💥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

  • How fraternity in India is different from the idea enshrined in the Constitution

    fraternity

    Central Idea

    • In the context of India’s independence struggle and the subsequent establishment of a constitutional democracy, the interplay of liberty, equality, and fraternity was deemed crucial for a diverse society on the brink of independence.
    • This essay delves into the historical origins of fraternity, its journey through different civilizations, and its significance in India’s socio-political landscape.

    Understanding Fraternity

    • The concept of fraternity, often overshadowed by liberty and equality, plays a pivotal role in the realm of politics.
    • Philosopher Angel Puyol, in his book “Political Fraternity: Democracy beyond Freedom & Democracy,” argues that fraternity is central to the emancipation and empowerment of people.

    Origins of the Concept

    • Ancient Greece: The roots of fraternity can be traced back to ancient Greece, where philosophers like Plato emphasized the importance of sharing knowledge and wisdom among individuals. This early discourse hinted at the notion of political fraternity.
    • Medieval Europe: In the Middle Ages, fraternity found expression primarily through religion, especially within the context of Christian society in Europe. It began to evolve from a religious concept to a political one.
    • French Revolution: The concept of fraternity gained prominence during the French Revolution of 1789, symbolized by the revolutionary triptych of ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite.’ Fraternity, in this context, became a fundamental principle of civic-political friendship.

    Friendship among Equals

    • Integral Value System: Fraternity thrived within community ties, with a foundation built on integral values. It prioritized the collective over the individual, gradually giving way to religious morality and a ‘way of life.’
    • Shared History: For fraternity to flourish, individuals must share a harmonious past. This shared history should be amicable, free from ideological divisions rooted in social inequalities among different communities.

    Fraternity in India’s Context

    • Unique Societal Landscape: India’s fraternal bonds face unique challenges due to its history of social hierarchies and caste divisions. The shared history is marred by the caste system, hindering the principles of equality and liberty.
    • Secular Conception: To foster fraternity in India, it must be rooted in politics, where caste privileges can be challenged. Fraternity should be cultivated through political conditioning, separate from moral considerations.

    Role in Indian Constitution

    • Constitutional Objective: The Indian Constitution recognizes the significance of fraternity in a society marked by various hierarchical social inequalities. It considers fraternity, along with liberty and equality, as a foundational political objective.
    • Affirmative Actions: Measures like affirmative actions, including the reservation system, aim to establish equality among diverse social groups in terms of access to social and economic resources.

    Limits to Fraternity

    • Ignoring Inequalities: Fraternity loses its meaning if it overlooks social inequalities and promotes social solidarity built on animosity towards others. Such solidarity often perpetuates the status quo and reinforces privilege at the expense of the marginalized.
    • Nationalism vs. Fraternity: Belligerent nationalism can replace the call for fraternity, casting religious minorities as enemies. This has historically led to social and political discrimination against religious minorities in India.
    • Fundamentalism’s Impact: Fundamentalism, in any form, contradicts the essence of fraternity, as fanaticism is incompatible with true fraternity.

    Conclusion

    • In India, the coexistence of caste and political fraternity, given the prevailing social milieu, presents challenges. To foster political fraternity, it is imperative to address social inequalities and caste divisions.
    • The future of Indian politics will determine whether fraternity or caste consciousness prevails, as the two are often incompatible.
    • Achieving true political fraternity requires navigating these complexities while prioritizing the principles of equality, liberty, and solidarity across diverse social groups.

  • Mercy Petitions in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

    Central Idea

    • The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 seeks to replace the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and introduces significant changes to the mercy petition process for death sentence cases.
    • These changes impact core aspects like justiciability, time limits, and the execution process.

    Background on Mercy Petitions

    • The Constitution granted the President (Article 72) and Governor (Article 161) the power to grant pardons or commute sentences.
    • In the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maru Ram vs. Union of India (1981), it was established that the President must act based on the Council of Ministers’ advice in mercy petitions.

    New Mercy Petition Provision in BNSS

    • Under BNSS Section 473(1), convicts can file mercy petitions within 30 days after specific events.
    • Convicts can petition the President or Governor based on dismissal of appeals or confirmation of sentences.
    • For cases with multiple convicts, they all must file petitions within 60 days.

    Centre’s Role in Mercy Petitions

    • The Centre seeks the state government’s comments, reviews the case, and makes recommendations to the President within 60 days.
    • No time limit is specified for the President’s decision.

    Exclusion of Appeals against President’s Decision

    • BNSS Section 473(7) states that the President’s decisions on mercy petitions are final.
    • Courts cannot question or review the grounds for President’s pardons or commutations.
    • Unlike the Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India (2014) ruling that mandated a 14-day gap between the rejection of mercy petitions and execution, BNSS doesn’t mention such a provision.

    Delay in Mercy Petition Disposal

    • The Shatrughan Chauhan case highlighted the need to avoid undue delay in mercy petition disposal.
    • BNSS lacks a time limit for the President to decide mercy pleas.

    Conclusion

    • The proposed BNSS’s alterations to mercy petitions raise concerns about transparency, judicial review, and the protection of prisoners’ rights.
    • Balancing constitutional powers with timely justice remains a challenge in these proposed changes.

  • What is Preventive Detention?

    Preventive Detention

    Central Idea

    • Ahead of a religious procession, a few people were taken into preventive custody (preventive detention) in Haryana.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    • Arrest occurs when an individual is charged with a crime.
    • Preventive Detention involves detaining individuals to prevent them from engaging in actions that could disrupt law and order, without them being charged with a specific crime.

    Preventive Detention in Indian Law

    • Detention without Magistrate’s Order: Police officers can arrest individuals without a magistrate’s order or warrant if they suspect potential criminal behavior.
    • Preventive Detention Law, 1950: This law permits arrest and detention if an individual’s freedom threatens national security, foreign relations, public interests, or the country’s well-being.
    • Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1968: UAPA empowers the state to imprison individuals who question Indian sovereignty territorially or belong to organizations declared illegal.

    Constitutional Safeguards and Exceptions:

    • Article 22(1) and 22(2): These constitutional provisions ensure that arrested persons are informed of the charges, can seek legal representation, and are presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.
    • Article 22(3): However, these safeguards do not apply to enemy aliens or persons arrested under specific laws for preventive detention.

    Preventive Detention Statistics

    • Increasing Trend: The NCRB report reveals a surge in preventive detentions, with over 24,500 individuals detained at the end of 2021 – the highest number since 2017.
    • National Security Act (NSA): Among these detentions, over 483 were under the National Security Act, with almost half still detained by the end of 2021.
    • Historical Perspective: In 2017, 67,084 people were detained preventively, out of which 48,815 were released within six months, while 18,269 remained in custody.

    Concerns and Legal Perspectives

    • Increasing cases: The number of preventive detentions has been rising since 2017, with a significant surge in 2021.
    • Supreme Court’s Stand: The Supreme Court has emphasized that preventive detention is only justifiable to prevent public disorder and should not replace ordinary laws for maintaining law and order.
    • Balancing Civil Liberties: While preventive detention serves to curb anti-social and subversive elements, concerns arise about potential abuse, arbitrariness, and violations of civil liberties.

  • In news: President’s Rule

    Central Idea

    • Amidst an escalating confrontation, Punjab Governor gave stern warning of invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule) in the state.

    Grim Situation in Punjab

    • Rampant Drug Abuse: The Governor cites reports from various agencies indicating widespread drug abuse in Punjab, raising significant concerns.
    • New Drug Sales Trend: An emerging trend of selling drugs within government-controlled liquor vends is noted by the Governor.
    • Ludhiana Liquor Vend Incident: Specific instances like the sealing of 66 liquor vends in Ludhiana by the Narcotics Control Bureau [NCB] and Chandigarh Police highlight the gravity of the issue.
    • Disturbing Law and Order Indicators: The Governor references a recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee indicating alarming drug exposure or addiction levels, implying a breakdown in law and order.
    • Public Response: The Governor underscores villagers’ resorting to street protests and forming their own defence committees against drug-related threats.

    Governor’s Discontent

    • Unfulfilled Information Requests: The Governor expresses dissatisfaction with CM’s reluctance to provide the requested information, highlighting Article 167’s mandate for the CM to respond to the Governor’s requests.
    • Alleged Deliberate Silence: The Governor implies that the Chief Minister’s apparent failure to respond might be a deliberate act of evasion.

    About President’s Rule

    • Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, commonly known as President’s Rule, empowers the President to impose central rule in a state where the constitutional machinery has broken down.
    • While initially intended for extraordinary circumstances, it has often been misused by central governments for political purposes.

    Provisions of Article 356:

    • Imposition of President’s Rule: Article 356 allows the President to withdraw the executive and legislative powers of a state government when it cannot function in accordance with the Constitution.
    • Triggering factors: The President can invoke Article 356 based on a report from the Governor or suo motu if the constitutional machinery has broken down in the state.
    • Duration: It can be imposed for six months at a time, with a maximum duration of three years.
    • Parliamentary approval: Every six months, Parliament’s approval is required to continue the imposition of the President’s Rule.

    Historical Origins

    • Inspiration from the Government of India Act, 1935: Article 356 was inspired by Section 93 of this act, which allowed the Governor of a province to assume the powers of the government under certain circumstances.
    • Controlled democracy: The provision provided some autonomy to provincial governments while enabling British authorities to exercise ultimate power when necessary.

    Political Misuse of Article 356

    • Early instances: During Congress’s dominance, Article 356 was used against governments of the Left and regional parties in states. Jawaharlal Nehru’s government utilized it six times until 1959, including to dislodge Kerala’s elected communist government.
    • Increasing misuse: In subsequent decades, Article 356 was used frequently against state governments by various central governments, including those led by Indira Gandhi and the Janata Party.

    Landmark Judgment: S R Bommai Case

    • Landmark Supreme Court ruling: In the 1994 R. Bommai v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines on the use of Article 356.
    • Specific instances for imposition: The court stated that the President’s Rule can be invoked in cases of physical breakdown of the government or a ‘hung assembly.’
    • Curbing arbitrary use: The judgment emphasized the need to give the state government a chance to prove its majority or instances of violent breakdown before imposing the President’s Rule.

     

  • Special Provisions of NE States under Article 371

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court recently assured that special constitutional provisions protecting the interests of northeastern states under Article 371 will remain untouched.
    • As the Constitution Bench deliberates the challenge to Article 370’s abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir, we delve into the significance of these assurances and their implications.

    What is Article 371?

    • Article 371 of the Indian Constitution grants special provisions to various states to protect their unique cultural and tribal identities.
    • These provisions are aimed at preserving local customs, social practices, and land ownership.

    Preserving Tribal Culture

    • Context: Article 371 provides special provisions for several states, particularly in the northeast, to safeguard their tribal cultures and unique identities.
    • Article 371(A) – Nagaland: Article 371(A) ensures that acts of Parliament do not apply to Nagaland concerning Nagas’ religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice based on Naga customary law, and land and resource ownership.
    • State Assembly’s Role: These provisions only apply to Nagaland after the State Assembly passes a resolution to that effect.
    • Development Impediment: Some stakeholders, like Neikiesalie Nicky Kire of the NDPP, argue that Article 371(A) hampers development by preventing the government from carrying out development activities due to landowner preferences.

    Similar Provisions in Other States

    • Article 371-G – Mizoram: Similar to Nagaland, Article 371-G provides special provisions for Mizoram to protect Mizo religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice, and land ownership.
    • Article 371B – Assam: Article 371B facilitates the creation of the sub-state ‘Meghalaya,’ aiming to provide special provisions with respect to Assam.

    State-Specific Provisions

    • Article 371C – Manipur: This article addresses special provisions for Manipur, a state that was formed in 1972.
    • Article 371F and 371H – Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh: These articles discuss special provisions for Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, respectively, to address their unique needs.
    • Article 371 – Separate Development Boards: Article 371 empowers the President to establish separate development boards for specific regions within Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh, promoting balanced growth.

    Further State-Specific Provisions except NE

    • Articles 371D and 371E – Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa: These articles provide special provisions for these states to ensure their cultural and economic development.
    • Articles 371J and 371I – Karnataka and Goa: These articles grant special provisions to Karnataka and Goa, respectively, to address their specific requirements.

  • Article 370 Abrogation: KN Rajagopal v. M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

    Central Idea

    • A landmark Supreme Court judgment from over four decades ago has become an obstacle to the Centre’s assertion that the “breakdown of constitutional machinery” in J&K.
    • Over this, the centre had justified the events leading to the abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019.
    • This judgment poses a significant challenge to the narrative surrounding the abrogation.

    Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

    • Governor’s Role: The judgment underscores that the Governor, though appointed by the President, does not lead to a breakdown of constitutional machinery when a legislative Assembly is dissolved.
    • Historical Precedent: The Constitution Bench judgment in K.N. Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi, authored by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri in 1971, supports this view.

    Essence of the Judgment

    • Central Tenet: The judgment clarifies that when a Governor dissolves a State’s legislative Assembly and assumes its powers, the premise of “failure of constitutional machinery” under Article 356 becomes untenable.
    • Absurdity of Claim: It is pointed out that it’s illogical for the President to assert a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” when the Governor, whom the President appointed, already holds control.

    Application to J&K’s Scenario

    • J&K’s Timeline: In Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor dissolved the State legislative assembly on November 21, 2018.
    • President’s Rule: A proclamation of President’s rule was issued on December 19, 2018, followed by Parliament’s approval on January 3, 2019. Extension of President’s rule occurred on July 3, 2019.
    • Abrogation of A370: The Centre, on August 5, 2019, introduced the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, changing the provisions of Article 370.
    • Legislating the abrogation: The next day, Parliament abrogated Article 370, reorganizing the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

    Legal issues with Article 370 Abrogation

    • Challenging Constitutionality: Litigants argues that beneath the perceived constitutionality, there lies evident illegality. Once the State Assembly was dissolved, there was no breakdown of machinery.
    • Governor’s Powers: The Governor’s assumption of powers contradicts such a breakdown, making the President’s proclamation under Article 356 jurisdictionally flawed.
    • Constitutional Entity: Referring to the S.R. Bommai case, it is highlighted that a State as a “constitutional entity” should outlast Article 356’s intervention.

  • Tamil Nadu vs. NEET: Balancing Equity and Autonomy

    Central Idea

    • The conflict between Tamil Nadu and the Centre over the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) has intensified.
    • It has reignited discussions about the transfer of education back to the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

    Why in news?

    • Educational Autonomy: Chief Minister M.K. Stalin called for education’s transfer back to the State List, originally placed in the Concurrent List during the Emergency.
    • NEET Controversy: Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEET escalated dramatically after the tragic suicides of a student and his father due to exam-related stress.

    Why Tamil Nadu Opposes NEET?

    • Undue competition: NEET, a centralised entrance exam for medical courses, faces opposition in Tamil Nadu due to its mechanical focus on marks.
    • Impact on Local Models: NEET disrupted models like Christian Medical College (CMC) Vellore, known for emphasizing aptitude over marks.
    • In-Service Quota Impact: NEET dismantled Tamil Nadu’s in-service quota for medical graduates, adversely affecting healthcare quality.
    • Disadvantages Marginalized: The exam favours affluent sections who affords lakhs worth coaching (esp. repeaters), disadvantaging underprivileged groups and hindering their aspirations.

    Emotive Nature of the Issue

    • Equity and Social Justice: Opposition to NEET is deeply rooted in demands for educational equity and autonomy, driven by social justice concerns.
    • Kamaraj’s Vision: Tamil Nadu’s education vision, shaped by Chief Minister K. Kamaraj, emphasized accessibility and empathy for unlettered masses.

    Legislative Struggles

    • AIADMK Bills: The previous AIADMK government introduced Bills in 2017 seeking state autonomy in medical admissions. They were returned by the President.
    • Stalin’s Efforts: In 2021, CM M.K. Stalin’s government passed the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021, aiming to abolish NEET and base admissions on Class 12 marks for social justice.
    • Governor’s Opposition: Governor R.N. Ravi, opposed to the anti-NEET Bill, delayed its forwarding to the President, leading to political tensions.

    Justice A.K. Rajan Committee

    • Committee Formation: The Justice A.K. Rajan Committee was established in 2021 to assess NEET’s fairness in medical admissions.
    • Critical Findings- Rich vs. Poor: The committee criticized NEET for favouring repeaters and coached students while disadvantaging first-time applicants, leading to reduced admissions among marginalized groups.

    Why is TN now fuming?

    • Concurrent List: Medical course admissions fall under the Concurrent List (Entry 25), allowing states to legislate on these matters.
    • Amending Central Laws: States can enact laws related to admissions and amend central laws on admission procedures, as long as they don’t contradict parliamentary laws.

    Current Scenario

    • Historic Public Health Practices: Tamil Nadu’s public health infrastructure thrived on retaining PG doctors, indicating the state’s effective healthcare practices.
    • Balancing Uniformity and Fairness: The NEET stalemate reflects the challenge of balancing uniformity with local values and needs.
    • Clash of Values: The conflict highlights the broader tension between central standardization and local autonomy, revealing deeper debates about democracy, equality, and social justice in India.

    Conclusion

    • The NEET controversy in Tamil Nadu is not merely about an entrance exam; it represents a larger struggle for educational equity, autonomy, and social justice.
    • The state’s commitment to its unique vision of education and healthcare clashes with central standardization, sparking a crucial dialogue about the nature of democracy and fairness in the country.

    Back2Basics: Seventh Schedule

    • The Seventh Schedule under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution is a pivotal component that delineates the allocation of powers between the central government and the states.
    • This framework ensures an efficient governance structure by classifying subjects into three lists:
    1. Union List: The Union List outlines subjects on which only the Parliament can legislate. This list includes crucial aspects like defense, foreign affairs, currency, communication, and more.
    2. State List: The State List enumerates matters solely under the jurisdiction of state legislatures. It encompasses areas such as public health, agriculture, police, local government, and others.
    3. Concurrent List: The Concurrent List incorporates subjects on which both Parliament and state legislatures can enact laws. However, in case of a conflict, federal supremacy grants authority to the Parliament’s law.

    Evolution and Dynamics

    • Over time, the Union List expanded to encompass significant areas such as defense, banking, and foreign affairs.
    • The State List’s scope included subjects like public order, police, and agriculture, critical for regional governance.
    • The Concurrent List reflects matters of shared importance like criminal law, civil procedure, population control, and more.

    Amendments and Special Provisions:

    • 42nd Amendment Act (1976): It transferred select subjects like education, forests, and administration of justice from the State List to the Concurrent List.
    • 101st Amendment Act (2018): It introduced a special provision for Goods and Services Tax (GST), allowing both Parliament and state legislatures to make laws regarding GST.

    Power Distribution and Conflict Resolution:

    • Parliament’s jurisdiction prevails over the State List and the Concurrent List in cases of overlap.
    • In cases of overlap between the Union List and the State List, the Union List takes precedence.
    • If there’s a conflict between the Union List and the Concurrent List, the Union List prevails.
    • In situations of conflict between central and state laws on a Concurrent List subject, central law prevails. An exception exists if the state law has the president’s assent.

    Consultative Approaches

    • Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended maintaining the existing list allocation, emphasizing the absence of a strong case for transferring items from the Concurrent List to the State List.
    • Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) underscored the lack of a formal institution requiring consultation between the Union and states while legislating under the Concurrent List.

  • Supreme Court questions selective Remission

    remission

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court bench handling petitions related to the early release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case raised concerns about the selective application of remission policies in Indian jails.
    • Justices on the two-judge bench questioned why the policy is not uniformly implemented and sought clarifications from the Additional Solicitor General representing the Gujarat government.

    Also read:

    What is Bilkis Bano Case?

    Bilkis Bano Case and Remission

    • Background of the Case: Bilkis Bano was a victim of gangrape during the 2002 riots in Gujarat, where her three-year-old daughter was also killed by a mob. She was pregnant at the time.
    • Remission and Release: All 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case were granted remission by the Gujarat government, leading to their release on August 15, 2022.
    • Justification for Release: The Additional Solicitor General defended the state’s decision, explaining that remission is distinct from sentencing and that guidelines are being considered to address concerns about its application.

    Inquiry into Remission Policy Application

    • Selective Implementation Query: The Supreme Court inquired why the policy of remission, aimed at granting convicts early release, is applied selectively across jails and states.
    • Overcrowding and Undertrials: The court raised concerns about the overcrowding of jails, especially with undertrials, and questioned the reasons behind the policy not being consistently applied.
    • Justice Nagarathna’s Query: Justice B V Nagarathna, leading the bench, emphasized that state-wise statistics are needed to understand the extent to which the remission policy is applied and whether every eligible prisoner is given an opportunity to reform.
    • Relevance of Rudul Sah Case: Referring to the Rudul Sah case, where an individual remained in jail for 14 years despite acquittal, the court highlighted extreme cases where the prison system failed to provide justice. The court emphasized that fairness should prevail in both conviction and acquittal scenarios.

    What is Remission?

    • Stay of Execution: Remission involves suspending or postponing the execution of a sentence.
    • Reduced Duration: It reduces the sentence’s duration while maintaining its original nature.
    • Unchanged Sentence Nature: The sentence’s fundamental characteristics remain intact; only the duration is shortened.
    • Release Date Determined: Remission sets a specific date for the prisoner’s release, marking their legal freedom.
    • Conditional Release: Any breach of remission conditions cancels it, necessitating the completion of the original sentence.

    Constitutional Framework for Remission:

    • Prisons as State Subject: Prisons fall under the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
    • Pardoning Power: Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor) grant pardoning, suspending, remitting, or commuting powers for sentences issued by courts.

    New Norms for Remission:

    (A) Eligibility Criteria

    • Women and transgender convicts aged 50 and above
    • Male convicts aged 60 and above, completing 50% of their sentence (excluding general remission period)
    • Physically challenged convicts with 70% or more disability, completing 50% of their sentence
    • Terminally ill convicts
    • Convicts serving two-thirds (66%) of their sentence
    • Indigent prisoners completing their sentence but detained due to unpaid fines
    • Offenders aged 18-21 with no criminal involvement, completing 50% of their sentence

    (B) Exceptions

    • Excluded: Death sentence convicts, life imprisonment convicts, and those convicted under specific acts.
    • Prohibited Acts: Terrorism-related offences, acts under anti-terror and security legislation, explosives, national security, official secrets, and anti-hijacking.

    Implications and Benefits

    • Justice and Equity: The new norms aim to provide justice to certain categories of prisoners and address their specific circumstances.
    • Overcrowding Mitigation: By releasing eligible convicts, the policy seeks to alleviate prison overcrowding.
    • Reformation Focus: Remission offers prisoners an opportunity to reform, especially those who demonstrate good behaviour or require medical attention.
    • Humanitarian Approach: The policy recognizes the needs of the physically challenged, terminally ill, and aged prisoners.
    • Respecting Youth: Young offenders with no further criminal engagement are given a chance for early rehabilitation.

    Back2Basics: Pardoning Powers in India

    • Pardoning powers in India, enshrined in Article 72 for the President and Article 161 for Governors, provide a mechanism for granting leniency, reducing sentences, or offering reprieves to convicted individuals.
    • These powers play a crucial role in the justice system, allowing for the reconsideration of punishments in specific cases.

    Presidential Pardoning Powers

    • Scope and Authority: Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons, respites, reprieves, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute sentences.
    • Types of Pardoning:
    1. Pardon: Complete exoneration, restoring the person’s status as a normal citizen.
    2. Commutation: Reducing the severity of punishment, e.g., converting a death penalty to life imprisonment.
    3. Reprieve: Delaying execution to allow time for further legal remedies or evidence presentation.
    4. Respite: Reducing the punishment’s degree due to specific circumstances.
    5. Remission: Altering the punishment’s quantum without changing its nature.

    Cases Covered by Article 72

    1. Cases tried by court-martial.
    2. Cases involving offences under Union’s executive power.
    3. Cases with a death sentence.

    Governor’s Pardoning Powers

    • Governor’s Authority: Article 161 grants the Governor the power to pardon, commute, suspend, or remit sentences.
    • Scope and Limitation: Pardoning authority extends to offences within the state’s executive jurisdiction.
    • Exclusion: Governors lack the authority to grant pardons in cases of death sentences.

    Nature of Pardoning Power

    • Presidential Advice: Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the President exercises pardoning powers based on the Council of Ministers’ advice.
    • Governor’s Power: The Governor’s pardoning power is also guided by the principle of seeking advice.
    • Judicial Review: The Epuru Sudhakar case highlighted the possibility of limited judicial review over the pardon powers exercised by the President and Governors. This review aims to prevent arbitrariness.
    • Judicial Retained Power: Despite these powers vested in the Executive, the judiciary retains a measure of authority for judicial review, ensuring fairness and constitutionality.

  • Debate around Article 370 in Supreme Court

    article 370

    Central Idea

    • There are ongoing Supreme Court deliberations regarding the abrogation of Article 370.
    • This article delves into the historical context, legal intricacies, and broader socio-political implications of this pivotal constitutional provision.

    Historical Context of Accession

    • Geo-Political Situation: Jammu and Kashmir’s unique special status originated from the tumultuous geo-political circumstances following India’s Independence and Partition.
    • Standstill Agreements: Maharaja Hari Singh’s decision to enter into “Standstill Agreements” with both India and Pakistan highlighted the State’s strategic positioning and economic interests.
    • Instrument of Accession: Faced with internal turmoil and external aggression, Maharaja Hari Singh’s Instrument of Accession sought India’s military assistance while retaining significant autonomy in internal matters.

    Evolution of Article 370

    • Instrument of Accession’s Reflection: Article 370 was crafted in line with the Instrument of Accession’s principles, preserving the unique terms of Jammu and Kashmir’s association with India.
    • Autonomy Preserved: This provision aimed to strike a balance between safeguarding the State’s autonomy and integrating it into the larger Indian Union.
    • Limited Legislative Authority: Article 370 outlined a limited scope for Parliament to legislate on certain subjects, primarily defense, foreign affairs, and communications, with consultation and concurrence requirements.
    • Special Relationship: This provision established Jammu and Kashmir’s distinct relationship with India, emphasizing that its integration would be contingent on mutual consent.

    Abrogation of Article 370

    • Long-Standing Opposition: The abrogation of Article 370 was a persistent demand of the mainstream political party and its precursor.
    • Multistage Process: The process of abrogation involved presidential orders, amendments, and parliamentary resolutions, culminating in its nullification.

    Petitioners’ Arguments against Revocation

    • Lack of Consultation: Senior litigant accused the Union government of ignoring the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir during the Article 370 abrogation process.
    • Series of Executive Acts: He highlighted that the abrogation was executed through a series of executive acts, starting from the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and state government.
    • Changing Provisions: He pointed out that the proviso to Article 370 (3) was altered to sidestep the need for the recommendation of the now-defunct Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly before rendering Article 370 inoperative.

    Nature of Relationship

    • Federal vs. Quasi-Federal: Litigant underscored that the relationship between the Union government and Jammu and Kashmir was purely federal, distinct from other states’ quasi-federal relationships.
    • Consent of the State: He argued that such significant decisions should have required the consent of the state and its people, considering the unique federal structure.

    CJI’s Inquiries

    • Permanent Character of Article 370: The CJI raised a significant question about the permanence of Article 370 in the Constitution. He inquired whether a constitutional amendment was required to transform its temporary nature into permanence.
    • Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly: He asked whether the absence of abrogation by the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly before its dissolution in 1957 should be considered as deeming Article 370 permanent.

    Supreme Court’s Interpretation

    Ans. No Comparison with Brexit-Type Referendum

    • Brexit Referendum: The CJI referenced the Brexit referendum as a political decision taken in the U.K. which does not align with India’s constitutional framework.
    • Uniqueness of Constitutional Democracy: India’s democracy is grounded in the Constitution, and thus decisions like Article 370’s abrogation involve adherence to established legal procedures.

    Conclusion

    • The ongoing courtroom exchange underlines the essence of constitutional democracy in India, wherein the expression of public opinion occurs through established democratic mechanisms.
    • The Chief Justice’s observations and the petitioners’ arguments shed light on the intricate balance between executive actions, parliamentary representation, and the preservation of constitutional principles.

  • What is President’s Assent?

    Central Idea

    • The President of India granted approval to four significant legislations, encompassing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and a law related to controlling services in Delhi.
    • These Bills, recently endorsed during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, signify the nation’s resolve to adapt its legal framework to contemporary challenges.

    Legislations receiving President’s Assent

    • The Digital Personal Data Protection Act: This law aims to establish a framework to prevent the misuse of individuals’ data by online platforms. It addresses issues related to data privacy and protection in the digital realm. Tap here to read more.
    • The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act: This act provides for the establishment of a three-member authority responsible for handling the transfer and postings of Group A officers under the Delhi government. It pertains to the administration of services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Tap here to read more.
    • The Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act: This act designates digital birth certificates as the exclusive conclusive proof of age, which can be used for various purposes. It introduces the concept of digital certificates for births and deaths. Tap here to read more.
    • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act: This act focuses on promoting ease of business by decriminalizing minor offenses. It introduces amendments to 183 provisions of 42 Acts to reduce legal complexities and facilitate business operations. Tap here to read more.

    What is President’s Assent?

    • Article 111 of the Indian Constitution governs the President’s assent to bills, which marks the final step in the legislative process.
    • The President possesses the power of veto, giving them three options under Article 111 when presented with a bill passed by Parliament:
      1. Assent: The President can give their approval to the bill, leading to its enactment as a law.
      2. Withhold Assent: The President can refuse to sign the bill, preventing it from becoming a law.
      3. Return for Reconsideration: If the bill is not a Money Bill, the President can send it back to Parliament for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the bill again, with or without amendments, the President must give their assent.

    Types of Veto

    • Absolute Veto: The President exercises this veto when refusing to sign a bill, causing it to be rejected and not turned into law. It is typically used when a Private Member’s Bill is used to pass a law or in the event of a change in the cabinet before the President’s signature, where the incoming government advises against signing the legislation.
    • Suspensive Veto: This allows the President to send a bill back to Parliament for further examination or deliberation. If Parliament reapproves the bill with or without amendments, it is adopted as law without the President’s veto.
    • Pocket Veto: In this form of veto, the President neither signs the bill nor sends it back to the legislature. The bill remains pending, and its outcome is uncertain. Unlike the U.S. President, the Indian President is not required to return the bill within a specific timeframe.
    • Qualified Veto: Unlike other types, this veto can be overridden by the legislature with a higher majority. However, this type of veto is not vested with the Indian President.

    [A] Assent to Ordinary Bill:

    For an ordinary bill, the President has three options:

    1. Assent: The President can sign the bill, transforming it into an act.
    2. Withhold Assent: The President can withhold their approval, resulting in the bill not becoming law.
    3. Return for Reconsideration: The President can send the bill back to the Houses for reconsideration. The Houses may amend the bill or not before returning it to the President for assent.

    [B] Assent to Money Bill:

    • The President can give or withhold assent to a Money Bill. However, a Money Bill cannot be returned by the President to the House for reconsideration under the Indian Constitution.

    [C] Assent to Constitutional Amendment Bill:

    • In the case of Constitutional Amendment Bills, the President’s assent is mandatory.
    • The President cannot withhold or return such bills; they become Constitutional Amendment Acts, modifying the Constitution in accordance with their provisions.

    Making a Law Operational

    • After receiving the President’s assent, a law becomes effective.
    • The government drafts guidelines and standards to operationalize the law.
    • Implementation requires the issuance of these guidelines.
    • Rules should be issued within 6 months of law passage, as recommended by the parliament.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2022:

    Q. Consider the following statements:

    1. A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
    2. When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
    3. A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”mauarwed43″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]