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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • UP Law against Forceful Inter-Faith Marriage and Conversions

    The UP Cabinet has cleared a draft ordinance against forceful inter-faith conversions for marriage, amid similar steps by other states.

    Try this question:

    Q. In a world where religiosity is rising, the contemporary liberal ideas seem outdated and incapable of handling dangerous issues of religious bigotry. Critically comment.

    What is the proposed UP law on ‘love jihad’?

    • The proposed law defines punishment and fine for three different cases.
    1. Conversion done though “misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means” would face jail term of one to 5 years, and a minimum fine of Rs 15,000.
    2. Conversion of a minor, a woman from the SC or ST would have to face a jail term from three to 10 years, with a minimum fine of Rs 25,000.
    3. If such conversion is found at the mass level, then those guilty would face jail term from three to 10 years, with a minimum fine of Rs 50,000.
    • It proposes among other things that a marriage will be declared “shunya” (null and void) if the “sole intention” of the same is to “change a girl’s religion”.

    Who can convert and how can they do it under the proposed law?

    • Under the new proposed law, anyone wanting to convert into another religion would have to give it in writing to the District Magistrate at least two months in advance.
    • The government is supposed to prepare a format for the application and the individual has to fill the application for conversion in that format.
    • However, under the new law, it would be the responsibility of the one going for the religious conversion to prove that it is not taking place forcefully or with any fraudulent means.
    • In case, any violation is found under this provision, then one faces a jail term from 6 months to 3 years and fine of minimum Rs 10,000.

    Need for such law

    • The state of UP is witnessing rising incidents of forced religious conversions or conversions through fraudulent ways.
    • The extreme right wing politicians in the state were quiet vocal against alleged religious conversions.
    • There are cases of being allegedly lured and honey-trapped by men and those girls now seeking their help to free themselves.

    Interfaith marriages and the Constitution

    • The right to marry a person of one’s choice is a guarantee under Article 21.
    • At the same time, freedom of conscience, the practice and propagation of a religion of one’s choice, including not following any religion, are guaranteed under Article 25.
    • One set of rights cannot invalidate the other.

    What do critics say?

    • Such law to regulate matrimonial relationships between two consenting adults is simply against the constitutional guarantees.
    • The right to marry a person of one’s choice flows from the freedom of individuality, naturally available to any individual.
    • Hence, interfaith marriages and religious conversions should not be the matter of concern for social watchdogs.
    • Hence, the mere statement of two consenting adults about the existence of their matrimonial relation is sufficient.

  • Importance of constitutional and public morality in democracy

    Democracy has evolved in many ways with time. The article examines its evolution in the Indian context.

    Historical background of democracy

    • In recorded history, the Greeks were the first to experiment with models of government.
    • There were monarchies, oligarchies and democracies among the Greek city-states of the 5th Century BCE.
    • Aristotle wrote that while monarchies were for the benefit of the monarchs and oligarchies for the benefit of men with means, democracies were for the benefit of men without means.
    • Democracy has travelled a long way from those times.
    • In the world’s successful democracies like the US, UK and India, there is a fine balance between the elected and non-elected institutions with enough safeguards.

    How democracy worked in India

    • There was much scepticism about the idea of universal adult franchise during the making of the Indian Constitution.
    • But Rajendra Prasad assured the Assembly’s members about the raw political wisdom of the average Indian as also the strength of the other institutions to safeguard the democratic process.
    • However, the infamous Emergency exposed the flaws in Indian democracy.

    Gandhiji’s and B R Ambedkar’s approach

    • Mahatma Gandhi was not a big admirer of the parliamentary system.
    • Gandhi’s view was that in the British system, the parliament works only for partisan interest — and not for the national interest.
    • He wrote in Harijan in January 1937 that by political independence he meant system suitable to Indian context i.e. Ram Rajya — sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority.
    • B R Ambedkar too described democracy in India as “only a top-dressing” on an Indian soil “which is essentially undemocratic”.
    • He underscored the importance of social democracy for the success of political democracy.
    • Gandhi was referring to the tyranny of the British rule and Ambedkar was responding to the oppressive caste system.
    • Neither was against democracy, but both were against the idea of “majoritarian rule”.
    • For Gandhi, democracy meant the weak getting the same chance as the strong.
    • For Ambedkar, it was about giving voice to the voiceless.
    • For democracies to succeed, both believed that the parliamentary majorities need to be restrained through constitutional ethics and public morality.
    • Constitutional ethics is about leaders respecting constitutional order, conventions and institutions.
    • Gandhi’s greater emphasis was on public morality.
    • He insisted that for India’s democracy to succeed, the Congress should convert itself into a lok sevak sangh and work at the grassroots level.

    Consider the question “Public morality and unelected institution are necessary checks on the elected government not inimical to it. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    India’s democracy, as envisaged by the makers of its Constitution, thrived essentially because of the respect of the leaders for ethical constitutionalism and moral activism of the grassroots activists. Neither should see the other as an enemy and try to bring them down.

  • Protecting Article 32

    The article deals with the issue of recourse to Article 32 for violation of Fundamental Rights. But it is subject to fundamental principles of administration of justice.

    Context

    • The Chief Justice of India is reported to have stated during the hearing of journalist Siddique Kappan’s bail matter, that the Court was trying to “discourage” recourse to Article 32.

    Recourse under Article 32 is not absolute

    • The apex judicial process shows clearly that the Court regards Article 32 as a judicial power subject to the fundamental principles of administration of justice.
    • The Supreme Court has already extended rules and doctrines such as laches (delays) or res judicata (a matter already decided by a competent court) or any other principle of administration of justice.
    • Article 32 keep open “the doors of this court” and requires the state not to “put any hindrance” to a person seeking to approach the Court.
    • However, the Court must ignore all laws of procedure, evidence, limitation, res judicata and other provision.
    • The Supreme Court has also said that faith “must be inspired in the hierarchy of Courts [ Recourse under Article 226 should be sought before approaching the SC] and the institution as a whole” and not” only in this Court alone”.
    • So, even if there is a constitutional right to remedies it remains subject to the discipline of judicial power and process.

    New facets of Article 32

    • The Supreme Court has also discovered new facets of Article 32.
    • As early as 1950, it has ruled that powers under Article 32 are not limited to the exercise of prerogative writs.
    • In 1987 the Court ruled that it has powers to rule for compensation of violation of fundamental rights.
    • In 1999 it said that this power extended to the rectification of its own mistakes or errors.

    Comparing Article 226 and Article 32

    • Article 226 is the very dimension; the high court’s vast jurisdiction technically casts no duty on them to enforce fundamental rights.
    • They have the discretion to act or not to; in contrast, the Supreme Court must.
    • Fourth, Article 32 is not absolute, the Supreme Court decides on what “appropriate proceedings” should be for it to be so moved.
    • But the Court may not prescribe any process as it likes but only that process which preserves, protects and promotes the right to constitutional remedies.

    Need for effective bail system

    • The just demand for an expeditious and effective bail system stems from manifest discrimination in bail .
    • In several instances, one case is fast-tracked whereas others are consigned to slow-moving judicial action, even when rights to life and health are endangered.
    • Scandalous judicial delays, measures of decongestion and diversion, and a bold resolution of “who watches the watchman” syndrome now demand urgent apex response.

    Consider the question “Seeking remedy from the Supreme Court for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 32 is also a fundamental right. However, enforcement of it is not absolute. In light of this, examine the challenges in its enforcement by the Supreme Court.”

    Conclusion

    Article 32 makes the apex court into a “people’s court”. And future historians should not be able to conclude that the Court deliberately dealt deathblows to this “soul” of the Constitution, as Babasaheb Ambedkar described Article 32.

  • Punjab’s claim over Chandigarh

    Earlier this month, Haryana Dy. CM said it would be better if both Haryana and Punjab agreed on Chandigarh as a Union Territory and make their independent capitals and Benches of High Courts.

    Try answering this

    Q.The linguistic re-organization of Indian states in the post-Independence period has prevented its balkanization, unlike our neighbourhood. Comment.

    Why was Chandigarh created?

    • Chandigarh was planned to replace Lahore, the capital of erstwhile Punjab, which became part of Pakistan during the Partition.
    • In March 1948, the Government of (India’s) Punjab, in consultation with the Centre, approved the area of the foothills of the Shivaliks as the site for the new capital.
    • From 1952 to 1966 (till Haryana was carved out of Punjab), Chandigarh remained the capital of Punjab.

    How did it become a shared capital?

    • At the time of reorganization of Punjab in 1966, the city assumed the unique distinction of being the capital of both Punjab and Haryana.
    • Even as it was declared a union territory and was placed under the direct control of the Centre.
    • The properties in Chandigarh were to be divided into 60:40 ratio in favour of Punjab.

    Punjab’s claim

    • The-then PM Indira Gandhi had announced that Haryana, in due course, would have its own capital and Chandigarh would go to Punjab.
    • As per documents submitted in the Lok Sabha, the Centre had even issued a formal communication is this regard on January 29, 1970, almost three years after Haryana came into being.
    • Again, in 1985, under the Rajiv-Longowal accord, Chandigarh was to be handed over to Punjab on January 26, 1986, but the Rajiv Gandhi government withdrew at the last minute.

    Haryana’s counter-claim

    • As per the 1970 documents, the Centre had considered various alternatives for settling the matter, including dividing the city.
    • But that wasn’t feasible since Chandigarh was built as a planned city to serve as the capital of one state.
    • Haryana was told to use the office and residential accommodation in Chandigarh only for five years till it shifts to its own new capital.
    • The Centre had offered Rs 10 crore grant to Haryana and an equal amount of loan for setting up the new capital.
    • In 2018, Haryana CM suggested setting up a special body for the development of Chandigarh, but the Punjab CM rejected it, saying the city “indisputably belonged to Punjab”.

  • What is the ‘Office of Profit’?

    The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Office of Profit has deliberated on whether a Parliamentarian can continue to teach at University and if this draws the provisions of “Office of Profit” rules.

    Note: The Constitution of India does not define the Office of Profit. It has only mentioned it under Article 102 (1) and Article 191 (1).

    The concept of ‘Office of Profit’

    • MPs and MLAs, as members of the legislature, hold the government accountable for its work.
    • The essence of disqualification is if legislators hold an ‘office of profit’ under the government, they might be susceptible to government influence, and may not discharge their constitutional mandate fairly.
    • The intent is that there should be no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member.
    • Hence, the office of profit law simply seeks to enforce a basic feature of the Constitution- the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.

    What governs the term?

    • At present, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, bars an MP, MLA or an MLC from holding any office of profit under the central or state government unless it is exempted.
    • However, it does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit.
    • Legislators can face disqualification for holding such positions, which bring them financial or other benefits.
    • Under the provisions of Article 102 (1) and Article 191 (1) of the Constitution, an MP or an MLA (or an MLC) is barred from holding any office of profit under the Central or State government.

    An Un-defined term

    • The officials of the law ministry are of the view that defining an office of profit could lead to the filing of a number of cases with the Election Commission and the courts.
    • Also, once the definition is changed, one will also have to amend various provisions in the Constitution including Article 102 (1) (a) and Article 109 (1) (a) that deal with the office of profit.
    • It will have an overarching effect on all the other sections of the Constitution.

    Factors constituting an ‘office of profit’

    • The 1959 law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit but the definition has evolved over the years with interpretations made in various court judgments.
    • An office of profit has been interpreted to be a position that brings to the office-holder some financial gain, or advantage, or benefit. The amount of such profit is immaterial.
    • In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the test for determining whether a person holds an office of profit is the test of appointment.

    Several factors are considered in this determination including factors such as:

    1. whether the government is the appointing authority,
    2. whether the government has the power to terminate the appointment,
    3. whether the government determines the remuneration,
    4. what is the source of remuneration, and
    5. the power that comes with the position.

  • National Population Register

    The office of the Registrar General of India (RGI) has said the schedule or the questionnaire of the National Population Register (NPR) is being finalised.

    The National Population Register (NPR)

    • The NPR is a database containing a list of all usual residents of the country. Its objective is to have a comprehensive identity database of people residing in the country.
    • It is generated through house-to-house enumeration during the “house-listing” phase of the census, which is held once in 10 years.
    • The last census was in 2011, and the next will be done in 2021 (and will be conducted through a mobile phone application).
    • A usual resident for the purposes of NPR is a person who has resided in a place for six months or more and intends to reside there for another six months or more

    How it is different from the Census?

    • The census involves a detailed questionnaire and there were 29 items to be filled up in the 2011 census.
    • They aimed at eliciting the particulars of every person, including age, sex, marital status, occupation, birthplace, mother tongue, religion, whether they belonged to any SC or ST etc.
    • On the other hand, NPR collects basic demographic data and biometric particulars.
    • Once the basic details of the head of the family are taken by the enumerator, an acknowledgement slip will be issued. This slip may be required for enrolment in NPR, whenever that process begins.
    • The details will be recorded in every local (village or ward), sub-district (tehsil or taluk), district and state level.
    • Once the details are recorded, there will be a population register at each of these levels. Together, they constitute the National Population Register.

    What is the legal basis for the NPR?

    • While the census is legally backed by the Census Act, 1948, the NPR is a mechanism outlined in a set of rules framed under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
    • Section 14A was inserted in the Citizenship Act, 1955, in 2004, providing for the compulsory registration of every citizen of India and the issue of a “national identity card” to him or her.
    • It also said the Central government may maintain a “National Register of Indian Citizens”.
    • The Registrar General India shall act as the “National Registration Authority” (and will function as the Registrar General of Citizen Registration).
    • Incidentally, the Registrar General is also the country’s Census Commissioner.

    Attempt this question

    Q.Enumerate the major points of the ‘Assam accord (1985)’. How is it associated with the present issue of the National Register of Citizens?

  • Inter state water Sharing disputes

    The article highlights the issue of challenges facing the water governance in India, how need for more coordination between the Centre and the States.

    Objectives of the two bills

    • Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2019 and the Dam Safety Bill 2019 were passed by Lok Sabha and awaits Rajya Sabha nod.
    • The Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2019 seeks to improve the inter-state water disputes resolution by setting up a permanent tribunal.
    • The Dam Safety Bill 2019 aims to deal with the risks of India’s ageing dams, with the help of a comprehensive federal institutional framework comprising.
    • The other pending bills also propose corresponding institutional structures and processes.

    Challenges to the federal water governance

    • The agenda of future federal water governance is not limited to the above cited issues.
    • These include emerging concerns of long-term national water security and sustainability, the risks of climate change, and the growing environmental challenges, including river pollution.
    • These challenges need systematic federal response where the Centre and the states need to work in a partnership mode.
    • Greater Centre-states coordination is also crucial for pursuing the current national projects — whether Ganga river rejuvenation or inland navigation or inter-basin transfers.

    Challenges to water governance

    • Water governance is perceived and practiced as the states’ exclusive domain, even though their powers are subject to those of the Union under the Entry 56 about inter-state river water governance.
    • The River Boards Act 1956 legislated under the Entry 56 has been in disuse.
    • No river board was ever created under the law.
    • The Centre’s role is largely limited to resolving inter-state river water disputes by setting up tribunals for their adjudication.
    • Combined with the states’ dominant executive power, these conditions create challenges for federal water governance.
    • This state of affairs puts the proposed bills at a disadvantage.

    Bridging the water governance gap

    • Each bill proposes their own institutional mechanisms and processes leaning on closer Centre-state coordination and deliberation.
    • The disputes resolution committee and dam safety authority rely on active Centre-states participation.
    • Segmented and fragmented mechanisms bear the risks of the federal water governance gap.

    Way forward

    • The massive central assistance (Rs 3.6 lakh crore- Centre and states together) through  Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), is an opportunity to open a dialogue with the states to address this governance gap.
    • Globally, federated systems with comparable organisation of powers have used similar investments to usher key water sector reforms.
    • The symbiotic phase of implementing JJM can be productively used to engage in a dialogue with the states about the larger water resources management agenda, beyond the mission’s goals.
    • The Centre can work with the states in building a credible institutional architecture for gathering data and producing knowledge about water resources.

    Consider the question “Water governance in the country requires greater Centre-State coordination to deal with the current issues as well as future challenges. In light of this, examine the challenges and suggest the strategies to deal with it.”

    Conclusion

    Bridging the governance gap between the Centre and State and creation of institutional framework is at the heart of addressing the future challenges to the federal water governance in the country.

    Back2Basics: River Board Act 1956

    • The act to provide for the establishment of River Boards for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
    • It empowers the Central Government, on a request received in this behalf from a State Government to establish a River Board for advising the Governments on regulation or development of an inter-State river or river valley or any specified part thereof.

  • Mahajan Commission Report on Maha-K’taka boundary dispute

    A Maharashtra leader has sparked a controversy, when he called the incorporation of Belgaum (Belagavi), Karwar and Nipani areas of Karnataka into Maharashtra, as a dream of the ruling party.

    Try answering this

    Q.The linguistic re-organization of India in the post-Independence period has prevented its balkanization, unlike our neighbourhood. Comment.

    Maha-K’taka boundary dispute

    • The erstwhile Bombay Presidency, a multilingual province, included the present-day Karnataka districts of Vijayapura, Belagavi, Dharwad and Uttara-Kannada.
    • In 1948, the Belgaum municipality requested that the district, having a predominantly Marathi-speaking population, be incorporated into the proposed Maharashtra state.
    • However, the States Reorganization Act of 1956, which divided states into linguistic and administrative lines, made Belgaum and 10 taluka of Bombay State a part of the then Mysore State

    The Mahajan Commission

    • While demarcating borders, the Reorganization of States Commission sought to include talukas with a Kannada-speaking population of more than 50 per cent in Mysore.
    • Opponents of the region’s inclusion in Mysore argued, and continue to argue, that Marathi-speakers outnumbered Kannadigas who lived there in 1956.
    • In September 1957, the Bombay government echoed their demand and lodged a protest with the Centre, leading to the formation of the Commission under former CJI Mehr Chand Mahajan in October 1966.

    Beginning of the dispute

    • The Commission recommended that 264 villages be transferred to Maharashtra (which formed in 1960) and that Belgaum and 247 villages remain with Karnataka.
    • Maharashtra rejected the report, calling it biased and illogical, and demanded another review.
    • Karnataka welcomed the report and has ever since continued to press for implementation, although this has not been formally done by the Centre.

    A case pending in the Supreme Court

    • Successive governments in Maharashtra have demanded their inclusion within the state– a claim that Karnataka contests.
    • In 2004, the Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court for a settlement of the border dispute under Article 131(b) of the Constitution.
    • It demanded 814 villages from Karnataka on the basis of the theory of village being the unit of calculation, contiguity and enumerating linguistic population in each village.
    • The case is pending in the apex court.

  • Article 32 and the Supreme Court

    A Supreme Court bench headed by CJI has observed that it is “trying to discourage” individuals from filing petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.Which of the following is included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

    1. Dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
    2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the parliament or that of Legislature of a State
    3. A dispute between the Government of India and Union Territory
    4. A dispute between two or more States.

    Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

    (a) 1 and 2

    (b) 2 and 3

    (c) 1 and 4

    (d) 3 and 4

    What is Article 32?

    • Article 32 deals with the ‘Right to Constitutional Remedies’, or affirms the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.
    • It is one of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution that each citizen is entitled.
    • It states that the Supreme Court “shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”.
    • The right guaranteed by this Article “shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”.
    • Dr B R Ambedkar has called it the very soul and heart of the Constitution. It cannot be suspended except during the period of Emergency.

    Rights protected by A32

    • The article is included in Part III of the Constitution with other fundamental rights including to Equality, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Life and Personal Liberty, and Freedom of Religion.
    • Only if any of these fundamental rights is violated can a person can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

    Types of Writs under it

    Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court can be approached for violation or enactment of fundamental rights through five kinds of writs:

    1. Habeas corpus (related to personal liberty in cases of illegal detentions and wrongful arrests)
    2. Mandamus — directing public officials, governments, courts to perform a statutory duty;
    3. Quo Warranto — to show by what warrant is a person holding public office;
    4. Prohibition — directing judicial or quasi-judicial authorities to stop proceedings which it has no jurisdiction for; and
    5. Certiorari — re-examination of an order given by judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative authorities.
    • In civil or criminal matters, the first remedy available to an aggrieved person is that of trial courts, followed by an appeal in the High Court and then the Supreme Court.
    • When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32.

    Supreme Court’s recent observations

    • The observation came during the hearing of a petition seeking the release of a journalist, who was arrested while reporting on an alleged gangrape and murder.
    • The court asked why the petitioners could not go to the High Court first.
    • In another case invoking Article 32, a Nagpur-based man was arrested for alleged defamatory content against Maharashtra CM, the same Bench directed him to approach the High Court first.

  • Governor’s inaction and judicial scrutiny

    The inaction by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on advice to free the convict has raised the possibility of judicial intervention due to undue delay.

    Inaction by Governor on advice

    • The Governor of Tamil Nadu has continued to withhold his decision on an application seeking pardon by one of the seven prisoners convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
    • In September 2018, the Supreme Court (SC) had observed, while hearing a connected writ petition, that the Governor should take a decision
    • The inaction by the Governor now has given rise to constitutional fault lines within the Executive arm of the government.

    Past judgements on pardoning power

    • In Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981)  Supreme Court held that the pardoning power “under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and the State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own.”
    • The majority judgment had said that the “advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the State”.
    • Therefore, a Governor is neither expected, nor is empowered, to test the constitutionality of the order or resolution presented to her.

    Issue of delay in decision of mercy petition

    • Recently, the Supreme Court, had examined the inordinate delay by the President and the Governor — in taking decisions on mercy petitions.
    • The Supreme Court, in the case of Shatrugan Chouhan v. Union of India, laid down the principle of “presumption of dehumanising effect of such delay”.
    • The Supreme Court confirmed that the due process guaranteed under Article 21 was available to each and every prisoner “till his last breath”.

    Judicial scrutiny of the actions of Speakers

    • It was hitherto believed that the powers of the Speaker, holding a constitutional office and exercising powers granted under the Constitution, were beyond the scope of a ‘writ of mandamus’.
    • In the recent case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker (2020), the Supreme Court was asked to examine the Speaker’s inaction with regard to disqualification proceedings.
    • However, the apex court, referering to Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), had confirmed its view that the “failure on the part of the Speaker to decide the application seeking a disqualification cannot be said to be merely in the realm of procedure”
    • Consequently, breaking years of convention, the SC set the time period of four weeks to decide the disqualification petition.
    • By doing so, the Supreme Court has indicated that it would not be precluded from issuing directions in aid of a constitutional authority “arriving at a prompt decision”.

    Consider the question “The undue delays and inactions by the constitutional functionaries threaten to widen the constitutional faultlines among the Executives. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    Instead of relying on the judicial intervention in the event of delays, it would be better to have a set time limit for arriving at decision by the constitutional judiciary.