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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Nominated members of Rajya Sabha

    Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi has been nominated as a member of Rajya Sabha.

    Nominated members in RS

    • As per the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, the Rajya Sabha was to consist of 216 members of which 12 members were to be nominated by the President and the remaining 204 elected to represent the States.
    • The present strength, however, is 245 members of whom 233 are representatives of the states and union territories and 12 are nominated by the President.
    • The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution; one-third of its members retire every second year.
    • The 12 nominated members of the Rajya Sabha are persons who are eminent in particular fields, and are well known contributors in the particular field.
    • The nominated members are usually amongst persons having special knowledge or practical experience in literature, science, art and social service.

    Constitutional provisions

    • 80(1)(a) of Constitution of India makes provision for the nomination of 12 members to the Rajya Sabha by the President of India in accordance with provisions of Arts.80(3).
    • 80(3) says that the persons to be nominated as members must be possessing special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following namely : Literature, science, art and social service.

    Earlier CJIs in other Offices

    • Justice Hidayatullah was appointed vice-president nine years after his tenure as CJI ended (1979).
    • Justice Ranganath Mishra was appointed six years after his retirement (1998).
    • Justice Bahraul Islam served as a member of the Rajya Sabha several years before he was elevated to the SC (1983).
    • Justice Subba Rao, who contested for the post of president (and lost to Zakir Hussain) was roundly criticised for the decision at that time.

    Issues with CJI’s appointment

    • Late Arun Jaitley cautioned, in 2012, that “pre-retirement judgments are influenced by a desire for a post-retirement job”. Perhaps, those words were never more relevant than they are today.
    • The immediacy and hurried nature of the present appointment, barely four months after Justice Gogoi retired, is bound to give rise to questions about its context.
    • It was a tenure that inspired much scrutiny; a tenure which saw the repeated use of sealed envelopes, the contents of which were known only to the government; a tenure which recorded a significant and frequent number of judgments in favour of the executive.

    What were the alternatives?

    • Several appointments to administrative bodies require a cooling-off period for individuals so as to eliminate the possibility or suspicion of a conflict of interest or quid pro quo.
    • Officials who retire from sensitive positions are barred from accepting any other appointment for a period of time, normally two years.
    • These cooling-off periods in posts are premised on the snapping off of the nexus between previous incumbency and new appointment by the interposition of a sufficient time gap.

  • Speaker vs Governor Tussle

    With the Supreme Court set to hear on a plea seeking a directive to the government in Madhya Pradesh to take a floor test “within 12 hours”, the spotlight is back on the legal debate on the powers of the Governor and the Speaker under the Constitution.

    Primacy to Floor Test

    • Since 2014, the legal-political tussle between the Governor and Speaker has prompted the Supreme Court’s intervention in three major instances — in the Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand cases in 2016 and in the Karnataka case in 2019.
    • In all three cases, the court emphasised the primacy of the floor test.
    • In the Arunachal and Uttarakhand cases, the House was in suspended animation as President’s Rule had been imposed.
    • The Supreme Court ordered that the House be summoned and a floor test held to end the impasse.
    • But Article 212 of the Constitution bars courts from inquiring into proceedings of the Legislature.

    Earlier instances

    • Earlier, the Sarkaria Commission had recommended that, if the CM neglects or refuses to summon the Assembly for a floor test, the Governor should summon the Assembly.
    • If the House is adjourned sine die or prorogued without holding a floor test, then all options are open before the Governor.
    • However, when the House is in session, the question of whether the court can direct the Speaker to hold a floor test is yet to be settled.
    • In 1998, in the Jagadambika Pal case, the SC had ordered a composite floor test when the House was in session.
    • However, in that case, there were two claimants to the chief minister’s post.

  • Ruling against judicial transparency

    Context

    A recent Supreme Court verdict has barred citizens from accessing court records under the RTI Act.

    What does the judgement say?

    • No access to court records through RTI: In its recent decision, in the Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat case, the Supreme Court, regrettably, barred citizens from securing access to court records under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
    • Access to record through rules of High Courts: Instead, the court held that such records can be accessed only through the rules laid down by each High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution.
      • The Registry of the Supreme Court was litigating a similar case (Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra) before the Delhi High Court for several years.
    • Separating the administrative and judicial side: Though the particular decision taken earlier this month does not preclude the application of the RTI Act to the administrative side of the court, it does firmly slam the door shut on accessing, under the RTI Act, the millions of court records filed on the judicial side.

    Why access to judicial records matters?

    • For holding the police accountable: A significant number of decisions taken by the courts influence our daily life. Every prosecution before a criminal court is essentially an opportunity to hold the police accountable just as every writ petition is an opportunity to hold the government accountable.
    • Opportunity to learn about commercial translations: A significant number of commercial lawsuits are opportunities to learn more about corporations and the manner in which commercial translations are executed in the country.
    • Policy decision impacted by the judiciary in PIL: In cases of public interest litigation, where the courts indulge in policymaking on the basis of the report of an amicus curiae or an expert committee set up by judges.
      • The reports of these committees are not accessible to third parties, though they may be impacted by these decisions, because they form part of the court record and are hence outside the purview of the RTI Act.
    • No question of confidentiality: There is no question of arguing for the confidentiality of these records because it is by now a well-recognised principle that all judicial proceedings must take place in open court, unless prohibited by law for reasonable purposes.

    The overriding section of RTI act- Section 22

    • The Supreme Court’s verdict in this case hinged on Section 22 of the RTI Act which states that the RTI Act shall override any other law to the extent that the latter is inconsistent with the former.
    • The Section states: “Act to have an overriding effect — The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
    • Non-obstante clause: A clause such as Section 22 is known as non-obstante clause and is a common drafting device used by legislatures to permit certain actions regardless of what is mentioned in existing legislation.
    • Drafters aware of the possible conflict: The wording of the provision reveals that the drafters of the RTI Act were clearly aware that it may conflict with other laws and wanted to ensure that the procedure under the Act overruled the procedure in existing legislation.
      • Despite this crystal-clear wording of Section 22, the Supreme Court and, on previous occasions, the High Courts, have concluded exactly the opposite.

    Three steps to the courts reasoning 

    • No inconsistency: It concludes that there is no inconsistency between the RTI Act and the court rules.
      • This is factually incorrect because the Gujarat High Court Rules unlike the RTI Act require the submission of an affidavit stating the purpose of seeking copies of the pleadings.
      • The RTI Act requires no reasons to be provided while seeking information.
    • Issue over non-obstante clause: The court argues that “A special enactment or rule cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment simply because the latter opens up with a non-obstante clause unless there is a clear inconsistency between the two legislations.”
      • But that is exactly the point of an non-obstante clause.
      • The accompanying factual inaccuracy, is its conclusion that there is no inconsistency between the Gujarat High Court rules and the RTI Act.
    • Section 22 can’t be read to imply repeal of the laws: The third limb, of the court’s reasoning was its conclusion that Section 22 could not be read in a manner to imply repeal of other laws, such as the Gujarat High Court Rules.
      • The court states that if the intention was to repeal another law, the legislature would have specifically stated so in the RTI Act, as was done in Section 31 when the RTI Act repealed the previous Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
      • This reasoning is bewildering because it would render non-obstante clauses entirely useless.

    What is the issue arising out of this judgement?

    • From a citizen’s perspective, this decision is problematic for two reasons.
      • Not all High Courts allow access to all: Most High Court Rules allow only parties to a legal proceeding to access the records of a case. Some High Courts may allow third parties to access court records if they can justify their request.
      • This is entirely unlike the RTI Act, where no reasons are required to be provided thereby vastly reducing the possibility of administrative discretion.
      • Logistical difficulties: The second reason this judgment spells bad news is that unlike the RTI Act, the procedure under the Rules of most High Courts is challenging from a logistical perspective, apart from lacking in any significant safeguards.
      • An application under the RTI Act can be made by post, with the fee being deposited through a postal order.
      • The procedure is simple enough to enable most citizens to file RTI applications by themselves.
      • Not so for the procedure under the High Court Rules.
      • Most courts require the physical filing of an application: Most High Courts and the Supreme Court require the physical filing of an application with the Registry, and a hearing before a judge to determine whether records should be given.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court fails to understand that the judiciary’s track record of transparency is vastly inferior when compared to other arms of the state. In today’s world where every public institution is striving to become more transparent, the continued resistance from the judiciary to making itself transparent in a meaningful manner will have an eroding effect on its legitimacy.

  • Role of Lieutenant Governor

    The Madras High Court has held that the role of Puducherry’s Lieutenant Governor and that of an elected government in the UT were intertwined as per law, and therefore they were expected to act in unison and not in division.

    What did the court rule?

    • The government headed by the CM and the Administrator/Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry shall work in unison and not in division.
    • The Madras HC set aside a single bench judgment that had held that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) does not have the right to interfere in the daily affairs of the elected government of Puducherry.
    • The HC has held that the Administrator is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in matters where the Legislative Assembly is competent to enact laws.
    • This power of Assembly is contemplated under Section 44 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1962.

    How is Puducherry different from other UTs?

    • UT of Puducherry is headed by the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry as its nominal head, with a democratically elected CM as real head of the executive.
    • Other union territories don’t have an elected government and legislative assembly.
    • Puducherry, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir (newly formed UT) are the three territories which have democratically elected governments like Indian states.
    • The State legislatures were a creation of the Constitution, whereas the UT legislatures were created under a law such as the Government of UTs Act, 1963.
    • The constitutional provisions, the 1963 Act as well as the Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry lay expect the Lieutenant Governor to act as a bridge between the local government and the Centre.
    • The Administrator is expected to play the role of an umpire whenever there was a disagreement between the Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers.

  • Right of an accused to be defended

     

     

    Recently the Karnataka High Court observed that it is unethical and illegal for lawyers to pass resolutions against representing accused in court.  This is not the first time that bar associations have passed such resolutions, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these are “against all norms of the Constitution, the statute and professional ethics”.

    What does the Constitution say about the right of an accused to be defended?

    • Article 22(1) gives the fundamental right to every person not to be denied the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his or her choice.
    • Article 14 provides for equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
    • Article 39A, part of the DPSP, states that equal opportunity to secure justice must not be denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and provides for free legal aid.

    What has the Supreme Court said about such resolutions by bar associations?

    • The Supreme Court referred to writer Thomas Paine, who had been tried for treason in England in 1792.
    • Thomas Erskine, Attorney General for the Prince of Wales, was warned of dismissal if he defended Paine, but still took up the brief, saying: “… If the advocate refuses to defend from what he may think of the charge or of the defence, he assumes the character of the Judge…”
    • The Supreme Court cited other historical examples of accused being defended — revolutionaries against British rule; alleged assailants of Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi; Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg trials.

    A matter of professional ethics

    • The Supreme Court ruled that such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar and against professional ethics.
    • Every person however wicked, criminal, perverted or repulsive he may be regarded by society has a right to be defended in a court of law and correspondingly and it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him.
    • It said such resolutions were against all norms of the Constitution, the statute and professional ethics, called these a disgrace to the legal community, and declared them null and void.

    How are the professional ethics of lawyers defined?

    • The Bar Council of India has Rules on Professional Standards, part of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette to be followed by lawyers under the Advocates Act.
    • An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the courts or tribunals, at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case.
    • The Rules provide for a lawyer refusing to accept a particular brief in “special circumstances”.
    • Last year, The Uttarakhand HC clarified that these special circumstances refer to an individual advocate who may choose not to appear in a particular case, but who cannot be prohibited from defending an accused by any threat of removal of his membership of the bar association.

  • Election Commission of India unveils roadmap for revamp

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) is considering a series of new reforms proposed by working groups it set up in 2019. Some of them are:

    • New voting methods,
    • Capping the campaign expenditure of political parties,
    • Online registration of new voters at 17 years and
    • Ending social media campaigning 48 hours before polling among the recommendations

    Various suggested reforms

    Voters registration

    • Among the recommendations being considered is replacing all the forms for various voter services, including registration of new voter and change of address, with one single form.
    • Multiple numbers of forms create confusion and affect the efficiency in the process. It is now proposed to have a unified and simplified form for all services to voters.
    • Another recommendation was to start online registration facilities at the school or college-level for all prospective voters at 17 years of age so they can be enrolled in the electoral roll as soon as they become eligible at 18.
    • The ECI also recommended four cut-off dates in a year to enroll as a voter. Currently, January 1 is the qualifying date so those who turn 18 after that date are not eligible to vote the whole year.
    • The ECI has proposed January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 as the qualifying dates, while the Law Ministry has suggested two dates — January 1 and July 1.

    Electronic voter cards

    • The ECI also proposed to give out electronic versions of the voter ID card — EPIC — for convenience of voters.
    • Though not specifying the method, one of the recommendations was to look at the “possibility and feasibility of different voting methods”.
    • The IIT-Madras was working on a prototype for an Aadhaar-linked remote voting system for the ECI.
    • The Commission has already implemented one-way online transfer of postal ballots for service and implemented the same for the whole country in 2019.
    • It has been seen that approximately 30% of electors are not able to participate in elections for various reasons.
    • Some of them, as assessed in a report on facilities of domestic migrants may poll to the category of migrants who continue to remain voters at their previous locations.

    Expenditure and campaigning

    • For political parties, the recommendations included online nomination of candidates and a cap on the spending allowed by parties.
    • Currently, individual candidates are allowed a limited expenditure on campaigning.
    • Another recommendation was to impose a “silence period of 48 hours” before polling on social media and print media.
    • Campaigning on electronic media in the last 48 hours before polling is prohibited currently.

  • Explained: Behind Meghalaya violence

     

     

    Last week, ethnic violence left three dead in Meghalaya. The violence underlined the ethnic complexities of Meghalaya, with tensions coming back to the fore following the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

    Multi-ethnic Meghalaya

    • Meghalaya became a state in 1972 when it was carved out of Assam. Before that, Shillong, now Meghalaya’s capital, used to be the capital of Assam.
    • Sharing a 443-km border with Bangladesh, Meghalaya has seen decades of migration from areas that are now in Bangladesh, as well as from various Indian states via Assam.
    • Besides the indigenous groups, Meghalaya’s residents include Bengalis, Nepalis, Marwaris, Biharis and members of various other communities.
    • Meghalaya is a tribal majority state, and the indigenous Khasis, Jaintias and Garos are entitled to 80% reservation in government jobs.
    • Various groups have continuously expressed concerns that illegal migration from Bangladesh and the growth of “outsiders” from other states would overwhelm the indigenous communities.

    Meghalaya violence: The CAA context

    • The CAA relaxes the norms for Hindus from Bangladesh (among six religious groups from three countries) for eligibility to apply for Indian citizenship.
    • Long before that, the legislation was already facing protests in the Northeast, including Meghalaya. Eventually, the Centre decided the CAA will not apply in Sixth Schedule areas.
    • The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution has special provisions for administration of certain areas in the Northeast, including almost the whole of Meghalaya.
    • Despite the large exemption, the concerns have persisted in Meghalaya, and demands for an Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime have gathered fresh momentum.
    • If the ILP system is introduced, every Indian citizen from any other state would require a time-bound permit to visit Meghalaya.

    Signals simmering tensions

    • The last four decades have seen numerous incidents of violence in Meghalaya targeted at non-tribals, including from Bengal and Nepal.
    • The latest bout follows a sustained campaign over the implementation of the Inner Line Permit and unrest in the Northeast over the CAA that led to six deaths in Assam two months ago.
    • The violence last week has an immediate context in the anti-CAA campaign and ILP demand.

    Shillong, then and now

    • Shillong has seen violence against “outsiders” several times in the last four decades.
    • The targets were Bengalis in 1979, Nepalis in 1987, and Biharis in 1992.
    • In 2018, Shillong saw clashes between Khasis and Punjab-origin Dalit Sikhs whose ancestors had settled there over 100 years ago.
    • All that began collapsing after Independence, Constitutional institutions set up to safeguard the interest of the tribes came to be popularly perceived as opportunities to convert these tribal areas into exclusive zones of tribal hegemony.
    • The issue of ‘foreigners’ illegally residing in the state of Meghalaya was one of the most important issues which dominated state politics in the 1970s and 1980s.
    • In 1979, the state was plunged into a crisis for the first time since it was created.

  • When does Speaker suspend MPs from Lok Sabha?

    Seven MPs of a political party were suspended for unruly behaviour in the Lok Sabha. The motion was passed by a voice vote.

    What is the reason for suspending an MP?

    • The general principle is that it is the role and duty of the Speaker of Lok Sabha to maintain order so that the House can function smoothly.
    • This is a daunting task even at the best of times.
    • In order to ensure that proceedings are conducted in the proper manner, the Speaker is empowered to force a Member to withdraw from the House (for the remaining part of the day), or to place him/her under suspension.

    What are the rules under which the Speaker acts?

    Rule Number 373 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business says:

    • The Speaker, if is of the opinion that the conduct of any Member is grossly disorderly, may direct such Member to withdraw immediately from the House, and any Member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall remain absent during the remainder of the day’s sitting.

    To deal with more recalcitrant Members, the Speaker may take recourse to Rules 374 and 374A. Rule 374 says:

    1. The Speaker may, it deems it necessary, name a Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.
    2. If a Member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made forthwith put the question that the Member (naming such Member) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session: Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
    3. A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.

    What is the procedure for revocation of a Member’s suspension?

    • While the Speaker is empowered to place a Member under suspension, the authority for revocation of this order is not vested in her.
    • It is for the House, if it so desires, to resolve on a motion to revoke the suspension.

    What happens in Rajya Sabha?

    • Like the Speaker in Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is empowered under Rule Number 255 of its Rule Book to “direct any Member whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately” from the House.
    • Any Member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.
    • The Chairman may name a Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and wilfully obstructing business.
    • In such a situation, the House may adopt a motion suspending the Member from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session.
    • The House may, however, by another motion, terminate the suspension.
    • Unlike the Speaker, however, the Rajya Sabha Chairman does not have the power to suspend a Member.

    Way Forward: Striking a balance

    • There can be no question that the enforcement of the supreme authority of the Speaker is essential for smooth conduct of proceedings. A balance has to be struck.
    • However, it must be remembered that her job is to run the House, not to lord over it.
    • The solution to unruly behaviour has to be long-term and consistent with democratic values.
    • A step in that same direction could be to discontinue the practice of herding people out of the visitors’ gallery when the House witnesses chaos.
    • So, the ruling party of the day invariably insists on the maintenance of discipline, just as the Opposition insists on its right to protest. And their positions change when their roles flip.

  • A blow against social justice

    Context

    The recent verdict of a two-judge Supreme Court Bench on reservations and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes promotions — has mainly raised four constitutional questions.

    The first question-Whether reservation in promotions is a fundamental right or not. 

    • Scope for the reservation: Addressing the first question, the scope for reservation for the Backward Classes is promised in Part III of the Constitution under Fundamental Rights.
      • Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) which empowers the state to provide reservation for SCs and STs are a part of the section, “Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment”.
      • The right to equality is also enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. Many construe that the reservation is against Article 16 (Right to equality).
    • The basis for the reservation: One should understand that the absence of equal opportunities for the Backward Classes due to historic injustice by virtue of birth entails them reservation.
      • In other words, the right to equality is the basis of reservation as there is no level-playing field among castes.
      • Articles 16 (2) and 16(4) are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive in nature. In fact, they are complementary to each other; even Article 16(4) is not a special provision.
    • Whether reservation should be applied in promotions?
      • The answer is yes because, in India, where there is a peculiar hierarchical arrangement of caste, it is conspicuous that SCs and STs are poorly represented in higher posts.
      • Confined to lower cadre jobs: Denying application of reservation in promotions has kept SCs and STs largely confined to lower cadre jobs. This is even seen in the higher judiciary.
      • Hence, providing reservation for promotions is even more justified and appropriate to attain equality.
      • Need of the reservation at every level: The question of law is not about enabling reservations in promotions or not, but this judgment destabilises the very basis of reservation; when there is no direct recruitment in higher posts, the implementation of the reservation is justified at every level to get a reasonable representation.
      • Subdivision of reservation not correct: It is not correct to subdivide the scope of reservation at the entry-level and in promotions; this delineation will only lead to confusion in the implementation of reservation.
      • Now, by declaring that reservation cannot be claimed as a fundamental right is a dangerous precedent in the history of social justice.

    The second question- Can a court issue a mandamus to the state for providing reservation?

    • Will it be appropriate for the courts to issue a mandamus in this regard?
      • This is inappropriate because when the court is empowered to pass orders to create extra seats every year for forward-caste students who claim to be affected by reservation, why cannot it direct the state to provide reservation in promotions?
    • Use of powers under Article 142: The Supreme Court has extraordinary powers under Article 142, which empowers the Court to pass any order necessary for doing “complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it”.

    Third question-Necessity of quantifiable data

    • Data to prove inadequate representation: The next question is about the necessity of quantifiable data to show an inadequate representation of reserved category people.
    • Article 16 addresses the question: This question has been addressed in the Constitution. Article 16(4) reads: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
    • How “opinion of the State” should be construes: Here, “in the opinion of State” should not be construed as the discretion of the state to give the reservation or not; on the contrary, if the state feels that SCs and STs are under-represented, then it is in the domain of the state to provide reservation.
    • Quantifiable data for exceeding the 50% limit: In the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case (Mandal Commission) the idea of quantifiable data on inadequate representation was applied for exceeding the 50% cap for reservation; within 50% where the existing quotas for SCs and STs are accommodated were not affected.
      • Responsibility to collect data on the State: The responsibility of collecting data on representation by the Backward Classes lies with the state.
      • Pathetically, the last caste-based census was in 1935, and in the pre-Independence era, by the British government.
      • No caste-based census in India: After Independence, no government has had the inclination to conduct a caste-based census due to political reasons.
      • Even if a caste-based census is collected, the population and proportionate representation of SCs and STs will be low. For this reason alone, a proper caste-based census has not been conducted in independent India.
      • No mention of quantifiable data: Moreover, Article 16(4) clearly mentions that if the state, in its opinion, feels that SCs and STs are not adequately represented, then it can provide reservation for them. There is no mention of “quantifiable data” in the Constitution. Even after 70 years of SC/ST reservation, their representation is as low as 3%.

    Fourth question-Whether it is the obligation of the state to give reservation?

    • Obligatory on the government: Finally, if the argument is that it is not binding on the state to give reservation, it must be noted that when reservation rights are in Part III as Fundamental Rights, it is the obligation of the state to ensure reservation to the underprivileged.
    • Interpretation as obligatory provisions: This judgment has interpreted Articles 16 (4) and 16(4A) only as enabling provisions.
    • Enabling provisions mean that these provisions empower the state to intervene; it does not mean the state is not bound to provide it.
    • Interpreting the Constitution by paraphrasing and selective reading is dangerous.

     Administrative efficiency

    • Reservation should not affect the efficiency of administration: More importantly, this judgment has raised a new point — that the decision of the State government to provide reservation for SC/STs should not affect the efficiency of administration.
      • This implies that the entry of SC/STs in the job market can reduce the quality of administration; this by itself is discriminatory.
    • No evidence to support the claim: There is no evidence that performance in administration is affected on account of caste.
    • There have been many attempts to dilute reservation in the past. But, this judgment appears to be debatable in the larger context and should be challenged in a constitutional bench.

    Conclusion

    In a country of parliamentary democracy, even the Constitution of India can be amended. If the government at the Centre has a genuine concern for SC/STs, it can amend the Constitution using its political majority.

  • Department-related Standing Committees (DRSCs)

    Fewer sittings of Parliament are compensated by the working of department-related standing committees (DRSCs) praised Rajya Sabha Chairman.

    What are Standing Committees?

    • Standing Committee is a committee consisting of Members of Parliament.
    • It is a permanent and regular committee which is constituted from time to time according to the provisions of an Act of Parliament or Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
    • The work done by the Indian Parliament is not only voluminous but also of a complex nature, hence a good deal of its work is carried out in these Parliamentary Committees.
    • Standing Committees are of the following kinds :
    1. Financial Standing Committees (FSC)
    2. Department Related Standing Committees (DRSC)
    3. Others Standing Committees (OSC)

    About DRSCs

    • There are 24 Department-related Standing Committees (DRSCs). Each of these committees have 31 members – 21 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha.
    • The 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees were formally constituted with effect from April, 1993.
    • After experiencing the working of the DRSC system for over a decade, the system was restructured in July,2004 wherein the number of DRSCs was increased from 17 to 24.
    • These members are to be nominated by the Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha respectively. The term of office of these committees does not exceed one year.
    • These committees are serviced either by Lok Sabha secretariat or the Rajya Sabha secretariat depending on who has appointed the chairman of that committee.

    Equal to 10 House sittings

    • During a usual sitting of Parliament, the Houses are convened for six hours. Calculating it accordingly, the meeting of these committees amount to 10 sittings of Parliament.
    • Proportionately, the work done by the 16 Committees of Lok Sabha amounts to another 20 sittings of the Parliament.
    • In all, the work put in by the total 24 DRSCs in examining the Demands for Grants of all the ministries equals 30 days of functioning of the Parliament, which is quite significant.
    • If the working of the committees is taken into account for the entire year, it will amount to significantly higher number of days.