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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Speedy trial a fundamental right: HC

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

    Background

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

    Right to speedy trial

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

    Its constitutional status

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

    What causes delay?

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

    Why speedy trial is necessary?

    The right to a speedy trial serves several important purposes:

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

    Alternative solutions

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

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

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

    Background

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

    What was 97th Amendment about?

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

    What is the recent Judgement?

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

    Exceptions to the amendment

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

    What was the dissenting opinion?

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

    Back2Basics: Doctrine of Severability

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

  • Surveillance reform is the need of the hour

    Context

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

    Threat to press freedom

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

    Issues with the legal provision

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

    Issues with surveillance system

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

    Way forward

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

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

    Conclusion

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

  • Lokpal

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

    Who is ‘Director of Inquiry’?

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

    About the Lokpal

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

    Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

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

    Its history

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

    Also read:

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

  • Explained: Shreya Singhal case that struck down Section 66A of IT Act

    Six years after it struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Supreme Court earlier this month termed its continued use by law enforcement agencies of various states as “a shocking state of affairs” and sought a response from the Centre.

    What did Section 66A do?

    • Introduced in 2008, the amendment to the IT Act, 2000, gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly “offensive and menacing” online posts, and was passed without discussion in Parliament.
    • Section 66A empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.
    • It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.
    • In 2015, the apex court struck down the law in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague”, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet.

    Why was the law criticized?

    • The problem was with the vagueness about what is “offensive”.
    • The word having a very wide connotation was open to distinctive, varied interpretations.
    • It was seen as subjective, and what might have been innocuous for one person, could lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest arbitrarily.

    So, how did 66A come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

    • The first petition came up in the court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post.
    • The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a political leader.
    • The arrests triggered outrage from all quarters over the manner in which the cyber law was used.
    • The petition was filed by Shreya Singhal, then a 21-year-old law student.

    What were the grounds for the challenge?

    • The objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of information technology, particularly through social media.
    • The petitioners argued that Section 66A came with extremely wide parameters, which allowed whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.
    • Most of the terms used in the section had not been specifically defined under the Act.
    • The law was a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online and to curtail freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution, going far beyond the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom.

    What did the Supreme Court decide?

    • In March 2015, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman ruled in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India declared Section 66A unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”
    • Article 19(1)(a) gives people the right to speech and expression whereas 19(2) accords the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.
    • The decision was considered a landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.
    • The bench also read down Section 79– now at the centre of the ongoing “intermediary liability” battle between the Centre and micro-blogging platform Twitter– defining key rules for the relationship between governments and commercial internet platforms.
    • Section 79 says that any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.

  • Interference an investigating officer can do without

    Context

    Instances of judiciary directing the investigating officer point to the need for restraint from the judiciary.

    Challenging the discretion of investigating officer

    • There have been growing instances of subordinate judicial officers, and even High Courts sometimes, directing the investigating officer to effect the arrest of a particular individual.
    • To deal with the issue, the Supreme Court of India recently made the observation that courts have no authority to direct an investigating officer to in turn direct the arrest of any particular individual connected with a crime
    • This points to the need for a slightly kindlier view of police conduct and more latitude to them in the standard operating procedures which they follow, especially when they investigate a complicated crime.
    • The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) vests sufficient discretion in the investigating officer to take such decisions as arrests and searches.

    Issues with court’s directions

    • Court observations that smack of a lack of faith in police ability and integrity will make grass-root level policemen even more arbitrary than now and force them into carrying out questionable actions that will cast aspersions on an officer’s ability to think for himself.
    • Court interference in the day-to-day investigation is not only undesirable but is also not sanctioned by law.
    • Only the Supreme Court, has been vested with enormous authority and discretion by the Constitution, the lesser courts shall not give directions in the matter of arrests and searches.

    Safeguard against police misconduct

    • We need to educate the Executive and the common man that it is now well-established law that the police have to register an FIR.
    • It is mandatory that every police station in the land should register a complaint under the relevant sections of a statute the moment a cognisable offence is made out in the complaint
    • There is another safeguard against police misconduct.
    • The CrPC makes it obligatory for the investigating officer to write a diary that details the action taken every day following registration.
    • When in doubt, the competent court, which already has a copy of the first information report, can demand to see the case diary.
    • Courts should remember that the police are a well-established hierarchy that is obligated to ensure objectivity during a criminal investigation.
    • Every investigation is supervised by at least two immediate senior officers.

    Conclusion

    Judicial interference in an investigation is counterproductive to the idea of justice. Therefore, there is a need for allowing more freedom to the investigating officers in the standard operating procedure that they follow.

  • Addressing claims of backwardness by various politically powerful castes

    Context

    Two rulings of the Supreme Court have frayed nerves in Maharashtra on the broader question of “reservation”. The other pertains to OBC reservation in local bodies. Both issues have relevance beyond Maharashtra.

    Challenges in addressing the demand for reservation

    • Lack of quantitative data: The issue of actual numbers or population share of OBCs has been talked about for over a decade.
    • Besides, there is a need to understand the socio-economic situation of different backward communities.
    • In the last instance, we have to decide which groups are backward and what needs to be done for them.
    • The political class have consistently avoided the juridical reality.

    Consensus between judiciary and political class

    • That consensus after implementation of Mandal commission recommendation had three dimensions:
    • 1) Accepting that caste is the main cause of tradition-born backwardness among a large section of the population.
    • 2) Resorting to “reservation” as the easiest policy response.
    • 3) Recognising and accommodating the political aspirations of the backward sections by expanding the social base of the political elite.
    • But this resulted in the current deadlock on the question of social justice.
    • Today, not only the Marathas, but Jats and Patidars, too, claim that vast numbers among them have been left behind in the contemporary economy.
    • These demands have deflected attention from two matters.
    • 1) That the enabling provision of the Constitution aims at social backwardness (caused by societal location).
    • 2) That the causes of economic distress originating in development policies are distinct from backwardness primarily originating in caste location.
    • Granting reservations on an economic basis seems to have complicated matters.

    Five reservation-related issues gaining renewed urgency

    • Intra-OBC differentiations: This issue was already raised by a member of the Mandal Commission itself.
    • Most states have failed to come up with an effective arrangement to addressing the issue.
    • The Centre is currently waiting for a report on this question.
    • Intra-caste stratification: Intra-caste stratification is increasing — something that was rather limited at the time of Mandal.
    • What sociologist D L Sheth called as classification is now becoming the central issue, with many complications.
    • Advantages and logic: The third question is about the specific advantages and logic of reservation in the three different arenas of employment, education and political representation.
    • Limits of reservation: There is need to discuss the limits of reservation and the need to think of additional measures to augment the policy of social justice.
    • Setting boundaries: With such widespread poverty and suffering, how do we distinguish between backwardness primarily caused by a group’s social location in traditional social order and backwardness resulting from distortions of the political economy?
    • Unless we grapple with this question, reservation is bound to remain a contentious issue.

    Way forward

    • The above questions are best left ideally to a third backward classes commission whose time has come.
    • Removing the 50 per cent cap legislatively needs to be considered.

    Conclusion

    We need to devise a mechanism to verify the claims of backwardness to address the increasing demands for reservation from the politically strong section of society.

  • Sedition Law and its discontents

    The CJI is now convinced that sedition law (IPC 124A) is being misused by the authorities to trample upon citizens’ fundamental rights of free speech and liberty.

    What does Section 124A of the IPC say?

    • The section deals with the offence of sedition, a term that covers speech or writing, or any form of visible representation, which brings the government into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards the government, or attempts to do so.
    • It is punishable with three years in prison or a life term.
    • “Disaffection”, it says, includes disloyalty and feelings of enmity.
    • However, it also says expressing disapproval of government measures or actions, with a view to getting them changed by lawful means, without promoting hatred or disaffection or contempt towards the government will not come under this section.

    What is its origin?

    • Colonial past: Sedition was introduced in the penal code in 1870, a decade after the Indian Penal Code came into force.
    • It was a colonial law directed against strong criticism of the British administration.
    • Putting curb on Freedom fighters: Its most famous victims included Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.
    • Gandhi called it “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

    Is it constitutionally valid?

    • Violative of FRs: Two high courts had found it unconstitutional after Independence, as it violated the freedom of speech and expression.
    • Reasonable restrictions: The Constitution was amended to include ‘public order’ as one of the ‘reasonable restrictions’ on which free speech could be abridged by law.
    • Kedar Nath Case: Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld its validity.
    • At the same time, it limited its application to acts that involve “intention or tendency to create disorder” or incitement to violence.
    • Thus, even strongly worded remarks, as long as they do not excite disloyalty and enmity, or incite violence, are not an offence under this section.

    Why the controversy now?

    • Frequent use: In recent times, the resort to this section is seen as disturbingly frequent.
    • Curbing dissent: Activists, cartoonists and intellectuals have been arrested under this section, drawing criticism from liberals that it is being used to suppress dissent and silence critics.
    • Misuse for propaganda: Authorities and the police who invoke this section defend the measure as a necessary step to prevent public disorder and anti-national activities.
    • Irrelevance: Many of them have also been detained under the National Security Act and UAPA.

    What is being debated about it?

    • Liberals and rights activists have been demanding the scrapping of Section 124A.
    • It is argued that the provision is “overbroad”, i.e., it defines the offence in wide terms threatening the liberty of citizens.
    • The Law Commission has also called for a reconsideration of the section.
    • It has pointed that Britain abolished it more than a decade ago and raised the question of whether a provision introduced by the British to put down the freedom struggle should continue to be law in India.
    • Some argue that a presumption of constitutionality does not apply to pre-constitutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or bodies.

    What has the apex court observed?

    • Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had flagged the indiscriminate use of the sedition law against people who aired their grievances about the government’s COVID management.
    • People have been charged even for seeking help to gain medical access, equipment, drugs and oxygen cylinders, especially during the second wave of the pandemic.
    • Justice U.U. Lalit, in his recent judgment, quashed a sedition case against a person for his alleged remarks about the PM and the Union Government.

    Way forward

    • The time is long past when the mere criticism of governments was sufficient to constitute sedition.
    • The right to utter honest and reasonable criticism is a source of strength to a community rather than a weakness, the CJI has recorded.

    Try answering this PYQ:

    Q.With reference to Rowlatt Satyagraha, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. The Rowlatt Act was based on the recommendations of the ‘Sedition Committee’.
    2. In Rowlatt Satyagraha, Gandhiji tried to utilize the Home Rule League.
    3. Demonstrations against the arrival of Simon Commission coincided with Rowlatt Satyagraha.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • What is Adjournment Motion?

    Ahead of the Monsoon session of Parliament, a political party from Punjab has decided to move an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha against the government on the three controversial farm laws.

    Revise all the devices of parliamentary proceedings from your Polity Book.

    Recalling the three laws

    1. Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
    2. Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
    3. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

    [Burning Issue] Agricultural Reform Bills, 2020

    What is Adjournment Motion?

    • Adjournment motion is aimed to draw the attention of the House to a recent matter of urgent public importance having serious consequences.
    • The matter proposed to be raised should be of such a character that something very grave which affects the whole country and its security has happened.
    • The House is required to pay its attention immediately by interrupting the normal business of the House.
    • It can introduce only in the Lok Sabha.
    • It involves an element of censure against the government, therefore Rajya Sabha is not permitted to make use of this device.
    • In the event of an adjournment motion being adopted, the House automatically stands adjourned.

    How it is held?

    • It is regarded as an extraordinary device as it interrupts the normal business of the House.
    • It needs the support of 50 members to be admitted.
    • The notice of an adjournment motion is required to be given on the prescribed form.
    • A member can give not more than one notice for any one sitting.
    • The discussion on this motion should last for not less than two hours and thirty minutes.

    Restrictions to the motion

    The right to move a motion for an adjournment of the business of the House is subject to the following restrictions. It should:

    • Not raise a question of privilege.
    • Not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session.
    • Not deal with any matter that is under adjudication of court.
    • Not raise any question that can be raised on a distinct motion.

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q.The Parliament of India exercises control over the functions of the Council of Ministers through:

    1. Adjournment motion
    2. Question hour
    3. Supplementary questions

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: (CSP 2017)

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 2 and 3 only

  • [pib] Commission for Sub-categorization within OBCs gets another extension

    The Union Cabinet has approved of the term of the Commission constituted under Article 340 of the Constitution to examine the issue of Sub-categorization within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the Central List.

    What is the Sub-categorization of OBCs?

    • OBCs are granted 27% reservation in jobs and education under the central government.
    • In September 20202, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reopened the legal debate on the sub-categorization of SCs and STs for reservations.
    • The debate arises out of the perception that only a few affluent communities among over 2,600 included in the Central List of OBCs have secured a major part of this 27% reservation.

    Need for sub-categorization

    • The argument for sub-categorization — or creating categories within OBCs for reservation — is that it would ensure “equitable distribution” of representation among all OBC communities.
    • To examine this, the Rohini Commission was constituted on October 2, 2017.
    • At that time, it was given 12 weeks to submit its report but has been given several extensions since, the latest one being the 10th.
    • Before the Rohini Commission was set up, the Centre had granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

    Why so many extensions are being given?

    • In process of preparing the sub-categorized central list of OBCs, the Commission has noted several ambiguities in the list as it stands now.
    • The Commission is of the opinion that these have to be clarified/rectified before the sub-categorised central list is prepared.
    • A hurdle for the Commission has been the absence of data for the population of various communities to compare with their representation in jobs and admissions.
    • Many groups of OBCs have been demanding enumeration of OBCs in the Census.

    Back2Basics: Article 340

    • Article 340 of the Indian Constitution lays down conditions for the appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions of the backward classes.
    • The President may by order appoint a Commission consisting of such persons as he thinks fit to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India.