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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Appointment of Election Commissioners

    President Ram Nath Kovind on Tuesday appointed of Anup Chandra Pandey, a retired Uttar Pradesh cadre IAS officer, to the post of Election Commissioner.

    Election Commission of India (ECI)

    • The ECI is a constitutional body responsible for administering elections in India according to the rules and regulations mentioned in the Constitution of India.
    • It was established on January 25, 1950.
    • The major aim of the election commission of India is to define and control the process for elections conducted at various levels, Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice President of India.
    • It can be said that the Election Commission of India ensures the smooth and successful operation of the democracy.

    Functions

    According to Article 324 of the Indian Constitution:

    • the ECI has superintendence, direction, and control of the entire process for conduct of elections to Parliament and Legislature (state legislative assembly & state legislative council) of every State and to
    • the offices of President and Vice-President of India

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.
    2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
    3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (CSP 2017)

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 3 only

    Its composition

    • Initially, the commission had only a Chief Election Commissioner. Presently, it consists of a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners.
    • For the first time, two additional Commissioners were appointed on 16th October 1989 but they had a very short term till 1st January 1990.
    • Afterward, on 1st October 1993, two additional Election Commissioners were appointed.
    • The concept of a multi-member Commission has been in operation since then, with decision-making power by majority vote.

    Appointment & Tenure of Commissioners

    • The President has the power to select Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
    • They have a tenure of six years, or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
    • They have the same status and receive pay and perks as available to Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
    • The CEC can be removed from office only through accusation by Parliament.
    • The election commissioner or a regional commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.

  • Simultaneous Elections in India

    The article deals with the issue frequent elections in the country and highlights the need for debate on the idea of “one nation, one election”.

    Need for debate on one nation one election

    The idea has been around since at least 1983, when the Election Commission first mooted it. The concept needs to be debated mainly around five issues.

    1) Financial costs of  conducting elections

    • The costs of conducting each assembly or parliamentary election are huge and, in some senses, incalculable.
    • Directly budgeted costs are around Rs 300 crore for a state the size of Bihar.
    • But there are other financial costs, and incalculable economic costs.
    • Before each election, a “revision” of electoral rolls is mandatory.
    • The costs of the millions of man-hours used are not charged to the election budget.
    • The economic costs of lost teaching weeks, delayed public works, badly delivered or undelivered welfare schemes to the poor have never been calculated.

    2) Cost of repeated administrative freezes

    • The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) has economic costs too.
    • Works may have been announced long before an election is announced, but tenders cannot be finalised, nor work awarded, once the MCC comes into effect.
    • Time overruns translate into cost overruns.
    • But the huge costs of salaries and other administrative expenditures continue to be incurred.
    • Add to this the invisible cost of a missing leadership.
    • Important meetings and decisions get postponed, with costs and consequences that are difficult to calculate.
    • A NITI Aayog paper says that the country has at least one election each year.

    3) Visible and invisible costs of repeatedly deploying security forces

    • There are also huge and visible costs of deploying security forces and transporting them, repeatedly.
    • A bigger invisible cost is paid by the nation in terms of diverting these forces from sensitive areas.

    4)  Campaign and finance costs of political parties

    • There is little doubt that the fiscal and economic costs of an election are not trivial, and that two elections, held separately, will almost double costs, including those incurred by political parties themselves.

    5) Question of regional/smaller parties having a level playing field

    • There are fears about the Centre somehow gaining greater power, or regional parties being at a disadvantage during simultaneously held elections.
    • However, fixed five-year terms for state legislatures in fact take away the central government’s power to dissolve state assemblies.
    •  Until 1967 when simultaneous elections were the norm.
    • The Constitution and other laws would need to be amended is obvious, but that is hardly an argument against the proposal.

    Consider the question “There are huge costs associated with the frequent elections in the country. Is simultaneous elections a solution? What are the issues involved?”

    Conclusion

    As the elections in four states and one Union territory in March-April are suspected to have contributed to the second wave of Covid infections, a well-reasoned debate on a concept as important as “one nation, one election” is called for.

  • A national consensus on removal of sedition law is called for

    Is the government entitled to the love and affection of the citizens? Answer to this question lies in the Kedar Nath judgment recently invoked by the Supreme Court in a case against a journalist. The article deals with this issue.

    About the Kedar Nath judgement

    • A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that every journalist is entitled to the protection under the Kedar Nath judgment (1962) on the petition filed by journalist Vinod Dua.
    • The court entertained Dua’s writ petition under Article 32.
    • In the Kedar Nath judgement, the apex court had held that a citizen has the right to say or write whatever he likes about the government or its measures by way of criticism so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder.
    • Section 124A read along with explanations is not attracted without such an allusion to violence. 

    Increasing use of the sedition law

    • NCRB data shows that between 2016 to 2019, there has been a whopping 160 per cent increase in the filing of sedition charges with a conviction rate of just 3.3 per cent.
    • Of the 96 people charged in 2019, only two could be convicted.
    • A number of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protesters are facing sedition charges.

    Background of Section 124-A

    • Section 124-A was not a part of the original Indian Penal Code drafted by Lord Macaulay and treason was confined just to levying war.
    • It was inserted in 1870 in response to the Wahabi movement that had asked Muslims to initiate jihad against the colonial regime.
    • It was argued that Wahabis are going from village to village and preaching that it was the sacred religious duty of Muslims to wage a war against British rule.

    Way forward

    • In 2018, the Law Commission had recommended that the sedition law should not be used to curb free speech.
    •  Let the criminal law revision committee working under the Ministry of Home Affairs make the bold recommendation of dropping the draconian law.
    • A political consensus needs to be forged on this issue.

    Conclusion

    No government, as Mahatma Gandhi told Judge R S Broomfield, has a right to love and affection and people in a free country committed to the liberty of thought and freedom of expression should not be criminally punished for expressing their opinion about the government.

  • Should Sedition law be scrapped?

    The Supreme Court has quashed the case of sedition filed against a journalist in Himachal Pradesh for allegedly making remarks against PM and the government’s handling of the migrant crisis during the Covid-19 lockdown last year.

    What is the story?

    • In a video, the journalist had criticized PM Modi and the Centre for the handling of the migrant crisis last year.
    • A sedition case was filed against him under Section 124A of the IPC which penalizes sedition as punishable with either imprisonment ranging from three years to a lifetime, a fine, or both.
    • He was charged for spreading misinformation or incorrect information and cause panic in the perception of the general public.

    What has the court ruled?

    • The case was quashed by SC. It held that his remarks constituted genuine criticism of the government and could not be labeled seditious.
    • In doing so, the court also reiterated the principles in the landmark case on sedition — Kedar Nath Singh v Union of India (1962).

    What are the Kedar Nath Singh guidelines?

    • In the landmark 1962 Kedar Nath Singh case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law, it attempted to restrict its scope for misuse.
    • The court held that unless accompanied by incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labeled sedition.

    Seven principles in the Kedar Nath Singh ruling specify situations in which the charge of sedition cannot be applied:

    1. The expression “ ‘the Government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. ‘Government established by law’ is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the Government established by law is subverted.”
    2. The effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of a tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence.
    3. Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.
    4. A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.
    5. The provisions of the Sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.
    6. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.
    7. The court proposed to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.

    What has been the impact of that verdict?

    • The significance of the verdict lies in the Supreme Court’s subsequent reiteration of the Kedar Nath Singh principles.
    • A fresh constitutional challenge by two journalists against the sedition law pending before the Supreme Court, and the ruling in Dua’s case, make a strong case against keeping the colonial law in the books.

  • Challenges federalism faces in India

    The article highlights the challenges faced by the federalism in India in various domains and forms and suggests the ways to deal with these challenges.

    Growing tendency towards Centralisation

    • Moves to erode the powers of State governments are not new.
    • The Centre, on several occasions, has used its powers to dismiss or use the Governor to intimidate democratically elected governments.
    • During the Emergency, education was moved to the Concurrent list which was until then a State subject under the constitutional division of responsibilities.
    • However, the changes to federal relations at present are more systemic.
    • There has been increasing centralisation in resource allocations and welfare interventions.
    • After GST, the gap between the revenue that State governments are allowed to generate and the expenditure that they are expected to incur has been widening.
    • The Centre has been encroaching into domains under State government control through centrally sponsored schemes in sectors such as education and health.

    Three domains in which federalism faces challenges

    1) State-capital relation

    • At present there is growing trend towards centralising economic power in conjunction with political centralisation.
    • The consolidation and expansion of a few big business groups is taking place, probably at the expense of smaller players.
    •  On the one hand, the Centre has sought to insulate Indian big business from global competition by choosing not to enter into the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
    • But the power of small businesses is eroded through support for GST and the call for a single national market.
    • So, big businesses are more likely to benefit from a removal of State-level barriers to trade at the expense of smaller regional players.

    2) Institutional transgression

    • Central institutions are increasingly weakening the policy levers of State institutions.
    • There are growing allegations of the misuse of institutions such as the Income Tax Department, the Enforcement Directorate and the National Investigation Agency are being used to intimidate opponents..
    •  Direct transfers to beneficiaries of welfare schemes bypassing States are also contributing to this dynamic.
    • The Centre is increasingly ignoring elected representatives of State governments, holding meetings with State secretaries and district collectors on issues that are primarily under State control.
    • Governors perform active administrative roles instead of their signatory roles.
    • To ensure national uniformity in educational institutions NEET was introduced in medical education.
    • But it subverts the affirmative action policies developed at the regional level in response to local.
    • In the domain of health, the Centre has now put State governments at a disadvantage in vaccine usage by fixing differential pricing for procuring vaccines.

    3) Socio-cultural foundations

    • Beside the legal-constitutional aspects of federalism, it is diversity in cultural foundation of regions that sustains Indian federalism.
    •  Markers of regional identities and regional socio-cultural practices are now interpreted as belonging to a pan-Indian Hindu tradition.

    Conclusion

    To stem this trend towards centralisation we need to provide more legal and constitutional safeguard to the States, strong regional political assertion and a strong federal coalition.

  • Panel to define offences of Speech, Expression

    A panel constituted by the Union Home Ministry to suggest reforms to the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) is likely to propose a separate Section on “offences relating to speech and expression.”

    Panel to define hate speech

    • As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a “hate speech” in the IPC, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws is attempting for the first time to define such speech.
    • Legally speaking, for criminal Sections to be invoked, any such speech has to lead to violence or disturbance of law and order.

    What constitutes Hate Speech?

    • Hate speech can be defined as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”.
    • The word ‘hate speech’ as is a loaded term and merely criticizing someone is not hate speech.
    • There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.

    Indian attempts for definition

    • The Bureau of Police Research and Development recently published a manual for investigating agencies on cyber harassment cases.
    • It has defined hate speech as a language that denigrates, insults threatens or targets an individual based on their identity and other traits (such as sexual orientation or disability or religion etc.).
    • Earlier in 2018, the Home Ministry had written to the Law Commission to prepare a distinct law for online “hate speech”.
    • A committee was formed in the wake of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, which provided punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services.
    • In 2019, however, the Ministry decided to overhaul the IPC, framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after seeking suggestions from various stakeholders.

    Recommendations of various committees

    • The Viswanathan committee proposed inserting Sections 153 C (b) and Section 505 A in the IPC for incitement to commit an offence on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe.
    • It proposed punishment by up to two years along with â‚č5,000 fine.
    • The Bezbaruah Committee was constituted by the Centre in February 2014 in the wake of series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast.
    • It proposed amendment to Section 153 C IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity), punishable by five years and fine or both and Section 509 A IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult a member of a particular race), punishable by three years or fine or both.

  • Mekedatu Project

    The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone has appointed a joint committee to look into allegations of unauthorized construction activity taking place in Mekedatu, where the Karnataka government had proposed to construct a dam across the Cauvery River.

    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 Bengaluru and Ramanagara district.
    • It was also expected to generate hydro-electricity 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.

  • Pardoning powers of the President

    Tamil Nadu CM has written to the President requesting him to accept the State Government’s to remit the life sentences of all the seven convicts in the Ex-PM’s assassination case.

    Story so far

    • Tamil Nadu government had recommended to the state Governor for the remission of the rest of the sentence for all convicts and their early release.
    • The Governor has then decided that the President was the competent authority to decide on the plea of remission of sentence.

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q.Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule
    2. Appointing the Ministers
    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India
    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 1 and 3 only

    (c) 2, 3 and 4 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

    Pardon

    • A pardon is a government/executive decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense as if the act never occurred.

    Why need Pardon?

    • Pardons can be granted when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have “paid their debt to society”, or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them.
    • Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted.
    • Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted.

    Pardoning powers in India

    • Under the Constitution of India (Article 72), the President of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment.
    • A similar and parallel power vests in the governors of each state under Article 161.

    [1] President

    1. Article 72 says that the president shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense.
    2. The pardoning powers of the Indian President are elucidated in Art 72 of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of pardoning that are mandated by law.
    • Pardon: means completely absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The pardoned criminal will be like a normal citizen.
    • Commutation: means changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsh one, for example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence.
    • Reprieve: means a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence, usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time to apply for Presidential Pardon or some other legal remedy to prove his innocence or successful rehabilitation.
    • Respite: means reducing the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition etc.
    • Remission: means changing the quantum of the punishment without changing its nature, for example reducing twenty year rigorous imprisonment to ten years.

    Cases as specified by art. 72

    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial;
    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
    • in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

    [2] Governor

    • Similarly, as per article 161: Governor of a State has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law.
    • It must be relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
    • Please note that President can grant pardon to a person awarded death sentence. But a governor of a state does not enjoy this power.

    Nature of the Pardoning Power

    • The question is whether this power to grant pardon is absolute or this power of pardon shall be exercised by the President on the advice of Council of Ministers.
    • The pardoning power of the president is not absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • This has not been discussed by the constitution but is the practical truth.
    • Further, the constitution does not provide for any mechanism to question the legality of decisions of President or governors exercising mercy jurisdiction.
    • But the SC in Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of President and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness.
    • The court has earlier held that court has retained the power of judicial review even on a matter which has been vested by the Constitution solely in the Executive.

    Some traditions

    • It is important to note that India has a unitary legal system and there is no separate body of state law.
    • All crimes are crimes against the Union of India.
    • Therefore, a convention has developed that the governor’s powers are exercised for only minor offenses.
    • While requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the UTs are deferred to the President.

  • Centre’s decision to provide security to MLAs raises questions

    The article deals with the issue of the Home Ministry’s decision to provide security to BJP MLAs in West Bengal.

    Context

    Recently, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) decided to provide security cover to 77 MLAs of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who were elected earlier this month after the West Bengal Assembly poll.

    Issues with the decision

    1) Threat perception discussed for a group and not one by one person

    • Decisions to provide security to persons under threat is taken by a committee in the MHA.
    • The committee comprises officials from the MHA, the Intelligence Bureau, Delhi Police and senior officials of the Central Armed Police Forces.
    • In the meetings of the committee, the threat perception of each of the person to be secured is discussed one by one and not collectively for any group as such.
    • However, in the decision to deploy CAPF personnel for the 77 MLAs, threat perception for each of the persons was not discussed.

    2) Law and order is a state subject

    • Law and order being a State subject, West Bengal is duty-bound to protect every citizen of the State, more so the MLAs.
    • By deploying central forces, the Centre has sent a clear signal that it does not rely upon the State government to provide fool-proof security to the BJP MLAs.
    • This is not a good sign for Centre-State relations.
    • The Central government’s distrust of officers who are considered close to a State’s ruling dispensation does not bode well for police officers across the country.

    3) Burdening the security forces

    • The number of protected persons has increased in recent years.
    • In 2019, as many as 66,043 police and CAPF personnel were deployed to protect 19,467 persons against the sanctioned strength of 43,556 personnel, as per the Data on Police Organisations.
    • Constant deployment of CAPF personnel on protection duties impacts their training schedule.

    Curbing the tendency to have security as status symbol

    • To curb the tendency of demanding security personnel around themselves, leaders and prominent persons should be asked to bear the expenditure.
    • Similarly, Members of Parliament and leaders with criminal records should be charged a fee for the security personnel deployed to protect them.

    Conclusion

    The Centre’s decision to provide security to the MLAs would set a wrong precedent and does not bode well for federalism.

  • Divesting States of the power to determine backwardness hits federalism

    The article highlights the issues with the Supreme Court judgement in the Maratha reservation case.

    Three findings from Maratha reservation judgement

    • Recently, the Supreme Court of India declared as unconstitutional a Maharashtra law which provided for reservation to the Maratha community.
    • Three primary findings emanated from the judgement-
    • 1) Maratha not backward class: The Court held that the Maratha community did not constitute a socially and educationally backward class.
    • 2) Breach of 50% limit: The bench said that the law was in breach of a rule previously set by the Court disallowing reservations made in excess of 50% of the total available positions.
    • 3) Power of the States: The Court held that State governments had no independent power to declare a group as a backward class.

    Issues with the judgement

    The latter two findings run against the values of equality and federalism, which the Court has long regarded as integral to India’s democracy.

    1)  50% limit does not stem from the Constitution

    • Articles 16(4) and 15(4) which confer power on the government to make reservations do not contains 50% limitation.
    • Reservation as an exception: Originally, however, these clauses were seen by the Supreme Court as exceptions to a broad rule of formal equality envisioned by the Constitution.
    • To that end, the Court held that to allow reservation in excess of 50% would lead to an exception overriding a rule. 
    • Reservation as basic guarantee: Countering the reservations as an exception position, a seven-judge Bench, in State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1975), held that a programme of reservation was inherent in the Constitution’s basic guarantee of equal treatment.
    • This judgment held that affirmative action by the state was compelled by an objective of attaining substantive equality.
    • With this judgement the rule requiring that reservations stay under 50% ought to have been deemed incongruous.
    • But when the Court sat as a nine-judge Bench in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) it sustained the 50% limit.
    • The majority on the Bench ruled, on the one hand, that N.M. Thomas was correct in seeing reservations as embedded in a constitutional vision of substantive equality.
    • On the other hand, the bench accepted that reservation made in excess of 50%, barring exceptional circumstances, was harmful to that very vision. 

    2) Interpretation of 102nd Amendment curtails the powers of the State governments to declare groups as backward

    • After Indra Sawhney judgement, the determination of backward classes was made by the National Commission for the Backward Classes, at the level of the Centre, and by regional commissions at the level of the State governments.
    • This division in power, gave States autonomy to classify groups as backward.
    • In contrast, the power to prepare lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, vested solely with the Union government.
    • The 102nd Amendment (2018), introduced Article 342A.
    • Article 342A stipulated that the President of India may, after consultation with the State government, notify groups of persons within such a State who are deemed to be socially and educationally backward.
    • Any such “Central List”, the clause clarified, could only be altered by Parliament.
    • Article 366(26C) was also added, and “socially and educationally backward classes” was defined as “such backward classes as are so deemed under Article 342A for the purposes of this Constitution”.
    • In interpreting these changes, a majority in the Maratha reservation judgement concluded that the power for determination of other backward classes rests solely with the Centre.

    How this interpretation goes against the federalism

    • This interpretation of 102nd Amendment altogether dispossess States from exercising a time-honoured authority.
    • But yet the amendment, in the Court’s belief, did not violate the Constitution’s basic structure.
    • This was because, according to the majority, the alterations neither took away “the very essence of federalism” nor denuded the States of their effective power to legislate.
    • But divesting states of power this critical, to classify groups as backward, entitling many communities to protection under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is offensive to the “essence” of federalism.
    • The changes, as interpreted by the Court, directly impede the ability of States to secure just social order.

    Consider the question “What are the implications for the States of the interpretation of the 102nd Amendment by the Supreme Court in the Maratha reservation case?” 

    Conclusion

    It is imperative that Parliament amend the Constitution and grants to States an express power to determine backwardness. Any other result will offend the delicate balance at the heart of Indian federalism.