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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Clause 69 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

    What’s the news?

    • The proposed inclusion of Clause 69 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has sparked a critical debate about the role of criminal law in regulating intimate relationships.

    Central idea

    • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023 introduces a thought-provoking Clause 69, which seeks to criminalize sexual acts grounded in promises of marriage that are ultimately unfulfilled. While the clause extends its scope to encompass instances of deceit-based sexual interactions, its primary focus is on situations where a promise of marriage serves as the foundation.

    Complexities of Consent and Promise of Marriage in Indian Law

    • Historical Precedent: The judiciary has historically categorized sex involving unfulfilled marriage promises as rape under IPC Section 375. Consent is contingent on the promise.
    • Persistent Practice: Despite the 2013 amendments redefining consent under Section 375, courts still rely on IPC Section 90, which includes consent under “fear” or “misconception”.
    • Retrospective Invalidation: Misconception entails using promises to manipulate consent. The breakdown of such promises retrospectively invalidates consent, potentially leading to rape charges.
    • Clause 69’s Distinct Offense: Clause 69 proposes a separate offense distinct from rape. This disregards the need for knowledge on the part of men and women, as well as the requirement of consent.
    • Diminished Role of Consent: Clause 69, regardless of the basis of a woman’s consent, punishes consensual sex if a false marriage promise is established.

    What are the concerns?

    • Misuse Concerns: Clause 69 might be misused when parents discover premarital sexual activity, leading to its invocation regardless of the promise’s existence.
    • Potential Impact: While acquittal is possible with the woman’s denial of the promise, arrests and detention during legal proceedings can disrupt lives.
    • Rising Trend of Misuse: A significant portion of rape trials, particularly those initiated by parents or guardians, aims to curb women’s sexual autonomy.
    • Statutory Rape Charges: Parents often report women as minors in elopement cases, leading to statutory rape charges against partners. Subsequent acquittals occur when age is proven.
    • Unintended Rape Charges: Intriguingly, rape charges arise not due to lack of consent, but rather because of consent, highlighting the paradoxical outcomes of certain legal strategies.

    Judicial Interpretations

    • Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar, 2004: Recontextualizing Consent Dynamics
    • This case illuminates the nuanced approach courts take when considering consent within the context of a broken promise of marriage.
    • The Supreme Court’s ruling signifies that consent could be contingent on parental approval, adding complexity to the understanding of consent in intimate relationships.
    • Uday v. State of Karnataka, 2003: Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Consent
    • In this case, the court’s perspective sheds light on how societal norms influence the interpretation of consent in promise-to-marry scenarios.
    • The recognition of inter-caste marriage norms illustrates that consent might still exist even when a promise of marriage remains unfulfilled due to societal constraints.

    Way forward

    • Comprehensive Consent Education:
      • Implement comprehensive sex education programs to emphasize consent, communication, and respect in relationships.
      • Equip individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills to navigate situations involving consent and promises.
    • Empowering Women’s Agency:
      • Promote initiatives that empower women through education, vocational training, and economic opportunities.
      • Conduct community-driven campaigns to challenge traditional gender norms and advocate for women’s rights.
    • Balanced Legal Reforms:
      • Seek legal reforms that consider the complexities of relationships and ensure justice without undue victimization.
      • Collaborate with legal experts, sociologists, and gender activists to draft legislation respecting individual agency.
    • Support Structures for Victims:
      • Establish comprehensive support mechanisms, including counseling, legal aid, and safe spaces for individuals affected.
      • Aim to minimize the potential harm that legal processes may cause while protecting the rights of victims.
    • A Holistic Perspective on Consent:
      • Foster a societal shift towards affirmative consent in intimate interactions.
      • Launch public awareness campaigns to dispel myths and misconceptions surrounding consent.
    • Promoting Dialogue and Mediation:
      • Encourage alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation and counseling to resolve cases arising from broken promises.
      • Collaborate with community leaders and organizations to facilitate open discussions on relationships and consent.

    Conclusion

    • Clause 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, necessitates careful reflection on consent, autonomy, and societal norms. Empowerment comes from transcending narrow legal frameworks and cultivating a culture that values individual agency and choices in relationships and decisions.

  • The Election Commission — autonomy in the crosshairs

    What’s the news?

    • In recent times, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has emerged as a battleground where conflicts between the government and the judiciary come to the fore. The current divergence of opinions centers around the process of appointing officials within the ECI.

    Central idea

    • The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict, issued on March 2, directed the President to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) based on a committee’s recommendation. This decision aimed to bolster the ECI’s constitutional stature and curtail political influence. However, the government introduced a bill in the Rajya Sabha on August 10 that, if passed, will overturn this verdict.

    The CEC and Other ECs Bill, 2023

    • The bill aims to bring about significant changes in the process of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, as well as in defining the conditions of their service and their terms of office.
    • The bill intends to repeal the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, which currently governs the appointment, conditions of service, and term of office of the Election Commissioners.

    The significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment

    • Broadening the Selection Process: The judgment introduces a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or leader of the largest Opposition party, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This broadens the decision-making process beyond the central government.
    • Enhanced Constitutional Status: The judgment elevates the constitutional status of the Election Commission by involving key figures such as the CJI in the selection committee. This underscores the importance of the institution in India’s democratic framework.
    • Dilution of Government Control: The involvement of the CJI and opposition leaders reduces the potential for appointments to be influenced solely by the ruling government. This ensures a more balanced and impartial selection process.
    • Transparency and Representation: The judgment promotes transparency and accountability by including multiple stakeholders in the selection process. This prevents appointments from occurring behind closed doors and enhances public trust.
    • Mitigating Bias and Partisanship: The inclusion of the CJI adds a judicial perspective to appointments, preventing potential biases or affiliations towards any political party. This safeguards the Election Commission’s credibility and neutrality.
    • Safeguarding Democratic Processes: By reinforcing the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and autonomy in the appointment process, the judgment ensures that the Election Commission continues to uphold the integrity of democratic elections.

    Legislative concerns associated with the bill

    • Alteration of Committee Composition: The Bill aims to replace the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee. This change would shift the balance of the committee’s decision-making dynamics.
    • Potential for Government Influence: By replacing the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister, the government could gain greater influence over the appointment process, raising concerns about the potential for political bias and government control.
    • Diminished Judicial Perspective: The removal of the CJI from the selection committee might lead to a reduced judicial perspective in the appointments, potentially undermining the objective of preventing political bias.
    • Government’s Priorities: The introduction of this bill could be seen as an attempt by the government to assert more authority over the Election Commission’s top appointments, potentially impacting the institution’s autonomy.
    • Shift in Democratic Safeguards: The alteration of the committee’s composition could potentially weaken the system of checks and balances established by the Supreme Court’s judgment, shifting the balance of power in favor of the ruling government.
    • Public Perception and Trust: The legislative challenge posed by the bill could raise concerns about the government’s intentions regarding the Election Commission’s autonomy and the transparency of appointments.
    • Political Dynamics: The bill’s introduction might impact the ongoing political dynamics between the government and opposition parties, potentially leading to debates and negotiations around the selection committee’s composition.
    • Potential Legal Debates: The proposed changes might lead to legal debates about the compatibility of the bill with the Supreme Court’s judgment and the broader constitutional principles it aims to uphold.
    • Future Institutional Reforms: The outcome of this legislative challenge could have broader implications for the appointment processes of other constitutional and statutory bodies, potentially setting a precedent for changes in their selection procedures.

    Historical debates and recommendations related to the appointment process of the CEC and ECs

    • Constituent Assembly Debates (1949): During the Constituent Assembly debates, there was a suggestion to subject the appointment of the CEC to confirmation by a two-thirds majority in a joint session of Parliament. However, the final decision was to empower Parliament to make appropriate laws on this matter.
    • V.M. Tarkunde Committee (1975): This committee appointed by Jayaprakash Narayan recommended that the appointments of ECs should be more broad-based, involving a collegium-like approach, rather than relying solely on the government’s advice.
    • Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990s): Set up by Prime Minister V.P. Singh, this committee on electoral reforms suggested a collegium-based approach for appointing ECs to enhance credibility and impartiality.
    • Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2009): The commission’s fourth report recommended a comprehensive collegium-based appointment process to ensure the independence and neutrality of the Election Commission.
    • B.B. Tandon’s Suggestion (2006): Former CEC B.B. Tandon proposed a committee, headed by the Prime Minister, for appointing the CEC and ECs. The committee should include the Lok Sabha Speaker, the Leaders of the Opposition, the Law Minister, the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, and a judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
    • Arun Jaitley’s Statement (2006): BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley supported a representative collegium, including the Chief Justice of India, to appoint apex electoral officials. He emphasized that government monitoring would undermine the commission’s independence.
    • L.K. Advani’s Proposal (2012): BJP leader L.K. Advani suggested a collegium with the Prime Minister as chairman, including the CJI, the Minister of Law and Justice, and the Leaders of the Opposition from both Houses.

    Way forward

    • Engage Stakeholders: Collaborate with legal experts, opposition parties, and civil society to incorporate diverse perspectives for a balanced and effective appointment process.
    • Public Understanding: Emphasize transparent communication to articulate the rationale behind any changes in the appointment process, fostering public understanding and trust.
    • Learn from History: Draw guidance from historical recommendations such as the Dinesh Goswami Committee and Second Administrative Reforms Commission to shape a more transparent and inclusive appointment process.
    • Judicial Involvement: Consider the significance of judicial involvement in the selection committee to maintain checks and balances and prevent undue political influence.
    • Legislative Scrutiny: Ensure comprehensive examination and scrutiny of the proposed changes through parliamentary debates and discussions during the legislative process.
    • Constitutional Alignment: Ensure that any modifications adhere to constitutional principles, upholding the democratic foundations of the country’s governance.

    Conclusion

    • The current debate underscores the intricate interplay between democratic integrity and political maneuvering. The forthcoming decisions will shape the ECI’s trajectory, determining whether it maintains its unbiased autonomy or inches closer to political control. To safeguard democracy and uphold the integrity of elections, maintaining the ECI’s independence remains paramount.

  • What is Preventive Detention?

    Preventive Detention

    Central Idea

    • Ahead of a religious procession, a few people were taken into preventive custody (preventive detention) in Haryana.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    • Arrest occurs when an individual is charged with a crime.
    • Preventive Detention involves detaining individuals to prevent them from engaging in actions that could disrupt law and order, without them being charged with a specific crime.

    Preventive Detention in Indian Law

    • Detention without Magistrate’s Order: Police officers can arrest individuals without a magistrate’s order or warrant if they suspect potential criminal behavior.
    • Preventive Detention Law, 1950: This law permits arrest and detention if an individual’s freedom threatens national security, foreign relations, public interests, or the country’s well-being.
    • Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1968: UAPA empowers the state to imprison individuals who question Indian sovereignty territorially or belong to organizations declared illegal.

    Constitutional Safeguards and Exceptions:

    • Article 22(1) and 22(2): These constitutional provisions ensure that arrested persons are informed of the charges, can seek legal representation, and are presented before a magistrate within 24 hours.
    • Article 22(3): However, these safeguards do not apply to enemy aliens or persons arrested under specific laws for preventive detention.

    Preventive Detention Statistics

    • Increasing Trend: The NCRB report reveals a surge in preventive detentions, with over 24,500 individuals detained at the end of 2021 – the highest number since 2017.
    • National Security Act (NSA): Among these detentions, over 483 were under the National Security Act, with almost half still detained by the end of 2021.
    • Historical Perspective: In 2017, 67,084 people were detained preventively, out of which 48,815 were released within six months, while 18,269 remained in custody.

    Concerns and Legal Perspectives

    • Increasing cases: The number of preventive detentions has been rising since 2017, with a significant surge in 2021.
    • Supreme Court’s Stand: The Supreme Court has emphasized that preventive detention is only justifiable to prevent public disorder and should not replace ordinary laws for maintaining law and order.
    • Balancing Civil Liberties: While preventive detention serves to curb anti-social and subversive elements, concerns arise about potential abuse, arbitrariness, and violations of civil liberties.

  • In news: President’s Rule

    Central Idea

    • Amidst an escalating confrontation, Punjab Governor gave stern warning of invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule) in the state.

    Grim Situation in Punjab

    • Rampant Drug Abuse: The Governor cites reports from various agencies indicating widespread drug abuse in Punjab, raising significant concerns.
    • New Drug Sales Trend: An emerging trend of selling drugs within government-controlled liquor vends is noted by the Governor.
    • Ludhiana Liquor Vend Incident: Specific instances like the sealing of 66 liquor vends in Ludhiana by the Narcotics Control Bureau [NCB] and Chandigarh Police highlight the gravity of the issue.
    • Disturbing Law and Order Indicators: The Governor references a recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee indicating alarming drug exposure or addiction levels, implying a breakdown in law and order.
    • Public Response: The Governor underscores villagers’ resorting to street protests and forming their own defence committees against drug-related threats.

    Governor’s Discontent

    • Unfulfilled Information Requests: The Governor expresses dissatisfaction with CM’s reluctance to provide the requested information, highlighting Article 167’s mandate for the CM to respond to the Governor’s requests.
    • Alleged Deliberate Silence: The Governor implies that the Chief Minister’s apparent failure to respond might be a deliberate act of evasion.

    About President’s Rule

    • Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, commonly known as President’s Rule, empowers the President to impose central rule in a state where the constitutional machinery has broken down.
    • While initially intended for extraordinary circumstances, it has often been misused by central governments for political purposes.

    Provisions of Article 356:

    • Imposition of President’s Rule: Article 356 allows the President to withdraw the executive and legislative powers of a state government when it cannot function in accordance with the Constitution.
    • Triggering factors: The President can invoke Article 356 based on a report from the Governor or suo motu if the constitutional machinery has broken down in the state.
    • Duration: It can be imposed for six months at a time, with a maximum duration of three years.
    • Parliamentary approval: Every six months, Parliament’s approval is required to continue the imposition of the President’s Rule.

    Historical Origins

    • Inspiration from the Government of India Act, 1935: Article 356 was inspired by Section 93 of this act, which allowed the Governor of a province to assume the powers of the government under certain circumstances.
    • Controlled democracy: The provision provided some autonomy to provincial governments while enabling British authorities to exercise ultimate power when necessary.

    Political Misuse of Article 356

    • Early instances: During Congress’s dominance, Article 356 was used against governments of the Left and regional parties in states. Jawaharlal Nehru’s government utilized it six times until 1959, including to dislodge Kerala’s elected communist government.
    • Increasing misuse: In subsequent decades, Article 356 was used frequently against state governments by various central governments, including those led by Indira Gandhi and the Janata Party.

    Landmark Judgment: S R Bommai Case

    • Landmark Supreme Court ruling: In the 1994 R. Bommai v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines on the use of Article 356.
    • Specific instances for imposition: The court stated that the President’s Rule can be invoked in cases of physical breakdown of the government or a ‘hung assembly.’
    • Curbing arbitrary use: The judgment emphasized the need to give the state government a chance to prove its majority or instances of violent breakdown before imposing the President’s Rule.

     

  • Special Provisions of NE States under Article 371

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court recently assured that special constitutional provisions protecting the interests of northeastern states under Article 371 will remain untouched.
    • As the Constitution Bench deliberates the challenge to Article 370’s abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir, we delve into the significance of these assurances and their implications.

    What is Article 371?

    • Article 371 of the Indian Constitution grants special provisions to various states to protect their unique cultural and tribal identities.
    • These provisions are aimed at preserving local customs, social practices, and land ownership.

    Preserving Tribal Culture

    • Context: Article 371 provides special provisions for several states, particularly in the northeast, to safeguard their tribal cultures and unique identities.
    • Article 371(A) – Nagaland: Article 371(A) ensures that acts of Parliament do not apply to Nagaland concerning Nagas’ religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice based on Naga customary law, and land and resource ownership.
    • State Assembly’s Role: These provisions only apply to Nagaland after the State Assembly passes a resolution to that effect.
    • Development Impediment: Some stakeholders, like Neikiesalie Nicky Kire of the NDPP, argue that Article 371(A) hampers development by preventing the government from carrying out development activities due to landowner preferences.

    Similar Provisions in Other States

    • Article 371-G – Mizoram: Similar to Nagaland, Article 371-G provides special provisions for Mizoram to protect Mizo religious and social practices, customary law, civil and criminal justice, and land ownership.
    • Article 371B – Assam: Article 371B facilitates the creation of the sub-state ‘Meghalaya,’ aiming to provide special provisions with respect to Assam.

    State-Specific Provisions

    • Article 371C – Manipur: This article addresses special provisions for Manipur, a state that was formed in 1972.
    • Article 371F and 371H – Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh: These articles discuss special provisions for Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, respectively, to address their unique needs.
    • Article 371 – Separate Development Boards: Article 371 empowers the President to establish separate development boards for specific regions within Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh, promoting balanced growth.

    Further State-Specific Provisions except NE

    • Articles 371D and 371E – Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa: These articles provide special provisions for these states to ensure their cultural and economic development.
    • Articles 371J and 371I – Karnataka and Goa: These articles grant special provisions to Karnataka and Goa, respectively, to address their specific requirements.

  • Article 370 Abrogation: KN Rajagopal v. M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

    Central Idea

    • A landmark Supreme Court judgment from over four decades ago has become an obstacle to the Centre’s assertion that the “breakdown of constitutional machinery” in J&K.
    • Over this, the centre had justified the events leading to the abrogation of Article 370 on 5 August 2019.
    • This judgment poses a significant challenge to the narrative surrounding the abrogation.

    Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi Verdict (1971)

    • Governor’s Role: The judgment underscores that the Governor, though appointed by the President, does not lead to a breakdown of constitutional machinery when a legislative Assembly is dissolved.
    • Historical Precedent: The Constitution Bench judgment in K.N. Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi, authored by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri in 1971, supports this view.

    Essence of the Judgment

    • Central Tenet: The judgment clarifies that when a Governor dissolves a State’s legislative Assembly and assumes its powers, the premise of “failure of constitutional machinery” under Article 356 becomes untenable.
    • Absurdity of Claim: It is pointed out that it’s illogical for the President to assert a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” when the Governor, whom the President appointed, already holds control.

    Application to J&K’s Scenario

    • J&K’s Timeline: In Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor dissolved the State legislative assembly on November 21, 2018.
    • President’s Rule: A proclamation of President’s rule was issued on December 19, 2018, followed by Parliament’s approval on January 3, 2019. Extension of President’s rule occurred on July 3, 2019.
    • Abrogation of A370: The Centre, on August 5, 2019, introduced the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, changing the provisions of Article 370.
    • Legislating the abrogation: The next day, Parliament abrogated Article 370, reorganizing the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

    Legal issues with Article 370 Abrogation

    • Challenging Constitutionality: Litigants argues that beneath the perceived constitutionality, there lies evident illegality. Once the State Assembly was dissolved, there was no breakdown of machinery.
    • Governor’s Powers: The Governor’s assumption of powers contradicts such a breakdown, making the President’s proclamation under Article 356 jurisdictionally flawed.
    • Constitutional Entity: Referring to the S.R. Bommai case, it is highlighted that a State as a “constitutional entity” should outlast Article 356’s intervention.

  • Deconstructing Gender Stereotypes: The Supreme Court’s Handbook

    gender

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step to challenge outdated ideas, especially those affecting women, by releasing a special guide.
    • This guide introduces new words for lawyers and judges to use in court, aiming to fight harmful beliefs.

    Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes

    • The handbook provides a list of biased words and suggests better alternatives for legal documents.
    • Its main aim is to provide legal experts with the means to “identify, understand, and challenge stereotypes about women.”
    • It includes a list of terms that promote gender bias and offers alternative, fairer terms to be used in legal documents.

    Objective and Scope of the Handbook

    • Challenging Old Beliefs: The Supreme Court’s initiative aims to discard old-fashioned and harmful stereotypes, particularly those related to women, through the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes.’
    • CJI’s Vision: The handbook is introduced by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who explains its purpose: to help legal professionals recognize and counter gender-based stereotypes.
    • Language Transformation: The handbook includes a glossary of terms that contribute to gender bias and suggests better alternatives to be used in legal writings.

    Why such a move?

    [A] Language inflicting Stereotypes

    • The handbook points out terms in legal language that promote gender bias and provides suggestions for change.
    • Examples of Change: Instead of using “adulteress,” the handbook recommends using “Woman who has engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage” to avoid disrespectful language.
    • Removing Biases: The handbook encourages using simple terms like “woman” and “wife” instead of prefixes like “chaste” or “obedient.”
    • Using Neutral Language: Instead of negatively using “effeminate,” the handbook suggests using neutral terms like “confident” or “responsible.”

    [B] Avoiding labelling

    • Empowering Language: The handbook suggests using “survivor” or “victim” to describe individuals affected by sexual violence.
    • Respecting Preferences: The choice between “survivor” and “victim” should be based on the individual’s preference.

    [C] Conscious Reporting of Cases

    • Separating Attire and Consent: The handbook emphasizes that a person’s clothing should never excuse unwanted touching; consent remains essential.
    • Breaking Stereotypes: The handbook rejects the idea that delayed reporting of sexual assault means it didn’t happen.
    • Encouraging Reporting: The handbook acknowledges the bravery required to report sexual offenses due to societal pressures.

    Negative Effects of Gender Stereotypes

    • Widespread Impact: Gender stereotypes lead to exclusion and prejudice in workplaces, schools, and public places.
    • Education Example: The handbook illustrates how stereotypes affect students from marginalized communities, adding stress during exams.
    • Government Data: Minister Subhas Sarkar’s data on dropout rates among marginalized students is shared as an example.

    Legal reforms rebutting Gender Stereotypes

    • Cases for Equality: The Supreme Court points out cases that reject stereotypes, like Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, which struck down the “adultery” law.
    • Example Rulings: The court’s decisions in cases like the State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai and the State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh are explained.

    Conclusion

    • By offering alternatives to outdated and biased language, the handbook aims not only to reshape legal discussions but also societal viewpoints.
    • Its potential impact is anticipated to extend beyond legal matters, influencing everyday perspectives and contributing to a more equitable society.

  • Tamil Nadu vs. NEET: Balancing Equity and Autonomy

    Central Idea

    • The conflict between Tamil Nadu and the Centre over the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET) has intensified.
    • It has reignited discussions about the transfer of education back to the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

    Why in news?

    • Educational Autonomy: Chief Minister M.K. Stalin called for education’s transfer back to the State List, originally placed in the Concurrent List during the Emergency.
    • NEET Controversy: Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEET escalated dramatically after the tragic suicides of a student and his father due to exam-related stress.

    Why Tamil Nadu Opposes NEET?

    • Undue competition: NEET, a centralised entrance exam for medical courses, faces opposition in Tamil Nadu due to its mechanical focus on marks.
    • Impact on Local Models: NEET disrupted models like Christian Medical College (CMC) Vellore, known for emphasizing aptitude over marks.
    • In-Service Quota Impact: NEET dismantled Tamil Nadu’s in-service quota for medical graduates, adversely affecting healthcare quality.
    • Disadvantages Marginalized: The exam favours affluent sections who affords lakhs worth coaching (esp. repeaters), disadvantaging underprivileged groups and hindering their aspirations.

    Emotive Nature of the Issue

    • Equity and Social Justice: Opposition to NEET is deeply rooted in demands for educational equity and autonomy, driven by social justice concerns.
    • Kamaraj’s Vision: Tamil Nadu’s education vision, shaped by Chief Minister K. Kamaraj, emphasized accessibility and empathy for unlettered masses.

    Legislative Struggles

    • AIADMK Bills: The previous AIADMK government introduced Bills in 2017 seeking state autonomy in medical admissions. They were returned by the President.
    • Stalin’s Efforts: In 2021, CM M.K. Stalin’s government passed the Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021, aiming to abolish NEET and base admissions on Class 12 marks for social justice.
    • Governor’s Opposition: Governor R.N. Ravi, opposed to the anti-NEET Bill, delayed its forwarding to the President, leading to political tensions.

    Justice A.K. Rajan Committee

    • Committee Formation: The Justice A.K. Rajan Committee was established in 2021 to assess NEET’s fairness in medical admissions.
    • Critical Findings- Rich vs. Poor: The committee criticized NEET for favouring repeaters and coached students while disadvantaging first-time applicants, leading to reduced admissions among marginalized groups.

    Why is TN now fuming?

    • Concurrent List: Medical course admissions fall under the Concurrent List (Entry 25), allowing states to legislate on these matters.
    • Amending Central Laws: States can enact laws related to admissions and amend central laws on admission procedures, as long as they don’t contradict parliamentary laws.

    Current Scenario

    • Historic Public Health Practices: Tamil Nadu’s public health infrastructure thrived on retaining PG doctors, indicating the state’s effective healthcare practices.
    • Balancing Uniformity and Fairness: The NEET stalemate reflects the challenge of balancing uniformity with local values and needs.
    • Clash of Values: The conflict highlights the broader tension between central standardization and local autonomy, revealing deeper debates about democracy, equality, and social justice in India.

    Conclusion

    • The NEET controversy in Tamil Nadu is not merely about an entrance exam; it represents a larger struggle for educational equity, autonomy, and social justice.
    • The state’s commitment to its unique vision of education and healthcare clashes with central standardization, sparking a crucial dialogue about the nature of democracy and fairness in the country.

    Back2Basics: Seventh Schedule

    • The Seventh Schedule under Article 246 of the Indian Constitution is a pivotal component that delineates the allocation of powers between the central government and the states.
    • This framework ensures an efficient governance structure by classifying subjects into three lists:
    1. Union List: The Union List outlines subjects on which only the Parliament can legislate. This list includes crucial aspects like defense, foreign affairs, currency, communication, and more.
    2. State List: The State List enumerates matters solely under the jurisdiction of state legislatures. It encompasses areas such as public health, agriculture, police, local government, and others.
    3. Concurrent List: The Concurrent List incorporates subjects on which both Parliament and state legislatures can enact laws. However, in case of a conflict, federal supremacy grants authority to the Parliament’s law.

    Evolution and Dynamics

    • Over time, the Union List expanded to encompass significant areas such as defense, banking, and foreign affairs.
    • The State List’s scope included subjects like public order, police, and agriculture, critical for regional governance.
    • The Concurrent List reflects matters of shared importance like criminal law, civil procedure, population control, and more.

    Amendments and Special Provisions:

    • 42nd Amendment Act (1976): It transferred select subjects like education, forests, and administration of justice from the State List to the Concurrent List.
    • 101st Amendment Act (2018): It introduced a special provision for Goods and Services Tax (GST), allowing both Parliament and state legislatures to make laws regarding GST.

    Power Distribution and Conflict Resolution:

    • Parliament’s jurisdiction prevails over the State List and the Concurrent List in cases of overlap.
    • In cases of overlap between the Union List and the State List, the Union List takes precedence.
    • If there’s a conflict between the Union List and the Concurrent List, the Union List prevails.
    • In situations of conflict between central and state laws on a Concurrent List subject, central law prevails. An exception exists if the state law has the president’s assent.

    Consultative Approaches

    • Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended maintaining the existing list allocation, emphasizing the absence of a strong case for transferring items from the Concurrent List to the State List.
    • Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) underscored the lack of a formal institution requiring consultation between the Union and states while legislating under the Concurrent List.

  • Supreme Court questions selective Remission

    remission

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court bench handling petitions related to the early release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case raised concerns about the selective application of remission policies in Indian jails.
    • Justices on the two-judge bench questioned why the policy is not uniformly implemented and sought clarifications from the Additional Solicitor General representing the Gujarat government.

    Also read:

    What is Bilkis Bano Case?

    Bilkis Bano Case and Remission

    • Background of the Case: Bilkis Bano was a victim of gangrape during the 2002 riots in Gujarat, where her three-year-old daughter was also killed by a mob. She was pregnant at the time.
    • Remission and Release: All 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case were granted remission by the Gujarat government, leading to their release on August 15, 2022.
    • Justification for Release: The Additional Solicitor General defended the state’s decision, explaining that remission is distinct from sentencing and that guidelines are being considered to address concerns about its application.

    Inquiry into Remission Policy Application

    • Selective Implementation Query: The Supreme Court inquired why the policy of remission, aimed at granting convicts early release, is applied selectively across jails and states.
    • Overcrowding and Undertrials: The court raised concerns about the overcrowding of jails, especially with undertrials, and questioned the reasons behind the policy not being consistently applied.
    • Justice Nagarathna’s Query: Justice B V Nagarathna, leading the bench, emphasized that state-wise statistics are needed to understand the extent to which the remission policy is applied and whether every eligible prisoner is given an opportunity to reform.
    • Relevance of Rudul Sah Case: Referring to the Rudul Sah case, where an individual remained in jail for 14 years despite acquittal, the court highlighted extreme cases where the prison system failed to provide justice. The court emphasized that fairness should prevail in both conviction and acquittal scenarios.

    What is Remission?

    • Stay of Execution: Remission involves suspending or postponing the execution of a sentence.
    • Reduced Duration: It reduces the sentence’s duration while maintaining its original nature.
    • Unchanged Sentence Nature: The sentence’s fundamental characteristics remain intact; only the duration is shortened.
    • Release Date Determined: Remission sets a specific date for the prisoner’s release, marking their legal freedom.
    • Conditional Release: Any breach of remission conditions cancels it, necessitating the completion of the original sentence.

    Constitutional Framework for Remission:

    • Prisons as State Subject: Prisons fall under the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
    • Pardoning Power: Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor) grant pardoning, suspending, remitting, or commuting powers for sentences issued by courts.

    New Norms for Remission:

    (A) Eligibility Criteria

    • Women and transgender convicts aged 50 and above
    • Male convicts aged 60 and above, completing 50% of their sentence (excluding general remission period)
    • Physically challenged convicts with 70% or more disability, completing 50% of their sentence
    • Terminally ill convicts
    • Convicts serving two-thirds (66%) of their sentence
    • Indigent prisoners completing their sentence but detained due to unpaid fines
    • Offenders aged 18-21 with no criminal involvement, completing 50% of their sentence

    (B) Exceptions

    • Excluded: Death sentence convicts, life imprisonment convicts, and those convicted under specific acts.
    • Prohibited Acts: Terrorism-related offences, acts under anti-terror and security legislation, explosives, national security, official secrets, and anti-hijacking.

    Implications and Benefits

    • Justice and Equity: The new norms aim to provide justice to certain categories of prisoners and address their specific circumstances.
    • Overcrowding Mitigation: By releasing eligible convicts, the policy seeks to alleviate prison overcrowding.
    • Reformation Focus: Remission offers prisoners an opportunity to reform, especially those who demonstrate good behaviour or require medical attention.
    • Humanitarian Approach: The policy recognizes the needs of the physically challenged, terminally ill, and aged prisoners.
    • Respecting Youth: Young offenders with no further criminal engagement are given a chance for early rehabilitation.

    Back2Basics: Pardoning Powers in India

    • Pardoning powers in India, enshrined in Article 72 for the President and Article 161 for Governors, provide a mechanism for granting leniency, reducing sentences, or offering reprieves to convicted individuals.
    • These powers play a crucial role in the justice system, allowing for the reconsideration of punishments in specific cases.

    Presidential Pardoning Powers

    • Scope and Authority: Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons, respites, reprieves, or remissions of punishment, or to suspend, remit, or commute sentences.
    • Types of Pardoning:
    1. Pardon: Complete exoneration, restoring the person’s status as a normal citizen.
    2. Commutation: Reducing the severity of punishment, e.g., converting a death penalty to life imprisonment.
    3. Reprieve: Delaying execution to allow time for further legal remedies or evidence presentation.
    4. Respite: Reducing the punishment’s degree due to specific circumstances.
    5. Remission: Altering the punishment’s quantum without changing its nature.

    Cases Covered by Article 72

    1. Cases tried by court-martial.
    2. Cases involving offences under Union’s executive power.
    3. Cases with a death sentence.

    Governor’s Pardoning Powers

    • Governor’s Authority: Article 161 grants the Governor the power to pardon, commute, suspend, or remit sentences.
    • Scope and Limitation: Pardoning authority extends to offences within the state’s executive jurisdiction.
    • Exclusion: Governors lack the authority to grant pardons in cases of death sentences.

    Nature of Pardoning Power

    • Presidential Advice: Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the President exercises pardoning powers based on the Council of Ministers’ advice.
    • Governor’s Power: The Governor’s pardoning power is also guided by the principle of seeking advice.
    • Judicial Review: The Epuru Sudhakar case highlighted the possibility of limited judicial review over the pardon powers exercised by the President and Governors. This review aims to prevent arbitrariness.
    • Judicial Retained Power: Despite these powers vested in the Executive, the judiciary retains a measure of authority for judicial review, ensuring fairness and constitutionality.

  • Why is Bihar’s caste-based survey facing legal challenges?

    What’s the news?

    • The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on August 18th regarding petitions challenging the Patna High Court’s decision to uphold the Bihar government’s caste survey has sparked significant debate and interest.

    Central idea

    • The caste survey, initiated by the State government, aims to gather comprehensive socio-economic data to shape targeted policies for marginalized communities. The Patna HC’s recent dismissal of petitions against the survey has reignited discussions surrounding the necessity and constitutionality of such an initiative.

    What is a caste-based survey?

    • A caste-based survey is a comprehensive data collection initiative launched by the Bihar state government in India. This endeavor aims to gather detailed socio-economic information about various castes, sub-castes, and religious groups within the population of Bihar.
    • The survey is estimated to collect socio-economic data for a population of 12.70 crore in the 38 districts of Bihar.
    • The primary objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the living conditions and economic status of different communities, especially those that have historically faced marginalization and socio-economic disadvantage.

    Why the need for a caste census?

    • Incomplete Data: The standard Census focuses solely on SC and ST data, leaving a substantial void in comprehending the socio-economic aspects of OBCs and their subdivisions.
    • Targeted Policies: A lack of comprehensive data obstructs the creation of effective policies tailored to the distinct requirements of different caste groups.
    • Equitable Development: The caste census has the potential to reveal disparities within various castes, enabling customized development strategies for historically marginalized communities.
    • Historical and Contemporary Insights: With deep historical roots, the caste system’s evolution can be better understood through a comprehensive census that captures both historical and contemporary dynamics.
    • Political and Governance Implications: The initiative carries political implications, potentially influencing electoral strategies and governance agendas focused on the welfare of backward classes.
    • Constitutional Clarification: Legal scrutiny over caste surveys provides clarity on the authority to conduct such initiatives, delineating roles between state and central governments.
    • Inclusive Governance and Policy Efficacy: By focusing on accurate and comprehensive caste-specific data, policies can be better tailored to uplift marginalized groups, promoting inclusive governance.
    • Evidence-Based Decision-Making: In a data-centric era, decisions grounded in concrete socio-economic data hold greater potential for equitable and effective governance.

    Union government’s stance

    • Unfeasibility: The Union government categorically declared that a socio-economic caste census is deemed unfeasible, administratively difficult, and cumbersome.
    • Historical Policy Decision: The Union government’s affidavit, responding to a writ petition from the State of Maharashtra, highlighted that excluding castes beyond Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) was a conscious policy decision made since the 1951 Census.
    • Official Discouragement of Caste: The Union government asserted that the policy of official discouragement of caste has been in place since the 1951 Census, implying a deliberate stance against extensive caste-based categorization.
    • Previous Survey Flaws: In 2011, the Union government conducted a Socio-Economic and Caste Census; however, due to data flaws, the raw data collected from nearly 130 crore Indians was never made public.

    Why is it being challenged?

    • Constitutional Jurisdiction: Opponents of the survey argue that the Bihar state government’s decision to conduct the caste-based survey infringes upon constitutional jurisdiction. They contend that only the central government has the exclusive authority to carry out comprehensive censuses.
    • Census Act Compliance: The absence of a formal notification under Section 3 of the Census Act, 1948, issued by the central government raises doubts about the legitimacy of the state government’s appointment of District Magistrates and local authorities for data collection. This legal requirement plays a crucial role in determining the authority to conduct such surveys.
    • Executive Order Controversy: Challengers claim that the survey’s data collection, facilitated through an executive order, violates the Puttaswamy judgment, which emphasizes safeguarding personal data from government intrusion.
    • State vs. Central Mandate: While the High Court maintains that the state government is authorized to formulate policies for better administration, this stance contradicts the argument that only the central government can undertake comprehensive censuses.
    • Privacy Apprehensions: The High Court’s dismissal of privacy concerns based on the Puttaswamy judgment’s triple-test criteria for data collection is being contested. Opponents stress that personal data sensitivity necessitates more stringent considerations.

    Way forward

    • Legal Resolution: Await the Supreme Court’s verdict to obtain a clear understanding of the constitutional validity of state-level caste surveys. This ruling will provide a framework for future actions and delineate the roles of state and central governments.
    • Collaboration with the Central Government: To address concerns about legal jurisdiction and the Census Act, the state government could seek collaboration and endorsement from the central government. This collaboration could help ensure compliance and legitimacy.
    • Privacy Safeguards: Implement stringent privacy measures in the survey. Ensure that personal data collection adheres to established legal standards, safeguarding citizens’ rights and addressing potential privacy concerns.
    • Balanced Implementation: Strike a balance between political considerations and the integrity of the survey. Prioritize unbiased data collection over immediate political gains.
    • Effective Use of Data: Utilize the survey data to inform targeted policies aimed at reducing socio-economic disparities among different caste groups. Ensure that the survey’s outcomes translate into tangible welfare improvements.
    • Long-Term Vision: Plan for continuous monitoring and updates of collected data. Use this data to guide policy adjustments in response to changing socio-economic dynamics over time.

    Conclusion

    • While the State’s efforts to gather comprehensive socio-economic data and address the concerns of marginalized groups are commendable, the constitutional and privacy challenges inherent in the initiative should not be overlooked. The outcome of this legal battle is likely to have far-reaching implications for the understanding of caste dynamics, policy formulation, and political strategies in India.

    Also read:

    The Caste Census and Mandal Politics: Analysis