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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • President’s Address

     

    Today, with the first day of the Budget Session of Parliament, Hon’ble President will address a joint sitting of the two Houses.

    President’s or Governor’s Address

    • Commonly referred to as the President’s or Governor’s Address, they are a constitutional requirement.
    • The Constitution gives the President and the Governor the power to address a sitting of the legislature. The special power is with regard to two occasions.
    • The first is to address the opening session of a new legislature after a general election. The second is to address the first sitting of the legislature each year.
    • A session of a new or a continuing legislature cannot begin without fulfilling this requirement.
    • When the Constitution came into force, the President was required to address each session of Parliament.
    • So during the provisional Parliament in 1950, the President gave an address for all three sessions. At the suggestion of Speaker G V Mavalankar, the first Constitutional Amendment in 1951 changed this position.
    • Besides being a constitutional requirement, the President’s or Governor’s Address is keenly watched as it outlines the government’s policy agenda and stand on issues.

    What procedures follow the address?

    • After the President or Governor delivers the address, a debate takes place not only on the contents of the address but also the broad issues of governance in the country.
    • This then paves the way for discussion on the Budget.

    Significance of the address

    • The President’s Address in India is mirrored on the British system.
    • During the framing of the Constitution, B R Ambedkar drew a similarity between the President and the monarch under the English system.
    • He said the President “is the Head of State but not of the executive. He represents the nation but does not rule the nation.
    • He is the symbol of the nation. His place in the administration is that of a ceremonial device of a seal by which the nation’s decisions are made known”.
    • The Constitution binds the President and the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the Union and state governments respectively, on a majority of issues.
    • Therefore, the speech that the President or the Governor reads before the legislature is the viewpoint of the government and is prepared by it.

    Are there parallels in other countries?

    • Similar provisions exist in other democracies. In the United States, it is referred to as the “State of the Union”.
    • The phrase comes from an article in the US Constitution which specifies that the President from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
    • In the United Kingdom, it is referred to as the Queen’s Speech and is part of the ceremony to mark the formal start of the parliamentary year.

    What is the content of the President’s or Governor’s address?

    • During the making of the Constitution, an unsuccessful attempt was made to bring some specificity to the content of the President’s Address.
    • The President’s speech follows the convention of the British system, where it contains legislative and policy proposals that the government intends to initiate.
    • The speech also recaps the government’s accomplishment in the previous years. The contents of the speech are put together by aggregating inputs from various ministries of the government.

    Is the text of the speech binding?

    • The President or a Governor cannot refuse to perform the constitutional duty of delivering an address to the legislature.
    • But there can be situations when they deviate from the text of the speech prepared by the government.
    • So far, there have been no instances of President doing so. But there has been an occasion when a Governor skipped a portion of the address to the Assembly.
    • In 1969, the Governor of West Bengal skipped two paragraphs of the address prepared by the United Front government.
    • The skipped portion described as unconstitutional the dismissal of the first United Front government by the Congress-ruled central government. The issue was then debated in Parliament.
    • The Opposition was critical of the Governor’s conduct and moved a motion disapproving it. But the motion was ultimately defeated.

    How have members responded to the addresses over the years?

    • The conduct of MLAs during the address has sometimes been an issue.
    • The Governor’s speech in state legislatures has routinely been interrupted.
    • In Parliament, the first instance of interruption of a President’s speech happened in 1963; President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was speaking when some MPs interrupted him.
    • The Lok Sabha took note of the incident and a reprimand was issued to the MPs.
    • Over the years, political parties have resolved to treat the President’s Address sacrosanct and agreed not to interrupt it.

  • Comprehensive Bodo Settlement Agreement

     

    • The MHA, the Assam government and the Bodo groups have signed an agreement to redraw and rename the Bodoland Territorial Area District (BTAD) in Assam, currently spread over four districts of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri.
    • Several Bodo groups led have been demanding a separate land for the ethnic community since 1972, a movement that has claimed nearly 4,000 lives.

    Background

    • The first Bodo accord was signed with the ABSU in 1993, leading to the creation of a Bodoland Autonomous Council with limited political powers.
    • The BTC was created in 2003 with some more financial and other powers.
    • The BTAD and other areas mentioned under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution have been exempted from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

    Highlights of the Agreement

    • As per the agreement, villages dominated by Bodos that were presently outside the BTAD would be included and those with non-Bodo population would be excluded.
    • Bodos living in the hills would be conferred a Scheduled Hill Tribe status.
    • The BTAD is to be renamed as the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR).

    Rehabilitation and relief

    • The criminal cases registered against members of the NDFB factions for “non-heinous” crimes shall be withdrawn by the Assam government and in cases of heinous crimes it will be reviewed.
    • A Special Development Package of Rs. 1500 Crore would be given by the Centre to undertake specific projects for the development of Bodo areas.

    A separate Commission

    • It proposes to set up a commission under Section 14 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution which will recommend the inclusion or exclusion of tribal population residing in villages adjoining BTAD areas.
    • In this commission, besides State government, there will be representatives from ABSU and BTC. It will submit its recommendation within six months.

    Changes in Legislature

    • The total number of Assembly seats will go up to 60, from the existing 40.
    • The present settlement has a proposal to give more legislative, executive, administrative and financial powers to BTC.

    Bodo as an official language

    • The Assam government will also notify Bodo language as an associate official language in the state and will set up a separate directorate for Bodo medium schools.
    • Bodo with Devnagri script would be the associate official language for the entire Assam.

    Significance of the agreement

    • The signing of the agreement would “end the 50-year-old Bodo crisis.”
    • Around 1500 cadres of BODO militant factions will be rehabilitated by Centre and Assam Government.

  • Legislative Councils and its abolition

    The Andhra Pradesh Assembly recently passed a resolution to abolish the state’s Legislative Council (LC).

    Legislative Councils

    • The LC or Vidhan Parishad is the upper house in those states that have a bicameral legislature; the lower house being the State Legislative Assembly.
    • Its establishment is defined in Article 169 of the Constitution of India.
    • Each Member of the State LC serves for a six-year term, with terms staggered so that the terms of one third of a State Legislative Council’s membership expire every two years.
    • This arrangement parallels that for the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India.
    • Q member of LC must be a citizen of India, at least 30 years old, mentally sound, not an insolvent, and must be enrolled on the voters’ list of the state for which he or she is contesting an election.
    • Under Article 171, a Council cannot have more than a third of the number of MLAs in the state, and not less than 40 members.

    Representation in an LC

    MLCs are chosen in the following manner:

    • One third are elected by the members of local bodies such as municipalities, Gram panchayats, Panchayat samitis and district councils.
    • One third are elected by the members of Legislative Assembly of the State from among the persons who are not members of the State Legislative Assembly.
    • One sixth are nominated by the governor from persons having knowledge or practical experience in fields such as literature, science, arts, the co-operative movement and social service.
    • One twelfth are elected by persons who are graduates of three years’ standing residing in that state.
    • One twelfth are elected by persons engaged for at least three years in teaching in educational institutions within the state not lower than secondary schools, including colleges and universities.

    Abolition of LC

    • Article 169(1) of the Constitution allows Parliament to either create or abolish a Council in a state “if the Legislative Assembly of the State passes a resolution to that effect.
    • The resolution must by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present and voting.

    Councils in the Constitution

    • Under Article 168, states can have either one or two Houses of legislature. Article 169 leaves the choice of having a Vidhan Parishad to individual states.
    • The Constituent Assembly was divided on having a second chamber in the states.
    • It was argued that a second House can help check hasty actions by the directly elected House, and also enable non-elected persons to contribute to the legislative process.
    • However, it was also felt that some of the poorer states could ill afford the extravagance of two Houses.
    • It has been pointed out that the Councils can be used to delay important legislation, and to park leaders who have not been able to win an election.

    Councils in other states

    • Besides Andhra Pradesh, five other states have Vidhan Parishads — Bihar (58 members), Karnataka (75), Maharashtra (78), Telangana (40), UP (100).
    • Jammu and Kashmir had a Council until the state was bifurcated into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
    • In 1986, the M G Ramachandran government in Tamil Nadu abolished the Council.
    • The DMK government passed a law revives it, but the subsequent J Jayalalithaa-led government withdrew it after coming to power in 2010.
    • The Odisha Assembly has passed a resolution for a Legislative Council. Proposals to create Councils in Rajasthan and Assam are pending in Rajya Sabha.

  • [op-ed of snap] The four phases of constitutional interpretation

    Context

    The ways in which the Constitution of India is interpreted has undergone changes through four phases.

    Constitution-An Ambitious political experiment

    • Indian Constitution was an ambitious political experiment for the following reasons-
      • Universal Adult Franchise: India began its journey with the universal adult franchise.
      • Federalism: Federalism in a region consisting of over 550 princely States.
      • The promise of Equality: The Constitution was a sort of social revolution in a deeply unequal society with the promise of equality.
      • Unique constitutional design: it was equally a unique achievement in terms of constitutional design.

    The first phase of interpretation-Focus on text

    • A textualist approach-focusing on the plain meaning of the words: In its early years, the Supreme Court adopted a textualist approach, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used in the Constitution.
      • K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) was one of the early decisions in which the Court was called upon to interpret the fundamental rights under Part III.
      • The leader of the Communist Party of India claimed that preventive detention legislation under which he was detained was inconsistent with Articles 19 (the right to freedom), 21 (the right to life) and 22 (the protection against arbitrary arrest and detention).
      • Fundamental rights separate from each other: The Supreme Court decided in A. K. Gopalan case that each of those articles covered entirely different subject matter, and were to be read as separate codes rather than being read together.
    • Unlimited Amendment Power: In its early years, the Court read the Constitution literally, concluding that there were no limitations on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

    The second phase of interpretation-Focus on ‘basic structure’

    • Appeals to the structure and coherence: Appeals to the text of the Constitution were gradually overtaken by appeals to the Constitution’s overall structure and coherence.
      • Limited Amendment Power-Kesavananda Bharati case: In the leading case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala(1973), the Court concluded that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution did not extend to altering its “basic structure”.
      • What is the “Basic Structure”: The basic structure is an open-ended list of features that lie within the exclusive control of the Court.
      • When Parliament attempted to overturn this decision by amending the Constitution yet again, the Court, relying on structuralist justifications, decisively rejected that attempt.
    • Key takeaways from Kesavananda Bharati case
      • Limited Amendment Power: In this case, the Court pronounced that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
      • Fundamental rights as a cohesive bill of rights: In this phase, the Court also categorically rejected the Gopalan approach in favour of a structuralist one.
      • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):  Through decision, in this case, the Court conceived of the fundamental rights as a cohesive bill of rights rather than a miscellaneous grouping of constitutional guarantees.
      • Incremental interpretation of Right to Life: The right to life was incrementally interpreted to include a wide range of rights such as clean air, speedy trial, and free legal aid.
      • Courts playing role in governance: The incremental interpretation of Article 21 paved the way for the Supreme Court to play an unprecedented role in the governance of the nation.
    • What was common in the first two phases?
      • Interpretation done by Constitutional Benches: That significant decisions involving the interpretation of the Constitution were entrusted to Constitution Benches (comprising five or more judges of court) and were carefully (even if incorrectly) reasoned.
      • Little scope for precedential confusion: There was limited scope for precedential confusion, since matters which had been decided by Constitution Benches and which demanded reconsideration were referred to larger Constitution Benches.

    Third Phase of interpretation-Eclecticism

    • Different opinions on the same issues: In the third phase the Supreme Court started to give different opinions on the same issues-i.e. it engaged in eclecticism.
      • Lesser reasoning: The Court often surrendered its responsibility of engaging in a thorough rights reasoning of the issues before it.
      • Two factors underpinned this institutional failure.
    • First-Change in the structure of the SC: The changing structure of the Court, which at its inception began with eight judges, grew to a sanctioned strength of 31; it is currently 34.
    • It began to sit in panels of two or three judges, effectively transforming it into a “polyvocal” group of about a dozen sub-Supreme Courts.
    • Second-expansion of own role by the SC-The Court began deciding cases based on a certain conception of its own role -whether as a sentinel of democracy or protector of the market economy.
    • The focus of the judgement on the result rather than reason: This unique decision-making process sidelined reason-giving in preference to arriving at outcomes that match the Court’s perception.
    • Consequences of the eclecticism
      • Rise of doctrinal incoherence and inconsistency: The failure to give reasons contributed not only to methodological incoherence but also to serious doctrinal incoherence and inconsistency across the law.
      • Conflicting decisions and interpretations: This approach can be best described as panchayati eclecticism, with different Benches adopting inconsistent interpretive approaches based on their conception of the Court’s role, and arriving at conclusions that were often in tension with one another.
      • Decision detached from precedents and established methods: The imagery that panchayati eclecticism is meant to invoke is that of a group of wise men and women (applying the analogy, sub-Supreme Courts), taking decisions based on notions of fairness that are detached from precedent, doctrine and established interpretive methods.

    Fourth phase- based on the purpose

    • Purpose of enactment of the Constitution as critical: In the fourth phase, the Court has acknowledged as critical to its interpretive exercise the purpose for which the Constitution has been enacted.
    • The realisation of revolutionary and transformative potential: The Court is now beginning to interpret the Constitution in accordance with its revolutionary and transformative potential.
      • Renaissance in decisions: With about a dozen significant Constitution Bench decisions from the Supreme Court since September 2018, there has been a renaissance in decision-making by Constitution Benches.
      • The most important decisions of this period include-
      • Court’s decisions striking down Section 377 and the criminal offence of adultery.
      • And including the office of the Chief Justice of India within the scope of the Right to Information Act.

    Conclusion

    With the interpretation process entering in the fourth phase-realising the purpose of enactment of the Constitution- Indian judiciary is on the right track, however, facets of phase 3 continue to linger on it. The Supreme Court must avoid getting in phase three mode to in order to realise the purpose it was entrusted with.

     

     

     

     

  • De-criminalization of Politics

     

    The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a proposition made by the Election Commission (EC) to ask political parties to not give a ticket to those with criminal antecedents.

    Cleansing of Political Parties

    • The judgment had urged Parliament to bring a “strong law” to cleanse political parties of leaders facing trial for serious crimes.
    • The ruling concluded that rapid criminalisation of politics cannot be arrested by merely disqualifying tainted legislators but should begin by “cleansing” the political parties.
    • The court had suggested that Parliament frame a law that makes it obligatory for political parties to remove leaders charged with “heinous and grievous” crimes like rape, murder and kidnapping, only to a name a few, and refuse ticket to offenders in both parliamentary and Assembly polls.
    • It had also issued guidelines, including that both the candidate and the political party should declare the criminal antecedents of the former in widely-circulated newspapers.

    Why such move?

    • 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records.
    • A move to steer politics away from the denizens of the criminal world would definitely serve national and public interest.
    • The EC had tried several measures to curb criminalisation of politics but failed.

  • Explained: The Kashmir Pandit tragedy

     

    It is 30 years since the “exodus” from the Valley of its minority Hindu Kashmiri Pandit community.

    The run-up: 1980s to 1990

    • Sheikh Abdullah had died in 1982, and the leadership of the National Conference passed on to his son Farooq Abdullah, who won the 1983 election.
    • But within two years, the Centre broke up the NC, and installed dissident Ghulam Mohammed Shah as Chief Minister. This led to huge disaffection and political instability.
    • The Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) stepped up its activities, and the hanging of the militant leader Maqbool Bhat in 1984 added to the sense of foreboding.
    • In 1986, after the Rajiv Gandhi government opened the Babri Masjid locks to enable Hindus to offer prayers there, ripples were felt in Kashmir too.
    • In Anantnag, the constituency of then Congress leader Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, there was a series of attacks on Hindu temples, and shops and properties of Kashmiri Pandits, blamed on separatist and secessionists.
    • Pandits had begun to be targeted. Eminent persons of the community were being shot dead.

    The night of January 19, 1990

    • Matters came to a head on January 19. By then, the Farooq Abdullah government had been dismissed and Governor’s Rule imposed.
    • According to accounts published by many eminent Kashmiri Pandits, there were threatening slogans over loudspeakers from mosques, and on the streets.
    • Speeches were made extolling Pakistan and the supremacy of Islam, and against Hinduism. Finally, the Kashmiri Pandit community decided to leave.

    The Gawkadal Massacre

    • On January 20, the first stream began leaving the Valley with hastily packed belongings in whatever transport they could find. A second, larger wave left in March and April, after more Pandits were killed.
    • On January 21, the CRPF gunned down 160 Kashmiri Muslim protesters at the Gawkadal Bridge, which has come to be known as the worst massacre in the long history of the conflict in Kashmir.
    • The two events — the flight of the Pandits and the Gawkadal massacre — took place within 48 hours.

    How many Pandits left?

    • According to some estimates, notably by the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS), of 75,343 Kashmiri Pandit families in January 1990, more than 70,000 fled between 1990 and 1992 and continued until 2000.
    • The KPSS has placed the number of Kashmiri Pandits killed by militants from 1990 to 2011 at 399, the majority during 1989-90.
    • Some 800 families have remained in the Valley through these three decades.

    Role of the administration

    • The other contentious question about the exodus is the role played by the administration, and more specifically that of the J&K Governor, Jagmohan.
    • Newly appointed, he had arrived in Srinagar on January 19.
    • The Kashmiri Muslim view of the exodus is that he encouraged the Pandits to leave the Valley and thus gave a communal colour to what was until then a non-religious Kashmiri cause.
    • The Kashmiri Hindu view is that this is a disingenuous interpretation.
    • They believe that Kashmiri Muslims, with whom they had lived amicably for centuries, drove them out with a vengeance in a frenzy of Islamism that they could not have imagined even months earlier.
    • The truth, many commentators have concluded, may have been somewhere in the middle.

    The question of return

    • Those who had means rebuilt their lives elsewhere in the country — Delhi, Pune, Mumbai and Ahmedabad have Pandit populations, also Jaipur and Lucknow — or went abroad.
    • The fleeing Pandits did not think they would never return to the Valley. But as the situation in Kashmir spiraled into a full-blown militancy, return began to look remote if not impossible.
    • The longing to return to the Valley did not diminish over the years, though it may have become more an idea than a real ambition.
    • Successive governments have promised that they will help this process, but the situation on the ground in Kashmir has meant this remains only an intention.
    • There is an acute realization in the community that the Valley is no longer the same that they left behind in 1990.
    • In many cases, their properties were either immediately vandalised or sold quickly by the owners to Kashmiri Muslims. Many fell into disrepair.

  • Democracy Index 2019

     

    The latest edition of the Democracy Index spells gloom for India. The world’s biggest democracy slipped 10 places in the 2019 global ranking to 51st place.

    Democracy Index

    • The report is published by The Economist Intelligence Unit — the research and analysis division of The Economist Group, which is the sister company to The Economist newspaper.
    • It records how global democracy fared, analysing 165 independent states and two territories.
    • The 2019 survey attributes the primary cause of “the democratic regression” to “an erosion of civil liberties in the country”.

    India’s performance

    • India’s overall score fell from 7.23 to 6.9, on a scale of 0-10, within a year (2018-2019) — the country’s lowest since 2006.
    • India was graded in electoral process and pluralism (8.67), government functioning (6.79), political participation (6.67), political culture (5.63) and civil liberties (6.76).
    • In the Asia and Australasia region, India ranks eighth, behind Taiwan and Timor-Leste.
    • The report talks about the repeal of both Article 370 and Article 35A and various restrictions such as house arrests, internet shutdowns and excessive use of forces.

    India: A flawed democracy?

    The Index also categorizes India under “flawed democracies”, i.e. countries that hold free and fair elections and where basic civil liberties are respected, but have significant weaknesses in aspects of democracy, such as problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation.

  • Three capitals for Andhra Pradesh — its logic and the questions it raises

     

    The Andhra Pradesh Assembly passed The Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Equal Development of All Regions Bill, 2020, paving the way for three capitals for the state.

    Three capitals concept in Andhra Pradesh

    • Three cities serve as capitals of the country– Pretoria (executive), Cape Town (legislative), and Bloemfontein (judicial).
    • This arrangement was a result of the Second Boer War (1899-1902) in which Britain annexed the two Afrikaner speaking states -– the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (also called Transvaal Republic).
    • Cape of Good Hope then remained in the British Empire, becoming self-governing in 1872, and uniting with three other colonies to form the Union of South Africa in 1910.

    What are the other examples of multiple capital cities?

    • Several countries in the world have implemented the concept.
    • In Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte is the official capital and seat of national legislature, while Colombo is the de facto seat of national executive and judicial bodies.
    • Malaysia has its official and royal capital and seat of national legislature at Kuala Lumpur, and Putrajaya is the administrative centre and seat of national judiciary.
    • Among Indian states, Maharashtra has two capitals– Mumbai and Nagpur (which holds the winter session of the state assembly).
    • Himachal Pradesh has capitals at Shimla and Dharamshala (winter).
    • The former state of Jammu & Kashmir had Srinagar and Jammu (winter) as capitals.

    Reasons behind such considerations

    • According to the government, decentralisation was the central theme in recommendations of all major committees that were set up to suggest a suitable location for the capital of Andhra Pradesh.
    • It had been agreed in the November 16, 1937 Sri Bagh Pact (between leaders of coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema) that two university centres should be established in Waltair (Visakhapatnam) and Anantapur in Rayalaseema, and that the High Court and Metropolis should be in the coastal districts and Rayalaseema respectively.
    • In December 2010, the Justice B N Srikrishna Committee, set up to look into the demand for a Telangana state, said Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra were economically the most backward, and the “concentration of development efforts in Hyderabad is the key reason for demand of separate states”.
    • In August 2014, the K Sivaramakrishnan Committee appointed to identify locations for the new capital of AP said the state should see decentralised development, and that one mega capital city was not desirable.

    Major practical problems

    • The government argues that the Assembly meets only after gaps of several months, and government Ministers, officers, and staff can simply go to Amaravati when required.
    • However, coordinating between seats of legislature and executive in separate cities will be easier said than done, and with the government offering no specifics of a plan, officers and common people alike fear a logistics nightmare.
    • The distances in Andhra Pradesh are not inconsiderable. Executive capital Visakhapatnam is 700 km from judicial capital Kurnool, and 400 km from legislative capital Amaravati.
    • The Amaravati-Kurnool distance is 370 km. The time and costs of travel will be significant.
    • The AP Police are headquartered in Mangalagiri, 14 km from Vijayawada, and senior IPS officers who may be required to visit the Secretariat will have to travel 400 km to Visakhapatnam.
    • Likewise, government officers who may have to appear in the High Court will have to travel 700 km to Kurnool, which does not have an airport.
    • All officers and Ministerial staff who may have to be at hand to brief Ministers when the Assembly is in session, will probably have to stay put in Amaravati, leaving behind their other responsibilities in Visakhapatnam.

  • Important Judgements In News

  • Parliament – Sessions, Procedures, Motions, Committees etc