💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • 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.

  • Money Bills vs Finance Bills: What are the differences, what the court has ruled

    What’s the news?

    • The recent discussions over the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill have brought to light an important constitutional question – Is it a Money Bill or an Ordinary Bill? The distinction between these two types of bills holds significant implications for the legislative process and decision-making.

    Central Idea

    • In a recent statement, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi clarified that the DPDP Bill is a regular Bill and not a Money Bill. This clarification comes against the backdrop of earlier reports suggesting that the Bill was being introduced under Article 117 of the Constitution, which deals with special provisions for Finance Bills.

    What is a Finance Bill?

    1. Definition: A Finance Bill is a type of Financial Bill that relates to revenue or expenditure matters.
    2. Money Bill Criteria: A Finance Bill becomes a Money Bill when it exclusively deals with matters specified in Article 110(1)(a) to (g) of the Constitution.
    • Classification of Finance Bills
    1. Category 1: Financial Bills related to Article 110(1)(a) to (f):
      • Introduced or moved only on the President’s recommendation.
      • Cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
      • Examples: Money Bills and other Financial Bills originating solely in the Lok Sabha.
    2. Category 2: Financial Bills related to other matters (Article 110(1)(g)):
      • Similar to ordinary Bills.
      • Require the President’s recommendation if they involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India.
      • It can be introduced in the Rajya Sabha, amended by it, or deliberated by both Houses in a joint sitting.

    Money Bill Requirements

    • Exclusivity: A Money Bill must exclusively deal with matters specified in Article 110(1)(a) to (g).
    • Certification: A Money Bill must be certified by the Speaker.

    Preconditions for a Financial Bill to become a money bill

    • Introduction: Must be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and not in the Rajya Sabha, as per Article 117(1) of the Constitution.
    • President’s Recommendation: Can only be introduced on the President’s recommendation, as per Article 117(1) of the Constitution.

    Key Differences between Finance Bills and Money Bills

    • Scope: Finance Bills cover general revenue and expenditure matters, while Money Bills exclusively address specific matters listed in Article 110(1)(a) to (g).
    • Introduction: Finance Bills can be introduced in either House, but Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha.
    • President’s Recommendation: Finance Bills require the President’s recommendation if they involve expenditure, while Money Bills always require the President’s recommendation.
    • Rajya Sabha’s Role: The Rajya Sabha can discuss and recommend amendments for Finance Bills, but its role is limited for Money Bills. The Lok Sabha can reject the Rajya Sabha’s recommendations for Money Bills.

    Important Legal Perspective

    • 2017 Finance Act:
    • In November 2019, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, struck down amendments to the 2017 Finance Act passed as a Money Bill.
    • The court directed the formulation of fresh norms for appointing tribunal members and raised questions about the correct interpretation of Article 110. The matter was referred to a seven-judge bench.
    • 2016 Aadhaar Act:
    • The Supreme Court also expressed doubts over its 2018 verdict upholding the 2016 Aadhaar Act, which was passed as a Money Bill.
    • Review petitions regarding the Aadhaar Act are still pending before the court.

    Conclusion

    • The distinction between Money Bills and Financial Bills is essential for understanding the legislative process and the powers of the two Houses of Parliament. The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and upholding the constitutional validity of various Bills remains critical to ensuring a robust and accountable legislative framework.

  • Post-1957, President retains power to scrap Article 370: Supreme Court

    Central Idea

    • The Supreme Court deliberated on the President’s power to declare Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to J&K, inoperative after the dissolution of the State’s Constituent Assembly in 1957.
    • The court questioned whether the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution nullifies the substantive part of Clause 3 in Article 370.
    • Senior counsel argued that Article 370 cannot be revoked after the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution, but the court questioned the extent of the President’s powers.

    Also read:

    [Burning Issue] Reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir

    Historical Context of Article 370

    • The Constituent Assembly of J&K was a temporary body convened for drafting the State’s Constitution, becoming functus officio after its completion.
    • Article 370 was considered “temporary” because it allowed the people of J&K to determine their Constitution and the jurisdiction of Union of India.
    • The collaborative relationship between the Union and J&K, with constant dialogue and parliamentary laws applying to J&K through Constitution Orders, was disrupted by the abrogation of special constitutional status in 2019.

    Contentions raised against A370 Revocation

    • Constituent Assembly’s Role: The provision requiring the J&K Constituent Assembly’s recommendation for abrogation has no application, given its specific purpose was to draft the State’s Constitution.
    • Impact on Democracy: The argument raised concerns about silencing the people’s will in J&K, where representative democracy had been absent for five years. The State’s unique relationship with India was emphasized.
    • Parliament’s Authority: The counsel questioned Parliament’s authority to declare itself the legislature of J&K and abrogate Article 370, asserting that Parliament could not act outside the Constitution.
    • Temporary Provision: It was clarified that Article 370 was mentioned as a “temporary” provision because it allowed the people of J&K to determine their future through their Constituent Assembly.

    Conclusion

    • The Supreme Court’s examination of the President’s power over Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution raises significant questions about the unique constitutional structure and the collaboration between the Union and J&K.
    • The verdict will determine whether Article 370 remains operative and its implications on the historical relationship between the State and the Union.

  • What is No-Confidence Motion?

    Central Idea

    • Opposition parties belonging to the new Alliance INDIA plan to move a no-confidence motion against the government to force the PM to speak on Manipur unrest.

    Motion of No-Confidence

    • In the Indian parliamentary system, a motion of no-confidence plays a crucial role in assessing the government’s strength and accountability.
    • This motion allows opposition parties or any member to express their lack of confidence in the Council of Ministers, leading to a significant political event.

    Procedure for No-Confidence Motion:

    • Rule 198: The procedure for a no-confidence motion is laid down under Rule 198 of the rules of procedure and conduct of the Lok Sabha.
    • Absence of Grounds: Such does not require specific grounds to be mentioned in the motion, and even if mentioned, these grounds do not form part of the motion.
    • Lok Sabha Exclusive: It can only be moved in the Lok Sabha and not in the Rajya Sabha.
    • Written Notice: Any member of the Lok Sabha can move a no-confidence motion by providing a written notice before 10 am.
    • Acceptance and Discussion: For the motion to be accepted, a minimum of 50 members must support it. Once accepted, the Speaker announces the date for the motion’s discussion within 10 days.
    • Voting: Voting can be conducted through a voice vote, division vote (using electronic gadgets, slips, or a ballot box), or a secret ballot vote.

    Implications of Voting

    • Majority Decision: Following the vote, the side with the majority determines the motion’s outcome.
    • Speaker’s Role: In the event of a tie, the Speaker casts the deciding vote to resolve the impasse.

    Outcomes

    • Government Resignation: If the government fails to prove its majority in the House, it is obligated to resign from power.
    • Political Impact: A successful no-confidence motion can lead to significant political changes and reshuffling of the government.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q. Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India:

    1. There is no mention of a No-Confidence Motion in the Constitution of India.
    2. A Motion of No-Confidence can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”wqb9321gz5″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

  • Child, law, and consensual sex

    What’s the news?

    • The recent High Court decisions have brought to the forefront the complexities surrounding consent and the age of consent under POCSO.

    Central Idea

    • In recent months, several High Courts have either quashed FIRs or acquitted accused persons under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, citing consensual sex as the reason. These decisions raise critical questions about the interpretation of consent and the age of consent, necessitating a thorough examination to ensure the best interests of the child.

    Defining consent and the age of consent

    • Consent:
    • In the context of sexual relationships, consent is an explicit and voluntary agreement between individuals to engage in sexual activity. It must be given without any form of coercion, manipulation, or pressure.
    • The concept of consent is crucial in promoting healthy and respectful relationships and preventing sexual misconduct.
    • Age of Consent:
    • The age of consent is a legal designation that specifies the minimum age at which an individual is considered capable of providing informed and lawful consent to engage in sexual activities.
    • In the case of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years.
    • Acts of penetrative sexual assault committed on children are considered criminal offenses under this act, regardless of their consent.

    Recent High Court decisions regarding cases related to the POCSO Act

    • Delhi High Court (July 12): The court granted bail to a 25-year-old accused, reasoning that the 15-year-old girl had eloped with him on her own and did not support the prosecution’s claim of sexual assault.
    • Bombay High Court (July 10): The court quashed the conviction of a 25-year-old man under POCSO, stating that he had engaged in consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl. The girl had terminated her pregnancy after the accused was arrested.
    • Madras High Court (July 7): The court quashed an FIR registered under POCSO and all related criminal proceedings. Furthermore, it directed the Director General of Police to produce reports of all such pending cases before the Court.
    • Madhya Pradesh High Court (June 27): The court quashed an FIR registered under POCSO and all criminal proceedings, stating that the sexual relationship was consensual. The judgment did not mention the age of the accused, who happened to be the coach of the victim. Additionally, the Court recommended that the Indian government consider reducing the age of consent of the prosecutrix from 18 to 16 years.

    Challenges and concerns over the recent High Court decisions

    • Interpretation of Consent: One of the significant challenges lies in the interpretation of consent in cases involving minors. While the age of consent is legally defined as 18 years in India under POCSO, some High Courts acquitted accused individuals based on the premise of consensual sex, even when the victims were below the age of 18.
    • Age Disparity: In some of the cases, there was a considerable age difference between the prosecutrix (the victim) and the accused. Despite this age disparity, the courts did not take it into account while delivering their judgments.
    • Deterrence Factor: The harsh minimum imprisonment terms under POCSO for sexual offenses against minors, such as 10 years and 20 years for penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, respectively, may have influenced the reluctance of courts to convict accused individuals in consensual sex cases.
    • Legal Presumption: POCSO includes a mandatory legal presumption in favor of the victims. However, in some of the recent judgments, the High Courts did not consider this presumption, leading to questions about the application of the law in protecting the interests of the child victims.
    • Child Welfare: The primary objective of POCSO is to safeguard children from sexual offenses, irrespective of consent. The recent decisions have sparked debates about whether these judgments truly serve the best interests of the child, or if they may unintentionally undermine the protective intent of the law.
    • Need for Judicial Consistency: Inconsistencies in judgments by different High Courts create uncertainty in the legal system. Ensuring consistency in interpreting the law is essential for upholding the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ and maintaining public trust in the justice system.

    Role of the Supreme Court in resolving the discrepancies

    • As reducing the age of consent falls under the jurisdiction of Parliament, the Supreme Court must play a crucial role in resolving the discrepancies between the laid-down law and the various interpretations by different High Courts.
    • This is particularly relevant given the Supreme Court’s previous judgment in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) wherein it held that even sexual intercourse with a minor wife is rape

    Steps to address these gaps quickly

    • Analyze Cases: The Bureau of Police Research and Development should analyze cases of consensual sex, age-wise, across different states. This analysis can help the Central government make informed decisions regarding the age of consent and its potential reduction.
    • Reduce Harsh Minimum Imprisonment: The minimum imprisonment terms for sexual offenses under POCSO should be re-evaluated. Instead of acting as a benefit to the accused, the punishment should act as a deterrent and ensure justice for child victims.
    • Judicial Leeway in Age of Consent: Consider granting some leeway to the judiciary in interpreting consent in cases where the victim is of lower age based on the child’s understanding of consequences. This would allow for a more nuanced approach to cases involving minors.
    • Uphold the Best Interest of the Child: The ‘Best Interests of the Child’ principle should be a guiding factor in all decisions related to POCSO cases. The welfare and well-being of the child victims should be the paramount consideration.
    • Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court must intervene promptly to address the gap between the laid down law and the different interpretations by the High Courts. Its role is crucial in ensuring consistency and uniformity in the application of the law.
    • Legislative Review: The Parliament should consider reviewing the age of consent in light of the recent High Court decisions and expert analyses. Any potential reduction in the age of consent should be done thoughtfully, with the ‘Best Interests of the Child’ as the primary concern.
    • Public Awareness: Launch public awareness campaigns to educate the public about the importance of protecting children from sexual offenses and the legal rights of child victims.
    • Specialized Training: Provide specialized training to judges, prosecutors, and lawyers on child protection laws and the Best Interests of the Child principle to enhance their understanding of the unique needs and vulnerabilities of child victims

    Conclusion

    • Striking a balance between protecting children from sexual assault and considering their understanding of consent is essential. It is imperative for the Supreme Court and the legislature to address this issue promptly to ensure the welfare and safety of children across the country.

    Also read:

    Reviewing the Age of Consent Under POCSO Act