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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • National Commission for Safai Karamcharis gets 3-year extension

    The Union Cabinet has approved a three-year extension of the tenure of the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK) that was set to end on March 31.

    About National Commission for Safai Karamcharis

    • The commission was set up in 1993 under the NCSK Act 1993 for a period of three years, which has been extended since then.
    • The NCSK Act is however ceased to have effect from February 29, 2004.
    • After that, the tenure of the NCSK has been extended as a non-statutory body from time to time through resolutions.

    Why was NCSK set up?

    • The commission helps in coming up with programmes for the welfare of sanitation workers.
    • It also monitors the implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
    • Till December 31, 2021, 58,098 manual scavengers had been identified.

    Need for eliminating Manual Scavenging

    • Undignified life (all the 6 Fundamental Rights are compromised, directly or indirectly).
    • It directly perpetuates castism.
    • Modern, Secular India has no place for such “professions”.
    • It no way suits India’s rising global profile – ‘super power’ aspirations.
    • Women are mostly disprivileged since most manual scavengers are dalit women.

    What else needs to be done?

    • Though the government has taken many steps for the upliftment of the safai karamcharis, the deprivation suffered by them in socio-economic and educational terms is still far from being eliminated.
    • Although manual scavenging has been almost eradicated, sporadic instances of their deaths do occur.

    Way forward

    • There is a continued need to monitor the various interventions and initiatives of the government for welfare of safai Karamcharis.
    • The govt must strive to achieve the goal of complete mechanization of sewer/septic tanks cleaning in the country and rehabilitation of manual scavengers.

    Try this question from CSP 2016:

    Q.’Rashtriya Garima Abhiyaan’ is a national campaign to:

    (a) rehabilitate the homeless and destitute persons and provide them with suitable sources of livelihood

    (b) release the sex workers from their practice and provide them with alternative sources of livelihood

    (c) eradicate the practice of manual scavenging and rehabilitate the manual scavengers

    (d) release the bonded labourers from their bondage and rehabilitate them

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”jine99bkvt” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here:[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

    Also try this question from our AWE initiative:

    Manual scavenging has been called as a worst surviving symbol of untouchability. Critically discuss the measures taken by Government to eradicate this practice? (250 W)

     

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

  • In news: Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956

    Karnataka CM has said irrigation projects are bogged down by river water sharing disputes and asked the Centre to ‘revisit the Inter-State River Water Disputes (IWRD) Act since the law is creating more disputes than resolving them’.

    About IWRD Act

    • The IWRD Act, 1956 aims to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river or river valley.
    • Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the state/regional governments.
    • This act is confined to states of India and not applicable to union territories.
    • Only concerned state governments are entitled to participate in the tribunal adjudication and non-government entities are not permitted.

    Jurisdictions over Rivers

    • River waters use / harnessing is included in states jurisdiction.
    • However, Union government can make laws on regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys to the extent such water resources are directly under its control when expedient in the public interest.
    • When union government wants to take over a interstate river project under its control by law, it has to take approval of the riparian states’ legislature assemblies before passing such bill in the Parliament per Article 252 of the constitution.
    • When public interest is served, President may also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend on the dispute that has arisen between the states of India.

    Resolution of disputes

    • Dispute resolution is a layered process, as mandated by the ISWD Act.
    • After receiving a complaint from a state, the Union government first tries to mediate. It is only when negotiations fail that the Centre is required to form a tribunal to adjudicate the dispute.
    • If a State Government makes a request regarding any water dispute and the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, then a Tribunal is constituted.

    Constitution of Tribunal

    • Whenever the riparian states are not able to reach amicable agreements on their own in sharing of an interstate river waters, section 4 of IRWD Act provides for a Tribunal.
    • The tribunal shall not only adjudicate but also investigate the matters referred to it by the central government and forward a report setting out the facts with its decisions.
    • The tribunal responsibility is not limited to adjudication of issues raised by the concerned states and but investigation of other aspects such as water pollution, water quality deterioration, flood control etc.

    Time-frame for dispute resolution

    • The tribunals have been allotted three years to arrive at a final decision, extendable by two years.
    • The 2002 Amendment to the ISWD Act specified a one-year limit on the timeline allowed to carry out the process of dispute resolution.

    Active tribunals in India

    • Ravi & Beas Water Tribunal (1986) – Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan
    • Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II (2004) – Karnataka, Telangana, Andra Pradesh, Maharashtra
    • Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Goa,Karnataka, Maharashtra
    • Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Andra Pradesh & Odisha
    • Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal (2018) – Odisha & Chattisgarh

    Need for the IWRD Act

    • Major inter-state river basins: India has 25 major river basins, with most rivers flowing across states.
    • Equitable distribution of water: As river basins are shared resources, a coordinated approach between the states is necessary for the preservation, equitable distribution and sustainable utilization of river water.
    • Hydro-politics: Much recently, interstate rivers in India have become sites of contestations, fuelled by conflicting perceptions of property rights, flawed economic instruments for food security.
    • Sustainability: This has led to a lack of an integrated ecosystems approach, and the prevalence of reductionist hydrology for water resource development.

    Issues with IRWD Act

    • Centre’s dilemma: Since river water falls within the ambit of State Subjects, its governance remains confined to the limits of the state political discourse.
    • Interference of Judiciary: The apex court has limited the role of the tribunals to quantification and allocation of water between riparian states, and its own role is to be an interpreter of the awards and agreements.
    • Colonial award: The history of colonial rule has led to the creation of asymmetries between states, and the present water disputes stem from the reproduction of this imperial and colonial power relation.
    • Structural issues: Various operational characteristics of the tribunals as problematic, since they do not adhere to any established system.
    • Operational issues: For instance, the sittings are not routine, the functioning is outside the regular court system, and day-to-day or week-to-week hearings are few and far in between.

    Why this has become a sensitive topic?

    • Associated ethnicity: At the state level, river water is politically perceived as part of the larger issue of “regional sharing of resources,” which is linked with the ethnic and cultural identity of the state and its people.
    • Matter of autonomy: The political narrative around river disputes is subsumed within the question of regional rights, and any possibility of water sharing is seen as a compromise or infringement on the regional autonomy of a state.
    • Identity politics: Hence, the political narrative around the river disputes jumps to a larger scale of identity politics.

    Way forward

    • For such dispute resolution, all other recourses such as mediation and conciliation must remain viable options.
    • These should operate simultaneously along with adjudication and political consensus among the riparian states.
    • Directly approaching the Supreme Court may result in adversarial outcomes, with the conflict reaching a point of no return.

     

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

  • Mekedatu Dam Project

    The ‘Mekedatu march’ has been launched for the implementation of a project to build a reservoir on the Cauvery at Mekedatu near the Tamil Nadu border.

    What is the Mekedatu Project?

    • Mekedatu, meaning goat’s leap, is a deep gorge situated at the confluence of the rivers Cauvery and Arkavathi, about 100 km from Bengaluru, at the Kanakapura taluk in Karnataka’s Ramanagara district.
    • In 2013, then Karnataka announced the construction of a multi-purpose balancing reservoir project.
    • The project aimed to alleviate the drinking water problems of the Bengaluru and Ramanagara districts.
    • It was also expected to generate hydroelectricity to meet the power needs of the state.

    Issues with the project

    • Soon after the project was announced TN has objected over granting of permission or environmental clearance.
    • Explaining the potential for damage to the lower riparian state of TN, it said that the project was in violation of the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
    • It stated that the project will affect the natural flow of the river Cauvery considerably and will severely affect the irrigation in TN.

    What do the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court say?

    • The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, in its final order on February 2007, made allocations to all the riparian States — Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, apart from the Union Territory of Puducherry.
    • It also stipulated “tentative monthly deliveries during a normal year” to be made available by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu.
    • Aggrieved over the final order for different reasons, the States had appealed to the Supreme Court.
    • In February 2018, the court, in its judgment, revised the water allocation and increased the share of Karnataka by 14.75 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) at the cost of Tamil Nadu.
    • The enhanced quantum comprised 4.75 tmc ft for meeting drinking water and domestic requirements of Bengaluru and surrounding areas.

    What is Karnataka planning?

    • Encouraged by the Supreme Court verdict, Karnataka, which sees the order as an endorsement of its stand, has set out to pursue the Mekedatu project.
    • Originally proposed as a hydropower project, the revised Mekedatu dam project has more than one purpose to serve.
    • A hydropower plant of nearly 400 MW has also been proposed.
    • The Karnataka government has argued that the proposed reservoir will regulate the flow to Tamil Nadu on a monthly basis, as stipulated by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
    • This is why Karnataka has contended that the project will not affect the interests of Tamil Nadu farmers.

     

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

  • How to deal with hate speech

    Context

    On January 12, 2022 , the Supreme Court of India agreed to hear petitions asking for legal action to be taken against the organisers of, and speakers at, the “Hardwar Dharma Sansad”.

    What constitutes hate speech

    • Hate speech is speech that targets people based on their identity, and calls for violence or discrimination against people because of their identity.
    • There is an absence of any legal or social consensus around what constitutes “hate speech.”
    • As societies around the world have long understood, the harm in hate speech is not restricted to direct and proximate calls to violence.
    • Inciting discrimination is part of hate speech: Hate speech works in more insidious ways, creating a climate that strengthens existing prejudices and entrenches already-existing discrimination.
    • This is why – with the exception of the United States of America – most societies define hate speech in terms of both inciting violence, but also, inciting discrimination.

    Challenges in dealing with hate speech

    • Legal challenge: Our laws – as they stand – are unequipped to deal with the challenges of hate speech.
    • The laws commonly invoked in such cases are section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (blasphemy) and section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (creating enmity between classes of people).
    • Hate speech will not always be self-evident: Hate speech, by its very nature, will not always trumpet itself to be hate speech.
    • Rather, it will often assume plausible deniability – as has been seen in the Hardwar case, where statements, worded with the right degree of ambiguity, are now being defended as calls to self-defence rather than calls to violence.
    • Any comprehensive understanding of hate speech is a matter of judgment, and must take into account its ambiguous and slippery nature.
    • Lack of social consensus against hate speech: No matter how precise and how definite we try to make our concept of hate speech, it will inevitably reflect individual judgment. 
    • If, therefore, social and legal norms against hate speech are to be implemented without descending into pure subjectivity, what is needed – first – is a social consensus about what kind of speech is beyond the pale.
    •  In Europe, for example, holocaust denial is an offence – and is enforced with a degree of success – precisely because there is a pre-existing social consensus about the moral abhorrence of the holocaust.

    Conclusion

    Achieving this social consensus is an immense task, and will require both consistent legal implementation over time, but also daily conversations that we, as a society need to have among ourselves.

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

  • How the Seventh Schedule affects delivery of public goods

    Context

    Without delegation of funds, functions and functionaries, local governments are unable to respond to pressure from citizens who demand greater efficiency.

    Background of the Seventh Schedule

    •  Article 246 of the Constitution mentions three lists in the Seventh Schedule — union, state and concurrent lists.
    • The present Seventh Schedule and union (at that time Federal) list, state (at that time Provincial) list and concurrent lists are inherited from that 1935 piece of legislation.
    • It states that “Notwithstanding anything in the two next succeeding subsections, the Federal Legislature has, and a Provincial Legislature has not, power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule to this Act.”

    Delivery of public goods

    • Ignoring that narrow and technical definition of public good, loosely, we understand “public good” as something that must be delivered by the government.
    • It cannot, or should not, be delivered by the private sector.
    • Notwithstanding the use of private security guards, most people will agree “law and order” is a public good.
    • Most public goods people will think of are efficiently delivered at the local government level, not Union or state level.
    •  There is a Seventh Schedule issue that is thus linked to the insertion of a local body list.
    • Countervailing pressure by citizens increasingly demands efficient delivery of such public goods.
    • But without delegation of funds, functions and functionaries, presently left to the whims of state governments, local governments are unable to respond.

    Need for the review of the Seventh Schedule Lists

    • No local body list: Most public goods people will think of are efficiently delivered at the local government level, not Union or state level.
    • There is a Seventh Schedule issue that is thus linked to the insertion of a local body list.
    •  But without delegation of funds, functions and functionaries, presently left to the whims of state governments, local governments are unable to respond.
    • The Rajamannar Committee — formally known as Centre-State Relations Inquiry Committee suggested constitution of a High Power Commission to examine the entries of Lists I and III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and suggest redistribution of the entries,”.
    • Changes in the past led to greater centralisation: Items have moved from the state list to the concurrent list and from the concurrent list to the union list.
    • Such limited movements have reflected greater centralisation, such as in 1976.
    •  N K Singh, Chairman of 15th Finance Commission has also often made this point, in addition to scrutiny of Article 282.

    Conclusion

    For the sake of better governance, it’s not an issue that should be ducked and the basic structure doctrine doesn’t stand in the way.

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

  • Hate speech: SC seeks response from govt.

    The Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the police to respond to petitions that people accused of delivering hate speeches at a religious conference in Haridwar have not been arrested yet.

    What is ‘Hate Speech’?

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

    How is it treated in Indian law?

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

    [I] Section 153A:

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

    [II] Section 505:

    505(1): Statements conducing to public mischief

    • The statement, publication, report or rumour that is penalized under Section 505(1) should be one that promotes mutiny by the armed forces, or causes such fear or alarm that people are induced to commit an offence against the state or public tranquility.
    • This attracts a jail term of up to three years.

    505(2): It is an offence to make statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.

    505(3): Same offence will attract up to a five-year jail term if it takes place in a place of worship, or in any assembly engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies.

    What has the Law Commission proposed?

    The Law Commission has proposed that separate offences be added to the IPC to criminalize hate speech quite specifically instead of being subsumed in the existing sections concerning inflammatory acts and speeches.

    [A] Inserting two sections

    • It has proposed that two new sections, Section 153C and Section 505A, be added.

    Section 153C

    It is an offence if anyone-

    • Uses gravely threatening words, spoken or written or signs or visible representations, with the intention to cause fear or alarm OR
    • Advocates hatred that causes incitement to violence, on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe

    Section 505A

    • It proposes to criminalize words, or display of writing or signs that are gravely threatening or derogatory, within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm or, with intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence against that person or another”.

    [B] Imprisonment

    • Section 153C: two-year jail term for this and/or a fine of ₹5,000 or both
    • Section 505A: prison term of up to one year and/or a fine up to ₹5,000

    Other committees’ recommendations

    • Similar proposals to add sections to the IPC to punish acts and statements that promote racial discrimination or amount to hate speech have been made by the M.P. Bezbaruah Committee and the T.K. Viswanathan Committee.
    • At present, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws, which is considering more comprehensive changes to criminal law, is examining the issue of having specific provisions to tackle hate speech.

    Why regulate hate speech?

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

    Issues in regulating hate speech

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

    Way ahead

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

     

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

  • Assam-Meghalaya Border Dispute

    Union Home Minister is expected to seal the final agreement to end the dispute in six areas of the Assam-Meghalaya boundary ahead of Meghalaya’s 50th Statehood Day celebration on January 21.

    Can you recall the chronology of reorganization of the entire North-East region?

    Assam- Meghalaya Boundary Dispute

    • Assam has had a boundary dispute with Mizoram for decades and several rounds of talks have been held since 1994-95 to solve the issue.
    • Till 1972, Mizoram was a part of Assam and acquired full statehood in 1987.
    • The 164.6 km-long border between the States runs along with Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj districts in Assam and Kolasib, Mamit and Aizawl districts in Mizoram.
    • There are several border areas where violence have been reported.

    Roots of the dispute

    • In the Northeast’s complex boundary equations, showdowns between Assam and Mizoram residents are less frequent than they are.
    • The boundary between present-day Assam and Mizoram, 165 km long today, dates back to the colonial era when Mizoram was known as Lushai Hills, a district of Assam.
    • The dispute stems from a notification of 1875 that differentiated Lushai Hills from the plains of Cachar, and another of 1933 that demarcates a boundary between Lushai Hills and Manipur.
    • Mizoram believes the boundary should be demarcated on the basis of the 1875 notification, which is derived from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act, 1873.
    • Mizo leaders have argued in the past argued against the demarcation notified in 1933 because Mizo society was not consulted.

    Other boundary disputes in North-East

    The states of the Northeast were largely carved out of Assam, which has border disputes with several states.

    During British rule, Assam included present-day Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya besides Mizoram, which became separate state one by one. Today, Assam has boundary problems with each of them.

    • Nagaland shares a 500-km boundary with Assam.
    • In two major incidents of violence in 1979 and 1985, at least 100 persons were killed. The boundary dispute is now in the Supreme Court
    • On the Assam-Arunachal Pradesh boundary (over 800 km), clashes were first reported in 1992, according to the same research paper.
    • Since then, there have been several accusations of illegal encroachment from both sides, and intermittent clashes. This boundary issue is being heard by the Supreme Court.
    • The 884-km Assam-Meghalaya boundary, too, witnesses flare-ups frequently. As per Meghalaya government statements, today there are 12 areas of dispute between the two states.

     

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

  • Need to recast the selection process of the ECs

    Context

    The attendance of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and his Election Commissioner (EC) colleagues at an “informal” meeting with the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister has brought renewed focus on the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

    Need for changes in the appointment process

    • The changes in the appointment process for ECs can strengthen ECI’s independence, neutrality and transparency. 
    • The appointment of ECs falls within the purview of Article 324(2) of the Constitution, which establishes the institution.
    • Article 324(2) contains a ‘subject to’ clause which provides that both the number and tenure of the ECs shall be “subject to provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.”
    • Apart from enacting a law in 1989 enlarging the number of ECs from one to three, Parliament has so far not enacted any changes to the appointment process.
    • In 1975 itself, the Justice Tarkunde Committee recommended that ECs be appointed on the advice of a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Opposition Leader and the Chief Justice.
    • This was reiterated by the Dinesh Goswami Committee in 1990 and the Law Commission in 2015.
    • The 4th Report (2007) of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission additionally recommended that the Law Minister and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha be included in such a Collegium.
    • Violation of Article 14 and 324: Three Writ Petitions, with one pending since 2015, are urging the Supreme Court to declare that the current practice of appointment of ECs by the Centre violates Article 14, Article 324(2), and Democracy as a basic feature of the Constitution.
    • Precedent does exist in the case of Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd, to argue against the Executive being the sole appointer for a quasi-judicial body.
    • The Supreme Court had recognised that “Election Commission is not only responsible for conducting free and fair elections but it also renders a quasi-judicial function between the various political parties including the ruling government and other parties.”
    • In such circumstances, the executive cannot be a sole participant in the appointment of members of Election Commission as it gives unfettered discretion to the ruling party.

    Way forward

    • Establishing a multi-institutional, bipartisan committee for fair and transparent selection of ECs can enhance the perceived and actual independence of ECI.
    • Such a procedure is already followed with regard to other Constitutional and Statutory Authorities such as the Chief Information Commissioner, Lokpal, Vigilance Commissioner, and the Director of the Central Bureau of Intelligence.

    Consider the question “What is the procedure for the appointment of Election Commissioners? What are the issues with this procedure? Suggest the way forward.”

    Conclusion

    ECI’s constitutional responsibilities require a fair and transparent appointment process that is beyond reproach, which will reaffirm our faith in this vital pillar of our polity.

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

  • Suspension of MLA is worse than expulsion: SC

    The Supreme Court has said that suspension from the Legislative Assembly for a year is “worse” than expulsion, as it affects the Right of a constituency to remain represented in the House.

    What is the case?

    • Few MLAs from Maharashtra have challenged their one-year suspension from the Legislative Assembly for allegedly misbehaving with the presiding officer.

    Suspending MLAs: A fact check

    • Each state has their individual rules for the conduct of assembly. These rules provides for the suspension of MLAs.
    • Under Rule 53 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960, only the Speaker has the power to suspend MLAs indulging in unruly behavior.
    • Therefore, the motion to suspend cannot be put to vote as this would allow the Government to suspend as many Members of Opposition as it sees fit.

    Constitutional ground behind this suspension

    • The Court referred to Article 190 (4) of the Constitution which says that if for a period of 60 days, a member of a House, without its permission, is absent; the House may declare his or her seat vacant.
    • Suspension of MLAs beyond this period would lead to their disqualification.

    What did the Supreme Court observe?

    • Suspension of the MLAs would amount to punishing the constituencies as a whole.
    • Each constituency has equal amount of right to be represented in the House, observed the court.
    • The apex court observed that any state cannot create a constitutional void, a hiatus situation for any constituency.
    • It said the House cannot suspend a member beyond 59 days.

     

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

  • Election Campaign Funding by Political Parties

    With several Assembly elections coming up, the issue of campaigning is back on the track. Campaign funding reforms are one of the biggest issues in electoral reforms worldwide.

    Why in news?

    • Elections are fought with huge funds nowadays.
    • Estimates vary, but a candidate may spend in crores in just one constituency.
    • This vital issue is neglected by voters in the noise of campaigns, leaders, celebrities, and media coverage.

    Caps on Election Expenditure

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) imposes limits on campaign expenditure incurred by a candidate and not political parties.

    The ceiling on poll expenditure varies across States:

    (a) Bigger states

    • With candidates in Assembly Elections in bigger states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu now allowed to spend up to 40L (from ₹30.8 lakhs as against ₹28 lakhs earlier.)
    • For a candidate contesting a Lok Sabha Poll in these States, the revised ceiling on poll expenditure is now 90lakh (₹77 lakhs earlier).

    (b) Smaller states

    • While the enhanced ceiling for a Lok Sabha candidate is now 75Lakh (Earlier ₹59.4 lakhs) those contesting an Assembly can spend up to 28 Lakh( earlier ₹22 lakhs.)
    • Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and a few Union Territories (AGMUT states) based on the size of their constituencies and population, have a lower ceiling on poll expenditure.

    How are such ceilings made?

    • Such changes are made by amending the Conduct of Elections Rules.
    • The last time the expenditure ceiling was enhanced was in 2014 just ahead of the Lok Sabha polls.

    What happens when expenditure exceeds the limit?

    • Contesting candidates are required to file a mandatory true account of election expenses with the EC.
    • An incorrect account or expenditure beyond the ceiling can attract disqualification for up to three years as per Section 10A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

    What doesn’t account to Election expenditure?

    • The expenditure incurred by leaders of a political party on account of travel by air or by any other means of transport for propagating programme of the political party is not considered to be the election expenditure.
    • Any expenditure which is done for service of the Government and discharge of official duty is also not considered to be election expenditure.

    Why is this issue important for the voter?

    • Voters vote for candidates, political parties and leaders so that they deliver benefits to the citizens.
    • If election funds are obtained from other sources, the Governments in power are obliged to the funders more than the voters.
    • The government may take decisions that benefit the donors rather than the voters.
    • Even if a rich candidate funds his own election, the focus is on recovering the investment made rather on public service.

    Situation in India on Election Funding

    • Transparency in funding is absent after the introduction of Electoral Bonds.
    • Now citizens cannot know who is funding the political parties.

    Way forward

    There is also much to learn from international experience. Broadly there are three classes of remedies.

    • First is to make all election funding completely transparent so that voters know who is funding whom.
    • Second is to prevent private interests from unduly influencing elections or Governments. This is done by a set of rules on limiting funding.
    • Third is to try and have a more level playing field so that good politicians, candidates and parties with less funds also stand a chance of competing in elections.

     

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