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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Governor stalls Ponmudy’s return to Cabinet

    Why in the news? 

    TN Governor R.N. Ravi has declined to re-induct senior DMK leader and former Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudy into the Cabinet, citing concerns about Constitutional Morality.

    Context-

    • Despite the SC’s suspension of Ponmudy’s conviction, the Governor believes his involvement in serious corruption as a public servant renders his re-induction inappropriate.
    • The Governor’s stance emphasizes the need to uphold ethical standards in governance, especially regarding convicted individuals.

    What are the key questions raised concerning the re-induct of the MLA’s in the Cabinet:

    • Constitutional Morality: Governor R.N. Ravi is concerned about upholding constitutional morality. He questions whether it would be appropriate to re-induct K. Ponmudy into the Cabinet, considering the seriousness of the corruption charges against him and the fact that his conviction was not set aside by the Supreme Court, but only temporarily suspended.
    • Legal Validity: Governor Ravi seeks the opinion of legal experts on the legality of re-inducting Ponmudy into the Cabinet without the conviction being overturned by the Supreme Court. This raises the question of whether such an action would adhere to legal principles and norms.
    • Political Implications: The differing opinions between both raise questions about the political ramifications of the decision. While the Law Minister sees no issues in Ponmudy’s swearing-in, the Governor emphasizes the need for ethical governance.
    • Timing and Elections: The timing of Ponmudy’s potential re-induction, particularly concerning the announcement of Lok Sabha elections, adds complexity to the situation. It raises questions about whether political considerations are influencing the decision-making process.
    • Disqualification and Supreme Court Stay: Ponmudy’s disqualification as an MLA due to a conviction by the Madras High Court, followed by the Supreme Court’s stay on the conviction, raises questions about the legal status of his eligibility for public office and the implications for his potential re-induction into the Cabinet.

    Discretionary power of the Governor in the appointment of ministers- 

    • Outlined in Article 163: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except insofar as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.

    In the context of the appointment of ministers, the Governor’s discretionary power may be exercised in various situations, such as:

    • Selection of Ministers: Although the Chief Minister typically recommends individuals for ministerial positions, the final decision regarding their appointment rests with the Governor. The Governor may exercise discretion in approving or rejecting the Chief Minister’s recommendations based on factors such as competence, integrity, and political considerations.
    • Dismissal of Ministers: In cases where the Governor has reasons to believe that a minister is unfit to hold office or has lost the confidence of the legislature, they may use their discretionary power to dismiss the minister, even if the Chief Minister advises otherwise.
    • Interests of the state: In exercising discretionary powers, the Governor must uphold constitutional morality and act in the best interests of the state. This includes considering the integrity, qualifications, and public trust in the individuals being appointed as ministers.
    • Consultation: While the Governor is not required to consult anyone other than the Chief Minister in the appointment of ministers, they may seek advice or input from legal experts, constitutional authorities, or other relevant stakeholders to ensure a fair and transparent appointment process.

    Conclusion:

    Governor stalls former minister’s return, citing constitutional morality and corruption concerns. His discretion underscores ethical governance and legal validity in ministerial appointments, raising questions about political implications and timing.

  • Ram Nath Kovind panel for simultaneous Lok Sabha, Assembly polls

    Why in the news? 

    • A high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind has proposed conducting simultaneous elections

    Context

    • It has proposed conducting simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies as the initial step.
    • Subsequently, municipal and panchayat elections would be held within 100 days following the general elections.

    What is Simultaneous elections?

    • Simultaneous elections, also known as “One Nation, One Election,” refer to the practice of holding elections for all levels of government – national, state, and local – simultaneously, or within a short period of time.
    • This means that voters would cast their ballots for parliamentary (Lok Sabha), state legislative assembly (Vidhan Sabha), and local government (municipalities, panchayats) elections on the same day or within a closely coordinated timeframe.

    Article 83 (Duration of Houses of Parliament): Article 83 specifies the tenure of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament. It states that the Lok Sabha’s duration is five years from the date of its first sitting unless dissolved earlier. The President has the authority to dissolve the Lok Sabha before the completion of its five-year term, leading to general elections.

    Article 172 (Duration of State Legislatures): Article 172 deals with the duration of the Legislative Assemblies in the states. It mandates that the Legislative Assembly of a state will continue for five years from the date of its first sitting unless dissolved earlier. Similar to the Lok Sabha, the Governor of a state holds the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly before the completion of its five-year term, leading to fresh elections.

     

    Recommendation as per Committee-

    • Synchronization Proposal: The committee proposed a method to synchronize elections by setting an ‘Appointed Date’ after the general elections. State Assemblies formed after this date and before the completion of the Lok Sabha’s term would conclude before subsequent general elections, enabling simultaneous polls.
    • Tenure and Fresh Elections: The committee suggested that if a hung House or a no-confidence motion occurs, fresh elections could be conducted. However, the tenure of the House would only last for the remaining term of the preceding full term.
    • Continuation of New Assemblies: In the case of fresh elections for Legislative Assemblies, the new Assemblies would continue until the end of the full term of the Lok Sabha unless dissolved earlier.
    • Constitutional Amendments: Amendments to Article 83 and Article 172 of the Constitution are recommended to facilitate these changes regarding the duration of Parliament and State legislatures.
    • Implementation of Changes: An implementation group is proposed to oversee the execution of the recommended amendments by the committee.

    Examining the issue of Simultaneous elections:

    • Law Commission’s Action: The 22nd Law Commission, concurrently examining the issue of simultaneous elections, is anticipated to submit its report to the Law Ministry soon. It is likely to recommend simultaneous polls from the 2029 general election cycle.

    Ratification by States-

    • Amendments to Constitution Articles: The committee recommends amendments to Article 324A to enable simultaneous elections in panchayats and municipalities. Amendments to Article 325 are suggested to empower the Election Commission of India (EC) to collaborate with state election authorities in preparing a unified electoral roll and voter ID cards.
    • Article 324A: This article pertains to the recommendations for amendments to enable simultaneous elections in panchayats and municipalities.
      • It implies that changes to Article 324A would empower the Election Commission of India (EC) to conduct elections for local bodies concurrently with state and national elections.
      • The proposed amendment aims to streamline the electoral process and reduce the frequency of elections, aligning with the broader goal of synchronizing all levels of elections.
    • Article 325: It deals with the right to vote and preparation of electoral rolls.
      • The suggested amendments to Article 325 would authorize the Election Commission of India (EC), in consultation with state election authorities, to prepare a unified electoral roll and issue voter ID cards.
      • This amendment seeks to establish a uniform and standardized voter registration process across different levels of elections, ensuring consistency and efficiency in voter identification and participation.

    Significance of “One Nation, One Election”:

    • Governance Efficiency: Conducting elections at all levels simultaneously can streamline the electoral process, reducing the disruptions caused by frequent elections. This leads to more stable governance and allows elected representatives to focus on their duties rather than preparing for elections.
    • Cost Savings: Simultaneous elections can significantly reduce the financial burden associated with conducting multiple elections at different times. It helps in optimizing resources, cutting down on campaign expenses, and minimizing the overall cost to the exchequer.
    • Voter Engagement: Coordinating elections at all levels encourages higher voter turnout by consolidating electoral activities. It simplifies the voting process for citizens and promotes greater participation in the democratic process.
    • Policy Continuity: Simultaneous elections facilitate better policy planning and implementation by ensuring that elected governments at various levels have concurrent tenures. This continuity promotes stability and coherence in policymaking, leading to more effective governance.
    • Reduced Political Polarization: By aligning electoral cycles, simultaneous elections can mitigate the intense political polarization often witnessed during election periods. It fosters a more collaborative political environment and encourages constructive dialogue among political parties.

    Conclusion:

    The proposal for simultaneous elections requires constitutional amendments and careful implementation. Cooperation among states and the Election Commission is essential for its success.

    Mains PYQ-

    Q- Simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering but it will reduce the government’s accountability to the people’ Discuss.( UPSC IAS/2017) 

  • Citizenship Amendment Act: Legal issues and status of judicial proceedings

    Why in the news? 

    • The Ministry of Home Affairs notified the rules to implement the CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from neighbouring countries. Despite delays, the Act faces challenges in the Supreme Court.

    Context

    • Petitions challenge the CAA’s constitutionality, arguing it violates Article 14 by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
    • Petitions seek a stay on the recently notified rules, criticizing the bypassing of tiered scrutiny for citizenship applications and the government’s decision to implement rules before a final court decision.

    About Citizenship Amendment Act 2019:

    • Origin- The citizenship laws in India find their roots in the constitution through Articles 5-11 and the Citizenship Act of 1955. This legislation outlines provisions for acquiring citizenship through birth, descent, registration, and naturalization.
    • Changes as per CAA 2019– It revised the Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

    Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024:

    Despite a delay of over four years, the Ministry of Home Affairs has officially issued the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024, facilitating the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019.

    The key provisions include:

    • Application Process: Eligible refugees are required to submit applications accompanied by affidavits verifying statements, character references from Indian citizens, and a declaration of proficiency in a designated Indian language for citizenship.
    • E-Application to District-Level Committee: The rules stipulate that applications must be submitted electronically to a district-level committee for verification of documents and administration of the oath of allegiance. Failure to appear in person may result in rejection of the application by the empowered committee following review by the district committee.
    • Supporting Documentation: Applicants are mandated to provide supporting documents such as passports, birth certificates, identity papers, land records, or evidence of ancestry from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh to substantiate their citizenship claims.
    • Verification of Entry Date: Applicants must furnish evidence of entry before December 31, 2014, through one of the 20 specified documents, including FRRO registration, Census slips, government-issued IDs (such as Aadhaar, ration card, driver’s license), or marriage certificates issued in India.

     

    What are the implications of CAA?

    • Potential Impact on Muslims: The CAA, when combined with the proposed National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC), has the potential to disproportionately affect Muslims residing in India. Non-Muslims may have an opportunity to obtain citizenship through the CAA, while Muslims may be denied this opportunity.
    • Exclusion from NRIC: In the event of people being excluded from the NRIC, non-Muslims may have a pathway to inclusion through the CAA, while Muslims may face barriers. The Supreme Court-monitored NRC exercise in Assam in 2021 left over 19 lakh people from the citizenship register, raising concerns about exclusion and discrimination.
    • Executive Order and Implementation: The Union government issued an order granting District Collectors in five states with high migrant populations the power to grant citizenship to groups identified in the CAA amendment. However, there were allegations that this order was a tactic to implement the CAA, which the government denied.
    • Relaxation of Citizenship Criteria: The newly notified rules under the CAA have eased the process of granting Indian citizenship to members of specified communities by excluding the requirement of a valid passport or visa. Instead, documents showing ancestry from designated countries are deemed sufficient.
    • Constitutional Challenges: The constitutionality of the CAA has been challenged in court, with petitions arguing that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution by making religion a qualifier for citizenship.
    • Impact on Assam Accord: The CAA has been criticized as undermining the Assam Accord of 1985, which does not differentiate on grounds of religion and deems any person who cannot prove ancestry beyond March 24, 1971, as an alien. Petitions contend that the law may lead to an increase in the influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam.

    How has the Supreme Court responded? (Judicial Stand)

    • December 2019: The Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde, refused to stay the operation of the CAA. Instead, the court suggested that the government should publicize the actual intent of the Act.
      • A similar plea for a stay was rejected by the court on January 22, 2020, with the court emphasizing the need to hear the government’s perspective first.
    • October 2022: A Bench led by former CJI U.U. Lalit ordered that final hearings in the case would commence on December 6, 2022.
      • However, since then, the case has not been listed. According to the Supreme Court’s website, the petitions are currently before a Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

    What is the significance of the challenge to Section 6A?

    • Dependence on Assam Accord: Section 6A was introduced in furtherance of the Assam Accord, a Memorandum of Settlement signed in 1985 to resolve issues related to immigration in Assam.
      • Therefore, the challenge to Section 6A is intricately linked to the implementation and interpretation of the Assam Accord.
    • Legal Implications: The challenges against Section 6A of the Citizenship Act and the CAA raise significant legal questions regarding their constitutionality and compatibility with existing laws and agreements.
      • These legal challenges highlight the need for clarity and consistency in India’s citizenship laws.
    • Interpretation of Assam Accord: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, introduced by the Assam Accord of 1985, establishes March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for determining citizenship in Assam.
      • The challenges against this provision and the CAA raise questions about the interpretation and implementation of the Assam Accord, which aimed to resolve issues related to immigration in Assam.

     

    Why are petitioners seeking a stay on the rules?

    • Changes in Scrutiny Process: The rules have reportedly eliminated the tiered scrutiny process of applications for citizenship by District Collectors.
      • Previously, District Collectors scrutinized applications, and state governments provided recommendations on granting citizenship. The removal of this scrutiny process is a concern for the petitioners.
    • Timing of their implementation: The petitioners highlight that the government had previously avoided a push for a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the Supreme Court five years ago by arguing that the rules for implementation had not been framed.
      • Now, with the rules in place, the petitioners question the timing of their implementation.
    • Pending Decision from Supreme Court: The petitioners argue that the government should have awaited a final decision from the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the CAA before implementing the rules.
      • They suggest that implementing the rules without a definitive ruling from the court could preempt its decision-making process.

    Conclusion:

    • Implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act and its accompanying rules faces legal challenges and societal implications.
    • Moving forward, ensuring fairness, inclusivity, and adherence to constitutional principles will be vital in resolving the complexities surrounding citizenship laws in India.

  • Kerala Cabinet asks Advocate General to explore legal options to challenge CAA notification in Supreme Court

    Why in the news? 

    • The Kerala Cabinet aims to challenge the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, expressing opposition to its perceived anti-Muslim bias. Legal options are explored to contest the Act’s rules.

    Context:

    The government notified rules for implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, simplifying the process for granting Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who arrived before December 31, 2014.

    About Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

     

    The citizenship laws in India derived their origins from the constitution under Articles 5-11 and the Citizenship Act of 1955. This Act provided provisions for citizenship by Birth, Descent, Registration and Naturalization.

    • Eligibility Criteria: Amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant Indian citizenship to illegal migrants belonging to specific religious communities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians – from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
    • Definition of Illegal Migrants: Illegal migrants are those who enter India without valid travel documents or exceed the permitted duration of stay, subject to prosecution, deportation, or imprisonment.
    • Cutoff Date: Provides eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants from the mentioned communities who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, excluding them from being treated as illegal immigrants.
    • Exclusion of Muslims: Notably excludes the Muslim community from the list of eligible religious groups, sparking controversy and criticism over religious discrimination in the citizenship criteria.

     

    What are the recent challenges faced by the Kerala Government?

    • Anti-Muslim Bias: The Kerala government opposes the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), labeling it as “patently anti-Muslim and deeply schismatic.”
    • Resolution for Repeal: The Kerala Assembly adopted a resolution in 2019 demanding the repeal of CAA due to its criterion of religion for Indian citizenship.
    • Legal Challenge: Kerala filed an original suit before the Supreme Court under Article 131, contesting the Center’s framing of CAA rules. Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala, DYFI, and IUML challenge CAA in the Supreme Court.
    • Urgency Post CAA Rules: Kerala Cabinet emphasizes new legal urgency after the Center’s notification of CAA rules.
      • Ongoing anti-CAA protests were witnessed in Kerala, including train blockades and marches. Congress leaders condemn CAA for undermining secular principles.
      • Opposition criticizes Kerala CM’s stance against implementing CAA and calls it political posturing.

    National Scenario: 

    • States:
        • In Assam: Members of the All Assam Students Union (AASU) took part in a protest march after the central government notified the rules for implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, in Guwahati.
        • In Kolkata: Leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) protested against the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
    • Youth Protests:
      • In Delhi: Students of Jamia Millia Islamia University also staged a protest after the central government notified the rules for implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
      • In Tamil Nadu: Further, members of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) staged a protest, a day after the Modi-led government notified the rules for implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, at Madras University.

    Way Forward to address the concerns and avoid protests:

    • Dialogue and Consultation: Engage in open dialogue with stakeholders, including state governments, opposition parties, and civil society, to address concerns and seek consensus on amendments or alternatives to the Citizenship Amendment Act.
    • Legal Review: Conduct a comprehensive legal review of the Citizenship Amendment Act and its rules to ensure adherence to constitutional principles, including equality before the law and secularism.
    • Inclusive Citizenship Criteria: Consider revising the Citizenship Amendment Act to remove religious criteria and ensure that citizenship is granted based on objective and non-discriminatory grounds, such as residency or persecution.
    • Uphold Secular Values: Reaffirm the government’s commitment to secularism and religious pluralism, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of all communities and promoting social harmony.

    Conclusion:

    • Address Kerala’s concerns over anti-Muslim bias in CAA, legal challenges, and ongoing protests. Emphasize dialogue, legal review, inclusivity, and upholding secular values to foster social harmony and resolve grievances.

    Prelims PYQs

    Q. With reference to India, consider the following statements :​

    1. There is only one citizenship and one domicile.​
    2. A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.​
    3. A foreigner once granted citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.​

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?​

    1. 1 only ​
    2. 2 only​
    3. 1 and 3 ​
    4. 2 and 3

  • Appointment of EC | Supreme Court to hear plea to bring CJI back into the selection committee

    Why in the news? 

    The plea filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms seeks an urgent hearing as it raises concerns about potential unfair advantage in filling Election Commission vacancies after Arun Goel’s resignation.

    Context

    • The unexpected resignation of Arun Goel ahead of the Lok Sabha elections raised concerns about potential unfair advantage in filling the vacancies.
    • The NGO Association for Democratic Reforms requested the new law on EC appointments to be put on hold and urged the involvement of the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee, as directed by a previous Supreme Court judgment.

     

    About the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Bill, 2023:

    • The Bill replaces the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
      • It addresses the appointment, salary, and removal of the CEC and ECs.

     

    Appointment Process:

    • The CEC and ECs will be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of a Selection Committee.
    • The Selection Committee will consist of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition/leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha.
    • Recommendations of the Selection Committee will be valid even when there is a vacancy in this Committee.
    • A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary will propose a panel of names to the Selection Committee.
    • Eligibility for the posts includes holding (or having held) a post equivalent to the Secretary to the central government.

     

    Why Free and fair elections are necessary?

    • Protects from Intimidation and Fraud: Concerns were raised about the potential for unfair advantage due to the Executive’s ability to appoint two Election Commissioners, which could compromise the independence of the Election Commission.
    • Consensus building and Integrity: Emphasis on the critical role of the Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections, highlights the importance of fair and unbiased appointments to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.
    • Anoop Baranwal Case: Reference to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, where a Constitution Bench directed the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two ECs by the President based on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India (CJI).
    • Government’s Response: Mention of the government’s enactment of the Chief Election Commission and other Election Commissions (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister on the selection committee, thereby giving the Centre more control over the appointment process, contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment.

    Way Forward: Need to avoid Political interference: 

    • Current Leadership: Mention of CEC Rajiv Kumar being in sole charge of the Election Commission at present, indicates the need to address vacancies in the position of Election Commissioners to ensure effective functioning, especially with impending elections.
    • Independence of Election Commission: Emphasis on the importance of maintaining the independence of the Election Commission from political and executive interference to ensure free and fair elections and uphold democracy.
    • Insulation from Interference: Arguing that the Election Commission should be insulated from political and/or executive interference to preserve the integrity of the electoral process and protect democratic principles.
    • Critical Role of Election Commission: Highlighting the critical role of the Election Commission in various aspects such as ensuring free and fair elections, resolving disputes between political parties, and maintaining accurate voter lists and turnout, underscoring the urgency to address vacancies in the Commission.

    Conclusion:

    • The government should reconsider the appointment process, ensuring the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee to uphold the independence and integrity of the Election Commission.

    Mains PYQs

    Q. Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct. (2022)

  • President approves Uttarakhand’s UCC Bill

    In the news

    • Under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution, the President gave assent to the ‘Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand 2024’ Bill passed by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly, on March 11 2024.

    What is the Uniform Civil Code?

    • The UCC is mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, that the state should work to establish a uniform civil code for all citizens across India.
      • However, the Constitution’s framers left it to the government’s discretion to implement the UCC.
    • Goa is the only state in India with a UCC, following the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867.

    What are the SC Observations?

    • The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of Governors promptly acting on Bills sent to them for assent after passage by Legislative Assemblies.
    • Bills should be returned “as soon as possible” to prevent undue delay, with significant constitutional intent behind this directive.

    Governor’s Power over State Bills

     

    [I] Article 200:

    • Article 200 delineates the process for State Legislative Assembly-passed Bills to be presented to the Governor for assent.
    • The Governor holds the authority to either assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for consideration by the President.
    • Additionally, the Governor possesses the prerogative to return the Bill to the House or Houses with a message requesting reconsideration.

     

    [II] Article 201:

    • Article 201 stipulates the procedures concerning Bills reserved for the President’s consideration.
    • It allows the President to either assent to or withhold assent from the Bill.
    • If necessary, the President can direct the Governor to return the Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration.

     

    Governor’s Discretion 

    The Governor holds several options upon receiving a Bill:

    • Granting Assent.
    • Requesting the Assembly to reconsider specific provisions or the entire Bill.
    • Obligatory reservation for the President’s consideration, especially in cases posing a threat to the state high court or contravening constitutional provisions, DPSP, national interest, or Article 31A regarding compulsory property acquisition.
    • Although within the Governor’s authority, withholding assent is seldom practiced due to its contentious nature.

    Committee Recommendations:

     

    (1) Sarkaria Commission (1987):

    • It recommended that Governors exercise discretion in reserving Bills for Presidential consideration only in rare cases of unconstitutionality.
    • Bills should otherwise be processed as per ministerial advice, with a maximum six-month period for Presidential disposition.

     

    (2) Punchhi Commission (2010):

    • It proposed a six-month timeframe for Governors to decide on Bills presented for assent, emphasizing timely decision-making.

    Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2016:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. The Chief Secretary in a State is appointed by the Governor of that State.
    2. The Chief Secretary in a State has a fixed tenure.

    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

  • [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    [13 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze

    PYQ Relevance:

    Mains:
    1. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine (2018)

    2. What are the two major legal initiatives by state since Independence, addressing discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (ST)? (2017)

    3. Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment. (2016)

    Prelims:
    Under the Indian Constitution, the Concentration of Wealth violates​ (2021)
    a) the Right to Equality​
    b) the Directive Principles of State Policy​
    c) the Right to Freedom​
    d) the Concept of Welfare
    From The Hindu

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Minority sections of the society and their Empowerment; Judiciary; State government;

    Prelims: Fundamental rights; Important judgements by SC; State government;

    Mentor comments: Recently, the case of ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ revolves around the question of whether State governments can make sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for public employment. The Supreme Court is set to deliver a judgment on this matter, addressing the issue of intra-group variances and the power of States to recognize them. We need to analyze this issue as it is sub-classified SC reservations which are leading to legal challenges and subsequent legislative actions.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    The SC is set to deliver a judgment on whether State governments can make sub-classifications within SCs and STs, addressing the varying levels of development and discrimination within these groups. 

    Context:

    • The ongoing case of State of Punjab v Davinder Singh has brought to light the complexities surrounding sub-classification within reserved categories.
    • The central question revolves around whether a group within a reserved category can be further sub-classified and granted reservations.
    • Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups, addressing the issue of backwardness within backwardness.
    • On the other hand, opponents contend that the existing reservation scheme already ensures adequate representation for historically disadvantaged groups, making sub-classification unnecessary.
    JUDICIARY ON SUB-CATEGORIZATION WITHIN RESERVED CATEGORIES:

    1) State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case (1975):

    – In 1975, the Government of Punjab issued a circular that reserved 50% of SC seats for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, leading to legal challenges culminating in the Supreme Court’s involvement.

    – The case questions whether sub-classifications are constitutionally permissible within SCs and STs, challenging the notion that these groups are homogenous.

    – The debate involves revisiting past judgments like E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibited sub-classifications within SCs but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

    2) Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Case (1992):

    – The SC cited its judgment which arose out of the Mandal Commission’s report. There, a nine-judge Bench had held that sub-classifications within socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) for services under the government was permissible.

    – The case introduced the concept of the “creamy layer,” excluding affluent sections within backward classes (limited it to not exceed 50%) from reservation benefits.

    – The genesis of this debate dates back to 1980 when the Second Backward Classes Committee, chaired by BP Mandal, recommended 27% reservation for OBCs and 22.5% for Scheduled Castes.

    3) About E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh Case (2004):

    – A five-judge Bench quashed the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000. The Act was challenged before the High Court and later the Supreme Court, which declared it ‘ultra vires the Constitution’ as it offended Article 341 of the Constitution.

    – This provision allows the President of India to notify a list of SCs for each State, and stipulates that the list can only be modified by Parliament.

    – The case prohibited sub-classifications within SCs as it was found to violate constitutional provisions but recognized such distinctions within Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It emphasized that SCs and STs are homogeneous groups incapable of further regrouping or classification.

    – The Court found that the State government had no power to tinker with the list because it was clear on a bare reading of Article 341 that such authority vested only with Parliament.

    What is the difference between a homogenous class and a sub-classification within reserved categories?

    • A homogenous class refers to a group that is considered uniform or undifferentiated, where all individuals within the group are treated equally.
    • The Sub-classification within reserved categories involves categorizing a larger group into smaller sub-groups based on specific criteria, allowing for differential treatment or preferences within the overall category.
    • The distinction lies in how individuals within a larger reserved category are treated – either uniformly as a single homogenous group or with differentiated preferences based on sub-classifications.

    What are the arguments for and against sub-classification within reserved categories?

    Arguments for Sub-classification:

    • Ensuring Adequate Representation: Proponents argue that sub-classification is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the most disadvantaged groups within reserved categories.
    • Tailoring Criteria for Sub-classification: The court needs to tailor criteria for sub-classification to prevent leaving out certain groups while granting benefits to the most backward.
    • State’s Ability to Identify Backwardness: The states needs to be best positioned to judge the backwardness of communities and should have the authority to create sub-classifications within reserved categories without violating constitutional provisions.

    Arguments against Sub-classification:

    • Presumption of Backwardness: Opponents argue that while there is a presumption of backwardness with Scheduled Castes (SCs), individual castes within SCs cannot be considered separate classes under Article 16(4), suggesting that making laws for specific castes within SC lists could violate Article 16(2).
    • Violation of Equality Principle: Critics assert that sub-classification would violate the right to equality by treating communities within the category differently, potentially leading to discrimination based on caste, which is prohibited under Article 16(2).
    • Stigma and Exclusion: Those against sub-classification argue that if certain Scheduled Castes do not receive reservation benefits, they may be left with the stigma of being a Scheduled Caste without access to affirmative action measures, highlighting concerns about exclusion and inequality.

    What are the challenges faced by Sub-Classifications within Reserved Categories in India?

    • Lack of Equal Opportunities: Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution promises of substantive equality. The absence of sub-classification perpetuates inequality within reserved categories, hinders the framing of appropriate government policies.
    • Legal and Constitutional Complexities: The states face challenges as they lack legislative competence to create sub-classifications within reserved categories, raising questions about the constitutionality of such measures.
    • Addressing Backwardness: The issue of “backwardness within backwardness” has been acknowledged, emphasizing the need to address the most disadvantaged communities effectively.

    Way Forward

    Considering the above challenges, they highlight the complexities and nuances involved in addressing sub-classifications within reserved categories in India. Hence it is necessary to emphasize on careful consideration and legal clarity in policy-making and implementation. The SC’s decision in cases like ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ will play a crucial role in shaping affirmative action discourse and addressing issues of social justice within reserved categories

  • Unpacking the CAA Rules

    caa rules

    In the news

    • The long-awaited Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been set into motion by the Centre, marking a significant step forward in India’s legislative landscape.
    • Enacted in December 2019, the CAA aims to provide citizenship to certain migrants from neighboring countries, sparking debates and controversies nationwide.

    Making of the CAA, 2019: A Timeline

     

    2002: Initial efforts were made to address the challenges faced by Pakistani Hindus seeking Indian visas and citizenship.

    2004: Amendments to Citizenship Rules empowered district magistrates to grant Long Term Visas (LTVs) and citizenship to migrants in border districts.

    2010: The Ministry of Home Affairs eased restrictions on LTV extensions for certain categories of Pakistani nationals.

    2014: Notification allowed citizenship for select migrant communities, excluding Jains and Parsis.

    2018: Government extended LTV eligibility to communities seeking Indian citizenship, offering various benefits.

    New Citizenship Law: Eligibility and Required Documentation

    • Beneficiaries: The CAA primarily benefits Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014.
    • Documentation: Applicants need to provide proof of their country of origin, religion, date of entry into India, and knowledge of an Indian language.
    • Proof of Country of Origin: Acceptable documents include birth certificates, educational institution certificates, identity documents, licenses, certificates, or any other document issued by Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan.
    • Establishing Date of Entry: Applicants can provide a range of documents such as visas, residential permits, census slips, driving licenses, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, or any letter issued by the government or court to prove their entry date.
    • Generational Proof: Applicants can also provide documents indicating familial ties to these countries, such as those showing ancestry, expanding the scope of eligibility.

    Application Processing Mechanism

    [A] Empowered Committees

    • Role of Empowered Committee: This committee is tasked with overseeing the entire process, from receiving to processing applications. It ensures that all procedures are followed diligently and efficiently.
    • Membership: The Empowered Committee is headed by a Director (Census Operations) and comprises representatives from various government bodies, including the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Office (FRRO), the National Informatics Centre (NIC), and the Postmaster General.
    • Responsibilities: The committee members are responsible for verifying the authenticity of documents submitted by applicants, conducting background checks, and making final decisions on citizenship applications.

    [B] District Level Committees (DLC)

    • Composition: The DLC consists of the District Informatics Officer or District Informatics Assistant and a nominee of the central government.
    • Functions: DLCs serve as the initial point of contact for applicants, receiving their submissions and ensuring they are complete and accurate before forwarding them to the Empowered Committee for further processing.
    • Oversight: While DLCs handle the initial stages of application processing, they operate under the supervision and guidance of the Empowered Committee. This hierarchical structure ensures uniformity and consistency in decision-making across different regions.

    [C] Electronic Submission and Processing

    • Digital Platform: To streamline operations and minimize paperwork, the application process is conducted electronically. Applicants submit their documents and forms through an online portal managed by the government.
    • Efficiency: Electronic submission allows for faster processing times and reduces the risk of errors associated with manual data entry. It also enables real-time tracking of application status, providing transparency to applicants throughout the process.
    • Data Security: The government ensures robust cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information submitted by applicants. Encryption protocols and secure servers safeguard data integrity and confidentiality.

    Conclusion

    • The implementation of the CAA signifies a significant policy shift aimed at addressing the plight of persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries.
    • While the rules have sparked debates and opposition, they also represent India’s commitment to humanitarian values and providing refuge to those in need.
    • As the citizenship application process unfolds, it will be crucial to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures to uphold the principles of justice and inclusivity.

  • India ‘one of the Worst Autocratisers’: V-Dem Democracy Report

    In the news

    • India, previously categorized as an “electoral autocracy” in 2018, has further declined to become one of the “worst autocratizers,” according to the ‘Democracy Report 2024’ by the Gothenburg-based V-Dem (or Varieties of Democracy) Institute.

    Key highlights on India

    • Deteriorating Status: India, previously downgraded to an electoral autocracy in 2018, has further declined to become “one of the worst autocratizers.”
    • Historical Comparison: India’s level of “liberal democracy” has regressed significantly, reaching levels last seen in 1975 during the state of emergency declared by Indira Gandhi.
    • Regime Classification: India falls into the category of electoral autocracy, characterized by multiparty elections alongside insufficient levels of freedom of expression and fair elections.
    • Erosion of Democratic Freedoms: The report highlights the gradual deterioration of freedom of expression, media independence, and attacks on civil society under the current government.

    About the V-Dem Democracy Report

    • Publication: The V-Dem Institute releases the Democracy Report annually, offering insights into the state of democracy worldwide, focusing on democratization and autocratization.
    • Regime Classification: Countries are categorized into four regime types based on their scores in the Liberal Democratic Index (LDI), encompassing a spectrum from liberal democracy to closed autocracy.

    What is Liberal Democratic Index (LDI)?

    • Comprehensive Assessment: The LDI evaluates both liberal (individual and minority rights) and electoral aspects (free and fair elections) of democracy.
    • Indicators: It comprises 71 indicators, encompassing the Liberal Component Index (LCI) and the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI), capturing various dimensions of democratic governance.
      1. LCI: Measures aspects like protection of individual liberties and legislative constraints on the executive.
      2. EDI: Considers indicators ensuring free and fair elections such as freedom of expression and association.
    • Components of the LDI include:
    1. Egalitarian Component Index: Assesses the extent of equality among different social groups within a democracy.
    2. Participatory Component Index: Evaluates the health of citizen groups and civil society organizations, indicating the degree of citizen engagement.
    3. Deliberative Component Index: Gauges whether political decisions are driven by public reasoning focused on the common good or influenced by emotional appeals, solidarity attachments, or coercion.
    4. Publication Schedule: The Democracy Report is typically published annually in March, presenting a comprehensive analysis of global democratic trends.

    Key Findings from the Democracy Report 2024:

    • Collaborative Effort: The report is a collaborative endeavour involving 4,200 scholars from 180 countries, leveraging 31 million datasets spanning from 1789 to 2023 to assess the democratic status of 202 countries.
    • Global Trends:
    1. Autocratization: In 2023, 42 countries, representing 35% of the world’s population, were undergoing autocratization.
    2. Population in Autocracies: Currently, 71% of the world’s population, amounting to 5.7 billion people, resides in autocracies, marking a significant increase from 48% a decade ago.
    3. Decline in Democracy: The level of democracy experienced by the average individual globally has regressed to 1985 levels, with Eastern Europe, South, and Central Asia experiencing the sharpest declines.
  • [12 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Central transfers — arresting the decline in shares of some States

    [12 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Central transfers — arresting the decline in shares of some States

    PYQ Relevance:
    Prelims:
    The Government of India has established NITI Aayog to replace the [UPSC CSE 2015]
    a) Human Rights Commission
    b) Finance Commission
    c) Law Commission
    d) Planning Commission

    Mains:
    1. How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the States to improve their fiscal position? [UPSC CSE 2021]

    2. How is the Finance Commission of India constituted? What do you know about the terms of reference of the recently constituted Finance Commission? Discuss. [UPSC CSE 2018]

    3. Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, it is equally true that federalism under the Indian Constitution leans in favor of a strong Centre, a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism. [UPSC CSE 2014]
    From The Hindu

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Finance Commission; Centre-State relations;

    Prelims: Recommendations by Finance Commission;

    Mentor comments: The issue of declining shares of some States in central transfers, is particularly affecting southern States like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, stems from factors like the income distance criterion and changes in population data used for calculations. The income distance criterion, which rewards states further from the highest income state, has led to losses for southern States. To address this issue, we need to reduce the weight of the income distance criterion and limiting cesses and surcharges of the Centre’s gross tax revenues. Overall, today’s debate is over central transfers who need to have a balanced approach that considers various criteria like income distance and population while ensuring equitable distribution among all states.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    The Southern States have been facing a decline in their share out of the resources transferred from the Centre to the States. Considering this situation, there are many issues that the Sixteenth Finance Commission will have to deal with.

    Background:

    • The revenue sharing through the Finance Commission between Centre and the Southern States has fallen over the last two decades.
    • The share of states in combined revenue receipts rose but has since fallen, highlighting the need for fair distribution mechanisms.
    • Additionally, the shift in population data from 1971 to 2011 has impacted tax devolution, with some southern states feeling disadvantaged.
    What is the income distance criterion and how does it affect state shares?
    The income distance criterion in the context of Finance Commission allocations is a measure of the distance between a state’s income and the state with the highest income, calculated based on the average per capita Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP).
    States with lower per capita income receive a higher share to ensure equity among states.

    Significance of this criteria:

    It remains crucial for ensuring fair distribution among states.
    It also plays a significant role in determining the distribution of union taxes to each state, with states further from the highest income state receiving a higher share.

    What are the 3 major challenging observations in Centre-State Tax Devolution?

    1) Issue of share with states in Tax Devolution:

    • Firstly, we need to look at which States have been gaining and which are losing their share over time; the criteria of horizontal distribution which has led to some States steadily losing their share; and what can be done to reverse this trend.
    • In Table 1, the shares of groups of States and those for selected States are shown, for the 12th FC to the 15th FC (final report).
      • Southern States have been on a steady fall in their share, from 19.785% to 15.800%. The northern and eastern States have also lost. The ‘gainer States’ were the hilly, central, and western States including Maharashtra.
      • The low-income States such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh show, in terms of their overall share, a loss of 0.970% points and 1.325% points.
      • The main reason for the loss to the southern States due to the distance criterion amounted to 8.055% points, although the overall loss was much less at 3.985% points, implying that there was a gain under other criteria.

    2) Issue over the Income Distance:

    • Inconsistency: Table 2 provides a list of the different criteria used by Finance Commissions, from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth.
    • Decreasing weight: The distance criterion has been accorded the highest weight amongst these criteria. Its weight was reduced from 50% to 47.5% by the 13th FC and further reduced to 45% by the 15th Fifteenth FC.
    • Hampering equalization: The above two observations challenge the Socio-economic justice principles which has always been regarded as a key principle in governing distribution.

    3) Issue over the Population:

    • Data Updation issue: Until the Fourteenth Finance Commission, the data for the population in 1971 was used. For the Fifteenth Finance Commission, data for the population in 2011 was used.
    • Mismatched data: In order not to penalize States 15th FC showed better performance in reducing fertility rates, and the demographic change criterion was eventually introduced.
    • The joint impact of these two changes has been marginal for all groups of States. For Tamil Nadu, the joint impact was marginally positive.
    Recommendation for Sixteenth Finance Commission:

    Balanced allocation approach: Need to consider reducing the weight of the income distance criterion by 5% to 10% points.
    On Cesses and Surcharges: Need to evaluate and potentially impose an upper limit on cesses and surcharges to safeguard the divisible pool size and states’ revenue shares.

    What steps need to be taken? (Way Forward)

    • Maintain Income Distance Criterion: The income distance criterion is essential for equitable distribution among states and should not be abandoned. We need to consider reducing its weightage while enhancing other criteria to balance allocations.
    • Manage Divisible Pool Size: We need to limit cesses and surcharges to 10% of the Centre’s gross tax revenues to prevent reducing the size of the divisible pool. The increase in states’ share from 32% to 42% by the Fourteenth Finance Commission should not be offset by additional levies.
    • Review Revenue Sharing Trends: Need to analyze the impact of changing criteria on state shares over time to ensure fair and balanced distribution. Further, we also need to address concerns raised by states experiencing declining shares due to existing allocation mechanisms.

    https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/central-transfers-arresting-the-decline-in-shares-of-some-states/article67939930.ece

    https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Report%20on%20CENTRAL%20TRANSFERS%20TO%20STATES%20IN%20INDIA.pdf

    https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/central-transfers-to-states-role-of-the-finance-commission

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/economic-policy/can-gsdp-exclude-export-incomes-implications-for-finance-commission-devolution/