💥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

  • Protest should not hinder traffic: SC

    The Supreme Court took a nuanced stand saying farmers have the right to protest but the agitation should not hinder traffic or public movement.

    Right to Protest

    • When a group, community, or even a person goes up to protest, it is usually to showcase their disapproval or demur against any action, policy, statement, etc of state or government or any organization.
    • Mostly the flow of protest is driven through political waves that also demonstrate the collective organization of people to make the government or state address their issues and take steps to overcome them.
    • In India, the right to protest is the manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech.

    Constitutional Backing

    • Article 19(1) states that All citizens shall have the right:

    (a) to freedom of speech and expression;

    (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

    (c) to form associations or unions;

    (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

    (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

    (f) omitted

    (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

    Reasonable restrictions on Protest

    • Article 51A makes it a fundamental duty for every person to safeguard public property and to avoid violence during the protests and resorting to violence during public protests results in infringement of key fundamental duty of citizens.
    • Article 19(1)(b) states about the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Thereby, the right to peaceful protest is bestowed to Indian citizens by our Constitution.
    • Article 19(2) imposes a restriction on a person to prevent him from making a defamatory statement which defames the reputation of another person.
    • Article 19(3): The reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • What Indian lawmaking needs: More scrutiny, less speed

    Context

    The recent Monsoon Session of Parliament is proof that the speed of passing laws trumps their rigorous scrutiny in our legislative process.

    Issues with lawmaking process in India

    1) Avoiding pre-legislative scrutiny

    • In our parliamentary system, a majority of laws originate from the government.
    • Each ministry decides the path its legislative proposals will take from ideation to enactment.
    • For example, last year, the Shipping Ministry requested public feedback on the two bills — Marine Aids and Inland Vessels.
    • This mechanism enables the strengthening of the legal proposal through stakeholder inputs before being brought to Parliament.
    • However, ministries expedite their bills by not putting them through a similar pre-legislative scrutiny process.

    2) Misuse of Ordinance route

    • Over the years, successive governments have exploited the spirit of this constitutional provision.
    • Governments have promulgated an ordinance a few days before a parliamentary session, cut a session short to issue one, and pushed a law that is not urgent through the ordinance route.
    •  But the executive sometimes fails to follow through on the legislative urgency.
    • Bringing in law through the ordinance route also bypasses parliamentary scrutiny.
    • But parliamentary committees rarely scrutinise bills to replace ordinances because this may take time and defeat the issuing of the ordinance.
    • Over the last few years, bills like GST, Consumer Protection, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Labour Codes, Surrogacy, and DNA Technology have benefited from parliamentary committees’ scrutiny.
    • Their closed-door technical deliberations, inputs from ministry officials, subject-matter experts, and ordinary citizens have strengthened government bills.

    3) Delay in rule framing

    • Unnecessary urgency in getting laws passed by Parliament does not result in their immediate implementation.
    • For the law to work on the ground, the government is supposed to frame rules.
    • Last year the Cabinet Secretary twice requested the personal intervention of secretaries heading the Union ministries to frame regulations for bringing into force the laws made by Parliament.
    • Before the Monsoon Session, he wrote a follow-up letter on similar lines to his colleagues.

    Implication of fast-tracking the law-making

    • Difficulty in achieving desired outcomes: Hurriedly-made and inadequately-scrutinised laws hardly ever achieve their desired outcomes.
    • Wastage of time of legislature: Enacting statutes without proper scrutiny also wastes the legislature’s time when the government approaches Parliament to amend such laws.
    • Loss of opportunity: But the unmeasurable cost of a poorly-made law is in the loss of opportunity to an entire nation that has to comply with it.

    Way forward

    • The government must ensure that it identifies the gaps in our legal system proactively.
    • All its bills should go through pre-legislative scrutiny before being brought to Parliament.
    • The legislature, on its part, should conduct in-depth scrutiny of government bills.
    • Mandatory scrutiny of bills by parliamentary committees should become the rule and not the exception.

    Conclusion

    India is in urgent need of course correction in its legislating process. What we need is a robust law-making process.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Arrest is not always a must, says Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has held that merely because the law allows arrest does not mean the State can use the power indiscriminately to crush personal liberty.

    What is an Arrest?

    • An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system.
    • It is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody (legal protection or control), usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime.
    • After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged.

    Distinction between arrest and detention

    • There exists a distinction between an investigatory stop or detention and an arrest.
    • The distinction tends to be whether or not the stop is “brief and cursory” in nature, and whether or not a reasonable individual would feel free to leave.

    Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to every individual and states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

    Logic behind arresting

    The Supreme Court has noted that:

    • The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when the custodial investigation becomes necessary.
    • Or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond.
    • The court was emphatic that a distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for the exercise of this power.

    Sanctions for arrest as outlined by the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court clarified that:

    (A) Avoiding arrests

    • Arrest isn’t a compulsion: Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
    • Justification for arrest: A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for the exercise of it, it noted.
    • Dignity of the undertrial: If an arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.
    • Evidence protection: There should not be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused since many times there is no apprehension that an accused would abscond or tamper with evidence.

    (B) Broad implications of Sec. 170 CrPC

    • Narrow interpretation: Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been wrongly interpreted by the police and trial courts to make an arrest of the accused mandatory at the time of filing of the charge sheet.
    • Custody, not arrest: The word “custody” in Section 170 had been wrongly interpreted as ‘arrest’.The word ‘custody’ appearing in Section 170 does not contemplate either police or judicial custody.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

     

  • Role of Speaker

    Context

    The decline in the functioning of India’s Parliament — and state assemblies as well — is caused by one primary reason: The lack of independence and impartiality of the Speaker.

    Important role of the Speaker

    • Our Constitution, after extensive debate, adopted the Westminster model of governance.
    • In the Lok Sabha, as in the United Kingdom, the Speaker is the supreme authority; he has vast powers and it is his primary duty to ensure the orderly conduct of the business of the House.
    • Constitutional law points out the two essential qualities of a Speaker: Independence and impartiality.
    • As the principal spokesperson of the Lok Sabha, the Speaker represents its collective voice.
    • Indeed, the supremacy of Parliament is emphasised by Article 75(3) of the Constitution: “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
    •  Pandit Nehru referred to the Speaker as “the symbol of the nation’s freedom and liberty” and emphasised that Speakers should be men of “outstanding ability and impartiality”.

    How role of Speaker matters in functioning Legislature

    • Power to allow debate or discussion: It is the Speaker’s duty to decide what issues will be taken up for discussion.
    • He has the sole discretion to permit an adjournment motion to be tabled or to admit a calling attention notice, if the issue is of urgent public importance.
    • The present practice of the Speaker continuing to be an active member of the ruling party has the inevitable result of his refusing to allow any debate or discussion that may be essential in national interest but may embarrass the ruling party.
    • This inevitably leads to constant disruption of Parliament by the Opposition.
    • The stalling of parliamentary proceedings has led to the passing of important bills in several sessions without any discussion.
    • Violation of separation of power between legislature and executive: The most dangerous consequence is the vastly increased powers that the executive — the bureaucracy — begins to command by default.
    • In 1951, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court (In Re Delhi Laws Act Case) held that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated to the bureaucracy; law-making must remain the domain of the legislature.
    • This constitutional mandate is now increasingly and consistently being violated by issuing rules and notifications that have far-reaching consequences.
    • The new rules on information technology and electronic commerce are clear instances of changes that should have come about by a parliamentary law.
    • And worse still is the power given to the executive to issue retrospective notifications — a step unknown to any civilised democracy.
    • Partisan conduct in anti-defection law issues: Several judgments on the anti-defection law have been rendered by the Supreme Court.
    • A common factor that shows up in these rulings is the blatant, partisan conduct of speakers in state assemblies.

    Way forward

    • Speaker should resign from Party: It should be made mandatory that the Speaker ought to resign from his party and his sole allegiance must be to the Constitution and to maintaining the dignity of the House.
    • The separation of powers is part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
    • It is imperative that the Speaker of every legislature resigns from his party to honour his constitutional obligation of independence and impartiality. 
    • This must be accepted as the primary responsibility of every ruling party, both at the Centre and in each state, and made into a constitutional convention.

    Conlcusion

    The option is a binary: Either allow Parliament and state legislatures to descend into terminal decline or make the Speaker truly independent and let every legislature perform its constitutional function.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Issue of the oath of an elected representative

    Context

    Some Cabinet Ministers in Karnataka who took oath recently stood out from the rest.  All these oaths run against the spirit of the Constitution.

    Background of agnostic Constitution

    • The public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God.
    • During the Constituent Assembly debate, B.R. Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India…”.
    •  H.V. Kamath moved an amendment to the Preamble, “In the name of God, we, the people of India…”.
    • To this proposal, another member, A. Thanu Pillai said that if this amendment is accepted it would affect the fundamental right of freedom of faith.
    • He said that a man has a right to believe in God or not, according to the Constitution.
    • H.N. Kunzru opposed Kamath’s amendment stating that in a matter that vitally concerns every man individually, the collective view should not be forced on anybody.
    • The amendment was defeated, thereby excluding ‘God’ from the Preamble.
    • Thus, our founding fathers gave us an agnostic Constitution.

    What are provisions in Consitution

    • The public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God.
    • However, the framers of the Indian Constitution rejected this conception of secularism.
    • Constitution gives office-holders an option to swear in God’s name if they so wished.
    • The Supreme Court of India observed in 2012 that the oath by an elected representative should be taken “in the name of God” if the person is a believer or should be “solemnly affirmed” if the person is a non-believer.
    • The Supreme Court said that the oath of an elected representative should be in strict compliance with the wordings of the Constitution. 

    Way forward

    • As the Republic belongs to all the citizenry, irrespective of whether he is a theist, atheist or agnostic, and irrespective of his caste or religion, a person occupying a constitutional post should take oath in the format of ‘“solemnly affirm”.
    • The Constitution should be amended accordingly.

    Conclusion

    If a person takes the oath in the name of a God affiliated to a particular religion or caste, the citizenry cannot expect the absence of affection or ill-will from him. The allegiance of a person holding a constitutional post should only be to the Constitution.

  • Bringing Minority Schools under RTE

    The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has recommended that Minority Schools be brought under Right to Education and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.

    What is the report?

    • The report is titled “Impact of Exemption under Article 15 (5) with regards to Article 21A of the Constitution of India on Education of Children in Minority Communities”.
    • It has assessed minority schools (schools run by minority organizations) in the country.

    Key recommendations of the report

    • Minority schools are exempt from implementing The Right to Education policy and do not fall under the government’s Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
    • Through this report, the NCPCR has recommended that these schools be brought under both RTE and SSA, amongst a host of other recommendations.

    Developments in RTE

    (1) 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002):

    • In 2002, the 86th Amendment to the Constitution provided the Right to Education as a fundamental right.
    • The same amendment inserted Article 21A, which made the RTE a fundamental right for children aged between six and 14 years.
    • The passage of the amendment was followed by the launch of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) that aimed to provide “useful and relevant, elementary education’’ to all children between six and 14 years.

    (2) 93rd Constitutional Amendment (2006):

    • In 2006, the 93rd CAA inserted Clause (5) in Article 15.
    • This enabled the State to create special provisions, such as reservations for the advancement of any backward classes of citizens like SCs and STs, in all aided or unaided educational institutes, except minority educational institutes.

    (3) RTE Act (2009):

    • The government subsequently brought the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which centers around inclusive education for all, making it mandatory to include underprivileged children in schools.
    • Specifically, Section 12(1)(c) of the Act provided for a 25 percent reservation of seats in unaided schools for admission of children from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.

    How are minority schools exempt from RTE and SSA?

    • Article 30 of the Constitution states the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
    • This article aims to provide opportunities to children from different religious and linguistic minority communities to have and conserve a distinct culture, script, and language.
    • Subsequently, in 2012, through an amendment, the institutions imparting religious education were exempted from following the RTE Act.
    • Later on, in 2014 (Pramati judgment), while discussing the validity of exemption under Article 15 (5), the Supreme Court declared the RTE Act inapplicable to schools with minority status.
    • This was in the view that the Act should not interfere with the right of minorities to establish and administer institutions of their choice.

    Why has the NCPCR carried out the study?

    • The Commission’s objective was to assess the impact of this exemption of minority educational institutions from various guidelines that are mandatory for non-minority institutions.
    • It opined that the different sets of rules under Article 21A, Article 30, and Article 15 (5) act as creating a conflicting picture between the fundamental rights of children and the rights of minority communities.

    What are the findings of the report?

    The Commission has observed in the report that many children who are enrolled in these institutions or schools were not able to enjoy the entitlements that other children are enjoying.

    (1) Missionaries schools are elite cocoons

    • It has been said that there have been certain detrimental effects of the exemption – on the one hand, there are schools, mostly Christian Missionary schools.
    • Such schools are admitting only a certain class of students and leaving underprivileged children out of the system, thus becoming what the Commission has called “cocoons populated by elites’’.

    (2) Minorities schools become overcrowded without facilities

    • As opposed to this, other types of minority schools, in particular madrasas, have become “ghettos of underprivileged students languishing in backwardness’’ says the Commission.
    • The Commission has said that students in madrasas that do not offer a secular course along with religious studies – such as the sciences – have fallen behind and feel a sense of alienation and “inferiority’’ when they leave school.

    What are the findings with regards to madrasas?

    There are four kinds of madrasas in India:

    1. Madrasas recognized by the government, which usually impart both religious as well as secular Courses, including the sciences has four percent Mulsim students (15.3 lakh) said the Sachar Committee report.
    2. There are 10,064 such madrasas in India and the Commission points out that these were the ones taken into consideration by the Sachar Committee when it said four percent of Mulsim students (15.3 lakh) studied in madrasas.
    3. There are unrecognized madrasas, which the government hasn’t recognized because they do not impart secular education or lack physical infrastructure, including the number and quality of teachers.
    4. Then, there are unmapped madrasas that have never applied for recognition and function in a more informal setup – there is no data on how many such madrasas exist and how many students study there.

    Why bring them under RTE?

    • The Commission believes this took place as schools wanted to operate outside the legal mandate to reserve seats for backward classes.
    • RTE provides for norms pertaining to basic minimum infrastructure, a number of teachers, books, uniforms, Mid-day Meal, etc., that benefits students in minority schools have not been receiving.

  • [pib] Income Limit of OBCs and Creamy Layer

    A proposal for revision of the income criteria for determining the Creamy Layer amongst the OBCs is under consideration of the Government.

    What is the Creamy Layer?

    • Creamy Layer is a concept that sets a threshold within which OBC reservation benefits are applicable.
    • While there is a 27% quota for OBCs in government jobs and higher educational institutions, those falling within the “creamy layer” cannot get the benefits of this quota.

    Basis of Creamy Layer

    • It is based on the recommendation of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission).
    • The government in 1990 had notified 27% reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in vacancies in civil posts and services that are to be filled on direct recruitment.
    • After this was challenged, the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer.

    How is it determined?

    • Following the order in Indra Sawhney, an expert committee headed by Justice (retired) R N Prasad was constituted for fixing the criteria for determining the creamy layer.
    • In 1993, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) listed out various categories of people of certain rank/status/income whose children cannot avail the benefit of OBC reservation.
    1. For those not in government, the current threshold is an income of Rs 8 lakh per year.
    2. For children of government employees, the threshold is based on their parents’ rank and not income.
    3. For instance, an individual is considered to fall within the creamy layer if either of his or her parents is in a constitutional post; if either parent has been directly recruited in Group-A; or if both parents are in Group-B services.
    4. If the parents enter Group-A through promotion before the age of 40, their children will be in the creamy layer.
    5. Children of a Colonel or higher-ranked officer in the Army, and children of officers of similar ranks in the Navy and Air Force, too, come under the creamy layer.
    6. Income from salaries or agricultural land is not clubbed while determining the creamy layer (2004).

    What is happening now?

    • MPs have raised questions about the pending proposal for revising the criteria.
    • They have asked whether the provision of a creamy layer for government services only for OBC candidates is rational and justified.

    Has it ever been revised?

    • Other than the income limit, the current definition of the creamy layer remains the same as the DoPT had spelled out in 1993 and 2004.
    • The income limit has been revised over the years.
    • No other orders for the definition of the creamy layer have been issued.
    • While the DoPT had stipulated that it would be revised every three years, the first revision since 1993 (Rs 1 lakh per year) happened only in 2004 (Rs 2.50 lakh), 2008 (Rs 4.50 lakh), 2013 (Rs 6 lakh), and 2017 (Rs 8 lakh).
    • It is now more than three years since the last revision.

    What does the government propose to do about the revision?

    • A draft Cabinet note has stated that the creamy layer will be determined on all income, including salary calculated for income tax, but not agriculture income.
    • The government is considering a consensus on Rs 12 lakh but salary and agriculture income are also being added to the gross annual income.

  • Parties get 48 hours to publish candidates’ criminal records

    The Supreme Court has directed the political parties to publish the criminal history if any, of their election candidates on the homepage of their party websites under the caption ‘candidates with criminal antecedents’ within 48 hours of their selection.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
    2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (CSP 2020)

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”89w3xkyopz” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here: [/wpdiscuz-feedback]

    Criminalization of politics: Indian Case

    • The criminalization of politics has become a headache for the Indian democracy and it is a harsh reality now.
    • Criminalization of politics in India includes political control of the police, state money, corruption, weak laws, lack of ethics, values, vote bank politics and loopholes in the function of the election commission.
    • Deep down, it’s a large nexus of police, money, corrupt bureaucracy, casteism, religion and the drawbacks of functioning in the election commission.

    On a serious note

    • The Supreme Court has warned Parliament that the nation is losing patience with the advent of criminals in politics even as it imposed fines on major political parties for covering up from voters the criminal past of the candidates.
    • Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of the immediate pressing concerns of the legislative branch of government.
    • The court said it did not take political parties much time to flout its February 2020 judgment, which had directed them to prominently publish the criminal antecedents.

    What was the Feb 2020 Judgment?

    The Supreme Court earlier in Feb 2020 had ordered political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.

    • Reasons for nomination: It has also asked for the reasons that goaded them to field suspected criminals over decent people.
    • Publication of records: The information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as the parties’ social media handles.
    • 48hr time frame: It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
    • Contempt for non-compliance: It also ordered political parties to submit compliance reports with the Election Commission of India within 72 hours or risk contempt of court action.
    • No escape: The judgment is applicable to parties both at Central and State levels.

    Immediate Reason

    • The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of MPs have criminal records.
    • The number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences —“unlawful assembly” and “defamation”.
    • The real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors.

    Why are such tainted candidates inducted by political parties?

    • Popularity: Such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties.
    • Vested interests: Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook.
    • Destabilizing other electors: Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records.

    A harsh reality

    • The NN Vohra committee’s report on the criminalization of politics discussed how criminal gangs flourish under the care and protection of politicians.
    • Many times the candidates themselves are the gang leaders.
    • This protection is paid back to them during elections through capital investment in election spending and voter support.

    Need for clean politics

    • Upholding morality: It is extremely important that the people who enter the field of politics have a clear image and high moral character.
    • Ensuring rule of law: A leader with criminal character undoubtedly tends to undermine the rule of law.

  • Honour of the National Flag

    Ahead of Independence Day, the Centre has urged all citizens not to use a national flag made up of plastic and asked states and Union Territories to ensure strict compliance with the flag code.

    Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act

    • The law, enacted on December 23, 1971, penalizes the desecration of or insult to Indian national symbols, such as the National Flag, the Constitution, the National Anthem, and the Indian map, as well as contempt of the Constitution of India.
    • Section 2 of the Act deals with insults to the Indian National Flag and the Constitution of India.

    Do you know?

    Article 51 ‘A’ contained in Part IV A i.e. Fundamental Duties asks:

    To abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem in clause (a).

    Other provisions

    • Section 3.22 of The Flag Code of India, 2002 deals with laws, practices and conventions that apply to the display of the national flag.
    • Section 3.58 says: On occasions of State/Military/Central Paramilitary Forces funerals, the flag shall be draped over the bier or coffin with the saffron towards the head of the bier or coffin.
    • The Flag shall not be lowered into the grave or burnt in the pyre.

    Try this

    Q.The national motto of India, ‘Satyameva Jayate’ inscribed below the Emblem of India is taken from:

    (a) Katha Upanishad

    (b) Chandogya Upanishad

    (c) Aitareya Upanishad

    (d) Mundaka Upanishad

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”bqrsust0mi” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Answer this PYQ here: [/wpdiscuz-feedback]

    Use of flag in funerals

    • The flag can only be used during a funeral if it is accorded the status of a state funeral.
    • Apart from police and armed forces, state funerals are held when people who are holding or have held the office of President, Vice-President, PM, Cabinet Minister, or state CM pass away.
    • The status of a state funeral can be accorded in case of death of people not belonging to the armed forces, police or the above-mentioned categories by the state government.
    • Then too, the national flag can be used.

    Disposing of the national flag

    • A/c to the Flag Code, such paper flags are not to be discarded or thrown on the ground after the event.
    • Such flags are to be disposed of, in private, consistent with the dignity of the flag.

    Back2Basics:

    Story of our National Flag

     

  • 127th Constitutional Amendment Bill

    The Government will bring the 127th Amendment Bill to Parliament to clarify “some provisions in the 102nd Constitutional amendment Bill” to restore the power of the states to identify backward classes — a demand made by a number of regional parties and even the ruling party’s own OBC leaders.

    Try answering:

    Q. Consider the following statements:

    1. An amendment to the Constitution of India can be initiated by an introduction of a bill in the Lok Sabha only.
    2. If such an amendment seeks to make changes in the federal character of the Constitution, the amendment also requires to be ratified by the legislature of all the States of India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (CSP 2013)

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”q7zfr0mjpa” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″][/wpdiscuz-feedback]

    127th Constitutional Amendment Bill

    • The Constitutional 127th Amendment Bill will amend Articles 342 A — clauses 1 and 2 — and will introduce clause 342 A (3) specifically authorizing states to maintain their State List.
    • There will be a consequential amendment in Articles 366(26C) and 338B (9). States will then be able to directly notify OBC and SEBCs without having to refer to the NCBC.
    • There has been some confusion about what comprises a state and Central list, and this clause will clarify that.

    Why need amendment?

    • The Centre had earlier moved a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the court’s interpretation of the 102nd amendment of the Constitution in the Maratha reservation judgment.
    • The 102nd CA had scrapped the power of the states to identify and notify socially and educationally backward classes.
    • The move is politically significant as the govt is banking heavily on OBC votes in key states that go to the polls next year.

    About the 102nd CAA

    • The 102nd  CAA, 2018 has given constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
    • With this, NCBC gets powers to examine the grievances in the implementation of the various welfare schemes meant for OBCs.
    • The status of the Central list of OBCs has been elevated by giving constitutional status to the list.
    • It has given powers to the Parliament to make changes in the Central OBC list.

    Back2Basics: Constitutional Amendment

    • Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation’s fundamental law or supreme law.
    • The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India.
    • There is a limitation imposed on the amending power of the constitution of India.
    • The most famous among them is the Basic structure doctrine as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

    Procedure

    • An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament.
    • The Bill must then be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a special majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
    • There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the two Houses.
    • If the amendment seeks to make any change in any of the provisions mentioned in the provision to article 368, it must be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States.
    • Although there is no prescribed time limit for ratification, it must be completed before the amending Bill is presented to the President for his assent.

    Types:

    1. Simple majority of the Parliament: Creation of new states, Delimitation of constituencies etc.
    2. Special majority of the Parliament: for Fundamental rights and DPSPs
    3. Special majority of the Parliament and the ratification of at least half of the state legislatures: Election of the President and its manner, Supreme Court and high courts etc.