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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Parliament attacks have exposed shameful lack of security preparedness

    2001 Parliament attack: 'A shot missed me and possibly hit a reporter' | Latest News India - Hindustan Times

    Central idea

    The breach of India’s Parliament, a symbol of democratic strength, on the anniversary of the 2001 attack reveals critical lapses in security, prompting a high-level inquiry. This collective failure of intelligence agencies underscores the need for thorough investigations, corrective measures, and strengthened security protocols to prevent recurring breaches and uphold the sanctity of parliamentary institutions.

    Key Highlights:

    • Fortress Breached: The Parliament building in India, known for its security, faces a significant breach, exposing flaws in the robust system.
    • Anniversary Irony: The intrusion occurs on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, questioning the preparedness of security agencies.
    • High-Level Inquiry: The government initiates an inquiry to identify lapses and rectify security vulnerabilities.

    Key Challenges:

    • Collective Security Failure: The breach underscores a failure of intelligence and security agencies responsible for safeguarding Parliament.
    • Questionable Access: Intruders obtained an entry pass signed by an MP, raising concerns about verification processes.
    • Efficacy of Corrective Measures: Doubts arise about the effectiveness of measures to prevent recurrent security breaches.

    Key Terms:

    • Security Blanket: Enhanced security measures implemented in a specific area.
    • Inquiry Committee: A high-level committee formed to investigate the breach and recommend improvements.
    • Tear Gas Canisters: Devices used for dispersing tear gas, hidden by intruders during the breach.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Temple of our Democracy”: Symbolic reference to the Parliament building as a stronghold of India’s democratic strength.
    • “Sanctum Sanctorum of India’s Democracy”: Describing the innermost and most sacred area of the Parliament.

    Key Quotes:

    • “How did a breach occur again? This is the main question. Those responsible should be punished.” – The author, a retired director general of Police.
    • “The incident happened on the very day on which the dreadful Parliament attacks took place 22 years ago.” – The article highlighting the irony of the timing.

    Key Examples and References:

    • Arrests Made: Four individuals, including one with an entry pass signed by an MP, are arrested in connection with the breach.
    • Historical Comparison: Drawing parallels with the 2001 Parliament attack to emphasize the breach’s significance.

    Key Statements:

    • “Egg on the Face”: The breach is described as an embarrassment to the security establishment, questioning overall preparedness.
    • “Collective Failure”: The incident is considered a collective failure of intelligence agencies, police, and security agencies responsible for Parliament security.

    Key Facts:

    • Enhanced Security: The new Parliament building, inaugurated earlier in the year, is believed to be more secure than its predecessor.
    • Timely Breach: Occurred on the day Parliament paid tributes to the martyrs of the 2001 Parliament attack.

    Key Data:

    • Total Arrests: Four individuals are arrested in connection with the breach.

    Critical Analysis:

    • Security Vulnerabilities: The breach raises concerns about the ability to prevent intrusions into highly secure areas.
    • Symbolic Timing: The timing on the anniversary adds symbolic weight to the security lapse, emphasizing the need for improvement.

    Way Forward:

    • Thorough Investigation: A comprehensive inquiry is essential to identify lapses and implement corrective measures.
    • Strengthen Security Protocols: Stricter verification processes for entry passes and enhanced security measures are crucial for preventing future breaches.

  • Mahua Moitra has no excuse

    Key Supreme Court hearing in TMC's Mahua Moitra case today. Details | Latest News India - Hindustan Times

    Key Highlights:

    • Mahua Moitra, a former investment banker turned politician, faced allegations of sharing her Parliament ID and password with an industrialist to post questions about a rival group.
    • The Ethics Committee recommended her expulsion from Parliament, and on December 8, the motion for expulsion was adopted through a voice vote.
    • Moitra admitted to sharing her ID and password, receiving gifts, and made broader allegations that many MPs do not draft their own questions.

    Key Challenges:

    • The credibility of Parliament is at stake due to false claims by Moitra and another MP, Giridhari Yadav, that MPs generally do not frame their own questions.
    • The issue of MPs sharing their ID and password, a violation of rules, raises concerns about the security and integrity of parliamentary processes.
    • The definition of “cash for query” is debated, involving considerations of gifts, hospitality, and other non-monetary benefits.

    Key Terms:

    • Parliament Portal: The online platform where MPs submit questions, Zero Hour submissions, and Special Mentions.
    • Ethics Committee: A parliamentary committee responsible for examining matters related to the ethical conduct of MPs.
    • Cash for Query: The alleged practice of accepting material benefits in exchange for asking questions in Parliament.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Cash for query”
    • “Parliamentary question”
    • “Expulsion from Parliament”
    • “Ethics Committee”
    • “ID and password sharing”
    • “Motion for expulsion”
    • “Voice vote”

    Key Quotes:

    • Giridhari Yadav: “Even I do not remember my password. My PA knows it. I have not asked any questions, thinking God knows what will happen.”
    • Speaker’s Response: “I request all MPs to frame their questions themselves and put it up. No one else is allowed to do that.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • Mahua Moitra’s admission to sharing her ID and password, receiving gifts, and the subsequent recommendation for expulsion by the Ethics Committee.
    • Giridhari Yadav’s statement about not framing his own questions and relying on his PA.

    Key Statements:

    • Sharing ID and password with an outsider is a gross violation of parliamentary rules.
    • Moitra’s confession and broader allegations cast doubt on the autonomy of MPs in drafting their questions.

    Key Facts:

    • Moitra graduated from Mount Holyoke College, worked as an investment banker, and joined politics with stints in the Indian National Congress and Trinamool Congress.
    • The motion for expulsion was adopted through a voice vote after the Opposition walked out of Parliament.

    Key Data:

    • Date of Mahua Moitra’s expulsion: December 8
    • Number of questions MPs are allowed to submit: Five (two starred and three unstarred).

    Critical Analysis:

    • False claims about MPs not framing their own questions undermine the reputation of Parliament.
    • The issue of ID and password sharing raises questions about the security of parliamentary processes.
    • The definition of “cash for query” is explored, considering various non-monetary benefits.

    Way Forward:

    • Strengthen security measures to prevent unauthorized access to parliamentary portals.
    • Emphasize the importance of MPs independently framing their questions for the integrity of parliamentary proceedings.
    • Address the broader ethical concerns raised by Moitra’s allegations to maintain the credibility of Parliament.

  • New criminal law Bills endanger civil liberties

    Revamp Of Criminal Laws - PWOnlyIAS

    Central idea 

    The article critiques the withdrawal and reintroduction of criminal law bills in India, highlighting concerns over civil liberties, overcriminalisation, and expanded police powers. It emphasizes the alarming increase in police custody duration and the absence of a transformative vision in the proposed legislations.

    Key Highlights:

    • Legislative Changes: The government withdraws and reintroduces criminal law bills, including Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-II), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-II), and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB-II), reflecting potential shifts in the criminal justice system.
    • Concerns Over State Control: The bills raise concerns about the expansion of state control, overcriminalisation, and enhanced police powers, potentially compromising civil liberties and increasing the risk of police excesses.
    • Police Custody Duration: The BNSS proposes a significant increase in the maximum duration of police custody, from 15 days to 60 or 90 days, raising concerns about potential exposure to abuse and coercion.

    Key Challenges:

    • Risk of Overcriminalisation: The bills introduce broadly worded offenses, especially related to the security of the state, potentially leading to overcriminalisation and ambiguous legal provisions.
    • Expanded Police Powers: The BNSS’s expansion of police custody duration, combined with vague offenses, raises concerns about the potential for misuse of power and coercive tactics.
    • Lack of Transformative Vision: The bills lack a transformative vision for criminal law and justice, potentially entrenching colonial-era logic and emphasizing state control over citizen liberties.

    Key Terms and Phrases:

    • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-II): A proposed legislation to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860), reflecting potential changes in criminal law.
    • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-II): A bill aimed at replacing the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC, 1973) with potential implications for civil liberties and police powers.
    • Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB-II): Legislation seeking to replace the Indian Evidence Act (IEA, 1872), indicating potential shifts in the criminal justice system.

    Key Quotes and Statements:

    • “The expansion under the proposed BNSS heightens the risk of exposure to police excesses… a shocking expansion of police powers.”
    • “These Bills present a missed opportunity to correct the entrenched injustices of our criminal justice system.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • Overcriminalisation Concerns: The bills introduce broadly framed offenses, including criminalizing misinformation, raising fears of overcriminalisation and potential misuse.
    • Expansion of Police Custody: The BNSS proposes a substantial increase in the duration of police custody, contributing to concerns about potential abuse and coercive practices.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • Duration of Police Custody: The BNSS proposes expanding the maximum limit of police custody from 15 days to either 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense.

    Critical Analysis:

    • Missed Opportunity: The bills are criticized for not addressing deep-seated issues in the criminal justice system and potentially entrenching colonial-era logic without a transformative vision.
    • Efficiency vs. Fairness: Emphasizes that goals of speedy justice and effective investigation, while important, cannot be achieved without addressing structural barriers and ensuring fairness.

    Way Forward:

    • Comprehensive Regulatory Ecosystem: Advocates for a regulatory framework ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability, especially in the context of expanded police powers and overcriminalisation.
    • Structural Reforms: Emphasizes the need for fundamental transformations in the criminal justice system, addressing issues like judicial vacancies, infrastructure, and scientific validity of forensic methods.

  • Legislative Development in Election Commission Appointments

    election commissioner

    Central Idea

    • The Rajya Sabha passed a bill that revises the process for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), replacing the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.

    Election Commission Appointments Bill:Key Features

    • Appointment Process: The President will appoint the CEC and ECs based on recommendations from a Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
    • Search Committee Role: A Search Committee led by the Cabinet Secretary will suggest candidates to the Selection Committee.
    • Eligibility Criteria: Candidates must have held a post equivalent to the Secretary to the central government.
    • Salary and Conditions: The CEC and ECs will receive salaries and benefits equivalent to the Cabinet Secretary, a change from the previous equivalence to a Supreme Court judge.

    Constitutional Context

    • Constitutional Provisions: Article 324 of the Constitution allows the President to appoint the CEC and ECs but does not specify the appointment process.
    • Supreme Court Directive: In March 2023, the Supreme Court mandated a selection process involving the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, until Parliament legislates otherwise.

    Key Issues and Analysis

    • Independence Concerns: The government-dominated Selection Committee could impact the Election Commission’s independence.
    • Validity despite Vacancies: The Selection Committee’s recommendations will be valid even with vacancies, potentially leading to government control in appointments.
    • Salary and Status: Aligning the CEC and ECs’ salary with the Cabinet Secretary, determined by the government, may affect their independence compared to a salary fixed by Parliament.
    • Exclusion of Candidates: Limiting eligibility to senior bureaucrats may exclude other qualified individuals, particularly those with judicial experience.
    • International Practices: The appointment processes for election commissions in countries like South Africa, the UK, the US, and Canada vary, with some involving judicial members or parliamentary approval.

    Concerns over Independence and Selection Process

    • Government Influence: The Bill’s provisions for a government-majority Selection Committee and the acceptance of recommendations despite vacancies could lead to executive dominance in appointments.
    • Salary and Removal Parity: The change in salary equivalence and the lack of parity in the removal process of the CEC and ECs compared to Supreme Court judges raise concerns about the Commission’s independence.

    Goswami Committee (1990) Recommendations

    • Background: The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990) made significant recommendations regarding the Election Commission’s functioning.
    • Appointment Process: The Committee suggested that the CEC should be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha. For ECs, it recommended a similar process but included the CEC in the consultative process.
    • Importance of Independence: The Committee emphasized the need for the Election Commission’s independence from executive influence to ensure free and fair elections.

    Conclusion

    • Ensuring ECI’s Autonomy: While the Bill aims to formalize the appointment process for the CEC and ECs, maintaining the Election Commission’s autonomy and independence is crucial for upholding democratic principles.
    • Need for Deliberation: The concerns raised about the Bill highlight the need for careful consideration to ensure that the Election Commission remains an impartial and effective guardian of electoral integrity in India.

  • Explained: SC Verdict on Abrogation of Article 370

    Article 370

    Central Idea

    • A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate Article 370 in August 2019, leading to the reorganisation of the full-fledged State of Jammu and Kashmir to two Union Territories and denuding it of its special privileges.

    Key Issues and Court’s Findings

    [A] On the Sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir:

    • Petitioners’ Claim: They argued that J&K retained an element of sovereignty when it acceded to India in 1947, different from other princely states.
    • Court’s Examination: The Court noted that J&K was listed as a Part III state in the Indian Constitution and Section 3 of J&K’s Constitution declared it an integral part of India.
    • Final Ruling: The Court held that J&K did not retain sovereignty, and the process of integration was ongoing, culminating in the Presidential declaration under Article 370(3).

    [B] Whether Article 370 is Temporary or Permanent:

    • Arguments Presented: Petitioners argued for Article 370’s permanence, while others viewed it as temporary.
    • Court’s Opinion: Both CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul concurred that Article 370 was a temporary provision.

    [C] Legality of Abrogating Article 370:

    • Abrogation Process: On August 5, 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind issued CO 272, amending Article 367 and redefining “Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir” as the “Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.”
    • Court’s Upholding: The Court upheld this process, with CJI Chandrachud stating that post-dissolution of J&K’s Constituent Assembly, the President could have unilaterally abrogated Article 370.

    [D] Actions Under President’s Rule:

    • Challenge to Union’s Actions: The challenge was to the extent of powers appropriated under Article 356 (President’s rule).
    • Reference to Bommai Ruling: The Court, citing the 1994 Bommai ruling, stated that actions under the President’s rule must not be mala fide or irrational.

    Upholding Centre’s (Union) Supremacy

    • Parliament’s Unilateral Actions: The Court’s interpretation suggests Parliament can change a state’s status under the President’s rule.
    • Article 3 Reference: The President referred the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to Parliament for its views, as the state was under President’s rule.
    • Validity of Executive Orders: The Court applied Bommai ruling standards to validate the executive orders, emphasizing the need for proof of mala fides to challenge the actions.

    Conclusion

    • J&K’s Integral Status Affirmed: The Court conclusively ruled that J&K has always been an integral part of India.
    • Temporary Nature of Article 370: The ruling clarifies that Article 370 was a temporary provision.
    • Expansion of Union Powers: The judgment potentially expands the Union’s powers under President’s rule, affecting the federal balance.
    • Constitutional Precedent: This ruling sets a significant precedent in interpreting Union and state powers, reflecting on the dynamics of Indian federalism.

  • Karan Singh’s Proclamation of 1949

    karan singh

    Central Idea

    • On December 11, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, affirming that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) did not retain sovereignty after joining the Union of India.
    • CJI D Y Chandrachud, writing for himself and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, cited a 1949 proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh (successor of J&K titular Maharaja) as a key factor in this decision.

    Karan Singh’s 1949 Proclamation

    • Repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935: The proclamation declared the repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935, which previously governed J&K’s constitutional relationship with India.
    • Adoption of the Indian Constitution: It stated that the Indian Constitution would govern J&K’s relationship with the Union of India and abrogate inconsistent constitutional provisions in the state.

    Reason behind the Proclamation

    • Karan Singh’s Perspective: Speaking to The Indian Express, Karan Singh, aged 92, explained that the proclamation was necessary to eliminate ambiguity regarding J&K’s integration with India.
    • Instrument of Accession’s Ambiguity: He noted that while his father, Hari Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession like other rulers, J&K retained a measure of autonomy, leading to questions about its complete integration.

    Supreme Court’s Findings

    • Essence of the Judgment: The Court stated that J&K did not retain any form of sovereignty upon joining India.
    • Significance of the 1949 Proclamation: The Court highlighted that Karan Singh’s proclamation superseded all constitutional provisions inconsistent with the Indian Constitution, effectively surrendering J&K’s sovereignty.

    Alignment with the Centre’s Argument

    • Centre’s Stance: The Union government argued that the 1949 proclamation acknowledged the supremacy of the Indian Constitution and surrendered sovereignty to it, where the sovereign is ‘We the people of India’.
    • Court’s Agreement: The Supreme Court’s ruling aligns with this argument, affirming the complete integration of J&K into India.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the constitutional status of J&K post the abrogation of Article 370, confirming its full integration into the Indian Union without any retained sovereignty.
    • The ruling underscores the historical context of J&K’s accession and the role of the 1949 proclamation in shaping its constitutional relationship with India.

  • SR Bommai Judgment and its Relevance in Article 370 Verdict

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court’s reliance on the 1994 SR Bommai judgment was pivotal in upholding the abrogation of Article 370.
    • The SR Bommai case is a landmark judgment interpreting Article 356 of the Constitution, which deals with President’s rule in states.

    SR Bommai Case: An Overview

    • Origin of the Case: The case arose from the dismissal of the Janata Dal-led Karnataka government in 1989 by the Congress-led central government.
    • Governor’s Recommendation: Karnataka Governor P Venkatasubbaiah recommended President’s rule citing the loss of majority by Chief Minister SR SR Bommai and the inability of other parties to form a government.
    • Controversy: The move was controversial, especially as some MLAs later retracted their withdrawal of support, claiming their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation.

    Supreme Court’s Verdict in the Case

    • Judicial Review of President’s Proclamation: The Court unanimously held that the President’s proclamation is subject to judicial review on several grounds, including illegality, malafide, and abuse of power.
    • Parliamentary Approval Requirement: The verdict mandated Parliamentary approval for imposing President’s rule. Without this approval, the dismissed government would automatically be revived after two months.
    • Centre-State Relationship: The ruling emphasized the autonomy of states, stating that greater power at the Centre does not reduce states to mere appendages.

    Impact of the Ruling

    • Scrutiny of Governor’s Conduct: This was one of the first judgments to scrutinize the Governor’s role, especially in the context of frequent impositions of President’s rule.
    • Decrease in President’s Rule Impositions: Research indicates a significant decrease in the frequency of President’s rule post-SR Bommai , from an average of 2.5 times a year (1950-1994) to just over once a year (1995-2021).

    Kashmir Reference in the Article 370 Ruling

    • Key Question: The central question was whether Article 370 could be abrogated while J&K was under President’s rule, which had been in place since 2018.
    • Supreme Court’s Reliance on SR Bommai: The Court used the SR Bommai ruling to validate the President’s actions in J&K, applying the standards set by Justices PB Sawant and Jeevan Reddy for testing the validity of executive orders.

    Conclusion

    • Influence on Federal Dynamics: The SR Bommai judgment continues to influence the balance of power between the Centre and states, ensuring judicial oversight over central interventions in state governance.
    • Relevance in Contemporary Rulings: Its principles, particularly regarding judicial review and the autonomy of states, remain crucial in contemporary constitutional interpretations, as seen in the Article 370 ruling.

  • Protecting Basic Structure from judicial arbitrariness

    1973: Kesavananda Bharati case - Frontline

    Central idea 

    The article reflects on the 50th anniversary of the Kesavananda Bharati case, emphasizing the enduring significance of the “Basic Structure Doctrine” in safeguarding constitutional pillars. It acknowledges debates surrounding its constitutional validity and introduces insights from jurist Dietrich Conrad, highlighting the need for checks and balances on institutional powers.

    Key Highlights:

    • 50th Anniversary of Kesavananda Bharati Case: Marks the establishment of the “Basic Structure Doctrine” by the Supreme Court of India in 1973, consistently upheld but occasionally questioned for its open-ended nature.
    • Dietrich Conrad’s Contribution: Acknowledges the influence of Dietrich Conrad, a German jurist, whose lecture on “Implied Limitation of the Amending Power” laid the foundation for the Basic Structure doctrine in India.
    • Arun Jaitley’s Critique: Former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s critique highlights concerns about the doctrine potentially undermining other constitutional mandates.

    Key Challenges:

    • Constitutional Validity Doubts: Doubts raised about the constitutional validity of the Basic Structure doctrine, questioning its open-ended nature and the exclusive powers it grants to the Supreme Court.
    • Potential Undermining of Other Mandates: Criticisms, exemplified by Arun Jaitley’s statement, argue that the doctrine, while upholding judicial independence, may diminish other vital constitutional structures.

    Key Terms and Phrases:

    • Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial principle recognizing fundamental features of the Constitution, protecting them from amendments or legislative interventions.
    • Implied Limitation of Amending Power: Concept stressing the need for limitations on powers exercised by institutions, anticipating extreme cases of conflict.

    Key Quotes:

    • “The judgment has upheld the primacy of one basic structure — independence of judiciary — but diminished five other basic structures of the Constitution.” – Arun Jaitley
    • “Any amending body… cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.” – Dietrich Conrad
    • “The basic structure of our Constitution, like a north star, guides and gives a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted.” – Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud

    Key Examples and References:

    • Emergency Period: Recognition that the Basic Structure doctrine prevented potential recasting of the Constitution during the Emergency in 1975.
    • Constitutional Pillars: Arun Jaitley’s reference to the primacy of judicial independence but potential diminishment of parliamentary democracy, elected government, etc.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • Kesavananda Bharati Case: Celebrates the 50th anniversary of the case that established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
    • Legislative Interventions during Emergency: Historical context emphasizing the need for checks and balances on parliamentary powers.

    Critical Analysis:

    • Debate on Doctrine’s Validity: Ongoing debate about the constitutional validity of the Basic Structure doctrine, particularly its potential impact on other constitutional mandates.
    • Checks and Balances Necessity: Acknowledgment of the necessity for judicial checks and balances on parliamentary powers, especially in the context of historical abuses during the Emergency.

    Way Forward:

    • Deeper Understanding of Jurisprudential Foundations: Emphasizes the importance of a fuller appreciation of the jurisprudential foundations of legal doctrines, including the Basic Structure doctrine.
    • Reducing Judicial Arbitrariness: Proposes a thoughtful examination of how judicial arbitrariness in deciding the Basic Structure can be minimized, ensuring greater legitimacy and transparency.
    • Public Demand for Transparency: Addresses the contemporary need for transparency in the functioning of democratic institutions, aligning with a changing information age and public demands.

  • Expulsion of MP from Lok Sabha

    MP expulsion mahua moitra

    Central Idea: Expulsion of Mahua Moitra

    • A Member of Parliament from West Bengal was expelled from the Lok Sabha over allegations of a cash-for-query scandal.
    • Her expulsion highlights the importance of maintaining strict ethical standards and parliamentary etiquette in legislative proceedings.

    Parliamentary Etiquette and Rules

    • Expected Conduct of MPs: MPs must adhere to rules of parliamentary etiquette, such as not interrupting speeches, maintaining silence, and avoiding obstruction during debates.
    • Updated Rules for Modern Protests: In 1989, rules were updated to include prohibitions against shouting slogans, displaying placards, tearing documents, and using electronic devices for protest in the House.
    • Rajya Sabha’s Similar Rules: The Rajya Sabha, like the Lok Sabha, has similar rules to ensure smooth conduct of proceedings.

    Power of Suspension in Parliament

    • Presiding Officer’s Authority: The presiding officer of each House can direct an MP to withdraw from the chamber for disorderly conduct, resulting in absence for the day.
    • Naming and Suspension Process: MPs obstructing House business can be “named” by the presiding officer, leading to a possible suspension motion by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister.
    • Duration of Suspension: Suspensions can last until the end of the session.

    Legal Recourse: Approaching the Supreme Court

    • Option for Judicial Review: The expelled MP has the option to challenge the expulsion in the Supreme Court, as explained by former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary.
    • Constitutional Provisions: Article 122 of the Constitution provides immunity to parliamentary proceedings from judicial scrutiny based on procedural irregularity.
    • Scope for Judicial Review: Despite this immunity, the Supreme Court in the 2007 Raja Ram Pal case clarified that judicial review is possible in cases of substantive or gross illegality.

    The Raja Ram Pal Case (2007)

    • Case Background: Raja Ram Pal, a BSP leader, was among 12 MPs expelled in the 2005 cash-for-query scam.
    • Supreme Court’s Stance: The Court upheld the expulsion but noted that proceedings tainted by substantial illegality are open to judicial scrutiny.
    • Judicial Review of Parliamentary Actions: The Court affirmed its role in scrutinizing legislative actions that infringe on fundamental rights.

    Article 105 of the Constitution

    • Powers and Privileges of Parliament: Article 105 deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its Members.
    • Judicial Scrutiny of Privilege Enforcement: The Court recognized that the enforcement of privilege by the legislature can be subject to judicial review, within certain constitutional limits.

    Grounds for Challenging Expulsion

    • Examining Privilege and Procedure: The court can scrutinize whether the privilege cited for expulsion existed and if proper procedures were followed.
    • Functioning of Committees: The roles of the Privileges Committee and Ethics Committee are distinct, focusing on investigating misconduct and ensuring dignity in the House.
    • Investigative Procedures: Proper investigative procedures, including the right to depose and cross-examine, are essential for fairness and truth-finding.

    Determining Offense and Punishment

    • Article 20 of the Constitution: This article stipulates that punishment requires an existing law defining the act as an offense.
    • Case-Specific Issues: In the case of the expelled MP, issues like sharing Parliament login-passwords and accepting money for questions are examined for rule violations.
    • Breach of Privilege and Inquiry: Accepting money for asking questions in Parliament is a breach of privilege warranting inquiry by the Privileges Committee.

    Conclusion

    • Ongoing Debate and Implications: The case continues to spark debate on the limits of parliamentary privilege, the role of the judiciary, and the ethical standards expected of elected representatives.
    • Balancing Authority and Rights: The expulsion case underscores the delicate balance between parliamentary authority and the rights of its members.
    • Importance of Judicial Oversight: The potential for judicial review emphasizes the importance of legal oversight in maintaining democratic principles and fairness in legislative processes.

  • Why Parliament passed the Advocates Amendment Bill?

    Central Idea

    • The primary aim of the recent legislative changes is to eliminate ‘touts’ from the legal system and streamline legal practice in India.
    • The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, a colonial-era law, and the Advocates Act, 1961, have been central to the regulation of legal practitioners in India.
    • The Bill repeals the 1879 Act and amends the 1961 Act to reduce redundant laws and repeal obsolete ones.

    The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879

    • Inception and Scope: Enacted in 1880, it aimed to consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners in certain Indian provinces.
    • Definition of Legal Practitioner: The Act defined legal practitioners as advocates, vakils, or attorneys of any High Court.
    • Introduction of ‘Tout’: A significant aspect was the definition of ‘tout’, referring to individuals who procure clients for legal practitioners for remuneration.

    The Advocates Act, 1961

    • Consolidation of Legal Practice Laws: This Act was enacted to unify and amend laws relating to legal practitioners and establish Bar Councils and an All-India Bar.
    • Pre-1961 Legal Framework: Previously, legal practitioners were governed by multiple acts, including the 1879 Act.
    • Law Commission and All-India Bar Committee Recommendations: Post-independence, reforms were suggested by the Law Commission and the All-India Bar Committee, leading to the 1961 Act.

    The Advocates Amendment Bill, 2023

    • New Provisions: The Bill introduces a new section (Section 45A) in the 1961 Act, focusing on illegal practice and the regulation of touts.
    • Punishment for Illegal Practice: It prescribes imprisonment for persons illegally practicing in courts and other authorities.
    • Regulation of Touts: The Bill empowers High Courts and district judges to frame and publish lists of touts, ensuring due process before inclusion.
    • Penalties for Touts: It includes provisions for punishing individuals acting as touts with imprisonment, fines, or both.

    Rationale and Implications

    • Streamlining Legal Enactments: The Bill aims to reduce superfluous laws and repeal those that have become obsolete.
    • Government’s Policy on Obsolete Laws: In line with the government’s policy to repeal outdated pre-independence Acts, the Bill seeks to modernize legal practice regulations.
    • Consultation with Bar Council of India: The amendments were made in consultation with the Bar Council of India, reflecting a collaborative approach to legal reform.

    Conclusion

    • Addressing Legal System Complexities: The Bill addresses long-standing issues in the legal system, particularly the exploitation of legal complexities by touts.
    • Balancing Tradition and Modern Needs: By repealing outdated laws and amending existing ones, the Bill balances the need to respect legal traditions with the demands of contemporary legal practice.
    • Future Outlook: These changes are expected to enhance the integrity and efficiency of legal practice in India, contributing to a more transparent and accessible legal system.