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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court refused to condone a delay of 5659 days in an appeal filing, setting forth eight guiding principles by interpreting Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in ‘Harmonious Construction’.

    What is the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction?

    • The doctrine of harmonious construction means figuring out how to understand different parts of a law that seem to disagree with each other.
    • This doctrine helps maintain consistency and coherence in legal interpretation, ensuring that legislative intent is upheld while resolving apparent conflicts within statutes.
    • Origin: The Origin of the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction dates back to the landmark Judgement of Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951), when there existed conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPDP.
    • In the present context, the SC harmoniously construed Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, ensuring that the strict interpretation of limitation periods under Section 3 was balanced with the liberal approach to condonation of delay under Section 5.

    What is Limitation Act, 1963?

    • The Limitation Act, 1963 is a statute enacted by the Parliament that prescribes the time limits within which legal proceedings can be initiated for various civil and criminal matters.
    • The Act sets out the specific time periods, known as limitation periods, within which a person must file a lawsuit or take legal action to enforce their rights or claim remedies for a particular cause of action.
    • Once the limitation period expires, the right to initiate legal proceedings becomes barred by law, and the aggrieved party loses the right to seek legal redress.

    Here are its key features:

    • Applicability: The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to civil suits, appeals, and applications filed in courts across India, with exceptions for cases where specific statutes provide for different limitation periods.
    • Limitation Periods: The Act sets a limitation period of 3 years for filing suits related to recovery of debts, breach of contract, or injury to a person.
    • Commencement of Limitation: The limitation period typically begins from the date when the cause of action arises, which is when the aggrieved party becomes entitled to sue.
    • Extension and Suspension: The Act allows for certain circumstances where the limitation period may be extended or suspended. For instance, if the plaintiff is under a disability or if fraud is discovered, the limitation period may be extended.

    Principles for Condonation of Delay

    Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal presided over the bench that delineated these principles.

    1. Public Policy Basis: Limitation law aims to conclude litigation by forfeiting the remedy rather than the right itself.
    2. Temporal Limitation: Rights or remedies unexercised for a prolonged duration should cease to exist.
    3. Strict vs. Liberal Construction: Section 3 (limitation period) requires strict interpretation, while Section 5 (condonation of delay) demands a liberal approach.
    4. Substantial Justice: While promoting substantial justice, the core of limitation law (Section 3) must not be undermined.
    5. Discretionary Power: Courts may condone delay if sufficient cause is explained but may refrain due to factors like inordinate delay and negligence.
    6. Individual Justification: Relief granted to some does not mandate the same for others if delay justification is unsatisfactory.
    7. Merit Irrelevance: Merits of the case need not influence delay condonation decisions.
    8. Condonation Parameters: Applications for delay condonation must adhere to statutory provisions; overlooking conditions amounts to disregarding the law.

    Why were these guidelines laid out?

    • These principles emerged from a case where legal heirs sought to challenge a High Court decision dismissing their plea to condone delay in filing an appeal against a Trial Court’s reference dismissal.
    • The litigant’s heirs argued insufficient knowledge about the dismissal due to her stay in the matrimonial house, leading to a delayed filing.
    • However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing negligence in pursuing the reference and appeal, lack of procedural diligence, and acceptance of the reference court’s decision by most claimants.

    PYQ:

     

    [2021] With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:​

    1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.​

    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.​

    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

  • Candidates have a Right to Privacy from Voters: SC

    Why in the news?

    • The Supreme Court affirmed a candidate’s right to privacy from voters, stating that candidates need not divulge every aspect of their personal lives and possessions to the electorate.
    • It held that Voters Right to Know about the electors is NOT ABSOLUTE.

    Right to Privacy in India:

    • The Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is interpreted as an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
    • Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
    • In the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
    • The court held that privacy is an essential aspect of personal liberty and dignity, encompassing informational privacy, decisional autonomy, bodily integrity, and spatial privacy.
    • This right protects individuals against unwarranted intrusions into their private lives by the state or any other entity.
    • It includes the right to keep personal information confidential, to make decisions about one’s life and body without interference, and to maintain physical and spatial autonomy.

     

    A candidate doesn’t need to declare every item of movable property, such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, and furniture, unless these items are of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon the candidate’s candidature in terms of their lifestyle – Supreme Court. 

    What are Corrupt Practices under the RPA?

    • Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 defines “corrupt practices” to include bribery, undue influence, false information, and promotion of enmity among citizens based on religion, race, caste, etc.
    • Section 123(2) deals with “undue influence,” involving interference with electoral rights through threats or promises.
    • Undue influence can manifest in various forms, including threats of physical harm, coercion, intimidation, promises of reward or benefit, or exploitation of vulnerabilities.

    Supreme Court’s Verdict

    1. Emphasis on Candidate’s Right to Privacy:
    • Upholding the appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized the candidate’s right to privacy, stating that not every non-disclosure automatically constitutes a defect.
    • The court highlighted that a candidate is not required to disclose every item of movable property unless it reflects upon their candidature or lifestyle.
    1. Case-specific Evaluation:
    • The court emphasized that each case must be judged on its own merits, without applying a blanket rule.
    • The Court emphasized that non-disclosure of certain personal possessions does not amount to a “defect of a substantial nature” under Section 36(4) of the 1951 Act.
    1. Example of “High-value” Assets:
    • Suppression of high-priced assets, indicating a lavish lifestyle, would constitute undue influence.
    • However, ownership of simple, low-value items may not be considered a defect.

    PYQ:

    [2017] For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by-

    (a) Anyone residing in India.

    (b) A resident of the constituency from which the election is to be contested.

    (c) Any citizen of India whose name appears in the electoral roll of a constituency.

    (d) Any citizen of India.

  • In news: Cantonment Boards

    Why in the news?

    • The Centre has reportedly initiated measures to reduce the land jurisdiction of 10 major cantonment boards across five states.
    • In May 2023, the Centre had kicked off a plan to abolish all 62 colonial-era Cantonments across the country.

    What are Cantonments?

    • Cantonments are Permanent military stations where a group of military personnel are stationed for administrative purposes.
    • They are governed by the Cantonments Act, 2006, which provides for municipal administration and control of these areas.
    • India currently has 62 cantonments spread across various states, with some areas known for their better infrastructure and facilities compared to other parts of the country.
    • Cantonments are managed by Cantonment Boards, which are democratic bodies comprising elected and nominated members.
    • The Station Commander of the Cantonment serves as the ex-officio President of the Board.

    Historical Background

    • The Cantonments Act, 1924, was enacted by the British to regulate the municipal administration of cantonments.
    • After India’s independence, the Cantonments Act was modified to suit the democratic setup of the country.
    • The current Cantonments Act, 2006, replaced the previous version, aiming to provide greater autonomy and accountability to the Cantonment Boards.

    Categories of the erstwhile Cantonments

    Cantonments are categorized based on the population size residing within them:

    1. Category I: Cantonments with a population of over 50,000.
    2. Category II: Cantonments with a population of 10,000 to 50,000.
    3. Category III: Cantonments with a population of less than 10,000.
    4. Category IV: Industrial or training Cantonments, irrespective of their population size.

    Centre’s plan to re-regulate Cantonments

    • Conversion to Exclusive Military Stations: Under the plan, military areas within all cantonments will be carved out and designated as “exclusive military stations.” The Army will exercise “absolute control” over these areas, streamlining their administration and operations.
    • Merger with Local Municipalities: The civilian areas of cantonments will be integrated with the respective local municipalities. These municipalities will take up the responsibility of maintaining these areas, along with providing essential services and infrastructure.
    • Move Away from Traditional Cantonment Concept: Post-independence, the Indian Army moved away from the traditional cantonment concept, primarily due to friction between military and civilian authorities. However, certain major cantonments continued to exist, such as Pune Cantonment and Agra Cantonment.

  • The citizen’s ‘climate rights’

    Why in the news? 

    The Supreme Court recently held that people have a fundamental right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change while emphasizing that countries like India must uphold their international obligations for healthy and sustainable development [M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs Union of India].

     

    Background of M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs Union of India Case:

      • The case was related to the conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).
      • In 2021, a writ petition was filed by retired government official and conservationist M K Ranjitsinh, seeking protection for the GIB and the Lesser Florican, which are on the verge of extinction.
      • On April 19, 2021 order by SC was imposed restricting the setting up of overhead transmission lines in a territory of about 99,000 sq km in the GIB habitat in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
    • The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”, which should be recognized by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
    • This judgment was by a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

    The Recent Modification over Earlier Judgement given by the SC:

    Who applied for modification of an earlier case?

    • The Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy had applied to modify the 2021 order on grounds that
    • It had adverse implications for India’s power sector, and undergrounding power lines was not possible
    • The Paris Climate Treaty (2015) is one of the key grounds for seeking a modification of the 2021 order.

    What SC did say in this case?

    • Underground powerlines: The apex court modified its April 2021 order giving directions for underground high-voltage and low-voltage power lines, and directed experts to assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines in specific areas after considering factors such as terrain, population density, and infrastructure requirements
    • The earlier direction was not feasible: The ruling acknowledged that its earlier directions, “besides not being feasible to implement, would also not result in achieving its stated purpose, i.e., the conservation of the GIB”.
    • Suitable relationship between FR and DPSP: The court emphasized that when addressing environmental concerns outlined in the Directive Principles of State Policy, they must be interpreted in conjunction with the right to life and personal liberty as enshrined in Article 21.

    How have the Courts interpreted Article 21 earlier?

    • Article 21 as the Heart of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court (SC) recognizes Article 21 of the Constitution as central to fundamental rights, emphasizing that the right to life encompasses more than mere existence but includes all rights necessary for a meaningful and dignified life.
    • Inclusion of Environmental Rights within Article 21: In the 1980s, the SC expanded Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment, along with various other rights such as education, shelter, clean air, livelihood, and medical care.
    • Actualizing New Rights: Despite the recognition of these new rights, citizens often face challenges in exercising them, particularly in cases concerning environmental issues like clean air.

     

    What are the implications of the judgment for environmental jurisprudence?

    • Strengthening Environmental and Climate Justice: The judgment emphasizes bolstering environmental and climate justice by recognizing the multifaceted impacts of climate change on various communities.
    • Expansion of Article 14 and Right to Life: The judgment expands the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, to encompass environmental concerns.
    • Influence on Public Discourse and Government Policies: The judgment is expected to influence public discourse on environmental issues, shaping perceptions and priorities regarding environmental protection.
    • Establishment of Legal Precedent: By acknowledging the “right against adverse effects of climate change,” the judgment establishes a significant legal precedent.

    Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s recognition of citizens’ “right to be free from adverse effects of climate change” expands constitutional protections, strengthens environmental justice, influences policy discourse, and sets a crucial legal precedent.

    Mains PYQ 

    Q Does the right to clean environment entail legal regulation on burning crackers during Diwali? Discus in the light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution and judgements of the apex in this regard.(UPSC IAS/2015) 

    Q The most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court.” Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws. (UPSC IAS/2022) 

  • VVPAT Verification in Elections

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court has decided to address petitions advocating for a comprehensive verification of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in upcoming general elections.

    What are VVPATs?

    • VVPAT machines, attached to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), print a slip showing the voter’s choice, allowing voters to verify their vote for 7 seconds before the slip drops into a secured box.
    • The concept emerged in 2010, leading to the creation of prototypes by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India (ECIL).
    • After trials and feedback, the design was approved in February 2013.
    • The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, were amended to incorporate VVPATs.
    • They were first used in Nagaland’s Noksen Assembly constituency in 2013 and were implemented in all polling stations by the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

    Current VVPAT Slip Counting Protocol

    • In 2018, the ECI consulted the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) to determine a statistically robust sample size for VVPAT slip verification.
    • Initially, VVPAT slips of one randomly selected polling station per Assembly constituency were counted.
    • This was increased to five polling stations per Assembly seat after a Supreme Court judgment in 2019.
    • The ISI suggested counting VVPAT slips from 479 EVMs to ensure a high confidence level that the proportion of defective EVMs is less than 2%.

    Recent petitions regarding VVPAT

    • Opposition parties advocate for heightened VVPAT verification, ranging from 50% to 100%, to bolster electoral transparency and uphold the sanctity of democratic processes.
    • However, the Election Commission emphasizes the need to balance transparency with operational constraints, citing logistical challenges and potential delays in result declaration.

    About Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in India

    Details
    Introduction EVMs introduced in Paravur Assembly Constituency, Kerala, 1982.
    Adoption
    • Election Commission increasingly used EVMs since 1998. All state elections and by-elections used EVMs by 2003.
    • Use of EVMs for Lok Sabha elections implemented in 2004.
    Development
    • Developed by the Technical Experts Committee (TEC) of Election Commission, with Bharat Electronics Ltd,
    • Bangalore, and Electronic Corporation of India Ltd, Hyderabad.
    Functionality
    • Consists of Control Unit and Balloting Unit connected by cable.
    • Voters press blue button on Ballot Unit to record vote.
    Key Features
    • Each EVM records up to 2,000 votes.
    • Operates without electricity, powered by battery from Bharat Electronics Ltd/Electronic Corporation of India.
    • Uses one-time programmable/masked chip for security.
    • Stand-alone machines without an operating system for enhanced security.

     

     

    PYQ:

    [2017] Right to vote and to be elected in India is a

    (a) Fundamental Right

    (b) Natural Right

    (c) Constitutional Right

    (d) Legal Right
  • [6 April 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Parliaments past, a mirror to changing dynamics

    [6 April 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Parliaments past, a mirror to changing dynamics

    PYQ Relevance:

    Mains: 

    Q. The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention? (UPSC CSE 2013)
    Q. To what extent, in your view, the Parliament can ensure accountability of the executive in India? (UPSC CSE 2021)

    Prelims:

    We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?​ (UPSC CSE 2021)

    1. As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited.
    ​2. In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.​

    Select the correct answer using the code given below.​

    (a) 1 only ​(b) 2 only​(c) Both 1 and 2 ​(d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Parliamentary Democracy; 

    Mentors Comment: We Indians have been through ‘thick and thin’ as our Democracy has evolved. Since the 16th and 17th Loksabha, all have been doubts relating to the accountability of people’s Representation in Parliament due to the reduced Debates and discussions in Parliamentary sessions. Now, as we move towards the general election of 2024, the question arises: will history repeat itself? Or, will a new precedent be set? This prompts us, as citizens of India, to reflect on the performance of our Parliament as we wait to usher in the 18th Lok Sabha.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the News?

    The present conduct of business in both Houses of Parliament points out the need for a revitalization of legislative engagement in a more constructive manner.

    • The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024) concluded its proceedings marking the culmination of a journey with unexpected twists and turns.

    How did Ministries fare during the 17th Loksabha?

    • Decline in Executive Accountability: The PMO found itself flooded with 1,146 questions from Rajya Sabha Members of Parliament, of which only 28 were answered. Similarly, the House of the People also witnessed a sharp decline, from 5,000 during the 15th and 16th Lok Sabhas to a mere 1,700 in the 17th Lok Sabha.
      • Ministry of Finance tasked with steering the nation’s fiscal destiny, has witnessed a gradual erosion of parliamentary interest, declining to the fourth and fifth position in the Parliament.
    • Decline in Legislative Process: The annual average of Bills passed declined from 65 in the 1952-1990 period to 48 in 1991-2023. The number of Bills sent to committees for scrutiny also dwindled consistently, with the 17th Lok Sabha sending only 16% of Bills for scrutiny, the lowest in the past four Lok Sabhas.
    • A decline in Debates and Discussions: Before 1990, each Lok Sabha typically convened for over 550 days on average, spanning 3,500 hours. The 17th Lok Sabha had the least number of sittings, only 274 days on average.
      • The Ministry of Home Affairs, which was the Ministry with the second most number of questions directed towards it till the 15th Lok Sabha, has now faded. This shift raises questions about the nation’s priorities.
    • Decline in the use of various parliamentary tools:
      • Calling Attention Motion: It is a vital tool allowing MPs to draw attention to issues and elicit responses from ministers was extensively used between 1957 and 1990, with an average of 300 notices allowed per Lok Sabha. Post-1990, only 40 notices have been allowed per Lok Sabha. The 17th Lok Sabha allowed only one such discussion.
      • For example, the Winter Session, 2023 of the Rajya Sabha missed a crucial discussion on the sensitive and key issue of ‘Suicides among students due to competitive exams’.
    • The Adjournment Motion: It is employed to address urgent issues with a subsequent vote, and serves as an expression of disagreement with the government’s policies. Pre-1990, the Lok Sabha permitted discussion and voting on four such motions on average. Post-1990, this number decreased to three. The 16th and 17th Lok Sabha allowed no adjournment motions.
    • Ministries such as Health and Family Welfare, Home Affairs, Defence, Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, and Finance, made up 36.6% of all disallowed questions in Rajya Sabha. In contrast, in the Lok Sabha, they made up 37.8% of the disallowed questions, underscoring systemic challenges.

     Way Forward:

    • Need for 15-point Reform: As recommended by the Vice President, it is required to make the Charter function effectively and efficiently by ensuring that the members of the committee are nominated based on domain knowledge and for a longer assured term.
    • Need to work on Democratic Principles: To maximize the Parliament’s ability to hold the executive accountable, it is crucial to promote a conducive environment for constructive debate, scrutiny, and oversight.

    https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/parliaments-past-a-mirror-to-changing-dynamics/article68033393.ece

    https://www.thehindu.com/data/the-many-lows-of-the-17th-lok-sabha-data/article67852889.ece

  • [5 April 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Revisit these sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

    [5 April 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Revisit these sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

    PYQ Relevance:
    Mains: 
    Q) What is meant by the term ‘constitutional morality’? How does one uphold constitutional morality? (UPSC IAS/2019) 
    Q) What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)

    Note4Students: 

    Prelims:  Governance; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023;

    Mains:  Governance;  Issues related to the section in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); 

    Mentor comments: In December 2023, the Indian Parliament enacted three new criminal codes. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 is the principal law on criminal offenses in India. The stated aim of the new three legislations is to ‘decolonize’ criminal laws of the British era. Currently, ‘Organised crime’ and ‘acts of terrorism’ are not covered under IPC.  Acts of terrorism are covered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).  Organized crime is covered by state laws such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), and similar laws are enacted by various states. Hence, there was a demand for a single platform for this code. However, the designed law too has its challenges which need to be revisited considering the diversity of society and its demands.

    Let’s learn. 

    —

    Why in the news? 

    The three new criminal laws that were passed by Parliament in 2023 will come into effect from July 1, 2024, according to a notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

    About the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
    The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively, received President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on December 25, 2023.

    The Laws that need to be revisited:

    1. The issue with Section 106 (Hit-and-Run):
    • The Section 106 provision is part of the BNS, which is set to replace the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, 1860.
      • Section 106(1) provides for a punishment of up to 5 years for causing death by any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.
      • Section 106 (2) stipulates a penalty of up to 10 years in jail and a fine for fleeing an accident spot and failing to report the incident to a police officer or a magistrate.
    • This section has become a focal point of discontent, especially among the driving community. Even though the driver reports immediately after the accident, they will be charged under Section 106(1) instead of Section 106(2). 
    1. The issue with Section 112 (petty organized crime):
    • It talks about a group or gang, either singly or jointly, commits any act of theft, snatching, cheating, unauthorized selling of tickets, unauthorized betting or gambling, selling of public examination question papers, or any other similar criminal acts is said to commit a petty organized crime”.
    • The “unauthorized selling of tickets” and “selling of public examination question papers” are not linked with any special Act. However, the phrase ‘any other similar criminal acts’ of the section is more indefinite and open-ended.
    1. Section 104 (No discretion):
    • Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) mandated the death sentence for a person who murders while undergoing imprisonment for life. This provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Mithu vs State of Punjab (1983) as it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 
    • Section 303 of the IPC has been reinstated as Section 104 of the BNS without rectifying the unconstitutional defect. 
    1. Section 303 of the BNS (Reassessment of Theft Offenses):
    • No reason behind it is considered Non-cognizable: The provision stipulates that for theft cases where the value of the stolen property is less than ₹5,000 and it’s the first conviction, community service is mandated upon the return or restoration of the property. This offense is categorized as non-cognizable.
    • Three Legal issues may arise: 
      • Firstly, if property offenses, of whatever value, are not registered, property offenders will be out of the police radar for surveillance. 
      • Secondly, legal issues may also arise about the return of such property if recovered with some other stolen or looted property.
      • Thirdly, if the stolen property of a value less than ₹5,000 is not returned or restored by the convict as provided for, the only option available to the court will be to award imprisonment which may extend up to 3 years. 

    Way Forward:

    • Need for Comprehensive Coverage: We can initiate consultations with all stakeholders to address concerns and gather diverse perspectives.
    • Need for clear Protocols: Establish a clear and standardized protocol for emergency response, emphasizing the importance of prompt reporting without exposing drivers to potential violence. The law should also clarify the reporting procedure and the evidence required for the drivers to prove their innocence or mitigating factors.
    • Need to maintain Balance: The law should be categorized in different scales based on liabilities and eventually, the punishment should be commensurate with the offense.
    • Need for more research: The study and incorporation of successful models and globally best practices with effective legislation is necessary in the Indian context.

    https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/revisit-these-sections-of-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/article68029299.ece#:~:text=Section%20106(2)%20of%20the,has%20been%20put%20on%20hol

  • Living wills implementation lags in India

    Why in the news? 

    In early March this year, 30 people in Thrissur in Kerala executed living wills.

    Context:

    • The Supreme Court’s 2018 order on Passive Euthanasia, wherein it recognized the ‘Right to die with dignity’ as a fundamental right and an aspect of Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
    • However, the people wanting to get a “living will” registered were facing problems due to cumbersome guidelines, prompting a reconsideration by the apex court.
    • A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in three concurring opinions, upheld that the fundamental right to life and dignity includes the ‘Right to Refuse Treatment and Die with dignity’.

    What is a Living Will? 

    A Living Will is a healthcare directive, in which people can state their wishes for their end-of-life care, in case they are not in a position to make that decision.

    The Court’s procedure:

    • Pre-2023: Initially, the process of creating living wills was deemed overly complex by the Court, with elaborate bureaucratic procedures in place to prevent abuse by unscrupulous individuals seeking to exploit the patient’s assets.
    • Post-2023: Recognizing the impracticality of requiring judicial magistrate countersignatures on living wills, the Court streamlined the process in January 2023. Now, living will require signatures in the presence of witnesses, attestation by a notary or gazetted officer, and submission to a designated government officer acting as a custodian.

    Challenges in Implementation :

    • Decision-Making Process: Even if a living will is created, its implementation is not automatic. Decisions on withholding or withdrawing treatment require certification by primary and secondary medical boards, posing logistical challenges, especially in hospitals without designated boards.
    • Ambiguities and Discomfort: Ambiguities in guidelines, discomfort with end-of-life care topics, and unclear legal definitions contribute to the hesitancy among officials to implement the Court’s directives without clear instructions from higher authorities.
    • Legal Ambiguity: Indian law lacks a clear definition of ‘next of kin’, leading to potential disputes among family members about medical decisions for terminally ill patients.
    • Barriers to End-of-Life Decisions: A survey of intensive care doctors reveals a general belief that end-of-life decisions are fraught with legal implications, serving as a significant barrier to making such decisions in the ICU.
    • Regional Disparities in India:
    • Haryana: While some states like Haryana have issued directions to follow the judgment, they have not provided essential guidance or protocols for implementation.
    • Odisha: In contrast, Odisha has taken a more thorough approach by forming a committee of experts to develop detailed draft orders for implementing the judgment, setting a potential example for other states.

    Conclusion: The central government could help bridge the gap in expertise by developing and publishing model orders and protocols to provide states with confidence and guidance in effectively implementing the judgment.

    Mains question for practice 

    Q Discuss the challenges surrounding the implementation of living wills in India, as established by the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in 2018.

     

     

     

  • Why Supreme Court bar unregulated soil extraction for linear projects?

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the SC revoked the notification given by the Environment Ministry to exempt the extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as road and railway construction.

    • It was challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which asked the Ministry to review it within three months. However, the Ministry did not take any action, leading the matter to reach the SC.

    What are the linear projects? 

    Linear projects refer to Construction or Development Projects. It includes the construction of linear structures like utility lines, pipelines, railroad tracks, highways, stormwater channels, and stream restoration activities.

    What was the 2020 exemption?

    • September 2006: The Environment Ministry issued a notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, on activities that would require prior Environmental Clearance.
    • January 2016: A second notification was issued, exempting certain categories of projects from this requirement.
    • March 2020: It added “Extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc” to the list of exempted activities.
      • The general purpose of the 2020 notification was to conform to the amendments made to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in March 2020, allowing new lessees to continue mining for two years with the statutory clearances and licenses issued to their predecessors.

    Nexus between the Judiciary and the Union Government (Ground for Challenges)

      • Judicial stand: The SC invalidated the broad and random exception, highlighting that the announcement was rushed during the COVID-19 lockdown without seeking feedback or objections through prior notification.
    • The exemption granted without incorporating safeguards was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
    • The court emphasized that the absence of safeguards defeats the purpose of the Environment Protection Act (EP Act).
    • An argument by the center: The Center contended that the exemption was essential “to benefit the general public” and would support “the kumhars (potters), farmers, gram panchayats, banjaras, roads of Gujarat,” and all non-mining activities recognized by the states.
      • However, the Apex court stated that the Centre had failed to provide reasons for concluding that the notification was issued in the public interest.

    Similar Judicial Scrutiny in the Past:

    • January 2018: The NGT quashed an exemption offered by the Ministry’s 2016 notification from the requirement of prior EC for building and construction activities having built-up areas of more than 20,000 sq m. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing to suggest an improvement in the quality of the environment to justify the exemption.
    • July 2015: Underlining that the EP Act mandates prior approval, the NGT struck down two Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry in December 2012 and June 2013 for granting ex-post facto EC to projects under the 2006 notification.
    • July 2021: Another notification of the Ministry that sought to perpetuate an amnesty window opened for just six months in March 2017 to clear projects under the “violation category” and issued ex-post facto approval to more than 100 projects, until the SC stayed it in January this year.
    • March 2024: The Kerala HC quashed a 2014 notification that exempted educational institutions and industrial sheds with built-up areas of more than 20,000 sq m from obtaining EC.

     

    Conclusion: The Supreme Court invalidated the Environment Ministry’s exemption for earth extraction in linear projects due to a lack of justification and safeguards, emphasizing compliance with Environmental Clearance to minimize environmental harm, safeguarding the Environment Protection Act’s purpose.

    Mains PYQ

    Q How does the draft EnvironmentImpact Assessment(EIA)Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006? (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • In news: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

    Why in the News?

    • The Allahabad High Court clarified the appellate jurisdiction concerning orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in contempt proceedings.
    • The court ruled that appeals against CAT contempt orders must be filed exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

    What is Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)?

    • The CAT is a specialized quasi-judicial body in India established under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India.
    • Its primary function is to adjudicate disputes and complaints related to recruitment and service conditions of government employees.
    • CAT was set up to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to government employees in matters concerning their service conditions and employment disputes.

    Establishment of CAT:

    • The Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 enacted by the Parliament authorizes the central government to establish Central Administrative Tribunal and the State Administrative Tribunals.
    • There are 17 Benches and 21 Circuit Benches in the Central Administrative Tribunal all over India.

    Jurisdiction of CAT:

    • The Administrative Tribunal is distinguishable from the ordinary courts with regard to its jurisdiction and procedure.
    • It exercises jurisdiction only about the service matters of the parties covered by the Act.
    • CAT exercises jurisdiction over all service matters concerning the following:
    1. A member of any All-India Service
    2. A person appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union
    3. A civilian appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence

    Services NOT Covered:

    The following members are NOT covered under the jurisdiction of CAT:

    1. Defense forces, Officers,
    2. The staff of the Supreme Court and
    3. Secretarial staff of the Parliament.

    Procedure:

    • The CAT is guided by the principles of natural justice in deciding cases and is NOT bound by the procedure, prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code.
    • It is empowered to frame its own rules of procedure and practice.
    • Under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Tribunal has been conferred with the power to exercise the same jurisdiction and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court.

    Composition:

    • The CAT comprises of a chairman, and other members who are appointed by the President of India.
    • The membership of CAT is filled by members from judicial and administrative fields.
    • The term of the service is 5 years or until the age of 65 years for chairman; 62 years for members, whichever is earlier. (minimum age is 50 years)
    • The chairman or any other member may address his resignation to the President in between his term of office.

     

    PYQ:

    2019: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which was established for redressal of grievances and complaints by or against central government employees nowadays is exercising its power as an independent judicial authority. Explain.

     

    Practice MCQ:

    Consider the following statements about the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT):

    1.    The CAT is a specialized quasi-judicial body.

    2.    It adjudicates disputes and complaints related to recruitment and service conditions of government employees.

    3.    Personnel of the armed forces are covered in the jurisdiction of CAT.

    How many of the above statements is/are correct?

    (a) One

    (b) Two

    (c) Three

    (d) None