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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Possibility of judicial use or misuse of Article 356

    Article 356 and the word ‘otherwise’ in it has led to the recent Andhra Pradesh High Court order. The order raises several questions. The article deal with this issue.

    Controversial High Court order

    • Recently the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the Andhra Pradesh government to come prepared to argue on the ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state’.
    • The order opens up the possibility of use or even misuse of Article 356 by the judiciary.
    • The Supreme Court of India has stayed the order.
    • However, we need to go deeper into this observation and look at the controversial provision of Article 356 due to which the High Court could make such an observation.

    Historical background of the article

    • Both India and Pakistan borrowed this provision from the Government of India Act, 1935.
    • Interestingly, the leaders of our freedom struggle were so very opposed to this provision that they forced the British government to suspend it.
    • The provision which we had opposed during our freedom struggle was incorporated in the Constitution strangely in the name of democracy, federalism and stability.
    • It was agreed in the Constituent Assembly that the Governor could use this emergency power.
    • By this time the Governor was supposed to be elected by the people of the State rather than nominated by the Centre.
    • After several revisions, provision became Article 278 (now Article 356).

    The issue with the word ‘otherwise’

    • H.V. Kamath criticised the word ‘otherwise’ and said only god knows what ‘otherwise’ means.
    • As the Governor had been made a nominee of the Centre by this time, he asked why the President could not have confidence in his own nominees.
    • ‘Otherwise’ can include anything including a presidential dream of breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.
    • The Andhra Pradesh High Court could pass such an order due to this very term ‘otherwise’.
    • This word negates the ideals of constitutionalism by giving unlimited powers to the Centre, also allowed the High Court to overstepped the line.
    • But this is not the first instance of judicial overreach on this issue.
    • On August 13, 1997, a Patna High Court had observed that the High Court could also report to the President about the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.

    Repeated misuse of Article 356

    • In the very first invocation of Article 356 in 1951, central government removed the Gopi Chand Bhargava ministry in Punjab though he enjoyed the majority.
    • In 1959, it was used against the majority opposition government of the E.M.S. Namboodripad government in Kerala.
    • Indira Gandhi used Article 356 as many as 27 times.
    • The most notable case of non-use of Article 356 was the refusal of the P.V. Narasimha Rao government prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

    Consider the question “Examine the contest in which the word ‘otherwise’ in Article 356 leads to judiciary exercising its powers. What are the concerns in such case?”

    Conclusion

    Ideally, the word ‘otherwise’ should be deleted from Article 356 and the provision be used only sparingly and to never remove a majority government.

  • Issues related to Urban local bodies

    The inability of ULBs’ to raise revenue

    • Although it is envisaged that municipal revenue should be 1% of GDP, between 2010 and 2018 revenues declined from 0.48% to 0.43%.
    • As against the municipal revenue of Rs 4,624 per capita, own-source revenue was only Rs 1,975 in 2018 (ICRIER, 2019).
    • This affects the low-levels of municipal services and translates into salary delays for employees.

    8-way strategy to increase the revenue of ULBs

    1) Increasing the property tax base

    • In India, property taxes only account for 0.15% of GDP, whereas in developing economies they account for 0.6% and the global average is 1.04%.
    • To double the property tax collection the property tax base needs to be expanded using GIS mapping, cross-checking with building licenses, ration cards, mutations, electricity/gas accounts, and review of exemptions.
    • This also needs to cover government properties as per GoI circular 2009 and the SC judgment in Rajkot Corporation vs Railways.
    • Similarly, rates need revision in the guiding value for rent or unit area; for instance, in Delhi, rates are fairly low.
    • The collection process needs to be automated too.
    • ABC (Always best Control) analysis should be done to target the top 10-20% properties, and measures such as attaching bank accounts must be implemented.

    2) Upward revision of various fees

    • The value capture taxes need to include upward revision of building license fee and new sources like impact fee, as imposed in Telangana, exactions, and betterment levy like the one imposed in Gujarat.

    3) Levy advertisement fee

    • An advertisement fee needs to be levied.
    • Thiruvananthapuram listed the sites and plugged leakages for 33,170 unauthorized boards to double its income from 2018 to 2019.
    • South Delhi MC has achieved a three-time increase with revision of rates in a ratio of 1:8 as per location and by dividing the city into clusters.

    4) Local fee

    • Local fee/charges also have immense potential such as (i) recovery on user charges (water, etc) which is only 20% (ii) right of way from gas/electricity and fiber optic lines, (ii) cell tower, (iii) leasing electricity poles, etc.

    5) Participatory funding

    • The potential of participatory funding (private sector, CSR, and local community) needs to be tapped.
    • This has been done by Bengaluru, Ahmedabad, Mathura (Hybrid Annuity project), Indore, and Pune.

    6) Special attention for assigning and activating the fiscal instrument

    • Sixth, small and medium-sized municipal bodies need special attention for assigning and activating fiscal instruments.
    • Better mobilization of own sources may also lead to revenue account surplus.
    • This has been achieved in Ahmedabad, Pune, etc and it also enables access to the capital market.

    7) Revision of Article 243X

    • Article 243X needs suitable revision to allow larger inclusion of fiscal instruments above within the scope of a municipality’s own sources.

    8) Creating ULBs as per MoHUA’s advisory

    • Over 3,000 census towns not having city government need special attention to create ULBs in line with MoHUA’s advisory in 2016.
    • It will create an innovative and effective financing framework for sustainable urban development.

    Conclusion

    Financially strong local bodies hold the key to the development of the country. The steps mentioned here needs to be implemented effectively to make the ULBs financially strong.

    Source:-

    https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/bolster-ulbs-capacity-to-raise-revenue/2157171/

  • Declining seating of the state legislature and issues with it.

    Recently, Governor turned down the recommendation of the Kerala government to convene the session of the state legislature. It also points to the trend of declining seating of the state legislature and issues with it.

    Governor-Government conflict

    • The Kerala government made a recommendation to the governor for summoning the state’s legislature for a one-day session.
    • The government wanted to discuss the situation arising out of the farmers’ protest in the legislative assembly.
    • Media reports suggest that the governor turned down the government on the grounds that there is no emergent situation for which the state assembly should be called to meet at short notice.
    • Earlier this year, the Rajasthan governor had rejected the recommendation of the government to call a session.
    • The chief minister wanted a session of the legislature called so that he could prove his majority on the floor of the house.

    Constitutional provisions

    • The Constitution is clear: The government has the power to convene a session of the legislature.
    • The council of ministers decides the dates and the duration of the session.
    • Their decision is communicated to the governor, who is constitutionally bound to act on most matters on the aid and advice of the government.
    • The governor then summons the state legislature to meet for a session.
    • The refusal of a governor to do so is a matter of concern.

    Declining sittings of the state legislature

    • In the last 20 years, state assemblies across the country, on average, met for less than 30 days in a year.
    • But states like Kerala, Odisha, Karnataka are an exception.
    • The Kerala Vidhan Sabha, for example, has on average met for 50 days every year for the last 10 years.
    • The trend across the country is that legislatures meet for longer budget sessions at the beginning of the year.
    • Then for the rest of the year, they meet to fulfill the constitutional requirement that there should not be a gap of six months between two sessions.

    Why is it a matter of concern

    • Close scrutiny: Continuous and close scrutiny by legislatures is central to improving governance in the country.
    • Voice to public opinion: Legislatures are arenas for debate and giving voice to public opinion.
    • Accountability institutions: As accountability institutions, they are responsible for asking tough questions of the government and highlighting uncomfortable truths. So, it is in the interest of a state government to convene lesser sittings of the legislature and bypass their scrutiny.
    • Prevent ordinance: Lesser number of sitting days also means that state governments are free to make laws through ordinances. And when they convene legislatures, there is little time for MLAs to scrutinize laws brought before them.

    Way forward

    • Convening legislatures to meet all around the year.
    • In many mature democracies, a fixed calendar of sittings of legislatures, with breaks in between, is announced at the beginning of the year.
    • It allows the government to plan its calendar for bringing in new laws.
    • It also has the advantage of increasing the time for debate and discussion in the legislative assembly.
    • And with the legislature sitting throughout the year, it gets rid of the politics surrounding the convening of sessions of a legislature.

    Conclusion

    Continuous and close scrutiny by legislatures is central to improving governance in the country. Increasing the number of working days for state legislatures is a first step in increasing their effectiveness.

  • Key lesson from farmers’ protest

    A key lesson from the farmers’ opposition to the farm laws is that following the parliamentary procedure in the passage of legislation always pays dividend more so if the changes introduced by the legislation bring substantial changes. 

    Vested interests resulting in opposition to legislation

    • There are strong indications that the new legislation is desirable and will bring in much-needed market reforms in the overregulated farm sector.
    • There is no contrary evidence that the new proposals will adversely affect farmers in the long run.
    • There is no justification for a minimum support price regardless of demand and supply.
    • Legislation that benefits the nation but hurts vested interests will always meet with vehement opposition.

    How liberalisation helps: Lessons from non-agricultural sector

    • The benefits of liberalising the non-agricultural sector of the economy in 1991 established that market forces cannot be ignored.
    • For the first 30 years, under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, several control orders were passed.
    • Orders under ECA were passed on products such as cement and steel, and these were intended to ensure their availability at fair prices.
    • The result was just the opposite: Severe shortages, a huge black market and massive corruption.
    • Equally disastrous were laws relating to monopolies and industrial development.

    Importance of parliamentary procedures

    • At the heart of a constitutional democracy based on the Westminster model is the importance of Parliament, which is the fountainhead of all laws.
    • But, Parliament includes the Opposition as well and even though a bill may be certain to become the law, it is necessary that the established procedure is followed.
    • In the face of opposition to the farm laws, it is necessary that the benefits of a new law are demonstrated through debate and discussion.
    • There must be empirical or other evidence that shows the deleterious economic consequences of continuing with the status quo.
    • As the farm bills marked a radical departure from the existing system of selling agricultural produce, the least that could have been done was to refer them to a Select Committee.
    • It is a matter of concern that fewer and fewer bills are being referred to Select Committees or even deliberated upon.
    • While 71 per cent of the bills were referred to a Select Committee in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14), only 25 per cent were so referred in the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-19).

    Way forward

    • A new law can always come into force at a later date and can even be made applicable piecemeal.
    • It is also possible to notify it to apply to select states or districts.
    • If laws are likely to meet with opposition by vested interests, the best way to demonstrate their beneficial effects is to implement the laws in select states or districts for a year. 
    • It is worthwhile considering the implementation of a controversial law on a trial basis.

    Consider the question “Describe the important role played by the Select Committee in the passage of the bill. Why the decline in the number of bills referred to the Select Committees is the matter of concern?” 

    Conclusion

    The biggest lesson for the goverment is that following constitutional conventions always pays dividends — it benefits the nation and preserves the dignity of Parliament.

  • Andhra Pradesh High Court and the CM Row

    The Supreme Court has stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order intending to embark on a judicial enquiry into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State machinery, requiring a declaration of President’s rule.

    A backfire from the AP High Court

    • Andhra Pradesh CM had earlier sparked controversy by writing to the CJI complaining about a Supreme Court judge for allegedly influencing posting of cases in the State High Court.
    • The alleged Judge is slated to be the next Chief Justice of India, and some judges of the AP High Court have opened sharp criticism over AP CM’s move.

    What did the Supreme Court say?

    • The apex court found the enquiry highly disturbing. Hence it decided to stay the order.
    • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked why the High Court “should go into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State”.
    • The Solicitor General of the state government argued that it was not up to the High Court to enquire and recommend President’s rule in a State.

    Citations for the President’s Rule in a State

    • President’s rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct central government rule in a state.
    • It is Article 356 that deals with the failure of constitutional machinery in a State.
    • This power to impose President’s rule exclusively vests in the Central Executive.
    • Under Article 356, this move can be taken- if the President, on receipt of the report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen…..
    • The power in this regard, like sending a report either to the President of India or to the Governor of the concerned State or to record a finding in that regard, cannot be exercised by the judiciary.

    How did the AP govt respond?

    • The AP govt said that the High Court’s observation violated the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution.
    • Under the constitutional framework, it is not for the courts to decide as to whether there is a constitutional breakdown in a State.
    • The said power has been specifically conferred upon a different constitutional authority – and rightly so.
    • It is needless to mention that the constitutional courts do not have any judicially discoverable and manageable standards to determine if there has been a constitutional breakdown,” the petition contended.

    Back2Basics:

    President’s Rule

    • President’s rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct central government rule in a state.

    How it is imposed?

    • President’s Rule implies the suspension of a state government and the imposition of direct rule of the Centre.
    • This is achieved through the invocation of Article 356 of the Constitution by the President on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
    • Under Article 356, this move can be taken “(1) If the President, on receipt of the report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution…”

    How long President’s Rule can last

    • A proclamation of President’s Rule can be revoked through a subsequent proclamation in case the leader of a party produces letters of support from a majority of members of the Assembly, and stakes his claim to form a government.
    • The revocation does not need the approval of Parliament.
    • Any proclamation under Article 356 —which stands for six months — has to be approved by both Houses in the Parliament session following it.
    • This six-month time-frame can be extended in phases, up to three years.

    The S.R. Bommai Case

    • R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues.
    • The judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which allowed President’s rule to be imposed over state governments.
    • Article 356 (1) has been deliberately drafted in a narrow language by the Founding Fathers so that political parties in the Centre does not misuse it to subvert federalism, it had noted.
    • The expression used in the Article is ‘if the President is satisfied”, the court had observed.
    • In other words, the President has to be convinced of or should have sufficient proof of information with regard to or has to be free from doubt or uncertainty about the state of things indicating that the situation in question has arisen.
    • The court had stated that although the sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be questioned, the legitimacy of inference drawn from such material is “certainly open to judicial review”.

    What it directed?

    • The judgment had explained that in a multi-party political system, chances are high that the political parties in the Centre and the State concerned may not be the same.
    • Article 356 cannot be used for the purpose of political one-upmanship by the Centre.
    • Hence there is a need to confine the exercise of power under Article 356[1] strictly to the situation mentioned therein which is a condition precedent to the said exercise,” the court had said.

    Conditions for Prez Rule

    • Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung Assembly.
    • Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
    • Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
    • Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.
    • Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
    • Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.

  • Plea in SC against 1975-77 Emergency

    The Supreme Court agreed to look into whether it should examine the constitutionality of the proclamation of National Emergency in 1975 by the then Indira Gandhi-led government.

    Q.Discuss how the imposition of National Emergency under Art. 352 of the Constitution seek to change India’s federal character.

    What is the issue?

    • A 94-year old lady is seeking compensation for the loss she suffered due to the proclamation of emergency.
    • Petitioner has claimed that a number of her immovable properties were illegally occupied for their activities during the Emergency.
    • A bench of the Supreme Court has agreed to examine if the court could examine whether the proclamation of Emergency was constitutional.
    • The court was hesitant to take up the issue as 45 years have passed since the declaration of Emergency and examining such an issue on merits now could be a cumbersome process.

    What is a National Emergency?

    • A national emergency can be declared on the basis of “external aggression or war” and “internal disturbance” in the whole of India or a part of its territory under Article 352.
    • Such an emergency was declared in India in 1962 war (China war), 1971 war (Pakistan war), and 1975 internal disturbance (declared by Indira Gandhi).
    • But after the 44th amendment act 1978 added the provision for Internal Emergency.
    • The President can declare such an emergency only on the basis of a written request by the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister.

    The 1975 Emergency

    • On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court had declared the election of then PM Indira Gandhi as null and void.
    • Following the court decision, Gandhi moved the Supreme Court and stayed the high court’s decision allowing her to remain as PM while limiting her right to vote in the parliament till the appeal was decided.
    • Following an opposition rally for the resignation of Indira Gandhi, she made a decision to impose a national Emergency which would give the central government sweeping powers.
    • On June 25, 1975, then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed relying on Article 352 of the Constitution declared a national emergency in the country.

    What happened after the proclamation of Emergency?

    • From media censorship, suspension of civil liberties and attempts to fundamentally change the Constitution to suit the government, the Emergency is remembered as a dark period in India’s democracy.
    • The 38th- 42nd Constitutional amendments were passed during the Emergency which led to a tussle between the executive and the judiciary that gave the Parliament a power to amend the Constitution.
    • Many of these changes were either overturned by courts or were reversed in the 44th Constitutional amendment in 1978 which was brought in after the Janata government was voted to power.

    Series of Amendments

    • Through the 38th Constitutional Amendment, Gandhi sought to expand the power of the President and barred judicial review of the proclamation of Emergency.
    • The 39th amendment was intended to nullify the effect of the Allahabad High Court ruling that declared Gandhi’s election as null and void.
    • The amendment placed any dispute to the election to the office of the Prime Minister, President beyond the scope of judicial review.
    • The 40th amendment placed crucial land reforms in the Ninth schedule, beyond the scope of judicial review.
    • The 41st Amendment said no criminal proceedings “whatsoever” could lie against a President, Prime Minister, or Governor for acts before or during their terms of office.
    • In the 42nd amendment, the Parliament expanded its powers to amend the Constitution, even its ‘basic structure’ and curtail any fundamental rights.

    The 44th Amendment

    • Through the 43rd and 44th amendments, many of the amendments made during the Emergency were withdrawn.
    • Article 352- the provisions relating to Emergency itself was strengthened to prevent misuse by the executive.

  • Back in news: Right to Protest

    The Supreme Court has that said farmers have a constitutional right to continue with their “absolutely perfect” protest as long as their dissent against the three controversial agricultural laws did not slip into violence.

    Q.It is the abundant duty of the State to aid and limit the exercise of Right to Protest peacefully. Examine.

    Right to Protest

    • The right to protest is the manifestation of the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech.
    • The Constitution of India provides the right of freedom, given in Article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution.
    • The Right to protest peacefully is enshrined in Article 19(1) (a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(1) (b) assures citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    • Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.

    Reasonable restrictions do exist in practice

    • Fundamental rights do not live in isolation. The right of the protester has to be balanced with the right of the commuter. They have to co-exist in mutual respect.
    • The court held it was entirely the responsibility of the administration to prevent encroachments in public spaces.
    • Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.
    • The present case was not even one of the protests taking place in an undesignated area but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters.

  • Law and disorder

    Several inadequacies in the justice delivery system lie hidden as disproportionate attention is given to the Supreme Court.

    Public expects the judiciary to be ideal

    • The citizens of the country expect the Supreme Court and its constituents to be ideal, and the challenge of the Supreme Court is to come to terms with that reality.
    • However, it is not the Supreme Court alone that matters in the justice delivery system. There are other inadequacies of the system that don’t get as much public attention.

    Practice Question: Explain the various inadequacies in the justice delivery system in India which lie hidden. What steps need to be taken to address them?

    Spending on judiciary

    • The issue of spending on judiciary, most often, is equated with increasing the salaries of judges and providing better court infrastructure. Such perceptions are unfortunate.
    • India has one of the most comprehensive legal aid programmes in the world, the Legal Services Authority Act of 1987.
    • Under this law, all women, irrespective of their financial status, are entitled to free legal aid. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and children too are entitled to free legal aid.
    • In reality, this law is a dead letter. There has been little effort on the part of successive governments to provide a task force of carefully selected, well-trained and reasonably paid advocates to provide these services.
    • In comparison, the system of legal aid in the U.K. identifies and funds several independent solicitor offices to provide such services. India is yet to put in place anything similar to this.

    Poor judge-population ratio

    • The judge-population ratio provides one of the most important yardsticks to measure the health of the legal system. The U.S. has about 100 judges per million population. Canada has about 75 and the U.K. has about 50.
    • India, on the other hand, has only 19 judges per million population. Of these, at any given point, at least one-fourth is always vacant.
    • Lower courts where the common man first comes into contact (or at least should) with the justice delivery system is also unnoticed and hardly any attention is focused on their gaping inadequacy.
    • These inadequacies are far more important to the common man than the issues relating to the apex court that are frequently highlighted in the public space.
    • In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court had directed the Government of India to increase the judge-population ratio to at least 50 per million population within five years from the date of the judgment. This has not been implemented.

    Access to justice

    • Though ‘access to justice’ has not been specifically spelt out as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it has always been treated as such by Indian courts.
    • In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sadan (2016), the Supreme Court held unambiguously that if “life” implies not only live in the physical sense but a bundle of rights that make life worth living, there is no justice or other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice” will not affect the quality of human life.
    • It was for the first time that the Supreme Court had attempted a near-exhaustive definition of what “access to justice” actually means.
    • Further, the court pointed out four important components of access to justice.
    1. The need for adjudicatory mechanisms.
    2. The mechanism must be conveniently accessible in terms of distance.
    3. The process of adjudication must be speedy.
    4. The process of adjudication must be affordable to the disputants.
    • It is of course a paradox that this judgment, which emphasizes the concept of speedy justice, was passed in 2016 in a batch of transfer petitions that were filed between 2008 and 2014.

    Way forward

    • The state in all its glorious manifestations — the executive, judiciary and the legislature — there is a need to draw out a national policy and road map for clearing backlogs and making these concepts real.
    • A disproportionate amount of attention that is given to the functioning of the Supreme Court, it is equally important to have a clear focus on these and similar issues.

  • Issues related to Judicial appointment

    The SC Collegium has recommended the transfer of judges of several HC, including the transfer of a Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] Uproar over AP CM’s letter to CJI

    What is Collegium?

    • Collegium system of the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts (HCs) of India is based on the precedence established by the “Three Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998) “.
    • It is a legally valid system of appointment and transfer of judges in the SC and all HCs.
    • It is a system of checks and balance, which ensures the independence of the senior judiciary in India.

    The Collegium System: A detailed backgrounder

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

    The Judges Cases

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

    The procedure followed by the Collegium:

    Appointment of CJI

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

    Other SC Judges

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

    For HC

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

    Does the Collegium recommend transfers too?

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

    Loopholes in the Collegium system

    • Many have faulted the system, not only for its being seen as something unforeseen by the Constitution makers but also for the way it functions.
    • Opaqueness and a lack of transparency, and the scope for nepotism are cited often.
    • The attempt made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission’ was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
    • Some do not believe in full disclosure of reasons for transfers, as it may make lawyers in the destination court chary of the transferred judge.
    • Embroilment in public controversies and having relatives practising in the same High Court could be common reasons for transfers.

    Scope for transparency

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

  • Delimitation should be based on 2031 Census

    A paper released by the Pranab Mukherjee Foundation (PMF) has suggested that the next delimitation exercise should be a two-step process:

    1. First a Delimitation Commission should be set up to redraw boundaries of constituencies on the basis of the 2031 Census
    2. And then a State Reorganization Act be passed to split States into smaller ones

    Q.With the new Parliament House, the role of the Presiding officers of the Houses is going to be more challenging. Discuss, how.

    Back in news

    • PM recently inaugurated a brand new Parliament Annexe building that will afford our lawmakers more space and enable better functioning.
    • In a few years from now, we might actually need a new building for Parliament altogether due to the likely increase in a number of seats in both Houses after the lifting of the freeze imposed by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which is due in 2026.

    What is Delimitation? Why is it needed?

    • Delimitation is the act of redrawing boundaries of Lok Sabha and state Assembly seats to represent changes in population.
    • In this process, the number of seats allocated to different states in Lok Sabha and the total number seats in a Legislative Assembly may also change.
    • The main objective of delimitation is to provide equal representation to equal segments of a population.
    • It also aims at a fair division of geographical areas so that one political party doesn’t have an advantage over others in an election.

    Why such debate?

    • The 84th Amendment to the Constitution in 2002 had put a freeze on the delimitation of Lok Sabha and State Assembly constituencies till the first Census after 2026.
    • While the current boundaries were drawn on the basis of the 2001 Census, the number of Lok Sabha seats and State Assembly seats remained frozen on the basis of the 1971 Census.
    • The population according to the last census preceding the freeze was 50 crore, which in 50 years has grown to 130 crores.
    • This has caused a massive asymmetry in the political representation in the country.

    Why there are fewer delimitations?

    • The Constitution mandates that the number of Lok Sabha seats allotted to a state would be such that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, as far as practicable, the same for all states.
    • Although unintended, this provision implied that states that took little interest in population control could end up with a greater number of seats in Parliament.
    • The southern states that promoted family planning faced the possibility of having their seats reduced.
    • To allay these fears, the Constitution was amended during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule in 1976 to suspend delimitation until 2001.
    • Despite the embargo, there were a few occasions that called for readjustment in the number of Parliament and Assembly seats allocated to a state.

    Background

    • According to Article 81 of the Constitution — as it stood before the 42nd CAA 1976 — the Lok Sabha was to comprise of not more than 550 members.
    • Clause (2) of Article 81 provided that there shall be allotted to each State a number of MPs in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is the same for all States.
    • Further, clause (3) defined the expression “population” for the purposes of Article 81 to mean the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published.

    Dilemma over delimitation

    • States which took a lead in population control faced the prospect of their number of seats getting reduced and States which had higher population figures stood to gain by increase in the number of seats in Lok Sabha.
    • As a result of the freezing of the allocation of seats, the allocation done on the basis of the 1971 Census continues to hold good for the present population figures.
    • According to the 2011 Census, the population of our country stands at 121 crores with a registered electorate of 83.41 crores.
    • Basing the 1971 Census figure of 54.81 crores to represent today’s population presents a distorted version of our democratic polity and is contrary to what is mandated under Article 81 of the Constitution.
    • So when the first Census figure will be available after 2026 — that is, in 2031 — a fresh delimitation will have to do which will dramatically alter the present arrangement of seat allocation to the States in Parliament.

    Acquainting more MPs: A big challenge

    • One question that has to be addressed is how the Presiding Officers of the Houses/Legislatures will deal with such a large number of members to capture the attention of the Speaker to raise issues in the House.
    • Even with the current strength of 543 members, the Speaker finds it extremely difficult to conduct the proceedings of the House.
    • Members do not show much heed to the appeals of the Speaker, thereby making smooth conduct of House proceedings a difficult affair.
    • The Speaker’s directions and rulings are not shown proper respect, and disruptions of proceedings aggravate the problem.
    • The sudden increase in numbers will render the task of the Speaker more difficult and onerous.

    Conclusion

    • While 2026 is still a few years away. But we need to be clear on how to deal with the problems that are likely to arise, we will be forced to postpone the lifting of the freeze to a future date as was done in 2001.
    • This will only postpone the problem for which we must find a solution sooner or later.
    • Even the various proposals for electoral reforms which have been recommended by various Commissions over the past decade do not address these issues.
    • These are challenges which our political leaders have to address in the immediate future.