💥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

  • TN Governor to decide on Ex-PM assassin Pardon

    Tamil Nadu Governor would take a decision as per the Constitution in the next three or four days on the plea for release filed by A.G. Perarivalan, who is undergoing life imprisonment for the assassination of former PM Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

    Give your personal views in favour and against Capital Punishment in the comment box.

    What is the news?

    • The court noted in its short order that the Solicitor General submitted that the application filed by the petitioner Perarivalan under Article 161 of the Constitution.
    • The TN State Cabinet had earlier made the recommendation to remit the life sentences of seven convicts, including Perarivalan in September 2018.
    • The new turn of events when the Additional Solicitor General for the Centre, had argued recently that the pleas for pardon and release should go to the President instead of the Governor.

    What does Pardon mean?

    • 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 a 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.

    What does Article 161 say?

    • Article 161 of the Constitution provides the Governor with the power to remit or commute the sentence of any prisoner.
    • The Governor’s decision will be subject to judicial review by the constitutional courts.

    Supreme court’s observations

    • The Constitution Bench in 2015, in a majority decision, had held that the States cannot unilaterally remit the sentences of life convicts in cases investigated by a Central agency under a Central law.
    • The assassination case was probed by the CBI.
    • In compliance with the 2015 verdict, the Tamil Nadu government wrote to the Centre in 2016, proposing the grant of remission to the convicts. The State wanted the Centre to concur.
    • After a wait of over two years, the Centre rejected the State’s proposal, saying this was an unparalleled act in the annals of crimes committed in this country.

    Arguments in Perarivalan’s petition seeking pardon

    • Perarivalan had been pleading for release citing that he was 19 when he was arrested.
    • He was the only male child of his parents, there were no records of criminal antecedents, and that he had excellent conduct in his entire prison life.
    • His petition also cited UG and PG degrees, and that he was the university topper, Gold medalist in diploma in DTP, and that he completed more than eight diploma and certificate courses during his prison term.
    • His probation officer gave a report about lapses in recording his confession statement that handed out maximum punishment in his case.

    Basis of his innocence

    • Perarivalan cannot be called innocent before the law as he continues to be a convicted prisoner serving imprisonment.
    • He was accused of having bought two battery cells for Sivarasan, the LTTE man who masterminded the conspiracy.
    • He was sentenced to death based on this crucial confession statement.

    Significance of the convicts’ release

    • The release of seven convicts is a demand raised by not only the ruling party of TN but the main opposition too.
    • All TN politicians voiced that the judiciary should be able to reform and let them live as good citizens to uphold the high values of reformatory justice and restitution.

  • Supreme Court dismisses Aadhaar Review Petition

    The Supreme Court, in a majority view (4:1), dismissed a series of petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment upholding the Lok Sabha Speaker’s certification of Aadhaar law as a Money Bill and its subsequent passage in Parliament.

    Try this PYQ:

    Consider the following statements:

    1. Aadhaar card can be used as a proof of citizenship or domicile.
    2. Once issued, Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the Issuing Authority.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Backgrounder

    • The review petitions had highlighted how the Aadhaar Act was passed as a Money Bill by superseding the Rajya Sabha. It was called a “fraud on the Constitution”.
    • The review petition had argued that the Aadhaar Act clearly did not fall within the ambit of Article 110 (1) of the Constitution, which restricted Money Bills to certain specific fields only.

    What is a Review Petition?

    • Article 137 of the Constitution provides that subject to provisions of any law and rule made under Article 145 the Supreme Court of India has the power to review any judgment pronounced (or order made) by it.
    • Thus the binding decision of the Supreme Court/High Court can be reviewed in the Review Petition.

    Aadhaar Case: Two questions for review

    • Two questions had come up for review regarding the five-judge Aadhaar Bench’s judgment in 2018.
    • One, whether the Speaker’s decision to declare a proposed law as Money Bill was “final” and cannot be challenged in court.
    • The second, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

    What is the majority Judgment?

    • On the first question, the majority judgment in 2018 said the Speaker’s decision could be challenged in court only under “certain circumstances”.
    • On the second, it concluded that the Aadhaar Act was rightly called a Money Bill.

    Back2Basics: Money Bill

    • A Bill is said to be a Money Bill if it only contains provisions related to taxation, borrowing of money by the government, expenditure from or receipt to the Consolidated Fund of India.
    • Bills that only contain provisions that are incidental to these matters would also be regarded as Money Bills.
    • A Money Bill may only be introduced in Lok Sabha, on the recommendation of the President as per Article 110 of the Constitution.
    • Then, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations. Following this, it may be sent to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations, which Lok Sabha may reject if it chooses to.
    • If such recommendations are not given within 14 days, it will be deemed to be passed by Parliament.

    How is a Money Bill different from a financial bill?

    • While all Money Bills are Financial Bills, all Financial Bills are not Money Bills.
    • For example, the Finance Bill which only contains provisions related to tax proposals would be a Money Bill.
    • However, a Bill that contains some provisions related to taxation or expenditure, but also covers other matters would be considered as a Financial Bill.

  • Question Hour to resume during Budget Session

    Question Hour, which had been suspended by the government during the monsoon session, will resume when Parliament meets for the budget session.

    Q.Discuss the various instruments of Parliamentary Control in India.

    Must read edition: [Burning Issue] Quashing of the Question Hour

    What is Question Hour?

    • Question Hour is the liveliest hour in Parliament. It is during this one hour that MPs ask questions of ministers and hold them accountable for the functioning of their ministries.
    • Prior to Independence, the first question asked of government was in 1893. It was on the burden cast on village shopkeepers who had to provide supplies to touring government officers.
    • The questions that MPs ask are designed to elicit information and trigger suitable action by ministries.
    • Over the last 70 years, MPs have successfully used this parliamentary device to shine a light on government functioning.
    • Their questions have exposed financial irregularities and brought data and information regarding government functioning to the public domain.
    • With the broadcasting since 1991, Question Hour has become one of the most visible aspects of parliamentary functioning.

    Its evolution

    • The right to question the executive has been exercised by members of the House from the colonial period.
    • The first Legislative Council in British India under the Charter Act, 1853, showed some degree of independence by giving members the power to ask questions to the executive.
    • Later, the Indian Council Act of 1861 allowed members to elicit information by means of questions.
    • However, it was the Indian Council Act, 1892, which formulated the rules for asking questions including short notice questions.
    • The next stage of the development of procedures related to questions came up with the framing of rules under the Indian Council Act, 1909, which incorporated provisions for asking supplementary questions by members.
    • The Montague-Chelmsford reforms brought forth a significant change in 1919 by incorporating a rule that the first hour of every meeting was earmarked for questions. Parliament has continued this tradition.
    • In 1921, there was another change. The question, on which a member desired to have an oral answer, was distinguished by him with an asterisk, a star. This marked the beginning of starred questions.

    Its significance

    • Question Hour is not only an opportunity for the members to raise questions, but it is a parliamentary device primarily meant for exercising legislative control over executive actions.
    • The government’s actions erode the constitutional mandate of parliamentary oversight over executive actions as envisaged under Article 75 (3) of the Indian Constitution.

  • WhatsApp’s contentious Privacy Policy

    The Government of India has asked WhatsApp to withdraw the proposed changes in its privacy policy.

    Q.What are the factors responsible for the spread of misinformation on social media? Suggest the measures to tackle it.

    Core of the news

    • WhatsApp has been embroiled in a controversy over its updated privacy policy.
    • The posts are pointers on the new policy.

    What was the news Privacy Policy?

    • When one goes to the status tab on the app, one can see the WhatsApp icon and its four posts, along with the statuses of one’s contacts.
    • While one reads ‘We are committed to your privacy’, another reads, ‘WhatsApp can’t read or listen to your personal conversations as they’re end-to-end encrypted’.
    • Another post reads ‘WhatsApp can’t see your shared location’ and yet another reads ‘WhatsApp doesn’t share your contacts with Facebook’.
    • The messaging app reviewed its privacy policy and asked users to accept the terms and conditions by February 8. Following this, the app faced severe backlash from its users and privacy advocates.

    Issues pointed by Govt.

    • said that the proposed changes raised “grave concerns” over the implications of the choice and the autonomy of Indian citizens.
    • It pointed out that the Indian users, who have not been given the option to opt-out of data-sharing with Facebook companies, were being subjected to differential treatment.
    • The issue is the impact it has on informational privacy, data security and user choice.

    Data at stake

    • The government asked WhatsApp to reconsider its approach to respect the informational privacy, freedom of choice and data security of Indian citizens.
    • It said that India’s distinct identity and its people must be properly respected and any unilateral changes to WhatsApp Terms of Service and Privacy would not be fair and acceptable.

    A discriminatory move

    • India formed the largest segment of WhatsApp’s user base globally and any change in policies would have a disproportionate impact on its citizens.
    • The privacy policy offered by WhatsApp to its European users specifically prohibits the use of any information shared with a Facebook company for those companies’ own purposes.
    • This Clause is not present in the privacy policy offered to Indian users.
    • This differential and discriminatory treatment of Indian and European users is attracting serious criticism and betrays a lack of respect for the rights and interest of Indian citizens.

    What lies ahead?

    • India has a huge user base of WhatsApp and Facebook in India.
    • The consolidation of sensitive information exposes a very large segment of Indian citizens to greater information security risks.
    • By not providing Indian users with the ability to opt-out of this data sharing with other Facebook companies, WhatsApp is treating users with an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach.

  • Supreme Court directive on Quota in Promotions

    The Supreme Court has asked Attorney General to compile the various issues being raised by States with regard to the 2006 M. Nagaraj case, which had upheld the application of creamy layer principle to members of the SC/ST communities in promotions.

    Must read edition: Reservation not a Fundamental Right

    What is the case about?

    • The Centre’s plea came despite the Supreme Court, in September 2018, in Jarnail Singh case, reiterating the Nagaraj judgment of 2006.
    • The 2006 judgment required the States to show quantifiable data to prove the ‘backwardness’ of a community to provide quota in promotion in public employment,
    • The 2018 judgment, which was authored by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, had refused the government’s plea to refer the 2006 Nagaraj judgment to a seven-judge Bench.
    • It had while modifying the part of the Nagaraj verdict, rejected the Centre’s argument that Nagaraj misread the creamy layer concept by applying it to SC/ST.

    Nagaraj Case

    • In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the court dealt with a batch of appeals on the correctness of the Supreme Court’s judgment in M Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India (2006).
    • The Nagaraj case, in turn, had arisen out of a challenge to the validity of four Constitution amendments, which the court eventually upheld.

    What were the amendments?

    • 77th Amendment: It introduced Clause 4A to the Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately represented.
    • 81st Amendment: It introduced Clause 4B, which says unfilled SC/ST quota of a particular year, when carried forward to the next year, will be treated separately and not clubbed with the regular vacancies of that year to find out whether the total quota has breached the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court.
    • 82nd Amendment: It inserted a proviso at the end of Article 335 to enable the state to make any provision for SC/STs “for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.
    • 85th Amendment: It said reservation in the promotion can be applied with consequential seniority for the SC/ST employee.

    What is Art.335 about?

    • Article 335 of the Constitution relates to claims of SCs and STs to services and posts.
    • It reads: “The claims of the members of the SC’s and ST’s shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”

  • How horizontal, vertical quotas work; what Supreme Court said?

    The Supreme Court last month clarified the position of law on the interplay of vertical and horizontal reservations.

    This newscard is useful for GS paper 1 as well as aspirants with sociology optional. Let us know in the comment box if you want to get a deeper insight.

    It perfectly highlights the heart of the debate on “merit versus reservation”, where reservation is sometimes projected as being anti-merit.

    What are vertical and horizontal reservations?

    • Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes is referred to as vertical reservation.
    • It applies separately for each of the groups specified under the law.
    • Horizontal reservation refers to the equal opportunity provided to other categories of beneficiaries such as women, veterans, the transgender community, and individuals with disabilities, cutting through the vertical categories.

    How are the two categories of quotas applied together?

    • The horizontal quota is applied separately to each vertical category, and not across the board.
    • For example, if women have 50% horizontal quota, then half of the selected candidates will have to necessarily be women in each vertical quota category.
    • This means half of all selected SC candidates will have to be women, half of the unreserved or general category will have to be women, and so on.
    • The interlocking of the two types of reservation throws up a host of questions on how certain groups are to be identified.
    • For example, would an SC woman be put in the category of women or SC? Since quotas are fixed in percentages, what percentage of quota would be attributed to each?

    What was the Saurav Yadav case about?

    • The case was on the technicalities that form a substantial question of law.
    • It was this: Two aspirants had secured 276.5949 and 233.1908 marks respectively.
    • They had applied under the categories of OBC-Female and SC-Female respectively. OBC and SC are vertical reservation categories, while Female is a horizontal reservation category.
    • The two candidates did not qualify in their categories.
    • However, in the General-Female (unreserved-female) category, the last qualifying candidate had secured 274.8298 marks, a score that was lower than the two backwards.
    • The question before the court was that if the underlying criterion for making selections is “merit”.

    What did the court decide?

    • The court ruled against the UP government.
    • It observed if a person belonging to an intersection of the vertical-horizontal reserved category had secured scores high enough to qualify without the vertical reservation.
    • It held that the person would be counted as qualifying without the vertical reservation, and cannot be excluded from the horizontal quota in the general category.
    • If a person in the SC category secures a higher score than the cut-off for the general category, the person would be counted as having qualified under the general category instead of the SC quota.

    What was the government’s argument?

    • The government’s policy was to restrict and contain reserved category candidates to their categories, even when they had secured higher grades.
    • The court said this was tantamount to ensuring that the general category was ‘reserved’ for upper castes.

    What was the court’s reasoning?

    • The court did the math by examining a number of hypothetical scenarios.
    • It concluded that if both vertical and horizontal quotas were to be applied together — and consequently, a high-scoring candidate who would otherwise qualify without any reservation.
    • On the other hand, if a high-scoring candidate is allowed to drop one category, the court found that the overall selection would reflect more high-scoring candidates.
    • In other words, the “meritorious” candidates would be selected.

  • Supreme Court cleared New Delhi’s Central Vista Project

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the central vista project to go ahead.

    Try this MCQ first:

    Q.The architecture of the present Parliament House of India is inspired from:

    a) Ekattarso Mahadeva Temple

    b) Virupaksa Temple

    c) Dilwara Temples

    d) Brihaddeswara Temple

    The Central Vista Project

    • The project aims to renovate and redevelop 86 acres of land in Lutyens’s Delhi.
    • In this, the landmark structures of the government, including Parliament House, Rashtrapati Bhavan, India Gate, North Block and South Block, etc. stand.
    • This dream project of redeveloping the nation’s administrative heart was announced by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs on September 13, 2019.

    Litigation over the project

    • A petition was filed in the Supreme Court in April 2020, challenging the Centre’s change-of-land-use notification of March 2020 with regard to the 86 acres of land.
    • The petitioner submitted that the order violated the citizen’s Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 by depriving people of open and green spaces.
    • The petition also argued that the notification violated the Master Plan of Delhi 2021.
    • Subsequently, the court heard the challenge on three main grounds: change of land use; violations of municipal law; and violations of environmental law.

    What has the court held?

    • In a 2:1 majority verdict, the court has held that there are no infirmities in the approvals granted.
    • The verdict held that the central government’s change of land use for the project in the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 is also a lawful exercise of its powers.

    History of Lutyens’s Delhi

    • At his coronation as Emperor of India on December 12, 1911, Britain’s King George V had announced the transfer of the seat of the Government of India from Calcutta to the ancient Capital of Delhi.
    • Thereafter, a 20-year-long project to build modern New Delhi was spearheaded by architects Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker.
    • They built Parliament House, Rashtrapati Bhavan, North and South Blocks, Rajpath, India Gate, National Archives and the princes’ houses around India Gate.
    • New Delhi was unveiled in 1931.

    Must read:

    New Parliament Building

  • Electoral Bond Scheme

    A recent order passed by CIC in an appeal against the State Bank of India (SBI) has once again highlighted the issues with the Electoral Bond Scheme. The article deals with this issue.

    Issues with the scheme

    • The scheme creates banking instruments for a donation of funds to political parties facilitated by the SBI.
    • It conceals the identity of the donors and donees as well as the amount of donation.
    • In effect, the scheme is not transparent, promotes arbitrariness, and is therefore illegal.
    • The scheme facilitates undisclosed quid pro quo arrangements between donors, who are likely to be corporates, and political parties.
    • The Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression also contained the fundamental right of a voter to secure information about the candidates.
    • When the voter is permitted to know if an electoral candidate is facing any cases, she should be equally entitled to know who is financing the expenses of the party and its candidate.

    CIC order and RTI Act

    • The CIC, in an earlier order, deemed political parties to be public authorities under the RTI Act.
    • In the present order, the CIC  has upheld the contention of the SBI that it is not required to furnish the details of donors, donees, and donations, under the RTI Act.
    • In doing so, SBI has relied on two grounds provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
    • Section 8 exempts disclosure of information if it has been held in a fiduciary capacity and that there was no public interest involved in the application.
    • However,  any exemption provided under Section 8 should be read-only in a very narrow sense.
    • Section 8(2) directs that when public interest outweighs any harm to protected interests, the information sought may be accessed.
    • Therefore, it overrides the grounds erroneously relied upon by the CIC.
    • The public interest in the present matter is indisputable.

    Consider the question “What are the various provisions in the Electoral Bond Scheme? How some of its provisions could come in conflict with the RTI Act.”

    Conclusion

    By suppressing knowledge of political financing, we are breaking the basic bonds of democracy holding the country together. An unsettled law is as dangerous as bad law. The Court must conclusively settle the questions around the constitutionality of electoral bonds.

  • Deconstructing the opposition between merit and reservation

    The Supreme Court in recent judgement in Saurav Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh made it clear that reservation and merit are not mutually exclusive. The article deals with this issue.

    Vertical Vs. Horizontal reservation

    • Articles 15(4) and 16(4) enable vertical reservation based on slotting the population in terms of SC, ST, OBC, and General Category.
    • But there is also a class of reservations that cuts across all these categories and are referred to as horizontal reservation.
    • Horizontal reservation includes a reservation for women differently-abled persons, freedom fighters, army veterans, etc.

    Specifying the relationship between horizontal and vertical reservation

    • In cases like Anil Kumar Gupta v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court had made it clear that horizontal reservation ought to be generally understood in compartmentalized terms: recognition of inequalities within each vertical category.
    •  In a particular case, candidates were excluded from competing from the General Category positions even though they have scored more, simply because they were OBC.
    • However, some state governments are trying to use the open category seats as a quota for general category candidates.
    • The High Courts had been giving contrary directions: Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh excluded reserved category women for consideration in the general category.
    • Rajasthan and Gujarat, amongst others, included them.
    • The Supreme Court, in a three-judge bench, ruled against the UP government and clarified the relationship between horizontal and vertical reservations.

    Analyzing the judgment

    • The judgments reiterate the principle that groups eligible for horizontal reservation cannot be excluded from the open category seats because they are from other vertically reserved category communities, like SC or OBC.
    • Women from all categories are eligible to be considered for the open category.
    • It also made it clear that the open category seats are not meant to be a quota for the non-reserved categories.

    Merit Vs. Reservation

    • The Court has often contrasted merit with reservation.
    • But this has always been a mistaken view of the relationship between merit and reservation.
    • In principle, reservation is an instrument for identifying merit in individuals from historically marginalized communities.
    • The Court is saying that by excluding the adjustment of OBC women who had scored higher against general category seats, the UP government was ironically using the General Category to exclude meritorious candidates.
    • When the Court is using the term merit, it is simply pointing out that certain selection criteria are being used.
    • Such selection criteria are also within particular reserved categories: which is also a function of selection criteria, in this case, marks.
    • From this point of view, even those who advocate reservation do not fully give up on the meritocratic criteria of selection — they just apply it differentially.
    • What the Court was concerned with is fairness in the application of the selection criteria within the overall framework of reservation.

    Conclusion

    What the court is trying to say something more interesting: Members of the reserved category must be fully considered as falling under the rubric of being potentially meritorious.

  • Possibility of judicial use or misuse of Article 356

    Article 356 and the word ‘otherwise’ in it has led to the recent Andhra Pradesh High Court order. The order raises several questions. The article deal with this issue.

    Controversial High Court order

    • Recently the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the Andhra Pradesh government to come prepared to argue on the ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state’.
    • The order opens up the possibility of use or even misuse of Article 356 by the judiciary.
    • The Supreme Court of India has stayed the order.
    • However, we need to go deeper into this observation and look at the controversial provision of Article 356 due to which the High Court could make such an observation.

    Historical background of the article

    • Both India and Pakistan borrowed this provision from the Government of India Act, 1935.
    • Interestingly, the leaders of our freedom struggle were so very opposed to this provision that they forced the British government to suspend it.
    • The provision which we had opposed during our freedom struggle was incorporated in the Constitution strangely in the name of democracy, federalism and stability.
    • It was agreed in the Constituent Assembly that the Governor could use this emergency power.
    • By this time the Governor was supposed to be elected by the people of the State rather than nominated by the Centre.
    • After several revisions, provision became Article 278 (now Article 356).

    The issue with the word ‘otherwise’

    • H.V. Kamath criticised the word ‘otherwise’ and said only god knows what ‘otherwise’ means.
    • As the Governor had been made a nominee of the Centre by this time, he asked why the President could not have confidence in his own nominees.
    • ‘Otherwise’ can include anything including a presidential dream of breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.
    • The Andhra Pradesh High Court could pass such an order due to this very term ‘otherwise’.
    • This word negates the ideals of constitutionalism by giving unlimited powers to the Centre, also allowed the High Court to overstepped the line.
    • But this is not the first instance of judicial overreach on this issue.
    • On August 13, 1997, a Patna High Court had observed that the High Court could also report to the President about the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.

    Repeated misuse of Article 356

    • In the very first invocation of Article 356 in 1951, central government removed the Gopi Chand Bhargava ministry in Punjab though he enjoyed the majority.
    • In 1959, it was used against the majority opposition government of the E.M.S. Namboodripad government in Kerala.
    • Indira Gandhi used Article 356 as many as 27 times.
    • The most notable case of non-use of Article 356 was the refusal of the P.V. Narasimha Rao government prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

    Consider the question “Examine the contest in which the word ‘otherwise’ in Article 356 leads to judiciary exercising its powers. What are the concerns in such case?”

    Conclusion

    Ideally, the word ‘otherwise’ should be deleted from Article 356 and the provision be used only sparingly and to never remove a majority government.