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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • It is time to end judicial feudalism in India

    Context

    The August 11 order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed that “hereinafter, all the courts in the state other than the high court shall be referred to as district judiciary”. Furthermore, “these courts shall not be referred to as subordinate court” but as trial courts.

    Issues with the judicial hierarchy Vs. hierarchy of judges

    • The expression “subordinate courts” used by Part VI, Chapter 6, of the Constitution of India cannot signify that judges are subordinate.
    • The term subordinate has implications for the independence of the judiciary, entrenched with and since Kesavananda Bharati (1973) as the essential feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
    • No judge is “subordinate” to any other, constitutionally judges are limited in the jurisdiction but also supreme within their own jurisdiction.
    • However, Article 235 speaks of “control over subordinate courts”.
    • This Article created the notion of subordination by describing these entities and agents as persons “holding a post inferior to the post of a district judge”.

    Constitutional provision

    • The Constitution no doubt contemplates a hierarchy of jurisdictions, but no judge, acting within her jurisdiction, is “inferior” or “subordinate”.
    • On appeal, or review, a court with ample jurisdiction may overturn and even pass judicial strictures but this does not make the concerned courts “lower” or “inferior” courts.
    • Supervisory powers: High courts always have considerable powers of superintendence on the administrative side but this “supervisory“ power has been recognised by the apex court as a “constitutional power” and subject to the right of appeal as granted by Article 235.
    • While the Constitution allows “supervision”, it does not sanction judicial despotism.
    • Despite this, arbitrary practices in writing confidential reports of district justices seem to continue.

    Way forward

    • Constitutional amendment: A complete recasting of Article 235 is needed, which does away with the omnibus expression of “control” powers in the high courts.
    • The amendment should specifically require the high courts to satisfy the criteria flowing from the principles of natural and constitutional justice and all judicial officers who fulfil due qualification thresholds should be treated with constitutional dignity and respect.
    • Collegiate system at high court’s level: For most matters (save elevation), senior-most district judges and judges of the high courts should constitute a collegiate system to facilitate judicial administration, infrastructure, access, monitoring of disposal rates, minimisation of undue delays in administration of justice, alongside matters concerning transfers, and leave.
    •  If an ACR is to be adversely changed in the face of a consistent award for a decade or more, it should be a collegiate act of the five senior-most justices, including the Chief Justice of the High Court.
    • CJI Ramana has recently agreed in principle, following the request of the Supreme Court Bar Association, that chief justices of the high courts should consider lawyers practising in the Supreme Court for elevation to the high courts.

    Consider the question “Do you agree with the view that the Constitution contemplates a hierarchy of jurisdictions, but no judge, acting within her jurisdiction, is “inferior” or “subordinate”. Give reason in support of your argument.”

    Conclusion

    The changes suggested here needs to be implemented to ensure the independence of the judiciary at all levels.

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

  • How are Rajya Sabha members punished for misconduct in the House?

    Context

    The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is reportedly contemplating action against MPs who, he thinks, were involved in the fracas in the House.

    Provisions in House Rules of Rajya Sabha for punishing members

    1) For conduct inside the House

    • Ground for punishment: Rule 256 of the Rajya Sabha’s Rules of Procedure specifies the acts of misconduct: Disregarding the authority of the chair, abusing the rules of the council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
    • However, the power to suspend a member is vested in the House, not in the chairman.
    • Under the rule, the maximum period of suspension is for the remainder of the session.
    •  By convention, a suspended member loses his right to get replies to his questions.
    • Thus, suspension from the service of the House is regarded as a serious punishment.
    • But, surprisingly, the rules do not spell out the disabilities of a suspended member.
    • These are imposed on them as per conventions or precedent.
    • Suspension for the remainder of the session makes sense only when they are suspended immediately after the misconduct has been noticed by the chair.
    • The rules of the House do not empower Parliament to inflict any punishment on its members other than suspension for creating disorder in the House.

    2) Misconduct outside the House

    • For the acts of misconduct by the MPs outside the House, which constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the House, usually the privilege committee investigates the matter and recommends the course of action and the House acts on it.
    • A special committee is appointed usually when the misconduct is so serious that the House may consider expelling the member.
    • Special committee was appointed in 2005 to inquire into the issue of MPs accepting money for raising questions in Parliament.
    • So, special ad-hoc committees are appointed only to investigate serious misconduct by MPs outside the House.

    Issue in the present context

    • It appears that the Rajya Sabha secretariat has prepared a report on the incident in the Rajya Sabhi, which accuses some MPs of assaulting security personnel.
    • But special ad-hoc committees are appointed only to investigate serious misconduct by MPs outside the House.
    • No special committee is required to go into what happens before the eyes of the presiding officer inside the House.
    • As per the rules of the House, they need to be dealt with then and there.
    • The rules do not recognise any punishment other than suspension for a specific period and in this case, the Session is already over.
    • Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits a greater penalty than what the law provided at the time of committing the offence.

    Conclusion

    Punishing the MPs for their misconduct in the House is restricted by the provision in the House rules. These restrictions need to be looked into in the face of growing disruption by the members.

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

  • Arrest is not always a must, says Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has held that merely because the law allows arrest does not mean the State can use the power indiscriminately to crush personal liberty.

    What is an Arrest?

    • An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system.
    • It is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody (legal protection or control), usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime.
    • After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged.

    Distinction between arrest and detention

    • There exists a distinction between an investigatory stop or detention and an arrest.
    • The distinction tends to be whether or not the stop is “brief and cursory” in nature, and whether or not a reasonable individual would feel free to leave.

    Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to every individual and states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

    Logic behind arresting

    The Supreme Court has noted that:

    • The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when the custodial investigation becomes necessary.
    • Or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond.
    • The court was emphatic that a distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for the exercise of this power.

    Sanctions for arrest as outlined by the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court clarified that:

    (A) Avoiding arrests

    • Arrest isn’t a compulsion: Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
    • Justification for arrest: A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for the exercise of it, it noted.
    • Dignity of the undertrial: If an arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.
    • Evidence protection: There should not be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused since many times there is no apprehension that an accused would abscond or tamper with evidence.

    (B) Broad implications of Sec. 170 CrPC

    • Narrow interpretation: Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been wrongly interpreted by the police and trial courts to make an arrest of the accused mandatory at the time of filing of the charge sheet.
    • Custody, not arrest: The word “custody” in Section 170 had been wrongly interpreted as ‘arrest’.The word ‘custody’ appearing in Section 170 does not contemplate either police or judicial custody.

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

     

  • Role of Speaker

    Context

    The decline in the functioning of India’s Parliament — and state assemblies as well — is caused by one primary reason: The lack of independence and impartiality of the Speaker.

    Important role of the Speaker

    • Our Constitution, after extensive debate, adopted the Westminster model of governance.
    • In the Lok Sabha, as in the United Kingdom, the Speaker is the supreme authority; he has vast powers and it is his primary duty to ensure the orderly conduct of the business of the House.
    • Constitutional law points out the two essential qualities of a Speaker: Independence and impartiality.
    • As the principal spokesperson of the Lok Sabha, the Speaker represents its collective voice.
    • Indeed, the supremacy of Parliament is emphasised by Article 75(3) of the Constitution: “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
    •  Pandit Nehru referred to the Speaker as “the symbol of the nation’s freedom and liberty” and emphasised that Speakers should be men of “outstanding ability and impartiality”.

    How role of Speaker matters in functioning Legislature

    • Power to allow debate or discussion: It is the Speaker’s duty to decide what issues will be taken up for discussion.
    • He has the sole discretion to permit an adjournment motion to be tabled or to admit a calling attention notice, if the issue is of urgent public importance.
    • The present practice of the Speaker continuing to be an active member of the ruling party has the inevitable result of his refusing to allow any debate or discussion that may be essential in national interest but may embarrass the ruling party.
    • This inevitably leads to constant disruption of Parliament by the Opposition.
    • The stalling of parliamentary proceedings has led to the passing of important bills in several sessions without any discussion.
    • Violation of separation of power between legislature and executive: The most dangerous consequence is the vastly increased powers that the executive — the bureaucracy — begins to command by default.
    • In 1951, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court (In Re Delhi Laws Act Case) held that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated to the bureaucracy; law-making must remain the domain of the legislature.
    • This constitutional mandate is now increasingly and consistently being violated by issuing rules and notifications that have far-reaching consequences.
    • The new rules on information technology and electronic commerce are clear instances of changes that should have come about by a parliamentary law.
    • And worse still is the power given to the executive to issue retrospective notifications — a step unknown to any civilised democracy.
    • Partisan conduct in anti-defection law issues: Several judgments on the anti-defection law have been rendered by the Supreme Court.
    • A common factor that shows up in these rulings is the blatant, partisan conduct of speakers in state assemblies.

    Way forward

    • Speaker should resign from Party: It should be made mandatory that the Speaker ought to resign from his party and his sole allegiance must be to the Constitution and to maintaining the dignity of the House.
    • The separation of powers is part of the basic structure of our Constitution.
    • It is imperative that the Speaker of every legislature resigns from his party to honour his constitutional obligation of independence and impartiality. 
    • This must be accepted as the primary responsibility of every ruling party, both at the Centre and in each state, and made into a constitutional convention.

    Conlcusion

    The option is a binary: Either allow Parliament and state legislatures to descend into terminal decline or make the Speaker truly independent and let every legislature perform its constitutional function.

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

  • Collegium recommends nine judges for Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana has recommended to the government nine names for appointment as apex court judges.

    Significant appointments

    • The Collegium has for the first time, in one single resolution, recommended three women judges.
    • It has thus sent a strong signal in favor of the representation of women in the highest judiciary.
    • The process scripted history by naming Karnataka High Court judge B.V. Nagarathna, who may become India’s first woman CJI.

    What is Collegium System?

    • The Collegium of judges is the Indian Supreme Court’s invention.
    • It does not figure in the Constitution, which says judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President and speaks of a process of consultation.
    • In effect, it is a system under which judges are appointed by an institution comprising judges.
    • After some judges were superseded in the appointment of the CJI in the 1970s, and attempts made subsequently to effect a mass transfer of High Court judges across the country.
    • Hence there was a perception that the independence of the judiciary was under threat. This resulted in a series of cases over the years.

    Evolution: The Judges Cases

    • First Judges Case (1981) ruled that the “consultation” with the CJI in the matter of appointments must be full and effective.
    • However, it rejected the idea that the CJI’s opinion, albeit carrying great weight, should have primacy.
    • Second Judges Case (1993) introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
    • It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the Supreme Court.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On a Presidential Reference for its opinion, the Supreme Court, in the Third Judges Case (1998) expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.

    The procedure followed by the Collegium

    Appointment of CJI

    • The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
    • As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
    • In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.
    • The Union Law Minister forwards the recommendation to the PM who, in turn, advises the President.

    Other SC Judges

    • For other judges of the top court, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
    • The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
    • The consultees must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
    • The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

    For High Courts

    • The CJs of High Courts are appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States. The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.
    • High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.
    • The proposal, however, is initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.
    • The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

    Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

    • Yes, the Collegium also recommends the transfer of Chief Justices and other judges.
    • Article 222 of the Constitution provides for the transfer of a judge from one High Court to another.
    • When a CJ is transferred, a replacement must also be simultaneously found for the High Court concerned. There can be an acting CJ in a High Court for not more than a month.
    • In matters of transfers, the opinion of the CJI “is determinative”, and the consent of the judge concerned is not required.
    • However, the CJI should take into account the views of the CJ of the High Court concerned and the views of one or more SC judges who are in a position to do so.
    • All transfers must be made in the public interest, that is, “for the betterment of the administration of justice”.

    Loopholes in the Collegium system

    • Lack of Transparency: Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • Judges appointing Judge: The attempt made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
    • Criteria: Some do not believe in full disclosure of reasons for transfers, as it may make lawyers in the destination court chary of the transferred judge.

    Scope for transparency

    • In respect of appointments, there has been an acknowledgment that the “zone of consideration” must be expanded to avoid criticism that many appointees hail from families of retired judges.
    • The status of a proposed new memorandum of procedure, to infuse greater accountability, is also unclear.
    • Even the majority opinions admitted the need for transparency, now Collegium’s resolutions are now posted online, but reasons are not given.

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

    Back2Basics:

  • Criminalisation of politics

    Context

    According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 233 MPs in the current Lok Sabha are facing criminal charges, up from 187 in 2014, 162 in 2009, and 128 in 2004. Recently, the Supreme Court has imposed fines on political parties for failing to comply with its orders regarding complete disclosure of their candidates’ criminal history.

    Order adds strength to Election Commission

    • Through the order in a recent case, the SC has put a new onus on the Election Commission to do something concrete, for example, create a phone app to display the detailed criminal history of any contesting candidate.
    • This should be accompanied with a separate cell in the ECI to monitor the compliance of all the political parties regarding this; any breach should be brought to the attention of the SC without delay.

    Why legislature and political parties are reluctant?

    • Two excuses: The legislature has been very slow in addressing this issue, and political parties remain extremely reluctant to change their ways, citing two major excuses.
    • Winnability of candidate: “Winnability” of candidates is the first reason.
    • The logic of a candidate with criminal charges doing good for the people of a constituency is dubious at best.
    • The winnability clause is an attempt by the party to absolve itself of all blame and put the onus of sending a criminally charged candidate to Parliament solely on the voter.
    • Innocent until proven guilty maxim: The other reason offered by political parties is summarised by the maxim of Indian law, which is that any accused is innocent until proven guilty.
    • It is argued that most criminally accused candidates are the victims of “vendetta politics”.

    Issues with allowing criminals to contest election

    • The logic of a candidate with criminal charges doing good for the people of a constituency is dubious at best.
    • Violation of right to equality under Article 14: There were 4.78 lakh prisoners (as of December 2019) of whom 3.30 lakh were under trial, i.e. not yet proven guilty.
    • Yet, their fundamental rights — their right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of occupation and right to dignity — are curbed completely.
    • An “innocent” undertrial cannot vote, but a man chargesheeted for murder can even contest election from jail.
    • These blatant double standards are a clear violation of Article 14, which guarantees to all citizens equality before the law.

    Suggestions

    • ECI suggestion on vendetta politics: The ECI has suggested some safeguards against vendetta politics.
    • First, only offences that carry an imprisonment of at least 5 years are to be considered.
    • The case against the candidate should have been filed at least six months before the scheduled elections for it to be considered.
    • And finally, a competent court must have framed the charges.
    • Fast-track court: An alternative solution would be to try cases against political candidates in fast-track courts.
    • The Supreme Court had sent a directive in 2014, directing that cases against political candidates must be completed within a year, failing which the matter should be reported to the Chief Justices of the respective High Court.
    • This is a matter entirely in the judicial domain.
    • Barring political parties: The Supreme Court has, in the recent order stopped short of drastic steps by rejected the suggestion to direct the Election Commission to bar political parties that fail to comply with criminalisation protocols by using its authority derived from Clause 16A of the Election Symbols Order.
    • This step, the SC reasons, would be going too far and infiltrating the domain of the legislature.

    Conclusion

    The legislature and the judiciary need to do more to curb the menace of criminalisation of politics.

    Feeling anxious about your UPSC preparation? Don’t worry, speak with our mentors and get your problems resolved, personally! (Click here)

  • Official Opposition in Parliament and State Legislatures

    The 60-member Nagaland Assembly now has no MLA in the Opposition.

    Official Opposition

    • It is a term used in Parliament and State Legislatures to designate the political party which has secured the second largest number of seats in either upper or lower houses.
    • In order to get formal recognition in either upper or lower houses, the concerned party must have at least 10% of the total strength of the house.
    • A single party has to meet the 10% seat criterion, not an alliance.
    • Many of the Indian state legislatures also follow this 10% rule while the rest of them prefer the single largest opposition party according to the rules of their respective houses.

    Why study the Opposition?

    • The Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu recently broke down when he condemned the violent ruckus that erupted in the Upper House very recently.
    • This has raised questions about the decency of the conduct of our elected representatives.

    Role of the Opposition

    • The role of the opposition in the legislature is basically to check the excesses of the ruling or dominant party, and not to be totally antagonistic.
    • Their main role is to question the government of the day and hold them accountable to the public. This also helps to fix the mistakes of the Ruling Party.
    • The Opposition is equally responsible for upholding the best interests of the people of the country.
    • They have to ensure that the Government does not take any steps, which might have negative effects on the people of the country.

    In the legislature, Opposition Party has a major role, which is:

    1. Constructive criticism of the government.
    2. Putting restriction of the arbitrariness of ruling party
    3. Safeguarding liberty and right of people
    4. Preparation to form a government
    5. Expression of public opinion

    Leader of the Opposition

    • They are the politicians who lead the official opposition in either House of the Parliament of India.
    • The LoP is the parliamentary chairperson of the party with the most seats after the government party.
    • S/He is given the status of a minister in recognition of his importance.
    • The LoP received statutory recognition through the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977.

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

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] Democide: Causes and ways to avoid it

  • SC questions govt over Tribunal Reforms Bill

    The Supreme Court has challenged the government to produce material showing its reasons for introducing the Tribunal Reforms Bill of 2021, which abolishes nine appellate tribunals and revives provisions of an ordinance struck down by the Supreme Court, in the Parliament.

    What are Tribunals?

    • Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies that decide disputes in a particular area of law.
    • They are institutions established for discharging judicial or quasi-judicial duties.
    • The objective may be to reduce the caseload of the judiciary or to bring in subject expertise for technical matters.

    Do you know?

    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was established as the first Tribunal in India back in 1941.

    Creation of Tribunals

    In 1976, Articles 323A and 323B were inserted in the Constitution of India through the 42nd Amendment.

    • Article 323A: This empowered Parliament to constitute administrative Tribunals (both at central and state level) for adjudication of matters related to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.
    • Article 323B: This specified certain subjects (such as taxation and land reforms) for which Parliament or state legislatures may constitute tribunals by enacting a law.
    • In 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that the subject matters under Article 323B are not exclusive, and legislatures are empowered to create tribunals on any subject matters under their purview as specified in the Seventh Schedule.

    SC stance on Tribunals

    • The Supreme Court has ruled that tribunals, being quasi-judicial bodies, should have the same level of independence from the executive as the judiciary.
    • Key factors include the mode of selection of members, the composition of tribunals, and the terms and tenure of service.
    • In order to ensure that tribunals are independent of the executive, the Supreme Court had recommended that all administrative matters be managed by the law ministry rather than the ministry associated with the subject area.
    • Later, the Court recommended the creation of an independent National Tribunals Commission for the administration of tribunals.
    • These recommendations have not been implemented.

    Issues with tribunals

    • Pendency: Whereas the reasoning for setting up some tribunals was to reduce the pendency of cases in courts, several tribunals are facing the issue of a large caseload and pendency.
    • No appointment: With over 240 vacancies in key tribunals where thousands of cases were pending, not a single appointment had been made by the government in any of these tribunals till date.

    Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021

     

    What is the recent news?

    • A three-judge Bench led by CJI has put the government on the dock about the complete absence of material justifying the Bill and also the lack of proper debate in the Parliament.
    • The provisions regarding conditions of service and tenure of Tribunal Members and Chairpersons were struck down by the Supreme Court.
    • However, the same provisions re-appeared in the Tribunal Reforms Bill recently passed.
    • The court has also noted its reservations against the complete dissolution of some tribunals.

    What happens to cases pending before the tribunals are dissolved?

    • These cases will be transferred to High Courts or commercial civil courts immediately. Legal experts have been divided on the efficacy of the government’s move.
    • While on the one hand, the cases might get a faster hearing and disposal if taken to High Courts, experts fear that the lack of specialization in regular courts could be detrimental to the decision-making process.
    • For example, the FCAT exclusively heard decisions appealing against decisions of the censor board, which requires expertise in art and cinema.

    Observations made by the Court

    • With over 240 vacancies in key tribunals where thousands of cases were pending, not a single appointment had been made by the government in any of these tribunals to date.
    • The CJI repeated his question of whether the government was moving towards closing down the tribunals.

    A new flashpoint between Executive and Judiciary

    • The verdict discussed the possibility of legislation overriding the court’s directions.
    • In other cases, too, the SC and Parliament have been at loggerheads on the issue of rationalization of tribunals.

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

  • Issue of the oath of an elected representative

    Context

    Some Cabinet Ministers in Karnataka who took oath recently stood out from the rest.  All these oaths run against the spirit of the Constitution.

    Background of agnostic Constitution

    • The public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God.
    • During the Constituent Assembly debate, B.R. Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India…”.
    •  H.V. Kamath moved an amendment to the Preamble, “In the name of God, we, the people of India…”.
    • To this proposal, another member, A. Thanu Pillai said that if this amendment is accepted it would affect the fundamental right of freedom of faith.
    • He said that a man has a right to believe in God or not, according to the Constitution.
    • H.N. Kunzru opposed Kamath’s amendment stating that in a matter that vitally concerns every man individually, the collective view should not be forced on anybody.
    • The amendment was defeated, thereby excluding ‘God’ from the Preamble.
    • Thus, our founding fathers gave us an agnostic Constitution.

    What are provisions in Consitution

    • The public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God.
    • However, the framers of the Indian Constitution rejected this conception of secularism.
    • Constitution gives office-holders an option to swear in God’s name if they so wished.
    • The Supreme Court of India observed in 2012 that the oath by an elected representative should be taken “in the name of God” if the person is a believer or should be “solemnly affirmed” if the person is a non-believer.
    • The Supreme Court said that the oath of an elected representative should be in strict compliance with the wordings of the Constitution. 

    Way forward

    • As the Republic belongs to all the citizenry, irrespective of whether he is a theist, atheist or agnostic, and irrespective of his caste or religion, a person occupying a constitutional post should take oath in the format of ‘“solemnly affirm”.
    • The Constitution should be amended accordingly.

    Conclusion

    If a person takes the oath in the name of a God affiliated to a particular religion or caste, the citizenry cannot expect the absence of affection or ill-will from him. The allegiance of a person holding a constitutional post should only be to the Constitution.

  • Parliament is abdicating its oversight role

    Context

    The monsoon session of Parliament which ended on Wednesday was a disappointment in several ways. This was the fourth straight session that ended ahead of the original schedule.

    No scrutiny of the Bills

    •  Both Houses were frequently disrupted as the Government and Opposition parties could not agree on the topics to be debated.
    • Shrinking worktime: The Lok Sabha worked for just 19% of its originally scheduled time, and the Rajya Sabha for 26%.
    • No examination of Bills by Parliament: Of the 18 Bills passed by the Lok Sabha, only one saw discussion over 15 minutes.
    • In 15 of these Bills, not even one member of the Lok Sabha spoke; each Bill was passed after a short statement by the respective Minister.
    • Every Bill introduced during the session was passed within the session.
    • This means that there was no time for any scrutiny by members.
    • In the period of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha (2009-14), 18% of the Bills were passed within the same session.
    • This rose to 33% in the Sixteenth Lok Sabha and is at 70% halfway through the current Parliament.
    • Thus, we see that, Bills are being passed without any serious examination by parliamentarians.
    • They are most often not being referred to committees, there is hardly any discussion on the floor of the House, and in most instances, Bills are passed within a few days of introduction.

    Bills not being referred to parliamentary committees

    • None of the Bills passed in this session was referred to a parliamentary committee for examination.
    • Important role of committee: Parliamentary committees provide a forum for parliamentarians to engage with experts, stakeholders and government officials to understand the implications of Bills.
    • They deliberate on the consequences of various provisions, and recommend amendments.
    • There has been a sharp downward trend in Bills being referred to them — from 71% in the Fifteenth Lok Sabha to 27% in the Sixteenth, and 12% in the current one till date.

    Important Bills passed

    • Allowing States to identify Backward Class: The Constitution was amended to allow States to identify backward classes (i.e., Other Backward Classes) for the purpose of providing reservations.
    • That amendment also specified that the President of India shall specify the list of OBCs.
    • Recently, the Supreme Court of India had interpreted this provision to imply that the State government cannot issue the list of backward classes.
    • Repealing retrospective taxation: In 2012, the Income Tax Act was amended with retrospective effect from 1961 to cover certain transactions.
    • A Bill passed this session reversed this provision of retrospective taxation. 
    • DICGC to pay within 90 days: The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation insures all bank deposits against default (currently up to ₹5 lakh).
    • The Act was amended to require an interim pay-out within 90 days if a bank was going through a liquidation or reconstruction.
    • The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act was amended to enable the Government to bring its shareholding in general insurance companies below 51%.
    • The Tribunals Reforms Bill was passed: The Bill replaced an ordinance which specified the process of appointment of members and their tenure and service conditions.
    • It retained two provisions struck down last month by the Supreme Court: the four-year tenure which the Court changed to five years, and a minimum age of 50 years for judicial members which the Court revised to allow lawyers with experience of 10 years.

    Conclusion

    The reason for having a legislature separate from the executive is to have a check on executive power.But the Parliament appears to be quite ineffective in all its functions and needs a course correction.

    Feeling anxious about your UPSC preparation? Don’t worry, speak with our mentors and get your problems resolved, personally! (Click here)