💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain.

    SoP is derived from Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws (1748) – dividing state power into Legislature, Executive, Judiciary to prevent concentration and arbitrariness.

    Separation of Powers in the Constitution

    Article 50 – Separation of executive and judiciary (Directive Principle).

    Articles 122 & 212 – Courts not to question proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures.

    Articles 121 & 211 – Conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislatures (except during impeachment).

    Article 361 – President and Governors enjoy immunity; not answerable to courts for exercise of powers and duties.

    However, Strict Separation Does Not Exist due to

    Legislature & Executive Overlap – Executive is drawn from the legislature (Art. 74 & 75; Art. 163 & 164).

    Delegated Legislation – Legislature delegates rule-making powers to executive authorities.

    Judicial Functions of Legislature in cases of breach of privilege or impeachment of judges.

    Judicial Functions of Executive – pardons and commutations (Art. 72 & 161) by President and Governors.

    Checks and Balances in Practice

    Judicial Review – Judiciary can strike down unconstitutional laws and executive actions. Eg – NJAC Judgment.

    Legislative Control over Executive via questions, motions, and no-confidence votes.

    Executive’s Role in appointment of judges through the collegium system consultation.

    Judiciary review of laws for conformity with Fundamental Rights and Basic Structure. Eg – Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975).

    Legislative control over judiciary – Eg- 2018 Amendments to Atrocities Act, Impeachment Motions

    “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton
    Thus, checks and balances are essential to prevent tyranny and preserve democracy.

  • What are the methods used by the Farmers organizations to influence the policy- makers in India and how effective are these methods?

    Farmers’ organisations are collective associations that represent the interests of cultivators, agricultural laborers, and rural producers and seek to influence agricultural policy and secure fair prices. Eg- Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU)

    Methods Used by Farmers’ Organisations to Influence Policymakers

    Protest and Agitation – Organize rallies, dharnas, sit-ins, and tractor marches etc. Eg- 2020-21 Farm Laws Protest.

    Lobbying and Negotiation – Engage directly with ministries, parliamentary committees, and NITI Aayog to submit memoranda, draft proposals, and policy recommendations.

    Electoral and Political Pressure

    Mobilize vote banks in rural constituencies and influence party manifestos.

    Forming political parties to contest elections. Eg- Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra

    Use mass media, social media, and civil society networks to build public opinion. Eg- #NoFarmersNoFood campaigns on X.

    Coalition and Network Building – Create alliances with trade unions, civil society groups, and opposition parties. Eg- All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) unites over 200 farmer unions.

    Legal and Institutional Interventions – Eg- Farmer bodies filed PILs against land acquisition and farm laws.

    Effectiveness of Methods Used by Farmers’ Organisations

    Positive Outcomes

    Policy Reversals through sustained pressure. Eg- Repeal of the Three Farm Laws (2021) after year-long protests.

    Enhanced Political Awareness – Eg- Farmers’ mobilisation in western Uttar Pradesh and Punjab.

    Short-Term Economic Gains – Secured loan waivers, input subsidies, and MSP hikes.

    Brought rural issues to national discourse via social media.

    Greater Institutional Inclusion – Eg- Farmer representatives included in Committee on MSP (2022) for reform proposals.

    Strengthened Democratic Participation

    Limitations

    Fragmentation – divisions based on region, caste, and crop pattern. Eg- dominance of North Indian Farmers in Farm Laws protest

    Many farmer groups are linked with political parties, reducing credibility as neutral stakeholders.

    Role is majorly protective, limiting structural reforms. Eg- opposition to GM crops

    Weak Policy Research and Data-Based Advocacy

    Use of violent means – Eg- red fort incident during farm protests

    Marginalization of small and women farmers in representation

    Farmer movements represent the democratic heartbeat of rural India. They must move from protest-based mobilization to knowledge-based engagement with the state.

  • Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.

    Doctrine of separation of powers is derived from Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws (1748) and divides state power into Legislature, Executive, Judiciary to prevent concentration and arbitrariness.

    Judicial legislation, i.e., when courts make laws or frame policies, is generally inconsistent with this doctrine.

    Separation of Powers in India

    Art. 245-246 & 368 – Only legislature can enact/amend laws under

    Article 105, 194 – Executive cannot breach parliamentary privileges

    Art. 122, 212 – Courts cannot inquire into parliamentary/state legislature proceedings ().

    Art. 124(4) Judicial Conduct Immunity

    Judicial Independence – Security of tenure, salaries, and contempt powers.

    Judicial Legislation Antithetical to Separation of Powers

    Encroachment on Legislative Domain undermines Separation of Powers.

    Undermines Democratic Accountability – judges are unelected and not responsible for policy outcomes. Eg- Criticism of Ban on firecrackers (2017)

    Creates judicial supremacy and Judicial governance (Bhikhu Parekh) – Eg- Prakash Singh guidelines on police reforms

    Weakens Public trust in Legislature and Executive – Eg- Coal Allocation Case (2014) – Court cancelled 214 coal blocks, creating policy paralysis in the energy sector.

    Courts lack technical and administrative expertise for framing complex policy guidelines. Eg- Ban on diesel vehicles in NCR (2016)

    Judicial itself has warned against overreach in

    Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008)- Court warned against “judicial enthusiasm turning into judicial adventurism.”

    State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014)- Reiterated that courts should not enter the policy-making domain.

    Justification for Filing Large Number of PILs

    Executive Inaction or Policy Vacuum Eg- Vishaka guidelines on workplace sexual harassment.

    Protection of Fundamental Rights – Eg- Hussainara Khatoon (1979) case Recognized right to speedy trial as FR under Article 21.

    Accountability and Transparency – Eg- In Vineet Narain case, SC issued directions to make CBI independent from political interference.

    Access to Justice – Liberal locus standi allows citizens to represent the poor and marginalized.

    Legislative or Administrative Delay – Eg- Navtej Johar (2018)- Decriminalized homosexuality after years of legislative inaction.

    Constitutional Mandate under Article 141 and 142 to uphold complete justice.

    Rise of Civil Society Activism – NGOs and activists use PILs to expose violations and empower citizens.Eg- M.C. Mehta Cases on environmental protection.

    Judicial Review powers under Article 13, 32, 226 to uphold Constitutional Supremacy

    Speedy Justice – timely intervention in cases affecting public interest. Eg- Olga Tellis (1985)- Protected the right to livelihood.

    Public Trust in Judiciary – Rise in PILs reflects citizens’ confidence in the judiciary as the last resort for justice.

    Issues

    Judicial Overreach- Encroachment into executive and legislative domains. Eg- SC ban on firecrackers was criticized for overreach.

    Weak Enforcement Capacity- Eg- Prakash Singh Police Reforms (2006) – Non-compliance by most states.

    Frivolous or Politically Motivated PILs increase pendency (more than 5Cr cases pending) Eg- Misuse in Election-related PILs delaying legitimate processes.

    Lack of Judicial Accountability- Eg- In-House Inquiry (Justice Ramaswamy case) exposed inadequacies in judicial discipline.

    Opaque Collegium System- criticised for lack of transparency and nepotism. Eg- uncle judge syndrome (law commission)

    Inconsistency and Selective Intervention- Uneven judicial response to similar issues affects credibility. Eg- Contrasting stances in Bail cases.

    Frequent judicial intrusion weakens separation of powers.

    Way Forward

    Institutional Restraint- Judiciary must uphold separation of powers

    Enforce strict scrutiny of PILs to prevent misuse for personal, political, or publicity motives.

    Develop a judgment-monitoring mechanism to ensure effective execution of court orders

    Promote constitutional literacy and encourage responsible use of judicial remedies by citizens.

    Dedicated PIL Cells in High Courts

    PILs represent participatory constitutionalism, ensuring that justice remains accessible, accountable, and rights-oriented.

  • The strength and sustenance of local institutions in India has shifted from their formative phase of ‘Functions, Functionaries and Funds’ to the contemporary stage of ‘Functionality’. Highlight the critical challenges faced by local institutions in terms of their functionality in recent times.

    73rd and 74th CAA are the embodiment of grass-root democracy and democratic decentralization in India. They are inspired by Gandhiji’s concept of “Oceanic Circles of Power” and “Swaraj”. However, they have remained Half Baked Cake (Mani Shankar Iyer Committee).

    Issues in the Formative Phase of Local Governance (3Fs)

    Functions-

    Incomplete devolution of 11th & 12th Schedule subjects

    Limited administrative authority

    Functionaries-

    Lack of training & capacity

    Bureaucratic dominance over elected reps

    Funds-

    High fiscal dependence on states/centre

    Conditional and tied grants

    Critical Challenges to Functionality of Local Institutions

    Political Challenges

    Delayed Elections- Eg- Maharashtra’s 27 Municipal Corporations functioning under administrators since 2022.

    Weak Gram Sabhas- Low participation, elite domination, and token meetings.

    With rural population falling from 75% (1990) to about 60%, national development priorities have moved toward urban governance and municipal reforms.

    Functional and Planning Challenges

    District and Metropolitan Planning Committees are largely non-functional in most states.

    Poor digital capacity- Limited use of e-Gram Swaraj and GIS-based planning.

    Administrative Challenges

    Shortage of Functionaries- Severe staff vacancies-only 0.67 secretaries per Gram Panchayat (falling to 0.33 in Uttar Pradesh).

    Parastatal Dominance reduces the role of elected bodies. Eg- Delhi Jal Board

    Accountability issues- Weak social audit mechanisms and poor grievance redressal.

    Financial Challenges

    Declining Fiscal Autonomy- Local bodies generate <1% of GDP as own-source revenue (RBI, 2022).

    Post-GST Revenue Loss- Subsumption of octroi, market, and entertainment taxes.

    Irregular constitution and poor implementation of SFC recommendations.

    Social and Governance Challenges

    Elite Capture- Local elites dominate decision-making, sidelining marginalized voices.

    Despite reservation, proxy representation (Sarpanch Pati) reduces women’s leadership effectiveness.

    Way Forward

    Empower through Performance Grants linked to service outcomes (as per 15th Finance Commission).

    Regular Capacity Building via State Institutes of Rural/Urban Development.

    Digitization of Panchayats (e-GramSwaraj) for transparency and efficiency.

    Operationalize DPCs/MPCs for integrated local planning.

    Adopting Best Practices – Eg- Kerala’s People’s Plan Campaign grants local bodies control over 40% of the state’s plan budget.

    Local bodies are the cornerstones of participatory democracy and good governance. Their functional capacity and autonomy are essential for the constitutional vision of decentralization.

  • Rajya Sabha has been transformed from a ‘useless stepney tyre’ to the most useful supporting organ in past few decades. Highlight the factors as well as the areas in which this transformation could be visible.

    The Rajya Sabha, conceptualised under the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms (1918) and institutionalised by the Government of India Act, 1919, was envisioned as the Council of States-a forum of mature reflection.

    Rajya Sabha as a “Useless Stepney Tyre”

    Limited Legislative Powers – cannot initiate or amend Money Bills (Article 110)

    No Role in Government Formation – Council of Ministers is collectively responsible only to the Lok Sabha

    Joint sittings (Article 118) are dominated by Lok Sabha’s numerical majority.

    Viewed as a delaying or obstructive chamber rather than a constructive revising body.

    Cannot influence budgetary priorities or grants, diminishing its fiscal relevance.

    Factors Behind Transformation into a Useful Supporting Organ

    Rise of Coalition Politics – Need for consensus enhanced Rajya Sabha’s negotiating role.

    Federal Assertion – The rise of regional parties since the 1980s has strengthened federal politics

    Diversified Composition – Eminent professionals, academicians, and experts improved deliberation quality.

    Revitalized Committee System – Department-related committees (many chaired by RS members) improved policy scrutiny.

    Continuity and Stability – Not subject to dissolution, ensuring legislative stability and institutional memory.

    Judicial and Media Attention – Live telecast of sessions and judicial oversight improved transparency and accountability.

    Active Opposition Role – RS became a check on executive dominance during coalition and one-party phases alike.

    Areas Where Transformation is Visible

    Legislative Review and Refinement – Rajya Sabha acts as a revising chamber. Eg- Referred the GST Constitutional Amendment Bill (2014) to a Select Committee

    Federal Balance – Protects state interests against central overreach. Eg- discussed federal fiscal implications of the National Education Policy, 2020.

    Special Constitutional Powers – Can authorise creation of All-India Services (Article 312), make laws on State List (Article 249)

    Deliberative Forum – Provides in-depth, issue-based policy debates on national concerns. Eg- debates on COVID-19 management (2021)

    Accountability and Oversight – Through Question Hour, Zero Hour, and Calling Attention Motions. Eg- Rajya Sabha discussions led to clarifications on Pegasus spyware issue (2021) and farmers’ protests (2020-21).

    Voice to smaller and regional parties to represent state and sectional interests. Eg- state-specific issues such as river water disputes and fiscal devolution.

    Being a permanent chamber, it ensures institutional memory and continuity during Lok Sabha dissolutions.

    Way Forward-

    Equal representation for each state, so that large states do not dominate the proceedings. (US system)

    More debates, less disruptions- Eg – Introduce ‘whip-free debates’ for non-financial and non-confidence issues.

    Amend procedures so that laws disguised as Money Bills can be challenged and reviewed.

    NCRWC, 2002 – Called for a clear procedure for nominating eminent members under Article 80.

    Punchhi Commission (2010)– expanding the electoral college for Rajya Sabha to include panchayats and municipalities.

    As envisaged by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, RS must act as a “safety valve of federalism”, ensuring reasoned, representative, and regionally inclusive governance in India’s democracy.

  • Indian Constitution exhibits centralising tendencies to maintain unity and integrity of the nation. Elucidate in the perspective of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; The Disaster Management Act, 2005 and recently passed Farm Acts.

    According to Paul Brass “Indian federalism is highly centralized, designed more to maintain unity than to promote autonomy.”

    Centralising Tendencies in the Indian Constitution

    Legal (Constitutional & Legislative)

    Residuary Powers (Art. 248, Entry 97 Union List) – Vested in Parliament, not States.

    Dominance of Union List (Art. 246) – 100 subjects; State List is narrower.

    Concurrent List (Art. 254) – Union law prevails in case of conflict.

    Emergency Provisions (Arts. 352, 356, 360) – Centre can override State powers.

    Parliament can legislate on State subjects under Art. 249.

    Governor’s Role (Art. 200, 201)

    Administrative

    All-India Services (Art. 312)

    Office of Governor – Agent of Centre in States

    Union’s directions to States (Arts. 256-257) – States bound to ensure compliance with Union laws.

    Deployment of Armed Forces

    Financial

    Centralised Finance – Major revenue sources (income tax, customs, excise, GST) with Union.

    Borrowing restrictions (Art. 293) – States require Centre’s consent to borrow.

    Cess and surcharges (Art. 270) not shared with States (Eg- Education Cess, Health Cess)

    GST regime – Erodes States’ fiscal autonomy.

    Centralising Tendencies in Indian Constitution

    Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

    Public Health is a State List subject (Entry 6, List II), but the Centre can issue uniform guidelines.

    Empowers Centre to declare any disease as epidemic.

    Union can issue regulations for prevention and containment.

    Authority to restrict movement and detain individuals during epidemics.

    Centre can override conflicting State laws.

    Disaster Management Act, 2005

    Law and order and public health are primarily State subjects, but Act was used to declare nationwide lockdowns, interstate movement controls, and essential supply chains during COVID-19.

    State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMA) include central representatives.

    Union controls allocation and distribution of resources across States.

    Centre can override States’ decisions in disaster response.

    National Response Force primarily drawn from central armed forces.

    Farm Acts, 2020 (repealed in 2021)

    Though Agriculture is a State List subject, Parliament legislated under Concurrent List (Entry 33).

    Weakened State APMC mandis by allowing farmers to sell outside their jurisdiction.

    Dispute resolution mechanisms

    Gave Centre greater control over regulation of essential commodities.

    Enhanced central role in agri-marketing and e-marketing of produce.

    Analysis of Centralising Tendencies

    “Federalism is not a monolith; it is a dialogue between self-rule and shared rule.” Thus, such Acts must be exercised with consultation and cooperation.

  • How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer.

    As per Rajeev Bhargava, Indian federalism is “multi-layered federalism”, involving cooperation, competition and confrontation.

    Cooperation – Building Cooperative Federalism

    GST Council (2017-present)– Example of Centre-State cooperation in indirect tax reform.

    NITI Aayog– Platform for policy collaboration on health, education, climate, and SDGs.

    COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-21)– Joint management of lockdowns, vaccination drives, and health protocols.

    National Education Policy 2020– Designed through Centre-State consultations.

    Competition – Driving Competitive Federalism

    Ease of Doing Business rankings by DPIIT– States competing to attract investment.

    Investment Summits – Gujarat (Vibrant Gujarat), UP (GIS 2023)

    NITI Aayog Indices – Eg- SDG Index, Health Index etc

    Tourism branding – Kerala (eco-tourism), MP (wildlife), Odisha (sports tourism)

    Confrontation – Political and Constitutional Tensions

    Delhi vs Union (2018 & 2023 SC rulings, GNCTD Amendment Act 2023)– Tussle over control of services and administration.

    Farm Laws (2020-21 protests)– States like Punjab opposed Union laws encroaching on agriculture.

    NEET & Education policy– Tamil Nadu contesting Centre’s dominance in education, a Concurrent List subject.

    Governor-State conflicts– Frequent in Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu over assent to bills.

    Fiscal confrontations– Disputes over GST compensation cess (2020-22).

    Centrally sponsored schemes– States complain of shrinking fiscal autonomy due to high tied grants.

    “Federalism is not a monolith; it is a dialogue between self-rule and shared rule.” Both Union & States are creatures of the Constitution

  • The judicial systems in India and UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices.

    India and the United Kingdom share a common-law heritage, where judicial institutions evolved from British colonial foundations.

    Points of Convergence

    Common Law Tradition: Both follow the adversarial system, rely on precedents, and uphold judicial reasoning as binding (stare decisis).

    Judicial Independence: Guaranteed through security of tenure, financial autonomy, and appointment systems (Art. 124-147; Constitutional Reform Act, 2005).

    Human Rights and Constitutional Values:

    India: Expansion of Article 21 to include right to dignity, privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017).

    UK: Human Rights Act (1998) incorporates European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law.

    Judicial Accountability and Transparency: Open court proceedings, reasoned judgments, and live streaming of constitutional benches (India, 2023).

    Judicial Activism: Both judiciaries increasingly intervene in governance and rights issues (Kesavananda Bharati, R (Miller) 2017 on Brexit).

    Technological Modernization: Adoption of e-courts, virtual hearings, and AI-assisted case management in both systems.

    Points of Divergence

    Constitutional Framework: India has a written Constitution establishing judicial supremacy; UK follows parliamentary sovereignty and unwritten conventions.

    Judicial Review Power: Indian courts can strike down laws violating the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati); UK courts can only issue declarations of incompatibility.

    Hierarchy and Structure: India has a single integrated judiciary; UK has distinct legal systems for England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

    Appointment Mechanism: India uses the Collegium system; UK uses the Judicial Appointments Commission with statutory oversight.

    Public Interest Litigation (PIL): India practices broad locus standi for social justice (S.P. Gupta); UK maintains restrictive standing for judicial review.

    Binding Nature of Precedent: In India, Supreme Court decisions bind all (Art. 141); in UK, Parliamentary sovereignty can override judicial interpretation.

    Judicial Activism vs. Restraint: Indian judiciary is transformative and interventionist; UK judiciary is cautious and precedent-bound.

    Basic Structure Doctrine: Unique to India-courts can protect the basic structure of the Constitution; no such principle exists in the UK.

    While India’s judiciary functions as a constitutional guardian, the UK judiciary operates under parliamentary sovereignty, reflecting two evolving but interconnected models of democratic justice.

  • ‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’! Do you think this practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India?

    According to Nehru,’Speaker represents dignity & freedom of house & as House represents nation, Speaker becomes a symbol of nation’s freedom & liberty.’ Once a speaker, Always a speaker is a British system aimed to ensure neutrality of office of speaker.

    Issues in office of Speaker

    Combining presiding and quasi-judicial roles, causes conflict of interest.

    Partisan Bias – Delays in Manipur & Maharashtra defection cases (2020-23) benefited ruling coalitions.

    Unilateral Suspension Powers – Rule 374A allows mass suspensions (e.g., 146 MPs in 2023) without adequate checks.

    Money Bill – Aadhaar Act (2016) passed as Money Bill, bypassing Rajya Sabha scrutiny.

    Speaker remains party-affiliated, unlike the UK’s non-partisan model.

    Judicial Non-Interference (Art. 122) – Speaker’s discretion largely beyond judicial review.

    Weak Parliamentary Conventions – No codified norms; decisions often politically motivated.

    Decline in Deliberation – “Railroading” of bills (e.g., Farm Bills, 2020) reduces discussion quality.

    Executarian Speakership – Rising executive influence eroding neutrality and institutional integrity.

    Positive Implications of Adopting “Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker”

    Restored Neutrality – Permanent detachment from party politics enhances objectivity and moral authority.

    Improved Parliamentary Discipline – Equal enforcement of rules encourages constructive debate over disruption.

    Fair and Equal Treatment – Ensures equal opportunities for participation, giving every member’s voice due respect, irrespective of party affiliation.

    Better Executive Oversight – Impartial Speaker can ensure accountable functioning of government in Parliament.

    Building Consensus – A neutral Speaker fosters an environment conducive to consensus-building and cooperative decision-making.

    Impartial Decision-Making – Promotes fairness in-

    Rulings on points of order,

    Interpretation of parliamentary rules,

    Decisions on admissibility of bills and motions, and

    Protection of members’ rights and privileges.

    Upholding the Dignity of Office – Acts as a symbol of neutrality, integrity, and impartiality, thereby strengthening the moral authority of Parliament.

    Global Best Practice Alignment – Similar to UK model, where Speaker contests as “Speaker seeking re-election,” maintaining impartiality.

    Way Forward-

    Codify Speaker’s neutrality – mandatory resignation from political party upon election.

    Amend Rule 374A – require House concurrence for suspensions beyond one day.

    Limit Speaker’s Role in Anti-Defection Law- In the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case, the Supreme Court suggested that the current system could be replaced by a permanent tribunal.

    Introduce legislative due process – guarantee minimum debate standards. (Inspired by Rosalind Dixon’s theory of legislative dysfunction and Israel’s Quantinsky v. Knesset (2021), which annulled a rushed tax law for violating principle of participation.)

    Create a Standing Committee on Parliamentary Procedures to oversee the Speaker’s administrative decisions, particularly related to the agenda-setting and motion approvals.

    As M. Venkaiah Naidu observed, debate, discussion, and decision, which form the edifice of parliamentary democracy.” A truly impartial Speaker is the cornerstone of that edifice.

  • “There is a need for simplification of procedure for disqualification of persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act”. Comment.

    The RPA, 1951 provides the statutory framework for conducting elections and maintaining the integrity of India’s democratic process.

    Procedure of Disqualification

    Under Articles 103 & 192, President or Governor’s Decision acts on the advice of the Election Commission.

    Election Petition (Section 80, RPA, 1951) in the High Court within 45 days of result declaration. Appeal to SC within 30 Days

    Positive Impacts of Simplification

    Enhances Public Trust

    Improves Integrity of the Electoral Process

    Strengthens Rule of Law

    Promotes Ethical Politics

    Upholds Constitutional Morality

    Thus, simplification of disqualification provisions are needed to ensure the trinity of Ethics, Accountability and Fairness of electoral process.