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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Supreme Court makes video on Kesavananda Bharati Verdict

    kesav

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court of India released a video in 10 Indian languages, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment delivered on April 24, 1973.
    • The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law, redefining the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution.

    Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

    • Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgment introduced the basic structure doctrine, asserting that the Constitution has an inherent framework that cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments.
    • 7-6 Decision: The Supreme Court, in a narrow decision, established its authority to invalidate constitutional amendments violating this basic structure.
    • Key Outcomes:
      1. Limitation on Parliamentary Power: The doctrine restricts Parliament’s ability to amend key constitutional features like the separation of powers.
      2. Judicial Review Reinforcement: It built upon the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, allowing for the review of amendments affecting the Constitution’s basic structure.
      3. Article 31-C and Judicial Review: The Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 31-C’s first provision, stating that amendments implementing Directive Principles, which do not disturb the basic structure, are not subject to judicial review.

    Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine

    • Dilution of Parliamentary Powers: Critics argue that the doctrine undermines parliamentary sovereignty and disrupts the separation of powers.
    • Ambiguity Concerns: The doctrine’s perceived vagueness and subjectivity in judicial review have also been points of contention.

    Landmark Cases Involving the Doctrine

    • Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975): The Court applied the Kesavananda doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the elections of top officials from judicial scrutiny.
    • Minerva Mills Ltd vs. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated a clause in Article 368, asserting that Parliament’s constituent power had no limitations.
    • P Sambamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1986): The Court struck down part of the 32nd Amendment related to the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh.
    • L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997): The Court nullified a portion of the 42nd Amendment that established administrative tribunals and excluded High Court judicial review.

    Significance of the Judgment and the Doctrine

    • Empowerment of Judicial Review: The doctrine underpins the judiciary’s authority to review and potentially override constitutional amendments by Parliament.
    • Clarification of Article 368: It distinguishes Article 368 as a procedural mechanism for amendment, not a power to alter the Constitution’s core or basic structure.
    • Harmony with Legislative Authority: Justice Shastri emphasized that judicial review is a constitutional duty, not an attempt to undermine legislative power.
    • Checks and Balances System: The Kesavananda Bharati verdict underscored that judicial review serves as a check and balance, ensuring constitutional functionaries remain within their prescribed limits.

  • Kapil Sibal is wrong — judiciary’s independence is not under threat

    Kapil Sibal's three strikes bring political embarrassment for Congress

    Central idea 

    The article discusses the challenge of legislators practicing law, particularly the dual role of legislator-lawyers, raising concerns about potential conflicts and the normalization of political intervention in the judiciary. It criticizes Kapil Sibal’s confrontational approach, citing its impact on judicial independence, and emphasizes the delicate balance needed for an independent judiciary amid intertwining political and legal roles.

    Key Highlights:

    • Dual Roles of Legislator-Lawyers: Legislators practicing law face a dilemma, mixing politics with the legal profession, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
    • Normalization of Political Intervention: Allegations by Kapil Sibal suggest a trend of normalizing political intervention in the judiciary, using claims like “courts being on trial” to influence decisions.
    • False Equivalence with Emergency Era: Critique based on a false equivalence between the 1975 Emergency and present times, disregarding the unique historical context and the active role of the judiciary.

    Key Challenges:

    • Political-legal Nexus: The intertwining of political and legal roles, especially in the case of legislator-lawyers, poses challenges to the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
    • Confrontational Criticism: Sibal’s confrontational criticism, accusing the judiciary of undergoing a radical shift under external pressures, raises concerns about the impact on public trust and institutional respect.
    • Undermining Judicial Independence: Multi-layered actions that undermine judicial independence can erode public faith in legal institutions and potentially influence future verdicts.

    Key Terms and Phrases:

    • Constitutional Amendments: Reference to the numerous constitutional amendments during the 1975 Emergency.
    • Judicial Review: The Supreme Court’s expanded role in reviewing legislation on grounds like constitutional morality, manifest arbitrariness, and transformative constitutionalism.
    • Impeachment Proceedings: Mention of the threat of impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dipak Misra, perceived as an attempt to pressure the judiciary.

    Key Quotes:

    • “Courts being on trial” – Described as a sophisticated tool to easily deride any unfavorable decision and question the judiciary’s independence.
    • “Institutional sabotage” – Sibal’s comments on institutional sabotage are deemed wildly inaccurate and speculative.

    Key Statements:

    • False Equivalence Critique: The critique based on a false equivalence between the 1975 Emergency and present times, emphasizing the active role of the judiciary in the current era.
    • Confrontational Criticism Impact: Sibal’s confrontational criticism may have a chilling effect on the judiciary’s functioning, potentially influencing future verdicts and legal processes.
    • Delicate Balance: Emphasizing the need to respect the delicate balance between political advocacy and judicial independence, especially for legislator-lawyers.

    Key Examples and References:

    • Defections Cases: Reference to recent Supreme Court decisions concerning defections impacting public trust in the democratic process.
    • Impeachment Proceedings Threat: Mention of the perceived attempt to pressure the judiciary through the threat of impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
    • Sibal’s Role in Criticism: Highlighting Sibal’s consistent and atypical criticism of Supreme Court verdicts, raising questions about his dual roles.

    Key Facts and Data:

    • Supreme Court’s Intrusive Role: Acknowledgment of the Supreme Court’s more intrusive role in the past decade, impacting the role of the democratically elected legislature.
    • Sibal’s Political Transition: Recognition of Kapil Sibal’s transition from a Congress leader to seeking political space, influencing his views and legal perspectives.

    Critical Analysis:

    • Intertwining Roles Challenge: The intertwining of political and legal roles challenges the delicate balance needed for an independent judiciary and erodes public trust.
    • Ethical Standards for Politician-Lawyers: The need for politicians, especially legislator-lawyers, to adhere to ethical standards and maintain the delicate balance between political advocacy and judicial independence.
    • Impact on Democracy: Actions perceived as undermining judicial independence can have a profound impact on democracy, influencing public perception and institutional respect.

    Way Forward:

    • Respect for Judicial Independence: Emphasizing the crucial need to respect the delicate balance between political advocacy and judicial independence to safeguard the credibility of legal institutions.
    • Ethical Considerations: Encouraging politicians, especially those with legal acumen, to consider ethical standards in their dual roles to avoid eroding public faith in the judiciary.
    • Public Perception Management: Considering how opinions are presented to manage public perception and maintain institutional respect, ensuring a constructive dialogue between the legal and political spheres.

  • On Constitution Day, more people-friendly laws

    Simplifying the law for the citizens of India

    Central idea

    The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is actively simplifying legal language to promote “Access to Justice,” making legal texts more understandable for every citizen. This strategic initiative, aligned with constitutional principles, addresses historical ambiguities and leverages technology to enhance accessibility, contributing to global legal recognition and fostering a transformative journey toward inclusive justice.

    Key Highlights:

    • Legal Language Simplification: The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is undertaking a mission to simplify legal language, aligning with the vision of “Access to Justice” and aiming to make legal texts more accessible to the common citizen.
    • Constitutional Principle: The initiative reflects the constitutional principle that legal language should be understandable to every citizen, emphasizing the importance of ensuring citizens comprehend their rights and responsibilities.
    • Correction of Ambiguities: The government is addressing historical ambiguities in legal language, such as those in Sections 213 and 214 of the IPC, to enhance legal precision and effective enforcement, eliminating potential loopholes.
    • Global Recognition: The government’s commitment to simplifying legal language has gained international recognition, positioning India as a forward-thinking adopter of progressive measures for legal accessibility.
    • Digital Transformation: The simplification efforts align with the Digital India campaign, leveraging technology to enhance accessibility, with online platforms and digital resources making legal information more readily available.

    Key Challenges:

    • Historical Complexities: Addressing historical intricacies in legal language poses a challenge, requiring thorough examination and correction of ambiguities that have persisted over time.
    • Public Engagement: While seeking public input in the simplification process is a positive step, ensuring effective public engagement and capturing diverse perspectives can be challenging.

    Key Phrases:

    • Access to Justice: The overarching vision guiding the simplification initiative, aiming to remove barriers of legal complexity that hinder the common citizen’s understanding of legal texts.
    • Legal Empowerment: The goal of simplification extends beyond language, aiming to empower citizens with legal knowledge, fostering a sense of legal empowerment among the diverse population.

    Key Quotes:

    • “We must see that the constitution is not only passed by the Constituent Assembly but that it is also worked by the common people of the country.” – B R Ambedkar
    • “The government envisions a legal landscape where language is not a barrier but a bridge to justice.”

    Critical Analysis:

    • The reduction in legal disputes due to misunderstandings and misinterpretations underscores the positive impact of the simplification initiatives in fostering a clearer legal framework.

    Way Forward:

    • Continue the integration of plain language drafting principles into legal education to nurture a generation of legal professionals capable of navigating legal intricacies with clarity and precision.
    • Sustain efforts to engage the public in the simplification process, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered for comprehensive legal accessibility.
    • Monitor and evaluate the impact of simplification on reducing legal disputes and enhancing India’s global economic competitiveness.
    • Explore additional measures, such as comprehensive glossaries in multiple languages, to further enhance the understanding of legal language among citizens.

  • It’s time to revamp the structure of the Supreme Court

    Constitution Bench of Supreme Court

    Central idea

    The article discusses the challenges faced by the Supreme Court of India, the historical proposals for structural changes, and the recent proposal to create Constitution Benches as a permanent feature. It explores the need for regional benches to alleviate the overwhelming caseload and enhance the court’s efficiency, considering historical recommendations and current demands for reform.

    Jurisdictions of the Supreme Court:

    • Original, appellate, and advisory jurisdictions under the Constitution.
    • Functions as a Constitutional Court and Court of Appeal.

    Composition of Constitution Benches:

    • Typically comprise five, seven, or nine judges.
    • Deliberate on issues related to constitutional law.
    • Article 145(3) mandates a minimum of five judges for substantial constitutional questions.

    Broad Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

    • Hears cases in Division Benches (two judges) or full Benches (three judges).
    • Addresses diverse topics, from film prohibitions to allegations against public officials.
    • Notable instances of entertaining frivolous public interest litigations.

    Current Caseload and Need for Structural Change:

    • 79,813 pending cases before 34 judges, prompting calls for structural reforms.
    • CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s recent announcement on establishing varied-strength Constitution Benches permanently.

    Historical Proposals for Structural Change:

    • Tenth Law Commission (1984) proposed splitting the Supreme Court into Constitutional and Legal Divisions.
    • Eleventh Law Commission (1988) reiterated the need for division, aiming at wider justice availability.
    • Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986) expressed the “desirability” of a National Court of Appeal.
    • 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended regional benches for non-constitutional issues.

    Colonial Legacy and Evolution of the Supreme Court:

    • Three Supreme Courts during colonial times (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras).
    • Indian High Courts Act of 1861 replaced Supreme Courts with High Courts.
    • Government of India Act, 1935, created the Federal Court of India.
    • The Supreme Court, established on January 28, 1950, under Article 124 of the Constitution.

    Increasing Judges and Overburdened Court:

    • Evolution of the Supreme Court from eight judges in 1950 to 34 in 2019.
    • Overburdened court issuing around 8-10 decisions yearly through Constitution Benches.
    • Only four out of 1,263 decisions in 2022 from Constitution Benches.

    Critical Analysis:

    • Overburdened Judiciary: High number of pending cases (79,813) indicates the burden on the Supreme Court. The overwhelming workload affects the efficiency of the court in delivering timely justice.
    • Historical Proposals: Historical proposals, like the Tenth Law Commission’s suggestion in 1984, proposed splitting the Supreme Court into Constitutional and Legal Divisions.The aim was to make justice more accessible and reduce litigants’ fees.
    • Regional Benches Proposal: The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended establishing regional benches to hear non-constitutional issues. The proposal aimed to decentralize workload and allow the Supreme Court to focus on constitutional matters.
    • Historical Background: Evolution of the Supreme Court from colonial times with the creation of regional Supreme Courts. Transformation from three Supreme Courts (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) to the current centralized structure.

    Key Examples and References:

    • Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986) suggested establishing a National Court of Appeal.
    • The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended regional benches.

    Key Facts:

    • The Court sits in benches of varying sizes, as determined by the Registry on the directions of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who is the Master of the Roster
    • The Supreme Court was founded on January 28, 1950, under Article 124 of the Constitution.
    • Workforce increased from 8 judges in 1950 to 34 judges in 2019 due to rising caseload.

    Way Forward:

    • Suggestion to split the Supreme Court into a Final Court of Appeal and a permanent Constitution Bench.
    • A Constitution Bench (V. Vasanthkumar v. H.C. Bhatia) analyzing and proposing measures to protect citizens’ access to the Supreme Court.
    • Opportunity to address structural gaps by designating appeal benches as regional benches under CJI’s guidance.

  • Does the Indian Judiciary have a ‘Patriarchy Problem’?

    Central Idea

    • India’s judiciary has long grappled with gender disparity, and the recent passing of Justice Fathima Beevi, the country’s first female Supreme Court judge, has brought attention to this issue.
    • Despite incremental progress, women continue to be underrepresented in both the Supreme Court and High Courts, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform.

    About Justice Fathima Beevi

    • Justice Fathima Beevi, India’s first woman Supreme Court judge, passed away at the age of 96 in Kollam, Kerala.
    • She made history as the first Muslim woman judge of the Supreme Court, as well as the first woman Supreme Court Justice in Asia.

    Gender Disparity in Indian Judiciary

    [A] Supreme Court

    • Current Scenario: Of the 34 incumbent Supreme Court justices, only three are women: Justices Hima Kohli, Bela Trivedi, and BV Nagarathna.
    • Historical Perspective: India has had a total of 11 women judges in the Supreme Court’s history, since Justice Beevi’s appointment in 1989.
    • Low Representation: This translates to approximately 4% representation of women judges out of a total of 268 judges in the apex court’s history.
    • Recent Appointments: The current collegium, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, has made 14 appointments but is yet to appoint a woman judge to the Supreme Court.

    [B] High Court

    • High Court Scenario: As of March 2022, India has 25 high courts with 1,114 sanctioned judge positions.
    • Working Judges: However, only 785 judges are currently working, with 329 positions remaining vacant.
    • Female Judges: Out of the working judges, only 107 are women, constituting 13% of the total.
    • Women Chief Justices: Only one of the country’s 25 high courts currently has a woman chief justice.

    Efforts to Address Gender Disparity

    • Legal Perspective: The Union Law Minister stated that the Constitution’s Articles 124, 217, and 224 do not provide for caste or class-based reservations in higher judiciary appointments.
    • Recommendation for Diversity: Nevertheless, the Centre encouraged high court chief justices to consider suitable candidates who are women, minorities, scheduled castes, or tribes to ensure social diversity in the appointment process.

    Challenges in Lower Judiciary and District Courts

    • Higher Representation: Women constitute approximately 27% of judges in the lower judiciary, but gender disparities persist in higher appointments such as district judges and high courts.
    • Regional Disparities: A study revealed that only a few smaller states like Goa, Meghalaya, and Sikkim had over 60% women judges, while others remained below 40%.
    • Reservation: Some states have introduced quotas for women in the lower judiciary, providing between 30% and 35% reservation for direct appointments.

    Way forward

    • In April 2021, Chief Justice SA Bobde emphasized that capable candidates were required for greater women representation, rather than an attitudinal change.
    • His statement sparked controversy as female advocates challenged the assumption that women refused judgeships solely due to domestic responsibilities.
    • Advocates argued that men also decline judgeships for various reasons without hindering their appointment.

    Conclusion

    • The gender disparity in India’s judiciary remains a persistent challenge, with slow progress towards equal representation.
    • It is imperative to address this issue comprehensively, from the highest courts to the lower judiciary, by promoting diversity and equal opportunities, ultimately strengthening the justice system and upholding gender equality.

  • President bats for All India Judicial Service (AIJS)  

    Central Idea

    • On Constitution Day, President emphasized the need for an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) to reflect India’s diverse fabric in the judiciary.
    • Designed to streamline the recruitment process for judges, particularly at the levels of additional district judges and district judges across all states, the AIJS concept has been the subject of longstanding debate and contention within legal circles.

    All India Judicial Service (AIJS): Overview

    • Objective: To select and nurture talented individuals nationwide, ensuring representation from underrepresented social groups.
    • Current Recruitment: Under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, states manage district judge appointments. State Public Service Commissions conduct recruitment, supervised by High Courts.
    • Rationale: AIJS aims to enhance judicial efficiency, standardize compensation, expedite recruitment, and ensure uniform training.

    Historical Context

    • 1958: The Law Commission first proposed a centralized judicial service.
    • 1978: The Law Commission revisited the idea amid concerns about delays and case backlogs.
    • 2006: A Parliamentary Committee supported a pan-Indian judicial service, drafting a bill.

    Judiciary’s Stance

    • 1992: The Supreme Court directed the Centre to establish AIJS (All India Judges’ Assam vs. Union of India case).
    • 1993: The Court permitted the Centre to initiate AIJS independently.
    • 2017: The Supreme Court suggested a “Central Selection Mechanism” for district judge appointments.

    Necessity of AIJS

    • Challenges: The lower judiciary faces about 5400 vacancies and a backlog of 2.78 crore cases.
    • Quality Concerns: The declining quality of judicial officers necessitates high-caliber recruitment.
    • Financial Incentives: State services often fail to attract top talent due to lower salaries.
    • Training and Subjectivity: State-run institutions lack adequate training resources; current appointments are marred by subjectivity and nepotism.

    Criticism and Concerns

    • Federalism: AIJS is seen as infringing on states’ powers.
    • Language and Representation: Centralized recruitment might impact the use of regional languages.
    • Equality and Education: A national exam could disadvantage less privileged candidates; law education standards are inconsistent.
    • Structural Issues: AIJS may not address systemic problems like low pay and inadequate infrastructure.
    • Bureaucratization: Centralizing recruitment doesn’t inherently guarantee efficiency.

    Government’s Motivation

    • Business Environment: Reforming the lower judiciary is aligned with improving India’s Ease of Doing Business ranking.
    • Dispute Resolution: Efficient dispute resolution is crucial for business rankings.
    • IAS Inspiration: The government views the IAS system as a model for enhancing judicial services.

    Way Forward

    Niti Aayog’s ‘Strategy for New India @75’ report recommends:

    • Examination: An all-India judicial services exam to maintain high standards.
    • Technology: Implementing video-conferencing to expedite justice and reduce logistical issues.
    • Independence: AIJS cadre should report to the Chief Justice in each High Court to preserve judicial independence.

  • Ram Madhav writes: Don’t rewrite the Constitution

    Indian Constitution

     

    Central idea

    On Constitution Day, voices are emerging to replace India’s Constitution, a unique document created through extensive discussion and amendments.

    Comparative Constitutionalism:

    • The comparison with other countries like France, Nepal, Chile, and Uzbekistan highlights India’s distinct process of constitution-making.
    • Critics label the present Constitution as “colonial,” citing similarities with the Government of India Act 1935, but the historical context and unique influences are acknowledged.

    Historical Influences and Unique Drafting Process:

    • Dr. Rajendra Prasad asserted that India wasn’t bound to adhere strictly to global constitutional categories, emphasizing the influence of India’s historical realities.
    • The Nehru Report’s significance in shaping constitutional ideals, serving as a foundation for future constitutional struggles.

    Challenges and Criticisms:

    • The challenge lies in addressing criticisms of the Constitution being “colonial” and responding to calls for a rewrite, balancing historical influences with contemporary needs.
    • Achieving political consensus, as witnessed in the unique drafting process, is a monumental task, especially considering the diverse opinions and interests.

    Back2Basics: The Government of India Act (1935)

    • Under Lord Linlithgow’s leadership, a committee drafted the Government of India Act 1935, which was passed by the British Parliament and implemented.
    • The Act drew from the Simon Commission Report, Round Table Conferences, White Paper of 1933, and Joint Select Committees’ reports to formulate its provisions.

    Provisions of the GoI Act, 1935:

    • All India Federation: Established an All-India Federation comprising British Indian Provinces and Indian States, although its implementation was hindered by lack of princely state participation.
    • Provincial Autonomy: Introduced provincial autonomy where provinces functioned as autonomous units with responsible governments, though governors retained significant powers.
    • Division of Subjects: Introduced three lists—Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent—to delineate legislative authority between the Centre and provinces, aiming to clarify jurisdictional matters:

     

    Description Example Subjects
    Federal List Subjects of all-India interest requiring uniform treatment across British India. Only the Federal Legislature had the authority to legislate. Defence, Foreign Affairs, Currency, Railways, Taxes on Income
    Provincial List Subjects of local interest where Provincial Legislatures had exclusive jurisdiction. Public Health, Police, Local Government, Agriculture, Education
    Concurrent List Subjects of both Provincial and Federal interest, requiring uniformity across the country. Both levels of government could legislate. Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce, Bankruptcy, Trusts, Trade Unions

    Key Terms and Phrases:

    • Nehru Report: Draft constitution prepared in 1928 as a response to the challenge posed by Lord Birkenhead, emphasizing fundamental rights and democratic principles.
    • Government of India Act 1935: Considered by some as a “colonial” precursor to the Indian Constitution, but viewed differently by considering historical context.

    Critical Analysis:

    • The article navigates the complexities of assessing India’s Constitution, acknowledging historical influences while defending its efficiency in serving the nation.
    • The challenges of potential rewriting are highlighted, emphasizing the need for political consensus and the unique historical context.

    Way Forward:

    • The way forward involves careful consideration of the Constitution’s strengths, historical foundations, and the feasibility of rewriting in the context of contemporary needs.
    • Any potential rewriting should uphold the principles of a “fair measure of general agreement” among India’s diverse population, echoing the spirit of the Nehru Report.

  • Supreme Court questions Governor’s Discretion on TN Bills

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has taken notice of the Tamil Nadu government’s assertion that Governor R.N. Ravi lacks the “discretion” to withhold approval for the ten Bills “re-passed” by the State Legislative Assembly.
    • This legal matter revolves around the interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution, which governs the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature.

    Article 200 of the Indian Constitution

     

    • It pertains to the “Assent to Bills.”
    • It outlines the procedure for the Governor of a state in India to give their assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
    • Article 200 states that when a bill is passed by the legislative assembly of a state (or in the case of a bicameral legislature, by the legislative assembly and legislative council), it shall be presented to the Governor for their assent.

    Governor’s Discretion: The Governor has the discretion to either:

    1. Give their assent to the bill, after which it becomes a law.
    2. Withhold their assent to the bill, in which case the bill does not become law.
    3. Return the bill (if it is not a money bill) to the legislature with a request for reconsideration, along with a specific message explaining the reasons for withholding assent.

    Reconsideration by the Legislature: If the Governor returns a bill for reconsideration, the legislature can then reconsider the bill, taking into account the Governor’s message. They may choose to make amendments to the bill or pass it again without any changes.

    Assent after Reconsideration: If the bill is passed again by the legislature, with or without amendments, and is presented to the Governor, the Governor is bound to give their assent to it. In other words, the Governor cannot withhold assent a second time.

     

    Governor’s Discretion

    • Article 200 Interpretation: The Tamil Nadu government argued that once Bills have been re-passed by the Assembly, they are treated similarly to Money Bills and cannot be rejected by the Governor.
    • Questioning the Process: The CJI questioned whether the Governor must send the Bills back to the Assembly for reconsideration after withholding assent.
    • Limiting Presidential Referral: The State also emphasized that the Governor cannot refer the reiterated Bills to the President after withholding assent.

    Background and Delay

    • Delayed Bills: The Bills in question were sent to the Governor’s office between January 2020 and April 2023, and the State accused the Governor of holding them indefinitely.
    • Special Session: The TN Assembly convened a special session to re-pass the Bills after the Governor withheld assent.
    • Governor’s Statement: The Governor returned the Bills with a simple statement: “I withhold consent,” prompting the Assembly to take action.

    Legal Perspectives

    • Governor’s Ceremonial Role: The State contends that the Governor’s role is primarily ceremonial and that he must act within the State Legislature’s framework.
    • Will of the People: The Bills passed by the Assembly represent the will of the people and should not be delayed or rejected without valid reasons.

    Supreme Court’s Response

    • Addressing Delay: The Supreme Court acknowledged the need to address whether there has been a delay in the Governor’s constitutional function.
    • Bill Status: The Attorney General mentioned that 182 Bills were presented to the Governor, with 152 approved, five withdrawn, and nine reserved for referral to the President.
    • Key Issue: The real issue in this case involves amendments to State universities’ legislations that affect the Governor’s powers to select Vice-Chancellors.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s hearing on this matter raises critical questions about the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills and the need to ensure timely decision-making in the best interest of the people and governance of the State.
    • The interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution will play a pivotal role in this legal dispute.

  • It is high time the colonial institution of the governor is reined in

    The Tussle Between Chief Ministers and Governors: Preserving the Sanctity of Legislative Processes - Civilsdaily

    Central idea

    The article delves into the persistent constitutional challenges posed by the role of governors in India, emphasizing historical debates, predicting issues realized over time, and proposing judicial and constitutional solutions for effective governance and accountability.

    Key Highlights:

    • Governor’s Constitutional Role: The article highlights the constitutional concerns regarding the role of governors in Indian states, emphasizing their appointed nature and potential overreach in state matters.
    • Recent Instances in Tamil Nadu: Specific instances in Tamil Nadu, where Governor R N Ravi returned bills for assent and delayed decisions, serve as examples of the ongoing issues related to gubernatorial powers.
    • Constitutional Design Critique: The piece delves into the historical debates in the Constituent Assembly, expressing concerns raised by members like Dakshayani Velayudhan about the replication of colonial structures and the centralized nature of power.
    • Unaddressed Predictions: The article points out that predictions made during the Constituent Assembly debates about potential misuse of gubernatorial powers have materialized, with governors often serving as agents of the Union government.

    Challenges:

    • Appointment and Removal Disparities: It highlights the disparities between the appointment and removal processes of the President and the Governor, suggesting a lack of checks and balances for governors’ actions.
    • Perverse Incentives: The piece discusses the perverse incentives for governors, as they are secure in their positions as long as they align with the Union government, potentially leading to undue interference in state affairs.

    Key Phrases:

    • Colonial Legacy of Governors: The article stresses the continuation of the colonial institution of governors, raising questions about its relevance in an independent India.
    • Powers and Accountability: It explores the imbalance in powers and accountability between the President and the Governor, pointing out the governor’s vulnerability to the Union government’s preferences.

    Analysis:

    • Judicial Intervention: The piece acknowledges the increasing judicial intervention to address governors’ conduct but questions the need for repeated court interventions and calls for a more sustainable solution.
    • Constitutional Reform Proposal: While presenting a constitutional reform proposal from “Heads Held High,” the article suggests making governors accountable to state legislatures through election and impeachment, mirroring the President’s accountability to the Union Parliament.

    Way Forward:

    • Viable Alternatives: Instead of outright abolition, the article advocates for viable alternatives such as judicial scrutiny and comprehensive constitutional reforms to bring accountability and balance to the role of governors.
    • State Legislature Accountability: Proposing a way forward, the article suggests a model where governors are made accountable to state legislatures through election and impeachment, akin to the President’s accountability at the national level.

  • Haryana’s 75% Reservation Law for Private Jobs Declared Unconstitutional

    haryana

    Central Idea

    • In a significant verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has invalidated a law passed by the Haryana government in 2020, which reserved 75% of private sector jobs for residents of the state.
    • The court ruled that discriminating against individuals based on their non-residency in the state is unconstitutional, as it violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

    Haryana Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020: The Controversy

    • Origins: Enacted by the Haryana Assembly in November 2020, the law aimed to reserve 75% of jobs in the private sector with monthly salaries under Rs 30,000 (originally Rs 50,000) for Haryana residents.
    • Effective Date: The law received the Governor’s approval on March 2, 2021, and came into effect on January 15, 2022.
    • Key Provisions: All private entities, including companies, societies, trusts, and individual employers with ten or more employees, were covered. The law mandated recruitment through a designated online portal, with provisions for employer exemptions.

    High Court’s Verdict and Rationale

    • Unconstitutional Restrictions: The High Court held that Sections 6 and 8 of the Act, which required employers to submit quarterly reports on local candidates employed and gave authorized officers powers to verify compliance, amounted to an “Inspector Raj.” These provisions placed undue control over private employers, which is permissible for public employment but not for the private sector.
    • Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court found that the law severely impaired an individual’s right to carry on an occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It emphasized that the State cannot discriminate against individuals based on their non-residency in a particular state.
    • Inspector Raj and Legal Immunity: The court also criticized the Act’s provision under Section 20, which protected authorized or designated officers acting in “good faith.” This provision effectively restricted legal proceedings against such officers, further impinging on employers’ rights.

    Reasons for quashing

    • Article 19(1) (g) Violation: The Act potentially infringes upon Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to carry out any occupation, trade, or business. It may impede this right by mandating job reservations in the private sector, affecting individuals’ occupational freedom.
    • Article 16 Boundaries: The Act’s provision of reservation based on domicile or residence may cross constitutional boundaries. Article 16 ensures equal opportunity in public employment, but the Act extends this to the private sector, a prerogative of Parliament.
    • 50% Reservation Limit: The Act breaches the 50% reservation limit set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. Exceptional circumstances must be proven for such a breach, challenging the equality principle.
    • One Nation Concept: India’s constitutional vision as one nation with equal rights for all is challenged by these laws. Restricting out-of-state citizens’ job opportunities hinders their freedom to reside and work anywhere in India.
    • Economic Implications: The Act could raise operational costs for businesses and exacerbate income inequality among States.

    What Comes Next

    • Supreme Court’s Involvement: The Haryana government, determined to pursue the reservation policy, plans to move the Supreme Court and file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s verdict.
    • Prior Legal Proceedings: The High Court had previously stayed the law on February 3, 2022, but the Supreme Court later set aside this stay, directing the High Court to decide on the law’s validity within four weeks.

    Conclusion

    • The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling, declaring Haryana’s 75% reservation law for private jobs unconstitutional, marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over state-based job reservations in India.
    • The impending Supreme Court battle will determine the fate of this contentious legislation.