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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • [VERY IMPORTANT]: Performance of 17th Lok Sabha: Challenges and Concerns

    Lok Sabha

    Central Idea

    • India’s new Parliament building, inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, symbolizes the aspirations of 140 crore Indians. However, as the 17th Lok Sabha nears its final year, it faces scrutiny over its performance.

    Performance of 17th Lok Sabha

    • Sitting Days: The 17th Lok Sabha has functioned for 230 sitting days so far. However, if it falls short of surpassing the lowest recorded full-term Lok Sabha (331 sitting days in the 16th Lok Sabha), it would become the shortest full-term Lok Sabha since 1952.
    • Referral of Bills to Committees: There has been a decline in the referral of bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees. Since 2004, only 45% of the total bills introduced in Parliament have been referred to committees. This suggests a potential decrease in comprehensive scrutiny and review of proposed legislation.
    • Legislative Output: The number of bills introduced and passed in the 17th Lok Sabha has seen a decline. Out of the 150 bills introduced, 131 have been passed so far (excluding Finance and Appropriation Bills). The decreasing trend raises questions about the legislative productivity of the Lok Sabha.
    • Budget Discussions: The latest Budget session of the 17th Lok Sabha was one of the shortest since 1952. The limited time dedicated to discussing financial matters, particularly the Budget, raises concerns about the depth of analysis and deliberation on critical fiscal issues.
    • Debates on Matters of Public Importance: The number of debates conducted in the Lok Sabha during the tenure of the 17th Lok Sabha has been limited. There have been only 11 short duration discussions and one half-an-hour discussion, indicating a restricted avenue for robust parliamentary discourse on matters of public importance.
    • Delayed Election of Deputy Speaker: Despite the constitutional provision mandating the election of a Deputy Speaker, the 17th Lok Sabha has not elected one, even as it enters its final year of the five-year term. This delay raises concerns about adherence to constitutional norms and the effective functioning of parliamentary proceedings.

    Value addition box from Civilsdaily

    Lok Sabha Term Total Sitting Days Bills Introduced Bills Passed Average Sitting Days per Year
    15th 2009-2014 357 244 181 71
    16th 2014-2019 331 247 156 66
    17th 2019-2024 Less than 331 (projected) 150 (as of April 2023) 131 (as of April 2023) 58 (projected)

    Why the 17th Lok Sabha’s productivity has been low?

    • Disruptions and Protests: The 17th Lok Sabha witnessed frequent disruptions and protests from opposition parties, leading to a significant loss of time and decreased productivity. Some of the major issues that led to disruptions include the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizens (NRC), and farm laws.
    • Lack of Consensus: The ruling party enjoyed a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, but there was still a lack of consensus on many key issues, resulting in a delay in passing important bills and legislation.
    • COVID-19 Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to the low productivity of the Lok Sabha as many sessions were delayed or cancelled due to safety concerns.
    • Speaker’s Decision: The decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to disallow opposition MPs from raising certain issues also resulted in protests and disruptions, further reducing the productivity of the house.
    • Shorter Sessions: The 17th Lok Sabha had shorter sessions compared to previous Lok Sabhas, which also contributed to lower productivity. Many important bills and issues were left pending as there was not enough time to discuss and debate them thoroughly.

    The concerns associated with the performance of MPs in the old Parliament building

    • Limited Parliamentary Engagement: The limited number of sitting days raises concerns about the MPs’ ability to fully engage in legislative proceedings and address the various challenges and issues faced by the country.
    • Decreased Scrutiny of Legislation: The declining referral of bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees raises concerns about the thorough scrutiny and review of proposed legislation.
    • Legislative Productivity: The decreased number of bills introduced and passed in the 17th Lok Sabha raises concerns about its legislative productivity. This may limit the ability of MPs to address critical issues, propose new policies, and enact necessary reforms, hindering progress and development.
    • Limited Budget Discussions: The shortened Budget sessions and reduced time allocated for financial discussions raise concerns about the depth of analysis and deliberation on critical fiscal matters.
    • Restricted Debates on Public Matters: The limited number of debates conducted in the Lok Sabha raises concerns about the comprehensive discussion and examination of matters of public importance.

    Lok Sabha

    New Parliament Building: An Opportunity for Efficiency

    • Responsible Parliamentary Conduct: Members of Parliament should prioritize constructive and meaningful debates, fostering a culture of respect, collaboration, and consensus-building. It is essential to move away from disruptive tactics and focus on substantive discussions that address the complex governance challenges of our time.
    • Reducing Disruptions: Long periods of deadlock and disruptions hinder the smooth functioning of Parliament. Efforts should be made to minimize disruptions and ensure that discussions remain focused on key issues. Rules and procedures can be reviewed to encourage more disciplined and productive parliamentary conduct.
    • Enhancing Communication and Participation: The new Parliament building, equipped with modern facilities, offers opportunities for better communication and engagement. Members should utilize these resources effectively to engage with constituents, share information, and seek feedback, fostering a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

    Conclusion

    • The performance of MPs in the 17th Lok Sabha is pivotal in driving effective governance and representing the aspirations of the Indian people. It is crucial for MPs to embrace their roles as custodians of democracy, remaining accountable to their constituents and working collectively to shape a brighter future for India.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

    Must read:

    Inauguration of New Parliament House: Shaping the Concept of Aatmanirbhar Bharat

  • Live streaming of Court Proceedings

    live streaming court

    Central Idea

    • The significance of live-streaming court proceedings as an extension of the ‘open justice’ and ‘open courts’ principle remains largely unrealized in India.
    • Only nine out of the 25 High Courts in the country have implemented live streaming, while the Supreme Court restricts it to Constitutional cases.

    What is live-streaming technology?

    • At its core, streaming content is meant to help people attend events, expos, and experiences they cannot attend in person.
    • Live streaming technology is how videos are streamed over the internet, live, in real-time, as they are being recorded.
    • Live streaming technology is the internet’s response to live television broadcasts, with the most popular being news shows and sports.

    Why discuss this?

    • The Supreme Court emphasized the need for live streaming in district courts and High Courts as these are the courts where most citizens seek justice.
    • Time and resource constraints, as well as the inability to travel long distances, limit public access to court hearings.
    • Videoconferencing became essential since the COVID-19 pandemic, as physical hearings were not possible.

    Early Adopters

    • The Gujarat HC pioneered live streaming in October 2020, streaming proceedings on YouTube as an experiment.
    • Other HCs, such as Karnataka and Meghalaya, followed with varying degrees of success.
    • The Gujarat HC’s YouTube channel gained 1.24 lakh subscribers and 1.9 crore views.

    Existing Restrictions

    • Model Rules for Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings: These exclude certain case categories from live streaming, including matrimonial matters, child adoption and custody, sexual offences, child sexual abuse, and juvenile cases.
    • Broadcasting rights issue: The Delhi High Court notified rules for live streaming proceedings but imposed restrictions such as a ban on reproducing or transmitting audio-visual recordings.

    Significance of live streaming

    • Instilling Faith in the Judiciary: Allowing ordinary people to view the workings of the highest court without barriers builds faith in the judiciary.
    • Empowering the Masses: Live streaming enables the legal system to empower the masses and develop an informed citizenry.
    • Respect for Rule of Law: Understanding the importance of the rule of law and how the judiciary protects the rights of marginalized sections of society.
    • Living up to Constitutional Expectations: Live streaming aligns with public interest and the preservation of constitutional Article 19 and 21.
    • Increased Transparency: Encourages the principle of open court, reduces reliance on second-hand information, and allows the public’s right to know.
    • Elevating Legal Standards: Lawyers become better prepared, refrain from irresponsible remarks, and take justice delivery more seriously.
    • Level Playing Field: Provides equal opportunities for younger lawyers to showcase their skills and competence.
    • Academic Advancement: Inspires law students and encourages legal research on the functioning of the judiciary and the legal profession.
    • Easy Accessibility: Eliminates the need for physical presence, allowing litigants to access proceedings from anywhere.

    Issues with such policy

    • Contempt of Court: Existing video clips of court proceedings on social media platforms often lack context and sensationalize events, potentially undermining the dignity of the court.
    • Disinformation and Sensationalism: There are concerns that misuse or selective use of live streaming content may contribute to the spread of disinformation among the public.
    • Unnecessary Activism: Increased visibility through live streaming could lead to justices behaving like politicians, seeking individual exposure rather than focusing solely on justice.

    Physical barriers for it

    • Internet Connectivity: Issues related to internet connectivity may hinder seamless live streaming, requiring attention for reliable access to court proceedings.
    • Adequate Infrastructure: Provision of well-equipped spaces where lawyers can effectively present their cases is crucial for a smooth transition to live-streamed proceedings.
    • Awareness and Training: Judges, court staff, and lawyers may lack familiarity with digital technology and its benefits. Efforts should be made to raise awareness and provide comprehensive training to ensure their proficiency.

    Global examples

    • Several countries, including the United States, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, and China, have implemented live streaming of court proceedings in various formats.
    • Live streaming formats include audio recordings (US), video recordings streamed on television (Brazil), video streaming on court websites (UK, Canada), and live streaming from trial courts up to the supreme court (China).

    Way Forward

    To promote open justice and improve access to justice, the following steps are recommended:

    • Implementation of live streaming in all courtrooms of the Supreme Court and across all High Courts and district courts.
    • Ensuring adequate infrastructure for videoconferencing and live streaming beyond the pandemic.
    • Reviewing and revising restrictions on live streaming to strike a balance between transparency and privacy concerns.
    • Conducting awareness campaigns to educate the public about the availability and benefits of live-streamed court proceedings.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024

  • Sedition Law in India

    Central Idea

    • In a recent development, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan annulled the offence of sedition in their penal code, raising questions about India’s similar provision under Section 124A. While a challenge to this law is pending before the Indian Supreme Court, the underlying logic of sedition persists and has found its way into various provisions that criminalize speech.

    What is Sedition?

    • The Section 124A defines sedition as, an offence committed when any person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India.
    • Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. However, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, will not constitute an offense.
    • Sedition is a non-bailable offense. Punishment under Section 124A ranges from imprisonment up to three years to a life term with/without a fine.
    • Sedition was made a cognizable offense for the first time in history in India during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1973, that is, arrest without a warrant was now permissible.

    How the offensive speech reinforces existing social hierarchies and inequality?

    • Reinforcing Dominant Narratives: Offensive speech often aligns with the dominant narratives propagated by those in power. It reinforces and upholds the existing social order by validating and amplifying the perspectives and ideologies of the privileged groups.
    • Perpetuating Stereotypes and Prejudices: Offensive speech often relies on stereotypes and prejudices that are deeply rooted in social hierarchies. By perpetuating these stereotypes, offensive speech reinforces the existing inequalities and discriminates against individuals based on their identities, such as caste, race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status.
    • Suppressing Dissent and Alternative Voices: Offensive speech can be used as a tool to suppress dissent and alternative viewpoints. It creates an environment of fear and intimidation, discouraging individuals from challenging the status quo or speaking out against injustice.
    • Creating Emotional and Psychological Harm: Offensive speech reinforces negative self-perceptions, perpetuates feelings of inferiority, and reinforces internalized oppression. This can lead to a lack of confidence, self-censorship, and a reluctance to participate in public discourse, further perpetuating existing social hierarchies.
    • Unequal Consequences and Legal Frameworks: Offensive speech often faces unequal consequences based on the social position of the speaker and the target. Marginalized individuals are more likely to face severe repercussions for their speech, while privileged individuals often enjoy greater impunity.

    How entrenched Hierarchies manifest in the law in India?

    • Caste-Based Discrimination: The deeply rooted caste system in India influences the legal framework. Despite constitutional safeguards and affirmative action policies, lower-caste individuals continue to face discrimination and marginalization.
    • Unequal Access to Justice: Marginalized communities, including lower castes, tribal communities, and economically disadvantaged groups, often encounter barriers in accessing justice. Limited legal awareness, inadequate legal aid services, and bias within the judiciary can result in unequal access to justice.
    • Discriminatory Laws and Practices: Personal laws based on religious or customary practices can reinforce gender inequality and restrict the rights of women. Similarly, laws related to land ownership, inheritance, and labor rights may disproportionately affect marginalized communities, reinforcing existing social disparities.
    • Limited Representation and Diversity: The underrepresentation of individuals from lower castes, tribal backgrounds, and other marginalized groups in positions of power within the legal system can lead to biases and insensitivity towards their concerns and needs. This lack of diversity can perpetuate hierarchical power structures and hinder efforts to address social inequalities.
    • Selective Enforcement and Impunity: The enforcement of laws in India can be selective, leading to unequal treatment based on social, economic, or political factors. Marginalized communities may experience higher rates of arrests, police brutality, and arbitrary detention. Meanwhile, individuals with social and economic power may enjoy impunity for their actions, perpetuating social hierarchies within the legal system.

    Facts for prelims

    Case Key Points
    Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 – Upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC. – Clarified that criticism of the government without incitement to violence is not sedition.
    Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 – Stated that sedition requires a clear intention to incite violence or public disorder. – Holding opinions or raising slogans against the government without violent intent is not sedition.
    Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 – Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online speech. – Emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of speech in the digital age.
    Common Cause v. Union of India, 2016 – Expressed concerns about the misuse of sedition laws. – Called for a narrow and precise interpretation of the offense.
    Maneka Gandhi case, 1978 – Expanded the interpretation of the right to personal liberty and due process under Article 21 of the Constitution. – Emphasized that laws must be reasonable, fair, and just.
    Vinit Kumar v. CBI, 2019 – Reiterated that criticism of the government, unless inciting violence, does not amount to sedition. – Emphasized the need to prevent the misuse of sedition laws.

    Evolving nature of the interpretation and application of sedition laws

    • Striking Down Sedition Laws: In recent years, there have been calls to strike down or reform sedition laws, questioning their compatibility with democratic principles and the right to free expression. The Lahore High Court’s decision to annul the offence of sedition in Pakistan’s penal code exemplifies this growing debate.
    • Constitutional Challenges: The Supreme Court of India has examined the validity and scope of Section 124A in several cases. While the law may remain in abeyance without being formally struck down, these constitutional challenges create an opportunity to redefine the boundaries of sedition and ensure its alignment with constitutional principles.
    • Expansion of Speech Offenses: The logic of sedition has extended beyond the specific offense itself and transplanted into other provisions of law that criminalize speech. In the Indian context, laws that criminalize hurting religious sentiments or sentiments of particular communities share similarities with sedition.
    • Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech: The fear of prosecution and the potential consequences, such as arrests, imprisonment, or social repercussions, may lead individuals to self-censor or refrain from expressing dissenting opinions.
    • Judicial Pronouncements: Judicial pronouncements play a crucial role in shaping the mutating logic of sedition. Courts have an opportunity to interpret and apply sedition laws in a manner that upholds freedom of speech, safeguards democratic values, and ensures a reasonable balance between the state’s legitimate interests and citizens fundamental rights.
    • For example: Recent judgment such as the Media One case have emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of speech, criticizing the misuse of sedition for curbing dissent and censoring speech.

    Way forward

    • Narrowing the Definition of Sedition: Refining and narrowing the definition of sedition can help prevent its misuse. The focus should be on acts or speech that directly incite violence or pose a genuine threat to the territorial integrity or sovereignty of the country. This would help avoid undue restrictions on dissent and criticism of the government.
    • Safeguarding Freedom of Speech: It is crucial to ensure that the sedition law is not misused as a tool to suppress legitimate criticism, dissent, or peaceful protests. Safeguards should be put in place to protect individuals’ right to free speech and expression, while allowing for robust public debate and the peaceful expression of dissenting opinions.
    • Transparency and Accountability: Establish mechanisms to promote transparency and accountability in the application of sedition laws. This includes clear guidelines for law enforcement agencies, regular review of cases, and strict consequences for misuse of the law. Proper oversight and monitoring can help prevent arbitrary arrests and protect individuals from wrongful prosecution.
    • Public Awareness and Legal Education: Promote public awareness and legal education about the scope and limitations of the sedition law. This can help individuals understand their rights and responsibilities, empowering them to exercise their freedom of speech responsibly while avoiding unlawful acts.
    • Focus on Alternative Measures: Emphasize the use of alternative legal measures, such as laws related to defamation, incitement to violence, or hate speech, to address genuine threats to public order or national security. These laws should be effectively enforced to protect individuals without infringing upon their fundamental rights.

    Conclusion

    • Beyond the formal striking down of Section 124A, it is essential to address the underlying logic of sedition and its influence on various provisions that curtail freedom of speech. Recognizing the entangled relationship between law and society, and the hierarchical power dynamics that shape the prosecution of speech offenses, is paramount in safeguarding democratic values and upholding freedom of expression.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

    Also read:

    Re-examination of Sedition Law in motion: Govt informs SC

     

  • Unconstitutional Expansion of Delhi’s Government Authority

    Central Idea

    • The recent promulgation of The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 by the President of India has sparked a debate concerning the scope of the Supreme Court’s verdict and the constitutionality of the ordinance.

    Court’s Verdict and interpretations

    • In interpreting Article 239AA(3)(a), the Court ruled:
    1. It determined that the Legislative Assembly of the NCT Delhi has the authority with the exception
    2. The Court clarified that the executive power of the NCTD is co-extensive with its legislative power, encompassing all matters within its legislative jurisdiction.
    3. It established that the Union of India has executive power over three entries in List II, which the NCTD does not have legislative competence
    • Court’s verdict: Based on these interpretations, the Court concluded that the executive power over services falls exclusively under the Government of the NCTD. This interpretation aligns with the language of Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution.
    • However, the subsequent ordinance promulgated by the President on May 19, through the exercise of legislative power under Article 123, expanded the scope of excepted matters in Article 239AA(3)(a).

    Facts for prelims

    Article Description
    Article 123 Empowers the President to issue ordinances during Parliament’s recess.
    Article 239 Deals with the administration of Union Territories.
    Article 239A Provides for the creation of a Legislative Assembly for the Union Territory of Delhi.
    Article 239AA Contains special provisions for the Union Territory of Delhi, including the establishment of a Legislative Assembly and governance structure.
    Article 368 Outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution.
    Article 144 Deals with the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s judgments on all courts and authorities in India.
    Article 213 Empowers the Governor of a state to promulgate ordinances during the recess of the state legislature.

    Why the constitutionality of the ordinance in this regard is highly questionable?

    • Bypassing the constitutional amendment process: The ordinance expanded the scope of excepted matters in Article 239AA(3)(a). However, such an expansion would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368. By utilizing Article 123, which grants legislative power during the period of Parliament’s recess, instead of following the constitutional amendment process, the ordinance may be considered unconstitutional.
    • Limits of legislative power: The power conferred on Parliament under Article 239AA(3)(b) is to make fresh laws, not to directly amend Article 239AA(3)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, altering the scope of Article 239AA(3)(a) would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
    • Colorable exercise of power: By expanding the scope of excepted matters without amending the Constitution through the appropriate procedure, the ordinance may be seen as a colorable exercise of power. It is essential to adhere to the constitutional amendment process to ensure the validity and legitimacy of legislative actions.

    Implications of the Court’s Judgment

    • Binding nature: When a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declares or interprets the law, its decision becomes binding on all courts and authorities in India according to Articles 141 and 144, respectively. The Court’s interpretation of Article 239AA(3)(a), which affirmed the exclusive executive power of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) over services, is legally binding on all courts and authorities. This means that the government and other entities must adhere to this interpretation.
    • Limits on executive power: The Court’s verdict clarified the extent of executive power held by the NCTD and the Union of India. This delineation of executive power sets clear boundaries and ensures a proper division of responsibilities between the NCTD and the Union government.
    • Requirement of constitutional amendment: The Court’s verdict highlighted the need for a constitutional amendment to alter the scope of Article 239AA(3)(a) and expanding the exceptions in Article 239AA(3)(a) would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368. This reaffirms the importance of adhering to the constitutional amendment process to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of any changes made to the Constitution.
    • Questioning the validity of the ordinance: The Court’s judgment raises questions about the validity of the subsequent ordinance promulgated by the President. The ordinance, which expanded the scope of excepted matters in Article 239AA(3)(a), may be deemed unconstitutional.

    Conclusion

    • The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 raises constitutional concerns. Its expansion of excepted matters without a constitutional amendment is likely to be struck down. The ordinance is void ab initio and represents a colorable exercise of power. Only Parliament, through proper amendment procedures, can alter the scope of Article 239AA(3)(a).

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

    Also read:

    Power Struggle in Delhi: Balancing Democracy, Governance, and Accountability

     

  • Why do judges seek ‘RECUSAL’ for themselves?

    Central Idea

    Recusals by judges have been a frequent occurrence in recent weeks, raising important questions about the circumstances under which judges should recuse themselves, the need for recording reasons for recusal, and the reliance on individual judges’ discretion.

    What is Recusal?

    • Recusal is the removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a particular matter, especially because of a conflict of interest.
    • Recusal usually takes place when a judge has a conflict of interest or has a prior association with the parties in the case.
    • For example, if the case pertains to a company in which the judge holds stakes, the apprehension would seem reasonable.
    • Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call for recusal may seem right.
    • A recusal inevitably leads to delay. The case goes back to the Chief Justice, who has to constitute a fresh Bench.

    Reasons for Judicial Recusal

    • Conflict of interest: Recusal often occurs when a judge has a direct conflict of interest or a prior association with the parties involved in a case. For instance, if a judge holds stakes in a company involved in the case, it would be reasonable to recuse themselves.
    • Earlier difference of opinion: Similarly, if the judge previously represented one of the parties in a case, recusal may be necessary.
    • Prevent bias: Some judges may recuse themselves based on apprehension of bias, while others may refuse to withdraw, considering the potential damage to the institution.
    • Absence of Codified Rules: India currently lacks codified rules specifically governing recusals, but the Supreme Court has addressed the issue through various judgments.

    Procedure for Recusal

    • Automatic and Plea-based Recusal: Recusal can happen automatically when a judge recognizes a conflict of interest or when a party raises a plea for recusal due to bias or personal interest.
    • Judge’s Discretion: The decision to recuse rests solely on the conscience and discretion of the judge; no party can compel a judge to withdraw.
    • Transfer of the Case: When a judge recuses, the case is transferred to the Chief Justice, who reassigns it to an alternate bench to ensure the continuity of proceedings.

    Recording Reasons for Recusal

    • Responsibility of Judges: Since there are no statutory rules, judges are responsible for recording their reasons for recusal.
    • Oral or Written Disclosure: Reasons for recusal can be specified orally in open court or through a written order, or they may remain undisclosed.

    Criticism

    • Lack of transparency: This regarding reasons for recusal has faced criticism, particularly when mass recusals occur in sensitive cases.
    • Motives undisclosed: Some judgments have argued for the need to indicate reasons to avoid attributing motives to recusals, while others express concerns that specifying reasons could lead to challenges and hinder the recusal process.
    • Inevitable delay: Recusal inevitably leads to delays in the proceedings as the case is transferred back to the Chief Justice, who must assign it to a fresh bench.

    Past Supreme Court Rules on Recusal

    • Factors for Impartiality: The Supreme Court has established various factors to determine the impartiality of a judge in previous judgments.
    • Reasonableness of Apprehension: The reasonableness of the party’s apprehension of bias is a crucial consideration when deciding whether recusal is necessary.
    • Definition of Judicial Bias: Judicial bias is defined as a predisposition that compromises a judge’s impartiality.
    • Real Danger Test: Pecuniary interests automatically disqualify a judge, while other cases require applying the “real danger” test to evaluate the possibility of bias.

    Issues with Recusal

    • Abdication of Duty: Recusal has been viewed as a potential abdication of a judge’s duty, raising concerns about maintaining institutional civility while fulfilling the independent role of judges as adjudicators.
    • Importance of Providing Reasons: Justice Kurian Joseph, in his separate opinion in the 2015 National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) judgment, emphasized the importance of judges providing reasons for recusal to enhance transparency.
    • Constitutional Duty for Transparency: Indicating reasons for recusal is a constitutional duty, reflecting the need for judges to be transparent and accountable.

    Practices in Foreign Jurisdictions

    • United States: It has well-defined laws and codes that explicitly detail grounds for recusal, such as financial interests, prior involvement as a lawyer or witness, and relationships with parties.
    • United Kingdom: It has adopted the “real danger” test to disqualify judges based on substantive evidence of bias, although this approach has faced criticism.

    Importance of Appearance of Bias

    • The European Convention of Human Rights emphasizes the significance of the “appearance of bias” to ensure fairness from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

    Way Forward

    • To ensure fairness and maintain public trust in the justice system, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines and rules for recusal in India.
    • Codifying principles, requiring judges to record reasons for recusal, and promoting transparency can address concerns about bias and uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
    • Learning from foreign jurisdictions, such as studying the comprehensive recusal laws in the United States, can provide valuable insights for developing a robust framework for recusal in India.
    • Enhancing transparency and accountability in the recusal process will contribute to a stronger and more trusted judicial system.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024

  • GANHRI defers accreditation of India’s NHRC

    india nhrc ganhri

    Central Idea

    The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), a UN-recognized organization, has deferred the accreditation of India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC-India) for the second time in a decade.

    GANHRI (Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions)
    Purpose Promote and protect human rights globally
    Year Established 1993
    Headquarters Geneva, Switzerland
    Members National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) from various countries
    Key Functions – Promoting and strengthening NHRIs worldwide

    – Advocating for human rights at national, regional, and global levels

    – Facilitating cooperation and sharing of best practices among NHRIs

    – Providing capacity-building support to NHRIs etc.
    Organizational Structure – President: Elected from GANHRI members for a specified term

    – Bureau: Assists the President in overseeing GANHRI’s work

    – Sub-Committees: Focused on specific thematic or regional issues
    Key Documents – Paris Principles: Provide guidance for the establishment and operation of NHRIs

    – GANHRI Strategy: Outlines the organization’s strategic objectives and actions

     

    Reasons for India’s Deferment

    The GANHRI’s letter to the NHRC cited several reasons for the deferment of accreditation, including:

    • Political Interference: The NHRC-India faced objections related to political interference in appointments, compromising its independence.
    • Police Involvement: Involving the police in probes into human rights violations raised concerns about impartiality and fair investigations.
    • Lack of Cooperation: The NHRC’s poor cooperation with civil society was criticized, hindering its effectiveness in protecting human rights.
    • Lack of Diversity: The GANHRI highlighted the lack of diversity in staff and leadership positions within the NHRC.
    • Insufficient Protection of Marginalized Groups: The NHRC was found to have taken insufficient action to protect marginalized groups, contrary to the U.N.’s principles on national institutions (the ‘Paris Principles).

    Concerns highlighted against India

    • Many NGOs such as Amnesty International, Front Line Defenders etc. wrote a joint letter to GANHRI expressing their objections to NHRC India’s ‘A’ rank.
    • They highlighted the commission’s failure to protect marginalized communities, religious minorities, and human rights defenders.
    • The letter emphasized that the NHRC’s functioning has regressed since 2017, undermining its independence and adherence to the Paris Principles.

    Paris Principles and Accreditation Criteria

    The United Nations’ Paris Principles, adopted in 1993, serve as international benchmarks for accrediting National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). The Paris Principles outline six main criteria that NHRIs must meet:

    • Mandate and Competence: NHRIs should have a clear mandate and the necessary expertise to protect human rights effectively.
    • Autonomy from Government: NHRIs must operate independently from government influence or control.
    • Independence: NHRIs should have their independence guaranteed by a statute or constitution.
    • Pluralism: NHRIs should ensure diversity and inclusivity in their staffing and leadership positions.
    • Adequate Resources: NHRIs should have sufficient resources to carry out their mandated functions effectively.
    • Powers of Investigation: NHRIs should possess adequate investigative powers to address human rights violations.

    Background of NHRC-India

    • The NHRC-India was established under the Protection of Human Rights Act enacted by Parliament in 1993.
    • It has held ‘A’ status accreditation since the beginning of the NHRI accreditation process in 1999, which it retained in 2006, 2011, and 2017, despite a previous deferment.
    • This status allows participation in the work and decision-making of GANHRI, the Human Rights Council, and other U.N. mechanisms

    Response from India

    • The NHRC clarified that the deferment by the Sub Committee on Accreditation (SCA) does not affect its current ‘A’ status accreditation and associated privileges.
    • The reaccreditation process is still ongoing, and the SCA has recommended advocating with the government and Parliamentarians for legislative amendments to improve compliance with the Paris Principles.
    • The NHRC assured that they have addressed most of the issues raised by the SCA and will submit a response shortly as part of the ongoing process.

    Way Forward

    To address the concerns raised by GANHRI and human rights organizations, the NHRC-India should take the following steps:

    • Strengthen Independence: Ensure that the NHRC operates independently without political interference, safeguarding its credibility and effectiveness.
    • Promote Diversity: Take measures to enhance diversity in staffing and leadership positions within the NHRC to ensure a broader representation of society.
    • Improve Protection of Marginalized Groups: Develop comprehensive strategies and policies to provide effective protection and support to marginalized communities, religious minorities, and human rights defenders.
    • Address Legislative Amendments: Actively engage with the government and Parliamentarians to advocate for necessary legislative amendments that align with the Paris Principles and enhance compliance with international human rights standards.

    Conclusion

    • By implementing these measures, the NHRC-India can strengthen its functioning, regain the confidence of GANHRI and human rights organizations, and ensure the effective protection of human rights in India.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024

  • Power Struggle in Delhi: Balancing Democracy, Governance, and Accountability

    Power Struggle

    Central Idea

    • In recent times, we have witnessed a significant development in the power struggle between the Delhi government and the Central government. The Supreme Court’s unanimous recognition of the Delhi government’s control over administrative services marked an emancipation of the people’s will. However, the subsequent promulgation of an ordinance by the Central government to nullify the court’s decision has subverted the Delhi government’s power and handed it back to Central government appointees.

    The Delhi government’s struggle for control

    • Stripping of Control: In 2015, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs took away the elected Delhi government’s control over administrative services and handed it to the Lieutenant Governor (LG), an appointee of the Union government. This decision severely impeded the functioning of the Delhi government.
    • Day-to-Day Problems: The transfer of control over services resulted in day-to-day problems in the functioning of important departments. Secretaries were frequently changed, leading to a lack of continuity, vision, and efficiency in governance.
    • Frequent Transfers of Officials: The Delhi government witnessed frequent transfers of officials, hindering their ability to familiarize themselves with the departments they were working in. This constant reshuffling minimized the potential for effective governance and hindered the government’s relief efforts during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Lack of Functional Control: As the elected government had no functional control over services, it faced challenges in punishing errant officers and addressing issues such as vacancies, vigilance enquiries, and corruption cases. The government also witnessed a high number of vacancies in crucial positions due to mismanagement by the Lieutenant Governor.
    • Conflicting Directives: Officials faced a dilemma in following directives as they felt duty-bound to honor the will of the elected government expressed by the people, while also staying under the functional control of the LG. This created confusion and hindered effective decision-making.
    • Lack of Answerability: The Services Department, under the control of the LG, refused to answer questions raised by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in the Vidhan Sabha. This limited transparency and accountability, preventing MLAs from obtaining crucial information related to vacancies, corruption cases, and other issues.
    • Penalization of Officials: Honest and efficient officials were often penalized for their merits and subjected to punishment postings. This created an environment of uncertainty and discouraged officials from performing their duties effectively.

    The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Delhi government’s struggle for control

    • Recognition of Delhi Government’s Control: The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, recognized the control of the Delhi government over administrative services. A five-judge Bench unanimously upheld the government’s authority, ensuring that decisions on appointments and transfers would be made by the elected government.
    • Restoration of Chain of Accountability: The Court’s judgment restored the chain of accountability involving the people, the legislature, the government, and the bureaucracy. It reinforced the principle that elected governments have the power to govern and make decisions regarding the bureaucracy.
    • Empowerment of the Elected Government: The Supreme Court’s decision empowered the elected Delhi government to make appointments and transfers based on performance and merit. It allowed the government to take action against errant officials and implement its policies effectively.
    • Efficient and Compassionate Bureaucracy: The Court’s ruling paved the way for an efficient, honest, responsive, accountable, and compassionate bureaucracy. It provided clarity on the roles and responsibilities of officials, enabling them to work towards the development of Delhi and the welfare of its people.
    • Clarification on Services Department: The Court’s intervention brought clarity regarding the Services Department, which had previously refused to answer questions raised by MLAs in the Vidhan Sabha. The judgment ensured that the elected government had functional control over the department, enabling transparency and answerability.
    • Encouragement for Overhauling the Bureaucracy: The Delhi government, empowered by the Court’s decision, planned to overhaul the bureaucracy. It sought to establish a skilled administration model, leveraging the success of its health and education models.

    The significance of the Supreme Court judgment

    • Upholding Democratic Principles: The Supreme Court judgment recognizing the control of the Delhi government over administrative services upholds democratic principles. It affirms the importance of elected governments in decision-making and governance, ensuring that the will of the people expressed through their votes is respected.
    • Restoration of Accountability: The judgment restores the chain of accountability involving the people, the legislature, the government, and the bureaucracy. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the elected government and the bureaucracy, fostering transparency and answerability.
    • Empowering Elected Government: By recognizing the control of the elected Delhi government, the Court empowers the government to make appointments and transfers based on performance. It enables the government to take action against errant officials and implement its policies effectively, leading to improved governance.
    • Strengthening Good Governance: The judgment paves the way for an efficient, honest, and responsive bureaucracy. It ensures that officials work towards the development of Delhi and the welfare of its people. It promotes vision, consistency, and efficiency in governance, fostering good governance practices

    Impact of the ordinance issued by the Central government on the power dynamics in Delhi

    • Shift of Control: The ordinance has effectively shifted control over services in Delhi back to the Lieutenant Governor (LG), appointed by the Central government. This overturns the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing the control of the elected Delhi government over administrative services. It diminishes the authority of the elected government and centralizes power in the hands of the LG.
    • Undermining Democratic Process: The ordinance undermines the democratic process by disregarding the elected government’s role in matters of services. It reduces the value of the citizen’s vote and weakens the accountability of officers to the elected representatives. This move goes against the principles of cooperative federalism and disempowers opposition-run governments.
    • Disruption of Policy Implementation: The ordinance hampers the implementation of policies and initiatives by the elected government. It allows the LG to exercise sole discretion in matters of services, potentially leading to conflicting views and hindrances in executing the government’s policies. This can result in delays, inefficiencies, and a lack of coordination in governance.
    • Disempowerment of Elected Government: The ordinance disempowers the elected Delhi government by granting the LG significant decision-making powers. It limits the government’s ability to appoint officers who align with its policies and goals, undermining the concept of an accountable and responsive administration.
    • Potential for Discord and Inefficiency: The ordinance introduces the possibility of discord between the LG and the elected government, as the LG can veto the Chief Minister’s views. This can create conflicts and hinder effective decision-making and cooperation between the two entities. The lack of coordination and cooperation can lead to bureaucratic delays, inefficiencies, and an inability to address the needs of the people.
    • Centralization of Power: The ordinance reflects a trend of centralizing power in the hands of the Central government and the LG. It institutionalizes the use of the Governor/LG position to undermine democratically elected non-BJP governments and weaken their authority. This concentration of power challenges the principles of federalism and decentralization.

    Power Struggle

    Facts for prelims

    The constitutional provisions related to the ordinance powers

    • Article 123: It grants the President of India the power to issue ordinances during the recess of Parliament. The President can promulgate ordinances when both Houses of Parliament are not in session if they deem it necessary to take immediate action. The ordinances have the same force and effect as an act of Parliament but must be laid before both Houses for approval.
    • Article 213: It grants similar powers to the Governor of a state to issue ordinances during the recess of the state legislature. The Governor can promulgate ordinances when the state legislature is not in session if they believe it is necessary to take immediate action. Like in the case of the President, the ordinances issued by the Governor must be laid before the state legislature for approval.
    • Article 123(3) and Article 213(3): These provisions require that any ordinance promulgated by the President or the Governor, respectively, must be laid before both Houses of Parliament or the state legislature, as the case may be, as soon as it reconvenes. The ordinance ceases to operate if it is not approved within a specified period or if both Houses pass resolutions disapproving it.
    • Article 213(2)(a): This provision states that an ordinance issued by the Governor will have the same force and effect as an act of the state legislature but is subject to the power of the state legislature to pass an act inconsistent with the ordinance

    The way forward

    • Respect for Judicial Decisions: It is crucial for all stakeholders to respect and abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Upholding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary is essential for a functioning democracy. Any further legal challenges should be pursued through proper legal channels.
    • Dialogue and Collaboration: It is important for the Central government and the elected Delhi government to engage in constructive dialogue and collaboration. Both entities should work towards finding common ground and resolving their differences through discussions and negotiations. This will help establish a cooperative and inclusive approach to governance.
    • Clarity on Roles and Responsibilities: There should be a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor. This will help avoid conflicts and ensure effective coordination in decision-making and policy implementation. Establishing transparent guidelines for the exercise of power and cooperation is essential.
    • Strengthening Cooperative Federalism: Both the Central government and state governments, including the government of Delhi, should uphold the principles of cooperative federalism. This involves respecting the autonomy and authority of elected state governments and promoting meaningful collaboration for the benefit of the people.
    • Effective Governance Mechanisms: Efforts should be made to establish effective governance mechanisms that promote transparency, accountability, and efficiency. This includes streamlining administrative processes, ensuring timely appointments and transfers, and implementing performance-based evaluation systems for officials.
    • Public Participation and Engagement: Engaging the public in decision-making processes and policy formulation can foster a sense of ownership and enhance the quality of governance. Platforms for public participation, such as citizen feedback mechanisms and public consultations, should be established to ensure the voices of the people are heard.
    • Strengthening Institutions: The strengthening of democratic institutions, including the judiciary and administrative bodies, is crucial. Upholding their independence, ensuring merit-based appointments, and promoting professionalism and accountability within these institutions will contribute to effective governance.
    • Focus on Development and Welfare: Irrespective of the power dynamics, the primary focus should be on the development and welfare of the people of Delhi. Efforts should be made to deliver essential services, address pressing issues, and implement policies that cater to the needs and aspirations of the citizens.

    Conclusion

    • The battle for control in Delhi between the elected government and the Central government has witnessed both the emancipation and subversion of the people’s will. It is crucial for all parties involved to prioritize the well-being of the citizens and work together to establish a cooperative and inclusive governance framework. By doing so, Delhi can overcome the challenges posed by the power struggle and strive towards effective governance that caters to the needs and aspirations of its people.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

    Also read:

    Governor’s Constitutional Limits: A Resolution to President

  • Delhi Governance New Ordinance

    ordinance

    Central Idea

    • The central government issued an Ordinance on May 19, overturning a unanimous Supreme Court verdict.
    • The Ordinance grants the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi authority over services, challenging the elected government’s control over officials’ transfer and posting.
    • This raises constitutional concerns about the balance of power between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor.

    Issues with this ordinance

    • The Ordinance bestowed power over services to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
    • It established the “National Capital Civil Service Authority,” consisting of the Chief Minister and two senior IAS officials, to decide matters by majority vote.
    • This provision potentially allows the elected Chief Minister’s viewpoint to be overruled.

    Key issues with the current model of Governance of Delhi

    • Undermining the elected government: The LG, who will be the government, is under no obligation to implement any law passed by the assembly or carry out the directions of the house as he is not responsible to the assembly.
    • Lack of Executive Accountability: The Lieutenant Governor, who is the head of government, is not accountable to the assembly, which undermines the principle of executive accountability.
    • Against the privilege of legislature: Framing the rules to conduct its proceedings is thus a part of the privilege each house of a legislature enjoys.
    • Delay in decision-making: The requirement for LG’s approval for many decisions has led to delays in decision-making, which has impacted the development and governance of the city.
    • Accountability issues: The division of responsibilities between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor has led to difficulties in fixing responsibility for actions and decisions.
    • Against Co-operative Federalism: The Act not only negates cooperative federalism but also upturns the fundamental principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Government of NCT Delhi vs Union of India case (2018).
    • Control over Services Department: Governance has always been a contentious issue since Delhi is not a full state and the Services department comes under the L-G.

    What is Ordinance?

    • Under Article 123 of the Constitution, the President possesses law-making powers through the issuance of ordinances during the recess of Parliament.
    • Article 213 grants the Governor of a state the authority to issue ordinances when the state legislative assembly or either of the two Houses (in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session.
    • However, there are limitations to this authority:
    1. Issuance during Recess: The President can only promulgate an ordinance when one or both Houses of Parliament are not in session.
    2. Immediate Action: An ordinance can only be issued when the President deems it necessary for immediate action.
    3. Justiciability: The President’s intentions to issue ordinances can be subject to judicial review if mala fide intentions are proven.

    Features of Ordinances

    Several characteristics and provisions are associated with ordinances:

    • Retrospective Effect: An ordinance can have a retrospective application, meaning it can be enacted prior to its approval.
    • Nullity during Parliamentary Session: An ordinance issued while Parliament is in session is considered null and void.
    • Time Limit for Approval: An ordinance must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of its reassembly. Failure to do so leads to its expiration.
    • Continuation of Acts and Laws: Acts, laws, and events resulting from the ordinance remain in effect until its expiration.
    • Limits on Legislative Authority: Ordinances can only be passed on subjects within the legislative competence of the Indian Parliament.
    • Protection of Fundamental Rights: Ordinances cannot be used to revoke the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Their enforcement would render them null and void if both Houses pass a resolution opposing them.

    Issues with the Ordinances

    The use of ordinances has raised concerns regarding their potential misuse and circumvention of democratic processes. Some key concerns are:

    • Bypassing the Legislature: Deliberate bypassing of the legislature to avoid debate and deliberation on contentious legislative proposals undermines democratic principles.
    • Repromulgation of Ordinances: Repromulgation without placing the ordinance before the legislature subverts democratic legislative processes and the separation of powers.
    • Presidential Satisfaction: The satisfaction of the President as a requirement for issuing an ordinance provides scope for potential misuse.
    • Ignoring Supreme Court’s Judgments: Instances of ordinances being promulgated despite Supreme Court judgments highlighting their conditional and exceptional nature raise concerns about adherence to constitutional principles.

    Judicial Safeguards to avoid re-promulgation of ordinances

    1. Supreme Court in RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) held that the President’s decision to promulgate ordinance could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required, and the ordinance had been issued primarily to bypass debate and discussion in the legislature.
    2. It was argued in DC Wadhwa vs. the State of Bihar (1987) that the legislative power of the executive to promulgate ordinances is to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law-making power of the legislature.
    3. Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh v. the State of Bihar held that the authority to issue ordinances is not an absolute entrustment, but is “conditional upon satisfaction that circumstances exist rendering it necessary to take immediate action”.

    Way ahead

    • Every ordinance issued must be laid before both the Houses of Parliament or state legislature within six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament or state legislature and it ceases to exist if it is not approved within six weeks of reassembly.
    • 44th Constitutional Amendment has reiterated that the satisfaction of the President to promulgate ordinance could be challenged in case an ‘immediate action’ was not required.
    • Our Constitution has provided for the separation of powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary where enacting laws is the function of the legislature.
    • The executive must show self-restraint and should use ordinance making power only in unforeseen or urgent matters and not to evade legislative scrutiny and debates.

    Conclusion

    • The recent Ordinance and its constitutional implications highlight the need for a balanced distribution of powers between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor in Delhi.
    • It is essential to uphold democratic principles and ensure that legislative functions are carried out by the appropriate constitutional authorities.
    • A comprehensive review of the governance framework in Delhi may be necessary to address these concerns and ensure effective and harmonious governance in the capital city.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024

  • In news: Krishna Water Dispute

    krishna

    Central Idea

    • The dispute over the water share of the Krishna River between Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Telangana has remained unresolved for nine years since the bifurcation of the combined state.

    About Krishna River

    Explanation
    Origin Mahabaleshwar, Maharashtra
    Length Approximately 1,400 km
    States swept Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh
    Tributaries Tungabhadra, Bhima, Ghataprabha, Malaprabha, Musi
    Significance Irrigation, hydropower, drinking water
    Basin Approximately 2,59,000 sq km
    Dams Srisailam, Nagarjuna Sagar, Almatti, Koyna
    Delta Forms fertile delta in Bay of Bengal

     

    What is Krishna Water Dispute?

    • The dispute dates back to the formation of AP in November 1956.
    • Before the formation of AP, a Gentlemen’s Agreement was signed in February 1956 by four senior leaders from different regions of Andhra.
    • The agreement aimed to protect Telangana’s interests and ensure equitable distribution of water resources based on global treaties.
    • However, the focus on irrigation facilities favored Andhra, which had existing systems developed by the British at the expense of drought-prone areas in Telangana.

    Resolution achieved till now

    (1) Bachawat tribunal

    • In 1969, the Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I) was established to settle the water share dispute among Maharashtra, Karnataka, and AP (before bifurcation).
    • The Tribunal allocated 811 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of dependable water to AP.
    • The water was later divided in a 512:299 tmcft ratio between Andhra and Telangana, respectively, based on the command area developed by each region.
    • The Tribunal recommended diverting water from the Tungabhadra Dam to the drought-prone Mahabubnagar area of Telangana, but this recommendation was not implemented, leading to discontent.

    (2) Water-sharing arrangement after bifurcation

    • The AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, did not mention water shares, as the KWDT-I Award was still in force and had not specified region-wise allocations.
    • In 2015, the two states agreed to an ad hoc arrangement of sharing water in a 34:66 ratio (Telangana: Andhra) during a meeting convened by the Ministry of Water Resources.
    • The arrangement was supposed to be reviewed annually.
    • The Act focused on the establishment of the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB) for water resource management.

    Claims by each state

    • Telangana argues that it is entitled to a minimum of 70% share in the allocation of the 811 tmcft based on global practices and basin parameters.
    • Telangana highlights how AP diverts around 300 tmcft of water from within the basin, affecting drought-prone areas in Telangana.
    • AP also claims a higher share of water to protect the interests of already developed command areas.

    Centre’s position

    • The Centre convened two meetings of the Apex Council in 2016 and 2020, involving the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of Telangana and AP, but no substantial progress was made.
    • In 2020, following a suggestion by the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), Telangana withdrew its petition from the Supreme Court with the assurance that the matter would be referred to a Tribunal.
    • However, the Centre has not taken any action on the issue for over two years, while the two states continue to engage in ongoing disputes.

    Way Forward

    Considering the prolonged dispute and the failure to reach a resolution, it is crucial for all stakeholders to take proactive steps. The following measures could be considered:

    • Mediation: Appoint an independent body or mediator to facilitate negotiations between the two states and assist in finding a fair and mutually agreeable solution.
    • Scientific assessment: Conduct a comprehensive scientific assessment of the basin parameters, water requirements, and the impact of existing water utilization practices to inform the allocation of water shares.
    • Public awareness: Raise public awareness about the importance of water conservation, efficient utilization, and sustainable practices to reduce the overall demand for water resources.
    • Implementation of recommendations: Act upon the recommendations of previous tribunals and committees to ensure equitable distribution of water resources and address the grievances of both states.
    • More deliberations: Foster a spirit of cooperation and collaboration between AP and Telangana to jointly manage and sustainably utilize the Krishna River water resources for the benefit of both regions.

    It is crucial for the central government to play an active role in facilitating dialogue, providing necessary support, and expediting the resolution process to ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024

  • Freedom of Speech the ‘Bulwark’ of Democracy: Andhra HC

    Central Idea: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has overturned a Government Order (GO) issued by the state government that aimed to regulate public meetings, processions, and assemblies on roads.

    Key takeaways of the ruling

    • The court held that the right to assemble, protest peacefully, and express one’s opinion freely was a precious freedom.
    • It emphasized that this freedom should not be curtailed based on unproven assertions made by government officials.
    • The court reiterated that freedom of speech was considered the foremost among liberties and was crucial for democracy.
    • It stated that such a precious freedom should not be left to the unrestricted discretion of any individual.

    AP move regulating Public Assembly

    • The GO sought to regulate public meetings and assemblies on roads, roadsides, and margins.
    • The state government argued that the regulations were necessary to address fatal accidents and ensure smooth traffic flow.
    • Sections 30, 30A, and 31 of the Police Act, 1861 were cited as the basis for the directions under the GO.

    High Court’s decision and reasoning

    • The court set aside the GO, ruling that it imposed a ban on all meetings on public highways and roads.
    • It stated that accidents or incidents at specific locations should not result in a total restriction on the right to assemble or conduct processions on other roads.
    • The court suggested studying the causes of incidents and issuing guidelines to prevent their recurrence rather than imposing broad restrictions.

    Upholding the Right to Assembly

    • The court asserted that the right to assemble, protest peacefully, and express opinions freely is a fundamental freedom that cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
    • Freedom of speech is regarded as a crucial pillar of democracy and must not be subject to unfettered discretion.
    • The court deemed the power conferred by the GO as excessive, arbitrary, and failing the test of proportionality.

    Reference: 2018 SC Ruling on Peaceful Assembly

    • The court referred to the guidelines laid down in the Supreme Court’s ruling in “Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018).”
    • The guidelines regulate protests and demonstrations, recognizing the right to peaceful assembly while allowing reasonable restrictions.
    • The ruling includes provisions on the number of participants, minimum distances from important locations, and restrictions during visits by foreign dignitaries.

    Back2Basics: Right to Assemble

    • The right to assemble in India refers to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
    • It grants individuals the freedom to peacefully assemble, protest, and hold public meetings or processions.
    • This right allows citizens to come together to express their views, opinions, and grievances collectively in a public setting.
    • It is an essential aspect of democracy, enabling citizens to engage in peaceful activism, raise awareness about social issues, and participate in public discourse.
    • However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this right in the interest of public order, morality, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

     

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!