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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Critical Analysis of EWS Reservation

    EWS

    Context

    • Shortly after the Supreme Court on Monday, 7 November, upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, which introduced 10 percent reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutions, Tamil Nadu’s DMK termed the split verdict a ‘setback’ to a century-old fight for social justice.

    What is the idea of reservation?

    • Based on historical injustice: Reservation is intrinsically linked to the historical injustice meted out to Shudras and Dalits.
    • Reservation for egalitarian society: It was during the anti-caste movement that the idea of reservation came up as a way for an egalitarian social order, to ensure fair representation in the socio-political order, and to mitigate and compensate for the inhuman exclusion of humans based on ascriptive status.
    • Equal participation in nation building: Reservation is implemented in politics, education and public employment so that all those in the hierarchy can participate in nation-building on equal terms.
    • Reservation is not a poverty alleviation: R. Ambedkar and E.V. Ramasamy ‘Periyar’ spoke about reservation as a means of providing representation; not as a poverty alleviation programme.

    Reasoning behind granting reservation based on social status

    • Historical benefits to upper caste: Merit is often the mantra used against the idea and implementation of reservation. Historically, Brahmins had the monopoly in offering sacrifice, receiving gifts, becoming priests, spiritual mentorship, and teaching.
    • Monopoly over resources: Vaishyas had the monopoly in wealth-generating professions. These monopolies were rooted in, and buttressed by, the authority of scriptures like the Manusmriti and treatises like the Arthasashtra.
    • Monopoly over the education: The top three Varnas had access to learning. In the colonial era, under the progressive pressures of modernization and democratization, the traditional monopolies based on caste order were diffused into the secular domains of bureaucracy, legal practice, professorship, etc.
    • Upper caste reservation in certain professions: Leaders professing equality, such as Jyotirao Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar, wanted to annihilate the arbitrary reservation for certain professions, being implemented based on fanciful mythical stories.
    • Democratization of employment and education: Essentially, the mission was to ‘de-reserve’ education and employment opportunities from a handful of castes to make them available to the remaining castes which were aspiring to be a part of the newly independent nation.
    • Idea of Merit to oppose the reservation: The merit mantra was very effective at stopping, or at least stalling, the ‘de-reservation’ process. But when the bill for EWS reservation was passed hastily in Parliament in 2019, there was no concern for merit.

    EWS

    How categorization of poor under EWS is unfair?

    • The bar of 8 Lakh is absurd: Individuals from upper caste communities who earn up to ₹8 lakh a year and may own a 1,000-square feet home are being called economically weak.
    • Poverty estimation: In India, more than 30 crore citizens have been classified as being below the poverty line (spending less than ₹32 a day in urban areas and under ₹27 a day in rural areas).
    • Lower caste forms the majority of Poor: Data from India (overall) as well as individual States show that Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have a higher share of poor people than upper castes in both urban and rural India.
    • Different income criteria for different community: We now live in a country where a household earning more than ₹75 per day is considered above the poverty line, while an upper caste household earning ₹2,222 a day is considered economically weak. According to the Department of Revenue data, households earning more than ₹10 lakh constitute less than 1% of India’s population.

    EWS

    Credibility of Data for EWS reservation was never questioned

    • Mandal commission data was critically analyzed: In the 1990s, renowned scholars from privileged communities viciously attacked the Mandal Commission claiming that it lacked credible data. In fact, the Mandal Commission report was based on official data curated from the Censuses of 1891 and 1931.
    • No credible data for EWS reservation: Further, B.P. Mandal formulated his concept of ‘backwardness’ by factoring in the social, educational and economic dimensions of different caste communities. But now, neither justification nor credible data has been presented while arguing that 10% reservation must be provided for the upper caste poor.
    • EWS reservation is equating the unequal’s: The Mandal Commission report said, “To equate unequal’s is to perpetuate inequality”. By giving the go-ahead for the EWS quota, Supreme Court has equated unequal’s in the category of affirmative action.
    • More privilege to already privileged community: The EWS quota is unfair because it twists the idea of social justice by bequeathing further privilege to communities who are historically situated to benefit from the oppressive caste system.

    Other criticism of EWS reservation?

    • SC/ST and OBC are outside the EWS reservation: A Dalit or an OBC who does not get a job within this quota still belongs to the EWS, but he is excluded. That is the Constitutional issue, which you have to answer. How have you excluded them, how have you excluded the poor, how have you excluded those who earn only 20,000 a month who do not get jobs amongst the Dalits?
    • Disturbing the basic structure: The government of tinkering with the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
    • Ultimate goal is removal of reservation: Government basically testing the waters and this will pave the way for the removal of caste-based reservation.
    • Opening the lid for further reservation: There is demand that government should raise the existing reservation cap for SC, OBC and minorities in line with their proportion in the population now since a decision has been taken to break the 50 per cent ceiling set by the top court.

    Conclusion

    • It is true that historically reservation is based social inequalities. Despite having the good credentials and marks upper caste or open categories were denied jobs. Justice to upper castes is not the injustice to lower castes. This is against the principal of natural justice. However exclusion of SC/ST and OBC from EWS category is certainly a matter of debate.

    Mains Question

    Q. What is the Ambedkar’s idea of reservation? Critically analyze the EWS reservation upheld by supreme court.

    Click and Get your FREE copy of Current Affairs Micro notes

  • Hate speech

    Former Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman has said civil suits against hate speech leading to the award of punitive damages should be taken up by courts.

    What did the ex-Judge say?

    • He described the Fundamental Duty of fraternity (Article 51A(5)) as the only Constitutional method of assuring the dignity of every citizen and the unity and integrity of the nation.
    • The cardinal principle of fraternity prescribed that every citizen honoured the other citizen in the spirit of brotherhood, transcending religious, sectarian, and other tendencies.
    • He opined that civil suits like defamation being dealt with fines would be more efficient in curbing hate speeches against individuals.

    Article 51A(5): Promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

    What is ‘Hate Speech?

    • There is no specific legal definition of ‘hate speech’.
    • The Law Commission of India, in its 267th Report, says: “Hate speech generally is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like …
    • Thus, hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.”
    • In general, hate speech is considered a limitation on free speech that seeks to prevent or bar speech that exposes a person or a group or section of society to hate, violence, ridicule or indignity.

    How is it treated in Indian law?

    • Provisions in law criminalize speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups and these are understood to refer to ‘hate speech’.
    • Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code are generally taken to be the main penal provisions that deal with inflammatory speeches and expressions that seek to punish ‘hate speech’.

    [I] Section 153A:

    • Promotion of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony’, is an offence punishable with three years’ imprisonment.

    [II] Section 505:

    • 505(1): Statements conducing to public mischief– The statement, publication, report or rumour that is penalized under Section 505(1) should be one that promotes mutiny by the armed forces, or causes such fear or alarm that people are induced to commit an offence against the state or public tranquillity. This attracts a jail term of up to three years.
    • 505(2): It is an offence to make statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.
    • 505(3): Same offence will attract up to a five-year jail term if it takes place in a place of worship, or in any assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.

    Why curb hate speeches?

    • Creates social divide: Individuals believe in stereotypes that are ingrained in their minds and these stereotypes lead them to believe that a class or group of persons are inferior to them and as such cannot have the same rights as them.
    • Threat to peaceful co-existence: The stubbornness to stick to a particular ideology without caring for the right to co-exist peacefully adds further fuel to the fire of hate speech.

    Issues in regulating hate speech

    • Powers to State: Almost every regulation of speech, no matter how well-intentioned, increases the power of the state.
    • Hate speeches are Political: The issue is fundamentally political and we should not pretend that fine legal distinctions will solve the issue.
    • Legal complications: An over-reliance on legal instruments to solve fundamental social and political problems often backfires.

    Way forward

    • Subjects like hate speeches become a complex issue to deal with, in a country like India which is very diverse, as it was very difficult to differentiate between free and hate speech.
    • There are many factors that should be considered while restraining speeches like strong opinions, offensive comments towards certain communities, the effect on values like dignity, liberty and equality.
    • We all have to work together and communicate efficiently for our country to be a healthy place to live in.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

  • Jharkhand wants new quota Bill placed in Ninth Schedule

    The Jharkhand assembly on Friday cleared two bills, one fixing land records of 1932 as the basis for a domicile in the state and another to increase reservation in state government jobs across categories to 77%

    What is the news?

    • Though both these bills were cleared unanimously, they would come into effect only after the Centre includes them in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
    • A law in the Ninth Schedule is shielded from judicial review.

    Why the need to include in Ninth Schedule?

    • The 77 per cent reservation breaches the 50 per cent ceiling set by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1992 Indra Sawhney v Union of India verdict.
    • However, placing legislation in the Ninth Schedule shields it from judicial scrutiny.

    What is the Ninth Schedule?

    • The Ninth Schedule contains a list of central and state laws which cannot be challenged in courts.
    • Most of the laws protected under the Schedule concern agriculture/land issues.
    • The Schedule became a part of the Constitution in 1951, when the document was amended for the first time.
    • It was created by the new Article 31B, which along with 31A was brought in by the government to protect laws related to agrarian reform and for abolishing the Zamindari system.
    • While A. 31A extends protection to ‘classes’ of laws, A. 31B shields specific laws or enactments.

    How many laws are there in ninth schedule?

    • Currently, 284 such laws are shielded from judicial review.
    • The First Amendment added 13 laws to the Schedule. Subsequent amendments in 1955, 1964, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1984, 1990, 1994, and 1999 have taken the number of protected laws to 284.

    Previous instances — Tamil Nadu’s case

    • A Tamil Nadu Law of 1993, reserves 69 per cent of the seats in colleges and jobs in the state government.
    • When it ran into legal obstacles in the 1990s after the SC verdict, the then CM led a delegation to New Delhi to meet the then PM PV Narasimha Rao.
    • The reservation provision was then included in the Ninth Schedule.

    Nature of exemption from Judicial Review

    • While the Ninth Schedule provides the law with a “safe harbour” from judicial review, the protection is not blanket.
    • The Tamil Nadu law was challenged in 2007 in the I R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu
    • The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous nine-judge verdict that while laws placed under Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
    • They can be challenged on the ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution, said the apex court.

    Verdict of the IR Coelho Case

    • The IR Coelho verdict said, “A law that abrogates or abridges rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution may violate the basic structure doctrine or it may not.
    • If former is the consequence of law, whether by amendment of any Article of Part III or by an insertion in the Ninth Schedule, such law will have to be invalidated in exercise of judicial review power of the Court.”

     

    What is the 1973 deadline about?

    • The court clarified that the laws cannot escape the “basic structure” test if inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 1973.
    • As it was in 1973 that the basic structure test was evolved in the Kesavananda Bharati case as the ultimate test to examine the constitutional validity of laws.

     

    (Click) FREE1-to-1 on-call Mentorship by IAS-IPS officers | Discuss doubts, strategy, sources, and more

  • Back in news: Supreme Court Collegium

    The Supreme Court has lambasted the Centre for withholding names recommended or reiterated by the collegium for judicial appointments, even saying that the government is using silence and inaction as “some sort of a device” to force worthy candidates and prominent lawyers to withdraw their consent.

    Why in news?

    • The Union Law Minister since few months has launched a relentless attack on the collegium system for lack of transparency.

    What exactly is the Collegium System?

    • The collegium system was born out of years of friction between the judiciary and the executive.
    • The hostility was further accentuated by instances of court-packing (the practice of changing the composition of judges in a court), mass transfer of HC judges and two supersessions to the office of the CJI in the 1970s.
    • The Three Judges cases saw the evolution of the collegium system.

    Evolution: The Judges Cases

    • First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
    • However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
    • Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
    • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the Supreme Court.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    How does the collegium system work?

    • The collegium of the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court make recommendations for appointments to the apex court and High Courts.
    • The collegium can veto the government if the names are sent back by the latter for reconsideration.
    • The basic tenet behind the collegium system is that the judiciary should have primacy over the government in matters of appointments and transfers in order to remain independent.

    The procedure followed by the Collegium

    Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
    • As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
    • In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

    Other SC Judges

    • For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

    For High Courts

    • The CJs of High Courts are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
    • High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

    • Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
    • Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
    • When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
    • In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
    • However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
    • All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

    Loopholes in the Collegium system

    • Lack of Transparency: Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • Judges appointing Judge: The attempt made to replace it with a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
    • Criteria: Some do not believe in full disclosure of reasons for transfers, as it may make lawyers in the destination court chary of the transferred judge. It has even been accused of nepotism.

    Way ahead

    • In respect of appointments, there has been an acknowledgment that the “zone of consideration” must be expanded to avoid criticism that many appointees hail from families of retired judges.
    • The status of a proposed new memorandum of procedure, to infuse greater accountability, is also unclear.
    • Even the majority of opinions admitted the need for transparency, now Collegiums’ resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

  • SC orders release of all convicts in Ex-PM Assassin Case

    sc

    The Supreme Court has ordered for the immediate release of six convicts who are serving life sentence for more than three decades in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

    What is the news?

    • The Bench referred to the case of their former co-convict G. Perarivalan, who was granted premature release by the apex court this year in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

    What does Pardon mean?

    • A pardon is a government/executive decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense as if the act never occurred.

    Why need a Pardon?

    • Pardons can be granted when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have “paid their debt to society”, or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them.
    • Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted.
    • Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted.

    What does Article 161 say?

    • Article 161 of the Constitution provides the Governor with the power to remit or commute the sentence of any prisoner.
    • The Governor’s decision will be subject to judicial review by the constitutional courts.
    • The advice of the State Cabinet is binding on the Governor in matters relating to commutation/remission of sentences under Article 161.

    Why did the Supreme Court intervene here?

    • In its judgment in the Perarivalan case in May, the apex court had held that the State Cabinet’s advice was binding on the Governor under Article 161 (Governor’s power of clemency) of the Constitution.
    • The Governor had no business forwarding the pardon pleas to the President after sitting on it for years together.

    Back2Basics: Article 142

    • Article 142 provides discretionary power to the Supreme Court.
    • It states that the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
    • Such decree shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament.
    • It is usually used in cases involving human rights and environmental protection.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

  • Consulting the CM Over the Appointment of The Governor

    Appointment

    Context

    • With the rise in instances of tension, and even standoffs, between State governments and Governors, there is once again a debate on the role of the Raj Bhavan and conduct of Governors, the relation of Governors with the Centre and State government, and whether Chief Ministers should have a say in the appointment of Governors in their respective States.

    Role and responsibilities of governor

    1. Executive Powers:
    • Nominal Head of the government: These powers are exercised by the council of ministers in the name of Governor. Hence Governor is only nominal head and council of ministers is the real executive.
    • Head of the state: He is the constitutional head of the state who appoints the leader of majority party as chief minister. He can seek any information from the chief minister. He appoints the advocate general, chairman and members of the respective state public commission.
    • Can recommend the emergency: He can recommend the imposition of constitutional emergency in a state to the President. During the period of President’s rule in a state, the governor enjoys extensive executive powers as an agent of the President.
    1. Legislative Powers:
    • He is part of state legislative.
    • No bill can become a law until the governor signs it.
    • He can withhold a bill and send it to the President for consideration.
    • He can dissolve the State Assembly before the expiry of its term on the advice of the Chief Minister or as directed by the President.
    • He causes the annual Budget to be presented in the Vidhan Sabha.
    1. Judicial Powers:
    • The governor appoints the district judges.
    • He is consulted in the appointment of the judges of the High Court by the President
    • He can, pardon, remit and commute the sentence of a person convicted by a state court.
    1. Financial Powers:
    • He causes the annual budget to be laid before the Vidhan Sabha;
    • No money bill can be introduced without his prior approval.
    1. Discretionary Powers:
    • Selection of CM: If no party gets an absolute majority, the Governor can use his discretion in the selection of the Chief Minister;
    • Real executive of state: During an emergency he can override the advice of the council of ministers. At such times, he acts as an agent of the President and becomes the real ruler of the state;
    • Report to president: He uses his direction in submitting a report to the President regarding the affairs of the state; and
    • Withhold the assent: He can withhold his assent to a bill and send it to the President for his approval.

    Appointment

    Sarkaria commission’s recommendation on the role of governor

    • Chief minister should be involved in appointment: The powers of the President in the matter of selection and appointment of Governors should not be diluted. However, the Governor of a State should be appointed by the President only after consultation with the Chief Minister of that State. Normally the five-year term should be adhered to and removal or transfer should be by following a similar procedure as for appointment i.e., after consultation with the Chief Minister of the concerned State.
    • Governor should convey assent or dissent in time: There should be a time-limit say a period of six months within which the Governor should take a decision whether to grant assent or to reserve a Bill for consideration of the President. If the Bill is reserved for consideration of the President, there should be a time-limit, say of three months, within which the President should take a decision whether to accord his assent or to direct the Governor to return it to the State Legislature or to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Act under article 143.

    Additional suggestions by  NCRWC

    • Committee to appoint the governor: National commission to review the Working of the constitution (NCRWC) recommendations were similar to that of Sarkaria commission. NCRWC has suggested that a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Minister of the state in question shall nominate the Governor.

    Know the basics: Present constitutional arrangement

    • The Governor of a State is appointed by the President for a term of five years and holds office during his pleasure.
    • Only Indian citizens above 35 years of age are eligible for appointment to this office.

    Appointment

    What is the expert’s opinion?

    • Vice-president should be involved: Total composition of the committee is of the ruling party at the Centre. It should be the Vice-President, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition, and maybe the Chief Minister of the State.
    • Governor should be above the chief minister: Getting the Chief Minister involved in the process of selection is not right. The Governor cannot be made to feel that the Chief Minister was one of those responsible for his selection; the Governor has to be above the Chief Minister, be independent, be able to function in a nonpartisan manner, and not be beholden to the ruling party or to the Chief Minister.
    • Minimum qualification to be the governor: we have no criteria, no minimum qualifications laid out for a Governor. These are often retirement perks or rewards for unstinting loyalty to a particular party. Governors cannot be called before a court of law. These are things which have to be kept in mind.
    • A guide to chief minister: The Governor is supposed to be a friend, philosopher and guide, helping from the back, sorting out issues and resolving disputes, even between political parties. The Governor has to at times advise the Centre on what is happening and what needs to be done. That brings the Centre and the State together.

    Conclusion

    • Governors’ role is always in contestation when Centre and state have different government. Governor is a political appointee for political purpose. However, governor should respect the constitutional post he holds and perform his duties and responsibilities without any biases and affiliations.

    Mains Question

    Q. What actions of governors undermines his constitutional position? What are the recommendations of Sarkaria commissions regarding the governor’s office?

    Click and Get your FREE copy of Current Affairs Micro notes

     

  • Kerala govt. moves to divest Governor of Chancellor Role

    chancellor

    In the latest escalation of its running battle with Governor, the Kerala government has decided to remove him as Chancellor of State universities, seeking to replace him with “renowned academic experts”.

    Who is a Chancellor of a University?

    • In India, almost all universities have a chancellor as their titular head whose function is largely ceremonial.
    • The governor of the state, appointed as the union’s representative of state by the president, is the honorary chancellor of all State owned universities.
    • The de facto head of any government university is the vice-chancellor.
    • In private non-profit universities, normally the head of the foundation who has established the university is the chancellor of the university and is the head of the university.

    Role of Governors in State Universities

    • In most cases, the Governor of the state is the ex-officio chancellor of the universities in that state.
    • Its powers and functions as the Chancellor are laid out in the statutes that govern the universities under a particular state government.
    • Their role in appointing the Vice-Chancellors has often triggered disputes with the political executive.

    What about Central Universities?

    • Under the Central Universities Act, 2009, and other statutes, the President of India shall be the Visitor of a central university.
    • With their role limited to presiding over convocations, Chancellors in central universities are titular heads, who are appointed by the President in his capacity as Visitor.
    • The VCs too are appointed by the Visitor from panels of names picked by search and selection committees formed by the Union government.
    • The Act adds that the President, as Visitor, shall have the right to authorize inspections of academic and non-academic aspects of the universities and also to institute inquiries.

    What is Kerala attempting to do?

    • Education comes under the Concurrent List.
    • In an official statement, the Kerala Cabinet noted the M.M. Punchhi Commission had vouched against granting Governors the power of Chancellors.
    • In many states, the elected governments have repeatedly accused the Governors of acting at the behest of the Centre on various subjects, including education.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

  • Centre constitutes 22nd Law Commission

    The Centre has constituted the Law Commission of India by appointing former Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi as its chairperson.

    Law Commission of India

    • It is an executive body established by an order of the Government of India. First law commission of independent India was established post the Independence in 1955
    • Tenure: 3 Years
    • Function: Advisory body to the Ministry of Law and Justice for “Legal Reforms in India”
    • Recommendations: NOT binding
    • First Law Commission was established during the British Raj in 1834 by the Charter Act of 1833
    • Chairman: Macaulay; It recommended for the Codifications of the IPC, CrPC etc.

    Its’ composition

    The 22nd Law Commission will be constituted for a period of three years from the date of publication of its Order in the Official Gazette. It will consist of:

    1. Full-time Chairperson;
    2. Four full-time Members (including Member-Secretary)
    3. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs as ex-officio Member;
    4. Secretary, Legislative Department as ex officio Member; and
    5. Not more than five part-time Members.

    Terms of reference

    • The Law Commission shall, on a reference made to it by the Central Government or suo-motu, undertake research in law and review of existing laws in India for making reforms therein and enacting new legislations.
    • It shall also undertake studies and research for bringing reforms in the justice delivery systems for elimination of delay in procedures, speedy disposal of cases, reduction in cost of litigation etc.

    Major reforms undertaken

    • The First Law Commission under Macaulay suggested various enactments to the British Government, most of which were passed and enacted and are still in force in India.
    • These include the Indian Penal Code (first submitted in 1837 but enacted in 1860 and still in force), Criminal Procedure Code (enacted in 1898, repealed and succeeded by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973), etc.
    • Thereafter three more Law Commissions were established which made a number of other recommendations the Indian Evidence Act (1872) and Indian Contract Act (1872), etc. being some of the significant ones.

    Role in legal reforms

    The Law Commission has been a key to law reform in India.

    • Its role has been both advisory and critical of the government’s policies
    • In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has referred to the work done by the commission and followed its recommendations.
    • The Commission seeks to simplify procedures to curb delays and improve standards of justice.
    • It also strives to promote an accountable and citizen-friendly government that is transparent and ensures the people’s right to information.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes

  • New Category of Reservation, EWS

    Reservation

    Context

    • The Supreme Court has now upheld the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment. For instance, economic criterion was provided for this new category of affirmative action.

    What is the verdict of supreme court?

    • SC/ST Excluded in new clause: The Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and non-creamy layer Other Backward Classes were excluded from the newly inserted clauses of Article 15(4) and 16(4).
    • The ceiling of 50 per cent reservation was breached: The cap of 50% is breached and the individual rather than the group became the basis of backwardness.

    Reservation

    Do you know?

    • Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India -Issued 50% Cap on Caste-based reservation: In the case the Supreme Court held that reservation for beneficiaries should not exceed 50% of India’s population. It was this case that issued a cap limit on caste-based reservations.

    The Backgrounder: What are concerns over the reservation verdicts so far?

    • Judiciary is reluctant supporter of reservation: A closer look at the judicial response to reservation policies from Dorairajan (1951) to MR Balaji (1963) to Indra Sawhney (1992) to M Nagaraj (2006) shows that the Indian judiciary has not been quite supportive of such policies.
    • New conditions for new category of reservation: In many cases, it created new conditions in the implementation of such policies by introducing several exclusions/doctrines/rules etc. In fact, Parliament had to amend the Constitution through the 77th amendment to overturn Indra Sawhney judgment against reservation in promotions.
    • Reservation in promotion cancelled: The 85th constitutional amendment was passed to undo the Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995) and Ajit Singh (1999) judgments that had introduced the “catch up rule” under which general candidates, who are promoted after SC/ST candidates, will regain their seniority over earlier promoted SC/ST candidates.
    • Concerns about dilution of merit: Basically, Indian courts have been emphasising merit and have been concerned about the dilution of “merit”. In several reservation matters, the courts have been more interested in protecting the interests of general categories.
    • 90% population is eligible under EWS: As a matter of fact, the EWS reservation is for the erstwhile general candidates: The Rs 8-lakh family income provision covers over 90 per cent of our population.

    Reservation

    What is the significance of this recent Judgement?

    • New category on economic basis: The majority verdict is right in saying that though reservation on economic basis is new it has not made the Constitution unrecognizable. Justice Trivedi said the legislature best understands the needs of the people. The majority does have a point in holding that the basic structure doctrine does not bind Parliament from laying down the economic criterion. Such a basis does not impinge on the equality code of the Constitution.
    • Poverty as an injustice: Justice Maheshwari has quoted a number of judgments in which poverty was mentioned as a fundamental source backwardness. Justice Maheshwari held that poverty is not merely a stage of stagnation but a point of regression.
    • Identity of constitution will not change: India’s affirmative action programme far was catering to only historical injustices and social backwardness. The extension of this benefit to others, in the opinion of Justice Maheshwari, won’t change the identity of the Constitution.
    • Towards the justice: The court observed that the new reservation is in furtherance of the Preamble’s goal of achieving justice – social, economic and political.
    • Consistent with FR’s and DPSP’s: The other judges were also of the view that any provision that is consistent with fundamental rights and directive principles cannot be held to be in the teeth of the basic structure doctrine.
    • Constitutional amendment upheld: Constitutional amendments are rarely struck down since this can be done only on the narrow ground of the amendment being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. Since 1973, when the basic structure doctrine was propounded, over 70 amendments had been passed but only five have so far been struck down. The NJAC was the last one in 2016.

    Reservation

    Critical analysis of judgement

    • Goes to Individual and not group reservation: Economic disadvantage is individual, unlike caste discrimination. It carries no social stigma. The Court has gone against the earlier precedents on this point, which is why Justice Bhat was not able to persuade himself to agree with this reasoning, particularly when SC/ST/OBC categories have been excluded.
    • Argument over level playing field for open category: The majority was of the view that such an exclusion was inevitable for the true operation and effect of new policy. If existing beneficiaries are not excluded, it would amount to excessive benefit and advantage. Justice Maheshwari said that in the vertical reservation provided to these groups also, others are excluded. He said that those who are themselves receiving the benefit of others’ exclusion cannot object to their exclusion in the reservation policy made for others.
    • Debate on SC/ST exclusion: Justice Bhat observed that since the bulk of the poorest people belong to SC/ST/OBC groups, their exclusion is not right. The majority was also of the view that Parliament is entitled to experiment with new policies.
    • 50% ceiling breached: The majority also cited a number of earlier judgments on the 50 per cent ceiling such as NM Thomas (1976), in which Justices Fazal Ali and V R Krishna Iyer observed that the arithmetical limit cannot be pressed too far. In Vasanth Kumar (1985), Justice Chinnappa Reddy observed that “for a court to say that reservation should not exceed 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent would be arbitrary and the Constitution does not permit us to be arbitrary”.
    • Indira Sawhney judgement is overturned: Even Indra Sawhney had kept a small window for the government to go beyond the 50 per cent ceiling. The real question is would the Court have permitted such a breach at the all-India level if the same had been done for the existing beneficiaries of the reservation policy.
    • justice to general categories is not injustice to others: Justice Maheshwari admitted so when he observed that the 50 per cent limit was for the benefit of general candidates and it causes no injustice to the reserved categories. Justice Bhat, though, felt this may open the floodgates.

    Conclusion

    • Justice should not only be done but should also be appear to have been done. Economical weaker section reservation was an effort to pacify the dissatisfaction among general categories against reservation. However, the merit system will be compromise or not only time will tell.

    Mains Question

    Q. Does exclusion of SC/ST from EWS reservation is justifiable? How EWS reservation will impact the merit system in India? 

    Click and Get your FREE copy of Current Affairs Micro notes

  • Supreme Court, in a majority verdict, upholds the EWS Quota

    ews

    A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority decision, upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides 10% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society.

    What else?

    • The judgment excludes the “poorest of poor” among Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) from its scope.

    What was the 103rd Amendment?

    • The 103rd Amendment inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in the Constitution to provide up to 10 per cent reservation to the economically weaker sections (EWS) among non-OBC and non-SC/ST sections .
    • In other words, the amendment had changed the Constitution and introduced a quota for the poor among the so-called ‘forward castes’ or ‘general category’.

    Quota available to EWS

    • The quota is available in:
    1. Admissions to higher educational institutions and
    2. Initial recruitment in central government jobs
    • The amendment also empowered state governments to provide reservation on the basis of economic backwardness.

    On what basis was the quota challenged?

    Ans. Violation of Basic Structure

    • Violation of basic structure: Essentially, the challenge was based on the argument that the 103rd amendment violated the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
    • Socially disadvantage: The primary argument in this case stemmed from the view that the special protections guaranteed to socially disadvantaged groups is part of the basic structure.
    • Sole economic criterion: The 103rd Amendment departs from this by promising special protections on the sole basis of economic status.

    Key arguments by the Judges

    [A] Majority Opinion

    Three judges, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi, and S B Pardiwala, have upheld the validity of the 103rd amendment.

    1. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: He has ruled that reservation based only on economic criteria does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, and that the exclusion of classes covered in Article 15(4) and 16(4) — that is OBCs and SC/STs — in the 103rd amendment does not damage the basic structure.
    2. Justice Bela Trivedi: She has concurred with Justice Maheshwari. She ruled that treating EWS as a separate class would be a reasonable classification, and that treating unequals equally would violate the principle of equality under the Constitution.
    3. Justice Trivedi: He said that 75 years after independence, it was time to revisit the system of reservation in the larger interest of society.
    4. Justice S B Pardiwala: He concurred with Justice Maheshwari and Justice Trivedi. He observed that “Reservation is not an end, it is means, it should not be allowed to become a vested interest.

    [B] Minority (Dissenting) Opinion

    1. Justice Bhat: He has ruled that while reservation on economic criteria is per se not violative of the Constitution, excluding SC/ST/OBC from the purview of EWS is violative of basic structure. He has struck down Articles 15(6) and 16(6) for being discriminatory and violative of the equality code.
    2. CJI Lalit: He said he concurs entirely with the judgment of Justice Bhat.

    What about the 50% ceiling on quotas?

    • The judgment appears to have struck down the ceiling of 50%.
    • Justice Maheshwari said that reservations for EWS does not violate basic structure on account of 50% ceiling limit because ceiling limit is not inflexible.

    How the judiciary deviated from its earlier judgments?

    • However, the dissenting opinion says that permitting breach of 50% would result in compartmentalization, and the rule of right to equality will become right to reservations.
    • The apex court has repeatedly underlined the 50% ceiling on reservations imposed by the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992.
    • On that basis, attempts by a number of states have been struck down.
    • Several of those issues can now be reopened. Now states can rebel with their populist moves to provide reservations to some communities. Ex. Nomadic Tribes case in Maharashtra.

    What is the EWS Quota?

    • The EWS criteria for employment and admission was notified on January 31, 2019 by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) based on the 103rd Amendment.
    • Under the 2019 notification, a person who was not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs, and whose family had a gross annual income below Rs 8 lakh, was to be identified as EWS.
    • The notification specified what constituted “income”, and excluded some persons from the EWS category if their families possessed certain specified assets.

    Broad issues with EWS quota

    • Reduction within general category: The EWS quota remains a controversy as its critics say it reduces the size of the open category, besides breaching the 50% limit on the total reservation.
    • Arbitrariness over income limit: The court has been intrigued by the income limit being fixed at ₹8 lakh per year. It is the same figure for excluding the ‘creamy layer’ from OBC reservation benefits.
    • Socio-economic backwardness: A crucial difference is that those in the general category, to whom the EWS quota is applicable, do not suffer from social or educational backwardness, unlike those classified as the OBC.
    • Metropolitan criteria: There are other questions as to whether any exercise was undertaken to derive the exceptions such as why the flat criterion does not differentiate between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.
    • OBC-like criteria: The question the court has raised is when the OBC category is socially and educationally backward and, therefore, has additional impediments to overcome.
    • Not based on relevant data: In line with the Supreme Court’s known position that any reservation or norms for exclusion should be based on relevant data.
    • Breaches reservation cap: There is a cap of 50% on reservation as ruled in the Indira Sawhney Case. The principle of balancing equality ordains reservation.

    Way forward

    • Preserving the merit: We cannot rule out the sorry state of economic backwardness hampering merit in our country.
    • Rational criteria: There has to be collective wisdom to define and measure the economic weakness of certain sections of society in order to shape the concept of economic justice.
    • Judicial guidance: Judicial interpretation will pave the wave forward for deciding the criterion for EWS Quota.
    • Targetted beneficiaries. The center needs to resort to more rational criteria for deciding the targeted beneficiary of this reservation system. Caste Census data can be useful in this regard.
    • Income study: The per capita income or GDP or the difference in purchasing power in the rural and urban areas, should be taken into account while a single income limit was formulated for the whole country.

     

    Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes