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

Talk to Mentor

Subject: Polity

Analysis of Declining CAG Audits Tabled in Parliament
Central Idea
- In 2023, only 18 audits prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) were tabled in the Indian Parliament, continuing a trend of decreasing numbers in recent years.
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)
- Constitutional Office: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) is an independent constitutional authority responsible for overseeing financial administration in India.
- Key Responsibilities: As the head of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the CAG is the guardian of the public purse, monitoring the financial system at both central and state levels.
History of the Office of CAG
- Origins in British India: The role of the CAG evolved with administrative reforms initiated by Lord Canning before the Mutiny of 1857.
- Establishment and Evolution: The office was formalized under the Government of India Act 1858, with Sir Edward Drummond becoming the first Auditor General in 1860. The title ‘Comptroller and Auditor General of India’ was first used in 1884.
- Independence and Strengthening: The Montford Reforms of 1919 and the Government of India Act 1935 further solidified the CAG’s independence and role in a federal setup.
Constitutional Provisions Related to CAG
- Articles Governing CAG: The Constitution outlines the CAG’s appointment, duties, and powers in Articles 148 to 151.
- Duties and Powers: The CAG is responsible for auditing all government accounts and advising on financial matters.
- Audit Reports: The CAG submits audit reports on Union accounts to the President and on state accounts to respective Governors.
Types of Audits Performed by CAG
- Regulatory Audit: Ensures authorized and rule-compliant expenditure.
- Supplementary Audit: Conducted in PSUs for detecting financial leakages.
- Propriety Audit: Focuses on the public interest and proper expenditure.
- Efficiency Audit: Assesses optimal utilization of investments.
- Performance Audit: Evaluates government programs for effectiveness.
- Environmental Audit: Addresses issues related to conservation and environmental management.
Independence of the CAG
- Constitutional Safeguards: The CAG’s independence is protected by various constitutional provisions, including security of tenure, ineligibility for further government office, and non-varying service conditions.
- Financial Autonomy: The CAG’s administrative expenses are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India, ensuring financial independence.
Audit Mandate Sources
- Constitutional Basis: Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution.
- Statutory Framework: The Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service Act, 1971.
- Regulations: Audit and accounts regulations as notified.
Duties and Functions of the CAG
- Audit Responsibilities: CAG audits all government accounts, including the Consolidated Fund, Contingency Fund, and Public Account.
- Advisory Role: Advises on financial matters and assists parliamentary committees.
- Reporting: Submits audit reports to the President and state Governors.
Limitations on the Powers of CAG
- Post-Facto Reporting: Audits are conducted after expenditures have occurred.
- Exclusions: Certain expenditures like secret service expenses are outside CAG’s purview.
- Challenges with PPP Investments: Limited authority to audit public-private partnerships.
- Limited Audit of NGOs and Local Bodies: No provision for auditing funds given to NGOs and elected local bodies.
- Document Accessibility Issues: Challenges in obtaining necessary documents for audits.
- Appointment Process: The selection process for CAG lacks external transparency.
- Undefined Audit Scope: The term ‘audit’ is not explicitly defined in the Constitution or CAG Act.
CAG Audits over the Years
- Recent Trends: Between 2019 and 2023, an average of 22 reports were tabled annually, a significant decrease from the 40 reports tabled on average between 2014 and 2018.
- Peak and Decline: The number of reports peaked in 2015 with 53 audits but has since declined, with four of the past six years seeing 20 or fewer reports tabled.
Factors Contributing to the Decline
- Staffing and Budget Cuts: The decline in the number of CAG reports tabled in Parliament coincides with reductions in staff strength and budget allocations for the CAG.
- Budget Allocation: In the fiscal year 2023-24, the allocation for the Indian Audit and Accounts Department constituted only 0.13% of the Union Budget.
Conclusion
- Impact on Oversight and Transparency: The reduction in the number of CAG audits tabled in Parliament could have implications for governmental oversight and transparency.
- Need for Adequate Resources: Ensuring the CAG is adequately staffed and funded is crucial for maintaining effective audit practices and upholding the accountability of government operations.
December 19, 2023
The hollowing out of the anti-defection law
Central idea

The article explores the persistent challenges and loopholes in India’s anti-defection law, particularly focusing on the strategic exploitation of the Tenth Schedule. It highlights instances of group defections destabilizing democratically elected State governments and proposes urgent reforms, starting with the removal of the merger exception, to restore the efficacy of the anti-defection law and prevent its misuse. The complex scenarios in Maharashtra and historical trends underscore the need for a comprehensive legislative response to strengthen the democratic framework.

Key Highlights:

Eternal Debate: The persistent nature of debates and discussions around political defections and India’s anti-defection law.

Speaker’s Balancing Act: Maharashtra Assembly Speaker, Rahul Narwekar, navigating the Assembly’s winter session while handling Shiv Sena factions’ disqualification petitions.

Key Challenges:

Tenth Schedule Critique: Identifying and addressing weaknesses in the Tenth Schedule, allowing for strategic and unpunished political defections.

State Government Instability: Instances of defections leading to the collapse of democratically elected State governments in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Karnataka, and Arunachal Pradesh.

Key Terms/Phrases:

Tenth Schedule: Constitutional section housing the anti-defection law.

Exemptions and Amendments: Two-thirds majority merger provision, 91st Amendment’s omission of the one-third split provision, splitting and merging trends.

Disqualification Petitions: Filed before legislative Speakers under the Tenth Schedule.

Key Quotes/Anecdotes:

Strategic Exploitation: Skillful use of exemptions under the Tenth Schedule causing democratically elected governments to crumble.

Defection Strategies: Instances of splits followed by mergers, highlighting a pattern of exploiting the anti-defection law for political maneuvering.

Key Statements:

Legislative Response: The removal of the one-third split provision in 2003 as a response to its frequent and strategic misuse.

Limited Safeguard: The merger exception being the primary safeguard, prompting concerns about its efficacy in preventing group defections.

Key Examples and References:

Maharashtra’s Complex Scenario: Shiv Sena and NCP factions claiming the status of the original party, forming alliances without actual mergers.

Surveyed Instances: Instances from Uttar Pradesh and Haryana Assemblies illustrating splits followed by mergers and rapid succession defections.

Key Facts/Data:

91st Amendment Impact: Omission of the provision allowing exemption for one-third splits in the original party in 2003.

Recent Instances: A decade marked by group defections leading to the destabilization of State governments.

Critical Analysis:

Ailments in the Tenth Schedule: In-depth scrutiny of flaws in the anti-defection law, questioning its effectiveness and the need for reforms.

Strategic Exploitation: Examining how merger provisions have been strategically used to undermine the stability of elected governments.

Way Forward:

Deletion of Merger Exception: Urgent removal of the merger exception as a crucial step in addressing the shortcomings in the Tenth Schedule.

Comprehensive Reforms: Advocating for comprehensive reforms post-deletion to fortify the anti-defection law and restore its intended efficacy.
December 19, 2023
A blow for the rights of the legislature, in law making
Central idea

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s landmark interpretation in the State of Punjab case links the Governor’s power to withhold assent to the immediate reconsideration of Bills, safeguarding legislative rights. The judgment addresses historical delays caused by Governors and raises concerns about potential strategic reservations for the President. The article emphasizes the need for clarity on Governors’ discretion and suggests a constitutional review for a comprehensive legislative framework.

Key Highlights:
- Landmark Judgment: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s groundbreaking interpretation of Article 200.
- Innovative Approach: CJI’s creative approach to constitutional nuances in the State of Punjab case.
- Assent and Reconsideration Link: Linking the withholding of assent to the immediate reconsideration of Bills.
Key Challenges:
- Historical Delays: Governors’ Past Practices causing prolonged delays in decision-making.
- Strategic Reservations: Governors exploiting the option to strategically reserve Bills for the President.
Key Terms/Phrases:
- Constitutional Articles: Article 200, Proviso to Article 200, Article 254.
- Governor’s Powers: Withholding assent, reconsideration, and reservation for the President.
- Presidential Consideration: Conditions for reserving Bills for the President.
Key Quotes/Anecdotes:
- Forward-Thinking Judiciary: “The CJI, in a forward-thinking approach, protects the legislature’s rights.”
- Supreme Court’s Firm Stance: “The Supreme Court emphatically states Governors cannot unduly delay the decision on Bills.”
Key Statements:
- Curbing Arbitrary Power: CJI’s interpretation limits the Governor’s arbitrary power to withhold assent without prompt reconsideration.
- Judicial Assertiveness: The Supreme Court asserts Governors’ accountability in decision-making, addressing historical lapses.
Key Examples and References:
- Governor of Kerala’s Discretion: Arif Mohammed Khan’s discretionary action in sending Bills to the President.
- Tamil Nadu Governor’s Controversial Move: Sending Bills to the President against constitutional provisions sparks controversy.
Key Facts/Data:
- Constitutional Mandates: Second proviso to Article 200 mandates reservation for the President under specific conditions.
- Article 254 Framework: Outlines conditions for a State law’s supremacy on Concurrent List items.
Critical Analysis:
- Safeguarding Legislative Rights: The judgment protects legislative rights but prompts questions about Bills reserved for the President.
- Governor’s Discretion Scrutiny: The article scrutinizes Governors’ discretion in sending Bills to the President, highlighting potential constitutional issues.
Way Forward:
- Clarification Imperative: The need for further clarity on Governors’ discretion in reserving Bills for the President.
- Constitutional Review: Examining the constitutional framework regarding Bills on State and Concurrent subjects for a comprehensive legislative landscape.
December 19, 2023
Parliament attacks have exposed shameful lack of security preparedness
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.
December 15, 2023
Mahua Moitra has no excuse
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.
December 15, 2023
New criminal law Bills endanger civil liberties
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.
December 14, 2023
Legislative Development in Election Commission Appointments
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.
December 13, 2023
Explained: SC Verdict on Abrogation of 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.
December 12, 2023
Karan Singh’s Proclamation of 1949
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.
December 12, 2023
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.
December 12, 2023