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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Prime Minister’s Office : Important Updates

  • President’s Rule

    The Case that changed the fate of President’s Rule

    The indiscriminate use of President’s rule to thwart away the state governments who did not meet the ideology of Union led to the landmark verdict in the S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India, 1994, which curtailed the misuse of Article 356.

    Article 356, what? 

    Under Article 356, the President can dismiss a State Government or dissolve a State Assembly or keep it under suspended animation in the event of a failure of the constitutional machinery in that State.

    Lets know the background of the case, shall we?

    In the 1970s & 1980s, it almost became common practice for the central govt. to dismiss state govts led by opposition parties.

    • The Indira Gandhi regime and post-emergency Janata Party were noted for this practice.
    • Indira Gandhi’s government between 1966-1977 is known to have imposed President’ rule in 39 times (not states).
    • In 1989, Karnataka CM S.R. Bommai was denied an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly by the Governor and his govt. was dismissed.

    What do the Constitutional Experts have to say on Art. 356?

    Article 356 has always been the focal point of a wider debate of the federal structure of government in Indian polity.

    • Dr. B R Ambedkar had envisaged that Art. 356 shall remain the dead letter in the Indian constitution.
    • The Sarkaria Commission on central-state relations has recommended that Article 356 must be used very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all the other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.

    What was the S.R. Bommai case?

    S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, delivered in March 1994, had sharply limited the constitutional power vested in the Central Government to dismiss a State government.

    SC established strict guidelines for imposing President’s rule. This case laid down the conditions under which State govts may be dismissed, and mechanisms for that process.

    In terms of the legality of the imposition of President’s Rule in States under Article 356, the SC in this case overruled its own precedent in the case of State of Rajasthan v Union of India 1977 case.

    Let’s briefly understand the State of Rajasthan v Union of India 1977 case

    • SC held that the power of the President to impose President’s Rule is not above and beyond judicial review entirely.
    • The court might insist on substantial evidence in support of the Centre’s charges against a state if the latter accuses the Centre of acting mala fide.

    The Court in the Bommai case, narrowed down the circumstances and the manner in which such powers could be exercised.

    What are conditions for the valid exercise Article 356?

    There was a shift in constitutional jurisprudence as the principle of federalism was part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and this principle could only be deviated from in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, i.e. where constitutional rule was not possible in the State.

    • The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers(CoM) in the state shall be tested on the floor of the house and not subjectively decided by the Governor.
    • Center shall give a warning and a time-period of 1 week to the concerned state.
    • Courts cannot question the advice tendered by the CoM to the President, but court can scrutinizethe material basis of the satisfaction of President.
    • Until the proclamation is approved by the Parliament, President shall not take any irreversibleaction, i.e. he should not dissolution of assembly.
    • Courts have the power to reverse the actions of President, if the Art. 356 is used inappropriately.
    • Art. 356 shall be used sparingly, otherwise it will destroy the constitutional balance between the Center & States.
    Published with inputs from Pushpendra | Image: Frontline

  • Jallikattu Debate

    • Jallikattu is a bull taming sport played in Tamil Nadu as a part of Pongal celebrations on Mattu Pongal day.

    • Jallikattu is derived from the words ‘calli’ (coins) and ‘kattu’ (tie), which means a bundle of coins is tied to the bull’s horns. In older times, the tamer sought to remove this bundle from the animal’s head to win gold or silver.

    • The southern parts of Tamil Nadu witness bull-taming the most, with Alanganallur near Madurai hosting the largest and most famous of these events.

    source
    • Background
    • Factors against the ban
    • Arguments favouring the ban
    • View of SC
    • What can government do?
    • International experience
    • Way ahead

    Factors against the ban

    • Jallikattu is an ancient sport which has continued since colonial times. So it is an ancient tradition which should be preserved and not banned.
    • In Jallikattu, the objective is to obtain the ‘Jallikattu’ a pouch which contains the reward coins called ‘Jalli’ tied to the horns of the bulls. While the players are not allowed to carry weapons of any kind or wear protective gears, the bulls on the other hand will not have nose rings or ropes.
    • Plus, they’re equipped with a pair of sharp horns which can gore a human within seconds. So it’s actually the bull which has the upper hand in this match.
    • Jallikattu is what’s keeping the native breed of cows from going extinct, according to some local people which is a huge problem for western cattle industry.

    Arguments favouring the ban

    • During Jallikattu, bulls are purposefully scared and petrified and then made to run across the crowd, destroying anything that would come in their way. Various cruel means are adopted to scare and anger the bull like pinching, nailing, stabbing with sticks that have nails at the edges, twisting their tails and even forcefully making them drink alcohol and other drugs. The ropes around their nose are painfully yanked and then they are dragged into the crowd of people who further anger the bull.
    • According to the documents by PETA, these bulls also break their bones in order to escape from the crowd continuously trying to toture them. Casualty and death of humans are also alarmingly high during this game.
    • What started as a simple act of bravado has become an act of cruelty towards animals.
    • The bulls are kept in the waiting area for hours, subjecting it to the scorching sun. The bulls used in the sport are also denied food and water.
    • Due to this sport, innumerable human lives, both of the participants and the audience, have also been lost, as the bulls try to flee from the pain.

    View of SC

    • Supreme court in 2014 banned the sport jallikattu as it violates provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) and militates the constitutional duty of treating animals with compassion, Article 51A (g).
    • It also reiterated the expansive reading it had given in the past, to Article 21 (Right to Life), which prohibits any disturbance to the environment, including animals, considered essential for human life.

    What can government do?

    The Government must find alternate methods to continue it without hurting the animal or people. Following are some of the alternatives:

    1. Follow the famous Spanish bullfighting example where measures taken to avoid lethal damage
    2. Put effective protection (barricades, speaker announcements, clear demarcation) so that people are not hurt
    3. Create awareness regarding apathy faced by animals. Sports personalities, film stars, eminent jurists can come forward

    International experience

    • The tradition of bullfighting in Spain is cited to legitimise the conduct of Jallikattu and present it as a viable tourist attraction.
    • It is significant that the Spanish state of Catalonia banned the sport in 2012 after a prolonged ‘culture versus rights’ debate.
    • In 2002, Germany took animal rights to a new level by giving animals constitutional protection.

    Way ahead

    • Those who want the sport to be legalised have called for an amendment to the PCA Act and measures to revoke the 2011 notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) which barred the use of bulls as performing animals.
    • Trying to allow an event that legitimises cruelty to animals would be a direct insult to the carefully reasoned writ of the Supreme Court, a complete negation of the PCA Act and its objectives, and would take the country back by a few steps in the crucial area of Right to Life.

  • Cyber Security – CERTs, Policy, etc

  • Defence Sector – DPP, Missions, Schemes, Security Forces, etc.

  • Death Penalty Abolition Debate

  • Special Category Status and States

    • What is ‘Special Category’ status?
      What benefits do states having ‘Special Category’ status enjoy?
    • Who accords the category status to state and how?
    • Which states held Special category status?
    • Lacunas in the working of Special Category status
    • Why the status has been removed?
    • Way ahead now

    What is ‘Special Category’ status?

    • ‘Special category’ status is a classification given by Centre to assist in development of those states that face geographical & socio-economic disadvantages like hilly terrains, strategic international borders, economic & infrastructural backwardness and non-viable state finances.
    • The classification came into existence in 1969 as per the suggestion given by the Fifth Finance Commission, set up to devise a formula for sharing the funds of Central govt. among all states.

    What benefits do states having ‘Special Category’ status enjoy?

    • Significant concession in excise & customs duties, income tax and corporate tax
    • 30 percent of planned expenditure (central budget) goes to ‘special category’ states
    • Special Category states are benefited because of Normal Central Assistance which was skewed in favour of these states. These states get more funds in terms of NCA and most part of these funds was in the form of grants rather than loans.
    • Special Central Assistance given to SCS is also an additional amount which can be used by the concerned state for economic development.
    • Centre bears 90% of the state expenditure (given as grant) on all centrally-sponsored schemes and external aid while rest 10% is given as loan to state. For general category, the respective grant to loan ratio is 30:70 where as external aid is passed on in the same ratio as received at the centre.
    • Unspent money does not lapse and gets carry forward.

    Hence, special-category status catalyses the inflow of private investments and generates employment and additional revenue to state. Since centre bears 90% of state expenditure on all centrally-sponsored schemes, state can take more welfare-based schemes from the new savings.

    Further, more grants from centre helps in building state infrastructure and social sector projects. As a result, special-category state gets to bridge its development deficit.

    Who accords the category status to state and how?

    Special Category’ status had been granted in the past by the Union government to States having certain characteristics based on the recommendations of the National Development Council.

    These include

    i) hilly terrain;

    ii) low population density and/or sizeable share of tribal population;

    iii) strategic location along borders with neighbouring countries;

    iv) economic and infrastructure backwardness; and

    v) non-viable nature of State finances.

    Special Category States

    source

    Which states held Special category status?

    11 states used to have ‘special category’ status, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand.

    Lacunas in the working of Special Category status

    • Firstly, the way Special Category Status were assigned to a state has been a matter of debate. Various committees used different parameters to classify a state in Special Category status.
    • Some states lobby central government to classify them in special category. This was to be corrected and the consent of majority of state must be taken before granting a special category status to any state.
    • Moreover there should have been a general consensus among states related to principle used for granting the SCS.
    • Secondly, data reveals that even after awarding Special category status not much economic progress has been noticed among states. This may mean that for economic development it’s important to follow sound economic policy. Benefit of SCS may act as a stimulus but rest depends on the individual state policy.
    • Third, the amount of proceeds that states receive has increased after 14th finance commission. So the structure does not seem to have any specific relevance in present context.

    Why has the status been removed now?

    The Finance Ministry’s reasoning for withdrawing the status is that the higher 42% devolution takes into account all needs of states.

    Way ahead?

    Following the demand for Special Status by Bihar, a committee was appointed under Dr. Raghuram Rajan in 2013. This committee suggested that States classified as ‘Special Category States’ and those seeking inclusion in that category, would find that their need for funds and special attention more than adequately met by a basic allocation to each State and the categorisation of some as ‘least developed’.

    Considering special status to any new State will result in demands from other States and dilute the benefits further. It is also not economically beneficial for States to seek special status as the benefits under the current dispensation are minimal. States facing special problems will be better off seeking a special package.

    References:

  • Right To Privacy

  • MGNREGA Scheme

  • North-East India – Security and Developmental Issues