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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Right to Govt. Aid is not a Fundamental Right: SC

    The right of an institution, whether run by a majority or minority community, to get government aid is not a fundamental right.  Both have to equally follow the rules and conditions of the aid, the Supreme Court held in a judgment.

    What is the case about?

    • The judgment came in an appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh against a decision of the Allahabad High Court to declare a provision of the Intermediate Education Act of 1921 unconstitutional.

    Key takeaways from the Judgment

    • The SC has clarified that if the government made a policy call to withdraw aid, an institution cannot question the decision as a “matter of right”.
    • Whether it is an institution run by the majority or the minority, all conditions that have relevance to the proper utilisation of the grant-in-aid by an educational institution can be imposed.
    • All that Article 30(2) states is that on the ground that an institution is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
    • The grant of aid to that educational institution cannot be discriminated against, if other educational institutions are entitled to receive aid.

    Basis of the Judgment

    • A grant of government aid comes with accompanying conditions.
    • An institution is free to choose to accept the grant with the conditions or go its own way.
    • If an institution does not want to accept and comply with the conditions accompanying such aid, it is well open to it to decline the grant and move in its own way.
    • On the contrary, an institution can never be allowed to say that the grant of aid should be on its own terms, the Bench observed.

    Various grounds discussed

    The court explained why institutions cannot view government aid as a “matter of right”.

    • Government aid is a policy decision: It depends on various factors including the interests of the institution itself and the ability of the government to understand the exercise. Therefore, even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid, an institution cannot question it as a matter of right.
    • Financial constraints and deficiencies: These are the factors which are considered relevant in taking any decision qua aid, including both the decision to grant aid and the manner of disbursement of an aid.
    • Not arbitrary decision: The bench said that a policy decision is presumed to be in public interest, and such a decision once made is not amenable to challenge, until and unless there is manifest or extreme arbitrariness, a Constitutional court is expected to keep its hands off.

     

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

    Back2Basics: Minority Rights in India

    • Article 15: prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion race cast sex or place of birth
    • Article 17: prohibits untouchability
    • Article 25 provides the right to practice any religion.
    • Article 26 allows religious institutions to be opened.
    • Article 27 provides that no person shall be forced to pay any taxes which is not mandatory.
    • Article 28 provides that there shall be no religious instruction to be followed in any particular educational institutions.
    • Article 29 provides that no citizen shall be denied admission in any educational institution on grounds of religion race caste.
    • Article 30 provides that minority shall not be prohibited from any educational institutions.

     

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

  • Naga Peace Accord

     

    Tamil Nadu Governor has resigned as interlocutor for the Naga peace talks.

    What is the Naga Peace Process?

    (A) Issue

    • It refers to ongoing talks between the Indian government and Naga insurgent groups, in particular the NSCN(IM), since 1997 with the aim to sign a Naga Peace Accord.
    • The Naga insurgency, rooted in Naga nationalism, is one of the oldest insurgencies in the country.
    • The Naga-inhabited areas of the Northeast never considered themselves part of British India, and on August 14, 1947, the Naga National Council (NNC) declared independence for Nagaland.
    • It formed an underground Government (NFG) and an Army in 1952, in response to which the Centre sent in the Army and enacted the Armed Forces (Special) Powers Act, or AFSPA.

    (B) Shillong Agreement

    • After years of talks, the Shillong Accord was signed in 1976 with underground groups of Nagaland.
    • But it was rejected by many top NNC leaders on the ground that it did not address the issue of Naga sovereignty and forced Nagas to accept the Indian Constitution.
    • Since then the Naga groups have split into various factions.

    (C) The Peace Accord

    • There have been nearly 100 rounds of talks.
    • In August 2015, the group signed a framework agreement with the Indian government for the Naga Peace Accord.

    How did things go wrong?

    • Sources say even the various competencies of the accord had been agreed upon, although a few bones of contention remained.
    • The groups were insistent on a Naga constitution and were pushing for a Greater Nagalim stretching beyond the boundaries of the present Nagaland state.
    • The state panel rejected the demand for a separate flag and constitution outright, and warned that “any misadventure to disintegrate this great nation shall not be tolerated”.

    Amid all this, what are the real issues?

    • The enthusiasm with which the framework agreement was announced led to unreasonable expectations of an imminent Accord.
    • There is no way the government would accept a separate constitution for Nagaland. This was never under discussion.
    • There was, indeed, an opinion that the flag could be given.
    • But that went off the table after August 5, 2019 when the Kashmiri flag was taken away.

    Best way forward

    • It is important to understand that there cannot be an accord without the militant factions.
    • Some demands that need ironing out include one for a bicameral Assembly with at least 40 nominated members representing different tribes; absorption of cadres as local armed forces or in the Indian paramilitary.
    • There is a need for setting up of autonomous councils in Naga-dominated areas of neighbouring states; and the use of the Naga flag for at least customary events.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] Naga Peace Talks

     

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

  • SC introduces FASTER system to send records

    The Supreme Court has given its nod for e-transfer of orders to jails through the FASTER system for quick prisoner release.

    What is the FASTER system?

    • FASTER is an acronym form Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records.
    • The system is meant to ensure that undertrials are not made to wait for days on end behind bars to be released because the certified hard copies of their bail orders took time to reach the prison.
    • It is conceived for delivery of orders to concerned prisons, District Courts, High Courts, as the case may be, for instantaneous delivery of orders passed by apex court through a secure communication channel.
    • The process to develop the FASTER system began with the CJI’s observations in court on July 16 this year.

    Benefits offered

    • With FASTER, crucial decisions, including orders on bail and stay of arrest, can be communicated electronically to prison authorities and investigating agencies through a secure channel.
    • The system would also prevent unnecessary arrests and custody of people even after the court had already granted them its protection.
    • It may even communicate a stay on an execution ordered by the final court on time.

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

  • Judicial selection needs more than a tweak

    In recent weeks, the Supreme Court of India’s collegium has been busy. New judges have been appointed to the Court on its advice and long overdue vacancies have been filled up.

    Read this before proceeding:

    Collegium recommends nine judges for Supreme Court

    What is the matter of concern?

    Ans. Transparency in appointments

    • These recommendations are seen as reflective of a new and proactive collegium.
    • What ought to concern us, though, is that long-standing apprehensions about the collegium’s operation remain unaddressed: specifically, its opacity and a lack of independent scrutiny of its decisions.
    • These misgivings are usually seen in the context of a battle between the executive and the judiciary.
    • Less evident is the effect that the failings have on the status of the High Courts.
    • Today, even without express constitutional sanction, the collegium effectively exercises a power of supervision over each of the High Courts.

    No specified reasons for Exclusion

    • For nearly two years, despite vacancies on the Bench, the collegium made no recommendations for appointments to the Supreme Court.
    • The conjecture in the press was that this logjam owed to a reluctance amongst some of its members to elevate Justice Akil Kureshi to the Court.
    • Indeed, it was only after a change in its composition that the panel recommended on August 17 a list of names for elevation. This list did not contain Justice Kureshi’s name.
    • The perfunctory nature of the collegium’s resolutions means that we do not know the reasons for his exclusion.
    • We also do not know why five Chief Justices, including Justice Kureshi, and several other puisne judges are now being transferred to different courts.

    The public has right to know

    • This is not to suggest that these decisions are unfounded. It is possible that each of the choices made is predicated on administrative needs.
    • But whatever the rationale, surely the public has a right to know.

    What is needed?

    Ans. Striking a balance in Separation of Power

    • Separation of powers is a bedrock principle of Indian constitutionalism. Inherent in that idea is the guarantee of an autonomous judiciary.
    • To that end, the process of appointing and transferring judges assumes salience.
    • But the question of how to strike a balance between the sovereign function of making appointments and the need to ensure an independent judiciary has long plagued the republic.

    As suggested by Dr. Ambedkar

    • The Constitution’s framers wrestled over the question for many days. Ultimately, they adopted what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described as a “middle course”.
    • That path stipulates the following: Judges to the Supreme Court are to be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and such other judges that he deems fit.
    • Judges to the High Courts are to be appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of that court.
    • In the case of transfers, the President may move a judge from one High Court to another, after consulting the CJI.

    Where does primacy rest?

    Ans. In a transparent Collegium system

    • In this design, there is no mention of a “collegium”.
    • But since 1993, when the Supreme Court rendered a ruling in the Second Judges Case, the word consultation has been interpreted to mean “concurrence”.
    • What is more, that concurrence, the Court held there, ought to be secured not from the CJI alone, but from a body of judges that the judgment described as a “collegium”.
    • Thus, the Court wound up creating a whole new process for making appointments and transfers and carved out a system where notional primacy came to rest in the top echelons of the judiciary.

    This procedure has since been clarified.  But there is, in fact, no actual guidance on how judges are to be selected.

    The NJAC and after

    • In 2015, Parliament sought to undo the procedures put in place by the Court through the 99th Constitutional Amendment.
    • The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), that the law created, comprised members from the judiciary, the executive, and the lay-public.
    • But the Court scrapped the efforts to replace the collegium and it held in the Fourth Judges Case that judicial primacy in making appointments and transfers was an essential feature of the Constitution.
    • In other words, the Court held that a body that found no mention in the actual text of the Constitution had assumed a position so sacrosanct that it could not be touched even by a constitutional amendment.

    Assessing the NJAC

    Ans. The NJAC was far from perfect

    • There were legitimate fears that the commission might have resulted in the appointment of malleable judges.
    • Therefore, it is plausible to argue that until a proper alternative is framed, the collegium represents the best solution.
    • This is that allowing senior judges of the Supreme Court primacy in matters of appointments and transfers is the only practical way to guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

    Promises are yet unfulfilled over transparency

    • When the Court struck down the NJAC, it also promised to reform the existing system. Six years down the line those promises have been all but forgotten.
    • The considerations that must go into the procedure for selecting judges is left unexplained.
    • The words “merit” and “diversity” are thrown around without any corresponding debates on what they, in fact, mean.
    • Somehow, amidst all of this, we have arrived at a consensus that enveloping a veil over the process of selection is essential to judicial autonomy, and that there is no legitimate reason why the public ought to know how judges are chosen and transferred.

    Way forward

    • It is clear that we have come a long way from a time when Chief Justices of High Courts declined invitations to the Supreme Court, because they valued the work that they were already entrusted with.
    • Restoring High Courts to that position of prestige must be seen as essential to the process of building trust in our Constitution.
    • Achieving this will no doubt require more than just a tweak in the process of appointments.

    Conclusion

    • It is clear is that the present system and the mysteries underlining the decision-making only further dilute the High Courts’ prominence.
    • At some point we must take seriously the task of reforming the existing scheme because the status quo is ultimately corrosive of the very institutions that it seeks to protect.

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

  • 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.