The long-awaited Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been set into motion by the Centre, marking a significant step forward in India’s legislative landscape.
Enacted in December 2019, the CAA aims to provide citizenship to certain migrants from neighboring countries, sparking debates and controversies nationwide.
Making of the CAA, 2019: A Timeline
2002: Initial efforts were made to address the challenges faced by Pakistani Hindus seeking Indian visas and citizenship.
2004: Amendments to Citizenship Rules empowered district magistrates to grant Long Term Visas (LTVs) and citizenship to migrants in border districts.
2010: The Ministry of Home Affairs eased restrictions on LTV extensions for certain categories of Pakistani nationals.
2014: Notification allowed citizenship for select migrant communities, excluding Jains and Parsis.
2018: Government extended LTV eligibility to communities seeking Indian citizenship, offering various benefits.
New Citizenship Law: Eligibility and Required Documentation
Beneficiaries: The CAA primarily benefits Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014.
Documentation: Applicants need to provide proof of their country of origin, religion, date of entry into India, and knowledge of an Indian language.
Proof of Country of Origin: Acceptable documents include birth certificates, educational institution certificates, identity documents, licenses, certificates, or any other document issued by Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan.
Establishing Date of Entry: Applicants can provide a range of documents such as visas, residential permits, census slips, driving licenses, Aadhaar cards, ration cards, or any letter issued by the government or court to prove their entry date.
Generational Proof: Applicants can also provide documents indicating familial ties to these countries, such as those showing ancestry, expanding the scope of eligibility.
Application Processing Mechanism
[A] Empowered Committees
Role of Empowered Committee: This committee is tasked with overseeing the entire process, from receiving to processing applications. It ensures that all procedures are followed diligently and efficiently.
Membership: The Empowered Committee is headed by a Director (Census Operations) and comprises representatives from various government bodies, including the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Office (FRRO), the National Informatics Centre (NIC), and the Postmaster General.
Responsibilities: The committee members are responsible for verifying the authenticity of documents submitted by applicants, conducting background checks, and making final decisions on citizenship applications.
[B] District Level Committees (DLC)
Composition: The DLC consists of the District Informatics Officer or District Informatics Assistant and a nominee of the central government.
Functions: DLCs serve as the initial point of contact for applicants, receiving their submissions and ensuring they are complete and accurate before forwarding them to the Empowered Committee for further processing.
Oversight: While DLCs handle the initial stages of application processing, they operate under the supervision and guidance of the Empowered Committee. This hierarchical structure ensures uniformity and consistency in decision-making across different regions.
[C] Electronic Submission and Processing
Digital Platform: To streamline operations and minimize paperwork, the application process is conducted electronically. Applicants submit their documents and forms through an online portal managed by the government.
Efficiency: Electronic submission allows for faster processing times and reduces the risk of errors associated with manual data entry. It also enables real-time tracking of application status, providing transparency to applicants throughout the process.
Data Security: The government ensures robust cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information submitted by applicants. Encryption protocols and secure servers safeguard data integrity and confidentiality.
Conclusion
The implementation of the CAA signifies a significant policy shift aimed at addressing the plight of persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries.
While the rules have sparked debates and opposition, they also represent India’s commitment to humanitarian values and providing refuge to those in need.
As the citizenship application process unfolds, it will be crucial to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures to uphold the principles of justice and inclusivity.
India, previously categorized as an “electoral autocracy” in 2018, has further declined to become one of the “worst autocratizers,” according to the ‘Democracy Report 2024’ by the Gothenburg-based V-Dem (or Varieties of Democracy) Institute.
Key highlightson India
Deteriorating Status: India, previously downgraded to an electoral autocracy in 2018, has further declined to become “one of the worst autocratizers.”
Historical Comparison: India’s level of “liberal democracy” has regressed significantly, reaching levels last seen in 1975 during the state of emergency declared by Indira Gandhi.
Regime Classification: India falls into the category of electoral autocracy, characterized by multiparty elections alongside insufficient levels of freedom of expression and fair elections.
Erosion of Democratic Freedoms: The report highlights the gradual deterioration of freedom of expression, media independence, and attacks on civil society under the current government.
About the V-Dem Democracy Report
Publication: The V-Dem Institute releases the Democracy Report annually, offering insights into the state of democracy worldwide, focusing on democratization and autocratization.
Regime Classification: Countries are categorized into four regime types based on their scores in the Liberal Democratic Index (LDI), encompassing a spectrum from liberal democracy to closed autocracy.
What is Liberal Democratic Index (LDI)?
Comprehensive Assessment: The LDI evaluates both liberal (individual and minority rights) and electoral aspects (free and fair elections) of democracy.
Indicators: It comprises 71 indicators, encompassing the Liberal Component Index (LCI) and the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI), capturing various dimensions of democratic governance.
LCI: Measures aspects like protection of individual liberties and legislative constraints on the executive.
EDI: Considers indicators ensuring free and fair elections such as freedom of expression and association.
Components of the LDI include:
Egalitarian Component Index: Assesses the extent of equality among different social groups within a democracy.
Participatory Component Index: Evaluates the health of citizen groups and civil society organizations, indicating the degree of citizen engagement.
Deliberative Component Index: Gauges whether political decisions are driven by public reasoning focused on the common good or influenced by emotional appeals, solidarity attachments, or coercion.
Publication Schedule: The Democracy Report is typically published annually in March, presenting a comprehensive analysis of global democratic trends.
Key Findings from the Democracy Report 2024:
Collaborative Effort: The report is a collaborative endeavour involving 4,200 scholars from 180 countries, leveraging 31 million datasets spanning from 1789 to 2023 to assess the democratic status of 202 countries.
Global Trends:
Autocratization: In 2023, 42 countries, representing 35% of the world’s population, were undergoing autocratization.
Population in Autocracies: Currently, 71% of the world’s population, amounting to 5.7 billion people, resides in autocracies, marking a significant increase from 48% a decade ago.
Decline in Democracy: The level of democracy experienced by the average individual globally has regressed to 1985 levels, with Eastern Europe, South, and Central Asia experiencing the sharpest declines.
PYQ Relevance: Prelims: The Government of India has established NITI Aayog to replace the [UPSC CSE 2015] a) Human Rights Commission b) Finance Commission c) Law Commission d) Planning Commission
Mains: 1. How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the States to improve their fiscal position? [UPSC CSE 2021]
2. How is the Finance Commission of India constituted? What do you know about the terms of reference of the recently constituted Finance Commission? Discuss. [UPSC CSE 2018]
3. Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, it is equally true that federalism under the Indian Constitution leans in favor of a strong Centre, a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism. [UPSC CSE 2014]
From The Hindu
Note4Students:
Mains: Finance Commission;Centre-State relations;
Prelims: Recommendations by Finance Commission;
Mentor comments: The issue of declining shares of some States in central transfers, is particularly affecting southern States like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, stems from factors like the income distance criterion and changes in population data used for calculations. The income distance criterion, which rewards states further from the highest income state, has led to losses for southern States. To address this issue, we need to reduce the weight of the income distance criterion and limiting cesses and surcharges of the Centre’s gross tax revenues. Overall, today’s debate is over central transfers who need to have a balanced approach that considers various criteria like income distance and population while ensuring equitable distribution among all states.
Let’s learn.
—
Why in the News?
The Southern States have been facing a decline in their share out of the resources transferred from the Centre to the States. Considering this situation, there are many issues that the Sixteenth Finance Commission will have to deal with.
Background:
The revenue sharing through the Finance Commission between Centre and the Southern States has fallen over the last two decades.
The share of states in combined revenue receipts rose but has since fallen, highlighting the need for fair distribution mechanisms.
Additionally, the shift in population data from 1971 to 2011 has impacted tax devolution, with some southern states feeling disadvantaged.
What is the income distance criterion and how does it affect state shares? The income distance criterion in the context of Finance Commission allocations is a measure of the distance between a state’s income and the state with the highest income, calculated based on the average per capita Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). States with lower per capita income receive a higher share to ensure equity among states.
Significance of this criteria:
It remains crucial for ensuring fair distribution among states. It also plays a significant role in determining the distribution of union taxes to each state, with states further from the highest income state receiving a higher share.
What are the 3 major challenging observations in Centre-State Tax Devolution?
1) Issue of share with states in Tax Devolution:
Firstly, we need to look at which States have been gaining and which are losing their share over time; the criteria of horizontal distribution which has led to some States steadily losing their share; and what can be done to reverse this trend.
In Table 1, the shares of groups of States and those for selected States are shown, for the 12th FC to the 15th FC (final report).
Southern States have been on a steady fall in their share, from 19.785% to 15.800%. The northern and eastern States have also lost. The ‘gainer States’ were the hilly, central, and western States including Maharashtra.
The low-income States such as Bihar and Uttar Pradesh show, in terms of their overall share, a loss of 0.970% points and 1.325% points.
The main reason for the loss to the southern States due to the distance criterion amounted to 8.055% points, although the overall loss was much less at 3.985% points, implying that there was a gain under other criteria.
2) Issue over the Income Distance:
Inconsistency: Table 2 provides a list of the different criteria used by Finance Commissions, from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth.
Decreasing weight: The distance criterion has been accorded the highest weight amongst these criteria. Its weight was reduced from 50% to 47.5% by the 13th FC and further reduced to 45% by the 15th Fifteenth FC.
Hampering equalization: The above two observations challenge the Socio-economic justice principles which has always been regarded as a key principle in governing distribution.
3) Issue over the Population:
Data Updation issue: Until the Fourteenth Finance Commission, the data for the population in 1971 was used. For the Fifteenth Finance Commission, data for the population in 2011 was used.
Mismatched data: In order not to penalize States 15th FC showed better performance in reducing fertility rates, and the demographic change criterion was eventually introduced.
The joint impact of these two changes has been marginal for all groups of States. For Tamil Nadu, the joint impact was marginally positive.
Recommendation for Sixteenth Finance Commission:
Balanced allocation approach: Need to consider reducing the weight of the income distance criterion by 5% to 10% points. On Cesses and Surcharges: Need to evaluate and potentially impose an upper limit on cesses and surcharges to safeguard the divisible pool size and states’ revenue shares.
What steps need to be taken? (Way Forward)
Maintain Income Distance Criterion: The income distance criterion is essential for equitable distribution among states and should not be abandoned. We need to consider reducing its weightage while enhancing other criteria to balance allocations.
Manage Divisible Pool Size: We need to limit cesses and surcharges to 10% of the Centre’s gross tax revenues to prevent reducing the size of the divisible pool.The increase in states’ share from 32% to 42% by the Fourteenth Finance Commission should not be offset by additional levies.
Review Revenue Sharing Trends: Need to analyze the impact of changing criteria on state shares over time to ensure fair and balanced distribution. Further, we also need to address concerns raised by states experiencing declining shares due to existing allocation mechanisms.
Basic idea: CAA, 2019, aims to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, to grant Indian citizenship to specific categories of illegal migrants.
Eligible Religions: CAA targets Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, making them eligible for Indian citizenship.
Objective: The primary objective is to facilitate citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from India’s three Muslim-majority neighboring countries.
Residence Requirement: The Citizenship Act, 1955, normally requires 11 of the previous 14 years of residence in India as a condition for naturalization.
Amendment: CAA reduces this requirement to 6 years for applicants belonging to the specified religions and countries.
Exemption from Criminal Cases: Members of the designated communities are exempted from criminal cases under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1920, if they entered India before December 31, 2014.
Defining Illegal Migrants
Status under Present Laws: Existing laws prohibit illegal migrants from acquiring Indian citizenship.
CAA’s Definition: CAA classifies an illegal migrant as a foreigner who enters India without valid travel documents (passport and visa) or overstays beyond the allowed period.
Penalties: Illegal migrants can face imprisonment or deportation under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.
Exceptions under CAA
Conditions for Exemption: CAA outlines four conditions that, if met, exempt certain individuals from being treated as illegal migrants:
They belong to the specified religions (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian).
They hail from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
They entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
They are not in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura (Sixth Schedule) or “Inner Line” permit areas (Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland).
Controversies Surrounding CAA
Country of Origin: CAA categorizes migrants based on their country of origin, specifically Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Religious Exclusivity: It raises questions about why only six specified religious minorities have been considered in the Act.
Omission of Rohingya: The Act doesn’t address the Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, who have faced persecution.
Entry Date Differentiation: The differential treatment of migrants based on their entry date, i.e., before or after December 31, 2014, has generated debate.
Secularism Concerns: Critics argue that granting citizenship based on religion contradicts the secular principles of India’s Constitution, considered part of the unalterable basic structure.
Constitutionality Check
The challenge may rest primarily on the grounds that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees that no person shall be denied the right to equality before law or the equal protection of law in the territory of India.
The Supreme Court has developed a Two-Pronged Testto examine a law on the grounds of Article 14.
First, any differentiation between groups of persons must be founded on “intelligible differentia”
Second, differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act
Simply put, for a law to satisfy the conditions under Article 14, it has to first create a “reasonable class” of subjects that it seeks to govern under the law.
Even if the classification is reasonable, any person who falls in that category has to be treated alike.
Impact on Assam and Assam Accord
Intersection with Section 6A: The CAA intersects with Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955, which determines citizenship criteria in Assam.
Assam Accord: Section 6A, linked to the Assam Accord, sets criteria for determining citizenship in Assam, posing potential conflicts with the CAA’s provisions.
Base Cut-off Date and Regularization: The Assam Accord establishes a base cut-off date for identifying and regularizing foreigners in Assam, impacting the implementation of the CAA in the state.
Way forward
India is a constitutional democracy with a basic structure that assures a secure and spacious home for all Indians.
Being partitioned on religious grounds, India has to undertake a balancing act to protect the religious minorities in its neighbourhood.
These minorities are under constant threat of persecution and vandalism.
India needs to balance its civilization duties to protect those who are prosecuted in the neighbourhood.
Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2021:
Q.With reference to India, consider the following statements:
There is only one citizenship and one domicile.
A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.
A foreigner once granted the citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
France’s historic decision to enshrine the right to abortion in its constitution marks a pivotal moment in the global struggle for women’s reproductive rights.
France’s constitutional council previously upheld abortion rights based on the notion of Liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Why discuss this?
The legislative journey leading to this transformative reform and its implications resonate far beyond France’s borders, resonating with ongoing debates on reproductive rights worldwide.
Abortion in France: Legislative Progression
National Assembly and Senate Approval: Initially passed by the National Assembly in January, the amendment received unanimous support from the Senate last week, culminating in a joint parliamentary session for final ratification.
Bipartisan Consensus: With an overwhelming majority of legislators voting in favor, the reform underscores broad bipartisan consensus on safeguarding women’s reproductive freedoms.
Constitutional Modification: The amendment elevates abortion from a statutory right to a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, solidifying its legal protection against potential legislative changes.
Amendment Provisions
Constitutional Revision: The amendment revises Article 34 of the French constitution, stipulating that women’s freedom to terminate pregnancies is constitutionally guaranteed.
Preservation of Existing Rights: By mandating that future legislation uphold existing abortion laws, the amendment ensures continuity and stability in reproductive healthcare policies.
Global Context: Acknowledging global trends of encroachment on abortion rights, the legislation reaffirms France’s commitment to resisting regressive measures that curtail women’s autonomy.
Global Implications
Unprecedented Precedent: France becomes the first nation to embed abortion rights in its constitution, setting a groundbreaking precedent for global reproductive justice movements.
European Landscape: Amidst escalating efforts to restrict abortion access in some European countries, France’s bold initiative offers a beacon of hope and inspiration for defenders of reproductive rights across the continent.
European Charter of Fundamental Rights: The amendment’s resonance with fundamental rights principles may catalyze broader efforts to incorporate abortion protections into the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Public Reception and Political Landscape
Public Support: Reflecting widespread public sentiment, opinion polls indicate overwhelming support for constitutionalizing abortion rights, with 81% of respondents endorsing the reform.
Political Consensus: Unlike the polarized discourse on abortion in some countries, France’s political spectrum exhibits remarkable unity in upholding women’s reproductive autonomy.
Criticism and Allegations: While critics decry the reform as a political maneuver by President Macron to court left-leaning factions, its substantive impact on women’s rights remains undeniable.
Global Abortion Landscape
European Context: Against the backdrop of escalating abortion restrictions in some European nations, France’s progressive stance contrasts starkly with regressive measures adopted elsewhere.
Global Reverberations: France’s pioneering initiative may reverberate globally, emboldening movements to advance abortion rights and combat legislative regressions worldwide.
India’s Abortion Policies
Legal Framework: India implemented the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in 1971, allowing abortions under specific conditions up to 20 weeks, with recent amendments extending the limit to 24 weeks in certain cases.
Recent Amendments: The 2021 amendment extends the permissible gestational limit for abortions and streamlines the approval process for certain categories of pregnancies.
Continued Advocacy: While India’s legal framework for abortion is comparatively progressive, ongoing advocacy efforts seek to further enhance access to safe and legal abortion services nationwide.
Pregnancy Laws in India:
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, enacted on April 1, 1972, applied to all of India except Jammu and Kashmir.
Section 312of IPC Code, 1860, criminalizes voluntarily causing miscarriage, even with the pregnant woman’s consent, except to save her life, leading to potential prosecution for abortion.
The MTP Act, 1971, permitted pregnancy termination in two stages:
Up to 12 weeks after conception, abortion required a single doctor’s opinion.
Between 12 to 20 weeks, two doctors’ opinions determined if continuing the pregnancy posed risks to the woman’s life or mental/physical health or if the child would be seriously handicapped.
Amendments in 2021:
The law now allows abortions up to 20 weeks based on one doctor’s advice.
For pregnancies between 20 to 24 weeks, two doctors’ opinions are needed.
Specific categories eligible for termination under section 3B of the MTP Act rules include survivors of sexual assault, minors, marital status changes, physically disabled women, mentally ill women, foetuses with severe abnormalities, and pregnancies in humanitarian settings.
Conclusion
By embedding abortion rights within its constitutional fabric, France sets a transformative precedent for advancing women’s autonomy and healthcare choices worldwide.
As the international community grapples with escalating threats to reproductive rights, France’s bold stance offers a beacon of hope and solidarity for women everywhere, underscoring the imperative of safeguarding reproductive freedoms as fundamental human rights.
Noted author and philanthropist Sudha Murthy has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India on International Women’s Day.
Nominated Members toRajya Sabha
12 members are nominated to the RS by the President of India for six-year term.
This is for their contributions towards arts, literature, sciences, and social services.
This right has been bestowed upon the President according to the Fourth Schedule under Articles 4(1) and 80(2) of the Constitution of India.
Normal composition
The present strength is 245 members of whom 233 are representatives of the states and UTs and 12 are nominated by the President.
The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution; one-third of its members retire every second year.
Constitutional provisions for nominated members
80(1)(a) of the Constitution of India makes provision for the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India under provisions of Article 80(3).
80(3) says that the persons to be nominated as members must possess special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following namely: Literature, science, art and social service.
Powers and privileges of such members
A nominated member enjoys all the powers and privileges and immunities available to an elected Member of Parliament.
They take part in the proceedings of the House as any other member.
Nominated members are however not entitled to vote in an election of the President of India.
They however have rights to vote in the vice presidential election.
As per Article 99 of the Constitution, a nominated member is allowed six months’ time should he join a political party.
Try this PYQ from CSE Prelims 2013:
Consider the following statements:
The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are not the members of that House.
While the nominated members of the two Houses of the Parliament have no voting right in the presidential election, they have the right to vote in the election of the Vice President.
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
[wpdiscuz-feedback id=”biuh1wymo0″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]
In a noteworthy observation, Justice Anita Sumanth of the Madras High Court delved into the complex interplay between caste, societal benefits, and historical contexts while addressing quo warranto pleas against three lawmakers.
Her remarks shed light on the multifaceted nature of caste dynamics in contemporary Tamil Nadu.
Quo Warranto: A Writ Jurisdiction
Definition: This legal remedy allows the court to investigate the legality of an individual’s claim to a public office, preventing unauthorized individuals from unlawfully occupying such positions.
Scope: It applies to substantive public offices of a permanent nature established by statute or the Constitution, excluding ministerial or private roles.
Applicability: Unlike other writs, Quo Warranto can be sought by any interested party, not limited to the aggrieved party.
Constitutional Provisions
Authority: The power to issue writs, including Quo Warranto, was bestowed upon the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) by the Constitution.
Objective: Quo Warranto aims to halt usurpers from wrongfully holding public office and exercising its privileges without lawful authority.
Conditions for Issuing Quo Warranto
Public Office: The office in question must be public, established by law or the Constitution.
Permanent Tenure: It should entail permanent tenure not subject to arbitrary termination.
Actual Possession: The individual against whom the writ is sought must have the office and actively utilizing its powers.
Disqualification: Quo Warranto can also be issued if a disqualified individual continues to hold the office illegally.
Circumstances for Refusal
Ineffectiveness: The court may refuse to grant Quo Warranto if its intervention would not alter the outcome or if the situation is deemed inconsequential.
Non-public Office: If the office in question is private, the writ cannot be issued.
Landmark Judgments
Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha vs. Dr. D Rama (1954): The court declined to issue the writ against a private entity, emphasizing its inapplicability to non-public offices.
Niranjan Kumar Goenka vs. The University of Bihar, Muzzfarpur (1971): Established that Quo Warranto cannot be invoked against individuals not holding a public office.
Judicial Insights on Castes
Caste and State Benefits: Justice Sumanth highlighted the nexus between caste-based divisions and state-provided benefits, suggesting that the fervour surrounding caste issues is fueled by socio-economic advantages conferred by the state on different caste groups.
Historical Perspective: While acknowledging the prevalence of caste divisions in society, the judge emphasized that the present-day caste system is relatively recent, tracing its origins to less than a century ago, rather than being solely rooted in ancient Varna Dharma principles.
Varna Dharma vs. Caste System: Drawing a distinction, Justice Sumanth elucidated that Varna Dharma, historically, delineated societal roles based on occupation rather than birth, contrasting it with the entrenched birth-based caste system prevalent today.
Societal Realities
Cacophony of Castes: Tamil Nadu, with its 370 registered castes, witnesses a cacophony of societal pressures and pulls from various caste groups, reflecting the complexities of caste dynamics in the state.
Benefits and Ferocity: The judge noted that the ferocity among different caste groups partly stems from the benefits accorded to them by the state, raising questions about the fairness and equity of resource distribution.
Key Recommendations
Acknowledgment of Past Injustices: While refraining from detailing past atrocities, the judge emphasized the need for acknowledging and deprecating historical injustices, calling for ongoing efforts towards repair and damage control.
Forward-looking Approach: Justice Sumanth advocated for sincere introspection among lawmakers to evolve methods for correcting injustices and fostering equality in the present and future.
Conclusion
In her nuanced reflections, Justice Sumanth highlighted the need for a holistic approach towards addressing caste-related issues.
She emphasized the importance of societal introspection, equitable resource distribution, and leadership accountability in fostering a more inclusive and just society.
A shutdown and protest rally in Ladakh recently demanded statehood for the newly created Union Territory (UT) and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
This highlights a broader issue concerning governance and autonomy in the region.
Centre’s Offer to Ladakh Representatives
Article 371-like Protections: MHA offered to extend Article 371-like protections to Ladakh, addressing concerns raised by the Leh Apex Body (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA).
Exclusion from Sixth Schedule: While acknowledging concerns, the government opts against including Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule, indicating a different approach to address regional issues.
Background: Ladakh’s Governance Post Article 370 Repeal
Recognition as Union Territory: Post the repeal of Article 370, Ladakh was recognized as a separate Union Territory “without legislature,” akin to UTs like New Delhi and Pondicherry.
Demand for Sixth Schedule Inclusion: Organizations like ABL and KDA have advocated for Ladakh’s inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, seeking greater autonomy in governance.
What is the Sixth Schedule?
Article 244 in Part X of the Constitution outlines a special system of administration for designated ‘scheduled areas’ and ‘tribal areas.’
The Fifth Schedule deals with scheduled areas and tribes in states exceptAssam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram (ATM2).
The Sixth Schedule focuses on tribal areas in these four northeastern states.
Salient Features of Sixth Schedule:
(1) Autonomous Districts
Tribal areas are constituted as autonomous districts within the executive authority of the state.
The governor holds powers to organize and re-organize these districts, including boundary changes and division into autonomous regions.
(2) District and Regional Councils:
Each district council consists of 30 members, including nominated and elected
Regional councils also exist within autonomous regions.
These councils administer areas under their jurisdiction, making laws on specific matters with the governor’s assent.
They can establish village councils or courts for dispute resolution, with specified jurisdiction over appeals.
District councils manage various facilities and services within their areas, including education and healthcare.
They also have the authority to impose taxes and regulate certain activities.
(3) Laws Exemptions and Modifications:
Acts of Parliament or state legislatures may not applydirectly or may apply with modifications.
The president or governor holds the power of direction in this regard, depending on the region.
(4) Governor’s Authority:
The governor may appoint a commission to examine and report on matters concerning autonomous districts or regions.
He/she also has the authority to dissolve a district or regional council based on commission recommendations.
Tribal Areas under Sixth Schedule
Assam: North Cachar Hills District, Karbi Anglong District, Bodoland Territorial Areas District.
Meghalaya: Khasi Hills District, Jaintia Hills District, Garo Hills District.
Tripura: Tripura Tribal Areas District.
Mizoram: Chakma District, Mara District, Lai District.
Reasons for such Demands in Ladakh
Cultural Autonomy: Tribes in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram maintain distinct cultures, customs, and civilizations. Unlike tribes in other parts of India, they have not assimilated much with the majority population.
Meeting tribal aspiration: The Parliamentary standing committee recommended including of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule because its tribal communities account for 79.61% of its total population.
Autonomy and self-governance: Extending the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh could provide greater autonomy and self-governance to the local tribal communities.
Cultural preservation: It could also help to protect the unique cultural identity of the local communities and preserve their traditional practices and customs.
Challenges posed by this demand
Fragmentation: The demand to extend the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh has faced some opposition from certain quarters, who argue that it could lead to further fragmentation of the region and create new administrative challenges.
Losing political capital: There are also concerns over the potential impact of the demand on the political and administrative structure of the region.
Conclusion
While stopping short of Sixth Schedule inclusion, MHA’s move demonstrates a commitment to balancing local autonomy with national governance priorities.
If implemented, it would mark the first instance of special provisions being introduced for a Union Territory, potentially setting a precedent for future governance arrangements in such regions.
Try this PYQ from CSE Prelim 2015:
Q.The provisions in the Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution of India are made to:
(a) Protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes
(b) Determine the boundaries between states
(c) Determine the powers, authorities, and responsibilities of Panchayats
(d) Protect the interests of all the Border States
Recent political events make one doubt the perceived need and utility of India’s Anti-defection law.
Context:
Political Defections prevalent across India:
In Bihar, MLAs from Congress and RJD shifted to BJP, leading to disqualifications under the anti-defection law. Similar incidents occurred in Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.
A recent adjudicatory development in Maharashtra raised doubts on the necessity of India’s anti-defection law, where factions within NCP were not disqualified based on intra-party dissent.
Need for better inner-party democracy: The Speaker highlighted the challenges in applying the anti-defection law effectively, emphasizing the need for better inner-party democracy reforms to address political defections and ensure legislative stability.
Transgressions that pass muster /Challenges with Anti-defection law:
Intra-party dissent and Anti-defection law: The Speaker’s decision in the NCP split case highlights the complexity of applying the anti-defection law to intra-party dissent. The intra-party dissent cannot be subject to the punitive provisions of the Tenth Schedule due legislative majority.
Mergers and Anti-defection law: Under the current anti-defection law, a faction that splits from its original party cannot claim exemption from disqualification, as the “split” exception was deleted from the Tenth Schedule in 2003.
The only exemption available now is that of mergers, which mandatorily require a minimum of two-third members to separate from their political party and merge with another.
The Speaker’s observations: The Speaker’s concern for preservation of inner-party dissent is laudable, but the observation that it is in the nature of politics for leaders to form new alliances and break into new forms raises concern about the effectiveness of the anti-defection law.
The issue of inner-party democracy:
The issue of inner-party democracy in India underscores the lack of democratic processes within political parties, leading to challenges like dynastic politics, nepotism, and ineffective candidate selection.
Presently, there is no statutory backing for internal democratic regulation of political parties in India and the only governing provision is under Section 29A of the Representation of the Peoples’ Act, 1951 which entails registration of political parties with the Election Commission of India.
Reports from the 2nd ARC, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution and the Law Commission have both recommended introducing statutes to enforce internal democracy for political parties.
Way Forward:
Need for Robust democratic structures: The 255th Report of the Law Commission of India proposed amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which could mandate that besides having a constitution, political parties elect an executive committee (for the party), select candidates who are to contest elections to Parliament or State Assemblies, and conduct regular elections within the party at every level.
Need for Statutory regulation: The Law Commission also proposed granting the Election Commission of India the powers to impose monetary penalties or withdraw the registration of a political party in case it failed to comply.
BACK2BASICS
About Anti-Defection Law in India:
The Anti-Defection Law in India, introduced in 1985 through the Tenth Schedule of the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution, aims to limit political defections and ensure democratic stability by curbing unethical practices.
This law prohibits elected representatives from defecting to another party after being elected, thereby promoting party discipline and preventing opportunistic defections that can destabilize governments.
Despite its significance, there have been calls for reforming the anti-defection law to address challenges and ensure its effectiveness in maintaining the integrity of the political system.
Mains:
1) “The Indian party system is passing through a phase of transition which looks to be full of contradictions and paradoxes.” Discuss. [UPSC CSE 2016]
Prelims:
1) Which one of the following Schedules of the Constitution of India contains provisions regarding anti-defection? [UPSC CSE 2014]
A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a significant judgment regarding parliamentary privilege and criminal prosecution.
The verdict overturned a 1998 ruling in PV Narasimha Rao Case that granted immunity to lawmakers accepting bribes if they subsequently voted or spoke in the House
Special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by Parliament, its committees, and members.
Defined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution.
Scope
Applies to Parliament, committees, and members.
Freedom of Speech
Guaranteed under Article 105(1).
Subject to rules and procedures of Parliament (Article 118).
Limitations to Free Speech
Speech must comply with constitutional provisions.
Cannot discuss judges’ conduct (Article 121), except for motions for their removal.
Freedom from Arrest
Immunity from arrest in civil cases 40 days before and after sessions.
House permission needed for arrest within Parliament limits.
Notification of Arrest
Chairman/Speaker must be informed of any member’s arrest.
Right to Prohibit Publication
No liability for publishing reports, discussions under member’s authority (Article 105(2)).
Right to Exclude Strangers
Members have power to exclude non-members from proceedings.
Immunity against Bribe: Constitutional Provisions Examined
Article 105(2): This article grants immunity to members of Parliament from court proceedings concerning their actions (speech or votes) in Parliament.
Article 194(2): Similarly, this article extends immunity to members of state assemblies.
Court’s Review and Interpretation
PV Narasimha Rao Case: In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled with a 3:2 majority that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain.
Judicial Scrutiny of Privilege: The Court revisited the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), challenging the traditional understanding of absolute immunity for lawmakers.
Historical Context: It noted that India’s parliamentary privileges stem from statutory and constitutional sources, unlike the UK’s House of Commons, which has ancient and undoubted rights.
Key Findings and Interpretations
Necessity Test Applied: The Court applied a “necessity test” to determine the legitimacy of claims to parliamentary privilege, emphasizing that accepting bribes cannot be deemed necessary for lawmakers to discharge their duties.
Emphasis on Probity: The ruling underscored the importance of probity in public life, highlighting the corrosive impact of corruption on democratic ideals.
Interpretation of Offense: It clarified that the act of accepting a bribe constitutes an offense, regardless of subsequent actions by the lawmaker in the House.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant departure from past precedent, affirming the principle that no individual, including legislators, is above the law.
By asserting the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing claims of parliamentary privilege, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of constitutional values and accountability in governance.
This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and combating corruption, thereby bolstering India’s democratic foundations.
![[12 March 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Central transfers — arresting the decline in shares of some States](https://d18x2uyjeekruj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Frame-2715-1-1568x882.jpg)
