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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Need for ‘Indianization’ of Legal System: CJI

    Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has asserted the need for the “Indianisation of our legal system”, pointing out that the colonial system being followed currently may not be best suited to the complexities of India.

    Prospects of Indianization by CJI

    • CJI meant that the need to adapt to the practical realities of our society and localize our justice delivery systems.
    • For example, parties from a rural place fighting a family dispute are usually made to feel out of place in the court.
    • They do not understand the arguments or pleadings which are mostly in English, a language alien to them.
    • These days judgments have become lengthy, which further complicates the position of litigants.
    • For the parties to understand the implications of a judgment, they are forced to spend more money.
    • For whom do the court’s function, the CJI asked. For the litigants, who are the “justice seekers”. They are the ultimate beneficiaries.

    What did CJI say?

    • CJI has said the ordinary Indian feels out of place in our courts where proceedings are lengthy, expensive and in English.
    • Besides, judgments are either too long or technical or manage to be both.
    • It is time for courts to wake up from their colonial stupor and face the practical realities of Indian society.
    • Rules and procedures of justice delivery should be made simple.
    • The ordinary, poor and rural Indian should not be scared of judges or the courts.

    Reasons for Indianization

    • Multiple barriers continue to thwart the citizen’s way to the courts.
    • The working and the style of courts do not sit well with the complexities of India.
    • The systems, practices and rules of courts are foreign and sourced from our colonial days. They do not take care of the practical realities of India.

    Major suggestions by CJI:

    (A) Simplification

    • The simplification of justice delivery should be our pressing concern.
    • It is crucial to make justice delivery more transparent, accessible and effective.
    • Procedural barriers often undermine access to justice.
    • The Chief Justice said both judges and lawyers have to create an environment which is comforting for the litigants and other stakeholders.

    (B) Alternate dispute mechanisms

    • The CJI said alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation and conciliation would go a long way in reducing pendency, unnecessary litigation and save resources.

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

  • Deployment of Facial Recognition Systems (FRS) in India

    India has seen a rapid deployment of Facial Recognition Systems (FRS) in recent years, both by the Centre and State governments, without putting in place any law to regulate their use.

    Facial Recognition System

    • A FRS is a technology capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces.
    • It is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image.

    Why in news?

    • There is a growing unabated use of this potentially invasive technology without any safeguards.
    • This poses a huge threat to the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.

    FRS in India

    • Currently, 18 FRSs are in active utilisation by the Centre and State governments for the purpose of surveillance, security and authentication of identity.
    • 49 more systems are in the process of being installed by different government agencies.
    • Delhi Police was the first law enforcement agency in the country to start using the technology in 2018.
    • Only Telangana is ahead of Delhi at present with four facial recognition systems in active utilization for surveillance and authentication of identity.

    Judicial scrutiny of the move

    • States say that they are authorized by the Delhi High Court in terms of the decision in the case of ‘Sadhan Haldar vs NCT of Delhi’.
    • In that particular case, the High Court had authorized the Delhi police to obtain facial recognition technology for the purpose of tracking and reuniting missing children.
    • FRS may be used in the investigation in the interest of safety and security of the general public.

    A potential mis-use?

    Ans. Can’t say!

    • Activists pointed out that Delhi Police was now using the FRS, which was meant for tracking missing children, for wider security and surveillance and investigation purpose.
    • There is a “function creep” happening with Police gradually using the technology beyond its intended purpose.
    • For example, the use of FRS to identify accused who took part in the farmers’ tractor rally violence in January this year.

    Need of the hour

    Ans. Bring accountability

    • Surveillance of any kind happens in secret and the people generally don’t know that they are being watched.
    • The idea behind is to bring light to the fact that these technology systems are being used without any laws in place to regulate them.
    • Police and state authorities should use such technologies for specific and special purposes with proper authorization.

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

  • 50th anniversary of Meghalaya’s Statehood

    The Meghalaya Assembly has given an indigenous touch to the National Anthem ahead of the 50th anniversary of Meghalaya’s Statehood in 2022.

    About Meghalaya

    • Meghalaya meaning “abode of clouds” was formed by carving out two districts from the state of Assam: the United Khasi Hills and Jaintia Hills, and the Garo Hills on 21 January 1972.
    • It was previously part of Assam, but on 21 January 1972, the districts of Khasi, Garo and Jaintia hills became the new state of Meghalaya.
    • It is the wettest region of India, with the wettest areas in the southern Khasi Hills recording an average of 12,000 mm (470 in) of rain a year.
    • About 70 percent of the state is forested.
    • The Meghalaya subtropical forests ecoregion encompasses the state; its mountain forests are distinct from the lowland tropical forests to the north and south.

    Note the chronology of reorganization states in India

    State Formation Year Status prior to the formation
    Andhra 1953 Part of the state of Madras
    Gujarat 1960 Part of the state of Bombay
    Maharashtra 1960 Part of the state of Bombay
    Kerala 1956 State of Travancore and Cochin
    Nagaland 1963 Union territory
    Haryana 1966 Part of Punjab
    Karnataka 1956 State of Mysore was formed in 1953, enlarged Mysore in 1956 which was renamed in 1973.
    Himachal Pradesh 1971 Union Territory
    Manipur, Tripura 1972 Union Territories
    Meghalaya 1972 Autonomous state within state of Assam
    Sikkim 1975 Associate state since 1974 and a protectorate of India before that.
    Mizoram 1987 District of Assam till 1972 and Union Territory from 1972 to 1987.
    Arunachal Pradesh 1987 Union Territory
    Goa 1987 Union Territory
    Uttarakhand 2000 Part of Uttar Pradesh
    Chhattisgarh 2000 Part of Madhya Pradesh
    Jharkhand 2000 Part of Bihar
    Telangana 2014 Part of Andhra Pradesh

     

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

  • State control over Temples

    Context

    On August 14, 2021, the Tamil Nadu government appointed 24 trained archakas (priests) in temples across the State. In the weeks since, a series of writ petitions have been filed before the Madras High Court assailing these appointments.

    Administration of  Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu by government and challenges to it

    • The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE), 1959, is the governing law on the administration of Hindu temples and religious institutions.
    • In 1971, Section 55 of the HR&CE Act was amended to abolish hereditary priesthood.
    • Removal of caste-based discrimination: In 2006, the amendment provided for the appointment of sufficiently trained Hindus irrespective of their caste as archakas to Hindu temples by the government.
    • Challenges in the Court: Challenges to both amendments were taken to the Supreme Court, which upheld the law, as amended.
    •  In Seshammal v. Union (1972), the Supreme Court observed that the amendment to the HR&CE Act abolishing hereditary priesthood did not mean that the government intended to bring about any “change in the rituals and ceremonies”.
    • Constitutional legitimacy: In Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2015), the Supreme Court observed that “the constitutional legitimacy, naturally, must supersede all religious beliefs or practices”.
    • The Court further went on to state that appointments should be tested on a case-by-case basis and any appointment that is not in line with the Agamas will be against the constitutional freedoms enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

    Judicial balancing of the various rights by the Supreme Court

    • In Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. State of Kerala (the Sabarimala case) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court reiterated the need to eliminate “historical discrimination which has pervaded certain identities”’, “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups”.
    • In these cases the Supreme Court rejected stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination.
    • In all these cases, the Court prioritised judicial balancing of various constitutional rights.
    • The constitutional order of priority: In the Sabarimala case, it held that “in the constitutional order of priorities, the individual right to the freedom of religion was not intended to prevail over but was subject to the overriding constitutional postulates of equality, liberty and personal freedoms recognised in the other provisions of Part III”.

    Way forward

    • Building on the Sabrimala case: The constitutional courts will now be called upon to build on the gains of the Sabarimala case when it comes to administration of temples, insofar as it concerns matters that are not essentially religious.
    • Dealing with the gender bias: The Supreme Court, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), interpreted Article 15 as being wide, progressive and intersectional.
    • Today, while most of the debate is around whether men from all caste groups can become archakas, we have failed to recognise the gender bias inherent in these discussions.

    Consider the question “We have been witnessing the evolution of rights-based jurisprudence in the various judgements of the Supreme Court. This will help to eliminate “systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups”, and reject stereotypical notions used to justify such discrimination. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    At once, caste orthodoxy and patriarchy entrenched within the realm of the HR&CE Act can be eliminated and supplanted with a vision of a just, equal and dignified society.

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

  • In Manipur, a case for asymmetric federalism

    As a normative idea and an institutional arrangement that supports the recognition and provision of an expansive ‘self-rule’ for territorially concentrated minority groups, asymmetric federalism has recently received bad press in India.

    India’s Federalism: A backgrounder

    • Nations are described as ‘federal’ or ‘unitary’, depending on the way in which governance is organised.
    • In a unitary set-up, the Centre has plenary powers of administration and legislation, with its constituent units having little autonomy.
    • In a federal arrangement, the constituent units are identified on the basis of region or ethnicity and conferred varying forms of autonomy or some level of administrative and legislative powers.
    • In India, the residuary powers of legislation, that is the power to make law in a field not specified in the Constitution, is vested in Parliament.
    • Hence India has a quasi-federal framework.

    Why is it said that India has asymmetric federalism?

    • The main forms of administrative units in India are the Centre and the States.
    • Just as the Centre and the States do not have matching powers in all matters, there are some differences in the way some States and other constituent units of the Indian Union relate to the Centre.
    • This creates a notable asymmetry in the way Indian federalism works.
    • But there are other forms, too, all set up to address specific local, historical and geographical contexts.

    The asymmetric structure

    • Besides the Centre and the States, the country has Union Territories with a legislature, and Union Territories without a legislature.
    • When the Constitution came into force, the various States and other administrative units were divided into Parts A, B, C and D.
    • Part A States were the erstwhile provinces, while Part B consisted of erstwhile princely states and principalities. Part C areas were the erstwhile ‘Chief Commissioner’s Provinces’.
    • They became Union Territories, and some of them initially got legislatures and were later upgraded into States.
    • Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa belong to this category.

    Power apparatus in these asymmetries: Sixth Schedule

    • The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution contains provisions for the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
    • These create autonomous districts and autonomous regions.
    • Any autonomous district with different Scheduled Tribes will be divided into autonomous regions.
    • These will be administered by District Councils and Regional Councils.
    • These Councils can make laws with respect to allotment, occupation and use of land, management of forests other than reserve forests and water courses.
    • Besides they can regulate social customs, marriage and divorce and property issues.

    An integrationist approach adopted by the Constituent Assembly

    • Post-independence, India was criticized for arguably becoming a ‘homogenous Hindu nation’ after Partition.
    • To counter this, the Gopinath Bordoloi Committee, a sub-committee of the Constituent Assembly sought to accommodate the distinctive identity, culture and way of life of tribal groups in the NE by envisioning ‘self-rule’.
    • This distinctive constitutional status to territorially concentrated minorities fosters centrifugal tendencies.
    • Asymmetric federalism fosters subversive institutions, political instability and breakup of States.

    Curious case of Manipur: Recent developments

    • Article 371 gives expansive constitutional powers to Manipur’s Hill Areas Committee (Article 371C) over tribal identity, culture, development and local administration, are exemplars.
    • The integrationist approach resonates powerfully in two recent attempts by Manipur’s government to
    1. stall the introduction and passage of the Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council (Amendment) Bill, 2021, and
    2. induct nine Assembly members from the valley areas into the Hill Areas Committee.
    • This move is being perceived as a “malicious” and “direct assault” on the Hill Areas Committee and the constitutional protection accorded to the Hill Areas of Manipur under Article 371C.

    A determined move

    • These moves marks a calculated initiative to use this as a double-edged sword to simultaneously set apace electoral agenda for the upcoming Assembly elections in early 2022 and reclaim its agency to fortify state-level constitutional asymmetry.
    • The attempt to increase membership of the six district councils to 31 members each and secure more powers to the councils by giving more developmental mandate are welcome.

    Managing HAC: A difficult task

    • If history is any guide, the task of reclaiming the Hill Areas Committee’s agency is not going to be easy.
    • Its members often leverage tribe/party loyalty over-commitment to protect constitutional asymmetry and common tribals’ cause.
    • How the HAC and various tribal groups strategically navigate their politics to offset the majoritarian impulse to manipulate the legal and political process to dilute/dissolve extant constitutional asymmetry remains to be seen.

    Way forward

    • There should be sincere commitment to promote tribal development, identity and culture that Article 371C seeks to bridge.
    • Recognizing and institutionally accommodating tribal distinctiveness is not just as a matter of political convenience
    • This valuable and enduring good will be key to promote the State’s integrity, stability and peace in the long run.

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

  • Allahabad HC verdict disqualifying then PM

    The 1975 verdict of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad high court, disqualifying then PM Indira Gandhi on charges of electoral malpractices was a judgment of “great courage” that “shook” the nation, said CJI in his speech.

    What was the case?

    • It all started with the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, where the Congress (R), which was the newly formed faction of the Congress party floated by Indira Gandhi after her expulsion from the party in 1969, won a landslide victory securing 352 out of the 518 seats in the lower house.
    • An election petition was filed directly before a High Court challenging the election of Indira Gandhi.

    What is an Election Petition?

    • Election Petition has to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the election results.
    • The Representation of People (RP) Act of 1951 lists out the grounds on which the election of a candidate can be called into question.
    • Section 123 of the RP Act lists certain corrupt practices which, if proved successful, can be grounds to declare the election of a candidate void.
    • While hearing an election petition, the High Court being the court of first instance, exercises powers similar to a trial court.
    • Thus, there is cross-examination of witnesses and detailed examination of evidence which is normally employed in trial courts and not High Courts.

    Findings against Gandhi

    • Use of government machinery to set up stage, loudspeakers
    • Use of gazetted officer as an election agent

    A case that led to the promulgation of National Emergency

    The verdict is widely believed to have led to the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

    • A vacation bench of the Supreme Court allowed a partial stay of the judgment after Gandhi had appealed against the High Court verdict.
    • Then Justice VR Krishna Iyer, said that she could continue as Member of Parliament (MP) in the Lok Sabha and could attend the House, but could not participate in its proceedings or vote as MP.
    • She also could not draw any remuneration as an MP.
    • Importantly, the apex court allowed her to continue as Prime Minister and allowed her to speak and participate in the proceedings of the House and to draw salary in her capacity as Prime Minister.
    • The order by the apex court, while not completely against Gandhi, did not satisfy her.
    • She wanted a blanket stay on the Allahabad High Court judgment.
    • Since the Supreme Court did not grant her that, National Emergency was proclaimed the very next day, June 25.

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

    Back2Basics: National Emergency

    • The Constitution employs the expression ‘proclamation of emergency’ to denote National Emergency under Article 352.
    • Under Article 352, the president can declare a national emergency when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by war or external aggression or armed rebellion.
    • The President can declare a national emergency even before the actual occurrence of war or armed rebellion or external aggression
    • When a national emergency is declared on the grounds of ‘war’ or ‘external aggression’, it is known as ‘External Emergency’.
    • On the other hand, when it is declared on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’, it is known as ‘Internal Emergency’.
    • The term ‘armed rebellion is inserted from the 44th amendment. Before this term, it was known as an internal disturbance.

     

  • Domicile Based Job Quota

    The Jharkhand Assembly has passed a Bill, which provides 75% reservation for local people in the private sector up to â‚č40,000 salary a month.

    Try answering this PYQ first:

    Q.One of the implications of equality in society is the absence of- (CSP 2018)

    (a) Privileges

    (b) Restraints

    (c) Competition

    (d) Ideology

    What is the move?

    • Every employer shall register such employees receiving gross monthly salary as wages not more than â‚č 40,000 as the limit notified by the government from time to time on the designated portal within three months of the Act coming into force.
    • Every employer shall fill up 75% of the total existing vacancies on the date of notification of this Act and subsequent thereto by local candidates with respect to such posts where the gross monthly salary or wages are not more than â‚č40,000”.
    • The Bill provides for the local MLA to supervise the employment procedure and issue directions to the employer concerned as it may deem fit.

    Other such states

    • Once notified, Jharkhand will become the third State in the country, after Andhra Pradesh and Haryana, to pass such law.
    • In 2019, Andhra Pradesh passed such law, while in June last, Haryana passed law, reserving 75% quota for the local people in private jobs with monthly salary less than â‚č50,000.

    What is Quota for Locals?

    Ans. Constitutional provision for Equal Treatment

    • Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law in matters of public employment. It prohibits the state from discriminating on grounds of place of birth or residence.
    • Article 16(2) states that “no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State”.
    • The provision is supplemented by the other clauses in the Constitution that guarantee equality.
    • However, Article 16(3) of the Constitution provides an exception by saying that Parliament may make a law “prescribing” a requirement of residence for jobs in a particular state.
    • This power vests solely in the Parliament, not state legislatures.

    Why does the Constitution prohibit reservation based on domicile?

    • When the Constitution came into force, India turned itself into one nation from a geographical unit of individual principalities and the idea of the universality of Indian citizenship took root.
    • India has single citizenship, and it gives citizens the liberty to move around freely in any part of the country.
    • Hence the requirement of a place of birth or residence cannot be qualifications for granting public employment in any state.

    But are reservations not granted on other grounds such as caste?

    • Equality enshrined in the Constitution is not mathematical equality and does not mean all citizens will be treated alike without any distinction.
    • To this effect, the Constitution underlines two distinct aspects which together form the essence of equality law:
    1. Non-discrimination among equals, and
    2. Affirmative action to equalize the unequal

    Supreme Court rulings on quota for locals

    • The Supreme Court has ruled against reservation based on place of birth or residence.
    • In 1984, ruling in Dr Pradeep Jain v Union of India, the issue of legislation for “sons of the soil” was discussed.
    • The court expressed an opinion that such policies would be unconstitutional but did not expressly rule on it as the case was on different aspects of the right to equality.
    • In a subsequent ruling in Sunanda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1995), the Supreme Court affirmed the observation in 1984 ruling to strike down a state government policy that gave 5% extra weightage to candidates.
    • In 2002, the Supreme Court invalidated appointment of government teachers in Rajasthan in which the state selection board gave preference to “applicants belonging to the district or the rural areas of the district concerned”.
    • In 2019, the Allahabad HC struck down a recruitment notification by the UP PSC which prescribed preference for women who are “original residents” of the UP alone.

  • Spirit of federalism lies in consultation

    Context

    Recently, various State governments raised concerns about Central unilateralism in the enactment of critical laws on subjects in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.

    Objection of the state against Centre legislating on the subject in Concurrent List without consulting States

    • Unilateral legislation on subjects in Concurrent list: Kerala Chief Minister stated that it is not in the essence of federalism for the Union government to legislate unilaterally, on the subjects in the Concurrent List.
    • Encroaching on powers of States: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister raised the issue by calling on other Chief Ministers against the Union government encroaching on powers under the State and Concurrent Lists.
    • The Kerala Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution against the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
    • The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution against the controversial farm laws.

    Background of the Concurrent List

    • The Concurrent List gives the Union and the State Legislatures concurrent powers to legislate on the subjects contained in it.
    • Purpose of Concurrent List: The fields in the Concurrent List were to be of common interest to the Union and the States, and the power to legislate on these subjects to be shared with the Union so that there would be uniformity in law across the country.

    Union government extending its control on subjects in the Concurrent List and State list

    1) Farm laws: Encroaching on the powers of States

    • Parliament passed the farm laws without consulting the States.
    • State List subject: The laws, essentially related to Entry 14 (agriculture clause) belonging to the State List.
    • However, Parliament passed the law citing Entry 33 (trade and commerce clause) in the Concurrent List.
    • Against legal principle set by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court, beginning from the State of Bombay vs F.N. Balsara case, said that if an enactment falls within one of the matters assigned to the State List and reconciliation is not possible with an entry in the Concurrent or Union List after employing the doctrine of “pith and substance”, the legislative domain of the State Legislature must prevail.

    2) Major Port Authorities Act 2021 and Indian Ports Bill: Centre taking away the power of State

    • The Major Ports Authorities Act, 2021, was passed by Parliament earlier this year.
    • Goa objected to the law, stating that it would lead to the redundancy of the local laws.
    • Concurrent List subject: When it comes to non-major ports, the field for legislation is located in Entry 31 of the Concurrent List. 
    • The Indian Ports Act, 1908, presently governs the field related to non-major ports.
    • As per the Indian Ports Act, 1908, the power to regulate and control the minor ports remained with the State governments.
    • The new draft Indian Ports Bill, 2021, proposes the Maritime State Development Council (MSDC), which is overwhelmingly controlled by the Union government.

    3) Electricity (Amendment) Bill,2020: Centre taking away powers of State

    • Various States like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have also come forward against the Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
    • The field related to electricity is traceable to Entry 38 of the Concurrent List.
    • The power to regulate the sector was vested with the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs), members of which were appointed by the State government.
    • The proposed amendment seeks to establish National Selection Committee, dominated by members nominated by the Union government that will make appointments to the SERCs.
    • The amendment also proposes the establishment of a Centrally-appointed Electricity Contract Enforcement Authority (ECEA).
    • In effect, the power to regulate the electricity sector would be taken away from the State government.

    Way forward

    • Consultation with States: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), or the Venkatachaliah Commission, had recommended that individual and collective consultation with the States should be undertaken through the Inter-State Council established under Article 263 of the Constitution.
    • Coordination of policy and action in concurrent jurisdiction: The Sarkaria Commission Report had recommended that there should be a coordination of policy and action in all areas of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction through a process of mutual consultation.
    • Limit powers to ensuring uniformity: The Sarkaria Commission further recommended that the Union government, while exercising powers under the Concurrent List, limit itself to the purpose of ensuring uniformity in basic issues of national policy and not more.
    • Responsibility of Centre: The Supreme Court itself had held in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case, the States are not mere appendages of the Union.
    • The Union government should ensure that the power of the States is not trampled with.

    Consider the question “There has been instances of protest by the State government against Centre legislating unilaterally on subjects in Concurrent List. What are the implications of this for the federalism? Suggest the way forward.”

    Conclusion

    The essence of cooperative federalism lies in consultation and dialogue, and unilateral legislation without taking the States into confidence will lead to more protests on the streets.

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

     

  • Right to Sit to be mandated in Tamil Nadu

    The Tamil Nadu government has tabled a Bill in the Legislative Assembly making it mandatory for establishments to provide seating facilities for employees.

    Right to Sit

    • The Right to Sit is aimed to benefit thousands of employees of large and small establishments, particularly those working in textile and jewelry showrooms.
    • Persons employed in shops and establishments in the State are made to stand throughout their duty time resulting in varied health issues.
    • The bill mandates for every premises of establishments to have suitable seating arrangements for all employees so that they may take advantage of any opportunity to sit in the course of their work.
    • This would avoid the ‘on their toes’ situation throughout the working hours.

    Inspired from Kerala

    • A few years ago, workers of textile showrooms in Kerala had gone on a protest demanding the ‘Right to Sit’, prompting the government there to amend the Kerala Shops and Establishments Act in 2018.
    • This in turn provided seating arrangements for them.

    A move for women

    • Most owners of shops and other retail outlets forbid women, the bulk of the shop workforce, to sit.
    • Even leaning against a wall was punished. They have varicose veins and joint pain from standing.
    • Toilet breaks were strictly limited. This has led to urinary infections, kidney problems.

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

  • Freedom of Movement and Residence

    The rights to free movement and residence across India cannot be curtailed on flimsy grounds, a Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian held in a judgment.

    Freedom of Movement and Residence

    • Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to every citizen of India right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to reside and settle in any Part of the of the Territory of India.
    • This right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribes.

    (A) Freedom of Movement under Article 19(1)(d)

    • All Citizens of India have the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India.
    • This Right is, however subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(5).

    Restrictions:

    • This clause (5) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interest of any Scheduled Tribe.
    • Kharak Singh V. State of UP (1963) Case: The Supreme Court held that the right to move freely throughout the territory of India means the right of locomotion which connotes the right to move wherever one likes, and however one likes.
    • State of UP V. Kaushalya Case (1964):  In this case, the Supreme court held that the right of movement of prostitutes may be restricted on grounds of Public Health and in the interest of Public Morals.

    (B) Freedom of Resident under Article 19(1)(e)

    • Article 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to every citizen of India, the right “to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India”.
    • This right is subjected to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the State in the interest of the general public or for the protection of the interest of any Scheduled Tribe.

    Some facts

    • The Freedom of Movement and Residence apply only to citizens of India and not the Foreigners.
    • A foreigner cannot claim the right to reside and settle in the country as guaranteed by Article Article 19(1)(e).
    • The Government of India has the power to expel foreigners from India.

    Why in news, now?

    • The Supreme Court has held that the power of the State to pass an externment order or a direction barring certain people entry to specified areas should be exercised only in “exceptional cases”.
    • The court said externment orders have their use in maintaining law and order.
    • However, they cannot be employed as a vindictive or retaliatory measure.
    • The drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace, the court noted.

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

    Back2Basics: Article 19

    Article 19(1) states that All citizens shall have the right:

    • (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
    • (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
    • (c) to form associations or unions;
    • (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
    • (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
    • (f) omitted
    • (g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business