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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • A judicial course that calls for introspection

    Context

    The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of A.G. Perarivalan has stirred up a hornet’s nest.

    Use of Article 142 to grant pardon

    • The Court has treaded the extraordinary constitutional route under Article 142.
    • The Bench decided to exercise the power of grant of pardon, remission et al., exclusively conferred on the President of India and State Governors under Articles 72 and 161.
    • Against the separation of power: Against the background of separation of powers viz. Parliament/Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, whether the course adopted by the Bench to do expedient justice is constitutional calls for introspection.

    Evaluating the constitutionality of decision

    • The power under Article 161 is exercisable in relation to matters to which the executive power of the state extends.
    • Discretionary power under Article 161: Article 161 consciously provides a ‘discretion’ to the Governor in taking a final call, even if it was not wide enough to overrule the advice, but it certainly provides latitude to send back any resolution for reconsideration, if, in his opinion, the resolution conflicted with constitutional ends.
    • In Sriharan’s case (2016 (7) SCC P.1), one of the references placed for consideration was whether the term ‘consultation’ stipulated in Section 435 Cr.P.C. implies ‘concurrence’.
    • It was held that the word ‘consultation’ means ‘concurrence’ of the Central government.
    • The Constitution Bench highlighted that there are situations where consideration of remission would have trans-border ramifications and wherever a central agency was involved, the opinion of the Central government must prevail.
    • Basing its conclusion on the legal position that the subject matter (Section 302 in the Indian Penal Code) murder, falls within Lists II and III (State and Concurrent lists) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the learned judges concluded that the State was fully empowered to take a call and recommend remission in this case.
    • If it is a simple case of being a Section 302 crime, the reason for finding fault with the Governor’s decision to forward the recommendation to the President may be constitutionally correct.
    • But the larger controversy as to whether the Governor in his exercise of power under Article 161 is competent at all, to grant pardon or remission in respect of the offences committed by the convicts under the Arms Act, 1959, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Passports Act, 1967, the Foreigners Act, 1946, etc., besides Section 302, is not certain.
    • According to the decision, it is a simple murder attracting Section 302 of the IPC and therefore the Governor’s decision to forward the recommendation to the President is against the letter and spirit of Article 161 — meaning it is against the spirit of federalism envisaged in the Constitution.
    • Constitutionality use of Article 142: There are momentous issues that are flagged on the exercise of the power of remission under Article 142, by the Supreme Court in the present factual context.
    • The first is whether Article 142 could be invoked by the Court in the circumstances of the case when the Constitution conferred express power on the Governor alone, for grant of pardon, remission, etc., under Article 161.

    Way forward

    • Deeper judicial examination: Whether what the State government could not achieve directly by invoking Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C, without concurrence of Centre could be allowed to take a contrived route vide Article 161 and achieve its objectives is a pertinent issue.
    • This aspect requires deeper judicial examination for the sake of constitutional clarity.
    • Timeframe for the Governor: The Constitution does not lay down any timeframe for the Governor to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • In any event, even if the delay was constitutionally inexcusable or was vulnerable to challenge, the final arbiter of the Constitution (Article 245) could not have trumped Article 161 with Article 142, which is constitutionally jarring.

    Conclusion

    To portray the remission as to what it was not in the State is a sad fallout the lawlords on the pulpit may not have bargained for. And on the constitutional plane, this verdict deserves a relook, even a review, as it stands on wobbly foundations built with creaky credence.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Sedition Law

    The Supreme Court suspended pending criminal trials and court proceedings under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, while allowing the Union of India to reconsider the British-era law.

    What did the SC say?

    • All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of the IPC be kept in temporary suspension.
    • The court also restrained centre and states from registering FIRs, continuing investigations or take coercive measures under Section 124A.

    What is the Sedition Law?

    • Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The IPC was enacted in 1860, under the British Raj.
    • The then British government in India feared that religious preachers on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against the government.
    • Particularly after the successful suppression of the Wahabi/Waliullah Movement by the British, the need was felt for such law.
    • Throughout the Raj, this section was used to suppress activists in favor of national independence, including Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned.

    Do you know?

    Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1897) was the first case in which Section 124A was defined and applied. Again in 1908, when Tilak was tried under same section, then young barrister and a staunch protagonist Mohammed Ali Jinnah defended Tilak.

    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 as a cognizable offense

    • 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.
    • In 1962 the Supreme Court of India interpreted the section to apply only if there is, say, “incitement to violence” or “overthrowing a democratically elected government through violent means”.

    Is it constitutionally valid?

    • Violative of FRs: Two high courts had found it unconstitutional after Independence, as it violated the freedom of speech and expression.
    • Reasonable restrictions: The Constitution was amended to include ‘public order’ as one of the ‘reasonable restrictions’ on which free speech could be abridged by law.
    • Kedar Nath Case: Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld its validity.
    • Limited use: At the same time, it limited its application to acts that involve “intention or tendency to create disorder” or incitement to violence.
    • Strong criticism doesn’t amount to sedition: Thus, even strongly worded remarks, as long as they do not excite disloyalty and enmity, or incite violence, are not an offence under this section.

    Why the controversy now?

    • Frequent use: In recent times, the resort to this section is seen as disturbingly frequent.
    • Curbing dissent: Activists, cartoonists and intellectuals have been arrested under this section, drawing criticism from liberals that it is being used to suppress dissent and silence critics.
    • Misuse for propaganda: Authorities and the police who invoke this section defend the measure as a necessary step to prevent public disorder and anti-national activities.
    • Irrelevance: Many of them have also been detained under the National Security Act and UAPA.

    What is being debated about it?

    • Demand for its scrapping: Liberals and rights activists have been demanding the scrapping of Section 124A.
    • Provision is outdated: It is argued that the provision is “overbroad”, i.e., it defines the offence in wide terms threatening the liberty of citizens.
    • Various calls for its reconsideration: The Law Commission has also called for a reconsideration of the section.
    • Tyranny of the law: It has pointed that Britain abolished it more than a decade ago and raised the question of whether a provision introduced by the British to put down the freedom struggle should continue to be law in India.
    • Doctrine of severability: Some argue that a presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or bodies.

    Need for such law

    • There are some tendencies exist even today who wish to overthrow the state apparatus and constitutional scheme of India.
    • It falls on the judiciary to protect Articles 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
    • Undue exercise of free speech has led to overture of ordinary dissent into an anti-national insurrection or uprising.
    • There are areas in the country that face hostile activities and insurgencies created by rebel groups, like the Maoists.
    • There must be restrictions on expressing unnecessary contempt or ridiculing of the Government beyond certain limits.

    Way forward

    • India is the largest democracy in the world and the right to free speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy.
    • The sedition law should not be abolished as some measures are needed to check communal violence & insurgency activities like Naxals.
    • The definition of sedition should be narrowed down, to include only the issues pertaining to the territorial integrity of India as well as the sovereignty of the country.
    • Section 124A should not be misused as a tool to curb free speech.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • The sedition law must go

    Context

    By order dated May 11, 2022, a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India, has directed that the petitions challenging the Section 124A be listed for final determination in the third week of July 2022; and that in the meantime suspend the use of Section 124A IPC.

    Historical background of Section 124A

    • With effect from 1870, (as amended in 1955), Section 124A of the Penal Code read:

    “Whoever by words, spoken or written, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection, towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life…”.

    • “Sedition” is the vaguest of all offences known to the criminal law.
    •  In colonial times, it was defined expansively in order to uphold the majesty of British power in India.
    • Before 1950, there were several Court decisions in operation on Section 124A; amongst them was Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case (1897).
    • Absence of affection: In Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case the Privy Council declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that “disaffection” only meant “absence of affection in any degree towards the British rule or its administration or representatives”, and that exciting of mutiny or rebellion or actual disturbance of any sort was “absolutely immaterial”.
    • With the establishment of a Federal Court by the Government of India Act, 1935, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor the Federal Court held that if the language of Section 124A were to be read literally “it would make a surprising number of persons in India guilty of sedition and that no one, however, supposes that it is to be read in this literal sense”
    • However, in 1947 it was precisely in this literal sense that the interpretation of Section 124A was reiterated by a Bench of five judges of the Privy Council (AIR 1947 P.C. 82) in which it was declared that: “If the Federal Court had given their attention to Tilak’s case (1897) they should have recognised it as an authority… by which they were bound”.
    • With the advent of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950, this interpretation of Section 124A became “the law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution”.

    Section 124A after 1950

    • Article 372: It stated that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority.
    • Protected due to Article 19(2): In 1962, in criminal appeals arising from the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that though Section 124A “clearly violated” the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), it was not unconstitutional only because it was protected from challenge by the words “in the interests of public order” in Article 19(2).

    Conclusion

    This background has now become pertinent and relevant, because in a fresh batch of writ petitions filed in 2021, the constitutionality of Section 124A (IPC) has been once again challenged in the Supreme Court.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Reservation in Public Employment: Key Events

    This newscard is an excerpt from the original article published in the TH.

    Reservation in Promotion

    • The jurisprudence of reservation relies on the symbiotic coexistence of constitutionally guaranteed equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.
    • The classifications were various clauses of the same article, especially Article 16(4) and Article 16 (4 A).
    • It specifically aimed to provide reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively.
    • These articles vested a discretion on the government to consider providing reservations for the socially and educationally backward sections of the society.

    Reservation not a fundamental Right

    • It is a settled law, time and again reiterated by the Supreme Court, that there is no fundamental right to reservation or promotion under Article 16(4) or Article 16(4 A) of the Constitution.
    • Rather they are enabling provisions for providing reservation, if the circumstances so warrant (Mukesh Kumar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2020).
    • However, these pronouncements no way understate the constitutional directive under Article 46.
    • Article 46 mandates that the state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular SCs and STs.
    • However such provisions resulted in the ever-evolving jurisprudence of affirmative action in public employment.

    Major events

    (1) Mandal storm

    • Reservation in employment which was otherwise confined to SC and STs got extended to new section called the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
    • This was the basis of the recommendations of the Second Backward Class Commission as constituted, headed by B.P. Mandal.
    • The Mandal Commission (1980) provided for 27% reservation to OBC in central services and public sector undertakings.
    • This was over and above the existing 22.5% reservation for SCs and STs, was sought to be implemented by the V.P. Singh Government in 1990.
    • The same was assailed in the Supreme Court resulting in the historic Indra Sawhney Judgment.

    (2) Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992)

    • In the judgment, a nine-judge bench presided by CJI MH Kania upheld the constitutionality of the 27% reservation.
    • But it put a ceiling of 50% unless exceptional circumstances warranting the breach, so that the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality under Article 14 would remain secured.
    • While Article 16(1) is a fundamental right, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision and not an exception.
    • Further, the Court directed the exclusion of creamy layer by way of horizontal division of every other backward class into creamy layer and non-creamy layer.

    (3) The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995

    • In Indra Sawhney Case, the Supreme Court had held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India does not authorise reservation in the matter of promotions.
    • However, the judgment was not to affect the promotions already made and hence only prospective in operation, it was ruled.
    • By the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, which, Article 16(4-A), was inserted.
    • It aimed to provide the State for making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State.
    • This was to be in favour of the SCs and the STs which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
    • Later, two more amendments were brought, one to ensure consequential seniority and another to secure carry forward of unfilled vacancies of a year.

    (4) M. Nagaraj (2006) Case

    • A five-judge bench of Supreme Court declared the 1995 amendment as not vocative of basic structure of the Constitution.
    • It laid down ceratin conditions which included the collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment.
    • The bench held that the creamy layer among SCs and STs is to be excluded from reservation.

    (5) Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

    • It was authored by Justice Rohinton Nariman and indicates a critical turn in the jurisprudence of reservation.
    • In this case, a constitution bench of Supreme Court was called on to examine wisdom of the 2006 judgment.
    • This task was to examine the constitutionally recognised socio-economic backwardness of the SCs and STs which may not require any further substantiation.
    • It was also contended that the requirement to identify creamy lawyer among SC and STs fell foul of Indra Sawhney decision.
    • The constitution bench invalidated the requirement to collect quantifiable data in relation to SCs and STs.
    • It upheld the principle of applicability of creamy lawyer in relation to SCs and STs.

    (6) The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019

    • The 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) other SCs, STs and backward classes for government jobs and admission in educational institutions.
    • This is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court which has referred the same to a constitution bench.
    • This was a critical milestone to specifically include economic backwardness without social backwardness as is traditionally seen.

    (7) Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister (2021)

    • Despite the Indra Sawhney ruling, there have been attempts on the part of many States to breach the rule by way of expanding the reservation coverage.
    • The Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018, (Maratha reservation law) came under challenge before the Supreme Court.
    • This case was referred to a bench of five judges to question whether the 1992 judgment needs a relook.
    • Interestingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Indra Sawhney decision, and struck down Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act which provided 12% reservation for Marathas in educational institutions and 13% reservation in public employment respectively.
    • This judgment gave out a strong message that some State governments blatantly disregard the stipulated ceiling on electoral gains rather than any exceptional circumstances.

     

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Digitization of Judiciary

    Context

    The Indian judiciary has increasingly started using technology and the change is reflected in the legal profession in general as well.

    Increasing use of digital technology in the judiciary

    • With the digitisation of judicial records and the establishment of e-courts, significant developments had taken place in 2020.
    • Use of technology to better utilise potential: It is imperative that the use of digital technology be discussed to better utilise its potential, particularly in terms of digitisation of court records, e-filing of cases and their virtual hearing, live streaming of court proceedings.

    Background

    • In India, e-governance in the field of administration of justice began in the late 1990s, but it accelerated after the enactment of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
    • In the year of 2006, e-courts were launched as a part of the National e-Governance Plan (NEGP).

    Digitisation of case files

    • When he was the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, Justice D Y Chandrachud had conceptualised and initiated the project to digitise approximately one crore case files in one year.
    • Saving of space and preservation of old documents: This was necessary as not only was a large space required to store so many files, it was also becoming difficult to manually preserve the decades-old documents.
    • Traceability: Another purpose was to ensure that these files are traceable electronically as and when required.
    • It has also been observed that cases are adjourned simply because affidavits filed several years ago were not restored with the record or were not traceable.
    • Once the documents are digitised and e-filed by counsels, at least the cases would not get adjourned by the courts on this account.
    • Reducing the risk of missing court records: In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abhay Raj Singh, it was held by the Supreme Court that if court records go missing and re-construction is not possible, the courts are bound to set aside the conviction.
    • Saving of time: With digitisation, it will take much less time for the lower courts to transmit the records as and when called for.
    • The lawyers benefit because they or their staff are no longer required to visit the reporting sections or other sections of the court to know about the status of their cases.
    • This has been sought to be implemented by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court by issuing directions to ensure that e-filing of cases/petitions by state governments in all matters be made mandatory from January 1, 2022.

    Scope for virtual hearing in certain cases

    • Cases related to matrimonial issues and domestic violence bounced cheques, motor accident compensation referred to mediation centres and lok adalats could be included in the list of cases fit for disposal through the virtual hearing.
    • The hearing of matrimonial cases through video-conferencing was approved by the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Veni Nagam v Harish Nagam (2017).
    • The direction was short-lived and a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Santhini v Vijaya Venkatesh (2018) referred the matter for reconsideration before a larger bench.
    • Virtual hearings cannot be a substitute for physical court hearings in all cases.
    • However, in appropriate cases and certain categories of cases as identified by the court administration in consultation with the members of the Bar, virtual hearing should be made mandatory.

    Live streaming of cases

    • In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed the live-streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance on the basis of the judgment in Swapnil Tripathi.
    • Step towards transparency: The livestreaming of court proceedings is a step towards ensuring transparency and openness.
    • While several reservations were expressed against it, the Gujarat HC in July 2021 became the first court in the country to livestream its proceedings.
    • Its example was followed by other HCs like Karnataka, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Patna.

    Challenges

    • Internet connectivity issues and the need for a well-equipped space where lawyers can conduct their cases are some of the major problems requiring attention.
    • Political will and the support of judges and lawyers are also necessary.
    • Awareness and training: Judges, court staff and lawyers are not well-versed with digital technology and its benefits.
    • The need of the hour is for them to be made aware of these and receive adequate training.

    Conclusion

    Adoption of technology will bring drastic changes in the field of law and will transform the Court system.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Criminal justice system

    Context

    The key to an improved criminal justice system is quality forensic labs and well-trained staff, not more legislation and harsher punishments.

    About forensic science

    • Forensic science is the application of scientific perspectives and techniques to the legal process, including investigations and courtroom protocol.
    • It is the use of scientific data and procedures specifically for the legal system.
    • There is rigorous procedure involved, including controlled conditions, reliable data collection and the attempt to disprove hypotheses.
    • Methodologies like the autopsy procedures, fingerprinting, testing and matching for poisons, blood spatter analysis, matching guns to bullets fired (ballistics), voice sample matches, handwriting assessments and DNA analysis are all facets of forensic science.

     Inadequate state forensic facilities

    • We have a woefully inadequate number of forensic science laboratories (FSL).
    • There are seven central forensic laboratories in India at Hyderabad, Kolkata, Chandigarh, New Delhi, Guwahati, Bhopal and Pune.
    • Six of these laboratories, barring Delhi, are under the control of the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS), and its mission is to render high quality and credible forensic services to the justice delivery system.
    • A National Forensic Sciences University was established in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in 2020.
    • The existing National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science in Delhi has been integrated into this new university.
    • There are 32 state FSLs and about 529 mobile FSL units, of which Delhi has one state FSL and six mobile units.
    • The DNA tests discovered in 1985 are used to identify individuals involved in alleged crimes.
    • In 2017, The Hindu reported that while the United Kingdom completes DNA testing on over 60,000 crimes annually, India with over 13 times the population completes such tests on less than 7,500 cases.
    • The average pendency at each lab is huge.
    • In all states, there were over 50 per cent vacancies in personnel at their facilities.

    Way forward

    • More investment: We certainly need more investment in the establishment of FSL laboratories, the training and appointment of personnel adept at forensic methodologies and reforms within our police to establish a trained and skilled detective cadre tasked with solving complex and heinous crimes.
    • Quality training and accreditation: There is a desperate need for good quality training facilities, standards of accreditation and continuous education programmes for our forensic experts.

    Conclusion

    It is not more legislation and harsher punishments that will solve crimes, but well-trained forensic staff plying their craft in good quality laboratories that will aid our criminal justice system.

  • A new road for India’s fiscal federalism

    Context

    On May 19, in Union of India vs Mohit Minerals, the Supreme Court of India delivered a ruling which is likely to have an impact far wider than what the Centre might have imagined when it brought the case up on appeal.

    Background

    • At stake was the validity of a levy imposed on importers, of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight paid by foreign sellers to foreign shipping lines.
    • The Gujarat High Court had declared the tax illegal.
    • The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling and held that the levy constituted double taxation — that is, that the importer, which was already paying tax on the “composite” supply of goods, could not be asked to pay an additional tax on a perceived “service” that it may have received.

    Why the ruling could transform the future of fiscal federalism in India

    • Equal powers to legislate on GST: While delivering the judgement, the Supreme Court held that both Parliament and the State legislatures enjoy equal power to legislate on Goods and Services Tax (GST).
    • The Court said that the Goods and Services Tax Council’s recommendations were just that: recommendations that could never be binding on a legislative body.
    • Until now, governments across India have treated the GST Council’s recommendations — even where they disagreed with them — as sacrosanct, because they believed that this was indeed the law.
    • According to the Court, State legislatures possess the authority to deviate from any advice rendered by the GST Council and to make their own laws by asserting, in the process, their role as equal partners in India’s federal architecture.
    • Conflicting taxation regimes: Because of the ruling, the State governments will be free to exercise independent power to legislate on GST.
    • It is possible that this might lead to conflicting taxation regimes, with the idea of ‘One Nation One Tax’ rendered nugatory.
    • Constitutional power cannot be limited through statute: The Court’s ruling does not mean that a legislature — whether Parliament or the States’ — cannot through statutory law make the Council’s recommendations binding on executive bodies.
    • But a constitutional power, in the Court’s ruling, can never be limited through statute. Such curbs must flow only from the Constitution.
    • And in this case, in the Court’s analysis, no restrictions on legislative power can be gleaned on a meaningful reading of the Constitution.

    Background of 101st constitutional Amendment

    • Unification of tax administration: When, in July 2017, the Union government introduced the GST regime through the 101st constitutional Amendment, it did so based on an underlying belief that tax administration across India needed unification.
    • To give effect to this idea, many entries in the State list of Schedule VII of the Constitution were either deleted or amended.
    • A power to legislate on GST was inserted through a newly introduced Article 246A.
    •  No longer could State governments legislate on sale or purchase of goods barring a few exceptions, such as petroleum and liquor through the ordinary legislative route.
    • GST Council: In addition, the 101st Amendment also established, through Article 279A, a GST Council.
    • The Council was given the power to “make recommendations to the Union and States” on several different matters.

    Implications of the judgement

    • The use of the word “recommendations” suggested on the one hand that its decisions would be advisory, at best.
    • But, at the same time, the fact that Article 279A directed the establishment of a mechanism to adjudicate disputes between governments on decisions taken by the Council suggested that those governments would, in fact, be bound by any advice rendered to them.
    • GST would be in jeopardy: If the former reading was to be deployed, the purpose behind the introduction of a common GST would be in jeopardy.
    • But the latter interpretation effectively entailed the destruction of the well-laid plans of the Constituent Assembly.
    • Fiscal responsibilities that had been divided with much care and attention between the Union and the States would now stand dissolved.

    Federal compact

    • Although States had until now proceeded on a tacit belief that the GST Council’s recommendations were binding, such an approach, in Justice Chandrachud’s words, would run counter both to the express words of the Constitution and the philosophical values underlying the language deployed.
    • Article 246A, which was introduced by the 101st Amendment provides concomitant power both to the Union and to the State governments to legislate on GST.
    • It does not discriminate between the two in terms of its allocation of authority.
    • That allocation, according to the Court, cannot be limited by a reading of Article 279A, which establishes a GST Council, and which treats the Council’s decisions as “recommendations”.

    Conclusion

    GST was conceived as a product of what some described as “pooled sovereignty”. But perhaps it is only in an administrative area, animated by contestation, where we can see synergy between different sovereign units, where our nation can take a genuine turn towards a more “cooperative federalism”.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • RTI Act and Armed Forces

    Veterans of the Indian Armed Forces have urged PM against exempting defense services from purview of RTI (Right to Information) Act, 2005.

    Why in news?

    • Last year, late CDS Rawat had urged the government making a pitch for defence services to be exempted from the RTI Act.
    • He had stated that none of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) are under its purview and defence services, being even more sensitive, should be fully exempted too.

    What is RTI?

    • RTI is an act of the parliament which sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens’ right to information.
    • It replaced the former Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
    • Under the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a “public authority” (a body of Government or “instrumentality of State”) which is required to reply expeditiously or within 30.
    • In case of the matter involving a petitioner’s life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours.
    • The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally.

    Constitutional status of RTI

    • Since RTI, is implicit in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, it is an implied FR.
    • These are backed by the right to constitutional remedies that is, the right to approach the supreme court and high court under Article 32 and 226 respectively in case of infringement of any of FRs.

    Benefits of RTI

    • Greater accessibility of information: A person can seek information from any public authority in the form of copies, floppy disks, sample material etc under RTI.
    • Efficient governance: RTI Act helps us in knowing the efficiency of the government’s functioning.
    • Citizen’s participation: Information under RTI can be sought easily by requesting the public officer and assistant public officer in any public authority.
    • Government obligation: Obtaining information from any public authority is obligatory for them.
    • Maintenance of public record: Under RTI Act, it is the duty of public authorities to maintain records for easy access and to publish within 120 days the name of the particular officers who should give the information and in regard to the framing of the rules, regulations etc.
    • Empowerment of Citizens: Every citizen has been empowered to be informed about anything that affects their life directly or indirectly.

    Why do Veterans want RTI?

    • The RTI has remained a powerful tool with the veterans and serving community to obtain information and documents concerning their service and pensioner issues.
    • RTI Act has ensured maximum transparency in official establishments dealing with such cases.
    • Even innocuous documents such as medical board proceedings concerning disabled soldiers and old service records of veterans are only made available through the RTI Act.
    • Requesting that defence services are not be placed in Schedule 2 of the RTI Act, 2005, the lobby said that adequate protection is already available in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act.
    • Armed forces can hold back information related to operational and security-related issues.

    Necessity for RTI in armed forces

    • Any such move will be a blow to transparency and will lead to an exponential increase in litigation and grievances.
    • And any irregularities in defence procurements would also go under the carpet, besides massive discrepancies in promotions.
    • Already they are so opaque and have faced so many strictures by the courts.
    • Denying such a right of a powerful public-oriented tool to military personnel, veterans, military widows and their families would place them at a sharp disadvantage compared to citizens.
    • This would also result in litigation blast with affected persons approaching judicial forums for minor issues.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Why transfer of case to district judge by Supreme Court sends the wrong signal

    Context

    The Supreme Court order of May 20, transferring the suit on the Gyanvapi Masjid dispute from the civil judge (senior division) Varanasi to the district judge casts aspersion, though unintended, on the competence of civil judges in general.

    Background

    • The matter had reached the Supreme Court on a petition filed by the Mosque Management Committee, which challenged the civil judge’s orders.
    • The order permitted inspection, survey, and videography of the mosque’s complex to collect evidence about the alleged existence of idols of Hindu deities inside the mosque, which is adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
    • The Mosque Management Committee had filed an application before the civil judge seeking the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
    • Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prohibits individuals and groups of people from converting, in full or in part, a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination, or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.
    • It was argued before the SC that given the said Act, the suit was liable to be rejected at the threshold as the civil judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, much less to pass the aforesaid interim orders.
    • The SC has not found any fault with the order of the civil judge, though there is also a view that it was mandatory on the part of the civil judge to have first passed an order on whether he had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
    • However, it appears that in the SC’s view, this was not a serious infraction.
    • So, in a way, the SC has affirmed the orders of the civil judge.
    • The civil court had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
    • The question that arises is: Why has the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the court of the district judge?

    Issues with the SC transferring the case to the district judge

    • The SC has seemingly declared civil judges to be not competent to decide a matter alleged to be complex.
    • When the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court Rules and Orders invest a civil judge with jurisdiction, why take it away merely on the plea that the matter is complex?
    • Unhealthy precedent: Fransfer of the case to the district judge has set an unhealthy precedent and will have a demoralising effect on the subordinate judiciary.
    • In the recent past, many lower-level judicial officers have passed outstanding orders in matters concerning the liberties of the citizens, which are under threat as never before.
    • The subordinate judiciary provides the foundation of our judicial system.

    Conclusion

    Supreme Court order inadvertently casts aspersions on competence of subordinate judiciary. District court should not be weighed down by SC observation.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • India needs parliamentary supervision of trade pacts

    Context

    India is negotiating and signing several free trade agreements (FTAs) with countries like Australia, the UK, Israel, and the EU. While the economic benefits of these FTAs have been studied, there is very little discussion on the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of these treaties.

    Provisions in the Constitution

    • In the Constitution, entry 14 of the Union list contains the following item — “entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries and implementing of treaties, agreements and conventions with foreign countries”.
    • According to Article 246, Parliament has the legislative competence on all matters given in the Union list.
    • Thus, Parliament has the power to legislate on treaties. 
    • This power includes deciding how India will ratify treaties and thus assume international law obligations.
    • Article 253  elucidates that the power of Parliament to implement treaties by enacting domestic laws also extends to topics that are part of the state list.

    Lack of parliamentary oversight and its implications

    • No law laying down the process: While Parliament in the last seven decades has passed many laws to implement international legal obligations imposed by different treaties, it is yet to enact a law laying down the processes that India needs to follow before assuming international treaty obligations.
    • Given this legislative void, and under Article 73(the powers of the Union executive are co-terminus with Parliament), the Centre has been not just negotiating and signing but also ratifying international treaties and assuming international law obligations without much parliamentary oversight.
    • Arguably, Parliament exercises control over the executive’s treaty-making power at the stage of transforming a treaty into the domestic legal regime.
    • However, this is a scenario of ex-post parliamentary control over the executive.
    • In such a situation, Parliament does not debate whether India should or should not accept the international obligations; it only deliberates how the international law obligations, already accepted by the executive, should be implemented domestically.
    • Against the practice in other liberal democracies: This practice is at variance with that of several other liberal democracies.
    • In the US, important treaties signed by the President have to be approved by the Senate.
    • In Australia, the executive is required to table a “national interest analysis” of the treaty it wishes to sign in parliament, and then this is examined by a joint standing committee on treaties – a body composed of Australian parliamentarians.

    Way forward

    • Indian democracy needs to inculcate these healthy practices of other liberal democracies.

    Conclusion

    Effective parliamentary supervision will increase the domestic acceptance and legitimacy of international treaties, especially economic agreements, which are often critiqued for imposing undue restraints on India’s economic sovereignty.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)