • It may be in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

    [2] Article 142(2)

    • The Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

    History of Article 142

    • When a draft Constitution was prepared by the drafting committee and placed before the Constituent Assembly, Article 142 was actually numbered as Article 118.
    • It was placed before the Constituent Assembly on May 27, 1949 for debate but got adopted on the same day without any debate.
    • This was possibly because everyone agreed that in order to ensure judicial independence, the highest court of the country must be empowered with plenary power to do complete justice.

    Article 142 in Divorce Cases

    (1) Current Divorce Process

    • The Hindu Marriage Act allows for “divorce by mutual consent.”
    • Both parties must file a petition to the district court, citing that they have been living separately for at least one year and mutually agree to dissolve the marriage.
    • The parties must then move a second motion before the court, no earlier than six months after filing the first petition and no later than 18 months after the same date.

    (2) Factors considered for irretrievable breakdown

    The Court must be convinced that the marriage is “totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation.” The following factors can be considered:

    1. The period of time that the parties had cohabited after marriage
    2. When the parties had last cohabited
    3. Nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members
    4. Orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time
    5. Cumulative impact on the personal relationship
    6. Whether and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by a court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made.
    7. The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.
    8. It is necessary to evaluate the factors according to the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether they have any children, their age, and whether the spouse and children are dependents.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2019:

    Q.With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

    1. The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.
    2. The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
    3. In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.
    4. State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”kj1si5az7m” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

  • How MPs ask Questions in Lok Sabha?

    Central Idea

    • A Parliamentarian is being questioned by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, in her alleged involvement in ‘cash for query’ allegations.
    • This has thrust the spotlight on the importance and procedure of asking questions in the Lok Sabha.

    Procedure for Raising Questions

    • Rules and Directions: The process of raising questions is governed by Rules 32 to 54 of the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha” and Directions 10 to 18 issued by the Speaker, Lok Sabha.
    • Notice Submission: MPs initiate the process by submitting a notice addressed to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, specifying the question’s text, the relevant Minister, desired answer date, and order of preference if multiple questions are tabled.
    • Limitations: MPs are allowed to submit a maximum of five notices for oral and written answers combined, per day, with any excess notices considered for the subsequent session days.
    • Notice Period: The notice period for a question is usually not less than 15 days.
    • Submission Modes: MPs can submit notices through the online ‘Member’s Portal’ using their login credentials or physical forms available in the Parliamentary Notice Office.

    Conditions for Admissibility of Questions

    • Admissibility Rules: Various rules govern the admissibility of questions, such as a limit of 150 words, prohibition of arguments or defamatory statements, avoidance of character or conduct references except in official capacity, and disallowance of policy-related queries.
    • Legal Matters: Questions concerning subjects under court consideration or those that may compromise national unity and integrity are inadmissible.

    Types of Questions

    • Starred Questions: MPs pose starred questions for oral responses from the Minister-in-charge. These questions require submission at least 15 days in advance, with a maximum of 20 listed for oral answers each day.
    • Unstarred Questions: Unstarred questions receive written replies from the Ministry and must also be submitted 15 days ahead. A daily limit of 230 unanswered questions for written answers exists.
    • Short Notice Questions: Pertaining to urgent public concerns, these questions can be asked with less than 10 days’ notice, accompanied by a valid reason.
    • Questions to Private Members: Addressed to the MP themselves, these are posed when the subject relates to bills, resolutions, or House-related matters under that MP’s responsibility.

    Importance of Raising Questions

    • Parliamentary Right: MPs have an inherent and unrestricted parliamentary right to raise questions, serving as a legislative control mechanism over executive actions.
    • Information and Critique: Questions help obtain administration and government activity details, critique government policies, expose lapses, and prompt ministers to take corrective actions.
    • Government Feedback: For the government, questions gauge public sentiment towards policies, and administration, and can lead to parliamentary commissions, inquiries, or legislative actions in response.

  • Caste Enumeration and OBC Sub-Categorization in India

    obc caste

    Central Idea

    • The recent publication of Bihar’s caste survey results has sparked discussions about the possibility of similar exercises in other states as India enters a new electoral cycle.
    • Enumerating castes and sub-categorizing Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for equitable reservation distribution have long been contentious issues.

    Who are Other Backward Classes (OBCs)?

    • Origins of OBCs: OBCs represent communities and castes considered socially and educationally backward, distinct from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
    • Constitutional Mandate: The Indian Constitution mandates affirmative action for OBCs through Articles 15(4) and 16(4), enabling special provisions and reservations.

    Diverse Categories within OBCs

    • Occupational Classification: OBCs have historically been identified based on their occupations, including land ownership, farming, labor, and artisanal work.
    • Two Broad Categories: OBCs can be broadly categorized into landowners (e.g., Yadavs and Kurmis in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) and non-landowners.
    • Inequality Concerns: A demand for reservation within OBCs has emerged, as a few “upper” OBCs have reportedly benefitted disproportionately from the existing 27% reservation, a result of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations over 30 years ago.

    EBCs in Bihar

    • EBC Identification: Bihar’s caste survey identified 27% of the population as “pichhda” (backward) and 36% as “atyant pichhda” (Extremely Backward Classes, or EBCs).
    • Historical Context: The state had previously categorized castes as “more backward,” and the Karpoori Thakur Formula, implemented in the 1970s, offered reservation benefits to various groups, including OBCs, economically backward OBCs, women, and the economically disadvantaged from “upper castes.”

    Historical OBC Commissions

    • Kaka Kalekar Commission (1953): Established in 1953, it recommended identifying socially and educationally backward classes and 25-40% reservation in government jobs.
    • Mandal Commission (1979): Appointed in 1979 but implemented in 1990, it identified 3,743 OBC castes, suggested 27% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions, and proposed no sub-categorization.

    State-specific Subcategorization

    • Diverse State Approaches: Various states have implemented subcategorization within their OBC quotas based on unique criteria.
    • Examples: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala have subgroups within their OBC reservations.

    Subcategorization at the National Level

    • Subcategorization Initiative: In 2015, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment tasked the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) with examining the subcategorization of OBCs.
    • NCBC’s Recommendation: The NCBC proposed subcategorization into Extremely Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, and Backward Classes.

    Recent Developments: Rohini Commission

    • In October 2017, the Rohini Commission was formed to explore OBC subcategorization.
    • It submitted its report in July 2023, although its contents remain undisclosed.

    Conclusion

    • The issue of caste enumeration and subcategorization of OBCs in India reflects complex social and political dynamics.
    • While it aims to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits, it also highlights the need for nuanced, state-specific approaches to address the diverse composition of OBC communities.
    • The recent report by the Rohini Commission holds potential significance, but its implications and recommendations await public scrutiny and debate.

  • Supreme Court declines to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court of India has declined to approve same-sex marriages in a blow to LGBTQ rights.
    • CJI said that it was outside the court’s remit to decide the issue and that parliament should write the laws governing marriage.

    Same-Sex Marriage Demand

    • Petitioners are urging for the reinterpretation of the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, by replacing “man and woman” with “spouses” to accommodate LGBTQIA+ couples.
    • Such right to marry not only symbolizes equality but also grants access to numerous legal benefits, including insurance, adoption, and inheritance.

    Petitioners’ Demands

    Arguments Summary
    Constitutional Basis Asserted that the right to marry for non-heterosexual couples is implicit in various constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21.
    Previous Landmark Judgments Referenced key Supreme Court judgments such as ‘Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India’ (2018) and ‘KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India’ (2017) to support their case.
    Benefits and Rights Emphasized the importance of equal access to marriage-related benefits and rights, such as pensions and provident funds.
    Minimum Marriageable Age Suggested different minimum marriageable ages for lesbian, gay, and transgender couples based on gender identity.
    Recognition of Fundamental Rights Cited the Transgender Persons Protection Act, 2019, as a precedent recognizing the right to marry for all queer identities.

    Respondent’s Arguments

    Arguments Summary
    Maintainability and Jurisdiction Questioned the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case and raised concerns about the maintainability of the petitions.
    Impact on Existing Laws Argued that introducing marriage equality would impact 160 existing laws, making it the prerogative of Parliament to enact such changes.
    SMA Character and Intent Emphasized that the Special Marriage Act (SMA) was intentionally designed for heterosexual marriages, and changing its character and intent would require legislative action.
    Legitimate State Interest Contended that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating marriages, addressing aspects such as age of consent, bigamy, and prohibited degrees of marriage.
    Welfare of Children Advocated for prioritizing the welfare of children born to heterosexual parents, leading to differential treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples.
    Public Perception Expressed concerns about societal acceptance and potential collateral damage to various legal provisions if same-sex marriage were declared a fundamental right.

    States Responses

    • Rajasthan, Assam, and Andhra Pradesh opposed the plea for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
    • Sikkim, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Manipur sought more time to respond.
    • Also, many fundamentalist religious organizations are opposed to such marriages.

    Conclusion

    • It must be noted that only Taiwan and Nepal allow same-sex unions in Asia, where largely conservative values still dominate politics and society.
    • The Supreme Court’s verdict on marriage equality in India is poised to shape the country’s LGBTQIA+ rights landscape profoundly.

    Also read:

    [Sansad TV] Perspective: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

  • Scheduled Areas in India: A Constitutional Framework

    Scheduled Area

    Central Idea

    • India’s diverse landscape is home to 705 Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities, constituting 8.6% of the nation’s population.
    • These communities reside across 26 States and six Union Territories.
    • A crucial constitutional provision, Article 244, governs the administration of Scheduled and Tribal Areas, significantly impacting the lives of STs.

    Constitutional Framework for STs

    • Fifth Schedule (Article 244(1)): This provision applies the Fifth Schedule’s provisions to Scheduled Areas in states other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.
    • Sixth Schedule (Article 244(2)): In the mentioned states, the Sixth Schedule governs the administration of Scheduled and Tribal Areas.

    Geographical Scope of Scheduled Areas

    • Coverage: Scheduled Areas span 11.3% of India’s land area, designated in 10 States: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Himachal Pradesh. Kerala has proposed additional areas for notification, pending government approval.
    • Exclusions: Despite demands from Adivasi organizations, numerous villages in Scheduled Areas and other regions with ST populations have been excluded from Article 244’s purview. Consequently, 59% of India’s STs lack the rights conferred by Scheduled Areas-related laws.

    Historical Recommendations

    • Bhuria Committee (1995): This committee recommended extending panchayat raj to Scheduled Areas, including the villages, a suggestion yet to be implemented.
    • Denotification Debate: Some argue for the denotification of parts of Scheduled Areas where non-tribal individuals have increased, citing the absence of viable ST-majority administrative units.

    Governance of Scheduled Areas

    • Notification: The President of India designates Scheduled Areas.
    • Tribal Advisory Council: States with Scheduled Areas must establish a Tribal Advisory Council with up to 20 ST members to advise the Governor on ST welfare matters.
    • Governor’s Role: The Governor reports annually to the President regarding Scheduled Areas’ administration. They can also repeal or amend laws applicable to the Scheduled Area, regulate tribal land transfer, and control money-lending activities.
    • Underutilized Provisions: These extensive powers granted to Governors and the President have remained largely inactive, with notable exceptions in Maharashtra from 2014 to 2020.

    Defining a Scheduled Area

    • Exclusive Presidential Power: The Fifth Schedule exclusively grants the President the authority to declare Scheduled Areas.
    • Empirical Basis: A 2006 Supreme Court ruling upheld the executive function of identifying Scheduled Areas and stated that it lacks the expertise to scrutinize this process.
    • Criteria: Neither the Constitution nor any law specifies criteria for identifying Scheduled Areas. However, based on the Dhebar Commission Report (1961), key considerations include tribal population predominance, area compactness, administrative viability, and economic backwardness relative to neighboring regions.

    Settlement of Ambiguity

    • PESA Act (1996): The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, empowered gram sabhas within Scheduled Areas, reinvigorating the intent of the Constitution and the Constituent Assembly. This law enabled direct democracy and recognized the gram sabhas as primary authorities.
    • Village Definition: PESA defines a village as a habitation or group of habitations managed by a community according to traditions and customs. This definition extended beyond Scheduled Areas to forest fringes and villages.
    • Unresolved Issues: Gram sabhas have yet to demarcate traditional boundaries on revenue lands. FRA 2006 requires the demarcation of “community forest resource” areas within traditional boundaries.

    Conclusion

    • Understanding and expanding Scheduled Areas in India necessitates the notification of all habitations or groups of habitations with ST majorities outside existing Scheduled Areas.
    • Furthermore, geographical boundaries should encompass “community forest resource” areas where applicable and extend to customary boundaries within revenue lands.
    • These steps are essential for ensuring equitable governance and preserving the rights and welfare of India’s Scheduled Tribes.

  • When can a Bill be designated as a ‘Money Bill’: SC to hear challenge

    Central Idea

    • CJI announced that a seven-judge bench will be established to address a series of petitions challenging the government’s use of the money bill route to pass significant legislations.
    • This move aims to provide clarity on the interpretation and application of money bills under Article 110 of the Constitution and their validity.

    Understanding the Money Bill Issue

    • The PMLA Challenge: CJI Chandrachud’s statement came during the hearing of challenges against amendments made to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
    • Previous Judgment: In July 2022, a three-judge bench upheld the PMLA and the extensive powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). However, the validity of amendments to the PMLA passed as money bills remained open for review by a larger Constitution bench.
    • Finance Acts’ Impact: Key amendments to the PMLA were introduced through Finance Acts passed in 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2019, which are presented as money bills during the budget sessions under Article 110 of the Constitution.

    Challenges beyond PMLA

    [A] Aadhaar Controversy:

    • The issue of whether a bill qualifies as a money bill under Article 110 was first raised during the Aadhaar case.
    • In a 4:1 majority ruling in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the Aadhaar Act as a valid money bill.
    • Notably, Justice Chandrachud dissented, criticizing the government’s passage of the Aadhaar Act as a money bill, labelling it a “fraud on the Constitution.”

    [B] Tribunal Reform:

    • In the case of Roger Matthew vs. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court addressed challenges related to changes in the service conditions of tribunal members, introduced as a money bill in the Finance Act of 2017.
    • While declaring the law unconstitutional for interfering with judicial independence, the court referred the money bill aspect to a larger constitution bench, expressing doubts about the correctness of its 2018 verdict upholding the Aadhaar Act.

    Understanding a Money Bill

    • Article 110(1): A bill is considered a money bill if it exclusively pertains to matters specified in Article 110(1)(a) to (g), such as taxation, government borrowing, and appropriation of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India.
    • Lok Sabha Exclusive: Money bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha and do not require Rajya Sabha’s consent.
    • Role of Speaker: According to Article 110(3), the Speaker of the Lok Sabha has the final say in determining whether a bill is a money bill. However, the court in the Aadhaar case emphasized that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial scrutiny.

    Conclusion

    • The formation of a seven-judge bench signifies a significant step towards resolving controversies surrounding money bills and their passage, ensuring a clearer understanding of their application under the Constitution.
    • This move underscores the importance of judicial review in upholding the constitutional principles of parliamentary proceedings and ensuring transparency and accountability in legislative processes involving money bills.

  • Press Freedom and Free Speech in Southeast Asia

    Central Idea

    • Southeast Asian nations consistently rank among the worst globally for press freedom and media rights.
    • Autocratic governments in the region have increasingly resorted to closing independent newspapers and imprisoning activists who criticize the authorities.

    Press Freedom Rankings

    • Pew Research Findings: According to the Pew Research Center’s report on religion and politics in South and Southeast Asia, the embrace of free speech and democracy is not widespread in the region.
    • Global Press Freedom Rankings: Organizations like “Reporters without Borders” annually rank nations in terms of press freedom. In the latest World Press Freedom Index, Vietnam and Myanmar were among the worst-ranked countries, with Malaysia being the exception.
    • Deteriorating Standards: Declining press freedom worldwide is attributed to increasing aggressiveness by authorities, growing animosity towards journalists on social media, and the proliferation of fake content.

    Freedom on the Net Rankings

    • Online Free Speech Monitoring: Freedom House’s Freedom On The Net index evaluates online free-speech conditions. Myanmar, China, Vietnam, and Thailand ranked poorly, highlighting online restrictions and censorship.

    Public Perspectives on Free Speech

    • Notion of National Harmony: Governments in Southeast Asia, which encompass a diverse range of political systems, generally concur on the need to limit free speech to safeguard national “harmony.”
    • Pew Research Focus: Unlike traditional press freedom rankings, the Pew study delves into the views of ordinary people on free speech issues.
    • Key Findings: The report revealed that the majority of respondents in three out of four Southeast Asian states prioritize national “harmony” over free speech. However, a notable minority in Malaysia and Singapore held a contrasting view.

    Various impacts on Free speech

    • Age and Education Impact: Younger and more educated respondents were more likely to advocate for the right to criticize the government and prioritize free speech over social harmony.
    • Religious Influence: The report also noted differences in attitudes based on religion. For instance, Thai Muslims were more inclined to prioritize social harmony over free speech compared to Thai Buddhists.

    Government Justifications

    • Lese-Majeste Laws: Thai authorities argue that strict lese-majeste laws are necessary to protect “Thainess” and the monarchy.
    • Cambodian Government: Cambodia’s government defends stringent restrictions by portraying opposition politicians and independent media as threats to the nation’s hard-won peace.
    • Communist Governments: Vietnam and Laos assert that collective interests take precedence over individual rights.
    • Singapore’s Approach: Singapore, a multi-ethnic state, expanded “hate speech” laws, emphasizing the importance of not allowing any race or religion to be attacked or insulted.

    Critique of Laws

    • Effectiveness Questioned: Critics argue that harsh “hate speech” and other laws in the region may not genuinely preserve social harmony and can restrict freedoms.
    • Asia Centre Report: A 2021 report from the Asia Centre contends that such laws reinforce the dominance of the ethno-religious majority, limit freedom of religion or belief, and muzzle grievances from minority communities.
    • Political Exploitation: Ethno-religious dominant governments are accused of exploiting societal divisions for political gain.

    Conclusion

    • Balancing the preservation of national “harmony” with the protection of individual liberties remains a contentious issue.
    • As younger, more educated individuals express stronger support for free speech, it suggests the potential for evolving perspectives in the future.

  • Minority Institutions need NOT provide Reservations: Madras HC

    Central Idea

    • Reservation exemption: The Madras High HC ruled that the concept of communal reservation for SC/ST/OBC citizens does not apply to minority institutions.
    • No government constraint: The judges held that the government cannot compel minority institutions to implement such reservation policies.

    Key Highlights by Madras HC

    • Continued Status: The court emphasized that once minority status is granted to an institution, it will persist until the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) cancels it for valid reasons, such as a shift in its educational objectives.
    • Merit-Based Admissions: The court upheld the government’s right to stipulate that minority institutions can admit students from the respective religious and linguistic minorities up to 50% of the sanctioned intake based on merit.
    • Exclusion Clause: The judges clarified that students admitted on merit should not be counted within the first 50% of admissions allocated for minorities.

    Case Background

    • Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner challenged a Govt Order (GO) issued in November 2021. The GO denied the extension of religious minority status to the college due to its admission of 52% minority students in the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
    • Advocate General’s Stand: Advocate General argued that such admissions violated a 1998 GO that restricted minority admissions to 50%.
    • College’s Position: It contended that minority educational institutions should receive permanent status without the need for periodic extensions. It also asserted that the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Private Educational Institutions) Act, 2006, should not apply to minority institutions.

    Legal Analyis

    • Constitutional Provisions: The judges found support in Article 15(5) of the Constitution, introduced through the 93rd amendment in 2005, which specifically excludes minority institutions from the State Government’s authority to provide special provisions for reservations.
    • Definition of Private Educational Institution: They pointed out that Section 2(d) of the 2006 Act also excludes minority institutions established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution from its definition of ‘private educational institution.’ Thus, the State cannot impose reservation provisions on minority educational institutions.
    • Permanent Status: The court stated that the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutes Act, 2004, does not envision granting minority status for a temporary or restricted period. Instead, it continues until the Commission cancels it.

    Conclusion

    • Ultimately, the court quashed the 2021 GO and directed the government to allow the petitioner institution to maintain its status as a minority institution, provided it complies with other requirements.