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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • How House terms and poll schedules are decided

    Why in the news? 

    • The date of counting for Assembly elections in Arunachal and Sikkim has been advanced by two days to make sure that the terms of their existing Houses don’t end before the election process is complete.

    Context-

    • The Election Commission of India (ECI) holds a crucial responsibility in coordinating and supervising electoral procedures nationwide.
    • This encompasses setting timetables for elections to legislative bodies like state assemblies and the Lok Sabha (House of the People).

    What was the original schedule for the election and counting in these two states? (2024)

    • Schedule Announcement: The schedule for Assembly elections in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, as well as the Lok Sabha elections, was announced on March 16. The Assembly elections in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim were set to be notified on March 20.
    • Nomination Period: Candidates could file their nominations for the elections until March 27.
    • Withdrawal Period: The deadline for withdrawing nominations was set for March 30.
    • Date of Polling: Both Assembly and Lok Sabha elections were scheduled to take place on April 19, marking the first phase of polling.
    • Seven-Phase Lok Sabha Elections: The Lok Sabha elections were planned to be held in seven phases on the following dates: April 19, April 26, May 7, May 13, May 20, May 26, and June 1.
    • One-Day Elections: Twenty-two states and Union Territories, including Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, were scheduled to conduct one-day elections.
    • Counting Date: Counting for all seats in the Lok Sabha and the four Assemblies would occur on June 4, according to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar.

    So what has changed now?

    • Change in Counting Date: The Election Commission of India (ECI) announced a change in the counting date for Assembly seats in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim from June 4 to June 2.
    • Reason for Change: ECI officials stated that the decision to change the counting date was made after realizing that the terms of the Assemblies in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim were ending on June 2.
    • Completion of Election Process: The decision to bring forward the counting date was based on the constitutional mandate that the election process must be completed before the term of an Assembly ends.
    • Ensuring Constitutional Compliance: By adjusting the counting date to align with the end of the Assembly terms, the ECI ensures that the electoral process remains per constitutional requirements.

    What exactly does the Constitution say about the terms of state Assemblies and Lok Sabha?

    • Lok Sabha Term: Article 83(2) outlines that the Lok Sabha unless sooner dissolved, continues for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. Similar to state Assemblies, the expiration of the five years leads to the dissolution of the House.
    • State Assembly Term: Article 172(1) of the Constitution specifies that every Legislative Assembly of every State shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting unless sooner dissolved. The expiration of the five years results in the dissolution of the Assembly.
    • Extension of Assembly Term: During a Proclamation of Emergency, Parliament has the authority to extend the term of the Assembly by up to one year at a time, not exceeding six months after the Proclamation ceases to operate.

    How does this apply to the Assemblies of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim?

    • Constitutional Mandate: The Constitution mandates that the term of Legislative Assemblies lasts for five years from the date of their first meeting unless dissolved earlier.
    • Completion of Electoral Process: With the term of the Assemblies ending on June 2, 2024, the electoral process, including voting and counting, must be completed before this date to ensure a smooth transition to the new Assemblies.

    What are the things that the ECI looks at while fixing the election schedule?

    • Factors Considered by ECI: The Election Commission of India (ECI) considers various factors while fixing the election schedule, including weather conditions, festivals, important examinations, availability of school buildings for polling stations, and mobilization of teachers for election duty.
    • Logistical Considerations: The ECI takes into account the country’s historical and geographic situation, as well as logistical requirements such as moving security forces to ensure free and fair elections.
    • Term of the Legislature: The date of expiration of the term of the legislature is the primary consideration for fixing the election schedule. This date is known five years in advance, calculated from the date of the first sitting of the existing House.
    • Completion of Election Process: The ECI aims to complete the election process at least one day before the end of the term of the House. Results are declared a few days prior, allowing time for documentation and other formalities.

    Has something similar occurred earlier too? 

    • Change in Counting Date in Andhra Pradesh (2004): In 2004, the Election Commission of India (ECI) scheduled the counting of votes for the Assembly election in Andhra Pradesh on May 11, two days earlier than the scheduled counting for Lok Sabha and other states. This adjustment was made because the tenure of the Assembly in Andhra Pradesh was set to end on May 13.
    • Changes for Festivals or Locally Relevant Events: The ECI has made changes to the announced election schedule to accommodate festivals or locally relevant events. For example, in Mizoram in the previous year, the date of counting for the Assembly election was changed from December 3 to December 4 to avoid a clash with Sunday, which holds special significance for the Christian-majority population.
    • Delinking Counting in Specific States: The ECI has previously drawn up schedules that delink the counting in a particular state from the counting in the rest of the country or from the counting of other elections held simultaneously. This strategy allows for the smooth conduct of elections while respecting the constitutional timeline for the end of the term of the House.

    Conclusion:

    The Election Commission adjusts the counting date for Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim Assemblies to align with the constitutional mandate. Factors like legislative terms, logistical considerations, and past precedents guide the ECI in fixing election schedules.

    Mains PYQ-

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

  • How were the new Election Commissioners selected? | Explained

    Why in the news? 

    The President has appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, both retired IAS officers, as Election Commissioners (ECs) to fill up two vacancies in the three-member Election Commission of India

    Context:

    • Article 324 of the Indian Constitution dictates the appointment of Election Commissioners, granting the Election Commission of India (ECI) authority over the supervision, guidance, and management of elections.
    • The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) are nominated by the President of India. While traditionally an executive prerogative, recent efforts aim to enhance inclusivity and transparency in this selection process.

    How were the new ECs selected?

    • Selection Committee: Comprising Prime Minister, Union Cabinet Minister, and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
      • Six names were shortlisted for consideration by the selection committee.
      • Headed by the Union Minister for Law and Justice and includes two officials with the rank of Secretary to the government.
      • The shortlisting was done by a committee which, according to the  Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
      • The final appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) is made by the President of India based on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

    What was the process before this?

    • Historical Background: Initially, the EC consisted only of the CEC for nearly 40 years after the adoption of the Constitution in 1949. It wasn’t until October 1989 that the EC became a multi-member body.
    • Appointment Rescission: In January 1990, the appointment of two Election Commissioners was rescinded shortly after their appointment.
    • Enactment of Law: In 1991, a law was enacted to determine the conditions of service for the CEC and ECs. This law was amended in 1993. However, it did not specify an appointment process for the CEC and ECs.
    • Appointment Process: In the absence of a specified process in parliamentary law, the appointment of the CEC and ECs has been at the discretion of the President. The Law Ministry typically presents a panel of names to the Prime Minister, who then recommends one of them as an EC to the President.
    • Appointment Convention: It became customary to appoint officials as ECs initially, and upon the completion of the CEC’s tenure, the senior EC would be elevated to the position of CEC.

    What did the SC rule on the process?

    • Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India: In the case of Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, a five-member Constitution Bench ruled that the power to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs) was not intended to be exclusively vested in the executive branch. Instead, it was subject to any law made by Parliament.
    • Interim Arrangement: Since no such law had been enacted since the inception of the Constitution, the court established an interim arrangement for the appointment of CEC and ECs. This interim arrangement was to remain in place until Parliament formulated its law regarding the appointment process.
    • Composition of Appointment Committee: The court specified that appointments should be made by a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest party in the Opposition), and the Chief Justice of India.
    • Response: In response to the court’s directive, Parliament enacted the 2023 Act, which received presidential assent and was notified in December 2023

    What is the criticism against the Act?

    • Executive Majority: Critics argue that the new Act has altered the composition of the selection panel by removing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and replacing them with a Union Minister. This change results in a two-one majority for the executive within the three-member committee.
    • Supreme Court’s Response: Despite challenges and requests for a stay on the implementation of the new Act, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to intervene, allowing the Act to proceed.
    • Upholding Constitutional Principle: Critics argue that by shifting the balance of power within the selection panel in favor of the executive, the Act undermines the constitutional principle of maintaining the autonomy and impartiality of constitutional bodies like the Election Commission.

    Conclusion:

    In moving forward, it’s imperative to restore balance in Election Commissioner appointments, ensuring judicial oversight, transparency, and inclusivity. Legislative reforms should reflect constitutional principles, safeguarding the independence of constitutional bodies and preserving democratic integrity.

  • Model Code of Conduct: Everything you need to know

    Why in the news-

    • As the Election Commission of India (EC) announced the dates for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) came into force immediately and will be in place till election results are announced.

    Understanding the Model Code of Conduct (MCC):

    • The MCC is a set of guidelines published by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for conduct during the election campaign and polling.
    • It is applicable to political parties and candidates.
    • It also explains how parties can lodge complaints to the EC observers in case of dispute and instructs how the Ministers of the parties in power must conduct themselves when the MCC is in force.
    • In 2019, a *new addition regarding election manifestos was added, instructing parties to not issue promises which were ‘repugnant to the ideals of the Constitution’.

    When was it introduced?

    • The EC traces its introduction to the 1960 Assembly elections in Kerala.
    • During simultaneous polls to the Lok Sabha and Assemblies in several States in 1962, the EC circulated the code to all recognized parties, which followed it “by and large”.
    • In October 1979, the EC came up with a comprehensive code that saw further changes after consultations with parties.

    Is the MCC a law?

    • The MCC is NOT a statutory document – NOT enforceable by any laws passed by the Parliament.
    • Violating many of its guidelines may not attract punitive action.
    • Exceptions: Several actions such as causing tension between castes, religious or linguistic communities, appealing to caste or communal feeling for securing votes, etc., are listed as ‘electoral offenses’ and ‘corrupt practices’ under the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

    Enforcement and Applicability:

    • The MCC comes into force immediately when the election schedule is announced by the Election Commission and remains in operation till the election process is complete, i.e. results are announced.

    [A] All Elections

    1. The MCC is applicable to all elections to the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies.
    2. It is also applicable for State Legislative Council elections from Local Bodies, and Graduates’ and Teachers’ Constituencies.

    [B] Obligations put on

    1. Listed Political Parties and Candidates: While listed political parties and candidates are bound to follow the MCC
    2. Non-Political Organizations Supporting Political Entities: Non-political organizations which hold campaigns favouring a political party or candidate are bound to follow specific guidelines mentioned by the EC.
    3. Government-Funded Entities: All organizations, committees, corporations, commissions funded wholly or partially by the Centre or State are bound by the MCC.

    How is the MCC enforced?

    • All officers including Police: Before holding polls for the General or State Assembly elections, the Election Commission issues guidelines to the government to shift out all officers including police who are posted in their home district, and who have completed/completing three out of four years in that district to ensure no interference.
    • Specially appointed EC officers: The MCC is then implemented by the newly appointed officials and nodal EC officers monitor compliance.

    Guidelines Issued during MCC

    [A] For Parties and Candidates:

    • Campaigning Bar: No election campaigning is allowed within the constituency 48 hours before the close of polls.
    • Restrictions on Speech: Political parties and candidates are advised to refrain from commenting on all aspects of private life of the leaders, workers of other parties, limiting criticisms to only their policies, programmes, past records and works.
    • Maintaining Social Harmony: They must also not indulge in activities aggravating existing differences or create mutual hatred between different castes, religious and linguistic communities. Appeals to caste or communal feelings for securing votes are also prohibited.
    • Others: Specific guidelines cover election campaigning, procession, canvassing, use of funds, and behavior during public meetings.

    [B] For Governments:

    • Prior approval on Policies: The Union Ministries will need prior approval of the Election Commission on any policy announcements, fiscal measures, taxation issues, financial reliefs when the MCC is in force.
    • Screening in State: Similar guidelines apply to State governments where proposals must be referred to a screening committee which will then forward it to the Chief Electoral Officers who will not forward it to the EC unless the instructions applicable to the case are not clear.
    • Level-playing field: State/ Union governments must keep public places like maidans and helipads available impartially for all parties and candidates to ensure a level-playing field.

    Guidelines for Poll Manifestos (wef 2019)

    • Manifestos must not contain anything repugnant to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution.
    • They must reflect the rationale for welfare scheme promises and indicate ways to meet the financial requirements for it.
    • The manifesto documents must not be released during the prohibitory period (when MCC kicks in).

    How are violations dealt with?

    • Any complaint regarding elections should be brought to EC observers, Returning Officer, local magistrate, Chief Electoral Officer or the Election Commission itself.
    • In response, any directions issued by the EC, Returning officer, District Election Officer shall be strictly complied with.

    PYQ:

    Consider the following statements:​

    1. In India, there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies.​
    2. In 1991 Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies.​
    3. As per the existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye-elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her in the event of him/her winning in all the constituencies.​

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?​ (2021)

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

     

    Practice MCQ:

    The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) has come into effect in India ahead of general elections. In this regard, consider the following statements:

    1. MCC comes into effect immediately after announcement of election dates and sustains till the last vote is cast.
    2. Apart from Political Parties and Candidates, it is applicable to non-political organizations supporting political entities.
    3. No election campaigning is allowed within the constituency 24 hours before the close of polls.

    How many of the given statements is/are correct?

    1. One
    2. Two
    3. Three
    4. None

  • Kerala to challenge withholding of Presidential Assent for its Bills

    Why in the news? 

    The unusual move of the Kerala Government will open doors for a Constitutional debate on the scope of a Judicial Review of the decisions of the President of India.

    Context-

    • The President had withheld assent to Kerala University Laws (Amendment No. 2) Bill 2022, University Law Amendment Bill, 2022, and the University Law Amendment Bill, 2021 from the seven Bills that were referred to her in November 2023.

    Key issues as per this situation- 

    • Legal Challenge by Kerala: Kerala plans to challenge the legality of President Droupadi Murmu withholding her assent for certain Bills passed by the Kerala Legislature.
    • Scope of Judicial Review: Kerala’s move will open doors for a Constitutional debate on the scope of judicial review of the decisions of the President of India. The state argues that the legality of the President’s decisions and the factors influencing them can be judicially reviewed.

    The power of the President to withhold assent to a state bill is derived from the Constitution of India:

    • Constitutional Authority: The power of the President to withhold assent to a state bill is outlined in Article 201 of the Constitution of India.
    • Procedure: According to Article 200, when a bill is passed by the state legislature, it is presented to the Governor for assent. The Governor then forwards the bill to the President for consideration.
    • Discretionary Power: The President has discretionary authority to either give assent to the bill or withhold it. This means the President can refuse to approve the bill if deemed necessary.
    • Reasons for Withholding Assent: The President may choose to withhold assent for various reasons, such as if the bill violates constitutional provisions, conflicts with central legislation, or is against public interest.
    • Constitutional Morality: The President’s decision to withhold assent should be guided by constitutional principles and morality. This ensures that the exercise of this power is in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

    What are the Implications of the President withholding assent to a state bill?

    • Legislative Stalemate: Withholding assent to a state bill effectively prevents it from becoming law. This can lead to a legislative stalemate, especially if the bill is crucial for the functioning of the state government or addresses pressing issues.
    • Impact on State Governance: The inability to enact a state bill due to the President’s refusal to give assent can hinder the governance and administration of the state. It may delay or impede the implementation of policies and measures intended to address local challenges or meet the needs of the state’s residents.
    • Constitutional Conflict: The withholding of assent by the President may lead to constitutional conflicts between the state government and the Union government. It raises questions about the division of powers between the Centre and the states and the extent of the President’s authority to state legislation.
    • Political Implications: The President’s decision to withhold assent to a state bill can have political repercussions. It may strain the relationship between the state government and the central government, especially if there are underlying political tensions or differences in ideology.
    • Legal Challenges: The state government may choose to challenge the President’s decision to withhold assent through legal means. This could involve seeking judicial review to determine the legality and constitutionality of the President’s action, especially if it is perceived as arbitrary or mala fide.

  • 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.

  • 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