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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • What is the Jan Vishwas Bill, 2023 proposed by Centre?

    What’s the news?

    • The corridors of India’s Parliament recently witnessed the passage of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023.

    Central idea

    • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023, spearheaded by the Minister of Commerce and Industry, is a transformative piece of legislation aimed at ushering in a new era of ease in daily life and business operations. The Bill proposes sweeping amendments to decriminalize 183 provisions within 42 Central Acts overseen by 19 Ministries and Departments.

    What is the Jan Vishwas Bill about?

    • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023, is designed with the dual objective of further enhancing the ease of living and the ease of doing business within the country.
    • The primary focus of the bill is to amend and update various provisions present in 42 Central Acts that fall under the purview of 19 Ministries and Departments.
    • The amendments proposed by the Jan Vishwas Bill encompass diverse sectors such as agriculture, the environment, media and publication, health, and more.

    Key Features

    • Amendment of Multiple Provisions: The bill targets the amendment of 183 provisions within 42 Central Acts administered by 19 Ministries/Departments, spanning sectors like agriculture, environment, media, publication, and healthcare.
    • Conversion of Fines to Penalties: A significant shift is the transformation of fines into penalties, simplifying the process of imposing punishments for offenses and minimizing the need for court intervention.
    • Removal of Imprisonment as Punishment: The bill proposes the removal of imprisonment as a punitive measure for certain offenses, with an emphasis on using penalties as a more efficient means of addressing non-compliance.
    • Focus on Healthcare: Notable amendments are proposed for acts such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Pharmacy Act, 1948. These changes have sparked debates among healthcare activists, pharmacy experts, and patient-welfare groups.

    Pros of the Amendments

    • Efficient Punishments: The conversion of fines into penalties can expedite the process of administering punishments for offenses, potentially leading to a quicker resolution of cases.
    • Business-Friendly Environment: The removal of imprisonment as a punishment for certain offenses can create a more favorable atmosphere for businesses, reducing concerns about severe penalties.
    • Ease of Doing Business: By simplifying regulations, businesses can operate more smoothly, attracting investments and fostering economic growth.
    • Balanced Approach: The bill aims to maintain a balance between public health and business growth, ensuring regulatory effectiveness while facilitating business operations.

    Cons of the Amendments

    • Public Health Concerns: Critics argue that reduced penalties for Not of Standard Quality (NSQ) drugs and pharmacy license violations could compromise patient safety by lowering the consequences for non-compliance.
    • Quality Control: Diminished penalties might lead to lax quality control in sectors like healthcare and food safety, potentially impacting consumer well-being.
    • Deterrence Impact: Reduced penalties and the elimination of imprisonment might weaken the deterrent effect on potential violators, potentially leading to increased non-compliance.
    • Industry Accountability: Critics contend that the amendments could lower industry accountability by providing lenient regulatory measures, potentially affecting public health and safety.

    The Government’s Argument in Favor of the Jan Vishwas Bill

    • India’s Global Role: Emphasizing India’s position as the pharmacy of the world, the government asserts that the amendments are essential to align regulations with this significant global role.
    • Balancing Health and Business: The government contends that while ensuring the availability of high-quality medicines, it’s equally important to provide reasonable benefits to businesses, striking a balance between these objectives.
    • Ease of Doing Business: The government highlights the necessity of creating a business-friendly environment to attract investments and promote economic growth. Streamlining regulations through the amendments aims to reduce bureaucratic hurdles.
    • Efficiency and Growth: By converting fines into penalties, the government argues that the process of imposing punishments for offenses becomes more efficient, aligning with the goal of ease of living and doing business.
    • Global Alignment: The government stresses the importance of adapting regulations to evolving global standards. The amendments are positioned as a way to modernize and simplify regulations, aligning India’s practices with international norms.
    • Business and Economic Development: The amendments are framed as essential for supporting business growth, which contributes to overall economic development and increased job opportunities.

    Conclusion

    • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023, emerges as a multidimensional legislative reform aiming to promote both the well-being of the public and the growth of businesses. The challenge lies in crafting regulations that not only facilitate industry growth but also uphold public health, safety, and societal responsibility, ultimately leading to a harmonious and prosperous nation.

  • Language Complexity in India’s Judiciary

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court rejected a plea to transfer a motor accident case from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Farrukhabad, UP, to the MACT in Darjeeling, West Bengal.
    • The court emphasized that language should not be a barrier, and witnesses should communicate in Hindi, the national language, during proceedings

    Why discuss this?

    • The Supreme Court’s assertion that Hindi is the national language sparked debates, given India’s linguistic diversity.
    • While no language is officially designated as the “national language,” Hindi holds a significant position as the official language of the Union.

    Official Languages and the Constitution

    • Article 343: The Constitution designates Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, with English used for official purposes during the initial 15 years after the Constitution’s commencement in 1950.
    • Article 351: The Constitution directs the Union to promote the spread of Hindi while respecting the forms and expressions of other languages listed in the Eighth Schedule.

    Eighth Schedule and Linguistic Diversity

    • Eighth Schedule: The Constitution’s Eighth Schedule lists 22 languages, including Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu, as recognized languages. The Schedule has expanded over time to accommodate languages like Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santhali.
    • Demands for Inclusion: Various languages such as Bhojpuri, Garhwali (Pahari), and Rajasthani are vying for inclusion in the Eighth Schedule. The MHA acknowledges the dynamic nature of language evolution but faces challenges in establishing criteria for inclusion.
    • Official Languages Act, 1963: Despite Hindi being an official language, the Act ensures the continuation of English for official purposes even beyond the initial 15-year period.

    Status of English in Judiciary

    • Apex Courts: The use of English is mandated in proceedings of the Supreme Court and High Courts, ensuring uniformity in legal communication. The Rajasthan High Court introduced Hindi for court proceedings, citing Article 348 (2) and the Official Languages Act.
    • Subordinate Courts and Regional Languages:
    1. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): The State Government has the authority to determine the language of subordinate courts within the state.
    2. Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): While the language of subordinate courts is initially maintained, the State Government can declare a language and character for applications and proceedings.

    Way Forward

    • Balancing Diversity and Accessibility: The debate on regional languages in courts underscores the need to make legal proceedings accessible to all citizens, considering linguistic diversity.
    • Gradual Transition: While the use of regional languages in courts is a growing conversation, any transition must be gradual and carefully implemented to ensure clarity and consistency.
    • Socio-Linguistic Dynamics: Encouraging the use of local languages in legal proceedings aligns with PM’s vision to facilitate understanding of the judicial process among citizens.

  • Explained: Delhi Services Bill, 2023

    delhi

    Central Idea

    • The Rajya Sabha passed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023 four days after the Lok Sabha cleared the Bill.
    • It will promulgate into law once signed by the President of India.

    delhi

    Delhi Services Bill, 2023: A Backgrounder

    • In May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delhi government, granting it control over most services in the capital city, except for public order, land, and police cases.
    • However, the Centre introduced an ordinance on May 19 to override the top court’s order, giving more authority to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) in matters of appointments and transfers of bureaucrats.

    Key Features of the Bill

    • National Capital Civil Services Authority: The bill establishes the National Capital Civil Services Authority to make recommendations to the LG on certain service-related matters, including transfers, vigilance, and disciplinary proceedings.
    • Powers of the LG: The bill expands the discretionary role of the LG, allowing him to override the recommendations of the Authority and act on his sole discretion in certain matters.
    • Disposal of Matters by Ministers: The bill allows Delhi government ministers to issue standing orders for matter disposal, subject to consultation with the concerned Department Secretary. However, certain sensitive matters must be submitted to the LG for his opinion before issuing any order.
    • Duties of Secretaries: Department Secretaries must bring certain matters to the notice of the LG, Chief Minister, and Chief Secretary, particularly those that may lead to controversy with other state governments, courts, or the central government.

    Important changes related to Services

    • Removal of Clause 3A: The bill eliminates a provision from the ordinance that prevented the Delhi Assembly from creating laws related to ‘State Public Services and State Public Service Commission.’ This gives the assembly the authority to make regulations concerning services.
    • No Annual Report needed by NCCSA: The National Capital Civil Service Authority (NCCSA) will no longer be required to submit an annual report to Parliament and the Delhi Assembly, removing the obligation to present the report before these legislative bodies.
    • Modification in Appointment Cycle: The bill dilutes provisions related to the appointment of chairpersons and members of various authorities, boards, commissions, and statutory bodies in Delhi. It removes the requirement for “orders/directions of ministers” in matters that need to be sent to the central government before the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister.
    • Appointment of Delhi LG Powers: The bill empowers the Lieutenant Governor to select members of the Delhi government’s Boards and Commissions from a list of names suggested by the NCCSA, including recommendations from the Delhi Chief Minister. These Boards and Commissions are established by regulations passed by the Delhi Assembly.

    Constitutional Debate

    • Violation of Triple Chain of Accountability: Critics argue that the bill may violate the principle of parliamentary democracy by potentially giving the central government powers over services in Delhi, thereby breaking the triple chain of accountability between civil servants, ministers, and the electorate.
    • LG’s Discretionary Powers: The bill expands the LG’s discretionary powers, allowing him to override the decisions of the Council of Ministers, which could potentially impede the functioning of the democratically elected government.
    • Unclear Terms: Certain terms in the bill, such as “sole discretion” of the LG and criteria for matters brought to his notice, are considered vague and could lead to ambiguity in implementation.
    • Opposition’s Concerns: Opposition leaders have voiced strong opposition to the bill, claiming that it undermines democratic heritage, the spirit of federalism, and the powers of an elected government.

    Government’s Defense

    • The Centre has defended the bill, asserting that India has a quasi-federal structure where the Centre holds primacy.
    • The bill aims to balance the interests of Delhi and the nation.

    Conclusion

    • The Delhi Services Bill, 2023, has become a focal point of contention between the Delhi government and the central government.
    • While proponents argue that it brings clarity to the distribution of powers, opponents claim that it may infringe upon the principles of parliamentary democracy and the constitutional separation of powers.
    • As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how the bill’s implementation will unfold and its impact on governance in the national capital.

    Back2Basics: Key Legislations and Judgements on Delhi

    Year Development
    1956 Delhi is classified as a Union Territory under the States Reorganization Act.
    1991-92 69th Constitutional Amendment (Article 239AA) passed, making Delhi a UT with legislature.

    Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) Act, 1991 is passed.

    70th Constitutional Amendment exempts certain laws from being considered constitutional amendments.
    2015 Ministry of Home Affairs takes control over services from Delhi legislature, empowering the LG.
    2016 Delhi High Court rules that services lie outside the Delhi legislative assembly’s purview.
    2018 Supreme Court rules that the LG must act on “aid and advice” of the Delhi council of ministers.
    2019 Supreme Court delivers a split verdict on the issue of services.
    2021 Union government amends the GNCTD Act, expanding the LG’s powers in certain matters.
    2023 Supreme Court rules that Delhi government has control over services.

    Central government promulgates an Ordinance to exclude “services” from Delhi legislature’s purview.

    GNCTD (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by the Parliament awaiting Presidents Assent.

  • Justice Rohini Panel on OBC Sub-Categorisation

    justice rohini
    Hon’ble Justice Rohini

    Central Idea

    • The Justice G. Rohini-headed Commission for the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups on July 31 submitted its report on the issue to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
    • This is nearly 6 years after the Union government first assigned the task to it — a task that was initially meant to be finished in 12 weeks.

    Who are the OBCs?

    • The Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are a group of socially and educationally disadvantaged castes in India.
    • They constitute a significant portion of the population and have been granted 27% reservation in jobs and education under the central government.
    • To ensure equitable distribution of benefits among all OBC communities, the idea of sub-categorization within the OBCs was proposed.
    • The Rohini Commission, established in 2017, was tasked with examining this issue.

    Understanding Sub-Categorization

    • Concept: Sub-categorization aims to create sub-groups within the larger OBC community for the purpose of reservation, addressing the issue of some affluent communities securing a major share of the reservation benefits.
    • Legal Debate: The concept of sub-categorization has also been a subject of legal debate for other reservation categories, such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and STs).

    Establishment of Rohini Commission

    • Purpose: The Rohini Commission was constituted on October 2, 2017, to examine the extent of inequitable distribution of reservation benefits among different OBC castes or communities.
    • Terms of Reference: Its primary terms of reference included evaluating the need for sub-categorization, working out a scientific approach for it, and identifying any discrepancies or errors in the Central List of OBCs.

    Timeline and Progress

    • Timeframe: Initially given 12 weeks to submit its report, the Commission has since been granted 10 extensions.
    • Draft Report: The Commission was ready with a draft report on sub-categorization.
    • Data Challenges: One of the challenges faced was the lack of data for the population of various OBC communities, making it difficult to compare their representation in jobs and admissions.
    • Multiple Extensions: The Commission’s report was submitted on the last day of its functioning after it had received up to 14 extensions from the government in the last six years.
    • Reason for Delays: At first, the government said that the COVID-19 pandemic had slowed down its working. However, after the second wave, the government has been saying that the Commission has been working on finalising its report.

    Findings of the Commission

    • Categorisation of Caste Groups: According to sources, the Commission has suggested breaking the caste groups into broad categories, with the dominant castes (with the most access to benefits) getting the smallest share of the 27% reservation, and the historically crowded-out caste groups getting the largest share of the reservation pie.
    • Unequal Distribution: The Commission’s analysis of 1.3 lakh central jobs and OBC admissions to central higher education institutions over a few years revealed that 97% of all jobs and educational seats were concentrated among just 25% of sub-castes classified as OBCs.
    • Dominant Communities: A significant portion of these opportunities (95%) went to only 10 OBC communities.
    • Underrepresented Groups: Nearly 37% (983) of OBC communities had zero representation in jobs and educational institutions, while 994 OBC sub-castes had a total representation of only 2.68% in recruitment and admissions.

    Implications and Future Steps

    • Census Enumeration: The Commission proposed an all-India survey to estimate the caste-wise population of OBCs, but the government has been silent on this while OBC groups demand the enumeration of OBCs in the Census.
    • Pending Decision: The report’s recommendations and findings will require careful deliberation by the government before any implementation.

    Conclusion

    • Now that the Commission’s report is with the Social Justice Ministry, the government is expected to hold deliberations on the recommendations contained in it, before thinking about implementing any part of it.
    • The report has not been made public yet.

     

  • Lowering the Minimum Age for Contesting Elections

    Central Idea

    • A Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended lowering the minimum age for contesting Lok Sabha and Assembly elections to 18 years, aligning it with the minimum age for voting in India.
    • The Committee believes that young individuals can be responsible political participants, supported by global practices and increasing political consciousness among youth.

    Current Minimum Age Requirements

    • Lok Sabha and Assembly Polls: According to Article 84 of the Indian Constitution and Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person must be at least 25 years old to contest elections to the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly.
    • Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council: As per Article 80(4) of the Constitution and Section 43 of the RP Act, 1951, a person must be at least 30 years old to become a member of the Rajya Sabha or the State Legislative Council.

    Parliamentary Committee’s View

    • Evidence from Global Practices: The Committee cited examples from countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, where young individuals have proven to be reliable and responsible political participants.
    • Youth Representation: It supported lowering the minimum age for candidacy, citing global practices and the increasing political consciousness among young people. It believes that young individuals are more than capable of running for office in the 21st century due to increased education, globalization, and digitalization.
    • Age Disparity: The Committee expressed concern over the significant age gap between MPs and India’s median age, highlighting the need for greater youth representation.
    • Diverse Viewpoints: The Committee contends that reducing the minimum age would bring fresh perspectives to policy debates and address the underrepresentation of young voices in the political arena.

    Election Commission’s Perspective

    • Unrealistic Expectations: The EC disagrees with the proposal, stating that expecting 18-year-olds to possess the necessary experience and maturity for parliamentary responsibilities is unrealistic.
    • Current Age Requirements Appropriate: EC believes that the existing minimum age requirements for voting and contesting elections are appropriate.

    Recommended Actions

    • Delimitation Process: The Committee recommends that the EC collaborates with the legislative department to examine the effects of the delimitation process, especially in challenging terrains. Treating all regions in India as identical may pose risks, and tailored measures should be taken to address this reality.
    • Common Electoral Rolls: The Committee highlights the benefits of Common Electoral Rolls for State and Lok Sabha polls, which can be created through the collaborative participation of officials serving in both the ECI and State ECs.

    Conclusion

    • The debate on lowering the minimum age for contesting elections continues, with the Parliamentary Standing Committee favouring this move, considering global practices and youth representation.
    • Further discussions and careful consideration are needed to make an informed decision on this matter.

  • Parliamentary Privilege and the Privileges Committee: A Closer Look

    Central Idea

    • During the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, there were differences between the ruling and opposition parties, leading to complaints against 2 MPs.
    • These complaints were referred to the Privileges Committee.

    What is Parliamentary Privilege?

    • Definition: Parliamentary privilege refers to the rights and immunities enjoyed by legislators during the course of their legislative duties.
    • Protection: MPs/MLAs are protected from civil or criminal liability for actions or statements made while discharging their legislative functions.
    • Constitutional Basis: The powers, privileges, and immunities of both Houses of the Indian Parliament and their members are enshrined in Article 105 whereas Article 194 deals with State Legislatures.

    Understanding Privilege Motion

    • Breaching Privilege: Any disregard of the rights and immunities constitutes a breach of privilege and is punishable under parliamentary law.
    • Motion: A notice in the form of a motion can be moved by any member of either House against those held guilty of a breach of privilege.
    • Contempt Actions: The Houses also have the right to punish actions that may not be a specific breach of privilege but are offenses against their authority and dignity.

    Instances of Privilege Notices

    • Indira Gandhi’s Expulsion (1978): Indira Gandhi was expelled from the Lok Sabha for obstructing government officials from collecting information for a question on Maruti.
    • Subramanian Swamy’s Expulsion (1976): Subramanian Swamy faced expulsion from the Rajya Sabha for engaging in interviews perceived as “anti-India propaganda.”
    • Cash for Query Scandal (2005): Eleven “tainted” MPs involved in the cash for query scandal were expelled from the Lok Sabha.

    Rules Governing Privilege

    • Lok Sabha: Rule No. 222 in Chapter 20 of the Lok Sabha Rule Book governs privilege.
    • Rajya Sabha: Correspondingly, Rule 187 in Chapter 16 of the Rajya Sabha rulebook deals with privilege.
    • Scope of Notice: The notice must relate to a recent incident requiring the intervention of the House.
    • Timing: Notices must be given before 10 am to the Speaker or the Chairperson.

    Role of the Speaker/Rajya Sabha Chair

    • Scrutiny: The Speaker/RS Chairperson is the first level of scrutiny for a privilege motion.
    • Decision Making: They can decide on the privilege motion themselves or refer it to the Privileges Committee.
    • Opportunity to Speak: If consent is given under Rule 222, the member involved is given an opportunity to make a brief statement.

    Referring to the Privileges Committee

    • Composition: In the Lok Sabha, the Speaker nominates a 15-member Committee of Privileges based on respective party strengths.
    • Report Presentation: The Committee presents a report to the House for consideration. A half-hour debate may be permitted while considering the report.
    • Final Orders: The Speaker may pass final orders or direct that the report be tabled before the House.
    • Resolution: A resolution relating to the breach of privilege must be unanimously passed.
    • Rajya Sabha: In the Rajya Sabha, the Deputy Chairperson heads the 10-member Committee of Privileges.

  • Criminal Defamation in India

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay the conviction in a criminal defamation case has significant implications for the parliamentary representation of a prominent political leader.
    • The court highlighted the absence of valid reasons for awarding the maximum sentence and emphasized the need for mutual respect and caution in public speeches.

    Disqualification of Lawmakers

    • This is an important aspect of maintaining the integrity of the legislative bodies.
    • In India, disqualification can occur under constitutional provisions and the Representation of The People Act (RPA), 1951.
    • Additionally, the Tenth Schedule deals with defection-related disqualifications.

    Grounds for Disqualification

    • Constitutional Provisions: Disqualification under Articles 102(1) and 191(1) applies to members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Grounds include holding an office of profit, being of unsound mind, insolvent, or lacking valid citizenship.
    • Defection: The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for disqualification on the grounds of defection.
    • RPA, 1951: This Act mandates disqualification for conviction in criminal cases.

    Disqualification under RPA, 1951

    • Section 8: Section 8 of the RPA deals with disqualification for conviction of offences.
    • Objective: The provision aims to prevent the criminalization of politics and bar ‘tainted’ lawmakers from contesting elections.
    • Disqualification Period: Section 8(3) specifies that a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years will be disqualified from the date of conviction and for an additional six years after release.

    Appeal and Stay of Disqualification

    • Reversal: Disqualification can be reversed if a higher court grants a stay on the conviction or decides the appeal in favor of the convicted lawmaker.
    • Lok Prahari v Union of India: In a 2018 decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the disqualification will not take effect if the appellate court stays the conviction.
    • Appeals Process: For example, if a convicted lawmaker appeals, it would first go to the Surat Sessions Court and then to the Gujarat High Court.

    Changes in the Law

    • Section 8(4) of RPA: Previously, Section 8(4) stated that disqualification takes effect after three months from the date of conviction.
    • Lily Thomas v Union of India: In the landmark 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional.
    • Significance: The verdict aimed to prevent convicted politicians from continuing to hold public office while their appeals were pending, contributing to the purification of Indian politics.

    Supreme Court’s recent observations

    • Lack of Reasoning: The court noted that the trial judge failed to provide any reasons for awarding the maximum sentence, considering the penal code allowed various options for punishment.
    • High Court’s Omission: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, in its judgment, overlooked the crucial aspect of the lack of reasoning behind the severe punishment.
    • Impact on Representation: The court highlighted that disqualification from Parliament affects not only the individual but also the electorate represented by the person in question, raising concerns about unrepresented constituencies.
    • Exercise of Caution by Public Figures: While accepting the apology for his previous “thief” remarks during the general elections, the Court reminded him of the need for caution in public speeches due to his position in public life.

  • In news: Appointment of Election Commissioner

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the appointment of an Election Commissioner.
    • The court cited a previous Constitution Bench ruling that had already addressed the issue and decided not to quash the appointment.

    About Election Commission of India (ECI)

    • The ECI is a constitutional body was established by the Constitution of India to conduct and regulate elections in the country.
    • Article 324 of the Constitution provides that the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
    • The body administers elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, State Legislative Councils and the offices of the President and Vice President of the country.
    • Thus, the Election Commission is an all-India body in the sense that it is common to both the Central government and the state governments.
    • The Election Commission operates under the authority of Constitution per Article 324 and subsequently enacted Representation of the People Act 1951.

    Composition of ECI

    • The ECI was established in 1950 and originally only had one Chief Election Commissioner.
    • Two additional Commissioners were appointed to the commission for the first time during the 1989 General Election, but they had a very short tenure, ending on 1 January 1990.
    • The Election Commissioners are assisted by Deputy Election Commissioners, who are generally IAS officers.
    • They are further assisted by Directors General, Principal Secretaries, and Secretaries and Under Secretaries.
    • At the state level, Election Commission is assisted by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, who is an IAS officer of Principal Secretary rank.
    • At the district and constituency levels, the District Magistrates (in their capacity as District Election Officers), Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers perform election work.

    Tenure

    • The tenure of election commissioners is not prescribed by Indian Constitution.
    • However, the Election Commission conduct of service Act, 1991 prescribes the term of service.
    • Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner shall hold office for a term of six years, or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, from the date on which he/she assumes his/her office.

    Removal from office

    • The Chief Election Commissioner of India can be represented removed from their office in a manner similar to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court of India.
    • It requires a resolution passed by the Parliament of India a two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    • Other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President of India on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
    • A Chief Election Commissioner has never been impeached in India.

    Recent incidence of criticisms of ECI

    Ans. Partiality in Elections

    • Over the last couple of years, several actions and omissions of the commission have come in for criticism.
    • Nearly 66 former bureaucrats in a letter addressed to the President, expressed their concern over the working of the Election Commission.
    • They felt was suffering from a credibility crisis, citing various violations of the model code of conduct during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections.

    Importance of ECI for India

    • Conduction of Election: The ECI has been successfully conducting national as well as state elections since 1952.
    • Electoral participation: In recent years, however, the Commission has started to play a more active role to ensure greater participation of people.
    • Discipline of political parties: It had gone to the extent of disciplining the political parties with a threat of derecognizing if the parties failed in maintaining inner-party democracy.
    • Upholds federalism: It upholds the values enshrined in the Constitution viz, equality,
      equity, impartiality, independence; and rule of law in superintendence, direction, and control over electoral governance.
    • Free and fair elections: It conducts elections with the highest standard of credibility, freeness, fairness, transparency, integrity, accountability, autonomy and professionalism.

    Issues with ECI

    • Flaws in the composition: The Constitution doesn’t prescribe qualifications for members of the EC. They are not debarred from future appointments after retiring or resigning.
    • No security of tenure: Election commissioners aren’t constitutionally protected with security of tenure.
    • Partisan role: The EC has come under the scanner like never before, with increasing incidents of breach of the Model Code of Conduct in the 2019 general elections.
    • Political favor: The opposition alleged that the ECI was favoring the ruling party by giving clean chit to the model code of conduct violations made by the PM.
    • Non-competence: Increased violence and electoral malpractices under influence of money have resulted in political criminalization, which ECI is unable to arrest.

  • Money Bills and Financial Bills: A Constitutional Perspective

    Central Idea

    • The debate surrounding the classification of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill as a Money Bill and its implications has sparked discussions on the nuances of Money Bills and Financial Bills in India’s parliamentary process.

    Money Bills vs. Financial Bills

    Money Bills Financial Bills
    Definition and Scope Article 110 – Deals with taxes, government borrowing, expenditure, receipt of money from the Consolidated Fund of India, among others. Broader scope beyond Article 110(1)
    Rajya Sabha’s Role Introduced only in Lok Sabha, no Rajya Sabha approval needed

    Lok Sabha has the discretion to accept or reject any recommendations made by the Rajya Sabha on a Money Bill.

    		 Can be introduced in either house, requires approval from both houses.
    Origin and President’s Recommendation Must be introduced only in Lok Sabha, and the President’s recommendation is required for its introduction. Can be introduced in either house, no President’s recommendation needed.
    Passage Procedure Passed by Lok Sabha, sent to Rajya Sabha for recommendations within 14 days.

    Rajya Sabha’s recommendations are not binding.

    If rejected by Lok Sabha, the Bill is considered passed without Rajya Sabha’s concurrence.

    		 Require agreement of both houses for passage, subject to Rajya Sabha amendments or rejections.

     

    Supreme Court’s Perspective

    • Striking Down Amendments: In Nov 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, struck down amendments to the 2017 Finance Act, passed as a Money Bill. The court found the amendments altering the structure and functioning of various tribunals contrary to constitutional principles.
    • Referring the Matter: The court referred the issue of whether these amendments could have been passed as a Money Bill to a seven-judge bench for consideration, indicating the complexity of the matter.
    • Doubts Over Aadhaar Act: The same Constitution Bench expressed doubts about the correctness of the 2018 verdict upholding the 2016 Aadhaar Act, which was also passed as a Money Bill. This matter is yet to be conclusively settled, as petitions seeking a review of the Aadhaar Act ruling remain pending in the Supreme Court.

    Conclusion

    • The distinction between Money Bills and Financial Bills is crucial in India’s parliamentary process, as it determines the extent of Rajya Sabha’s role and the passage procedure.
    • While Money Bills have limited Rajya Sabha involvement and cannot be amended or rejected by it, other Financial Bills and ordinary Bills require the agreement of both houses for passage.
    • The Supreme Court’s perspective on the correct classification of certain Bills as Money Bills adds further complexity to the debate, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of these constitutional provisions.

  • SC questions equating Article 370 to Basic Structure

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
    • The court is exploring whether Article 370 can be equated with the Basic Structure of the Constitution, a principle that enshrines essential features beyond the Parliament’s amendment powers.

    What is Basic Structure Doctrine?
    Definition A constitutional principle that certain essential features or basic elements of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament.
    Purpose To preserve the core values and structure of the Constitution, protecting its democratic, secular, and federal character.
    Establishment Established by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973.
    Essential Features Includes supremacy of the Constitution, democratic republic, judicial review, separation of powers, federal structure, rule of law, fundamental rights, and parliamentary system.
    Limitation on Amendment Restricts Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.
    Judicial Review The Supreme Court uses the doctrine to strike down amendments that violate the Basic Structure.

     

    Also read:

    Wow Wednesday : Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine

    Debate over Article 370

    • Constitutional Process: It has been argued that the abrogation of Article 370 was a purely political act and that there was no constitutional process available to revoke it.
    • Equating with Basic Structure: The court questioned whether considering the abrogation of Article 370 as impossible amounts to equating it with the principles of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
    • Article 370 as a “Compact”: It has been contended that Article 370 was not part of the Basic Structure but a “compact” between the princely State of J&K and the Government of India, engrafted into the Indian Constitution.
    • Government’s Actions: Concerns have been raised about the government’s insertion of Article 367(4)(d), which some argue circumvented the “residuary power” of the State and allowed the Parliament to act as the J&K Constituent Assembly.

    Challenges and Concerns Raised

    • Permanence of Article 370: The permanence of Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution in 1957 and the procedure followed by the NDA government during the abrogation have been debated.
    • Constitutional Machinery: Criticisms have been raised that the Parliament and President took over the powers of the State without considering the views of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
    • Breakdown of Constitutional Structure: Some argue that the events leading up to the abrogation constituted a “complete breakdown” of the constitutional structure, as the State’s powers were absorbed by the Centre, and the State was bifurcated without proper consent.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s ongoing hearings on the abrogation of Article 370 continue to raise important questions about its status and the process involved.
    • The court’s decision will have significant implications for understanding the constitutional relationship between the Centre and the States and the sanctity of special provisions like Article 370.