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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Supreme Court strikes down part of Constitution Amendment on cooperative societies

    Context

    In Union of India vs Rajendra N. Shah, the Supreme Court of India partially struck down the 97th Constitutional Amendment.

    Background of the 97th Constitutional Amendment

    • The 97th Constitutional Amendment came into effect from February 15 2012.
    • The amendment added “cooperative societies” to the protected forms of association under Article 19(1)(c), elevating it to a fundamental right.
    • It also inserted Part IXB in the Constitution which laid down the terms by which cooperative societies would be governed, in more granular detail than was palatable.

    Why was the Amendment struck down?

    • The Constitution can be amended only by the procedure provided in Article 368.
    • The amendment procedure requires a majority of the total strength of each of the Houses of Parliament and two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
    • A proviso to the Article lists out some articles and chapters of the Constitution, which can be amended only by a special procedure.
    • The special procedure requires that the amendment will also have to be ratified by the legislatures of half of the States.
    • It is precisely on the grounds of violation of this additional requirement that the 97th Constitutional Amendment was challenged.
    • The Gujarat High Court struck down the amendment in 2013 on the grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirements under Article 368(2) by virtue of not having been ratified by the States and had also given an additional finding that the 97th Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The Union Government challenged the Gujarat High Court judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment neither directly nor effectively changed the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
    • The court took the example of the 73rd and 74th Amendments which were similar in impact on the legislative power of the States, had been passed by the special procedure involving ratification by State legislatures.
    • Procedural lacuna: The court noted that the procedure had not been followed in this case.
    • The Supreme Court clarified that the does not go into the question of the amendment being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The judgment makes a distinction between cooperative societies operating in one State and multi-State cooperative societies and holds that while a ratification by half the State legislatures would have been necessary insofar as it applies to cooperative societies in one State.

    Increasing control of the Union government

    • Union government has been acquiring incrementally greater control of cooperative societies over the years.
    • Cooperative banks have been brought under the purview of the Reserve Bank of India.
    • Union Government recently established Union Ministry for Cooperation.

    Issues with Central control over cooperative sector

    • Domain of States: The idea that the cooperative sector ought to be controlled at the State level and not at the central or Union level goes back all the way to the Government of India Act, 1919 which placed cooperatives in the provincial list.
    • Part of State list: Entry 32 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution confer power on the State legislatures to make laws pertaining to incorporation, regulation and the winding up of cooperative societies.
    • The cooperative sector has always been in the domain of the States or provinces.
    • Different organising principles: The organising principles and mechanism of these cooperatives differ from area to area and depend on the industry or crop which forms the fulcrum of the cooperative.
    • Homogeneity nor require: Homogeneity in this area would only result in the creation of round holes in which square pegs no longer fit.
    • They also would not really serve to break the control some political interests have taken over cooperatives.

    Conclusion

    It is best that the Government takes this judgment in the right spirit and stays away from further meddling in the cooperative sector, notwithstanding the creation of the new Ministry.

  • Assam-Mizoram Boundary Dispute

    Five Assam police personnel were killed in an exchange of fire with the Mizoram Police after the protracted border row between the two northeastern States took a violent turn.

    Assam-Mizoram Boundary Dispute

    • At the heart of the dispute over the 165-km Assam-Mizoram boundary are two border demarcations that go back to the days of British colonial rule, and disagreement over which demarcation to follow.
    • British tea plantations surfaced in the Cachar plains – the Barak Valley that now comprises the districts of Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj — during the mid-19th century.
    • Their expansion led to problems with the Mizos whose home was the Lushai Hills.
    • In August 1875, the southern boundary of Cachar district was issued in the Assam Gazette.
    • The Mizos say this was the fifth time the British had drawn the boundary between the Lushai Hills and the Cachar plains, and the only time when it was done in consultation with Mizo chiefs.

    Creation of new states

    • But in 1933, the boundary between Lushai Hills and the then princely state of Manipur was demarcated – it said the Manipur boundary began from the trijunction of Lushai Hills, Cachar district of Assam and Manipur state.
    • The Mizos do not accept this demarcation, and point to the 1875 boundary which was drawn in consultation with their chiefs.
    • In the decades after Independence, states and UTs were carved out of Assam – Nagaland (1963), Arunachal Pradesh (UT 1972, formerly NEFA), Meghalaya (UT 1972), Mizoram (UT 1972).

    A matter of perception

    • Mizoram says Assam has been pushing its people 10-12 km inside their territory.
    • Mizoram’s official stand is that the boundary should be demarcated on the basis of notification in 1875 that distinguished the Lushai Hills (erstwhile district of Assam that became Mizoram) from the plains of Cachar.
    • The notification is based on the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, which makes it obligatory for Indians beyond to possess a travel document to enter Mizoram.
    • Assam also has border disputes with Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Nagaland.

  • Biocentric jurisprudence for nature

    Context

    In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has sought to move away from an anthropocentric basis of law.

    Biocentrism Vs. Anthropocentrism

    • Anthropocentrism argues that of all the species on earth humans are the most significant and that all other resources on earth may be justifiably exploited for the benefit of human beings.
    • The philosophy of biocentrism holds that the natural environment has its own set of rights which is independent of its ability to be exploited by or to be useful to humans.
    • Biocentrism often comes into conflict with anthropocentrism.

    Supreme Court of India upholds biocentric principles

    • The Great Indian Bustard is a gravely endangered species, with hardly about 200 alive in India today.
    • The overhead power lines have become a threat to the life of these species as these birds frequently tend to collide with these power lines and get killed.
    • Recently, the Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others vs Union of India & Others, said that in all cases where the overhead lines in power projects exist, the governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat shall take steps forthwith to install bird diverters.
    • In protecting the birds, the Court has affirmed and emphasised the biocentric values of eco-preservation.
    • A noteworthy instance of the application of anthropocentrism in the legal world is in that of the “Snail darter” case in the United States.
    • The Supreme Court of the United States of America in Tennessee Valley Authority vs Hill, had held that since the “Snail darter” fish was a specifically protected species under the Act, the executive could not proceed with the reservoir project.

    Human role in extinction of species

    • About 50 years ago, there were 4,50,000 lions in Africa. Today, there are hardly 20,000.
    • Indiscriminate monoculture farming in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra is leading to the extinction of orangutans.
    • Rhinos are hunted for the so-called medicinal value of their horns and are slowly becoming extinct.
    • From the time humans populated Madagascar about 2,000 years ago, about 15 to 20 species of Lemurs, which are primates, have become extinct.
    • The compilation prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists about 37,400 species that are gravely endangered; and the list is ever growing.

    Evolution of Right of Nature laws in Constitutions

    • Pieces of legislation are slowly evolving that fall in the category of the “Right of Nature laws”.
    • These seek to travel away from an anthropocentric basis of law to a biocentric one.
    • The Constitution of India is significantly silent on any explicitly stated, binding legal obligations we owe to our fellow species and to the environment that sustains us.
    • It is to the credit of the Indian judiciary that it interpreted the enduring principles of sustainable development and read them, inter alia, into the precepts of Article 21 of the Constitution.
    • In September 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognise “Rights of Nature” in its Constitution.
    • Bolivia has also joined the movement by establishing Rights of Nature laws too.
    • In November 2010, the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania became the first major municipality in the United States to recognise the Rights of Nature.
    • These laws, like the Constitution of the countries that they are part of, are still works in progress.

    Conclusion

    In times like this the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjithsinh upholding the biocentric principles of coexistence is a shot in the arm for nature conservation. One does hope that the respective governments implement the judgment of the Court.

  • Secrecy of Vote must in any election: SC

    The Supreme Court has again held that in any election, be it to Parliament or State legislature, the maintenance of secrecy of voting is “a must”.

    What is the Secret Vote?

    • The secret vote/ secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter’s choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous.
    • It aims for forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote-buying.
    • The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.

    What did the Supreme Court rule?

    • Secrecy is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
    • The confidentiality of choice strengthens democracy.
    • The principle of secrecy of ballots is an important postulate of constitutional democracy, the court said.
    • It is the policy of the law to protect the right of voters to the secrecy of the ballot.
    • Even a remote or distinct possibility that a voter can be forced to disclose for whom she has voted would act as a positive constraint and a check on the freedom to exercise of the franchise.

    Voter’s discretion is allowed

    • A voter can also voluntarily waive the privilege of non-disclosure.
    • The privilege ends when the voter decides to waive the privilege and instead volunteers to disclose to whom she had voted.
    • Nor can a complaint be entertained from any, including the person who wants to keep the voter’s mouth sealed as to why she disclosed for whom she voted said the court.

  • Right to be Forgotten in India

    A TV celebrity has approached the Delhi High Court with a plea saying that his videos, photographs, and articles, etc. be removed from the internet citing his “Right to be Forgotten”.

    What is the plea about?

    • The plea mentions that the posts and videos on the internet related to him have caused the petitioner psychological pain for his diminutive acts.
    • The plea also states that the petitioner’s mistakes in his personal life become and remains in public knowledge for generations to come.
    • Consequently, the values enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the emergent jurisprudential concept of the Right to be Forgotten becomes extremely relevant in the present case.”

    What is the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in the Indian context?

    • The Right to be Forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by Parliament.
    • In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.

    What does the Personal Data Protection Bill say about this?

    • The Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019, and it aims to set out provisions meant for the protection of the personal data of individuals.
    • Clause 20 under Chapter V of this draft 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”.
    • Therefore, broadly, under the Right to be forgotten, users can de-link, limit, delete or correct the disclosure of their personal information held by data fiduciaries.
    • 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.

  • Surveillance Laws in India and Individual Privacy

    After alleged WhatsApp snooping cases the government has claimed that all interception in India takes place lawfully.

    Try this question in the comment box:

    Q.There should be some reasonable basis or some tangible evidence to initiate or seek approval for interception by State authorities. Critically comment with respect to individual privacy and surveillance laws in India. (250W)

    What are the laws covering surveillance in India?

    Communication surveillance in India takes place primarily under two laws:

    1. Telegraph Act, 1885: It deals with interception of calls.
    2. Information Technology Act, 2000: It was enacted to deal with surveillance of all electronic communication, following the Supreme Court’s intervention in 1996.

    [I] Telegraph Act, 1885

    • Call interception: Under Section 5(2) of this law, the government can intercept calls only in certain situations.
    • For sovereignty: They include the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offense.
    • Free speech restrictions: These are the same restrictions imposed on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
    • Exceptions for journalists: A provision in Section 5(2) states that even this lawful interception cannot take place against journalists.

    Supreme Court intervention

    • In Public Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court pointed out the lack of procedural safeguards in the provisions of the Telegraph Act.
    • The court noted that authorities engaging in interception were not even maintaining adequate records and logs on an interception.
    • It noted that- tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy.
    • The Supreme Court’s guidelines formed the basis of introducing Rule 419A in the Telegraph Rules in 2007 and later in the rules prescribed under the IT Act in 2009.
    • Rule 419A states that a Secretary in the MHA can pass orders of interception in the case of the Centre, and a secretary-level officer who is in charge of the Home Department can issue such directives in States.

    [II] IT Act, 2000

    • Electronic surveillance: Section 69 of the IT Act and the IT (Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 were enacted to further the legal framework for electronic surveillance.
    • Data interception: Under the IT Act, all electronic transmission of data can be intercepted.
    • Section 69 of the IT Act adds another aspect that makes it broader — interception, monitoring, and decryption of digital information “for the investigation of an offense”.

    Identifying the gaps

    • In 2012, the Planning Commission was tasked with identifying the gaps in laws affecting privacy.
    • It pointed out divergence in-laws on permitted grounds, “type of interception”, “granularity of information that can be intercepted”, the degree of assistance from service providers, and the “destruction and retention” of intercepted material.
    • Although the grounds of selecting a person for surveillance and the extent of information gathering have to be recorded in writing, the wide reach of these laws has not been tested in court against the cornerstone of fundamental rights.

    Only inference: Right to Privacy is not absolute

    • Only in such exceptional circumstances, however, can an individual’s right to privacy be superseded to protect the national interest.
    • In today’s times, when fake news and illegal activities such as cyber terrorism on the dark web are on the rise, the importance of reserving such powers to conduct surveillance cannot be undermined.

    What is our concern?

    • For Pegasus-like spyware to be used lawfully, the government would have to invoke both the IT Act and the Telegraph Act.
    • There is no comprehensive data protection law leaving ambiguities over several laws.
    • A comprehensive data protection law to address the gaps in existing frameworks for surveillance is yet to enact.

    What should be the basis for surveillance?

    • There should be some reasonable basis or some tangible evidence to initiate or seek approval for interception by State authorities.
    • Any action without such evidence or basis would be struck down by courts as arbitrary, or invasive of one’s right to privacy.
    • Any digression from the ethical and legal parameters set by law would be tantamount to a deliberate invasion of citizens’ privacy and make India a surveillance state.

    Way forward

    • The security of a device becomes one of the fundamental bedrock of maintaining user trust as society becomes more and more digitized.
    • There is an urgent need to take up this issue seriously by constituting an independent high-level inquiry with credible members and experts that can restore confidence and conduct its proceedings transparently.

    Conclusion

    • We must recognize that national security starts with securing the smartphones of every single Indian by embracing technologies such as encryption rather than deploying spyware.
    • This is a core part of our fundamental right to privacy.
    • This intrusion by spyware is not merely an infringement of the rights of the citizens of the country but also a worrying development for India’s national security apparatus.

    Back2Basics: Right to Privacy

    • Right to Privacy can be defined as:
    1. a right to be let alone;
    2. the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity;
    3. the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned”.
    • Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.
    • The right to privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India.
    • After reading Article 21, it has been interpreted that the term ‘life’ includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living.
    • The scope of this right first came up for consideration in Kharak Singh’s Case which was concerned with the validity of certain regulations that permitted surveillance of suspects.
    • The 1978’s judgment in Maneka Gandhi Case established the new doctrine that the distinct fundamental rights are not carved out from each other but overlap paving way for the Right to Privacy.
    • The latest interpretation included the Naz Foundation Case (2009) in which Delhi HC gave the landmark decision on consensual homosexuality.

  • Speedy trial a fundamental right: HC

    The Bombay High Court has said that speedy trial is a fundamental right highlighting the issue of people languishing in prisons waiting for the trial to begin.

    Background

    • The HC was hearing a petition seeking a judicial probe into the death of a tribal rights activist.
    • The petitioner told the court that he was not looking for the cause of the death, but an inquiry into what happened in jail that ultimately led to his death.

    Right to speedy trial

    • It is a right under which it is asserted that a government prosecutor may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily and indefinitely.
    • Otherwise, the power to impose such delays would effectively allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for an arbitrary length of time without trial.
    • Right to speedy trial is a concept gaining recognition and importance day by day.

    Its constitutional status

    • The right to speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
    • In the case Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1961) it was declared that right to speedy trial is an essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty.
    • Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.”

    What causes delay?

    • Delay in disposition of cases due to huge pendency
    • Provision for adjournment
    • Vacation of the court
    • Investigative agencies generally delay

    Why speedy trial is necessary?

    The right to a speedy trial serves several important purposes:

    • First, requiring a speedy trial helps to ensure that a defendant does not have to spend an unreasonable amount of time in jail.
    • It also helps to respect and protect the mental health of the defendant by making sure that the defendant is not kept in suspense or anxiety over pending criminal charges for months or years at a time.
    • The right to a speedy trial protects a defendant’s ability to gather evidence for his or her own defense.
    • Over time, physical evidence can become harder and harder to locate, and witnesses may move, lose their memories of an event, or even pass away.

    Alternative solutions

    • The Law Commission of India and the Malimath Committee recommended that the system of plea bargaining should be introduced in Indian criminal justice system.
    • Plea bargaining refers to a person charged with a criminal offence negotiating with the prosecution for a lesser punishment than what is provided in law by pleading guilty to a less serious offence.
    • This will facilitate the speedy disposal of criminal cases and reduces the burden on the courts at least for some minor trials and not serious criminal offences.

  • SC quashes some provisions of 97th Amendment dealing with co-operative societies

    In a major boost for federalism, the Supreme Court has struck down parts of the 97th Constitution amendment which shrank the exclusive authority of States over their cooperative societies.

    Background

    • The Gujarat High Court in 2013 had held that the amendment, to the extent it introduced conditions for state laws on co-operative societies, was liable to be struck down.
    • This amendment was passed without the ratification of one-half of the state legislatures as mandated by Article 368(2) of the Constitution.
    • As per Article 368(2), ratification of one-half of state legislatures is required for an amendment that makes changes to an entry in the state list.
    • Since co-operative societies were a state subject as per Entry 32 in List II of the Seventh Schedule, the amendment introducing Part IX B required ratification as per Article 368(2), the High Court ruled.

    What was 97th Amendment about?

    • The 97th constitutional amendment dealt with issues related to the effective management of cooperative societies in the country.
    • It was passed by Parliament in December 2011 and had come into effect from February 15, 2012.
    • Part IXB, introduced in the Constitution through the 97th Amendment of 2012, dictated the terms for running cooperative societies.
    • The provisions in the amendment went to the extent of determining the number of directors a society should have or their length of tenure and even the necessary expertise.

    What is the recent Judgement?

    • In a majority judgment, the supreme court has held that cooperative societies come under the “exclusive legislative power” of State legislatures.
    • The judgment may be significant in the background of fears voiced by the States whether the new Central Ministry of Cooperation would disempower them.
    • The change in the Constitution has amended Article 19(1)(c) to give protection to the cooperatives and inserted Article 43 B and Part IX B, relating to them.
    • The Centre has contended that the provision does not denude the States of its power to enact laws with regard to cooperatives.

    Exceptions to the amendment

    • The Supreme court did not strike down the portions of Part IXB of the Amendment concerning “Multi-State Cooperative Societies” due to the lack of ratification.
    • When it comes to Multi-State Co-operative Societies (MSCS) with objects not confined to one State, the legislative power would be that of the Union of India.

    What was the dissenting opinion?

    • In his dissent, Justice K.M. Joseph said the doctrine of severability would not operate to distinguish between single-State cooperatives and MSCS.
    • The judge said the entire Part IXB should be struck down on the ground of absence of ratification.

    Back2Basics: Doctrine of Severability

    • Article 13 deals with laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights.
    • It also deals with all laws enforced in India, before the commencement of the Constitution.
    • The doctrine of Severability in Article 13 can be understood in two dimensions
    1. Article 13(1) validates all Pre-Constitutional Law and thereby declares that all pre-Constitutional laws in force before the commencement of the Indian Constitution shall be void if they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights.
    2. Article 13(2) mandates the State that it shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Indian Constitution and any law contraventions this clause shall be void.
    • This doctrine widens the scope for Judicial Review on unconstitutional parts of any law.

  • Surveillance reform is the need of the hour

    Context

    The ‘Pegasus Project’ report says that over “300 verified Indian mobile telephone numbers, including those used by ministers, opposition leaders, journalists, the legal community, businessmen, government officials, scientists, rights activists and others”, were targeted using spyware made by the Israeli firm, NSO Group.

    Threat to press freedom

    • Revelations highlight a disturbing trend with regard to the use of hacking software against dissidents and adversaries.
    • A significant number of Indians reportedly affected by Pegasus are journalists.
    • This is not surprising since the World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters Without Borders has ranked India 142 out of 180 countries in 2021. 
    • The press requires (and in democracies is afforded) greater protections on speech and privacy.
    • Privacy and free speech are what enable good reporting.
    • This has been recognised in Supreme Court decisions.
    • In the absence of privacy, the safety of journalists, especially those whose work criticises the government, and the personal safety of their sources is jeopardised.
    • Such a lack of privacy, therefore, creates an aura of distrust around these journalists and effectively buries their credibility.

    Issues with the legal provision

    • Provisions of law under the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000 are used by the government for its interception and monitoring activities. 
    • While the provisions of the Telegraph Act relate to telephone conversations, the IT Act relates to all communications undertaken using a computer resource.
    • Both provisions are problematic and offer the government total opacity in respect of its interception and monitoring activities.
    • Section 69 of the IT Act and the Interception Rules of 2009 are even more opaque than the Telegraph Act, and offer even weaker protections to the surveilled.
    • No provision, however, allows the government to hack the phones of any individual since the hacking of computer resources, including mobile phones and apps, is a criminal offence under the IT Act.

    Issues with surveillance system

    • Surveillance itself, whether under a provision of law or without it, is a gross violation of the fundamental rights of citizens.
    • Violation of freedom of speech: The very existence of a surveillance system impacts the right to privacy and the exercise of freedom of speech and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, respectively.
    • It prevents people from reading and exchanging unorthodox, controversial or provocative ideas.
    • No scope for judicial scrutiny: There is also no scope for an individual subjected to surveillance to approach a court of law prior to or during or subsequent to acts of surveillance since the system itself is covert.
    • No oversight: In the absence of parliamentary or judicial oversight, electronic surveillance gives the executive the power to influence both the subject of surveillance and all classes of individuals, resulting in a chilling effect on free speech.
    • Against separation of power: Constitutional functionaries such as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court have reportedly been surveilled under Pegasus.
    • Vesting such disproportionate power with one wing of the government threatens the separation of powers of the government.
    • The existing provisions are insufficient to protect against the spread of authoritarianism since they allow the executive to exercise a disproportionate amount of power.

    Way forward

    • There needs to be oversight from another branch of the government.
    • Judicial oversight: Only the judiciary can be competent to decide whether specific instances of surveillance are proportionate, whether less onerous alternatives are available, and to balance the necessity of the government’s objectives with the rights of the impacted individuals.
    • Surveillance reforms: Not only are existing protections weak but the proposed legislation related to the personal data protection of Indian citizens fails to consider surveillance while also providing wide exemptions to government authorities.
    • Surveillance reform is the need of the hour in India.

    Consider the question “Discuss the threats posed by the use of surveillance systems by the government. Suggest the measures to deal with these threats.”

    Conclusion

    The only solution to the problem of spyware is immediate and far-reaching surveillance reform.

  • Lokpal

    More than two years after the Lokpal came into being, the Centre is yet to appoint a director of inquiry for conducting a preliminary inquiry into graft complaints sent by the anti-corruption ombudsman.

    Who is ‘Director of Inquiry’?

    • According to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, there shall be a director of inquiry, not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the GoI.
    • He/ She shall be appointed by the Central government for conducting preliminary inquiries referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) by the Lokpal.

    About the Lokpal

    • The Lokpal, the apex body to inquire and investigate graft complaints against public functionaries, came into being with the appointment of its chairperson and members in March 2019.
    • In March 2019, former SC judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose was selected as the first head of the Lokpal.

    Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

    • The Lokpal Act 2013 is anti-corruption legislation that seeks to provide for the establishment of the institution of Lokpal.
    • It seeks to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain important public functionaries including the PM, cabinet ministers, MPs, Group A officials of the Central Government etc.
    • The Bill was introduced in the parliament following massive public protests led by anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare and his associates.
    • The Bill is one of the most widely discussed and debated Bills in India in recent times.

    Its history

    • The term Lokpal was coined in 1963 by Laxmi Mall Singhvi, a member of parliament during a parliamentary debate about grievance mechanisms.
    • The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Morarji Desai submitted an interim report on “Problems of Redressal of Citizen’s Grievances” in 1966.
    • In this report, ARC recommended the creation of two special authorities designated as ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta’ for redress of citizens’ grievances.
    • Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokayukta through The Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971.

    Also read:

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/explained-how-lokpal-will-form-function/