💥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

  • Governors can pardon death row: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has held that the Governor of a State can pardon prisoners, including death row ones, even before they have served a minimum of 14 years of a prison sentence.

    SC Judgement: Section 433-A CrPC

    • The Governor’s power to pardon overrides a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 433A.
    • This article mandates that a prisoner’s sentence can be remitted only after 14 years of jail.
    • Such power is in the exercise of the power of the sovereign, though the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the State Government, the apex court observed.
    • Section 433-A of the Code cannot and does not in any way affect the constitutional power conferred on the President/Governor to grant pardon under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution.

    What does one mean by Pardon?

    • A pardon is a government/executive decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense as if the act never occurred.

    Why need Pardon?

    • Pardons can be granted when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have “paid their debt to society”, or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them.
    • Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted.
    • Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted.

    Pardoning powers in India

    • Under the Constitution of India (Article 72), the President of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment.
    • A similar and parallel power vests in the governors of each state under Article 161.

    [I] President

    1. Article 72 says that the president shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense.
    2. The pardoning powers of the Indian President are elucidated in Art 72 of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of pardoning that are mandated by law.
    • Pardon: means completely absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The pardoned criminal will be like a normal citizen.
    • Commutation: means changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsh one, for example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence.
    • Reprieve: means a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence, usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time to apply for Presidential Pardon or some other legal remedy to prove his innocence or successful rehabilitation.
    • Respite: means reducing the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition etc.
    • Remission: means changing the quantum of the punishment without changing its nature, for example reducing twenty-year rigorous imprisonment to ten years.

    Cases as specified by art. 72

    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court-martial;
    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
    • in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

    [II] Governor

    • Similarly, as per article 161: Governor of a State has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law.
    • It must be relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
    • President can grant pardon to a person awarded a death sentence. But a governor of a state does not enjoy this power.

    Nature of the Pardoning Power

    • Not absolute: The question is whether this power to grant pardon is absolute or this power of pardon shall be exercised by the President on the advice of Council of Ministers.
    • Aid and advice: The pardoning power of the president is not absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • Constitution is silent on this: This has not been discussed by the constitution but is the practical truth. Further, it does not provide for any mechanism to question the legality of decisions of President or governors exercising mercy jurisdiction.
    • Judicial review applicable: But the SC in Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of President and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness.

    Some traditions

    • It is important to note that India has a unitary legal system and there is no separate body of state law.
    • All crimes are crimes against the Union of India.
    • Therefore, a convention has developed that the governor’s powers are exercised for only minor offenses.
    • While requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the UTs are deferred to the President.

  • [pib] Sabki Yojna Sabka Vikas Campaign

    The Government has launched ‘Sabki Yojna Sabka Vikas’ campaign for inclusive and holistic preparation of the Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP).

    Sabki Yojna Sabka Vikas

    • Under Article 243 G of the Constitution, Panchayats have been mandated for the preparation and implementation of plans for economic development and social justice.
    • Thus, Panchayats have a significant role to play in the effective and efficient implementation of flagship schemes/programs on subjects of national importance for transforming rural India.
    • The objectives of the campaign broadly include strengthening of elected representatives and Self-Help Groups, evidence-based assessment of progress made.
    • The campaign aimed to help Gram Panchayats (GPs) in preparation of convergent and holistic GPDP through the identification of sectoral infrastructural gaps in respective areas.

    Back2Basics: Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP)

    • The Gram Panchayats are constitutionally mandated for the preparation of GPDP for economic development and social justice utilizing resources available with them.
    • The GPDP should be comprehensive and based on a participatory process involving the community particularly Gram Sabha.
    • It will be in convergence with schemes of all related Central Ministries / Line Departments related to 29 subjects listed in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.

  • Surveillance and human rights

    Context

    The Pegasus revelations reflect an attack on Indian democracy and Indian citizens.

    Role of government in protecting the fundamental and human rights of citizens

    • The surveillance of the target group in India through Pegasus raises doubts about the functioning of democracy in India.
    • Constitutional duty of government: The government has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental and human rights of its citizens, irrespective of who they are.
    • There is clear evidence that the rule of law has been undermined.
    • More evidently, this reflects extremely poor governance.
    • The Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Security Council Secretariat should have forewarned the government and citizens against such surveillance seriously violating privacy and fundamental rights.
    • The Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), declared privacy a constitutionally protected value.

    Violation of human rights

    • India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    • Article 12 provides that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
    • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also signed by India, in Article 17 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
    • In K.S. Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court noted India’s commitments under international law and held that by virtue of Article 51 of the Constitution, India has to endeavour to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations…”
    • The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a fallout of this commitment.

    Recommendations on digital communication technologies

    • The annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in 2014 made recommendations on “digital communications technologies”.
    • Judicial oversight: The UNHCHR report stated, judicial involvement that meets international standards can help to make it more likely that the overall statutory regime will meet the minimum standards that international human rights law requires.
    • At the same time, the report stated that judicial involvement in oversight should not be viewed as a panacea.
    • Independent body: The report also recommended an independent oversight body to keep checks.
    • Effective remedy to victim: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires states parties to ensure that victims of violations of the Covenant have an effective remedy.
    • Role of business: The report also dealt with the role of businesses and stated that when a state requires that an information and communications technology company provide user data, it can only supply it in respect of legitimate reasons.
    • Earlier, due to concerns of member states, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/167 affirming that rights held by people offline must also be protected online.
    • The resolution also called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy, including in digital communication.

    Conclusion

    Indians have a right to call upon NSO to terminate the agreement, if any, with the Indian government or any private player and to cooperate with citizens to unravel the truth.

  • Preventive detention a necessary evil: Supreme Court

    Preventive detention, the dreaded power of the State to restrain a person without trial, could be used only to prevent public disorder, the Supreme Court held in a judgment.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    • Preventive detention means detaining a person so that to prevent that person from commenting on any possible crime.
    • In other words, preventive detention is an action taken by the administration on the grounds of the suspicion that some wrong actions may be done by the person concerned which will be prejudicial to the state.

    PD in India

    A police officer can arrest an individual without orders from a Magistrate and without any warrant if he gets any information that such an individual can commit any offense.

    • Preventive Detention Law, 1950: According to this law any person could be arrested and detained if his freedom would endanger the security of the country, foreign relations, public interests, or otherwise necessary for the country.
    • Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) 1968: Within the ambit of UAPA law the Indian State could declare any organization illegal and could imprison anyone for interrogation if the said organization or person critiqued/questioned Indian sovereignty territorially.

    What is the difference between preventive detention and an arrest?

    • An ‘arrest’ is done when a person is charged with a crime.
    • In the case of preventive detention, a person is detained as he/she is simply restricted from doing something that might deteriorate the law-and-order situation.
    • Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

    Rights of an Arrested Person in India

    A/c to Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Indian constitution:

    • A person cannot be arrested and detained without being informed why he is being arrested.
    • A person who is arrested cannot be denied to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. This means that the arrested person has right to hire a legal practitioner to defend himself/ herself.
    • Every person who has been arrested would be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours.
    • The custody of the detained person cannot be beyond the said period by the authority of magistrate.

    Exceptions for Preventive Detention

    Article 22(3) says that the above safeguards are not available to the following:

    • If the person is at the time being an enemy alien
    • If the person is arrested under certain law made for the purpose of “Preventive Detention”

    Constitutional provision

    • It is extraordinary that the framers of the Indian Constitution, who suffered most because of the Preventive Detention Laws, did not hesitate to give Constitutional sanctity.
    • B.R. Ambedkar was of the opinion that the freedom of the individual should not supersede the interests of the state.
    • He had also stated that the independence of the country was in a state of inflancy and in order to save it, preventive detention was essential.

    Issues with preventive detention

    • Arbitrariness: The police determinations of whether a person poses a threat are not tested at a trial by leading evidence or examined by legally trained persons.
    • Rights violation: Quiet often, there is no trial (upto 3 months), no periodic review, and no legal assistance for the detained person.
    • Abuse: It does not provide any procedural protections such as to reduce detainees’ vulnerability to torture and discriminatory treatment, and to prevent officials’ misusing preventive detention for subversive activities.
    • Tool for suppression: In the absence of proper safeguards, preventive detention has been misused, particularly against the Dalits and the minorities.

    What has the apex court recently rule?

    • Preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder.
    • The court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to harm, danger or alarm, or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large.
    • The State should not arbitrarily resort to “preventive detention” to deal with all and sundry “law and order” problems, which could be dealt with by the ordinary laws of the country.
    • Whenever an order under a preventive detention law is challenged, one of the questions the court must ask in deciding its legality is: was the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation?
    • If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention order will be illegal.

    Upholding the Article 21

    • Preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 (due process of law) read with Article 22 (safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention) and the statute in question, Justice Nariman ruled.
    • The Liberty of a citizen is a most important right won by our forefathers after long, historical, and arduous struggles.

    Conclusion

    • The constitutional philosophy of personal liberty is an idealistic view, the curtailment of liberty for reasons of State’s security; public order, disruption of national economic discipline, etc.
    • They are envisaged as a necessary evil to be administered under strict constitutional restrictions.
    • India is a large country and many separatist tendencies against the national security and integrity existed and existing and a strict law is required to counter the subversive activities.
    • The number of persons detained in these acts is not a very large and due attention is made before preventive detention.
    • Having such kind of acts has a restraining influence on the anti-social and subversive elements.
    • The state should have very effective powers to deal with the acts in which the citizens involve in hostile activities, espionage, coercion, terrorism, etc.

  • Tamil Nadu legislature turns 100

    The Assembly chambers at Fort St. George, the 17th-century vestige of the colonial era, and Tamil Nadu’s seat of power have completed 100 years of existence.

    Do you know?

    Fort St. George is the first English fortress in India, founded in 1639 at the coastal city of Madras, the modern city of Chennai. The construction of the fort provided the impetus for further settlements and trading activity, in what was originally an uninhabited land.

    Elections in Tamil Nadu

    • Tamil Nadu witnessed elections in November 1920 as a result of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report and the Government of India Act of 1919.
    • The electors included only men, accounting for just 3% of the population.
    • The concept of dyarchy came into being with Ministers, who were Indians, gaining limited control over certain subjects, such as local self-government and education.
    • It was then that the office of the Chief Minister, also called Premier, got instituted.

    Key works accomplished

    • Reservations in public employment: For the first time, caste became the basis for appointment to public services. It took over 70 years for the Central government to follow the principle in its institutions for education and employment.
    • Above 50% cap in reservation: In December 1993, the scheme of 69% reservation for Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, SCs and STs got legal safeguard. The law was subsequently included in the IX Schedule of the Constitution, through an amendment passed in Parliament, so that its validity could not be challenged.

    Other facts

    • Women’s suffrage: In early 1927, Muthulakshmi Reddy, the well-known medical practitioner and social activist, became the first woman member of the Council and, in no time, became the Deputy President of the Council.
    • Gopuram as an emblem: The symbol features a ‘gopuram’ (temple tower) – characteristic of south Indian temples has been adopted as the state emblem.
    • Change of name: During the two-year rule of the DMK founder C.N. Annadurai, the Assembly, in July 1967, adopted a motion renaming Madras State as Tamil Nadu, which later got the approval of Parliament.
    • Social reforms: It has passed several landmark laws for the welfare of women, such as Devadasi abolition, equal rights to women in property and the constitution of the State Commission for Women.

    Back2Basics: Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

    Central Legislature thereafter called the Indian Legislature was reconstituted on the enlarged and more representative character.

    • Bicameral legislature: The act set up bicameral legislatures at the centre consisting of two houses- the Council of the States (Upper House) and the Central Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
    • Election and nominations: It consisted of the Council of State consisted of 60 members of whom 34 members were elected and the Legislative Assembly consisted of about 145 members, of whom about 104 were elected and the rest nominated.
    • Separation of power: The central and provincial subjects were demarcated and separated.
    • Diarchy: The Provincial subjects were further divided into Transferred Subjects and Reserved Subjects, the legislative council had no say in the latter.
    • Communal representation: The principle of separate electorate was further extended to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans.
    • Working review: It provided for the appointment of a statutory commission to report the working of the act after ten years.

  • India at 75 is ready for a sedition-less future

    Context

    Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has ignited a passionate debate during a preliminary hearing concerning whether “sedition” should be an offence at all, and how to prevent its misuse or abuse, were it to remain

    Issues with the sedition under Section 124A

    • Against fundamental right: The meandering meanings of expressions such as “disaffection” towards the government, “hatred”, “contempt” etc. constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the authors of the amended Article 19(2) included “sedition” as a ground for “reasonable restriction” to freedom of speech and expression.
    • Colonial past: CJI Ramana in preliminary hearings has pointedly asked the Attorney General whether “sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is still required after 75 years of independence from colonial rule.
    • Prone to misuse: The lack of definition of terms used in the section leaves vide the scope for interpretation and thus rampant misuse and abuse.

    Way forward

    • Some law luminaries have found new stirrings of hope in the Supreme Court to strike it down.
    • Find means to prevent misuse and abuse: Alternative way,as the learned attorney general observed is to find constitutional ways and practical means to prevent the abuse and misuse of law.
    • Forbid rampant private complaints:  A most immediate step is to forbid rampant private complaints by citizens and authorise only very senior police officials to take appropriate action.

    Conclusion

    What Gandhiji said — the law may not be used to “manufacture affection” under pain of a penal sanction — was as true then as it remains now. It is high time to realise that the law of “sedition” must go, even when it may strictly not even exist!

  • Explained: Creamy Layer in OBCs

    A proposal to revise the criteria for defining the “creamy layer” among OBCs has been pending for years, and MPs have raised the issue during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament.

    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.

  • NEET’s All India Quota, and OBC & EWS reservation

    The Union government has approved reservations for the OBC and EWS (Economically Weaker Section) categories within the All India Quota (AIQ) for NEET, the uniform entrance examination for medical and dental colleges across the country.

    What is NEET?

    • The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) is the entrance examination for entry to all undergraduate (NEET-UG) and postgraduate (NEET-PG) medical and dental courses in the country.
    • Until 2016, the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) was the national-level entrance examination for medical colleges.
    • State governments used to hold separate entrance tests for seats that were not contested at an all-India level.
    • NEET was held for the first time in 2003, but discontinued the following year.
    • On April 13, 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the newly inserted section 10-D of the Indian Medical Council Act.
    • This provided for a uniform entrance examination to all medical educational institutions at the undergraduate level and postgraduate level in Hindi, English and various other languages.
    • Since then, NEET has been the uniform entrance test for medical courses across the country.

    What is the All-India Quota?

    • Although the same examination is held across the country, a chunk of the seats in state medical/dental colleges is reserved for students domiciled in their respective states.
    • The remaining seats —15% in UG and 50% in PG — are surrendered by the states to the All India Quota.
    • The AIQ scheme was introduced in 1986 under the directions of the Supreme Court to provide for domicile-free, merit-based opportunities to students from any state to study in a good medical college in any other state.
    • A student domiciled in Uttar Pradesh, for example, may be eligible for admission to a seat in a state government medical college in West Bengal, provided she scores high enough in the national merit list.
    • If her score is not high enough for AIQ, she may still hope for admission under the state quota in her home state.
    • In deemed/central universities, ESIC, and Armed Forces Medical College (AFMC), 100% seats are reserved under the AIQ.

    What was the reservation policy followed so far?

    • Until 2007, no reservation was implemented within the All-India Quota for medical admission.
    • On January 31, 2007, in Abhay Nath v University of Delhi and Others, the Supreme Court directed that reservation of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes be introduced in the AIQ.
    • The same year, the government passed the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2007 providing for 27% reservation to OBC students in central government institutions.
    • While state government medical and dental colleges provide reservations to OBCs in seats outside the All India Quota, this benefit was so far not extended to seats allocated under the AIQ in these state colleges.
    • The 10% EWS quota under the Constitution (One Hundred And Third Amendment) Act, 2019, too, has been implemented in central educational institutions, but not in the NEET AIQ for state institutions.

    What led to the decision?

    • The denial of OBC and EWS reservations has been the subject of protests for years.
    • In July last year, the Madras High Court ruled that OBC students too can avail reservation in the AIQ.
    • It held that the reservation could not be implemented for the then academic year for want of time, and can be implemented from 2021-22.

  • Supreme Court strikes down part of Constitution Amendment on cooperative societies

    Context

    In Union of India vs Rajendra N. Shah, the Supreme Court of India partially struck down the 97th Constitutional Amendment.

    Background of the 97th Constitutional Amendment

    • The 97th Constitutional Amendment came into effect from February 15 2012.
    • The amendment added “cooperative societies” to the protected forms of association under Article 19(1)(c), elevating it to a fundamental right.
    • It also inserted Part IXB in the Constitution which laid down the terms by which cooperative societies would be governed, in more granular detail than was palatable.

    Why was the Amendment struck down?

    • The Constitution can be amended only by the procedure provided in Article 368.
    • The amendment procedure requires a majority of the total strength of each of the Houses of Parliament and two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
    • A proviso to the Article lists out some articles and chapters of the Constitution, which can be amended only by a special procedure.
    • The special procedure requires that the amendment will also have to be ratified by the legislatures of half of the States.
    • It is precisely on the grounds of violation of this additional requirement that the 97th Constitutional Amendment was challenged.
    • The Gujarat High Court struck down the amendment in 2013 on the grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirements under Article 368(2) by virtue of not having been ratified by the States and had also given an additional finding that the 97th Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The Union Government challenged the Gujarat High Court judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment neither directly nor effectively changed the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
    • The court took the example of the 73rd and 74th Amendments which were similar in impact on the legislative power of the States, had been passed by the special procedure involving ratification by State legislatures.
    • Procedural lacuna: The court noted that the procedure had not been followed in this case.
    • The Supreme Court clarified that the does not go into the question of the amendment being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The judgment makes a distinction between cooperative societies operating in one State and multi-State cooperative societies and holds that while a ratification by half the State legislatures would have been necessary insofar as it applies to cooperative societies in one State.

    Increasing control of the Union government

    • Union government has been acquiring incrementally greater control of cooperative societies over the years.
    • Cooperative banks have been brought under the purview of the Reserve Bank of India.
    • Union Government recently established Union Ministry for Cooperation.

    Issues with Central control over cooperative sector

    • Domain of States: The idea that the cooperative sector ought to be controlled at the State level and not at the central or Union level goes back all the way to the Government of India Act, 1919 which placed cooperatives in the provincial list.
    • Part of State list: Entry 32 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution confer power on the State legislatures to make laws pertaining to incorporation, regulation and the winding up of cooperative societies.
    • The cooperative sector has always been in the domain of the States or provinces.
    • Different organising principles: The organising principles and mechanism of these cooperatives differ from area to area and depend on the industry or crop which forms the fulcrum of the cooperative.
    • Homogeneity nor require: Homogeneity in this area would only result in the creation of round holes in which square pegs no longer fit.
    • They also would not really serve to break the control some political interests have taken over cooperatives.

    Conclusion

    It is best that the Government takes this judgment in the right spirit and stays away from further meddling in the cooperative sector, notwithstanding the creation of the new Ministry.

  • Right to be Forgotten in India

    A TV celebrity has approached the Delhi High Court with a plea saying that his videos, photographs, and articles, etc. be removed from the internet citing his “Right to be Forgotten”.

    What is the plea about?

    • The plea mentions that the posts and videos on the internet related to him have caused the petitioner psychological pain for his diminutive acts.
    • The plea also states that the petitioner’s mistakes in his personal life become and remains in public knowledge for generations to come.
    • Consequently, the values enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the emergent jurisprudential concept of the Right to be Forgotten becomes extremely relevant in the present case.”

    What is the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in the Indian context?

    • The Right to be Forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by Parliament.
    • In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.

    What does the Personal Data Protection Bill say about this?

    • The Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019, and it aims to set out provisions meant for the protection of the personal data of individuals.
    • Clause 20 under Chapter V of this draft bill titled “Rights of Data Principal” mentions the “Right to be Forgotten.”
    • It states that the “data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by a data fiduciary”.
    • Therefore, broadly, under the Right to be forgotten, users can de-link, limit, delete or correct the disclosure of their personal information held by data fiduciaries.
    • A data fiduciary means any person, including the State, a company, any juristic entity, or any individual who alone or in conjunction with others determines the purpose and means of the processing of personal data.