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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Issues with summoning CEC, EC to PMO

    Context

    The Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners were summoned by the PMO to attend a meeting with the Principal Secretary to the PM.

    Why the meeting raises questions?

    • The PMO summoning or “inviting” not just the CEC but the full bench is in violation of the Constitution, irrespective of how important or urgent the issue.
    • Violation of the principle of distancing from executive: When a person is appointed as CEC or EC, that person has to resign from his executive post in order to adhere to important constitutional principle of distancing from the executive/government.
    • The executive could appoint a person to these posts but could not order them, or remove me because of the constitutional scheme of things.
    • Violation of independence: An independent ECI is a gift of the Constitution to the nation. Free and fair and credible elections are sine qua non of the EC.
    • The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed this point, calling it part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • Violation of warrant of precedence: The CEC is very high in the warrant of precedence — ninth, while the PS to PM is 23rd.
    • How can such a high constitutional functionary be summoned to attend a meeting with an officer, howsoever high and mighty?
    • It raises suspicions:  A meeting of the PS to the PM, formal or informal, online or in the PMO or ECI, just before elections raises unnecessary suspicions.

    Conclusion

    This incident is a transgression that should not happen again. The distance of an arm’s length in interactions between institutions envisaged in the Constitution is sacrosanct. It should not only be maintained but also “seen” to be maintained.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Back in news: Right to be Forgotten

    The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 contains provisions related to the ‘right to be forgotten’.

    Right to be Forgotten

    • ‘Right to be forgotten’ is a fairly new concept in India where an individual could seek to remove or delete online posts which may contain an embarrassing picture, video or news articles mentioning them.
    • It comes under the right to privacy which has been held to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court under Article 21.
    • In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.

    Why in news?

    • The Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 contains provisions related to the doctrine of ‘right to be forgotten’.
    • It highlighted two judgments passed by the Orissa High Court and the Karnataka High Court where they have accepted the doctrine of the ‘right to be forgotten’ as an essential part of the ‘right to privacy’.

    Mention in PDP Bill

    • The PDP bill aims to set out provisions meant for the protection of the personal data of individuals.
    • Clause 20 under Chapter V of this bill titled “Rights of Data Principal” mentions the “Right to be Forgotten.”
    • It states that the “data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by a data fiduciary”.
    • A data fiduciary means any person, including the State, a company, any juristic entity, or any individual who alone or in conjunction with others determines the purpose and means of the processing of personal data.

    Implications

    • Under the Right to be forgotten, users can de-link, limit, delete or correct the disclosure of their personal information held by data fiduciaries.

    Other similar provisions

    • Section 69A of the IT Act does provide for removal of “certain unlawful information” from an intermediary platform.
    • It primarily applies to ‘national security and public order related issues’ only.

    Also read:

    Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2021

     

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

     

     

  • Conflation between duties and rights

    Context

    There has been growing advocacy for the integration of duty with rights. On Constitution Day last month, many Union Ministers used the occasion to underline this proposal.

    What do rights come with duty mean?

    • It is a basic proposition that all rights come with duties.
    • But those duties are quite distinct from the meaning ascribed to them in the popular discourse.
    • When a person holds a right, she is owed an obligation by a duty-bearer.
    • For example, when citizens are promised a right against discrimination, the government is obliged to ensure that it treats everybody with equal care and concern.
    • Similarly, the guarantee of a right to freedom of speech enjoins the state to refrain from interfering with that liberty.

    Integrating rights with duties

    • Proponents of integration of duty with rights aim to treat otherwise non-binding obligations — the “fundamental duties” as Article 51A describes them on a par with, if not superior to, the various fundamental rights that the Constitution guarantees.
    • In an inversion of the well-known dictum, they see duties, and not rights, as trumps.
    • On Constitution Day last month, many Union Ministers used the occasion to underline this proposal.
    • The government puts forward an idea that our rights ought to be made conditional on the performance of a set of extraneous obligations.

    Issues with the proposal

    • This suggestion is plainly in the teeth of the Constitution’s text, language, and history.
    • To the framers of the Constitution, the very idea of deliberating over whether these rights ought to be provisional, and on whether these rights ought to be made subject to the performance of some alien duty, was against the republic’s vision.
    • Imposing duties a legislative prerogative: The Constitution’s framers saw the placing of mandates on individual responsibilities as nothing more than a legislative prerogative.
    • For example, the legislature could impose a duty on individuals to pay a tax on their income, and this duty could be enforced in a variety of ways.
    • If the tax imposed and the sanctions prescribed were reasonable, the obligations placed on the citizen will be constitutionally valid.
    • In this manner, Parliament and the State legislatures have imposed a plethora of duties — duties to care for the elderly and for children; duties to pay tolls and levies; duties against causing harm to others; duties to treat the environment with care, the list is endless.
    • Against Constitution: What is critical, though, is that these laws cannot make a person’s fundamental right contingent on the performance of a duty that they impose.
    • A legislation that does so will violate the Constitution.

    Background

    • The fundamental duties that are now contained in Article 51A were introduced through the 42nd constitutional amendment.
    • The Swaran Singh Committee, which was set up during the Emergency, and which recommended the insertion of the clause, also suggested that a failure to comply with a duty ought to result in punishment.
    • Ultimately, the amendment was introduced after the binding nature of the clause was removed.
    • In its finally adopted form, Article 51A encouraged citizens to perform several duties.

    Way forward

    • Know the precise nature of duties the rights create: The philosopher Onora O’Neill has argued with some force that we would do well to discuss the precise nature of duties that rights create.
    • Unless we do so, our charters of human rights may not by themselves be enough.
    • For example, we may want to ask ourselves if the promise of a right to free expression imposes on the state something more than a duty to forebear from making an unwarranted restriction on that liberty.
    •  Does it require the state to also work towards creating an equal society where each person finds herself in a position to express herself freely?

    Consider the question “How fundamental duties are related to the fundamental rights in the context of the Indian Constitution? What are the issues with making the enforcement of rights contingent on adhering to the duties?”

    Conclusion

    When we speak about the importance of obligations, it is these questions that must animate our discussions. Should we instead allow the language of fundamental duties to subsume our political debates, we would only be placing in jeopardy the moral principles at the heart of India’s republic.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • A case for in inclusion of Ladakh under Sixth Schedule

    A ruling party MP from Ladakh has demanded that the region be included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to safeguard land, employment, and cultural identity of the local population.

    What is the Sixth Schedule?

    • The Sixth Schedule under Article 244 provides for the formation of autonomous administrative divisions — Autonomous District Councils (ADCs).
    • ADCs have some legislative, judicial, and administrative autonomy within a state.
    • The Sixth Schedule applies to the NE states of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram (three Councils each), and Tripura (one Council).

    Composition of ADCs

    • ADCs have up to 30 members with a term of five years.
    • It can make laws, rules and regulations with regard to land, forest, water, agriculture, village councils, health, sanitation, village- and town-level policing, inheritance, marriage and divorce, social customs and mining, etc.
    • The Bodoland Territorial Council in Assam is an exception with more than 40 members and the right to make laws on 39 issues.

    Why does Ladakh want to be part of the Sixth Schedule?

    • Local aspirations: There was much enthusiasm initially, mostly in Leh, after the repeal of Art. 370 which created two new UTs.
    • Negligence in erstwhile J&K state: Buddhist-dominated Leh district had long demanded UT status because it felt neglected by the erstwhile state government.
    • Denial of Legislature: The enthusiasm waned as it was understood that while the UT of J&K would have a legislature, the UT of Ladakh would not.
    • Inadequate representation: The administration of the region is now completely in the hands of bureaucrats with only 1 MP.
    • New domicile criteria: The changed domicile policy in Jammu and Kashmir has raised fears in the region about its own land, employment, demography, and cultural identity.
    • Statehood demands: A coalition of social, religious, and political representatives in Leh and Kargil has demanded full statehood for Ladakh.

    Cultural significance of Ladakh

    • Ladakh is historically perceived as a cosmopolitan region with centuries of multiple cultural settings.
    • It was an Asian pivot – the people here traversed diverse cultural boundaries and engaged with ideas.

    Can Ladakh be included in Sixth Schedule?

    • NCST Recommends: In September 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended the inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule.
    • Distinct culture: It was predominantly tribal (more than 97%), people from other parts of the country had been restricted from purchasing or acquiring land there, and its distinct cultural heritage needed preservation.

    Legal hurdles

    • Fifth schedule as an alternative: The Constitution is very clear, Sixth Schedule is for the Northeast. For tribal areas in the rest of the country, there is the Fifth Schedule.
    • Exclusive provision for NE: Notably, no region outside the Northeast has been included in the Sixth Schedule.
    • Requires Constitutional Amendment: It remains the prerogative of the government. For this, a constitutional amendment is required.

    Government’s response in this regard

    • The Centre woke up to the anxieties of the region when, a year after the abrogation of Article 370, when all political parties announced a boycott of the LAHDC-Leh elections.
    • The political factions in Ladakh were promised “Sixth Schedule-like” protections by the Home Minister.
    • The MHA has in Jan announced that a committee under then MoS Home G Kishan Reddy would be formed to address the issues related to language of Ladakh, culture of Ladakh and conservation of land in Ladakh.
    • It had assured representatives of Kargil and Leh that the government was committed to look into their concerns.

    Try this question from CSP 2015:

    Q.The provisions in Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution of India are made in order to-

    (a) protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes

    (b) determine the boundaries between States

    (c) determine the powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats

    (d) protect the interests of all the border States

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”0xt8a7bveb” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Inter-State Boundary Disputes in India

    The Union Home Ministry (MHA) has informed that 11 States and one Union Territory have boundary disputes between them.

    Why in news?

    • There are disputes arising out of the demarcation of boundaries and claims and counterclaims over territories.
    • Occasional protests and incidents of violence are reported from some of the disputed border areas.

    Major boundary disputes include:

    [1] Karnataka-Maharashtra

    • The Belgaum district is arguably part of one of the biggest inter-state border disputes in India.
    • The district has a large Marathi and Kannada-speaking populations and has been at the centre of a dispute for a long time.
    • The area came under Karnataka in 1956 when states were reorganized and till then it was under the Bombay presidency.

    [2] Assam-Mizoram

    • The border dispute between Assam and Mizoram is a legacy of two British-era notifications of 1875 and 1933, when Mizoram was called Lushai Hills, a district in Assam.
    • The 1875 notification differentiated Lushai Hills from the plains of Cachar and the other demarcated boundary between Lushai Hills and Manipur.
    • While Mizoram became a state only in 1987 following years of insurgency, it still insists on the boundary decided in 1875.
    • Assam, on the other hand, wants the boundary demarcated in 1986 (based on the 1933 notification).
    • In that case, entire Mizoram was part of Assam before the Independence,” Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on July 27.
    • Mizoram says the 1986 agreement is not acceptable as the Mizo civil society was not consulted at that time.

    [3] Haryana-Himachal Pradesh

    • The Parwanoo region has had the spotlight over the border dispute between the two states.
    • It is next to the Panchkula district of Haryana and the state has claimed parts of the land in Himachal Pradesh as its own.

    [4] Himachal Pradesh-Ladakh

    • Himachal and Ladakh lay claim to Sarchu, an area on the route between Leh and Manali.
    • It is considered a major point where travellers stop when travelling between the two cities.
    • Sarchu is in between Himachal’s Lahul and Spiti district and Leh district in Ladakh.

    [5] Arunachal Pradesh-Assam

    • Arunachal’s grievance is that the re-organisation of North Eastern states unilaterally transferred several forested tracts in the plains that had traditionally belonged to hill tribal chiefs and communities to Assam.
    • After Arunachal Pradesh achieved statehood in 1987, a tripartite committee was appointed which recommended that certain territories be transferred from Assam to Arunachal.
    • Assam contested this and the matter is before the Supreme Court.

    [6] Meghalaya-Assam

    • The problem between Assam and Meghalaya started when the latter challenged the Assam Reorganisation Act of 1971, which gave Blocks I and II of the Mikir Hills or present-day Karbi Anglong district to Assam.
    • Meghalaya contends that both these blocks formed part of the erstwhile United Khasi and Jaintia Hills district when it was notified in 1835.
    • Meghalaya bases its case on survey maps of 1872 and 1929 and certain notifications of 1878 and 1951, while Assam wants to go by the rejected recommendations of the Churachand Committee.

    [7] Assam-Nagaland

    • The longest-running border dispute in the North East is between Assam and Nagaland, which began soon after Nagaland became a state in 1963.
    • The Nagaland State Act of 1962 had defined the state’s borders according to a 1925 notification when Naga Hills and Tuensang Area (NHTA) were integrated into a new administrative unit.
    • Nagaland, however, does not accept the boundary delineation and has demanded that the new state should also have all Naga-dominated areas in North Cachar and Nagaon districts.
    • Since Nagaland did not accept its notified borders, tensions between Assam and Nagaland flared up soon after the latter was formed, resulting in the first border clashes in 1965.
    • This was followed by major clashes between the two states along the border in 1968, 1979, 1985, 2007, 2014 and 2021.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Judges cannot be shielded from citizens’ questions

    Context

    Recently, the Chief Justice of India, in his own mild way, protested against the attack on judges. One can understand his pain and agony, but he too knows that judges do not, and should not live in ivory towers.

    Questioning and analysing actions of the judiciary

    • As the judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy, and the Constitution entrusts judges with the task of protecting the constitutional rights of the people, especially the right to life and liberty, the consumer of justice has every right, and would be fully justified in critically examining, and commenting upon each and every word of the judges spoken or written, howsoever unpalatable it may be.
    • It appears that it is in the above spirit that MP Shashi Tharoor, speaking in Parliament on the High Court and Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill said that the judiciary had failed to stem the tide of militant majoritarianism.
    • He alleged that the “judiciary’s inaction almost always favours those in power”. 
    • He has raised pertinent questions, and has brought out the glaring failings of the judiciary in matters concerning the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens. 
    • Pendency of important cases such as the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, the Citizenship Amendment Act, electoral bonds, and many petitions under the preventive detention laws highlights this issue.

    Issues in functioning of collegium system

    • As regards the functioning of the collegium system, judges are transferred without any seeming justification, and in some cases re-transferred, justifying neither their initial transfer nor the re-transfer.
    • Some elevations of judges raise eyebrows, while some are ignored.
    • Should the collegium not be more transparent than it has been in the past in the matter of the elevation and transfers of judges?

    Conclusion

    Judges cannot be shielded from citizens’ questions. After all, as a consumer of justice, the citizen has a right to know.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Sedition Law: Section 124A of the IPC

    Law Minister has informed the Parliament that there is no proposal to scrap sedition from the IPC despite severe remarks by the Supreme Court about the chilling effect of the “colonial law” which suppresses the freedoms of ordinary people.

    What does Section 124A of the IPC say?

    • The section deals with the offence of sedition, a term that covers speech or writing, or any form of visible representation, which brings the government into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards the government, or attempts to do so.
    • It is punishable with three years in prison or a life term.
    • “Disaffection”, it says, includes disloyalty and feelings of enmity.
    • However, it also says expressing disapproval of government measures or actions, with a view to getting them changed by lawful means, without promoting hatred or disaffection or contempt towards the government will not come under this section.

    What is its origin?

    • Colonial past: Sedition was introduced in the penal code in 1870, a decade after the Indian Penal Code came into force.
    • It was a colonial law directed against strong criticism of the British administration.
    • Putting curb on Freedom fighters: Its most famous victims included Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.
    • Gandhiji called it “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

     

    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.

    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?

    • Liberals and rights activists have been demanding the scrapping of Section 124A.
    • It is argued that the provision is “overbroad”, i.e., it defines the offence in wide terms threatening the liberty of citizens.
    • The Law Commission has also called for a reconsideration of the section.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    What has the apex court observed?

    • Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had flagged the indiscriminate use of the sedition law against people who aired their grievances about the government’s COVID management.
    • People have been charged even for seeking help to gain medical access, equipment, drugs and oxygen cylinders, especially during the second wave of the pandemic.
    • Justice U.U. Lalit, in his recent judgment, quashed a sedition case against a person for his alleged remarks about the PM and the Union Government.

    Way forward

    • The time is long past when the mere criticism of governments was sufficient to constitute sedition.
    • The right to utter honest and reasonable criticism is a source of strength to a community rather than a weakness, the CJI has recorded.

    Try answering this PYQ:

    Q.With reference to Rowlatt Satyagraha, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. The Rowlatt Act was based on the recommendations of the ‘Sedition Committee’.
    2. In Rowlatt Satyagraha, Gandhiji tried to utilize the Home Rule League.
    3. Demonstrations against the arrival of Simon Commission coincided with Rowlatt Satyagraha.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”atorf1wdl4″ question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Governor’s Role in State Universities

    A controversy has erupted in Kerala over the reappointment of a person as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University, with Governor saying he approved the decision against his “better judgment” as Chancellor.

    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.

    A disputed case

    • In Kerala’s case, the Governor’s official portal asserts that while as Governor he functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • While acting as Chancellor he acts independently of the Council of Ministers and takes his own decisions on all University matters.
    • In marked contrast, the website of Rajasthan’s Raj Bhawan states that the “Governor appoints the Vice-Chancellor on the advice/ in consultation with the State Government”.

    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.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Suspension of MPs for entire Winter Session is worrying

    Context

    Twelve members of the Rajya Sabha were suspended for their alleged involvement in the grave disorder in the House on the last day of the previous session.

    What do Rajya Sabha’s rules of procedure say about the suspension of a member?

    • Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha’s rules of procedure provides for the suspension of a member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the House.
    • Persistent and willful obstruction of the business of the House is the crux of the offence.
    • What is the maximum period of suspension? Suspension can be for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.
    • This would mean that if the member is suspended on the last day of the session, the period of suspension will be only a day.
    • So, even if a government would like to suspend such a member for a longer period. it would not be possible under the present rule.
    • Unless the House itself revokes the suspension nothing can be done about it.
    • The decision of the House is final.
    • Every legislature has the power to suspend its members if they cause disorder and obstruct the business of the House.
    • But the rule of suspension is rarely invoked in parliaments in mature democracies.

    Whether the existing rules permit such a course of action?

    • Rule 256 says that the chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who either disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the House.
    • Sub Rule 2 of this rule is of very great importance in the context of the main question, namely, whether a member can be suspended in the next session for creating disorder in the previous session.
    • No adjournment is allowed: It clearly says no adjournment is allowed, which means the matter of suspension cannot be adjourned to a later period.
    • It needs to be decided then and there.
    • A member who abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing its business needs to be punished swiftly.
    • No adjournment is allowed at all.

    The powers of the House to regulate its internal matters

    • It can be said that the rule under which the members were suspended does not actually permit it.
    • Absolute power to interpret rule: The House is supreme in these matters and the chair has absolute powers to interpret the rules.
    • The judiciary has time and again clarified that the House has absolute powers to regulate its internal matters.
    • Suspension of a member is such a matter.
    • The judiciary will intervene only when a patently unconstitutional act is done by the House.

    Conclusion

    The solution to disruptions does not lie in suspension. That is the lesson we should learn from past experience.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • In news: Law Commission of India

    The Government has informed the Supreme Court that the appointment of Chairperson and Members of the 22nd Law Commission of India is under consideration.

    Why in news?

    • The setting up of the 22nd Law Commission was constituted by the Government on February 21, 2020.
    • However, no progress has been made in the appointments till date.
    • The Government invoked the ‘doctrine of separation of power’, which says that one arm of governance should not encroach into that of another.

    Issues over appointment

    • The last chairman of the law commission was retired Supreme Court judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan, who completed his tenure on 31 August 2018.
    • Subsequently, the Commission has not been reconstituted.
    • In February 2020, the Government of India announced its intention to reconstitute the Commission with no visible progress.

    About Law Commission

    • Law Commission of India is a currently-defunct executive body established by an order of the Government of India.
    • The Commission’s function is to research and advise the GoI on legal reform, and is composed of legal experts, and headed by a retired judge.
    • The commission is established for a fixed tenure and works as an advisory body to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
    • The last chairman of the Commission retired in August 2018, and since then, it has not been reconstituted.

    Colonial Background

    • The first Law Commission was established during colonial rule in India, by the East India Company under the Charter Act of 1833.
    • It was then presided by Lord Macaulay.
    • After that, three more Commissions were established in pre-independent India.

    Post-Independence functioning

    • The first Law Commission of independent India was established in 1955 for a three-year term.
    • Since then, twenty-one more Commissions have been established.

    Major reforms undertaken

    • The First Law Commission under Macaulay Itsuggested 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.

     

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)