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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?

    The Parliament of India is the supreme instrument of democratic accountability. Under Article 75(3) of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha

    Parliament ensuring accountability of the executive

    Question Hour – Enables MPs to question ministers and expose administrative lapses

    Zero Hour – Allows MPs to raise urgent matters of public importance without prior notice.

    Adjournment and Censure Motions – Hold the executive accountable on specific issues of public or national concern.

    No-Confidence Motion – Tests the majority support of the government and can lead to its fall if lost.

    Budgetary Control (Articles 112-114) – power of the purse by approving or rejecting demands for grants.

    Cut Motions to reduce or disapprove government expenditure, signalling disapproval of policy.

    Parliamentary Committees

    Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – Examines CAG reports and ensures post-audit accountability (e.g., 2G and coal scam scrutiny).

    Estimates Committee – Evaluates government expenditure efficiency.

    DRSCs) in-depth scrutiny of ministries.

    Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) – Eg- Waqf Amendment Bill

    Parliamentary Privileges – Allow MPs to speak freely and fearlessly, enhancing deliberative accountability.

    Issues with parliamentary form of government

    Decline in the number of sittings- The 17th Lok Sabha sat for only 55 days

    Frequent Disruptions and Adjournments due to protests and unruly behavior, leading to wasted time and resources.

    Low Productivity- Eg- the 2023 winter session saw significant disruptions, resulting in the suspension of over 140 MPs and hindering legislative business.

    Inadequate Discussion- 58% of the Bills were passed within two weeks of their introduction in 17th LS. Eg- J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019, and the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023 were passed within two days

    About 31% of the total functioning time in Lok Sabha, and 32% in Rajya Sabha was spent on discussions other than legislation and budgets. Eg- President’s Address to Parliament, matters of public importance, and trust votes.

    Between 2019 and 2023, about 80% of the Budget was passed without discussion, and in 2023, the entire Budget was approved without debate.

    Rise Legislation through Ordinances bypassing the usual legislative process.

    Along with ‘maximum governance, there needs to be ‘maximum accountability’, which must start with an empowered and effective Parliament.

  • ‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. (150 words)

    Constitutional morality implies adherence to the core principles and spirit of the Constitution in a democracy.

    As per George Grote, it involves

    Paramount reverence for forms and procedures of the Constitution.

    Adherence to law while enabling open criticism of authority.

    Need for public reason, self-restraint, and trust in institutions.

    Essential Facets and Roots within the Constitution

    Preamble – It acts as the moral compass, explicitly mandating the preservation of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

    Fundamental Rights – Protect dignity, autonomy, equality. Eg – Navtej Johar (2018) decriminalised homosexuality.

    DPSPs – Provide moral compass for social and economic justice.

    Institutional Checks & Balances – Separation of powers, judicial review, federalism. Eg – Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld Basic Structure.

    Democratic Processes – Free elections, executive accountability, judicial independence.

    Judicial Decisions

    Kesavananda Bharati (1973)- Upheld Basic Structure as a reflection of constitutional morality above political majority.

    Naz Foundation (2009, Delhi HC)- Asserted constitutional morality over public morality in striking down Sec. 377 IPC (later affirmed in Navtej Johar).

    Navtej Singh Johar (2018)- SC decriminalized homosexuality, stating constitutional morality must prevail over majority opinion.

    Sabarimala case (2018)- Affirmed women’s entry in temples on grounds of constitutional morality and gender equality.

    Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) – SC held that constitutional morality ensures cooperative federalism and prevents concentration of power in the hands of one authority.

    Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – struck down Section 497 IPC (Adultery) as discriminatory, invoking constitutional morality to protect individual dignity and autonomy.

    Constitutional morality is the soul of Indian democracy. As Rajeev Bhargava notes, it embodies a form of constitutional patriotism that enables unity in diversity while upholding pluralism

  • Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.

    “Indian Judiciary is not only guardian of the Constitution but also Active Participants in the Social Revolution.” – J.L. Nehru. Greater women representation in the judiciary is essential for this vision.

    Desirability of Greater Representation

    Constitutional Imperative – Fulfils Articles 14, 15(3), and 39A, ensuring equal opportunity and access to justice for all.

    Corrects Historical Imbalance- Addresses structural and institutional barriers in legal and judicial careers.

    Diversity of Perspective – Women judges bring unique social insights, empathy, and lived experiences, enriching judicial reasoning and deliberation.

    Gender-Sensitive Adjudication – Enhances sensitivity in matters of sexual violence, family law, and gender rights. Eg- Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent in Sabarimala (2018).

    Enhances Legitimacy and Public Trust – A judiciary reflective of society’s diversity strengthens citizen confidence in judicial impartiality.

    Democratization of Judiciary – Promotes inclusive representation across gender, class, and region, aligning with democratic ideals.

    Global Democratic Benchmark – Countries like Canada and the UK have achieved near gender parity, improving judicial balance and inclusivity.

    Role-Model Effect – Inspires women in the legal profession, helping address underrepresentation in senior judicial positions.

    “There is no better test of the excellence of government than the working of its judicial system.” – Lord Bryce. The true measure of that excellence lies in Gender Equality in Judiciary.

  • How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the States to improve their fiscal position?

    The Constitution of India envisages the Finance Commission under Article 280 as the ‘balancing wheel of fiscal federalism’ in India.

    Key Recommendations & Impact

    Tax Devolution Raised to 42% – Increased untied resources, enhanced fiscal autonomy.

    Reduced Dependence on Central Grants – Gave States more predictable, formula-based transfers.

    Greater Spending Autonomy – Fewer tied schemes allowed States to set local priorities.

    Plan vs Non-Plan Expenditure removed – Simplified budgeting, better fiscal management.

    Incentives for Fiscal Discipline – FRBM compliance encouraged prudent debt management.

    Support to Local Bodies – Higher allocations improved grassroots fiscal health.

    Special Grants for Environment & Judiciary – Helped States strengthen governance and green initiatives.

    GST Compensation Mechanism (recommended later) – Protected States from revenue loss during tax transition.

    Positive Impact

    Strengthened fiscal federalism

    Improved fiscal indicators of states

    Encouraged competitive federalism

    Concerns

    Rise in Cesses & Surcharges – Cesses & surcharges rising from 12.8% (2015-20) to 18.5% (2020-24).

    States’ effective share shrank – Fell from 35% (2015-20) to ~31% (2020-24) of Centre’s gross tax revenue.

    GST Compensation Delays – Especially during COVID, strained States’ finances.

    Reduced Central Grants – Decline in discretionary and plan-based transfers cut flexibility.

    Borrowing Restrictions (Art. 293, FRBM) – Limited States’ ability to raise resources.

    High Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) – Continued tied funds reduced States’ expenditure autonomy.

    Way Forward

    Increase Devolution to 50% under 16th FC.

    Include Cess/Surcharge in divisible pool

    Restructure CSS – Consolidate into fewer umbrella schemes

    As the Punchhi Commission noted, “true federalism requires fiscal autonomy alongside political autonomy.”

  • Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected.

    The President of India serves as the constitutional head of the State and the symbol of national unity within a parliamentary democracy.
    The President of France, under the Fifth Republic (1958), is both the head of State and a key executive authority in a semi-presidential system, sharing power with the Prime Minister.
    Their election procedures reflect the differing nature of their political systems.

    Procedure for Election of the President of India

    Constitutional Basis: Articles 54 of the Constitution.

    Electoral College:

    Elected members of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).

    Elected members of State Legislative Assemblies (including Delhi and Puducherry).

    Voting System:

    Proportional representation by single transferable vote (STV) and secret ballot (Article 55).

    Vote value of MLAs and MPs ensures federal balance.

    Eligibility: Indian citizen, 35 years or above, qualified for Lok Sabha membership.

    Term: Five years, eligible for re-election.

    Significance

    Indirect election is relevant as president is nominal head

    Federal Balance maintained

    Only elected members participate in elections

    Procedure for Election of the President of France

    Constitutional Basis: Article 6 of the French Constitution (1958).

    Mode: Direct universal suffrage since 1962, following de Gaulle’s reform.

    Voting System: Two-round majority system: A candidate must secure 50%+ votes in the first round; otherwise, a runoff between top two in the second round.

    Term: Five years (reduced from seven in 2000).

    Eligibility: French citizen, 18 years or above, meeting civic and nomination requirements.

    Significance

    Accountability – Direct election is in line with executive powers of president

    President enjoys absolute majority

    Stability due to security of tenure

    Criticism of Procedure for Election of the President of India

    Indirect election limits popular legitimacy.

    Value of votes of state legislators differs as it is based on population

    Symbolic authority-President’s office often reduced to formality under parliamentary control.

    Criticism of Procedure for Election of the President of France

    Personality-based campaigns overshadow policy debates.

    Cohabitation risk-President and Prime Minister from different parties may create policy deadlock.

    Over-centralization of power in the executive, especially under strong presidents.

    The Indian procedure ensures federal balance and political neutrality through indirect election, while the French model ensures democratic legitimacy through direct popular choice.

  • Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.

    Model Code of Conduct is the guidelines set by Election Commission of India for political entities during campaigns to ensure decorum. Though not legally enforceable, it has become an indispensable moral instrument for ensuring free, fair, and level-playing elections in India.

    Evolution of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

    1960 – First voluntary code introduced during the Kerala Assembly elections.

    1962 – First Nationwide Use in the Lok Sabha elections

    1991 – ECI under T.N. Seshan formalised and reissued MCC with 7 comprehensive parts

    2013 – Supreme Court Recognition in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Tamil Nadu

    2018-Present – MCC expanded to cover social media, fake news, and online campaigning.

    Role of the Election Commission of India in MCC Implementation

    Acts under Constitutional Authority (Art. 324)- Exercises residual powers to enforce MCC even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.

    Ensures Free and Fair Elections- ECI enforces MCC to maintain a level playing field among all political parties.

    Restricts the ruling party from announcing new schemes, transferring officials, or using public resources for campaigns.

    Monitors Campaign Conduct- Prohibits hate speech, communal appeals, caste-based propaganda, and personal attacks in campaigns.

    Acts Against MCC Violations- Issues warnings, censures, derecognition, or suspension of political leaders and parties for violations.

    Uses Media Certification and Monitoring Committees (MCMC) to monitor paid news and political advertisements.

    Controls Government Communication- Prohibits use of official media or public funds for election-related publicity.

    Deploys observers and flying squads to detect and address MCC violations promptly.

    Engages Citizens in Monitoring- Introduced the cVIGIL mobile app allowing citizens to report MCC violations in real time.

    Coordinates with Law Enforcement- Works with district magistrates, police, and election observers to ensure compliance on the ground.

    Challenges before the Election Commission in Enforcing MCC

    Legal and Institutional Challenges

    Lack of Statutory Backing- enforcement depends on moral authority, not legal sanction.

    Delay in Judicial Remedies on MCC violations, reduce deterrent effect.

    Administrative Challenges

    Monitoring compliance across 10+ lakh polling stations and multiple states is logistically difficult.

    Limited Human Resources- reliance on district officials who are part of state bureaucracy reduces independence.

    Political Challenges

    Allegations of Bias, especially against opposition leaders.

    Non-cooperation by Political Parties- ignore advisories or delay compliance with MCC orders.

    Freebies and Populism- Lack of clear guidelines to differentiate welfare schemes from electoral freebies (as seen in Tamil Nadu & Telangana cases).

    Technological and Media Challenges – Difficulty tracking fake news, hate campaigns, and paid promotions on digital platforms.

    Way Forward

    Give Statutory Backing to MCC under Representation of the People Act, 1951

    Regulate Freebies and Populism – Implement Supreme Court’s advice in S. Subramaniam Balaji (2013)

    Establish a digital MCC framework in collaboration with social media platforms to tackle misinformation, hate speech, and paid content.

    Enhance Transparency and Accountability – Publish all MCC violations, ECI actions, and outcomes on a public dashboard.

    Set time limits for inquiry and punishment in MCC violation cases.

    Electoral reforms is considered as ‘Mother of all Reforms’. Giving statutory backing to MCC can ensure the trinity of Ethics, Accountability and Fairness of electoral process.

  • Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws.

    Article 329(b) bars judicial intervention in elections except through an election petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Part VI (Sections 80-122) governs adjudication of election disputes

    Procedure to decide election disputes

    Election Petition (Section 80) – No civil suit; only election petition can challenge an election.

    Who Can File (Section 81) – Any candidate or elector of the constituency may file petition.

    Time Limit (Section 81) – Filed within 45 days from date of declaration of result.

    Jurisdiction (Section 80A) – Heard by single judge of the High Court designated by Chief Justice.

    Time-Bound Disposal (Section 86(7)) – Petition to be disposed of within 6 months as far as practicable.

    Grounds for declaring election void (section 100)

    Disqualification of Returned Candidate (Section 100(1)(a)) – Candidate not qualified or disqualified under Constitution/RPA on election date.

    Corrupt Practices (Section 100(1)(b)) – Bribery, undue influence, religious appeals, false statements, booth capturing, expenditure violations (Section 123).

    Improper Rejection of Nomination: If a nomination was wrongfully rejected.

    The result was “materially affected” by:

    Improper acceptance of any nomination.

    Improper reception, refusal, or rejection of any vote.

    Non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the RPA, 1951.

    Remedy against decision

    Direct Appeal to Supreme Court (Section 116A) within 30 days.

    Supreme Court may stay High Court’s order under stringent conditions.

    Landmark case laws

    Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Allahabad HC set aside PM’s election for corrupt practices; led to Emergency.

    N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) – Established Article 329(b) as absolute bar; election petition is sole remedy.

    Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC (1978) – Justice Krishna Iyer: Free and fair elections part of basic structure.

    Lily Thomas v. UoI (2013) – Struck down Section 8(4) RPA; automatic disqualification on conviction with 2+ years.

    Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) – Constitution Bench broadened Section 123(3) – appeal to religion, caste, race by any party is corrupt practice.

    Thus, the disqualification provisions ensure the trinity of Ethics, Accountability and Fairness of electoral process.

  • Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Articles 153-167 (Part VI) deal with the State Executive, and the Governor acts as the Chief Executive Head of the State. Under Article 213, the Governor has the power to promulgate ordinances.

    Legislative Powers-

    Summoning and Proroguing Houses (Article 174)

    Article 200 – Giving assent to the Bills

    Article 175- Addresses the first session of the State Legislature after each general election.

    Appoints the Speaker of the House

    Reservation of Bills for President’s Consideration (Article 201)

    Nominates one-sixth members of the Legislative Council (if it exists).

    Ordinance-Making Power (Article 213)

    Essential Conditions for Exercise of Legislative Powers by the Governor

    Legislature Not in Session – Ordinance can be issued only when both Houses (or the sole House) of the State Legislature are not in session.

    Immediate Need – The Governor must be satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate legislative action.

    Legislative Competence – The ordinance can only be issued on a subject within the State Legislature’s competence under State or Concurrent Lists.

    Presidential Assent (Proviso to Article 213(1)) – Required if-

    The Bill would need the President’s previous sanction; or

    The law conflicts with any Parliamentary law; or

    It covers subjects where Parliament has overriding powers.

    Temporary Nature – The ordinance must be laid before the Legislature and will cease to operate six weeks after its reassembly, unless replaced by an Act.

    Legality of Re-promulgation of Ordinances

    Judicial Precedents

    D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) – Re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval was termed as a “fraud on the Constitution”. SC has held that, An ordinance can be challenged if it-

    Constitutes colorable legislation;

    Violates Fundamental Rights;

    Contravenes constitutional provisions (e.g., Article 301); or

    Has unconstitutional retrospective effect.

    Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) – Placing an ordinance before the Legislature is mandatory. Re-promulgation without fresh justification is invalid and violates legislative supremacy.

    R.C. Cooper case (1970) – Judicial review permissible if there is no genuine requirement of immediate action.

    A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)- The Supreme Court held that an ordinance cannot substitute parliamentary legislation and must be used only in cases of extreme urgency or unforeseen emergency.

    Constitutional and Democratic Implications

    Re-promulgation violates the “3D principle” – Debate, Discussion, Deliberation.

    It converts an emergency power into a routine legislative tool, eroding separation of powers.

    Failure to place an ordinance before the Legislature constitutes an “abuse of power” and fraud on the Constitution.

    Way Forward

    Mandatory Legislative Review within a fixed timeframe.

    Transparency in Justification – The Governor’s satisfaction for issuing an ordinance should be recorded in writing and made public.

    Adherence to Constitutional Morality – Governors must act within the spirit of the Constitution, using ordinance powers only in genuine emergencies.

    The ordinance power of the Governor is a tool of urgency, not convenience. As Soli Sorabjee observed, Governors can be a “driving force for democracy” only when they respect the principles of separation of powers and constitutional propriety.

  • While the national political parties in India favour centralisation, the regional parties are in favour of State autonomy. Comment.

    According to Edmund Burke, “Political parties are a group of people sharing common ideology and coming together for the pursuit of common interest.” In India’s quasi-federal system, political orientation of parties influences the federal balance.

    National Political Parties – Tilt Towards Centralisation

    Political Reasons

    Ideological focus on unity and integrity – Eg- Emphasis on “One Nation” narrative

    National security concerns – Strong Centre seen as vital for sovereignty. Eg- AFSPA

    High-command party culture – Central leaders dominate over state units.

    Uniform electoral strategy – Centralised messaging ensures consistency.

    Institutional Reasons

    Constitutional centralism – Support for Centre’s powers under Articles 249, 356, and 352.

    Governor’s role – Used as a central instrument in state politics.

    Economic Reasons

    Fiscal centralisation – Centre controls major taxes and revenue flows.

    Centralised planning legacy – Planning Commission model favoured top-down control.

    Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) – Used for visibility and control (e.g., PM-KISAN).

    Uniform economic policy – Eg- GST.

    Social & Cultural Reasons

    Nation-building agenda – Eg- Ek Bharat, Sreshtha Bharat

    Integration of diversity – Central schemes for social cohesion and inclusion. Eg- One Nation, One Ration Card

    Promotion of national language/symbols – Eg- Three Language Formula

    Regional Political Parties – Favour State Autonomy

    Political Reasons

    Rooted in regional identity movements- Eg – DMK (Tamil identity), TMC (Bengal pride).

    Opposition to central interference- Resist misuse of Article 356 and Governor’s powers.

    Institutional Reasons

    Representation in central bodies- Seek stronger role for states in institutions like Finance Commission and NITI Aayog.

    Push for cooperative federalism- Eg- Anandpur Sahib Resolution on centre-state relations

    Economic Reasons

    Fiscal autonomy- Demand greater tax devolution and freedom in fund usage.

    Resource control- Want more authority over natural resources and industries.

    Discontent over CSS- Oppose Centrally Sponsored Schemes that restrict flexibility.

    Social & Cultural Reasons

    Language and cultural protection- Eg – DMK’s anti-Hindi protests.

    Address local inequalities- Focus on state-specific social justice and caste realities.

    “Federalism is not a monolith; it is a dialogue between self-rule and shared rule.” It must rest on the principles of autonomy, adequacy, and elasticity.

    Constitutional and Statutory Bodies

  • To what extent, in your opinion, has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots ?

    73rd and 74th CAA are the embodiment of grass-root democracy and democratic decentralization in India. They are inspired by Gandhiji’s concept of “Oceanic Circles of Power” and “Swaraj”.

    Positive Transformations in Governance Landscape

    Rajni Kothari described local bodies as “schools of democracy” where political awareness and participation are cultivated at the grassroots level.

    Democratic Deepening with over 32 lakh elected representatives across 2.6 lakh Panchayats and 4,000+ urban bodies.

    Social Inclusion and Equity – Reservation for SCs, STs, and women enhanced representation of marginalised groups in decision-making. Eg- Women’s Representation at 46.44%

    Panchayats manage programmes like MGNREGA, PMAY-G, Jal Jeevan Mission, bringing last-mile efficiency.

    Participatory Planning – Gram Sabhas and Ward Committees have improved local accountability and need-based development. Eg- Social Audits of MGNREGA

    Strengthened Disaster Response – Eg- during COVID-19 and Kerala floods.

    Efficient Resource Management- Eg- Hiware Bazar in Maharashtra effectively managed water resources through watershed development.

    Conflict Resolution- Reports indicate a 30% reduction in petty disputes reaching district courts due to effective Panchayat mediation.

    Challenges

    “PRIs exist as over-structured but underpowered organisations.” (2nd ARC)

    No decentralisation of power, rather decentralisation of corruption – Mani Shankar Iyer Committee

    Dependence on higher tiers- Around 95% of Panchayat funds come from Central/State transfers, limiting fiscal autonomy.

    Limited own-source revenue- Poor tax collection efficiency (>1% own tax).

    Barriers to Local Taxation- Freebie culture and fear of losing popularity discourage local taxation.

    Incomplete devolution- less than 20% of States have transferred all 29 subjects under 11th Schedule (MoPR, 2022). (​​overall Panchayat Devolution Index is only 43.89% (2021-22))

    Centralised Welfare via Cash Transfers – The welfare state now relies on DBT through JAM, bypassing panchayats and reducing local accountability and participatory governance

    Shortage of staff- Average 0.67 Panchayat Secretaries per Gram Panchayat, as low as 0.33 in Uttar Pradesh.

    Weak Gram Sabhas- Low participation, elite domination, and token meetings.

    Gender and social barriers leading to proxy control. (Sarpanch Pati)

    Manishankar Aiyar Committee recommendations.

    Establish National Commission for Panchayati Raj.

    Create Panchayat Ombudsman for grievance redressal.

    Set up a separate cadre of Panchayat bureaucracy with a code of conduct.

    Adopt activity mapping for clear delineation of 3Fs – Funds, Functions, Functionaries.

    To realise the vision of “Gram Uday se Bharat Uday”, India needs second-generation Panchayati Raj reforms