💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Petition in SC seeks Guidelines for Electronic Media

    The Supreme Court has decided to examine a petition seeking the framing of guidelines outlining the broad regulatory paradigm within which the right to free speech of broadcasters and electronic media can be judicially regulated.

    What is the petition about?

    • The petition wants the court to consider substantial questions of law, including whether the electronic media enjoys greater freedom than ordinary citizens and whether they could only be subject to self-regulation.
    • It has questioned whether free speech entails misinformation, fake news, hate speech, propaganda, paid news, communal and derogatory reportage, incitement, etc.
    • It has asked whether regulation will amount to the curtailment of the Press if done within the parameters specified under “reasonable restrictions” of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
    • The plea said the right to life and dignity envisaged the right of citizens to “free, fair and proportionate media reporting”.

    What is Article 19(2)?

    • This article authorizes the government to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of… public order.”
    • To understand the Supreme Court’s public order jurisprudence, it is important to break down the sub-clause into its component parts and focus upon their separate meanings.
    • Specifically, three terms are important: “reasonable restrictions”, “in the interests of”, and “public order”.
    • Clause (2) enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech under the following heads:
    1. Security of the State
    2. Friendly relations with foreign states
    3. Public order
    4. Decency and morality
    5. Contempt of court
    6. Defamation
    7. Incitement to an offense and
    8. Sovereignty and integrity of India
    • Reasonable restrictions on these grounds can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by executive action.

    The task before the court

    • The principal issue before the court is to bring about a balance between the right to freedom of speech and the expression of the media and various other rights.
    • These include the competing right to information of the citizenry, the right to reputation and dignity as well as the interest of preserving peace and harmony in the nation.

  • What is Non-price Competition?

    Data privacy can take the form of non-price competition and abuse of dominance can lower privacy protection, a study by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has said.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statements?

    (a) Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution

    (b) Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV

    (c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III

    (d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution

    What is Non-price Competition?

    • Non-price competition is a marketing strategy “in which one firm tries to distinguish its product or service from competing products on the basis of attributes like design and workmanship”.
    • It often occurs in imperfectly competitive markets as it exists between two or more producers that sell goods and services at the same prices but compete through non-price measures.
    • Such measures include marketing schemes and greater quality or any sustainable competitive advantage other than price.

    What is CCI’s observation?

    • The CCI study made observations about non-price factors such as quality of service (QoS), data speeds etc. which are likely to be the new drivers of competitive rivalry between service providers in the telecom sector.
    • CCI noted that an aspect of data in the context of competition in digital communications market is the conflict between allowing access and protecting consumer privacy.

    Privacy at stake

    • Abuse of dominance can take the form of lowering the privacy protection and therefore fall within the ambit of antitrust as low privacy standard implies lack of consumer welfare.
    • Privacy can take the form of non-price competition, said the CCI.
    • On other non-price factors of competition, CCI found that consumers ranked network coverage at the top followed by customer service despite their Privacy.

  • Appointment of the Law Commission

    The Supreme Court has asked the Home and Law Ministries to explain the nearly three-year-long lapse in making appointments to the Law Commission.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in

    (a) The President of India

    (b) The Parliament

    (c) The Chief Justice of India

    (d) The Law Commission

    What is the news?

    • The posts of Chairperson and Members have been vacant ever since the 21st Law Commission under the former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan completed its tenure in August.
    • The government approved the constitution of the 22nd Law Commission on February 19 last.
    • However, it has not appointed the Chairperson and Members to date.

    What is the Law Commission?

    • It is an executive body established by an order of the Government of India. The first law commission of independent India was established post Independence in 1955
    • Tenure: 3 Years
    • Function: Advisory body to the Ministry of Law and Justice for “Legal Reforms in India”
    • Recommendations: NOT binding
    • First Law Commission was established during the British Raj in 1834 by the Charter Act of 1833
    • Chairman: Macaulay; It recommended for the Codifications of the IPC, CrPC etc.

    Composition

    The 22nd Law Commission will be constituted for a period of three years from the date of publication of its Order in the Official Gazette. It will consist of:

    1. a full-time Chairperson;
    2. four full-time Members (including Member-Secretary)
    3. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs as ex-officio Member;
    4. Secretary, Legislative Department as ex officio Member; and
    5. not more than five part-time Members.

    Terms of reference

    • The Law Commission shall, on a reference made to it by the Central Government or suo-motu, undertake research in law and review of existing laws in India for making reforms therein and enacting new legislations.
    • It shall also undertake studies and research for bringing reforms in the justice delivery systems for elimination of delay in procedures, speedy disposal of cases, reduction in the cost of litigation, etc.

    The Law Commission of India shall, inter-alia: –

    • identify laws that are no longer needed or relevant and can be immediately repealed
    • examine the existing laws in the light of DPSP and Preamble
    • consider and convey to the Government its views on any subject relating to law and judicial administration that may be specifically referred to it by the Government through Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs);
    • Consider the requests for providing research to any foreign countries as may be referred to it by the Government through the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs);
    • take all such measures as may be necessary to harness law and the legal process in the service of the poor;
    • revise the Central Acts of general importance so as to simplify them and remove anomalies, ambiguities, and inequities

  • Mercy petition

    The article highlights the issue of delay in carrying out the dealth penalty and issues associated with it.

    Review of India’s position on the death penalty

    • The delay in carrying out the death penalty is one of the reasons to review India’s position on capital punishment.
    • The debate on the efficacy of the death penalty in reducing crime has been going on for several decades.
    • A few years ago, the issue of abolishing capital punishment was raised in the Rajya Sabha but was rejected by a voice vote.
    • The then Minister of State for Home Affairs stated that the government was not contemplating abolition of the death penalty.
    • In 2015, the Law Commission of India proposed abolishing the death penalty and sought the comments of States and Union Territories on the subject.
    • India figures among the 56 nations in the world that have retained the death penalty.

    Issue of delay in carrying out the punishment

    • The prolonged detention of death row convicts in prison is not just inhuman but also against the canons of justice.
    • The delay coupled with long years of solitary confinement leads to immense psychological trauma.
    • It is small wonder that the courts tend to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence when such cases of prolonged years of detention come before them.
    • A time frame needs to be fixed for the President to dispose of mercy petitions.
    •  Delays in investigations, court hearings, and administrative steps to be taken after the final verdict need to be inquired into, and responsibility fixed.

    Consider the question “Against the backdrop of delay in carrying out the dealth penalty in India, take the review of India’s position on the abolition of death penalty.”

    Conclusion

    With the changing time, we must change and so do the way we punish people. Capital punishment should be abolished in the country and until then, the inordinate delays in carrying out punishment should be avoided.

  • Defending liberty against selective prosecution

    The article examines the issue of selective prosecution and Indian judiciary’s approach toward it. It also highlights the importance of recent Goswami case.

    Selective prosecution: Form of abuse of state power

    • Recently the case involving bail application of a T.V. anchor brought to the fore issue of selective prosecution.
    • The illegal selection of accused based on grounds prohibited by the Constitution is called “selective prosecution”.
    • In case of selective prosecution, the police and enforcement agencies selectively target political and ideological opponents of the ruling dispensation to interrogate, humiliate, harass, arrest, torture and imprison.
    • It is one of the oldest, most pernicious and widespread forms of abuse of state power.

    How it is illegal: Two independent legal issues

    1) Exercise of prosecutorial discretion

    • The applicable legal standard is that while the police and prosecutors in common law jurisdictions enjoy vast discretion in deciding who they may pursue and who they may spare.
    • However, the choice of accused must not be based on grounds that violate Constitutional rights, including the Article 14 right to equal protection of the law.
    • The accused should not be selected, either explicitly or covertly, on constitutionally prohibited grounds.

    2) Merit of the case filed

    • When the choice of accused runs contrary to the Constitution, the entire criminal proceeding is vitiated, irrespective of the determination of the second issue, viz., whether the accused are convicted or acquitted on the charges brought against them.
    • Once the proceedings fail under the first issue, there is no legal basis to proceed to the second issue., i.e., trial on the merits of the case.
    • The theory is that the Constitution cannot be violated to uphold the law — such an approach would spell doom for the Constitution.
    • The selective prosecution claim must be adjudicated as a threshold issue, with the prosecution being quashed at the outset of the criminal case if the claim is justified.
    • In the context of this discussion, the constitutionally prohibited ground we are confronting in India is the political or ideological affiliation of the accused.
    • It is an arbitrary ground that violates the Article 14 guarantee of equal protection of the law.

    Approach of judiciary

    • Our courts have not recognised selective prosecution as an independent claim.
    • This is because courts assume that lawfulness of prosecution can only be taken up after the trial, if the accused is acquitted.
    • The 2018 Report of the Law Commission on ‘Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies’ discusses remedies for wrongful prosecution available only if and after the accused is acquitted.
    • Remedy after acquittal comes far too late, well after a brutal and long drawn out criminal justice process that upends the lives of the victims.
    • Also, the right against selective prosecution cannot be extinguished by conviction.
    • Separate from post-acquittal actions for wrongful prosecution (which will still be available), the claim of selective prosecution is a threshold issue that is required to be adjudicated at the outset of criminal proceedings even during the investigation stage irrespective of the merit of the charges.

    Importance of Goswami case

    • The case provides a much needed and long awaited legal opening to strengthen the recognition and use of the selective prosecution claim in India to counter politically coloured prosecution.
    • The judgment says, “Courts should be alive to the needof ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment ”.
    • The Goswami judgment also quotes the 2018 Supreme Court holding in Romila Thapar v. Union of India that, “[T]he basic entitlement of every citizen who is faced with allegations of criminal wrongdoing is that the investigative process should be fair. This is an integral component of the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14 and of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.”

    Consider the question “How selective prosecution could threten the liberty of person? How Indian judiciary approaches the issue of selective prosecution and what are the issue with the approach adopted by the judiciary?”

    Conclusion

    To strengthen the protection of civil liberty, equality and democracy, it is time our courts — at all levels — recognise selective prosecution as a threshold constitutional defence against the abuse of police and prosecutorial power.

  • TN Governor to decide on Ex-PM assassin Pardon

    Tamil Nadu Governor would take a decision as per the Constitution in the next three or four days on the plea for release filed by A.G. Perarivalan, who is undergoing life imprisonment for the assassination of former PM Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

    Give your personal views in favour and against Capital Punishment in the comment box.

    What is the news?

    • The court noted in its short order that the Solicitor General submitted that the application filed by the petitioner Perarivalan under Article 161 of the Constitution.
    • The TN State Cabinet had earlier made the recommendation to remit the life sentences of seven convicts, including Perarivalan in September 2018.
    • The new turn of events when the Additional Solicitor General for the Centre, had argued recently that the pleas for pardon and release should go to the President instead of the Governor.

    What does Pardon mean?

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

    Why need a Pardon?

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

    What does Article 161 say?

    • Article 161 of the Constitution provides the Governor with the power to remit or commute the sentence of any prisoner.
    • The Governor’s decision will be subject to judicial review by the constitutional courts.

    Supreme court’s observations

    • The Constitution Bench in 2015, in a majority decision, had held that the States cannot unilaterally remit the sentences of life convicts in cases investigated by a Central agency under a Central law.
    • The assassination case was probed by the CBI.
    • In compliance with the 2015 verdict, the Tamil Nadu government wrote to the Centre in 2016, proposing the grant of remission to the convicts. The State wanted the Centre to concur.
    • After a wait of over two years, the Centre rejected the State’s proposal, saying this was an unparalleled act in the annals of crimes committed in this country.

    Arguments in Perarivalan’s petition seeking pardon

    • Perarivalan had been pleading for release citing that he was 19 when he was arrested.
    • He was the only male child of his parents, there were no records of criminal antecedents, and that he had excellent conduct in his entire prison life.
    • His petition also cited UG and PG degrees, and that he was the university topper, Gold medalist in diploma in DTP, and that he completed more than eight diploma and certificate courses during his prison term.
    • His probation officer gave a report about lapses in recording his confession statement that handed out maximum punishment in his case.

    Basis of his innocence

    • Perarivalan cannot be called innocent before the law as he continues to be a convicted prisoner serving imprisonment.
    • He was accused of having bought two battery cells for Sivarasan, the LTTE man who masterminded the conspiracy.
    • He was sentenced to death based on this crucial confession statement.

    Significance of the convicts’ release

    • The release of seven convicts is a demand raised by not only the ruling party of TN but the main opposition too.
    • All TN politicians voiced that the judiciary should be able to reform and let them live as good citizens to uphold the high values of reformatory justice and restitution.

  • Supreme Court dismisses Aadhaar Review Petition

    The Supreme Court, in a majority view (4:1), dismissed a series of petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment upholding the Lok Sabha Speaker’s certification of Aadhaar law as a Money Bill and its subsequent passage in Parliament.

    Try this PYQ:

    Consider the following statements:

    1. Aadhaar card can be used as a proof of citizenship or domicile.
    2. Once issued, Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the Issuing Authority.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Backgrounder

    • The review petitions had highlighted how the Aadhaar Act was passed as a Money Bill by superseding the Rajya Sabha. It was called a “fraud on the Constitution”.
    • The review petition had argued that the Aadhaar Act clearly did not fall within the ambit of Article 110 (1) of the Constitution, which restricted Money Bills to certain specific fields only.

    What is a Review Petition?

    • Article 137 of the Constitution provides that subject to provisions of any law and rule made under Article 145 the Supreme Court of India has the power to review any judgment pronounced (or order made) by it.
    • Thus the binding decision of the Supreme Court/High Court can be reviewed in the Review Petition.

    Aadhaar Case: Two questions for review

    • Two questions had come up for review regarding the five-judge Aadhaar Bench’s judgment in 2018.
    • One, whether the Speaker’s decision to declare a proposed law as Money Bill was “final” and cannot be challenged in court.
    • The second, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 was correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.

    What is the majority Judgment?

    • On the first question, the majority judgment in 2018 said the Speaker’s decision could be challenged in court only under “certain circumstances”.
    • On the second, it concluded that the Aadhaar Act was rightly called a Money Bill.

    Back2Basics: Money Bill

    • A Bill is said to be a Money Bill if it only contains provisions related to taxation, borrowing of money by the government, expenditure from or receipt to the Consolidated Fund of India.
    • Bills that only contain provisions that are incidental to these matters would also be regarded as Money Bills.
    • A Money Bill may only be introduced in Lok Sabha, on the recommendation of the President as per Article 110 of the Constitution.
    • Then, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations. Following this, it may be sent to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations, which Lok Sabha may reject if it chooses to.
    • If such recommendations are not given within 14 days, it will be deemed to be passed by Parliament.

    How is a Money Bill different from a financial bill?

    • While all Money Bills are Financial Bills, all Financial Bills are not Money Bills.
    • For example, the Finance Bill which only contains provisions related to tax proposals would be a Money Bill.
    • However, a Bill that contains some provisions related to taxation or expenditure, but also covers other matters would be considered as a Financial Bill.

  • Question Hour to resume during Budget Session

    Question Hour, which had been suspended by the government during the monsoon session, will resume when Parliament meets for the budget session.

    Q.Discuss the various instruments of Parliamentary Control in India.

    Must read edition: [Burning Issue] Quashing of the Question Hour

    What is Question Hour?

    • Question Hour is the liveliest hour in Parliament. It is during this one hour that MPs ask questions of ministers and hold them accountable for the functioning of their ministries.
    • Prior to Independence, the first question asked of government was in 1893. It was on the burden cast on village shopkeepers who had to provide supplies to touring government officers.
    • The questions that MPs ask are designed to elicit information and trigger suitable action by ministries.
    • Over the last 70 years, MPs have successfully used this parliamentary device to shine a light on government functioning.
    • Their questions have exposed financial irregularities and brought data and information regarding government functioning to the public domain.
    • With the broadcasting since 1991, Question Hour has become one of the most visible aspects of parliamentary functioning.

    Its evolution

    • The right to question the executive has been exercised by members of the House from the colonial period.
    • The first Legislative Council in British India under the Charter Act, 1853, showed some degree of independence by giving members the power to ask questions to the executive.
    • Later, the Indian Council Act of 1861 allowed members to elicit information by means of questions.
    • However, it was the Indian Council Act, 1892, which formulated the rules for asking questions including short notice questions.
    • The next stage of the development of procedures related to questions came up with the framing of rules under the Indian Council Act, 1909, which incorporated provisions for asking supplementary questions by members.
    • The Montague-Chelmsford reforms brought forth a significant change in 1919 by incorporating a rule that the first hour of every meeting was earmarked for questions. Parliament has continued this tradition.
    • In 1921, there was another change. The question, on which a member desired to have an oral answer, was distinguished by him with an asterisk, a star. This marked the beginning of starred questions.

    Its significance

    • Question Hour is not only an opportunity for the members to raise questions, but it is a parliamentary device primarily meant for exercising legislative control over executive actions.
    • The government’s actions erode the constitutional mandate of parliamentary oversight over executive actions as envisaged under Article 75 (3) of the Indian Constitution.

  • WhatsApp’s contentious Privacy Policy

    The Government of India has asked WhatsApp to withdraw the proposed changes in its privacy policy.

    Q.What are the factors responsible for the spread of misinformation on social media? Suggest the measures to tackle it.

    Core of the news

    • WhatsApp has been embroiled in a controversy over its updated privacy policy.
    • The posts are pointers on the new policy.

    What was the news Privacy Policy?

    • When one goes to the status tab on the app, one can see the WhatsApp icon and its four posts, along with the statuses of one’s contacts.
    • While one reads ‘We are committed to your privacy’, another reads, ‘WhatsApp can’t read or listen to your personal conversations as they’re end-to-end encrypted’.
    • Another post reads ‘WhatsApp can’t see your shared location’ and yet another reads ‘WhatsApp doesn’t share your contacts with Facebook’.
    • The messaging app reviewed its privacy policy and asked users to accept the terms and conditions by February 8. Following this, the app faced severe backlash from its users and privacy advocates.

    Issues pointed by Govt.

    • said that the proposed changes raised “grave concerns” over the implications of the choice and the autonomy of Indian citizens.
    • It pointed out that the Indian users, who have not been given the option to opt-out of data-sharing with Facebook companies, were being subjected to differential treatment.
    • The issue is the impact it has on informational privacy, data security and user choice.

    Data at stake

    • The government asked WhatsApp to reconsider its approach to respect the informational privacy, freedom of choice and data security of Indian citizens.
    • It said that India’s distinct identity and its people must be properly respected and any unilateral changes to WhatsApp Terms of Service and Privacy would not be fair and acceptable.

    A discriminatory move

    • India formed the largest segment of WhatsApp’s user base globally and any change in policies would have a disproportionate impact on its citizens.
    • The privacy policy offered by WhatsApp to its European users specifically prohibits the use of any information shared with a Facebook company for those companies’ own purposes.
    • This Clause is not present in the privacy policy offered to Indian users.
    • This differential and discriminatory treatment of Indian and European users is attracting serious criticism and betrays a lack of respect for the rights and interest of Indian citizens.

    What lies ahead?

    • India has a huge user base of WhatsApp and Facebook in India.
    • The consolidation of sensitive information exposes a very large segment of Indian citizens to greater information security risks.
    • By not providing Indian users with the ability to opt-out of this data sharing with other Facebook companies, WhatsApp is treating users with an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach.

  • Supreme Court directive on Quota in Promotions

    The Supreme Court has asked Attorney General to compile the various issues being raised by States with regard to the 2006 M. Nagaraj case, which had upheld the application of creamy layer principle to members of the SC/ST communities in promotions.

    Must read edition: Reservation not a Fundamental Right

    What is the case about?

    • The Centre’s plea came despite the Supreme Court, in September 2018, in Jarnail Singh case, reiterating the Nagaraj judgment of 2006.
    • The 2006 judgment required the States to show quantifiable data to prove the ‘backwardness’ of a community to provide quota in promotion in public employment,
    • The 2018 judgment, which was authored by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, had refused the government’s plea to refer the 2006 Nagaraj judgment to a seven-judge Bench.
    • It had while modifying the part of the Nagaraj verdict, rejected the Centre’s argument that Nagaraj misread the creamy layer concept by applying it to SC/ST.

    Nagaraj Case

    • In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the court dealt with a batch of appeals on the correctness of the Supreme Court’s judgment in M Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India (2006).
    • The Nagaraj case, in turn, had arisen out of a challenge to the validity of four Constitution amendments, which the court eventually upheld.

    What were the amendments?

    • 77th Amendment: It introduced Clause 4A to the Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately represented.
    • 81st Amendment: It introduced Clause 4B, which says unfilled SC/ST quota of a particular year, when carried forward to the next year, will be treated separately and not clubbed with the regular vacancies of that year to find out whether the total quota has breached the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court.
    • 82nd Amendment: It inserted a proviso at the end of Article 335 to enable the state to make any provision for SC/STs “for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State”.
    • 85th Amendment: It said reservation in the promotion can be applied with consequential seniority for the SC/ST employee.

    What is Art.335 about?

    • Article 335 of the Constitution relates to claims of SCs and STs to services and posts.
    • It reads: “The claims of the members of the SC’s and ST’s shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”