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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • What is Open Court System?

    The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary Constitutional powers under Article 142 to step away from the convention of open court hearings. It deemed all restrictions imposed on people from entering, attending or taking part in court hearings as lawful in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    What are Open Courts?

    • The Open court principle requires that court proceedings presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media.
    • Open courts are normal court where proceedings of the court are conducted where every person is allowed to watch the proceedings of the court.
    • There are instances where it is not practical to accommodate persons other than parties to the proceedings. Therefore, such proceedings are held in camera.
    • This means that the proceedings are held in a closed room where the public will not have access to watch the proceedings.
    • In criminal cases like rape, it is necessary to protect the identity and modesty of the victim.

    Why did the Supreme Court deter Open Court’s norm?

    • A Bench led by CJI said these restrictions were in tune with the social distancing norms and best public health practices advocated to contain the contagion.
    • The court made it clear that public health takes precedence over conventions.
    • Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus.
    • Open court hearings would mean a congregation of large number of people. This would prove detrimental to the fight against the virus.

    Conclusion

    • Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the democracy envisaged by the Constitution of India.
    • The challenges occasioned by the outbreak of COVID-19 have to be addressed while preserving the constitutional commitment to ensuring the delivery of and access to justice to those who seek it..

    Way forward

    • Indian courts have been proactive in embracing advancement in technology in judicial proceedings.
    • Judiciary can bank on video-conferencing technologies in the wake of this unprecedented and extraordinary outbreak of a pandemic.

    Back2Basics

    Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

    • Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case.
    • It supplements the powers already conferred upon the Supreme Court under the Constitution to guarantee that justice is done and in doing so the Court is not restrained by lack of jurisdiction or authority of law.
    • The phrase ‘complete justice’ engrafted in Article 142(1) is the word of wide interpretation to meet situations created by legal errors or result of operation of statute law or law.
    • Thus Article 142 is conceived to give the apex court the powers to meet the situations which cannot be effectively tackled by existing provisions of law.

    Also read: 

    Supreme Court Removes Manipur MLA Under The 10th Schedule

  • MPLADS funds suspended over COVID-19 crisis

    The Union Cabinet gave its nod to the temporary suspension of MPLAD Funds during 2020-21 and 2021-22 in view of the adverse impact of the outbreak of COVID-19 in India.

    Why suspend MPLAD?

    • The consolidated amount of MPLAD Funds for 2 years – Rs 7,900 crores – will go to Consolidated Fund of India.
    • The Cabinet has also approved an ordinance to reduce the salaries, allowances and pensions of Members of Parliament (MPs), including the Prime Minister, by 30 per cent for one year.
    • The amount so collected would be utilized in the fight against coronavirus.

    What is the MPLAD scheme?

    • The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) is a programme first launched during the Narasimha Rao Government in 1993.
    • It was aimed towards providing funds for developmental works recommended by individual MPs.

    Funds available

    • The MPs then were entitled to recommend works to the tune of Rs 1 crore annually between 1994-95 and 1997-98, after which the annual entitlement was enhanced to Rs 2 crore.
    • The UPA government in 2011-12 raised the annual entitlement to Rs 5 crore per MP.

    Implementation

    • To implement their plans in an area, MPs have to recommend them to the District Authority of the respective Nodal District.
    • The District Authorities then identify Implementing Agencies which execute the projects.
    • The respective District Authority is supposed to oversee the implementation and has to submit monthly reports, audit reports, and work completion reports to the Nodal District Authority.
    • The MPLADS funds can be merged with other schemes such as MGNREGA and Khelo India.

    Guidelines for MPLADS implementation

    • The document ‘Guidelines on MPLADS’ was published by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation in June 2016 in this regard.
    • It stated the objective of the scheme to enable MPs to recommend works of developmental nature with emphasis on the creation of durable community assets based on the locally felt needs in their Constituencies.
    • Right from inception of the Scheme, durable assets of national priorities viz. drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads, etc. should be created.
    • It recommended MPs to works costing at least 15 per cent of their entitlement for the year for areas inhabited by Scheduled Caste population and 7.5 per cent for areas inhabited by ST population.
    • It layy down a number of development works including construction of railway halt stations, providing financial assistance to recognised bodies, cooperative societies, installing CCTV cameras etc.

  • The SC order on migrants labours raises several issues

    Context

    On March 31, the Supreme Court of India (SC), entertaining a writ petition under Article 32, passed an order which raises more questions than it seeks to answer.

    What were the issues involved in the writ petition?

    • The writ petition was purportedly filed in the public interest, “for redressal of grievances of migrant workers in different parts of the country”.
    • Directions which are in favour of the Union government: The Court has proceeded to issue several directions which are clearly in favour of the respondent, the Union of India.
    • The following three directions were uncalled for:

    What were the directions issued by the Supreme Court?

    • One, that under section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, persons can be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or with a fine for making or circulating a false alarm or warning.
    • Disobedience of the order including an advisory by a public servant would result in punishment under section 188 of the IPC.
    • Two, all concerned, that is the state government, public authorities and citizens will faithfully comply with directives, advisory and orders issued by the Union of India in letter and spirit in the interest of public safety.
    • Three, the media should only refer to and publish the official version of the Government of India, publishing a daily bulletin.
    • The SC observations about migrant labourers: After giving substantial reliefs to the Union of India, the SC proceeded to make mere observations about migrant labourers by directing that they should be dealt with “in a humane manner”.
    • And that “trained counsellors, community leaders and volunteers must be engaged along with the police to supervise the welfare activities of migrants”.
    • The SC has virtually absolved the government for its handling of the situation.

    What was the basis for issuing orders and issues with it

    • The basis of the directions is a statement made by the Solicitor General of India and some status reports to the effect that “the exodus of migrant labourers was triggered due to panic created by some fake/misleading news and social media”.
    • What is an issue with basis? The SC has proceeded on assumptions and surmises which were untested and unchallenged.
    • What the court should have done? In a matter of such seriousness, the least it should have done was to have appointed an amicus curiae (a friend of the court) to assist it rather than simply accept the self-serving status reports and statements made before it.
    • The Court overlooked the fact that in India, hundreds of millions of people work during the day and are paid at the end of the day and then go and buy their foodstuffs.
    • They have no savings, nor do they have foodgrains stored.
    • It is surprising that the Court, the custodian of fundamental rights, should be oblivious to this reality.

    Issue of press freedom

    • Citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Press freedom is a part of this. Citizens have the right to receive information as well.
    • Article 13 (2) of the Constitution says that the state cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights.
    • If Parliament cannot do so, the Supreme Court — the upholder of the constitutional rights — surely cannot do so.
    • The SC has itself held in M Nagraj (2006): “A right becomes a fundamental right because it has foundational value. The fundamental right is a limitation on the power of the State. A Constitution, and in particular that part of it which protects and which entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the State are to be entitled, is to be given a generous and purposive construction.”
    • The SC should not have made all media subservient to the government by directing that the former “refer to and publish the official version about the developments”.
    • Such an order could be justified only during an emergency and that too by the executive, subject to challenge before the courts.

    Conclusion

    The SC has given a carte blanche to the authorities, and citizens appear to have no avenues of redress. Most of all, by condemning the media and social media, holding them responsible for fake news, the SC has done a great disservice to the institution which provides information to citizens and upholds democracy.

  • Supreme Court upholds “Right to discuss COVID-19”

    The Supreme Court has upheld the right to free discussion about COVID-19, even as it directed the media to refer to and publish the official version of the developments in order to avoid inaccuracies and large-scale panic.

    Right to Discuss

    • The Right to Discuss falls under the purview of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
    • Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
    • It ensures all citizens the liberty of thought and expression.
    • The exercise of this right is, however, subject to “reasonable restrictions” for certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
    • These restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

    Why such a move?

    • The court was responding to a request from the Central government that media outlets, in the “larger interest of justice”, should only publish or telecast anything on COVID-19 after ascertaining the factual position from the government.
    • Any deliberate or inaccurate reporting by the media, particularly web portals, had the serious and inevitable potential of causing panic in a larger section of the society.
    • Any panic reaction in the midst of an unprecedented situation based on such reporting would harm the entire nation.
    • Creating panic is also a criminal offence under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

  • J&K Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020

    • The Ministry of Home Affairs has promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020, which comes into force with immediate effect.
    • Earlier this month order for an adaptation of Central Laws was also promulgated. It ordered application of 37 central laws envisaged in the Concurrent List to the newly formed UT.

    About the Order

    • Issued by the Department of J&K and Ladakh Affairs, the Order stems from Section 96 of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019.
    • The Act was a consequence of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and it reorganized the State into two UTs.
    • The Order notifies changes in the J&K Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act (hereafter, “Civil Services Act”), which defines “domicile” for employment in the region
    • Domicile Criteria
      Under the newly inserted Section 3A of the Civil Services Act which is regarding domicile for purposes of appointment to any service in UT of J&K.A person will have to fulfill the following conditions to be deemed to be a domicile of the UT of J&K:
    • She/he has to have resided for period of 15 years in the UT of J&K or has studied for a period of 7 years and appeared in Class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the UT of J&K; or
      She/he is registered as a migrant by the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrants) in the UT of J&K.
    • Scope of Section 3A
    • Children of those fulfilling the aforementioned conditions are also deemed to be included.
    • Section 3A also goes on to include children of those Central Government Officials, All India Services Officers, Officials of PSUs and Autonomous body of Central Government, PSBs, etc. who have served in J&K for a total period of ten years.
    • Additionally, it includes those children of such residents of UT of J&K who reside outside the UT of J&K in connection with their employment or business or other professional and vocational reasons, but the parents fulfill the conditions provided under Section 3A(1).

    Job reservations

    • Section 5A provides for the domicile reservation for the purpose of appointment of any post carrying a pay scale of not more than Level-04 under the UT of J&K or under local or any other (other than cantonment board) within the UT of J&K.
    • Therefore, lowest level of non-gazetted rank jobs would be reserved exclusively for the Jammu and Kashmir domiciles.

  • Ayyappa and the Court

    Context

    In the several cases with potential significance, there was no effective hearing at the interim stages which created fait accompli. And which results in the status quo cementing itself.

    The Sabarimala case and ‘balance of convenience’ principle

    • Review petition pending: Millions of disciples have protested the Court’s 2018 verdict where gender equality was held to trump the tenets of the faith and rejoiced at the November 2019 order of the Chief Justice’s bench granting their cause a fresh lease of life.
    • As things stand, their review petitions are kept pending until the questions of law are determined.
    • Please to enter the temple declined: In December 2019, fervent pleas on behalf of certain women devotees to enter the temple were declined, although the 2018 verdict continued to hold the field.
    • Why declining the plea for entry matters? This was justified by the Court on a “balance of convenience”, thereby laying down a new principle for not directing the implementation of its own judgement.

    Pendency of Article 370 challenge case hearing

    • Nine judge bench: This year it was decided to put together the nine-judge bench to hear the cases on an urgent basis.
    • Kashmir case on the backburner: But with two judges from the ongoing Kashmir/Article 370 challenges also a part of the Sabarimala case, it would mean that the Kashmir issues would be put on the back burner in the middle of its hearing.
    • This is despite the advocates representing the right of women’s entry stating that they had no objection to the Kashmir cases being heard first.
    • Then, barely a day into the hearing, a strain of swine flu reached some of the members of the Bench, leading to a postponement of hearings till the middle of March.
    • Now, with a fierce pandemic enveloping the globe, the case is adjourned indefinitely.

    Criticism of administrative functioning of the SC

    • Over the last few months, the Supreme Court has been besieged by criticism of its administrative functioning.
    • Delay in the hearing of important cases: Cases that have customarily been heard with alacrity, like those concerning personal liberty, law and order and criminal investigation, have been posted after long intervals with the Government being granted the luxury of time to respond.
    • No effective hearing in cases with immediacy: Where immediacy is pre-eminent so that fait accompli may not be created, as with the validity of the Kashmir notifications, the CAA and the electoral bonds, there have been no effective hearings at the interim stage.
    • Thus, the status quo slowly cements itself.

    Reason for problems in administrative functions of the SC

    • Dual role played by the CJI: Since the early years of the judiciary, one person has been given the onerous dual charge of heading both the administrative and judicial functions of the court.
    • As a result, apart from sitting every day, reading briefs, hearing arguments and delivering detailed judgements, the Chief Justice has to also act as the final authority for all service-related matters of the Court’s 2,500 employees, issue office orders to streamline the registry.
    • The CJI also supervise measures for security and infrastructure, chair committees, correspond with and entertain judicial delegations, attend symposia, delegate subject matters among colleagues, constitute benches of varying strengths and interview candidates for the various courts.
    • In the old days, when the burden of cases was modest, these tasks would not have been challenging.
    • But in the present time, not only are they overwhelming, but they also bring in their wake a host of attacks on the person who occupies that high office.

    Need for the Chief Executive Officer in the SC

    • Administrative functioning of the SC: In all the administrative tasks, the Chief Justice is assisted by a team of registrars, who are headed by the secretary-general.
    • As they are junior judicial officers, they neither have the training nor the complete independence to take steps towards course correction.
    • The requirement of CEO: This is why the Supreme Court sorely requires a chief executive officer – an independent professional who is equipped with the day-to-day management of the Court and is not beholden to the judges in any way.
    • How it will help? The CEO will be charged with the entire mission of running the Court so that the judges can concentrate on what they are trained and experienced to do – adjudicate.
    • Operational autonomy: The CEO will, of course, have to be given adequate operational autonomy and be answerable to a committee of the Court, comprising judges and bar representatives, thereby providing for a professional process, much like in the corporate sphere.
    • With this, the judges will at least be spared the charges that they have had to withstand over the last few years.

    Conclusion

    It is only for politicians to concern themselves with public opinion, not for judges. They are weaponised by the Constitution to serve the cause of justice, and in this, as per Article 144, all civil and judicial authorities are enjoined to cooperate. Just a few blows of the gavel to any misadventures would be sufficient to send the message loud and clear: That the Court offers no sanctuary to the executive knaves.

  • After the lockdown

    Context

    Lockdown announcement has not been matched by national strategy — on containing fallout for poor.

    Two arguments advanced against lockdown

    • India’s decision to lock down was necessary. Two arguments are being advanced against it.
    • The first argument: India is a poor economy, with millions at the margins of subsistence, who cannot bear the consequences of a lockdown. The density and living conditions in India make social distancing difficult in many cases.
    • The second argument: It is that the extent of community transmission does not justify such drastic measures.

    What are the justifications for the lockdown?

    • The only hope: Precisely because millions in India are vulnerable and will not later have the possibilities of quarantining or medical care, the only hope we have of securing their lives is to slow down the spread of the virus as much as possible.
    • And the only shot you have at it is when community transmission is possibly still at manageable levels.
    • There is, therefore, a bit of bad faith in using the poor as the basis for expressing scepticism at the need for a lockdown. That is the most insidious form of privilege.
    • The risks of any catastrophic spread will be even more incalculable for the poor.

    Underscoring the importance of federalism and decentralisation

    • States responding in innovative ways: One of the more encouraging things has been the way in which several state governments like Punjab, Odisha, Kerala, Delhi and others have come into their own, innovating under difficult circumstances.
    • Role of panchayat and local officials: The much-neglected panchayat and local officials are key nodes in keeping track of possible cases and the creation of quarantining infrastructure.
    • Role of frontline workers: It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the ways in which most of the frontline workers of the state are responding, learning and innovating in this situation.
    • Federalism and decentralisation: If anything, this crisis is bringing home the importance of both federalism and decentralisation as central to a resilient governance architecture.

    The preparation and follow-up of the lockdown

    • But the national preparation and follow-up to take full advantage of the lockdown do not inspire full confidence.
    • Lack of strategy: The announcement of the lockdown has not been matched by a commensurate national strategy.
    • This is manifest, in the early signals on the following two important aspects:
    • Containing the economic fallout for the poor.
    • Building up the health infrastructure.
    • It is, admittedly, early days; but the signs are not good.

    Economic fallout for the poor

    • Focus is not on the poor: In the entire framing of the problem, the poor have been at best an afterthought, at worst expendable damage.
    • Steps taken not adequate: Steps like health insurance cover for frontline workers, increased food rations, are welcome steps. But a crisis of this magnitude required assurance to the most vulnerable that no stops will be pulled to secure their futures.
    • Instead, what you got was incrementalism of the worst kind, masquerading as a big commitment.
    • Low cash transfer: The cash transfers, in particular, through different schemes, are shockingly low.
    • Need for the unprecedented social security support: This crisis is one of the rare instances where economists and even bankers, from across the political spectrum, have rallied around the intellectual argument for unprecedented levels of social security support.
    • So the government’s “support by stealth” strategy is even more mystifying.
    • Impact of lockdown on migrant labour: The magnitude of the crisis unleashed for migrant labour could have been avoided with a little forethought.
    • What could have been done? Early announcement of cash transfers, shelter and food availability, would have obviated the need for migration.

    Opacity on the health infrastructure side

    • Issue of testing: Opacity is often a consequence of scarcity. And nowhere is this more manifest than in our discussion of testing.
    • Underutilisation of capacity: Everyone understands that India has the scarce testing capacity, though it seems it is also under-utilising what it has.
    • No clear testing strategy: The government is procuring more testing kits. But what is worrying is that there seems to be no publicly articulated statement of what exactly our testing strategy is, given the scarce resources.
    • But there is still no sense of how we plan to put a testing strategy in place (not just numbers of tests, but where can they be optimally deployed), that will minimise the need for future lockdowns.
    • What objectives is it trying to meet? There is more than a whiff of suspicion that there is a view that more testing might spread more panic.
    • Or it might put more pressure on the health care system than it can handle.
    • India has never understood that health expenditure is not an expenditure; it is an investment.
    • Building up of health infrastructure: The success of the lockdown strategy is premised on an unprecedentedly vigorous building up of health infrastructure to fight the pandemic.
    • There is a commitment by the Centre to infuse an extra Rs 15,000 crore in this sector. Some steps are being taken in building up capabilities, including ramping up production of ventilators and masks.
    • Need for warlike mobilisation: This is an area where India needs almost a warlike mobilisation, to make sure we have enough testing, tracking, frontline workers, logistics and equipment in place to make sure that the duration of a lockdown is minimised or a repeat is not necessary.
    • The creation of this kind of infrastructure will pay huge dividends even in non-pandemic times.

    Conclusion

    The prime minister is constantly asking the citizens to mobilise, and most of them respond. But it about time the state mobilises: On an economic stimulus that is truly meaningful and health infrastructure push that inspires confidence.

  • What is Finance Bill?

    The Parliament has passed the Finance Bill 2020 with 40 amendments without any discussion.

    Highlights of the Bill

    • Among the important amendments included was one enabling the government to raise additional excise duty on petrol by up to Rs 18 per litre and diesel by up to Rs 12 per litre when required.
    • Amendments enabling the taxation of NRIs’ India-controlled income above Rs 15 lakh, and another extending the DDT exemption to REITs and Infrastructure Investment trusts were passed.
    • The Bill also changes the definition of ‘Resident’, as stipulated under the Income Tax Act.
    • Presently, a person is considered a resident of India, i.e. their global income is taxable in India if they are in the country for more than 182 days a year. This has now been reduced to 120 days.
    • The amendments also include provisions for levying TDS of 1 per cent on e-commerce transactions.

    What is a Finance Bill?

    • As per Article 110 of the Constitution, the Finance Bill is a Money Bill.
    • The Finance Bill is a part of the Union Budget, stipulating all the legal amendments required for the changes in taxation proposed by the Finance Minister.
    • This Bill encompasses all amendments required in various laws pertaining to tax, in accordance with the tax proposals made in the Union Budget.
    • The Finance Bill, as a Money Bill, needs to be passed by the Lok Sabha — the lower house of the Parliament. Post the Lok Sabha’s approval, the Finance Bill becomes Finance Act.

    Difference between a Money Bill and the Finance Bill

    1) Money Bill

    • A Money Bill has to be introduced in the Lok Sabha as per Section 110 of the Constitution. Then, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations.
    • The Rajya Sabha has to return the Bill with recommendations in 14 days.
    • However, the Lok Sabha can reject all or some of the recommendations.

    2) Finance Bill

    • In a general sense, any Bill that relates to revenue or expenditure is a Financial Bill.
    • The Finance Bill is introduced in Lok Sabha.
    • Rajya Sabha can recommend amendments in the bill. However, the bill has to be passed by the Parliament within 75 days of introduction.

    >Types of Finance Bills

    Type I

    • Financial Bill Cat-1 is a bill which contains any of the matters specified in Article 110 but does not exclusively deal with such matters.
    • For example- a bill which contains a taxation clause, but does not deal solely with taxation under Article 117 (1), has two features in common with a money bill.
    1. It cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It can only be introduced in Lok Sabha with the prior recommendation of the President.(Similarities)
    • But has one feature uncommon that is, not being a Money Bill, the Rajya Sabha has the same power to reject or amend such Financial Bill subject to limitation.

    Type II

    • It is a finance bill which merely involves expenditure and does not include any of the matters specified in Article 110.
    • It is an Ordinary Bill and may be initiated in either House and the Rajya Sabha has full power to reject or ament it.
    • It is thus apparent that all Money Bills are Financial Bills but all Financial Bills are not Money Bills.

    Who decides the Bill is a Finance Bill?

    • The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is authorised to decide whether the Bill is a Money Bill or not.
    • Also, the Speaker’s decision shall be deemed to be final.

    Why Finance Bill is needed?

    • The Union Budget proposes many tax changes for the upcoming financial year, even if not all of those proposed changes find a mention in the Finance Minister’s Budget speech.
    • These proposed changes pertain to several existing laws dealing with various taxes in the country.
    • The Finance Bill seeks to insert amendments into all those laws concerned, without having to bring out a separate amendment law for each of those Acts.
    • For instance, a Union Budget’s proposed tax changes may require amending the various sections of the Income Tax law, Stamp Act, Money Laundering law, etc.
    • The Finance Bill overrides and makes changes in the existing laws wherever required.

    What changes can be made via Finance Bill?

    • The most awaited changes in the tax proposals in the Union Budget usually pertain to personal income tax.
    • For taxpayers across the country, the most awaited moment is when the Finance Minister’s speech announces an increase in minimum income threshold, or declares any changes in income tax slabs to make it less costly, or other exemptions.
    • In addition, there might be changes in the rules, procedures, and deadlines for filing tax returns or the payment of tax itself.
    • For instance, there might be a change in the amount of penalty for missing the deadline. Those proposed changes would typically need to be brought in via amending the Income Tax Act.
    • Among other changes, the FM may propose in the Union Budget with regard to the rates or processes for payment or administration of stamp duty levied on various instruments.
    • Such a change would need to be brought in via an amendment to the Stamp Act.
    • Since the introduction of GST, there is no amendment to indirect taxes in the Union Budget, since that is under the purview of the GST Council.

     

  • Not an unfettered right

    Context

    The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights filed an application seeking to intervene as amicus curiae in the pending litigation in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

    What are the implications of intervention?

    • Concern over international attention: That the case has attracted the attention of the international human rights agency is a matter of concern for the Indian government.
    • International law principles: The intervention may enable the Supreme Court to read in public international law principles in determining the constitutionality of CAA.
    • Law on concepts of sovereignty: Ultimately, this would assist in laying down the law on concepts of sovereignty in addition to determining the obligations of a nation-state to the international community at large.

    Why the intervention matters?

    • Basis of the application: The application is based on the belief that the High Commissioner’s intervention will provide the Court “with an overview of the international human rights norms and standards with respect to the state’s obligations to provide international protection to persons at risk of persecution in their countries of origin”.
    • This application stands out for a number of reasons.
    • First, this is a voluntary application rather than at the invitation of the Supreme Court.
    • Second, she accepts that India is a state party and signatory to various international conventions including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights which contain important non-discrimination clauses, including on the ground of religion.
    • India’s obligations towards migrants: India is obliged, under international law, to ensure that migrants in its territory or under its jurisdiction receive equal and non-discriminatory treatment regardless of their legal status or the documentations they possess.
    • Locus standi issue raised by India: In response, the External Affairs Ministry argued that “no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty”.
    • The High Commissioner has filed similar amicus curiae briefs on issues of pubic importance before a range of international and national judicial fora.
    • A precedent for future: This intervention, if permitted, would serve as a precedent for a number of future applications. It would also provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to lay down the law on whether such applications interfere with national sovereignty.

    Sovereignty as responsibility

    • Defining sovereignty: International Court of Justice judge James Crawford defines sovereignty as, among other things, the “capacity to exercise, to the exclusion of other states, state functions on or related to that territory, and includes the capacity to make binding commitments under international law” and states that “such sovereignty is exercisable by the governmental institutions established within the state”.
    • Sovereignty in Indian Constitution: The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the position, wherein the people of India have resolved to constitute the Indian Republic into a sovereign and not just any one authority.
    • As such, the courts (judiciary), the government (executive) and elected legislatures (legislature) are equally sovereign authorities.
    • No one can claim exclusivity over sovereignty. Furthermore, Article 51 (c) of the Constitution directs the state to “foster respect for international law”.

    Responsibility to citizens and the international community

    • Responsibility of political authority: According to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, “national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN”.
    • Constraints on sovereignty: Therefore, it is trite to say that an authority’s right to sovereignty is not unfettered. It is subject to constraints including the responsibility to protect its citizenry and the larger international community.
    • Extending Article 14: Furthermore, Article 14 extends the right to equality to all persons, which is wider than the definition of citizens. Even illegal immigrants shall, consequently, be treated by the government in a manner that ensures equal protection of Indian laws.

    Conclusion

    It is hoped that the Supreme Court will conclude that the intervention is necessary as the Court would benefit from the High Commissioner’s expertise in public international law principles.

  • Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth

    Context

    The Madras High Court is to decide on whether the recommendations made by such panels are binding upon the state.

    A fourth branch institution

    • Enactment of the Act and its purpose: In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act.
      • Purpose: The purpose of the Act was to establish an institutional framework that could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
      • To this end, the Act created a National Human Rights Commission, and also, Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various States.
    • What is fourth branch institution: The National and State Human Rights Commissions are examples of what we now call “fourth branch institutions.”
      • According to the classical account, democracy is sustained through a distribution of power between three “branches” — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, with each branch acting as a check and a balance upon the others.
      • The necessity of independent bodies: The complexity of governance and administration in the modern world has necessitated the existence of a set of independent bodies, which are charged with performing vital functions of oversight.
      • Some of these bodies are constitutional bodies — established by the Constitution itself. These include, for instance, the Election Commission and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
      • Others have been established under law: for example, the Information Commission under the Right to Information Act, and Human Rights Commissions under the Protection of Human Rights Act.
    • HRC under scrutiny and criticism: In the two-and-a-half decades of their existence, however, the functioning of the Human Rights Commissions have come under scrutiny and criticism.
      • There have been the usual critiques of the politicization of autonomous bodies, and selectiveness.
      • Toothless: Even more than that, however, it has been alleged that for all intents and purposes, the Human Rights Commissions are toothless: at the highest, they play an advisory role, with the government left free to disobey or even disregard their findings.

    Limitations of NHRC

    • NHRC’s recommendations are not binding
    • NHRC cannot penalize authorities who do not implement its orders
    • JK is out of its jurisdiction
    • NHRC jurisdiction does not cover human right violations by private parties
    • 3/5 are judges, leading to more judicial touch to its functioning
    • 2/5 are also not Human rights experts. Political appointments.
    • Time limit is set to 1 year i.e. NHRC cannot entertain ca case older than 1 year
    • Limited jurisdiction over violation by armed forces
    • The act does not extend to J&K
    • Vacancies are not filled on time. Most human rights commissions are functioning with less than the prescribed Members
    • Fund crunch
    • Overload and backlog. Too many complaints. Hence, in recent days, NHRC is finding it difficult to address the increasing number of complaints
    • Bureaucratic style of functioning
     

    What the case before Madras High Court will decide?

    • Whether recommendations are mandatory or not: A Full Bench of the High Court will be deciding upon whether “recommendations” made by the Human Rights Commissions are binding upon their respective State (or Central) governments, or whether the government is entitled to reject or take no action upon them.
    • What are the power of HRC under the act? Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Commissions are empowered to inquire into the violations of human rights committed by state authorities, either upon petitions presented to them, or upon their own initiative.
      • Powers of civil courts: While conducting these inquiries, the Commissions are granted identical powers to that of civil courts, such as the examining witnesses, ordering for documents, receiving evidence, and so on.
      • These proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings, and they require that any person, who may be prejudicially affected by their outcome, has a right to be heard.
    • Issue over the meaning of recommend: The controversy before the Madras High Court stems from the issue of what is to be done after the Human Rights Commission completes its enquiry, and reaches a conclusion that human rights have been violated.
      • Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to “recommend” to the concerned government to grant compensation to the victim, to initiate prosecution against the erring state authorities, to grant interim relief, and to take various other steps.
      • The key question revolves around the meaning of the word “recommend.”
    • Opposite conclusion by different benches: The Full Bench of the Madras High Court is hearing the case because different, smaller benches, have come to opposite conclusions about how to understand the word “recommend” in the context of the Protection of Human Rights Act.
      • According to one set of judgments, this word needs to be taken in its ordinary sense. To “recommend” means to “put forward” or to “suggest” something or someone as being suitable for some purpose.
      • Ordinarily, a mere “suggestion” is not binding. Furthermore, Section 18 of the Human Rights Act also obligates the concerned government to “forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission”, within a period of one month.
      • The argument, therefore, is that this is the only obligation upon the government.
      • If indeed the Act intended to make the recommendations of the Commission binding upon the government, it would have said so: it would not simply have required the government to communicate what action it intended to take to the Commission (presumably, a category that includes “no action” as well).

    Why ordinary meaning of recommend needs to be rejected?

    • Argument against the ordinary meaning of “recommend”
      • Ordinary meaning and meaning within the legal framework: The first is that there is often a gap between the ordinary meanings of words and the meanings that they have within legal frameworks.
      • Legal meaning: Legal meaning is a function of context, and often, the purpose of the statute within which a word occurs has a strong influence on how it is to be understood.
      • For example, the Supreme Court has held, in the past, that the overriding imperative of maintaining judicial independence mandates that “consultation” with the Chief Justice for judicial appointments (as set out under the Constitution) be read as “concurrence” of the Chief Justice (this is the basis for the collegium system).
      • Recently, while interpreting the Land Acquisition Act, the apex court held that the word “and” in a provision had to be construed as “or”.
      • Of course, there needs to be a good reason for interpretations of this kind.
    • Constitutional commitment: This brings us to the purpose of the Human Rights Act, and the importance of fourth branch institutions.
    • Ensure adequate realisation of constitutional commitment: As indicated above, the Human Rights Act exists to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights.
      • To fulfil this purpose, the Act creates an institutional infrastructure, via the Human Rights Commissions.
      • The Human Rights Commissions, thus, are bodies that stand between the individual and the state, and whose task is to ensure the adequate realisation of constitutional commitment to protecting human rights.
    • Leaving decision with the state would defeat the purpose of the act: It stands to reason that if the state was left free to obey or disobey the findings of the Commission, this constitutional role would be effectively pointless, as whatever the Human Rights Commission did, the final judgment call on whether or not to comply with its commitments under the Constitution would be left to the state authorities.
      • This, it is clear, would defeat the entire purpose of the Act.
    • Past precedents: Indeed, in the past, courts have invoked constitutional purpose to determine the powers of various fourth branch institutions in cases of ambiguity.
      • For example, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to ensure the independence of the Central Bureau of Investigation; various judgments have endorsed and strengthened the powers of the Election Commission to compulsorily obtain relevant details of candidates, despite having no express power to do so.
      • It is therefore clear that in determining the powers of autonomous bodies such as the Human Rights Commission, the role those fourth branch institutions are expected to play in the constitutional scheme is significant.
    • Powers of civil courts: And lastly, as pointed out above, the Human Rights Commission has the powers of a civil court, and proceedings before it are deemed to be judicial proceedings. This provides strong reasons for its findings to be treated — at the very least — as quasi-judicial, and binding upon the state (unless challenged).
      • Indeed, very recently, the Supreme Court held as much in the context of “opinions” rendered by the Foreigners Tribunals, using very similar logic to say that these “opinions” were binding.

    Conclusion

    The crucial role played by a Human Rights Commission — and the requirement of state accountability in a democracy committed to a ‘culture of justification’ — strongly indicates that the Commission’s recommendations should be binding upon the state. Which way the Madras High Court holds will have a crucial impact upon the future of human rights protection in India.