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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • 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

  • Inter-state Water disputes in India

    Cauvery

    Central Idea

    • Tamil Nadu has urged the Supreme Court to compel Karnataka to release 24,000 cusecs of water immediately.
    • The state seeks the release of 36.76 TMC for September 2023, as per the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s (CWDT) award.

    About Cauvery River

    • The Cauvery River, also spelled as ‘Kaveri’ and known as ‘Ponni’ in Tamil, originates from Talakaveri in the Brahmagiri range located in Karnataka’s Kodagu district.
    • It spans approximately 800 km, traversing through the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, until it eventually reaches the Bay of Bengal.
    • The river’s catchment area covers regions in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
    • Key tributaries that join the Cauvery include Harangi, Hemavati, Kabini, Suvarnavathi, and Bhavani.
    • Distinguishing it from other rivers in South India, the Cauvery remains perennial due to its dual reliance on both advancing and retreating monsoons for rainfall.

     

    Cauvery Water Dispute: Historical Background

    • 1892 Onset: The water dispute dates back to 1892 between the British-ruled Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore (now Karnataka).
    • 1924 Agreement: A 50-year agreement mediated by the British aimed to quell tensions but merely laid the groundwork for future disagreements.
    • Post-Independence Battles: Karnataka’s dam constructions in the 1960s-80s sparked Tamil Nadu’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) followed.
    • Interim Measures: The Cauvery River Authority (CRA) in 1998 implemented interim orders. Contentious issues persisted despite CWDT’s 2013 award.
    • Final Award: The CWDT’s award in 2013 allocated water quantities for Tamil Nadu (419 TMC), Karnataka (270 TMC), Kerala (30 TMC), and Puducherry (7 TMC).

    Water Sharing Criteria

    • Monthly Schedule: Karnataka, the upper riparian state, is mandated to provide Tamil Nadu with a specified water quantity each month.
    • Annual Allocation: In a “normal” year, Karnataka must provide 177.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu, of which 123.14 TMC is during the southwest monsoon.
    • Challenges: The contentious period is the monsoon when disagreements often arise due to varying rainfall.

    Constitutional Provisions for Water Sharing

    • Article 262: Empowers Parliament to address inter-State river disputes; IRWD Act, 1956 enacted under this article.
    • Seventh Schedule: Defines the legislative authority over water resources in Entry 17 (State List) and Entry 56 (Union List).

    Resolving Cauvery Water Sharing

    (A) Supreme Court’s 2018 Verdict

    • Cauvery as National Asset: The Supreme Court declared Cauvery a “national asset” and upheld inter-State river water equality.
    • Allocation Adjustments: The Court noted deficiencies in CWDT’s assessment, leading to Karnataka receiving marginal relief and Tamil Nadu’s allocation reduced to 177.25 TMC.
    • Formation of CMB: The Court directed the establishment of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) for effective implementation of orders.

    (B) Cauvery Water Management Scheme

    • CWMA Establishment: The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) was formed to regulate water releases with assistance from the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
    • Permanent and Technical Bodies: CWMA oversees water regulation, while CWRC ensures data collection and implementation of the final award.

    Current Status and Future Implications:

    • Ongoing Challenge: The Cauvery water dispute remains an ongoing challenge with historical and legal dimensions.
    • Resource Management: The establishment of CWMA and CWRC aims to address the dispute through effective water management.
    • Continued Struggle: The dispute underscores the complexity of water sharing in a federal system and the need for equitable solutions.

    Tamil Nadu’s Contention

    • CWMA’s Decision: The CWMA sought 10,000 cusecs for 15 days from Karnataka, but Karnataka proposed only 8,000 cusecs up to August 22.
    • Previous Agreement: Karnataka’s refusal to adhere to the earlier agreement of 15,000 cusecs for 15 days at the CWRC meeting irked Tamil Nadu.
    • Distress-sharing Formula: TN CM supports a distress-sharing formula, but Karnataka has not embraced it.

    Karnataka’s Perspective

    • Rainfall Deficit: Karnataka claims lower rainfall in Cauvery’s catchment areas, including Kerala, leading to reduced inflow into its reservoirs.
    • Challenging Situation: Karnataka stated that it couldn’t release water as the reservoirs received less inflow this year.
    • Lack of Consistency: Despite Karnataka’s endorsing distress-sharing, the state declined to accept the formula.

    Future Scenario

    • Tamil Nadu’s Concerns: The Mettur reservoir’s storage is critically low, impacting farmers and the upcoming kuruvai crop.
    • Water Shortage: The current water availability may last only 10 days, considering dead storage and drinking water needs.
    • Awaiting Supreme Court: The case’s outcome now rests with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and decision.
    • Need for a Resolution: The pressing need for a mutually acceptable distress-sharing formula is evident.

    Ongoing Challenges and Factors Prolonging the Dispute:

    • Erratic Water Levels: Flood-drought cycles, pollution, and groundwater depletion have led to unpredictable water levels.
    • Idealistic Calculations: SC’s verdict relies on favorable conditions that often do not align with reality.
    • Dependency and Population: Both states rely heavily on the river, causing conflicting water needs for urban areas and agriculture.
    • Inefficient Water Use: Inefficient irrigation methods lead to low crop productivity per unit of water used.
    • Hydropolitics and Delays: Political parties capitalize on water disputes for mobilization. Prolonged tribunal adjudications contribute to delays.

     

    Global Lessons

    1. Good Water Neighbors Project: Collaboration between Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians demonstrates the power of dialogue and cooperation for shared water resources.
    2. Nile Basin Initiative: Regional partnership among Nile Basin countries showcases cooperation for equitable water management, enhancing prosperity and peace.

    Conclusion

    • The Cauvery River dispute is a microcosm of water-related challenges in India.
    • To address this century-old struggle, collaborative efforts, sustainable practices, and empowered community involvement are essential.
    • By learning from global examples and innovating locally, a future of equitable water allocation, prosperity, and harmony can be envisioned.

  • Why the minimum age for Indian MPs must be brought down to 21?

    What’s the news?

    • The 132nd Report on Election Process and Reform, presented to the Rajya Sabha in August 2023, recommends aligning the minimum age for candidacy with the voting age of 18.

    Central idea

    • A Parliamentary Committee has proposed reducing the age restriction on MPs and MLAs to 18 years. Though the EC has opposed the proposal, Constituent Assembly debates show several leaders back then favored lower age criteria for our lawmakers. Calling the current criteria outdated, the committee argued that legislative bodies could benefit from a wider range of perspectives.

    Background

    • On May 18, 1949, during the heated deliberations of India’s Constituent Assembly, responsible for drafting the nation’s Constitution, a pivotal debate emerged.
    • The focus was the insertion of an Article outlining criteria for prospective parliamentarians’ minimum age.
    • The motion proposed setting 25 years as the entry age for the Lok Sabha and 35 years for the Rajya Sabha.
    • Amidst this discourse, Durgabai Deshmukh, a prominent figure in India’s freedom struggle and an advocate for women’s emancipation, proposed an amendment.
    • Her amendment aimed to lower the minimum age for Rajya Sabha candidacy from 35 to 30, reflecting changing times and evolving youth engagement in civic matters.
    • The amendment’s adoption led to the incorporation of Article 84 and Article 173 in the Constitution, mandating 25 and 30 years as the minimum age for entry into the lower and upper houses, respectively, at both the central and state levels.

    A Global Perspective on Youth Participation

    • The United Nations Human Rights Council’s 2018 report highlights challenges faced by youth in accessing their rights.
    • Less than 2% of parliamentarians worldwide are under 30, indicating a lack of youth representation.
    • Countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada have embraced young candidates with innovative ideas and fresh perspectives.
    • European nations such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Ireland have set lower minimum age requirements for candidates.
    • Fridays for the Future, led by Greta Thunberg, exemplifies the influence of youth-led activism on global issues.

    Youth and Political Participation in India

    • Student Politics and University Campuses:
      • University campuses, traditionally seen as breeding grounds for free debate and critical thinking, have played a pivotal role in nurturing young leaders.
      • The Lyngdoh Committee’s recommendations in 2012, which introduced upper age limits for student union elections, marked a transformative shift.
      • Recent statistics reveal that student union office-bearers at top Indian universities have an average age of 22.5 years, reflecting more youthful leadership.
    • Panchayat-Level Representation:
      • At the grassroots level, efforts to infuse youth representation have resulted in significant positive changes.
      • In various states, a growing number of individuals aged 21 and above have found representation in roles such as village pradhan and block pramukh.
      • This demonstrates a trend towards acknowledging the capabilities and perspectives of younger individuals in local governance.
    • Parliamentary Representation:
      • However, this progressive trend is not consistently reflected at the national parliamentary level.
      • An analysis of India’s parliamentary history shows a decline in the percentage of MPs aged 25–40 from 26% in the first Lok Sabha to 12% in the current 17th Lok Sabha.
      • Despite India’s young country status, with 65% of the population below 35 years old, the average age of MPs remains relatively high.

    The Impact of Youth Representation: Amplifying Progressive Agendas

    • Visibility of Youth-Centric Issues:
      • Diverse representation in parliament ensures increased visibility of issues pertinent to youth.
      • The long-standing demand for women’s reservation quotas highlights the effectiveness of targeted representation in addressing gender-specific concerns.
      • Similarly, youth representatives can champion matters like technology, unemployment, and education, shaping policies that resonate with younger generations.
    • Contemporary Relevance and Innovation:
      • Young parliamentarians are poised to bring fresh perspectives and innovative solutions to complex problems.
      • Issues like climate change, technology, and socio-economic disparities require dynamic approaches that youth are well-equipped to provide.
      • Their engagement can foster debates that reflect the current aspirations and challenges of the population.
    • Empowerment of Underrepresented Groups:
      • Youth representation also holds the promise of empowering marginalized and minority groups.
      • The inclusivity brought about by youth engagement ensures that the concerns of various communities are adequately addressed.
      • This can contribute to a more equitable and diverse governance approach.
    • Challenging Traditional Notions:
      • The presence of young parliamentarians challenges traditional notions that associate political competence solely with age.
      • Global examples of successful young leaders breaking barriers underscores the capacity of youth to drive change.
      • Age should not be a barrier to representation when youth demonstrate awareness, dedication, and commitment to their responsibilities.

    Challenges Hindering Youth Inclusion

    • Experience and Maturity Concerns:
      • Critics contend that younger candidates may lack the life experience and maturity required to make informed decisions on complex issues.
      • The belief that political competence is directly proportional to age is deeply ingrained, presenting a challenge to reform efforts.
    • Entrenched Norms and Resistance:
      • Prevailing norms link effective leadership with advanced age, creating resistance to embracing younger candidates.
      • Societal skepticism toward entrusting significant responsibilities to youth can impede the acceptance of policy changes.
    • Divergence from International Trends:
      • The Election Commission’s cautious stance on lowering the minimum candidacy age contrasts with global trends.
      • Several democracies have successfully integrated younger leaders, tapping into their fresh perspectives and innovative thinking.
    • Balancing Youthful Vigor and Expertise:
      • Striking a balance between the energy of youth and the wisdom gained from experience remains a challenge.
      • Effective leadership requires not only innovative ideas but also a nuanced understanding of the intricacies of governance.
    • Perception of Representation Bias:
      • Concerns exist that youth-centric representation might overshadow the needs of other demographic groups.
      • Addressing this perception and ensuring comprehensive policy formulation are essential for garnering broad support.
    • Cultural and Mindset shifts:
      • Overcoming deep-rooted beliefs that equate age with political competence demands a cultural shift.
      • Effective awareness campaigns can challenge stereotypes and create a more inclusive environment for younger leaders.

    Addressing the Age Discrepancy

    • The 132nd Report on Election Process and Reform, presented to the Rajya Sabha in August 2023, recommends aligning the minimum age for candidacy with the voting age of 18.
    • The report highlights global practices and underscores the significance of young parliamentarians voicing contemporary issues.

    Way forward

    • Policy Alignment and Adaptation: Reassess existing policies to align the minimum candidacy age with the voting age, promoting consistency and inclusivity.
    • Youth-Centric Educational Initiatives: Establish comprehensive political education programs and leadership training to equip young aspirants with essential governance skills.
    • Cross-Generational Mentorship: Facilitate intergenerational dialogue to combine experience with innovation, allowing for a holistic approach to decision-making.
    • Incentivized Youth Participation: Encourage political parties to integrate young candidates into their election strategies through incentives and tangible support.
    • Collaborative Advocacy Efforts: Engage stakeholders in advocacy campaigns, leveraging global examples to advocate for reducing the minimum candidacy age.

    Conclusion

    • The need for a more inclusive and representative democracy demands a reevaluation of the minimum age requirements for parliamentary candidacy. As the world embraces youthful voices, India’s evolving landscape should not lag behind. A political consensus can pave the way for a more dynamic, inclusive, and progressive parliamentary system, with the potential to reshape the nation’s future.

  • Debate around Article 370 in Supreme Court

    article 370

    Central Idea

    • There are ongoing Supreme Court deliberations regarding the abrogation of Article 370.
    • This article delves into the historical context, legal intricacies, and broader socio-political implications of this pivotal constitutional provision.

    Historical Context of Accession

    • Geo-Political Situation: Jammu and Kashmir’s unique special status originated from the tumultuous geo-political circumstances following India’s Independence and Partition.
    • Standstill Agreements: Maharaja Hari Singh’s decision to enter into “Standstill Agreements” with both India and Pakistan highlighted the State’s strategic positioning and economic interests.
    • Instrument of Accession: Faced with internal turmoil and external aggression, Maharaja Hari Singh’s Instrument of Accession sought India’s military assistance while retaining significant autonomy in internal matters.

    Evolution of Article 370

    • Instrument of Accession’s Reflection: Article 370 was crafted in line with the Instrument of Accession’s principles, preserving the unique terms of Jammu and Kashmir’s association with India.
    • Autonomy Preserved: This provision aimed to strike a balance between safeguarding the State’s autonomy and integrating it into the larger Indian Union.
    • Limited Legislative Authority: Article 370 outlined a limited scope for Parliament to legislate on certain subjects, primarily defense, foreign affairs, and communications, with consultation and concurrence requirements.
    • Special Relationship: This provision established Jammu and Kashmir’s distinct relationship with India, emphasizing that its integration would be contingent on mutual consent.

    Abrogation of Article 370

    • Long-Standing Opposition: The abrogation of Article 370 was a persistent demand of the mainstream political party and its precursor.
    • Multistage Process: The process of abrogation involved presidential orders, amendments, and parliamentary resolutions, culminating in its nullification.

    Petitioners’ Arguments against Revocation

    • Lack of Consultation: Senior litigant accused the Union government of ignoring the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir during the Article 370 abrogation process.
    • Series of Executive Acts: He highlighted that the abrogation was executed through a series of executive acts, starting from the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and state government.
    • Changing Provisions: He pointed out that the proviso to Article 370 (3) was altered to sidestep the need for the recommendation of the now-defunct Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly before rendering Article 370 inoperative.

    Nature of Relationship

    • Federal vs. Quasi-Federal: Litigant underscored that the relationship between the Union government and Jammu and Kashmir was purely federal, distinct from other states’ quasi-federal relationships.
    • Consent of the State: He argued that such significant decisions should have required the consent of the state and its people, considering the unique federal structure.

    CJI’s Inquiries

    • Permanent Character of Article 370: The CJI raised a significant question about the permanence of Article 370 in the Constitution. He inquired whether a constitutional amendment was required to transform its temporary nature into permanence.
    • Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly: He asked whether the absence of abrogation by the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly before its dissolution in 1957 should be considered as deeming Article 370 permanent.

    Supreme Court’s Interpretation

    Ans. No Comparison with Brexit-Type Referendum

    • Brexit Referendum: The CJI referenced the Brexit referendum as a political decision taken in the U.K. which does not align with India’s constitutional framework.
    • Uniqueness of Constitutional Democracy: India’s democracy is grounded in the Constitution, and thus decisions like Article 370’s abrogation involve adherence to established legal procedures.

    Conclusion

    • The ongoing courtroom exchange underlines the essence of constitutional democracy in India, wherein the expression of public opinion occurs through established democratic mechanisms.
    • The Chief Justice’s observations and the petitioners’ arguments shed light on the intricate balance between executive actions, parliamentary representation, and the preservation of constitutional principles.

  • What is President’s Assent?

    Central Idea

    • The President of India granted approval to four significant legislations, encompassing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and a law related to controlling services in Delhi.
    • These Bills, recently endorsed during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, signify the nation’s resolve to adapt its legal framework to contemporary challenges.

    Legislations receiving President’s Assent

    • The Digital Personal Data Protection Act: This law aims to establish a framework to prevent the misuse of individuals’ data by online platforms. It addresses issues related to data privacy and protection in the digital realm. Tap here to read more.
    • The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act: This act provides for the establishment of a three-member authority responsible for handling the transfer and postings of Group A officers under the Delhi government. It pertains to the administration of services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Tap here to read more.
    • The Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act: This act designates digital birth certificates as the exclusive conclusive proof of age, which can be used for various purposes. It introduces the concept of digital certificates for births and deaths. Tap here to read more.
    • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act: This act focuses on promoting ease of business by decriminalizing minor offenses. It introduces amendments to 183 provisions of 42 Acts to reduce legal complexities and facilitate business operations. Tap here to read more.

    What is President’s Assent?

    • Article 111 of the Indian Constitution governs the President’s assent to bills, which marks the final step in the legislative process.
    • The President possesses the power of veto, giving them three options under Article 111 when presented with a bill passed by Parliament:
      1. Assent: The President can give their approval to the bill, leading to its enactment as a law.
      2. Withhold Assent: The President can refuse to sign the bill, preventing it from becoming a law.
      3. Return for Reconsideration: If the bill is not a Money Bill, the President can send it back to Parliament for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the bill again, with or without amendments, the President must give their assent.

    Types of Veto

    • Absolute Veto: The President exercises this veto when refusing to sign a bill, causing it to be rejected and not turned into law. It is typically used when a Private Member’s Bill is used to pass a law or in the event of a change in the cabinet before the President’s signature, where the incoming government advises against signing the legislation.
    • Suspensive Veto: This allows the President to send a bill back to Parliament for further examination or deliberation. If Parliament reapproves the bill with or without amendments, it is adopted as law without the President’s veto.
    • Pocket Veto: In this form of veto, the President neither signs the bill nor sends it back to the legislature. The bill remains pending, and its outcome is uncertain. Unlike the U.S. President, the Indian President is not required to return the bill within a specific timeframe.
    • Qualified Veto: Unlike other types, this veto can be overridden by the legislature with a higher majority. However, this type of veto is not vested with the Indian President.

    [A] Assent to Ordinary Bill:

    For an ordinary bill, the President has three options:

    1. Assent: The President can sign the bill, transforming it into an act.
    2. Withhold Assent: The President can withhold their approval, resulting in the bill not becoming law.
    3. Return for Reconsideration: The President can send the bill back to the Houses for reconsideration. The Houses may amend the bill or not before returning it to the President for assent.

    [B] Assent to Money Bill:

    • The President can give or withhold assent to a Money Bill. However, a Money Bill cannot be returned by the President to the House for reconsideration under the Indian Constitution.

    [C] Assent to Constitutional Amendment Bill:

    • In the case of Constitutional Amendment Bills, the President’s assent is mandatory.
    • The President cannot withhold or return such bills; they become Constitutional Amendment Acts, modifying the Constitution in accordance with their provisions.

    Making a Law Operational

    • After receiving the President’s assent, a law becomes effective.
    • The government drafts guidelines and standards to operationalize the law.
    • Implementation requires the issuance of these guidelines.
    • Rules should be issued within 6 months of law passage, as recommended by the parliament.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2022:

    Q. Consider the following statements:

    1. A bill amending the Constitution requires a prior recommendation of the President of India.
    2. When a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to the President of India, it is obligatory for the President of India to give his/her assent.
    3. A Constitution Amendment Bill must be passed by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha by a special majority and there is no provision for joint sitting.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”mauarwed43″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • EC sticks to Assam Delimitation Draft

    Central Idea

    • Delimitation, the process of redrawing electoral boundaries to reflect population changes, is a crucial exercise that ensures fair representation and equal distribution of constituencies.
    • In Assam, the recent delimitation process has garnered attention due to its impact on political dynamics.

    Delimitation in Assam

    • Historical Basis: The last delimitation in Assam was based on 1971 census data by the Delimitation Commission in 1976. Over time, population shifts necessitate boundary adjustments.
    • Equitable Representation: Delimitation aims to ensure that the population of constituencies is relatively equal, promoting fair representation.
    • Legal Authority: Delimitation orders have the force of law and are beyond judicial review.

    Process of Delimitation

    • Delimitation Commission: An independent Delimitation Commission is formed, consisting of retired Supreme Court judges, the Chief Election Commissioner, and State Election Commissioners.
    • Objectives: The Commission determines boundaries and numbers of constituencies, striving for uniform population distribution.
    • Reserved Seats: The Commission identifies seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes based on their population concentrations.

    Implementation of Delimitation

    • Draft Proposals: The Commission publishes draft proposals in official gazettes and newspapers, seeking public feedback.
    • Public Sittings: Public hearings are held to gather opinions and objections.
    • Final Order: After considering objections and suggestions, the Commission issues a final order published in official gazettes, coming into effect as specified.

    Frequency of Delimitation

    • Early Delimitation: The first delimitation in 1950-51 was temporary, carried out by the President after India’s first general elections.
    • Need for Independence: Subsequent delimitation was mandated to be carried out by independent commissions following the dissatisfaction with the first exercise.
    • Past Instances: Delimitation occurred in 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002, under Acts of respective years.

    Postponement and Justification

    • Frozen Seats: Delimitation was postponed after the 1981 and 1991 Censuses.
    • Uniform Growth Rate: Post the 2001 Census, an amendment delayed delimitation until 2026, justified by achieving uniform population growth throughout India.
    • Last Exercise: The most recent delimitation in Assam (2002-2008) adjusted boundaries based on 2001 Census data and reserved seat allocations.

    Conclusion

    • Delimitation plays a vital role in democratic governance, maintaining equitable representation by accounting for population shifts.
    • The recent delimitation in Assam, governed by a structured process and legal framework, exemplifies India’s commitment to fair and inclusive electoral practices.

  • Bill to Redefine the Election Commission Selection Process

    Central Idea

    • A new Bill has been proposed in the Rajya Sabha aimed at reversing the impact of a Supreme Court ruling on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
    • The proposed legislation suggests a revamped selection process, featuring a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a nominated Cabinet Minister.
    • This initiative comes after a Supreme Court verdict that demanded the participation of the PM, Leader of Opposition, and ‘CJI’ in the selection of these crucial electoral positions.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legislative Vacuum

    • March 2 Verdict: A unanimous verdict by a SC bench this year mandated the involvement of the PM, Leader of Opposition, and CJI in the appointment of CEC and ECs.
    • Constitutional Vacuum: The Court intervened due to the absence of a parliamentary law as prescribed by Article 324 of the Constitution for the appointment process.

    New Legislative Approach

    • Aim of the Bill: The proposed Bill aims to address the constitutional vacuum and establish a structured legislative process for the appointment of members to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
    • Search Committee: The Bill establishes a Search Committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary and composed of two other government officials knowledgeable about election matters. The Committee is tasked with preparing a panel of five potential candidates for appointment.
    • Selection Committee: The core of the proposed process is the Selection Committee, composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This committee would finalize the appointment of CEC and ECs.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • Parliament’s Authority: The Parliament holds the power to address the issues highlighted by the Supreme Court ruling and nullify its impact through legislative action that aligns with the judgment’s intent.
    • Preserving Independence: The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized the need for an independent body overseeing elections, aligning with the Constitution’s original intent.

    Concerns raised

    • Composition of Selection Committee: The new Bill raises concerns about the independence of the selection process due to its composition.
    • Absence of LoP: With the PM and a nominated Cabinet Minister holding the majority in the three-member panel, the Leader of Opposition’s voice is marginalized even before the process begins.
    • Omits CJI: The Bill omits CJI from the panel counterviewing the 2nd March Judgment which prompted this legislation.

    Conclusion

    • The proposed Bill’s attempt to address the legislative vacuum created by the Supreme Court ruling is a significant step towards streamlining the appointment process for the Election Commission.
    • While the Parliament has the authority to shape the process, ensuring the true independence and integrity of the selection process remains a critical concern.
    • The balance between various stakeholders must be maintained to uphold the sanctity of India’s democratic electoral processes.

  • Renaming Kerala: From Kerala to Keralam

    kerala

    Central Idea

    • The Kerala Assembly’s recent unanimous resolution to rename the state as “Keralam” in the Constitution and official records has sparked discussions about the historical origins of the name and the process of renaming a state in India.

    Renaming Kerala: Resolution and Historical Context

    • Unanimous Decision: The Kerala Assembly, led by CM, passed a resolution urging the Centre to rename the state as “Keralam” in both the Constitution and official records.
    • Language Basis: The resolution highlights that the Malayalam name of the state is “Keralam,” and states were formed based on language on November 1, 1956. The resolution seeks alignment between the Malayalam name and its representation in official documents.

    Procedure for Renaming a State

    State Government’s Proposal: The proposal to rename a state originates from the state government. The Union MHA reviews the proposal and seeks No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from various agencies.

    Centre’s Approval: Unlike renaming cities, renaming a state requires approval from the Centre’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). A Constitutional amendment is necessary for this change (under Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution).

    Parliamentary Approval: If accepted, the proposal is introduced as a Bill in the Parliament. Upon becoming law, the state’s name is officially changed.

    Origin of the ‘Kerala’ Name

    • ‘Kerala’ and Asoka’s Edict: The earliest recorded mention of ‘Kerala’ is in Emperor Asoka’s Rock Edict II of 257 BC, where the local ruler is referred to as “Keralaputra” (son of Kerala) and “son of Chera” from the Chera dynasty.
    • ‘Keralam’ from ‘Cheram’: Scholars speculate that ‘Keralam’ could have derived from ‘Cheram.’ Dr. Herman Gundert, a German scholar, proposed that ‘keram’ is the Canarese (Kannada) form of ‘cheram,’ suggesting that ‘Keralam’ could mean the region between Gokarnam and Kanyakumari, stemming from the root ‘cher’ meaning to join.

    Demand for a Unified State

    • Aikya Kerala Movement: In the 1920s, the Aikya Kerala movement gained momentum, advocating for a unified state for Malayalam-speaking people. It aimed to integrate Malabar, Kochi, and Travancore into a single territory.
    • Cultural Unity: The movement was driven by the shared language, cultural traditions, history, and customs of the Malayalam-speaking population.

    Formation of Modern Kerala

    • Travancore-Cochin State: In 1949, Travancore and Kochi merged, forming the Travancore-Cochin State.
    • State Reorganisation Commission: The State Reorganisation Commission recommended the creation of Kerala as a state for Malayalam-speaking people. The inclusion of Malabar and Kasargod and the exclusion of certain areas were proposed.
    • Birth of Kerala: On November 1, 1956, the state of Kerala was officially formed, referred to as “Keralam” in Malayalam and “Kerala” in English.

    Conclusion

    • The resolution to rename Kerala as “Keralam” reflects the historical and cultural significance attached to the state’s name.
    • The process of renaming a state underscores the federal structure of India, where Centre-State collaboration is essential for such significant changes.