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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • 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.

  • Sub-Categorization among SCs: Legal Aspects and Implications

    Central Idea

    • In a recent election rally in Telangana, PM made a commitment to explore the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs) to identify and uplift the most marginalized among them.
    • This move is seen as an attempt to garner support from the Madiga community, the largest among the SC communities in the state.

    SC Sub-Categorization: Legality Check

    • State-Level Attempts: Over the past two decades, several states, including Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu, have attempted to introduce reservation laws to sub-categorize SCs within their territories. These efforts have been held up in courts, awaiting a Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s decision.
    • Andhra Pradesh’s Initiative: The issue surfaced when the Andhra Pradesh government formed a commission in 1996, led by Justice Ramachandra Raju, to recommend sub-categorization based on disparities among SC communities. However, the Supreme Court, in 2004, ruled that states did not possess the unilateral authority to sub-categorize communities within the SC and Scheduled Tribes (ST) lists, as these lists are the prerogative of Parliament and the President.
    • Contradictory Rulings: A 2020 judgment by a five-judge Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, contradicted the 2004 ruling by stating that determining benefits within the SC/ST lists would not amount to “tinkering” and could be done by states. This discrepancy prompted the referral of the 2020 judgment to a larger Bench.

    Government Initiatives and Legal Opinions

    • Union Government’s Efforts: The 2004 judgment prompted the Union government to explore the possibility of sub-categorization. In 2005, the Attorney-General of India (AGI) opined that sub-categorization was feasible if supported by “unimpeachable evidence” and suggested a constitutional amendment for this purpose.
    • National Commission Recommendations: The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) opined that a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. They cited Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which allows states to create special laws for under-represented backward classes.

    Arguments for Sub-Categorization

    • Graded Inequalities: Proponents argue that sub-categorization addresses the graded inequalities within SC communities. It ensures that the more backward communities receive their fair share of benefits, preventing the dominance of relatively advanced communities.
    • Representation at All Levels: The goal is to ensure representation at all levels, including higher positions. However, the most backward SCs lag so far behind that even reserved positions at advanced levels may not benefit them due to a lack of suitable candidates.

    Data Requirement for Sub-Categorization

    • Legal experts emphasize the importance of robust data, including population numbers, socio-economic indicators, and community-specific information.
    • This data would form the basis for reasonable categorization, quota allocation, and policy decisions.

    Conclusion

    • The sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs) is a complex legal and social issue that remains unresolved, with contradictory Supreme Court rulings and varying opinions among government bodies.
    • While sub-categorization aims to address disparities within SC communities, it raises practical challenges, such as data collection and ensuring meaningful representation.
    • The quest for a fair and legally sound sub-categorization mechanism continues, with the need for comprehensive data and clear legal guidelines at the forefront of the debate.

  • Centre-State Disputes: Implications on India’s Economy

    Central Idea

    • In India, disputes between the Central and State governments regarding economic policies have a long history, but in recent years, they have escalated in both frequency and intensity, taking on the character of ‘persistent frictions’ within the federal system.
    • These disputes have significant implications for India’s economy and its federal structure.

    Current Context

    • Impact of Economic Reforms: Economic reforms since 1991 have relaxed many controls on investments, granting some autonomy to States. However, States still rely on the Centre for revenue receipts.
    • Shift from ‘Give and Take’ to Hardened Stance: Recent State resistance has transformed the cooperative Centre-State relationship into a more rigid and confrontational dynamic.

    Emerging Conflict Areas

    • Homogenization of Social Sector Policies: Conflicts arise over the homogenization of social sector policies, where States seek greater discretion, but central agencies push for uniformity.
    • Functioning of Regulatory Institutions: Differences emerge regarding the functioning of regulatory institutions, leading to conflicts over jurisdiction.
    • Powers of Central Agencies: Central agencies attempt to increase their influence, often imposing their preferences on States.

    Economic Consequences of Interference

    • Crowding Out State Investments: Centralization of planning and implementation limits States’ flexibility in infrastructure development. This has resulted in reduced State investments, particularly in projects like roads and bridges.
    • Fiscal Competition: Frictions with the Centre have spurred fiscal competition between States and the Centre. States compete with each other and with the Centre, leading to complexities in welfare provisioning.
    • Inefficiencies Due to Parallel Policies: Frictions have resulted in parallel policies, where either the Centre or States duplicate each other’s efforts. For example, some States have rolled back from the National Pension System (NPS) due to fiscal concerns.

    Inevitable Interdependence

    • Article 258A: The Centre relies on States for the implementation of many laws and policies, particularly in concurrent spheres.
    • Preserving Interdependence: In a large, diverse, developing society like India, interdependence between the Centre and States is inevitable and needs to be maintained.

    Conclusion

    • The growing Centre-State disputes in India’s federal system have far-reaching economic implications.
    • Balancing autonomy and cooperation between the Centre and States is essential for the nation’s economic growth and effective governance.

    Back2Basics:

    Centre-State Financial Relations

     

    Article 268 to 281 Distribution of taxes between the Central Government and States, specifying various taxes and their sharing.
    Article 282 Allows the Central Government to provide grants-in-aid to States for specific purposes, including welfare programs.
    Article 293 Regulates borrowing powers of States, requiring Presidential consent for external borrowing to ensure fiscal discipline.
    Article 280 Establishes the Finance Commission, which recommends tax revenue and grants distribution between the Centre and States.
    Goods and Services Tax (GST) Governed by the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, and associated laws, transforming taxation in India.
    Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act Guides fiscal discipline and management by setting fiscal targets for both Central and State Governments.
    Inter-State Council Established under Article 263

    Acts as a forum for dialogue between the Central Government and States on various issues.

     

  • Enhancing representation, for a just electoral system

    New Parliament Building of India - Interesting Facts & Controversies

    Central idea

    The article discusses the inadequate representation of citizens by Members of Parliament in India, highlighting challenges of malapportionment and proposing solutions such as delimitation, state reorganization, and local governance empowerment. It emphasizes the need for a more representative and efficient electoral system to strengthen India’s democracy.

    What is Malapportionment?

    • Malapportionment refers to the unequal distribution of representation or political power among different constituencies or districts within a legislative body.
    • It occurs when the number of representatives assigned to a particular area is not proportionate to its population or voting strength.

    Key Highlights:

    • Representation Disparity: The article highlights the disproportionate representation of citizens by Members of Parliament (MPs) in India, compared to the U.S. and other countries.
    • Malapportionment Concerns: Malapportionment, favoring certain states, is discussed as a potential issue in India’s political system.
    • Delimitation Challenge: The potential consequences of delimitation, freezing the number of Lok Sabha seats until 2031, are examined, considering the changing demographics of states.
    • Federalism Promotion: The need for promoting federalism in India’s electoral system is emphasized to give states better representation and a platform to voice their interests.
    • Electoral System Reform: Suggestions for electoral system reforms include reconsidering the Rajya Sabha’s representation method and exploring proportional representation for more equitable outcomes.
    • State Reorganization Proposal: Proposes the idea of creating more states in India, addressing concerns about governance efficiency and democratic accountability.

    Challenges:

    • Representation Deficit: India faces a deficit in adequate representation at various levels of governance, impacting the ability to address critical issues and make effective laws.
    • Malapportionment Risks: The political system in India is at risk of malapportionment, especially with the growing political culture differences between the south, northeast, and the rest of India.
    • Consequences of Delimitation: Delimitation, while necessary, might lead to biases favoring certain regions and political outfits over others.

    Key data from article for mains value addition

    • An average Indian Member of Parliament (MP) represents approximately 2.5 million citizens.
    • In contrast, a U.S. House of Representatives member represents around 700,000 citizens.
    • India has around 4,126 Members of the Legislative Assembly.
    • Proposed increase in parliamentary seats to at least 848 to avoid any state losing seats during delimitation.
    • Potential rise in seats for certain states, e.g., Karnataka by 11%, and for northern states like Uttar Pradesh by 63%.
    • Suggests the potential creation of more states, moving from 29 to 50 or even 75 states.
    • Calls for a New State Reorganization Commission to evaluate the viability of new states.
    • The 2021 Census, delayed and likely to be conducted in 2024, with results potentially published by 2026, provides a window for delimitation.

    Key Phrases for improving your mains score:

    • Malapportionment in the U.S. Senate.
    • Disproportionate allocation of power.
    • Consequences of unleashing delimitation.
    • Historical form of delimitation.
    • Fiscal impact of delimitation on future transfers to States.
    • Promotion of federalism.
    • Electoral system reforms.
    • Proportional representation consideration.

    Analysis:

    • Representation Deficit Impact: Limited representation in India’s democratic setup is identified as a default preference, impacting the effectiveness of governance.
    • Malapportionment Dynamics: India’s heterogeneous political system raises concerns about the potential bias in favor of certain political outfits due to malapportionment.
    • Delimitation Challenges: Delimitation is seen as a potential solution but must be approached cautiously to minimize deleterious consequences.

    Way Forward:

    • Increase in Parliamentary Seats: Proposes a significant increase in the number of seats in Parliament to enhance democratic representation ratios.
    • Consideration Beyond Population: Delimitation should consider factors like geographical determinism, economic productivity, linguistic history, and fairness, not solely based on population.
    • State Reorganization Commission: Suggests the creation of a new State Reorganization Commission to evaluate the socio-economic and administrative viability of potential new states.
    • Empowerment of Local Governance: Advocates for direct elections of mayors in urban areas with enhanced decision-making powers, promoting efficiency and accountability.
    • Focus on Local Democratic Representation: Enhancing local democratic representation is seen as a crucial step to strengthen India’s democracy.

    In essence, the article emphasizes the need for a more representative and efficient electoral system in India, advocating for reforms in delimitation, federalism promotion, state reorganization, and empowerment of local governance.

  • Governors can’t sit on Bills passed by Assembly: Supreme Court

    governor

    Central Idea

    • In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has asserted that a State Governor cannot obstruct crucial bills passed by a State Legislature.
    • The court delivered this verdict in response to a writ petition filed by the Punjab government.
    • The Punjab government approached the Supreme Court, challenging Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s decision to withhold some bills, alleging the legislative session’s illegitimacy.

    SC Ruling on Governors Bill Withholding

    • Court’s Warning: The court sternly warned the Governor that he was “playing with fire” and directed him to make a decision regarding these pending bills presented to him for assent.
    • Power of Elected Representatives: Emphasizing the supremacy of elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy, the court highlighted that real power resides with them.
    • Governor’s actual Role: The court underscored that the Governor’s role is that of a constitutional statesman guiding the government on constitutional matters.

    Governor’s Grounds for Delay

    • Governor’s Grounds: Governor Purohit contended that the Assembly session was “patently illegal” because the Speaker had adjourned the Budget Session sine die in March without proroguing it.
    • Special Assembly Sitting: He refused to consider the proposed laws passed in a special June sitting, arguing that they were in breach of Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules.
    • Court’s Disagreement: The court disagreed with the Governor’s claims, stating that the Speaker acted within his rights in adjourning the House sine die.
    • Constitutional Validity: The court upheld the Speaker’s authority and stressed that it was not constitutionally valid for the Governor to question how the Speaker conducted the House’s affairs.

    Court’s Disagreement with the Governor

    • House’s Autonomy: The court affirmed that each legislative house has the right to be the sole judge of the legality of its own proceedings.
    • Legitimate Session: It found that the June 19-20 legislative session adhered to Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules, rejecting any doubts cast on its legitimacy.
    • Democratic Peril Warning: The court cautioned that any attempts to challenge the legislative session could pose a grave peril to democracy.

    Governor’s Role Defined

    • No Judgment on Prorogation: The court questioned the Governor’s right to sit in judgment on whether the session was prorogued and emphasized that the Speaker’s decisions on adjournments governed the House.
    • Avoiding Perpetual Session: While acknowledging the Speaker’s authority, the court cautioned against exploiting the sine die adjournment to perpetually avoid prorogation.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s verdict reiterates the importance of upholding legislative proceedings and the authority of elected representatives.
    • It underscores that Governors should respect the autonomy of legislative houses and not obstruct the passage of bills based on perceived procedural violations.
    • This landmark decision ensures the preservation of democratic principles and the effective functioning of State Legislatures.

  • Revamping the criminal justice system to fit the bill

    Central idea

    The government wants to change some important laws in India, causing questions about making them more modern and fair. The study says that the government should be very careful when making these changes to ensure that the new laws are fair and work well. The main idea is to check and fix the laws to make sure they are right for today.

    Core Laws Replacement Bills
    Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill
    Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill
    Indian Evidence Act (IEA), 1872 Bharatiya Sakshya Bill

     

    Definitions and drafting of new bills

    • Mental Illness Exception in IPC Replacement Bill: The new Bill, replacing the IPC, introduces a provision exempting individuals suffering from mental illness from being considered offenders. This marks a shift from the previous term “unsound mind.”
    • Definition Alignment with Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: The definition of mental illness in the Bill aligns with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, aiming to provide medical treatment to those with mental illness. Notably, mental retardation or incomplete development is excluded, while abuse of alcohol or drugs is included.
    • Differential Exemption Based on Condition: The new Bill grants full exemption to individuals addicted to alcohol or drugs under the mental illness exception. However, those unable to understand the consequences of their actions due to mental retardation are not granted the same exemption.
    • Retention of Obsolete Illustrations: The existing laws, including the IPC, incorporated illustrations from daily life to explain their provisions. Despite some illustrations becoming obsolete, they have been retained in the new Bill.
    • Need for Modernization in Illustrations: Recognizing the changing times, there is a suggestion that the illustrations, such as people riding chariots, firing cannons, and being carried on palanquins, should be updated to reflect contemporary events from modern life. This aims to enhance the relevance and clarity of the legal framework.

    Seven issues related to modernising jurisprudence

    • Exclusion of Civil Law: The Bills are questioned on whether they appropriately exclude civil law issues, despite the CrPC’s provisions for post-divorce maintenance and compounding certain offences. The new Bills retain these provisions.
    • Reformative vs. Punitive System: The Bills’ approach towards a reformative system is examined with the introduction of community service as a punishment. However, non-compoundability of minor offences, leading to trial and conviction, raises concerns.
    • Integration of Public Order and Prosecution: The CrPC’s structure, encompassing public order and criminal prosecution, is retained in the new Bills, prompting consideration on whether this integration is appropriate.
    • Codification of Supreme Court Directions: The Bills are critiqued for not codifying various Supreme Court directions, excluding procedures for mercy petitions, thus creating potential gaps in the legal framework.
    • Consistency of Implementation: The Bills’ retention of wide sentencing ranges for certain offences is examined for its impact on ensuring consistency in implementing penalties across cases.
    • Age Provisions for Modern Norms: The need for updating age provisions in line with modern norms is questioned, specifically exploring whether age thresholds for criminal responsibility should be raised.
    • Update of Gender-Related Offences: The Bills align with Supreme Court judgments by removing Section 377 and addressing gender-related offences. However, the omission of making marital rape an offence, despite recommendations from the Justice Verma Committee in 2013, is noted.

    Key Phrases from article to fetch good marks in mains:

    • Legislative Overhaul
    • Reformative vs. Punitive
    • Public Order and Prosecution
    • Supreme Court Directions
    • Consistency of Implementation
    • Gender Offenses

    Critical analysis

    The bills offer a legislative overhaul, but challenges arise in areas of overlap with special laws, gaps in Supreme Court directions, and concerns about consistency in sentencing. The debate over reformative vs. punitive systems, age thresholds, and gender offenses adds complexity to the proposed changes.

    Key Data:

    • IPC Enacted: 1860
    • CrPC Enacted: 1973
    • IEA Enacted: 1872
    • Legal Metrology Act, 2009
    • Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
    • Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

    Overlap of new laws with special laws

    • Historical Context of IPC: The IPC, established in 1860, serves as the primary legislation outlining offenses and penalties, shaping the foundation of the Indian legal system.
    • Issue of Duplication and Inconsistency:Concerns arise as the IPC, along with the proposed replacement Bill, continues to specify certain offenses and penalties, leading to duplication and inconsistencies across various laws.
    • Addressing Specific Overlaps: Positive instances of addressing overlaps are noted, such as the removal of IPC provisions related to weights and measures by the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
    • Persistent Overlaps in New Bill: Despite some adjustments, the new Bill, like the IPC, exhibits overlaps with several other Acts, including those related to food adulteration, sale of adulterated drugs, bonded labor, and rash driving.
    • Abortion as an Offense: Noteworthy is the retention of abortion as an offense in the new Bill, even though the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits it under specific conditions.
    • Maintenance of a Parent Provision: The Bill replacing CrPC maintains the provision for the maintenance of a parent, despite a specific Act passed in 2007 addressing this matter. This raises questions about consistency and necessity.

    Way Forward:

    • Parliament needs to carefully examine the bills to ensure fairness, justice, and efficiency in the criminal justice system.
    • Address concerns related to overlap with special laws, sentencing ranges, and gaps in codifying Supreme Court directions.
    • Consider updating outdated illustrations and ensuring clarity in definitions for a modernized legal framework.
    • Deliberate on the debate over reformative vs. punitive systems, age thresholds, and gender-related offenses for a comprehensive legislative approach.

  • Speedy Disposal of Cases against Lawmakers: What SC Guidelines on the matter say

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to ensure the quick resolution of criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) across India.
    • These guidelines aim to address the long-pending issue of lawmakers facing criminal charges.

    Background

    • Advocate’s Plea: These directions were issued in response to a plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in August 2016.
    • Key Demands: Upadhyay’s plea sought the swift handling of cases involving legislators and a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, including those currently in office, instead of the existing six-year disqualification mentioned in Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

    Understanding the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951

    • Purpose: The RPA, 1951, introduced by Dr. BR Ambedkar, governs the conduct of elections to India’s parliament and state legislatures.
    • Content: It covers various aspects, including qualifications and disqualifications for membership, corrupt practices, and offenses related to elections.
    • Section 8: Section 8 of the RPA deals specifically with the disqualification of legislators on conviction for certain offenses, such as promoting enmity between groups, bribery, undue influence, and offenses related to hoarding, profiteering, or adulteration of food or drugs.
    • Section 8(3): This subsection states that a person convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years will be disqualified from the date of conviction and continue to be disqualified for an additional six years after release. In essence, it imposes a six-year disqualification on individuals convicted of offenses with a minimum two-year prison sentence.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

    • Guidelines for Speedy Disposal: The Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, laid down guidelines for the prompt resolution of pending criminal cases against lawmakers.
    • Suo Motu Cases: High courts across India are directed to establish a “special bench” to oversee criminal cases involving legislators. High courts can also register such cases on their own initiative.
    • Flexible Approach: The court allows the chief justices of high courts to hear these cases or designate specific benches for this purpose. These cases may be listed regularly if needed, and the special bench can seek assistance from the advocate general or prosecutor.
    • High Court Role: To efficiently manage these cases, the Supreme Court leaves it to high courts to devise suitable measures.
    • Priority Cases: The court emphasizes prioritizing cases against lawmakers that carry the possibility of death or life imprisonment. Cases with sentences of five years or more are also given priority.
    • HC’s Authority: High courts are empowered to issue similar orders and directions for effective case disposal. They can involve the Principal District and Sessions Judge in allocating cases to appropriate courts.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s guidelines are aimed at expediting the resolution of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs and ensuring justice is served promptly.
    • While these guidelines address the issue of speedy disposal, the larger question of replacing the six-year disqualification with a lifetime ban remains open for future consideration.

  • Regulating Political Funding: Rules around the world, India’s challenges

    Central Idea

    • Campaign financing plays a pivotal role in democratic societies, yet the approach to regulating it must be tailored to the nuances of each country’s political system.
    • As exemplified by the United States and India, where political dynamics vary significantly, it is imperative to adopt a framework that aligns with the prevailing political landscape.

    Tap to read more about Ceiling on Election Expenditures in India

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/election-campaign-funding-by-political-parties/

    Understanding Political Systems:

    • US Individual-Centric Elections: In the United States, elections revolve around individual candidates and their campaign machinery, even at the national presidential level.
    • India’s Party-Centric Politics: Conversely, India, akin to most parliamentary systems, places political parties at the core of electoral politics. Therefore, India’s campaign finance framework should primarily focus on parties rather than individual candidates.

    Key Aspects of an Effective Framework:

    A comprehensive campaign finance framework necessitates attention to four critical facets: regulating donations, imposing expenditure limits, public financing, and disclosure requirements.

    (A) Donations:

    • Regulation and Limitation: To prevent undue influence, some individuals or organizations, such as foreign entities, may be prohibited from making contributions.
    • Donation Limits: Donation limits are crucial to thwart the dominance of a few major donors, be they individuals, corporations, or civil society organizations. For instance, the US employs varying contribution limits based on donor types, while the UK relies on expenditure limits.

    (B) Expenditure Limits:

    • Balancing Political Competitiveness: Expenditure limits serve as a bulwark against a financial arms race among political parties, allowing them to focus on winning votes rather than fundraising.
    • Examples: In the UK, political parties are restricted from spending more than £30,000 per contested seat. However, the US’s expansive interpretation of the First Amendment has hindered efforts to impose expenditure limits.

    (C) Public Financing:

    • Two Approaches: Public funding can be allocated based on predetermined criteria, like Germany’s system that considers past votes, membership fees, and private donations. Alternatively, democracy vouchers, as seen in Seattle, USA, allow voters to allocate public funds to candidates of their choice.
    • Challenge: Public funding may complement private donations but does not fully address the task of regulating private money.

    (D) Disclosure Requirements:

    • Balancing Transparency and Anonymity: Disclosure nudges voters away from electing politicians involved in quid pro quo arrangements. However, mandatory disclosure isn’t always desirable, as it may deter donations by exposing donors to retaliation.
    • Anonymity’s Role: Anonymity can protect donors from retribution or extortion. Striking a balance between transparency and anonymity is a challenge faced by many jurisdictions.

    Chilean Experiment: Complete Anonymity?

    • Chile’s “Reserved Contributions”: Chile’s system aimed at “complete anonymity” allowed donors to contribute to political parties via the Electoral Service, which forwarded the sum without revealing the donor’s identity.
    • Coordination Challenges: Despite the intent for complete anonymity, coordination between donors and parties compromised the system’s efficacy.

    Balancing Transparency and Anonymity in Political Finance

    • An Effective Approach: Many jurisdictions strike a balance by allowing anonymity for small donors while mandating disclosure for large donations.
    • Examples: In the UK, political parties must report donations exceeding £7,500 in a year, while the US and Germany set limits at $200 and €10,000, respectively.
    • Rationale: Small donors typically have less influence and are more vulnerable to partisan victimization, while large donors may engage in quid pro quo arrangements.

    Challenges in India’s Framework

    • Lack of Donation Limits: India has no limits on individual or corporate contributions, and the 2017 Finance Act removed official contribution limits.
    • Expenditure Limits: Parties can spend freely, albeit not on individual candidates.
    • Disclosure Requirements: Parties are only obligated to disclose donations exceeding ₹20,000, creating a loophole as they split large donations into smaller amounts.
    • Electoral Bonds: Since 2017, electoral bonds have allowed large donors to hide their contributions.

    Changing Dynamics in Indian Politics

    • Involvement of Third Parties: India has witnessed a surge in the engagement of political consultancies, campaign groups, and civil society organizations in political campaigns, mirroring trends seen in the US.
    • Need for Rethinking: The evolving political landscape necessitates a reevaluation of India’s 20th-century political funding framework.

    Conclusion

    • Crafting a campaign finance framework requires an astute understanding of a nation’s political system and its nuances.
    • By adapting strategies that regulate donations, impose expenditure limits, facilitate public financing, and balance transparency with anonymity, countries like India can ensure that their campaign finance frameworks evolve to meet the challenges of the modern political landscape.