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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Explained: Rajya Sabha Election Process

    Introduction

    • The Election Commission notified elections to 56 Rajya Sabha seats that will be held on February 27.

    Uniqueness of Rajya Sabha Elections

    • Retirement Cycle: One-third of Rajya Sabha members from each State retire every two years, necessitating elections to fill vacancies.
    • Eligible Voters: Only elected members of State Legislative Assemblies are eligible to vote in Rajya Sabha elections.
    • Six-Year Term: Newly elected members serve a six-year term, with vacancies arising due to resignation, death, or disqualification filled through by-polls.

    Election of Rajya Sabha Members

    • Blocs and Elections: A group of MPs from one or more parties can elect a member if they possess the required numbers.
    • Avoiding Majority Rule: This approach ensures that ruling party candidates do not monopolize elections.
    • Union Territories Representation: Delhi and Puducherry Assemblies elect members to Rajya Sabha to represent the respective Union Territories.

    Electoral Process

    • Polling Condition: A Rajya Sabha election requires polling only when the number of candidates surpasses the available vacancies.
    • Predictable Strength: Parties estimate their potential seats based on their strength in the Assembly.
    • Contesting Candidates: Parties field candidates based on their strength; additional candidates trigger a contest.
    • Candidate Nomination: Political party candidates must be proposed by at least 10 Assembly members or 10% of the party’s House strength, whichever is lower.
    • Independent Candidates: Independents require 10 proposers, all Assembly members.

    Voting Procedure

    • Single Transferable Vote: Rajya Sabha elections employ the single transferable vote system, based on proportional representation.
    • Preferences Voting: Electors can vote for multiple candidates in order of preference.
    • Winning Requirement: Candidates need a specific number of first preference votes to win, with each first choice vote valued at 100 in the initial round.
    • Qualification: To qualify, a candidate must secure one point more than the quotient obtained by dividing the total value of seats available in the election plus one.

    Transparency in RS Elections

    • Open Ballot System: Rajya Sabha elections employ an open ballot system with limited transparency.
    • Preventing Cross-Voting: Showing marked ballots to the party’s authorized agent (Whip) is mandatory; not following this rule renders the vote invalid.
    • Secrecy for Independents: Independent candidates are prohibited from showing their ballots to anyone.
    • NOTA in Rajya Sabha: Initially, Rajya Sabha members had the option to use the NOTA (None of the Above) button during elections, as per circulars issued by the Election Commission.
    • Supreme Court Ruling: However, in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that NOTA is only applicable in general elections and cannot be used in indirect elections based on proportional representation.

    Consequences of Cross-Voting

    • Supreme Court’s Stand: The Supreme Court clarified that not voting for the party candidate in Rajya Sabha elections does not trigger disqualification under the anti-defection law.
    • Legislators’ Freedom: MLAs retain the freedom to vote for a candidate of their choice.
    • Party Action: Parties are free to take disciplinary action against legislators who vote against their candidate.

    Voting Eligibility before Taking Oath

    • Voting Without Oath: The Supreme Court ruled that members can participate in Rajya Sabha elections even before taking the oath as legislators.
    • Non-Legislative Activity: Rajya Sabha voting is considered a non-legislative activity, allowing members to vote without taking the oath.
    • Membership Status: A person becomes a member as soon as the Election Commission notifies the list of elected members.
    • Proposal Rights: Members can also propose a candidate before taking the oath of office.

    Other facts

    • Limited Union Territories (UTs): Only two Union Territories participate in Rajya Sabha elections, not all of them.
    • Conditional Polling: Polling occurs only if the number of candidates exceeds the available vacancies.
    • Independent Members: Independent candidates can also be elected to Rajya Sabha.

  • CAA Implementation within a Week

    Introduction

    Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019: Key Provisions

    • 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:
      1. They belong to the specified religions (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian).
      2. They hail from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.
      3. They entered India on or before December 31, 2014.
      4. 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.

  • Diamond Jubilee celebrations of the Supreme Court

    Introduction

    • The Prime Minister inaugurated the diamond jubilee year celebrations of the Supreme Court, marking an important milestone in India’s judicial history.

    About Supreme Court of India

    • Apex Judicial Body: The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority as per the Constitution of India.
    • Constitutional Mandate: Article 124 of the Constitution stipulates the establishment of the Supreme Court.
    • Birth of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court came into being on January 26, 1950, coinciding with the commencement of the Indian Constitution.
    • Inauguration: Two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court was officially inaugurated on January 28, 1950.
    • Initial Location: Initially, the Supreme Court operated from the old Parliament House until it relocated to its present site on Tilak Marg, New Delhi, in 1958.
    • Inaugural Event: The inaugural ceremony of the current Supreme Court building was presided over by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, on August 4, 1958.

    Evolution of Judicial Bench Strength

    • Changing Dynamics: The original 1950 Constitution envisioned a Supreme Court comprising a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges, allowing Parliament to alter this number.
    • Progressive Growth: Over the years, the number of Judges increased to accommodate the growing workload: 8 in 1950, 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, and the current strength of 34 Judges.
    • Judicial Structure: Judges sit in panels of two or three and convene in larger benches of 5 or more, known as Constitution Benches, to resolve conflicting decisions between different Supreme Court benches or address significant constitutional interpretations.
    • Official Language: Proceedings in the Supreme Court are conducted exclusively in English.

    Powers and Jurisdiction

    • Multifaceted Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court possesses original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction.
    • Final Arbiter: It serves as the ultimate court of appeal and the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
    • Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction extends to disputes involving the Government of India and one or more States, inter-State disputes, and issues related to Fundamental Rights.
    • Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court with extensive original jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights by issuing writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
    • Inter-High Court Cases: The Supreme Court can direct the transfer of civil or criminal cases between High Courts.
    • International Commercial Arbitration: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court can initiate International Commercial Arbitration.
    • Appellate Authority: High Courts can grant certificates for appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 132(1), 133(1), or 134 in cases with substantial questions of constitutional interpretation.
    • Certified Appeals: In civil cases, High Courts may certify that a case involves a significant question of general importance, warranting Supreme Court adjudication.
    • Criminal Appeals: In criminal cases, appeals lie to the Supreme Court if the High Court has reversed an acquittal, sentenced an accused to death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for over 10 years, or if the High Court certifies the case’s suitability for Supreme Court appeal.
    • Parliamentary Empowerment: Parliament can confer additional powers on the Supreme Court to hear appeals from High Courts in criminal proceedings.
    • Special Leave to Appeal: Under Article 136, the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order passed by any Court or Tribunal in India.
    • Advisory Role: The Supreme Court exercises advisory jurisdiction under Article 143, wherein the President of India can refer specific matters to the Court.
    • Election Petitions: Part III of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, allows direct filing of election petitions in the Supreme Court.
    • Contempt Powers: Articles 129 and 142 empower the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of Court, including self-contempt.
    • Curative Petitions: After dismissing a review petition, the Supreme Court can reconsider its final judgment through a curative petition on limited grounds.
    • Binding Authority: As India’s highest court, its judgments are binding on all other courts in the country.

    Location of the Supreme Court

    • Article 130: Article 130 of the Constitution grants the Chief Justice of India the authority to choose the location of the Supreme Court, which can be in Delhi or any other place.
    • CJI’s Discretion: The Article vests exclusive discretionary powers with the Chief Justice of India regarding the Supreme Court’s location.
    • No External Compulsion: No external authority can compel the Chief Justice to act in a particular manner under this Article.

    Advocating for Circuit Benches

    • Law Commission Recommendation: The Law Commission’s 229th Report suggested establishing a Constitution Bench in New Delhi and four other benches in different regions of India.
    • Diverging Views: However, this proposal did not garner favor among Supreme Court Judges.

  • What is Ladakh’s demand on Gilgit-Baltistan?

    ladakh

    Introduction

    • The socio-political landscape of Ladakh is witnessing ongoing dialogues and demands on Gilgit-Baltistan, primarily presented by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
    • The demands encompass a range of issues, including territorial control expansion, restoration of statehood, special status under the Sixth Schedule and Article 371, and exclusive rights over recruitment.

    Ladakh’s Current Status

    • Formation as Union Territory: Ladakh, spanning 59,146 square kilometers, became a Union Territory on August 5, 2019, following the abrogation of Article 370.
    • Governance: Unlike Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh does not have a legislature but is governed by two elected hill councils, LAHDC-Kargil and LAHDC-Leh.
    • Population and Demographics: Ladakh, with a population of 2.74 lakh (2011 census), is a Muslim-majority UT, with Buddhists dominating Leh district and Shia Muslims in Kargil. The region witnessed varied reactions to the abrogation of Article 370, with Leh supporting UT status and Kargil expressing a desire for reunification with Kashmir.

    Latest Demands of the Region

    • Protests against UT Status: Over the past two years, both Leh and Kargil initiated protests against the UT status without a legislature, advocating for the restoration of statehood.
    • Special Status under Sixth Schedule: There is a collective demand for special status under the Sixth Schedule and Article 371, similar to other northeastern states, to preserve the region’s ecological fragility and limit external influences.
    • Exclusive Recruitment Rights: Ladakh seeks exclusive rights over recruitment, proposing the establishment of the Ladakh Public Service Commission for gazetted jobs and empowering hill councils for lower rung staff recruitment.

    Territorial Control Expansion

    • Historical Context: The memorandum underlines Ladakh’s historical connection to Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the pre-1947 Ladakh district now under Pakistan’s occupation.
    • Territorial Control Demand: Ladakh demands an extension of territorial control up to Gilgit-Baltistan, advocating for attempts to include this area into Ladakh. Reservation of seats for Gilgit-Baltistan is sought once a legislature is granted.
    • Strategic and Stability Considerations: The memorandum emphasizes that empowering locals will enhance stability in the region, especially in the context of Ladakh’s volatile Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China.

    Centre’s Response and Committees Formed

    • Committees Formed: In response to street protests, the Centre formed committees in 2022 and 2024, led by Ministers G. Kishan Reddy and Nityanand Rai, respectively, to engage with LAB and KDA members.
    • Assurance and Ongoing Talks: The Centre assured finding appropriate solutions to language, culture, and land conservation issues in Ladakh. Ongoing talks are aimed at addressing the demands and fostering a structured dialogue between New Delhi and Ladakh.

    Conclusion

    • Ladakh’s socio-political dialogue continues, reflecting the diverse sentiments and demands of its residents.
    • The region’s historical context, strategic considerations, and ecological concerns play a crucial role in shaping the ongoing negotiations.
    • As Ladakh awaits resolutions to its demands, the dialogue remains a critical component in navigating the complex dynamics between the Centre and this unique Union Territory.

  • How Basic Structure doctrine became one of the strongest safeguards for Indian democracy

    The Basic Structure Doctrine - UNITED LIBERAL FOUNDATION

     

    Central Idea:

    The article underscores the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case in Indian constitutional history, highlighting how it established a crucial safeguard against potential tyranny and dictatorship. The case introduced the concept of the Basic Structure doctrine, asserting that even constitutional amendments passed by a parliamentary majority could be declared unconstitutional if they violated the fundamental principles integral to the Indian Constitution.

    Key Highlights:

    • The Kesavananda Bharati case marked a turning point by introducing the Basic Structure doctrine, preventing the constitutionalization of gross aberrations or tyranny through amendments.
    • The Basic Structure doctrine empowers the judiciary to act as a check against potential misuse of power by the majority, safeguarding democracy.
    • The article traces the evolution of this doctrine from earlier cases, such as Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath, leading up to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.

    Key Challenges:

    • The Basic Structure doctrine has faced challenges from those seeking to dilute or ignore its significance, posing a threat to the enduring democratic principles it upholds.
    • The potential for misuse or misinterpretation of the Basic Structure doctrine could lead to controversies and confrontations in politics and governance.

    Key Terms:

    • Basic Structure: The fundamental principles and core features of the Indian Constitution that cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
    • Parliamentary Majority: The voting majority in the Parliament required to pass constitutional amendments.
    • Constitutional Amendments: Changes made to the constitution, often requiring a special majority in the Parliament.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Basic Structure makes it impossible to constitutionalize gross aberrations.”
    • “Anti-majoritarian safeguards”: Mechanisms in place to protect against the potential tyranny of the majority in a democracy.

    Key Quotes:

    • “Even a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional if it violates the Basic Structure.”
    • “The power of amendment… does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution.”

    Anecdotes:

    • The unsavoury episode of Chief Justice A N Ray attempting to unilaterally review the Kesavananda Bharati judgment in 1975 is highlighted, adding drama to the historical significance of the case.
    • The description of Nani Palkhivala’s arguments as “divinity speaking through him” during the case adds a personal touch to the historical narrative.

    Key Statements:

    • “The highest bulwark of such safeguards is the Indian Constitution.”
    • “Long live Basic Structure, despite the attempt of constitutional pygmies to jettison, dilute or ignore it.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • Reference to the Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath cases to illustrate the evolution of the Basic Structure doctrine.
    • Mention of the 24th to 26th constitutional amendments enacted in 1971 to overrule specific judgments and provide context to the Kesavananda Bharati case.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • The Kesavananda Bharati case involved 703 pages of judgment spread over 11 judicial opinions, making it India’s longest argued case with the largest bench.
    • The Golaknath case in 1967 had a 6-5 majority holding the entire Part 3 of the Constitution unamendable.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article presents a critical analysis of the Kesavananda Bharati case, highlighting its significance as a safeguard against potential misuse of power. It underscores the importance of the Basic Structure doctrine in preserving democratic principles and preventing constitutional aberrations.

    Way Forward:

    • Emphasize the continued relevance and importance of the Basic Structure doctrine in maintaining a balance of power in a democracy.
    • Advocate for a nuanced understanding and application of the doctrine to ensure its integrity while addressing any legitimate concerns about its misuse.

  • The idea of one nation, one election is against federalism

    One Nation, One Election': Panel gets thousands of responses on simultaneous polls | India News - The Indian Express

    Central Idea:

    The article discusses the formation and potential implications of the ‘High Level Committee on One Nation, One Election’ set up by the Union Government in September 2023. It delves into the reasons for and against the concept, focusing on the financial aspects and governance downtime. The author raises legal concerns, particularly regarding the constitutional autonomy of states, linguistic bias in consultations, and the role of the Election Commission. The looming possibility of a constitutional showdown in the Supreme Court is emphasized, drawing parallels with the U.S. case of Baker v. Carr.

    Key Highlights:

    • Formation of the ‘High Level Committee on One Nation, One Election’ chaired by former President Ramnath Kovind.
    • Reasons supporting the concept include reducing election expenses and minimizing governance downtime caused by the Model Code of Conduct.
    • Opposition argues that democratic processes, including elections and the Model Code of Conduct, are essential for a functioning democracy.
    • Legal concerns raised, citing potential violation of state autonomy and constitutional provisions, particularly as stated in the S.R. Bommai case.
    • The linguistic bias in consultations, with the committee’s website available only in English and Hindi, is highlighted.
    • The Election Commission’s seemingly passive role and lack of involvement in the process are questioned.

    Key Challenges:

    • Constitutional and legal concerns regarding the potential alteration of the duration of State Legislative Assemblies.
    • Linguistic bias in consultations, limiting the inclusivity of the decision-making process.
    • Potential compromise of the Election Commission’s independence and autonomy.
    • Balancing financial considerations with the fundamental principles of democracy.
    • The challenge of ensuring a fair and unbiased decision-making process amid political interests.

    Key Terms and Phrases:

    • One Nation, One Election
    • High Level Committee
    • Model Code of Conduct
    • S.R. Bommai case
    • Constitutional autonomy
    • Governance downtime
    • Baker v. Carr moment
    • Linguistic bias
    • Election Commission
    • Constitutional showdown

    Key Quotes:

    • “The cost of holding free and fair elections… is a price that can never be high.”
    • “The introduction of a common election process would necessarily require alteration of the existing duration of a number of State Legislatures.”
    • “Similar to demonetisation, when the Reserve Bank of India was kept in the dark, the Election Commission seems to be a silent spectator.”

    Key Statements:

    • “The Supreme Court would be called upon to determine the ultimate fate of Indian democracy.”
    • “The potential alteration of the duration of State Legislatures would be anti-federal and unconstitutional.”
    • “The stage is set for a constitutional showdown in the not-too-distant future.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • Baker v. Carr case in the U.S. as a reference for the potential role of the Supreme Court in a constitutional showdown.
    • Comparison with demonetization to highlight concerns about the Election Commission’s apparent lack of involvement.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • The estimated cost of the 2014 general elections was ₹3,870 crore.
    • The High Level Committee’s website is available only in English and Hindi.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article critically examines the potential consequences of One Nation, One Election, questioning its feasibility and highlighting legal and constitutional concerns. It underscores the importance of democratic processes and the need for the Supreme Court to play a pivotal role in preserving India’s constitutional architecture.

    Way Forward:

    • Ensure comprehensive and inclusive consultations in multiple languages to address linguistic bias.
    • Strengthen the autonomy of the Election Commission and ensure its active participation in decision-making processes.
    • Balance financial considerations with the preservation of democratic principles.
    • Address legal concerns, particularly those related to state autonomy and constitutional provisions.
    • Encourage public discourse to raise awareness and engage citizens in the decision-making process.

  • Tax contribution by States needs to be revisited

     

    16th Finance Commission - INSIGHTSIAS

     

    Central Idea:

    The article advocates for the inclusion of tax contribution, particularly from Goods and Services Tax (GST) and petroleum consumption, as a significant efficiency indicator in the distribution formula used by Finance Commissions to allocate Union tax revenue among states. The authors argue that these measures provide a fair and stable representation of a state’s economic contribution to the national exchequer.

    Key Highlights:

    • Finance Commissions play a crucial role in recommending the distribution of Union tax revenues among states.
    • Historically, tax contribution had less weight in the distribution formula, but it was completely dropped since the 10th Finance Commission.
    • The article contends that tax contribution, especially under the GST regime, is a reliable measure of efficiency, unlike other indicators like tax effort and fiscal discipline.
    • The authors propose that GST and petroleum consumption, being stable and indicative of income, should be given a substantial weight in the distribution formula.

    Key Challenges:

    • Resistance from states that may perceive a potential shift in their shares based on tax contribution.
    • The stability of indicators like tax effort and fiscal discipline is questioned, making it challenging to assign them higher weights.
    • The need to ensure that the inclusion of tax contribution does not lead to unfair outcomes or discourage states from adopting progressive tax policies.

    Key Terms:

    • Goods and Services Tax (GST): A unified consumption-based destination tax equally divided between the State and Central governments.
    • Tax Contribution: The amount of revenue generated by a state through taxes, considered as an efficiency indicator.
    • Finance Commission: A body responsible for recommending the distribution of Union tax revenues among states in India.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Equity and efficiency in tax revenue transfers.”
    • “Tax contribution as an efficiency indicator.”
    • “GST and petroleum consumption as fair measures of states’ contributions to the national exchequer.”

    Key Quotes:

    • “Tax contribution is an efficiency indicator because a State’s level of development and economic structure decides its tax contribution.”
    • “GST satisfies the criterion of stability in tax structure, making it an ideal efficiency indicator.”
    • “There is a persuasive case for the 16th Finance Commission to debate and include these ratios as a measure of efficiency.”

    Key Statements:

    • “Since the 10th Finance Commission, tax contribution was dropped from the distribution formula.”
    • “GST is a consumption-based destination tax that is equally divided between the State and Central governments.”
    • “The Finance Commissions have always favored assigning more than 75% weight to equity indicators.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • The article references the 15th Finance Commission’s distribution formula, which included tax effort, fiscal discipline, and demographic performance.
    • The stability of GST as an efficiency indicator is supported by calculations presented by the authors.

    Key Facts:

    • The share of personal and corporate income taxes is 64% in Central tax revenue in 2021-22.
    • Finance Commissions historically assigned 10% to 20% weight to tax contribution in the distribution formula.

    Key Data:

    • The weightage of tax effort in the 15th Finance Commission’s distribution formula was 2.5%, with demographic performance receiving a weight of 12.5%.
    • The recommended weight for equity indicators in the same formula was 85%.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article provides a compelling argument for the inclusion of tax contribution in the distribution formula, highlighting the stability and fairness of GST as an efficiency indicator. However, potential challenges such as resistance from states and the need for careful consideration to prevent unintended consequences are acknowledged.

    Way Forward:

    The authors suggest that the 16th Finance Commission should actively debate and consider including GST and petroleum consumption with a substantial weight in the distribution formula. This, they argue, would better represent states’ contributions to the national exchequer and promote efficiency in resource allocation.

  • Farsi to be one of India’s nine Classical Languages

    Introduction

    • In a significant move to deepen cultural ties, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar announced that the Centre has decided to include Farsi (Persian) as one of the nine classical languages in India under the New Education Policy.

    Classical Languages in India

    • As of now, India recognizes six languages as classical, including Tamil (2004), Sanskrit (2005), Kannada (2008), Telugu (2008), Malayalam (2013), and Odia (2014).
    • In addition to these classical languages Pali, Persian, and Prakrit and their works of literature are to be preserved according to India’s National Education Policy-2020.
    • The addition of Farsi (Persian) brings the total to nine classical languages (Needs more clarification).

    Criteria for Classical Language Status

    The Ministry of Culture in the Rajya Sabha outlined the criteria for declaring a language as ‘Classical’:

    • High Antiquity: The language must have a recorded history spanning 1500-2000 years.
    • Valuable Heritage: It should possess a body of ancient literature and texts cherished by generations.
    • Originality: The literary tradition must be unique and not borrowed from another linguistic community.
    • Distinctness: The classical language and its literature should be distinct from modern forms or offshoots.

    Promotion of Classical Languages

    Upon being recognized as a classical language, the HRD Ministry provides various benefits, including:

    • International Awards: Two major international awards for eminent scholars in classical Indian languages.
    • Centre of Excellence: Establishment of a Centre of Excellence for studies in Classical Languages.
    • Professional Chairs: Requesting the University Grants Commission (UGC) to create Professional Chairs for Classical Languages, initially in Central Universities.

    The Eighth Schedule

    The Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution outlines the official languages of the Republic of India. It is governed by Articles 344(1) and 351 of the Constitution.

    • Purpose: Originally created to grant representation on the Official Languages Commission and enrich Hindi and English, the official languages of the Union.
    • Medium for Examinations: Candidates appearing for public service examinations have the privilege of using any language from the Eighth Schedule as a medium to answer exam papers.
    • Languages Included: Currently, the Eighth Schedule includes 22 languages, including Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.

    Chronological Additions

    The chronological additions to the Eighth Schedule are as follows:

    • 1950: Initially included 14 languages.
    • 1967: Sindhi was added through the 21st Constitutional Amendment Act.
    • 1992: Konkani, Manipuri (Meitei), and Nepali were included through the 71st Constitutional Amendment Act.
    • 2003: Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santali were added through the 92nd Constitutional Amendment Act.
    • 2011: The spelling “Oriya” was replaced with “Odia” through the 96th Constitutional Amendment Act.

    Try this PYQ:

    Consider the following languages:

    1. Gujarati
    2. Kannada
    3. Telugu

    Which of the above has/have been declared as ‘Classical Language / Languages’ by the Government?

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 3 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”zd3km5etnb” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Judicial contradiction in Delhi Chief Secretary’s extension

    Robert H. Jackson quote: There is danger that, if the Court does not temper...

    Central Idea:

    The article criticizes the Supreme Court of India’s November 2023 judgment allowing a six-month extension to Delhi’s Chief Secretary despite serious corruption allegations. It highlights the Court’s perceived inconsistency in upholding constitutional principles, particularly concerning the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023, and expresses concerns about the erosion of constitutional logic and past judicial wisdom.

    Key Highlights:

    • The Supreme Court’s decision to permit the extension of Delhi’s Chief Secretary’s tenure is viewed as an instance of judicial self-abnegation.
    • The article questions the Court’s reversal of its own earlier Services judgment, which emphasized the elected government’s control over services in Delhi.
    • Serious corruption charges against the Chief Secretary and the Delhi Chief Minister’s recommendation for his removal create a conflict of interest.
    • The Court’s reliance on the 2023 amendment and the interpretation of the Chief Secretary’s role is criticized for being inconsistent with past rulings, including Royappa.
    • The article points out the Court’s failure to acknowledge that the 2023 amendment did not exclude the application of the Royappa case.

    Key Challenges:

    • The Supreme Court’s perceived inconsistency in interpreting constitutional principles, especially regarding the Chief Secretary’s extension and the 2023 amendment.
    • Addressing the conflict of interest posed by serious allegations against the Chief Secretary and the breakdown of trust between the elected government and bureaucracy.
    • The Court’s deviation from its past rulings, particularly the Services judgment and Royappa case, creates a challenge in maintaining a coherent judicial stance.

    Key Terms/Phrases:

    • Judicial self-abnegation
    • Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023
    • Constitutional logic
    • Chief Secretary’s extension
    • Services judgment
    • Royappa case
    • Conflict of interest
    • Constitutional interpretation
    • Erosion of trust
    • Unilateral extension

    Key Quotes:

    • “The Court’s judgments become ‘writ in water’ when it reverses its own reasoning for the government’s convenience.”
    • “The Court has lost sight of constitutional logic and past wisdom that attributed great value to constitutional interpretation.”

    Key Statements:

    • “The article questions the Court’s deviation from its earlier stance, leading to a perceived erosion of constitutional principles and inconsistency.”
    • “The conflict of interest arising from serious charges against the Chief Secretary and the breakdown of trust between the elected government and bureaucracy is a significant concern.”

    Key Examples/References:

    • The Supreme Court’s November 2023 judgment permitting the Chief Secretary’s extension and its reliance on the 2023 amendment.
    • The Services judgment emphasizing the elected government’s control over services and the Royappa case defining the role of the Chief Secretary.

    Key Facts/Data:

    • The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023 had been challenged by the Delhi government but was not stayed by the courts.
    • Serious allegations of corruption against the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister’s recommendation for immediate removal.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article critically examines the Supreme Court’s handling of the Chief Secretary’s extension, highlighting perceived inconsistencies, conflicts with past judgments, and a departure from established constitutional principles. It raises concerns about the erosion of trust between the elected government and bureaucracy.

    Way Forward:

    • The Supreme Court needs to revisit and reconcile its past judgments, especially the Services and Royappa cases, to ensure a coherent judicial stance.
    • Addressing conflicts of interest and corruption allegations in bureaucratic appointments is crucial for maintaining public trust.
    • The Court should uphold constitutional principles consistently, considering the broader impact on governance and accountability.
    • Future decisions related to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023 should be made with a clear understanding of constitutional logic and democratic principles.

  • A Speaker’s flawed move to determine the real faction

    Uddhav Thackeray slams Maharashtra Speaker's verdict on 'real' Shiv Sena

    Central Idea:

    The article critiques the Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly, Rahul Narwekar, for his flawed decision in handling the disqualification case of Shiv Sena Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) led by Eknath Shinde. The author emphasizes the Speaker’s erroneous attempt to determine the real Shiv Sena faction and points out the jurisdictional issues and contradictions in the Speaker’s decision.

    Key Highlights:

    • The Speaker’s decision centered on whether the breakaway Shiv Sena MLAs, under Eknath Shinde’s leadership, voluntarily gave up their party membership by voting against the party whip, making them liable for disqualification under the anti-defection law.
    • The article highlights the Speaker’s attempt to prevent disqualification of the Shinde group, presenting a nearly 1,200-page judgment that is deeply flawed.
    • The Speaker erroneously tries to determine the real Shiv Sena faction, a decision beyond his jurisdiction, and quotes irrelevant Supreme Court directions.

    Key Challenges:

    • The Speaker’s decision raises questions about the misinterpretation of the Tenth Schedule and its provisions regarding defection and disqualification.
    • Attempting to determine the real party faction goes against the clear jurisdiction outlined by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.
    • Contradictions in the Speaker’s decision, such as validating appointments by the Shinde group despite the Supreme Court’s findings, pose challenges to the integrity of the anti-defection law.

    Key Terms:

    • Anti-Defection Law: Provisions outlined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution that address defection by legislators and the resulting disqualification.
    • Jurisdiction: The official power to make legal decisions and judgments.

    Key Phrases:

    • “Flawed decision in handling the disqualification case.”
    • “Erroneous attempt to determine the real Shiv Sena faction.”
    • “Nearly 1,200-page judgment valiantly tried to avoid disqualification.”

    Key Quotes:

    • “The consequence of this is disqualification.”
    • “The Speaker’s decision is clearly without jurisdiction.”
    • “Parliament did not consider paragraph 15 of the Symbols order as a relevant factor.”

    Key Statements:

    • “The question of which faction is the real Shiv Sena can only be decided by the Election Commission of India.”
    • “The Speaker’s decision goes against the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court.”

    Key Examples and References:

    • The Subhash Desai judgment clarifies that the Shiv Sena led by Uddhav Thackeray is the original political party.
    • Parliament did not consider paragraph 15 of the Symbols order as a relevant factor.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • The Tenth Schedule originally allowed legislators to avoid disqualification in case of a split or merger; however, the split provision was omitted in 2003.
    • In Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023), the Supreme Court observes a split in the Shiv Sena party.

    Critical Analysis:

    The article critically analyzes the Speaker’s decision, pointing out flaws, contradictions, and the disregard for the clear jurisdiction outlined by the Supreme Court. It highlights the misinterpretation of the Tenth Schedule and its implications for anti-defection cases.

    Way Forward:

    • Emphasizes the need for adherence to the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission.
    • Urges a more precise understanding and application of the Tenth Schedule to prevent future misinterpretations.
    • Advocates for a careful consideration of relevant factors and jurisdictional boundaries in disqualification cases to uphold the integrity of the anti-defection law.