Recently, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said that there are many challenges in giving dual citizenship to Indians living abroad. He mentioned that the Overseas Citizenship of India program is a step towards addressing this need and added that the discussion about dual citizenship is still ongoing.
What are the arguments for and against dual citizenship in India?
Arguments Against Dual Citizenship:
Divided Loyalties: Critics argue that dual citizenship would lead to divided loyalties, undermining national integrity. Political rights granted to dual citizens could create conflicts of allegiance between India and another country, which is seen as dangerous for India’s sovereignty.
Legal Restrictions: The Indian Constitution mandates that acquiring citizenship in another country results in the automatic loss of Indian citizenship. This legal framework does not support dual citizenship, making it a complex issue to address.
Historical Context: The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 reflects a cautious approach to citizenship rights, emphasizing the need for complete loyalty to India and limiting the scope of citizenship to those who relinquish foreign nationality.
Arguments For Dual Citizenship:
Global Integration: Proponents believe that allowing dual citizenship could strengthen ties between India and its diaspora, fostering economic and cultural exchanges in an increasingly globalized world.
Economic Contributions: There is a belief that dual citizenship could attract foreign investment and encourage Indian expatriates to contribute more significantly to India’s economy without the fear of losing their original nationality.
How does India’s stance on dual citizenship compare with other democracies?
India’s Position on Dual Citizenship: According to Article 9 of the Indian Constitution, any Indian citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country ceases to be an Indian citizen. This is reinforced by the Citizenship Act of 1955, which outlines that Indian citizenship is singular and does not accommodate dual nationality.
Comparison with Other Democracies
United States: The U.S. has no restrictions on dual citizenship. Citizens can hold multiple nationalities without losing their U.S. citizenship. This reflects a more permissive approach towards allegiance and nationality.
Canada: Canada also allows dual citizenship and recognizes the right of its citizens to hold multiple nationalities. This policy facilitates a diverse and multicultural society.
Australia: Similar to Canada, Australia permits dual nationality and extends full consular assistance to its citizens regardless of their other nationalities.
Germany: Germany has specific regulations regarding dual citizenship, generally requiring individuals to choose one nationality unless they are EU citizens or meet certain conditions. This reflects a more nuanced approach than India’s outright prohibition.
What are the current legal frameworks?
Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI): Introduced in 2005, OCI allows persons of Indian origin from certain countries to reside in India without a visa and grants them some rights akin to those of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs). However, OCIs do not have voting rights or the ability to hold constitutional offices.
Eligibility: The OCI scheme is available primarily to individuals who were citizens of India or eligible for Indian citizenship at the time of the Constitution’s commencement, excluding those from Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is contingent upon the individual’s home country allowing some form of dual citizenship.
What are the challenges?
Political Loyalty Concerns: There is a prevalent fear that granting dual citizenship would lead to divided loyalties among citizens, particularly regarding political rights.
Public Sentiment and Political Will: There is significant public resistance against dual citizenship due to concerns about national security and sovereignty.
Complexity of Implementation: Implementing a dual citizenship framework would require substantial legal changes and could complicate India’s existing immigration and nationality laws. The challenge lies in balancing the interests of the diaspora with the need to maintain a cohesive national identity.
Way forward:
Gradual Legal Reforms: India could consider a phased approach to dual citizenship by first allowing it for specific categories such as diaspora members who maintain close economic or cultural ties with India, while ensuring that political rights remain exclusive to Indian citizens only.
Enhanced OCI Benefits: India could expand the rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) holders, granting them more privileges such as the right to vote or hold certain offices, without granting full dual citizenship.
Mains PYQ:
Q ‘Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European Countries’. Comment with examples. (UPSC IAS/2020)
The Central Government has directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to implement Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This provision seeks to relieve undertrial prisoners (UTPs) by addressing prolonged detention and mitigating prison overcrowding.
What is Section 479 of the BNSS?
Section 479 governs the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner (UTP) can be detained during investigation, inquiry, or trial.
It is based on Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
It aims to address the prolonged detention of UTPs, ensure their timely release on bail or bond, and maintain fairness and accountability in the judicial process.
This section applies to cases where the punishment does not include death or life imprisonment, and introduces clear mechanisms for review and action, thereby mitigating issues like prison overcrowding.
Key Provisions under Section 479 of BNSS:
Eligibility for Bail: Undertrials (UTPs) who have served half of their maximum possible sentence may be released on bail; the court must provide written reasons if they decide to extend detention after hearing the Public Prosecutor.
First-Time Offenders: UTPs with no prior convictions who have served one-third of their maximum sentence are eligible for release on bond, aligning with the principle of reformative justice.
Superintendent’s Responsibility: Jail superintendents must submit a written application to the court for the release of UTPs upon completion of the applicable detention period (one-third or one-half, depending on eligibility).
Exclusions: The provision does not apply to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, and any delay caused by the accused is excluded from the detention period calculation.
Limitations for Multiple Offences: Accused individuals facing multiple offences or multiple charges are not covered, ensuring the provision is not misused in complex or repeated criminal cases.
Absolute Ceiling on Detention: Detention cannot exceed the maximum imprisonment term prescribed for the offence, preventing indefinite incarceration.
Judicial Oversight: Courts must ensure extended detention serves public safety and justice, requiring input from the Public Prosecutor for any continued confinement.
Mandatory Review Mechanism: A statutory review process is in place to prevent prolonged undertrial detention and address potential oversights or delays.
Safeguard against Misuse: Time delays caused by the accused do not count towards the detention period, ensuring fair application of the law.
Focus on Reform and Decongestion: By expediting bail and bond processes for eligible UTPs, the law aims to reduce overcrowding in prisons and uphold reformative objectives.
PYQ:
[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements :
1. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in jail.
2. During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Q) Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC CSE 2017)
Q) The judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (UPSC CSE 2020)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains has always focused on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ (2017) and Comparison between judicial systems in India and the UK (2020)
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is starting his final working week. During his time leading the Supreme Court Collegium, the team worked hard to fill judicial vacancies but overlooked some important issues.In two years, the Collegium supported free speech online, dignity for all regardless of sexual orientation, and fairness in judicial appointments.
Today’s editorial talks about the reform in the Collegium system of India and this content will help you in the Mains answer (GS II) paper to steps taken in reform related to the Judicial system in India.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
Recently, two significant developments regarding the Supreme Court of India’s Collegium have emerged – firstly, the interviews for Judicial Candidates and secondly the exclusion of Relatives in Judiciary.
The Collegium will now conduct interviews for candidates recommended for High Court elevation, shifting from a reliance on biodata to personal assessments.
The Collegium is considering excluding candidates with close relatives who are or have been judges, aiming to reduce nepotism and promote diversity in judicial appointments.
How is the Collegium system adapting to recent controversies and challenges?
Candidate Interviews: The Collegium has decided to conduct interviews for candidates recommended for elevation to High Courts. This step aims to enhance the selection process by allowing decision-makers to engage directly with nominees, thereby improving the assessment of their qualifications.
Exclusion of Relatives: The Collegium plans to exclude candidates whose close relatives have served or are currently serving as judges in the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
This initiative seeks to promote diversity within the judiciary and reduce concerns about nepotism, although it recognizes that some deserving candidates may be overlooked.
Need for Formal Rules: There is a pressing need for a clear set of binding rules governing the Collegium’s functioning. Currently, the system operates without formal regulations, leading to concerns about accountability and transparency. Establishing such rules is essential for maintaining the integrity of the judicial appointment process.
What is the Collegium system?
The Three Judges Cases form the cornerstone of the collegium system in India, which governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary. These cases interpreted the provisions of Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution, dealing with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively.
•First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that the executive (President) has primacy in judicial appointments, and the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) opinion is not binding, granting greater power to the executive. •Second Judges Case (1993): The court overruled the First Judges Case, establishing the collegium system, where judicial appointments and transfers are decided by the judiciary, led by the CJI and senior judges, ensuring judicial independence. •Third Judges Case (1998): The collegium was expanded to include the CJI and the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments and CJI with two senior-most judges for High Court appointments, refining the process for transparency and collective decision-making.
What is the criticism of the Collegium system?
•NJAC Act (2014): Parliament attempted to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, the NJAC was struck down in the Fourth Judges Case (2015) as unconstitutional, as it was deemed to compromise the independence of the judiciary. •Ongoing Debates: Critics argue that the collegium system lacks transparency, accountability, and an objective process for appointments. Reforms to balance independence with accountability remain a contentious issue.
What are the potential consequences of leadership changes within the Supreme Court for the Collegium’s future?
Impact on Reform Initiatives: New Chief Justices may prioritize different aspects of judicial appointments, influencing how reforms are implemented. A Chief Justice committed to reform could advocate for greater transparency and adherence to established procedures, while a more conservative leader might resist changes.
Shifts in Decision-Making Dynamics: The leadership style of incoming Chief Justices can alter the dynamics within the Collegium, affecting how candidates are evaluated and selected. This could lead to variations in collegial discussions and recommendations.
Implementation of Existing Rules: The ability to enforce existing legal frameworks related to judicial appointments will depend on the leadership’s willingness to uphold rulings from previous Judges’ cases. Respecting these rulings is crucial for maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that the law is followed.
Way forward:
Formalize Collegium Procedures: Draft and implement clear binding rules to govern the Collegium’s functioning which ensures transparency, accountability, and merit-based judicial appointments while addressing concerns of nepotism and bias.
Strengthen Institutional Practices: Institutionalize reforms like candidate interviews, broaden diversity, and adopt technology-driven decision-making to enhance efficiency, fairness, and public confidence in the judiciary.
Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi walked out of the Legislative Assembly without giving his opening address for the first session of the year, saying the National Anthem was not played before his speech. Last year, he also refused to read his address.
What is the practice followed in the TN Legislative Assembly during and after the Governor’s address?
Governor’s Address Protocol: Traditionally, the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu (state anthem) is sung at the beginning of the Governor’s address, while the National Anthem is played at the end. This practice was established in July 1991 during the AIADMK government led by Jayalalithaa.
Recent Incident: Governor R.N. Ravi walked out of the Assembly without delivering his address, citing that only the state anthem was played upon his arrival and not the National Anthem. He expressed that this constituted a disrespect to both the Constitution and the National Anthem.
Is singing the National Anthem mandatory on certain occasions?
Constitutional Duty: Article 51(A)(a) of the Constitution includes respecting the National Anthem as a fundamental duty of every citizen. However, it does not make its singing or playing mandatory on specific occasions.
Government Guidelines: The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Orders specify occasions when the National Anthem must be played, such as during civil and military investitures, parades, arrival/departure of the President or Governor, and ceremonial State functions.
Judicial Clarifications: The courts have observed that while the National Anthem deserves respect, its singing or playing on all occasions is not mandatory unless explicitly specified.
For instance, during cinema screenings, the Supreme Court ruled that playing the anthem is not obligatory but encouraged.
Can punishment be imposed if it isn’t played at official functions?
Legal Provisions: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 penalizes deliberate insult or contempt of the National Anthem with imprisonment up to 3 years, a fine, or both.
Non-playing or non-singing of the anthem does not attract punishment unless it is a willful act of disrespect.
Relevant Case Example: In 2019, the Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking punishment for the non-playing of the National Anthem at an official function, citing the lack of a legal mandate to enforce its singing or playing on all occasions.
Why does the government make the national anthem on major government occasions?
Fostering Unity and National Pride: Playing the National Anthem at significant government events reinforces a sense of collective identity, unity, and patriotism among citizens. It serves as a symbolic reminder of shared national values and aspirations, transcending regional, linguistic, and cultural differences.
Respecting Constitutional Ideals: Mandating the National Anthem aligns with Article 51(A)(a) of the Constitution, which enshrines the fundamental duty of every citizen to respect the National Anthem.
Its inclusion in major events underscores the importance of honouring national symbols and promoting a culture of respect and accountability in public life.
Way forward:
Establish Uniform Protocols: The government should issue clear and consistent guidelines for playing the National Anthem at official events to avoid confusion and ensure uniformity across states and institutions.
Promote Awareness and Respect: Conduct awareness campaigns emphasising the significance of the National Anthem as a unifying symbol, fostering voluntary respect and participation without compulsion or controversy.
Mains PYQ:
Q Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. (UPSC IAS/2022)
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla inaugurated “Panchayat Se Parliament 2.0” which seeks to give insight into the Constitution and parliamentary procedures to over 500 women representatives from Panchayati Raj institutions from across the country.
About“Panchayat Se Parliament”
The second edition of the program was organized by the National Commission for Women (NCW) in collaboration with the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.
The program brought together 502 elected women representatives from Scheduled Tribes, hailing from 22 states and Union Territories across India.
Objectives: The primary objectives of Panchayat Se Parliament 2.0 were to:
Empower women representatives by enhancing their understanding of constitutional provisions, parliamentary procedures, and governance frameworks.
Recognize the contributions of women leaders in areas such as education, rural development, and community welfare.
The first edition of the program, Panchayat Se Parliament 1.0, was held in January 2024.
It involved over 500 women sarpanches from across India and was organized by the National Commission for Women (NCW) in collaboration with the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
About National Commission for Women (NCW)
The NCW is a statutory body formed on 31 January 1992 under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990, to address women’s issues.
First Chairperson: Jayanti Patnaik.
Constitutional Provisions: Articles 15(3), 14, and 21 provide gender-neutral safeguards.
Objectives:
Represent women’s rights in India and provide a platform for their concerns.
Campaign topics: Dowry, politics, labor exploitation, police abuses, and equal representation in jobs.
Composition:
Chairperson: Nominated by the Central Government.
Five Members: Experts from fields like law, education, health, and women’s welfare.
Special Representation: One member each from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Powers:
Provide policy consultations.
Issue summons and requisition public records.
Receive evidence on affidavits and enforce attendance.
Functions:
Annual Reports: Submit reports on women’s safeguards.
Investigation: Examine laws and constitutional protections.
Scrutiny: Review laws and recommend amendments.
Complaint Handling: Address rights violations and welfare laws.
Development Assessment: Monitor progress at national and state levels.
Systemic Improvements: Identify and resolve limitations in women’s welfare systems.
PYQ:
[2017] Is the National Commission for Women able to strategize and tackle the problems that women face at both public and private spheres? Give reasons in support of your answer.
Q) ‘Simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering but it will reduce the government’s accountability to the people’ Discuss. (UPSC CSE 2024)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on topics like ‘Election Commission of India’ (2022) and ‘Simultaneous Elections’ (2024).
The current political landscape in India faces significant challenges that threaten the foundational principles of federalism and democracy. Issues such as financial centralization, proposed electoral reforms, and the misuse of Constitutional provisions are central to this discourse
Today’s Editorial focuses on Electoral Reforms and the recent initiatives taken by the government. This content can be used for presenting the main answer while talking on ‘Centralization issues’ and ‘Federal challenges faced by Democratic Elections’.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
The proposal for ‘One Nation and One Election’ have cited several administrative and fiscal efficiencies in the recent Parliamentary debates.
Key Takeaways from the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill.
Scope of Simultaneous Polls: It applies only to Parliament and state Assemblies, excluding municipal corporations. Municipal elections are excluded to avoid the need for ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, a more complex process.
The simultaneous polls may begin with the 2034 election cycle, assuming the 18th and 19th Lok Sabhas complete full five-year terms.
The Bills include provisions for situations where mid-term elections might be required at the state or central level.
The Bill proposes changes to three existing articles through Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024.
It amends Articles 83 (duration of Houses of Parliament), 172 (duration of state legislatures), and 327 (power of Parliament to make provisions with respect to elections to Legislatures).
A new provision (Article 82A, clauses 1-6) is introduced to enable simultaneous elections. This article pertains to delimitation and provisions are as follows:
Article 82A (1) the President can notify the appointed date for the changes after the first sitting of the Lok Sabha following a general election.
Article 82A (2): Assemblies elected after the appointed date but before the Lok Sabha’s term ends will have their terms curtailed to align with the Lok Sabha’s full five-year term.
Article 82A (3): The ECI is tasked with conducting general elections for the Lok Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies simultaneously.
Article 82A (4): Simultaneous elections are defined as “general elections held for constituting the House of the People and all the Legislative Assemblies together.”
Article 82A (5): The ECI may recommend postponing a particular Assembly election if it determines simultaneous elections are not feasible. The President can then issue an order for those elections to be conducted separately.
Article 82A (6): If an Assembly election is deferred, the term of that Assembly will still end with the full term of the Lok Sabha elected in the general election.
Proposed Amendments to Lok Sabha’s Term and Dissolution: Changes to Article 83 are supposed to be made wrt Lok Sabha’s term adjustment that prescribes a fixed five-year term for Lok Sabha unless dissolved earlier. If Lok Sabha is dissolved before completing its full term, the next Lok Sabha will only serve the unexpired period of the original term.
For Example, if Lok Sabha is dissolved after 3 years and 2 months, the subsequent Lok Sabha will serve the remaining 22 months.
Amendments to Article 327: Article 327 gives Parliament the authority to legislate on matters related to elections, including electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies. The amendment proposes adding “conduct of simultaneous elections” to this list. This ensures Parliament can make provisions to align elections for both Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures.
Proposed Amendments for State Assemblies changes to Article 172: Similar to Lok Sabha, state Assemblies’ terms will also align with the “unexpired term” provision. If a state Assembly is dissolved before its full term, elections will be conducted for the remaining term of the dissolved Assembly.
The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024: The Union Territories are governed under a separate constitutional scheme that is different from states.
The purpose of the Bill is to align Union Territories with the framework for simultaneous elections and amend the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 that adjusts to enable synchronized elections in Union Territories.
It also proposes to amend the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 and Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 to include them within the simultaneous election framework.
What is the historical context of Simultaneous Elections in India?
Simultaneous elections in India have historical roots, having faced disruptions due to political and constitutional developments.
First Elections (1951-52): The ECI held simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. This practice persisted through three subsequent general elections in 1957, 1962, and 1967.
Disruption of the Cycle: The imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 marked a significant shift in Union-State relations, undermining state autonomy. This was first applied in Kerala in 1959.
Initially Article 356 was deemed as a “dead letter” by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, eventually, became a tool for political expediency, leading to the dismissal of elected state governments from 1950 to 1994.
It has been invoked over 130 times since Independence, distorting its intended purpose and contributing to political instability.
Judicial Intervention: The S.R. Bommai case aimed to restore federal rights and limit arbitrary actions by Governors, yet misuse persists. This is where the proposition put forward by the ONOE to align State election cycles with that of the Lok Sabha gets deeply problematic.
In fact, the proposal goes all the way to make amendments in the Constitution, particularly in Articles 83 and 172, which guarantee a five-year term for Parliament and State Assemblies.
What needs to be addressed?
Address the Misuse of Power and Federal Character: There is a need to tackle the misuse of Article 356 provision, which has implications for State autonomy. A unified electoral cycle could undermine State autonomy and dilute democratic governance.
Strengthening Anti-Defection Laws: Reforms are necessary to ensure political stability within State governments. The Constitution recognizes the diversity and plurality of India, making federalism essential. Ensuring that State governments remain stable is vital for effective governance.
Risks of Hasty Implementation: Implementing ONOE without necessary systemic reforms could threaten the Constitution’s basic structure and exacerbate existing vulnerabilities rather than resolve them.
For Example, historical instances, such as the malfunctioning fax machine incident in Jammu and Kashmir, highlight the fragility of institutional processes in India.
Way Forward: To achieve true democratic governance, it is imperative to commit to the principles of federalism and strengthen State governments as equal partners in India’s federal polity. ONOE should not be seen as a mere procedural change but as part of a broader commitment to reform and accountability within the constitutional framework.
PYQ Relevance: Q) To what extent, in your view, the Parliament can ensure accountability of the executive in India? (UPSC CSE 2021)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on Parliamentary Sessions (2017 & 2018) and Parliamentary Powers (2021).
The recently concluded Winter Session of Parliament has been criticized for lacking productivity due to frequent disruptions. These productivity fluctuations indicate broader political tensions and the need for improved collaboration among parliamentary members to enhance governance.
Today’s editorial focuses on Parliamentary productivity and the challenges associated with it. This content can be used to present the current issues faced by our Parliamentary Democracy in India.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
The recent winter session of Parliament (heldfrom November 25 to December 20, 2024) was marred by significant disruptions from both the Opposition and the Treasury benches, resulting in more adjournments than productive discussions.
This led to a prevailing feeling of having disappointed the Indian public.
Key Statistics:
• Total Hours Lost: The Lok Sabha lost 65 hours and 15 minutes due to disruptions, marking the highest loss among all sessions this year. • Productivity Rates: – Lok Sabha: Functioned for only 52% of its scheduled time. – Rajya Sabha: Achieved a mere 40.03% productivity rate, with effective functioning for just 43 hours and 27 minutes.
What were the key Legislative Activities?
Bills introduced and passed: A total of four bills were introduced, including the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024, which was passed in both Houses with minimal opposition. This bill aimed to reform civil aviation regulations.
Other notable bills included the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, which proposes the ‘One Nation, One Election’ policy, and the Coastal Shipping and Merchant Shipping Bills, which focused on maritime industry development.
Debates and Discussions: The Lok Sabha engaged in discussions about the Constitution for a total of 16 hours, while the Rajya Sabha devoted 17 hours to similar discussions. However, no adjournment motions were accepted in either House.
The proposal for ‘One Nation, One Election’ sparked considerable debate, with the government advocating for it as a cost-saving measure while the Opposition raised concerns about its implications for federalism.
A special session was held to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Constitution, although it was overshadowed by ongoing protests.
Further, the session saw significant protests and chaos, primarily driven by the Opposition’s demands for discussions on various issues, including allegations against the Adani Group and remarks made regarding Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
Supplementary Budget: The first supplementary budget for 2024-25 was discussed and passed, providing an additional expenditure of ₹44,143 crore (approximately 1% of total budgeted expenditure) to enhance financial operations.
What were the challenges facedin the session?
Physical Altercations: Scuffles occurred among MPs, resulting in injuries and an FIR against the Leader of the Opposition.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister attributed the lack of productivity to persistent demonstrations by the Opposition. Emphasis was laid on the requirement of all parties to collaborate to restore parliamentary decorum.
Question Hour Ineffectiveness: In the Rajya Sabha, Question Hour did not function for 15 out of 19 days, while in the Lok Sabha, it was ineffective for over 10 minutes on 12 out of 20 days.
The session was heavily impacted by protests and disruptions, resulting in the Lok Sabha losing approximately 65 hours of productive time.
This significantly reduced overall productivity, with Lok Sabha functioning at only 52% of its scheduled time and Rajya Sabha at 39%.
Private Members’ Business: There was minimal engagement in private members’ business; no bills were debated in the Lok Sabha, and only one resolution was discussed in the Rajya Sabha.
Way Forward: The Winter Session has been described as one of the least productive in recent years, reflecting a troubling trend in parliamentary proceedings. With ongoing tensions and frequent disruptions, political parties must prioritize effective governance and uphold the dignity of Parliament.
In the U.S. Supreme Court, dissenting opinions often reflect the political views of judges, as they are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. In contrast, dissenting opinions in the Indian judiciary cover a wider range, including political, social, and purely intellectual disagreements
What is the significance of dissenting opinions?
Preservation of Judicial Independence: Dissenting opinions serve as a safeguard for judicial independence, allowing judges to express their disagreements with majority decisions without fear of repercussions. This fosters a culture of open debate within the judiciary, which is essential for a healthy democracy.
Shaping Legal Precedents: Dissent can influence future legal interpretations and decisions. Over time, dissenting views may gain traction and become part of the evolving legal landscape, as seen in cases like ADM Jabalpur and P.V. Narasimha Rao, where dissents later informed subsequent rulings.
Encouraging Public Discourse: Dissenting opinions can stimulate public discussion and debate about important legal and constitutional issues. They often highlight alternative perspectives that may resonate with societal values or concerns, thereby enriching democratic dialogue.
How does dissent in the Indian judiciary compare to that in the U.S.?
Political Influences: In the U.S., dissent often reflects the political affiliations of justices, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. For example, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissents align with conservative viewpoints on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
In contrast, Indian judges are selected through a collegium system, which aims to reduce political influence on judicial decisions, resulting in dissents that may not necessarily align with current political sentiments.
Nature of Dissents: U.S. Supreme Court dissents frequently stem from ideological divides among justices, whereas Indian judicial dissents encompass a broader spectrum, including political, social, and intellectual disagreements.
For instance, Justices Khehar and Nazeer in Shayara Bano focused on the social implications of personal law rather than political affiliations.
Impact on Law: While both systems recognise the importance of dissent in shaping jurisprudence, Indian dissents have historically led to significant legal changes post-ruling, as seen in cases like Sita Soren where earlier dissents influenced the court’s later position on parliamentary immunity.
What challenges and criticisms surround judicial dissent in India?
Risk of Retaliation: Judges who dissent against majority opinions may face professional backlash or career repercussions. Notable cases include Justice H.R. Khanna, who was superseded as Chief Justice after his dissent in ADM Jabalpur, highlighting potential risks for dissenters within the judiciary.
Infrequent Dissent: Despite its importance, dissent is relatively rare in the Indian Supreme Court compared to its potential significance. The Chief Justice often avoids dissenting opinions in constitutional bench cases, which raises concerns about conformity over independent judicial reasoning.
Public Perception: Judicial dissent can sometimes be viewed negatively by the public or political entities as undermining judicial authority or coherence. This perception can discourage judges from expressing their dissent openly.
What are the accountable-related issues?
High Bar for Impeachment: The process requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it almost impossible to remove errant judges.
Resignation to Evade Accountability: Judges like Justice Soumitra Sen and P.D. Dinakaran resigned before the completion of impeachment proceedings, avoiding scrutiny while retaining post-retirement benefits.
Immunity Misuse: Judges continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits even after accusations of misconduct, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermining accountability.
Limited Scope for Independent Oversight: The judiciary lacks an independent review mechanism outside the Parliament-driven impeachment process, leaving little room for holding judges accountable in real time.
What is the review mechanism of committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
Initiation: A removal motion, signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, is submitted and approved by the Speaker or Chairman to initiate the process.
Investigation: A three-member committee (Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist) is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Parliamentary Decision: If the committee confirms the charges, the motion is debated in Parliament and requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal by the President.
Way forward:
Institutional Support for Dissent: Establish mechanisms to safeguard dissenting judges from career repercussions, such as transparent evaluation criteria and protections for judicial independence, ensuring open debate within the judiciary.
Promote Judicial Dialogue: Encourage a culture of constructive dissent by incorporating dissenting opinions into judicial training and fostering recognition of their long-term contributions to legal evolution.
Mains PYQ:
Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (UPSC IAS/2017)
Recently, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event, showing bias against Muslims, has raised concerns about the challenges in holding higher court judges accountable in India.
Why do the judges need to be accountable?
Upholding Judicial Integrity: Judges are the guardians of the Constitution and are expected to exhibit the highest ethical standards to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
Safeguarding Democracy: Accountability ensures that the judiciary acts as a fair and impartial arbiter, without overstepping or undermining democratic institutions.
Preventing Abuse of Power: Judicial independence is vital, but unchecked power can lead to misconduct or corruption, as seen in cases like Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Soumitra Sen.
Maintaining Public Confidence: Accountability is critical to reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary, especially in a democracy where the judiciary acts as a check on other branches of government.
What are the accountable-related issues?
High Bar for Impeachment: The process requires “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making it almost impossible to remove errant judges.
Resignation to Evade Accountability: Judges like Justice Soumitra Sen and P.D. Dinakaran resigned before the completion of impeachment proceedings, avoiding scrutiny while retaining post-retirement benefits.
Immunity Misuse: Judges continue to enjoy post-retirement benefits even after accusations of misconduct, as seen in Justice Ramaswami’s case, undermining accountability.
Limited Scope for Independent Oversight: The judiciary lacks an independent review mechanism outside the Parliament-driven impeachment process, leaving little room for holding judges accountable in real time.
What is the review mechanism of committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
Initiation: A removal motion, signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, is submitted and approved by the Speaker or Chairman to initiate the process.
Investigation: A three-member committee (Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist) is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Parliamentary Decision: If the committee confirms the charges, the motion is debated in Parliament and requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses for the judge’s removal by the President.
Is there any accountability limitation by the Constitution for the judges?
Article 124(4) and (5): These articles provide for the removal of judges only through impeachment, which is a political and cumbersome process requiring a majority in Parliament.
Lack of Disqualification: The Constitution does not explicitly disqualify judges found guilty of misconduct from holding future public office.
Insufficient Deterrence: Provisions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, do not offer significant penalties apart from removal, leaving gaps in ensuring judicial accountability.
Ambiguity in “Proved Misbehavior”: The term is not clearly defined, leading to challenges in establishing guilt and enforcing accountability.
Way forward:
Streamlining the Impeachment Process: Simplifying procedures and reducing the threshold for initiating impeachment could make it easier to hold judges accountable.
Clear Disqualification Guidelines: Introducing clear guidelines regarding disqualification from future judicial roles following findings of misconduct would reinforce accountability.
Public Awareness and Advocacy: Increasing public awareness about judicial accountability issues can foster demand for reform and greater scrutiny of judicial conduct.
Legislative Reforms: Revisiting the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to address its limitations and ensure it meets contemporary standards for accountability is crucial for restoring public confidence in the judiciary.
Mains PYQ:
Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.(UPSC IAS/2017)
Justice (Retd.) V Ramasubramanian has been appointed as the new chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Priyank Kanoongo (former NCPCR chief) and Dr. Justice Bidyut Ranjan Sarangi (Retd.) have been appointed as NHRC Members.
About National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Overview
A Statutory Body formed under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993.
Composition and Membership
Chairperson: Must be a former Supreme Court Justice or Chief Justice; appointed by the President.
Members:
Four full-time members:
1 ex-SC Judge (Chairperson),
1 ex-SC Judge,
1 ex-Chief Justice of a High Court,
1 with knowledge/experience in human rights.
At least one woman among the members.
Seven ex-officio members: Chairpersons of National Commissions (e.g., SC/ST, Women, Minorities, etc.) + Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
Appointment Process:
The President appoints based on a recommendation committee (PM, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Home Minister, Leaders of Opposition, etc.).
Judicial appointments: Consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
Removal: By an order of the President, after consultation with the Supreme Court.
Terms of Office:
3-year term or until the age of 70.
Eligible for reappointment, but not for other government jobs.
Salaries: Determined by the Central Government.
Reporting: Submits reports to the Centre and concerned states; these are tabled before legislatures with an action-taken report.
Limitations:
No inquiry after one year from the alleged violation.
Functions are recommendatory; no direct power to punish or award relief.
Limited role in armed forces cases.
Powers and Functions
Functions:
Inquire into alleged human rights violations.
Recommend interim relief to victims or families.
Intervene in court proceedings on human rights matters.
Review constitutional/legal safeguards for human rights.
Study international human rights instruments.
Promote human rights literacy.
Support NGOs in human rights work.
Powers:
Can regulate its own procedure.
Has all powers of a civil court, with judicial character.
PYQ:
[2020] Other than the Fundamental Rights, which of the following parts of the Constitution of India reflect/reflects the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)?
Preamble
Directive Principles of State Policy
Fundamental Duties
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
[2021] Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analysing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.