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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • MPLAD Scheme

    While extending support to the move for salary-cut, most Members of Parliament have demanded that the MPLADS funds, meant for development work in constituencies, be restored immediately.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:

    1. A private member’s bill is a bill presented by a Member of Parliament who is not elected but only nominated by the President of India.
    2. Recently, a private member’s bill has been passed in the Parliament of India for the first time in its history.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    What is the MPLAD scheme?

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

    Funds available

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

    Implementation

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

    Guidelines for MPLADS implementation

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

  • [pib] Status of Mahanadi Tribunal

    At present, the Mahanadi dispute is under adjudication in the Tribunal under Section 5 (2) of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956

    Note the interrelation between the Article 262 and 253.They contain provisions related to international and interstate water sharing.

    Mahanadi Tribunal

    • The Central Government has constituted Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal in 2018 under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
    • It is set to adjudicate on water disputes between the riparian States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh
    • The tribunal is expected to give its verdict within a period of three years.
    • Provided that if the decision cannot be given for an unavoidable reason, within a period of three years, the Central Government may extend the period for a further period not exceeding two years.

    What is the dispute about?

    • Chhattisgarh has been constructing dams and weirs (small dams) upstream the Mahanadi. This is being allegedly carried on without consulting Odisha.
    • It would affect the flow of the river downstream and affect drinking water supply. Also, it would impact the irrigation facilities in Odisha and adversely affect the interests of the farmers.
    • Moreover, the weirs and other projects would impact the flow of water in the Hirakud reservoir, a multipurpose river valley project, which is a lifeline for many in the state.

    Back2Basics: Water Disputes Resolution in India

    • The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted under Article 262 of Constitution of India on the eve of the reorganization of states on the linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river[1] or river valley.
    • Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the state/regional governments.
    • This Act further has undergone amendments subsequently and its most recent amendment took place in the year 2002.
    • A/c to art 262, the Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.
    • Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.

    Note: Any river water sharing treaty made with other countries, has to be ratified by the Parliament as per Article 253 after deciding the share of the Indian riparian states per Article 262 to make the treaty constitutionally valid or enforceable by the judiciary. The government has signed Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Ganga water-sharing treaty with Bangladesh, etc. without the ratification by the Parliament and the consent of concerned riparian states per Article 252.

  • Why the Question Hour matters?

    The decision to go without “Question Hour” during the Monsoon Session of Parliament has evoked serious concerns about the democratic functioning of the institution.

    This newscard is very narrative in its form and scope. Try this question as well-

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

    What is Question Hour?

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

    Its evolution

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

    Its significance

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

  • Parliamentary oversight and cancellation of question hour

    The article highlights the significance of question hour in democracy.

    Context

    • The decision to go without “Question Hour” during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, beginning September 14, has evoked serious concerns about the democratic functioning of the institution.

    Significance of question hour

    • Question Hour is an opportunity for the members to raise questions,
    • It is also a parliamentary device primarily meant for exercising legislative control over executive actions.
    • It is also a device to criticise government policies and programmes, ventilate public grievances, expose the government’s lapses, extract promises from ministers.
    • In short, question hour helps to ensure accountability and transparency in governance.

    Right to question the executive: Historical background

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

    Recent instances in which right to ask questions was curtailed

    • The government passed important bills in the first session of the 17th Lok Sabha before the formation of department-related standing committees.
    • The Constitution Amendment Bill on J&K was introduced without circulating copies to the members.
    • Several important bills were passed as Finance Bills to avoid scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha.
    • Standing committees are an extension of Parliament.
    • Any person has the right to present his/her opinion to a Bill during the process of consideration.

    Consider the question “What is the significance of question hour in the context of democracy in India? What is the implication of its suspension due to pandemic?”

    Conclusion

    The government’s actions erode the constitutional mandate of parliamentary oversight over executive actions as envisaged under Article 75 (3) of the Indian Constitution.

  • Undoing the right to housing

    The article analyses the implications of recent Supreme Court order regarding the removal of encroachment along the railway line. 

    Context

    •  In short order, the Supreme Court of India on August 31 ordered the removal of about 48,000 slum dwellings situated along the railway tracks in Delhi.
    • The order raises several legal questions, which are discussed below.

    1) Violation of the principle of natural justice

    • The order violates principles of natural justice and due process because it was delivered without hearing the affected party, the jhuggi dwellers.
    • The order was passed in the long-running case on the piling up of garbage along railway tracks.
    • However, neither this case nor the report concerns itself with the legality of informal settlements.
    • Still, the Court made an unconvincing connection between the piling of garbage and the presence of slums.

    2) Ignoring the right to livelihood

    • In this order, the Court ignored its long-standing jurisprudence on the right to livelihood.
    • In the landmark decision concerning pavement-dwellers, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis & Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1985) held that the right to life also includes the “right to livelihood”.
    • Further, in Chameli Singh vs. the State Of U.P. (1995), the Supreme Court recognised the “right to shelter” as a component of the right to life under Article 21 and freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(e).

    3) Failure to consider policies and case laws

    •  High Court of Delhi has held that prior to any eviction, a survey must be conducted.
    • The procedure laid down in this judgment formed the basis for the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
    • In Ajay Maken & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. (2019), the Delhi High Court invoked the idea of the “Right to the City” to uphold the housing rights of slum dwellers.
    • This case led to the framing of a Draft Protocol for the 2015 Policy on how meaningful engagement with residents should be conducted.

    Conclusion

    The Courts need to strike the balance between the rights of the slum dweller and those affected by the encroachment.

  • What constitutes a breach of the legislature’s privilege?

    A motion for breach of privilege was moved in the Maharashtra Assembly against a news channel’s editor-in-chief. A similar motion was moved in the Maharashtra Legislative Council against an actor.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.With reference to the Parliament of India, which of the following Parliamentary Committees scrutinizes and reports to the House whether the powers to make regulations, rules, sub-rules, by-laws etc. conferred by the constitution of delegated by the Parliament are being properly exercised by the Executive within the scope of such delegation?

    (a) Committee on Government Assurances

    (b) Committee on Subordinate Legislation

    (c) Rules Committee

    (d) Business Advisory Committee

    Provisions to protect the privileges of the legislature

    • The powers, privileges and immunities of either House of the Indian Parliament and of its Members and committees are laid down in Article 105 of the Constitution.
    • Article 194 deals with the powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislatures, their Members and their committees.
    • Parliamentary privilege refers to the right and immunity enjoyed by legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties.

    What constitutes a breach of this privilege?

    • While the Constitution has accorded special privileges and powers to parliamentarians and legislators to maintain the dignity and authority of the Houses, these powers and privileges are not codified.
    • Thus, there are no clear, notified rules to decide what constitutes a breach of privilege, and the punishment it attracts.
    • Any act that obstructs or impedes either House of the state legislature in performing its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results is treated as a breach of privilege.
    • It is a breach of privilege and contempt to print or publish libel reflecting on the character or proceedings of the House or its Committees or on any member of the House for or relating to his character or conduct as a legislator.

    Procedure followed in cases of an alleged breach

    • The Legislative Assembly Speaker or Legislative Council Chairman constitutes a Privileges Committee consisting of 15 members in the Assembly and 11 members in the Council.
    • The members to the committee which has quasi-judicial powers are nominated based on the party strength in the Houses.
    • The Speaker or Chairman first decides on the motions.
    • If the privilege and contempt are found prima facie, then the Speaker or Chairman will forward it to the Privileges Committee by following the due procedure.
    • At present, there is no Privileges Committee in either House of the state legislature.
    • The Committee will seek an explanation from all the concerned, will conduct an inquiry and will make a recommendation based on the findings to the state legislature for its consideration.

    What is the punishment for this?

    • If the Committee finds the offender guilty of breach of privilege and contempt, it can recommend the punishment.
    • The punishment can include communicating the displeasure of the state legislature to the offender, summoning the offender before the House and giving a warning, and even sending the offender to jail.
    • In the case of the media, press facilities of the state legislature may be withdrawn, and a public apology may be sought.

  • Explained: Maratha quota — the agitation, the politics

    The Supreme Court has referred to a Constitution Bench the question of whether states can exceed the 50% limit on quotas that were set by a nine-judge Bench in the landmark Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) case.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q.The quota policy for OBCs needs an urgent revisit. Comment.

    Marathas and their ‘backwardness’

    • The Marathas are a politically dominant community who make up 32% of Maharashtra’s population.
    • They have historically been identified as a ‘warrior’ caste with large landholdings. Eleven of the state’s 19 chief ministers so far have been Marathas.
    • While the division of land and agrarian problems over the years have led to a decline of prosperity among middle- and lower-middle-class Marathas, the community still plays an important role in the rural economy.
    • The discontent in the community was a spillover into protests and unrest until the quota was announced.
    • The second phase of the protest saw a spate of suicides. The backward Marathwada region was the worst affected by the protests.

    What was the case?

    • A Bench of the SC heard a batch of petitions challenging reservations for Marathas in education and jobs in Maharashtra.
    • The petitions appealed a 2019 Bombay High Court decision that upheld the constitutional validity of the Maratha quota under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018.
    • The Bench also heard a petition challenging admission to postgraduate medical and dental courses under the quota in the state.

    Earlier Bombay HC ruling

    • The Bombay HC ruled last year that the 16% quota granted by the state was not “justifiable”, and reduced it to 12% in education and 13% in government jobs, as recommended by the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC).
    • The Bench ruled that the limit of the reservation should not exceed 50%.
    • However, in exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations, this limit can be crossed subject to availability of quantifiable and contemporaneous data reflecting backwardness, the inadequacy of representation and without affecting the efficiency in administration.
    • The court relied heavily on the findings of the 11-member MSBCC, which submitted in November 2018 that the Maratha community is socially, economically and educationally backwards.

    Existing reservation

    • Following the 2001 State Reservation Act, the total reservation in Maharashtra was 52%: SCs (13%), STs (7%), OBCs (19%), Special Backward Class (2%), Vimukta Jati (3%), Nomadic Tribe B (2.5%), Nomadic Tribe C (3.5%) and Nomadic Tribe D (2%).
    • The quotas for Nomadic Tribes and Special Backward Classes have been carved out of the total OBC quota.
    • With the addition of 12-13% Maratha quota, the total reservation in the state went up to 64-65%.
    • The 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) announced by the Centre last year is also effective in the state.

  • Making the local governance strong

    The article analyses the issues faced by democracy in India and suggests the way out in the form of strong local governments.

    Issues being faced by Indian democracy

    1. Issue of use of money power

    • Around the world, electoral democracies face the issues of funding political parties and elections.
    • Money is required to win elections legitimately, even when people are not bribed to vote, which is illegitimate.
    • Communications with citizens can be very expensive.
    • Advertisements have to be paid for as well as teams of professionals for managing social media.
    • The race to raise more money for legitimate electioneering purposes can corrupt the process of funding parties and elections.
    • Solutions are not easy because the right to free speech cannot be denied.

    2.Issues with deliberations by the representatives

    • Debates within India’s Parliament hardly inspire citizens’ confidence in their representatives’ ability to govern the country.
    • The problem in electoral democracies is also in the conduct of their deliberations when they come together.
    • This problem is not due to the quality of the individuals, it is inherent in the design of the process for electing representatives.
    • Representatives of the people must be chosen by smaller electorates within geographical constituencies.
    • But when they meet together in the national chamber, they are expected to govern the whole country.
    • They must shed the interest of their constituency and consider what will be best for the whole country.
    • Constituency favouring leads to challenges for equitable solutions for sharing of river waters, and to railway stations.
    • Electing good representatives to Assemblies is not enough to ensure good decisions will be made.

    3.Role of political parties: Lack of inner democracies

    • Function of parties: Political parties in electoral democracies provide a solution to the problem of creating an alignment of views among representatives from hundreds of constituencies around the country.
    • A party’s point of view on fundamental matters can unite many.
    •  However, when there are too many parties and too many contradictory points of view to be accommodated within a coalition, governance can break down.
    • Therefore, political parties are not evil.
    • However, when political parties are not internally democratic, they become a source to amass power and wealth, and democratic nations suffer.

    So, should we adopt direct form of democracy

    • For the reason stated above, it has become very difficult in representative democracies to arrive at good and fair decisions for the governance of a large state or country.
    • New Internet technologies make adoption of direct form of democracy possible.
    • But, if all voters have not understood what is at stake, they cannot decide well this is what happened in hasty Brexit referendum.

    Way Forward

    1.Need for the strong local governance

    • Complex issues, where many interests collide, must be resolved by reason, not settled by the numbers.
    •  Hence there is no alternative to good local governance, wherein citizens manage their local affairs democratically.
    • One-size solutions devised by experts at the centre cannot fit all.
    • Local systems solutions are essential to solve global systemic problems of environmental sustainability and inclusive growth.

    2.Funding and Intra-Party Democracy related reforms

    • Electoral funding must be cleaned up, and democracy within political parties improved to make representative democracy work better.
    • This will require big changes to entrenched systems.
    • Citizens must appreciate that they have to be the source of solutions, and not become only the source of problems.
    • Citizens must learn to listen to each other’s perspectives in their villages and in their urban neighbourhoods.

    What are the challenges the electoral process in India faces? Suggest the solution to the issues democracy in India faces.

    Conclusion

    Since India’s Independence 73 years ago when the power of government was transferred from a centre in London to a centre in Delhi, strong local governance remains the unfinished agenda to make India’s democracy strong and deep.

  • Judiciary and challenges ahead

    The relations between the judiciary and executive have always been tumultuous. This article analyses the changes in the judiciary’s relations with the executive after 2014.

    Relations with executive

    • In 2014 government blocked the elevation of Gopal Subramanium as a judge of the apex court.
    • A month later, the government introduced a bill to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
    • The NJAC Act was passed by Parliament in December 2014.
    • In October 2015, the SC struck down the NJAC Act, ruling that it would affect the independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive.
    • Following striking down of the NJAC Act, the SC directed the government to propose a new memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointments to the higher judiciary.
    • The draft government sent to the Court allowed the government to reject any name recommended by the Collegium on grounds of national security and made it compulsory for the Collegium to justify its selection.
    • The Collegium rejected these clauses and the MoP could never be finalised.
    • The government sat on the appointments that the Collegium had recommended months ago.
    •  In April 2016, 170 proposals for appointments to the high courts were pending at that time.

    SC’s perceived reluctance  to question executive after 2017

    • Appointments and transfers ceased to be a problem because the Collegium accepted the appointments and transfers.
    • The Court considered that the Aadhaar Bill could be passed as a Money Bill, validated the Electoral Bonds Act.
    • The SC also abstained from dealing with sensitive issues like the abolition of Article 370 or the Citizenship Amendment Act.
    • This modus operandi of the court, when applied to Aadhaar, created a fait accompli.

    3 questions over the SC’s role

    • 1) The court’s reluctance to question the government on contentious issues — from J&K to misuse of sedition law or the NRC — is disturbing.
    • 2) The manner in which the judiciary has addressed allegations against itself — Kalikho Pul or Prasad Education Trust or on sexual harassment — gives a handle to those in power.
    • 3) The independence of the judiciary is inevitably affected by the acceptance of post-retirement jobs.

    Consider the question “While playing its role, judiciary faces several challenges from the other organs of the democracy. In light of this, examine the challenges judiciary in India faces from the executive.”

    Conclusion

    Supreme Court’s apparent reluctance to question government on consequential issues affects its moral authority.

  • Kesavananda Bharati: The petitioner who saved democracy

    Kesavananda Bharati (80), the sole unwitting petitioner in the historic Fundamental Rights case which prevented the nation from slipping into a totalitarian regime has passed away.

    Who was Kesavananda Bharati?

    • Kesavananda Bharati was the head seer of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod district of Kerala since 1961.
    • He left his signature in one of the significant rulings of the Supreme Court when he challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970.

    What was his case?

    • A 13-judge bench was set up by the Supreme Court, the biggest so far, and the case was heard over 68 working days spread over six months.
    • The Bench gave 11 separate judgments that agreed and disagreed on many issues but a majority judgment of seven judges were stitched together by then CJI SM Sikri on the eve of his retirement.
    • However, the basic structure doctrine, which was evolved in the majority judgment, was found in the conclusions of the opinion written by one judge — Justice H R Khanna.

    What was the case about?

    • The case was primarily about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
    • First, the court was reviewing a 1967 decision in Golaknath v State of Punjab which, reversing earlier verdicts, had ruled that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
    • Second, the court was deciding the constitutional validity of several other amendments.
    • Notably, the right to property had been removed as a fundamental right, and Parliament had also given itself the power to amend any part of the Constitution and passed a law that it cannot be reviewed by the courts.
    • The executive vs judiciary manoeuvres displayed in the amendments ended with the Kesavananda Bharati case, in which the court had to settle these issues conclusively.
    • Politically, the case represented the fight for supremacy of Parliament led by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

    What did the court decide?

    • In its majority ruling, the court held that fundamental rights cannot be taken away by amending them.
    • While the court said that Parliament had vast powers to amend the Constitution, it drew the line by observing that certain parts are so inherent and intrinsic to the Constitution that even Parliament cannot touch it.
    • However, despite the ruling that Parliament cannot breach fundamental rights, the court upheld the amendment that removed the fundamental right to property.
    • The court ruled that in spirit, the amendment would not violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
    • Kesavananda Bharati, in fact, lost the case. But as many legal scholars point out, the government did not win the case either.

    What is the basic structure doctrine?

    • The origins of the basic structure doctrine are found in the German Constitution which, after the Nazi regime, was amended to protect some basic laws.
    • The original Weimar Constitution, which gave Parliament to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority, was in fact used by Hitler to his advantage to made radical changes.
    • Learning from that experience, the new German Constitution introduced substantive limits on Parliament’s powers to amend certain parts of the Constitution which it considered ‘basic law’.
    • In India, the basic structure doctrine has formed the bedrock of judicial review of all laws passed by Parliament. No law can impinge on the basic structure.
    • What the basic structure is, however, has been a continuing deliberation. While parliamentary democracy, fundamental rights, judicial review, secularism are all held by courts as the basic structure, the list is not exhaustive.

    What was the fallout of the verdict?

    • Politically, as a result of the verdict, the judiciary faced its biggest litmus test against the executive.
    • Then government did not take kindly to the majority opinion and superseded three judges —J M Shelat, A N Grover and K S Hegde — who were in line to be appointed CJI after Justice Sikri.
    • The supersession resulted in a decades-long continuing battle on the independence of the judiciary and the extent of Parliament’s power to appoint judges.
    • But the ruling has cemented the rejection of majoritarian impulses to make sweeping changes or even replace the Constitution and underlined the foundations of modern democracy.

    Significance of the Judgement

    • The judgment introduced the Basic Structure doctrine which limited Parliament’s power to make drastic amendments that may affect the core values enshrined in the Constitution like secularism and federalism.
    • The verdict upheld the power of the Supreme Court to judicially review laws of Parliament.
    • It evolved the concept of separation of powers among the three branches of governance — legislative, executive and the judiciary.
    • The Emergency was proclaimed shortly after the judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973.
    • It proved timely and thwarted many an attempt on democracy and dignity of an individual during those dark years.