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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Building on favourable change in the 2024 Waqf Bill  

    Why in the News?

    The Waqf Bill 2024, also known as the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) after allies of the Narendra Modi government expressed reluctance to pass it immediately, and opposition parties voiced criticism of the Bill.

    Concerns Acknowledged by the JPC

    1. Inclusion of Non-Muslims: The proposal to include non-Muslim members in state waqf boards has faced significant opposition. Critics argue that this undermines the religious autonomy of Muslim institutions, as similar provisions do not exist for Hindu temples or other religious bodies.
    2. Increased Authority of District Collectors: The Bill grants more powers to district collectors, allowing them to arbitrate disputes over waqf properties. This has raised concerns about potential government overreach and the effectiveness of local waqf boards in managing properties.
    3. Impact on Inheritance Rights: The proposed changes could affect the inheritance rights of heirs, particularly women, by allowing the creation of family waqfs that may not fully comply with Islamic inheritance laws. This raises questions about fairness and equity in the distribution of waqf assets.

    The rationale of the family waqt:

    • Family waqf is rooted in the Islamic principle that charity begins at home
    • The Quran encourages spending money on parents and relatives (2:215), and the Prophet Muhammad emphasised the importance of spending on one’s family as a highly rewarded act of charity.

     

    1. Potential for Misuse: There are fears that the amendments could lead to the misuse of waqf properties, exacerbating existing issues of encroachment and mismanagement, rather than effectively addressing them.

    Newly Proposed Section 3A(2)

    • Key Features: This section stipulates that a Muslim can create a family waqf only concerning one-third of their property if excluding heirs, and it prohibits the complete exclusion of female heirs. However, it allows for the possibility of token benefits being granted to female heirs, which could still result in unequal distributions.
    • Concerns: Critics argue that this provision may not sufficiently protect women’s rights under Islamic inheritance laws, as it could permit arrangements that do not provide equitable benefits to female heirs compared to their male counterparts.

    Implementation of Waqf Boards Worldwide

    • India: India has 30 waqf boards, each responsible for managing waqf properties within their respective states. These boards oversee approximately 900,000 properties, with a focus on ensuring that waqf assets are used for charitable purposes.
    • Middle Eastern Countries: In many Middle Eastern nations, waqf properties are often managed by government-appointed bodies, and the legal framework tends to be more integrated with Islamic law. For instance, in countries like Egypt and Turkey, waqf management is closely tied to state regulations, which can vary significantly from those in India.
    • Colonial impact: The evolution of waqf laws has been influenced by colonial histories, with some countries, such as Egypt and Tunisia, abolishing family waqfs altogether, while others, like Malaysia and Indonesia, have maintained them with varying degrees of regulation.

    Way forward:

    • Strengthen Waqf Governance: Ensure robust oversight and accountability of waqf boards by balancing state involvement with respect for religious autonomy. This includes safeguarding the inheritance rights of heirs, particularly women, and preventing government overreach while maintaining effective management of waqf properties.
    • Promote Inclusivity and Equity: Amend the Waqf Bill to address concerns about the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards and ensure equitable distribution of waqf assets in line with Islamic inheritance laws.

  • Centre directs UPSC to withdraw ad for lateral entry into bureaucracy: Why has the policy been criticized?

    Why in the News?

    The Central government asked the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on Tuesday, August 20, to cancel an advertisement from three days earlier that called for applications to fill senior government positions through lateral recruitment.

    What is ‘Lateral Entry’ into the Bureaucracy?

    • Definition: Lateral entry refers to the recruitment of personnel from outside the traditional civil services into senior and middle-level positions in the central government. These entrants come from various backgrounds, including state/UT governments, public sector undertakings (PSUs), statutory organizations, research institutes, universities, and the private sector.
    • Objective: The idea is to bring in individuals with domain expertise and specialized knowledge to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of governance. These individuals are usually appointed on contracts of three years, which can be extended to a total of five years.

    What are the Positions Open for Lateral Entry?

    • Positions Advertised: Lateral entry initially focused on Joint Secretary-level positions, which are high-ranking roles within a Department. Over time, positions for Director and Deputy Secretary levels were also opened.
    • Roles and Responsibilities:
      • Joint Secretary: Third-highest rank in a Department, responsible for decision-making and administrative head of a wing within the Department.
      • Director/Deputy Secretary: Middle-level officials, performing roles similar to Joint Secretaries in most ministries.

    What was the Union Government’s Logic Behind Introducing Lateral Entries?

    • Rationale: The government introduced lateral recruitment to bring in fresh talent and specialized skills that may not be available within the traditional civil services.
    • NITI Aayog’s Recommendation: The policy was recommended in 2017 by NITI Aayog in its three-year Action Agenda and by the Sectoral Group of Secretaries (SGoS) on Governance.

    How Many People Have Been Appointed via Lateral Recruitment So Far?

    • First Round (2018): The first round attracted 6,077 applications for Joint Secretary-level positions. Nine individuals were eventually selected and appointed in 2019.
    • Subsequent Rounds: Additional rounds of recruitment occurred in 2021 and May 2023. As of August 2024, a total of 63 appointments have been made through lateral entry, with 57 lateral entrants currently holding positions in various Ministries/Departments.

    What is the Criticism of Lateral Entry Recruitment?

    • Lack of Reservations: A significant criticism of lateral recruitment is the absence of quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
    • Promotion Concerns: Critics like Mayawati have pointed out that lateral entry deprives lower-level employees in the civil services of promotion opportunities, which would otherwise be available through a merit-based system.

    Way forward: 

    • Incorporate Inclusive Quota Provisions: To address the criticism regarding the absence of reservations, the government could consider introducing a reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in lateral entry recruitment.
    • Establish a Transparent and Merit-Based Selection Process: To ensure the credibility and effectiveness of lateral recruitment, the government should enhance transparency in the selection process. This could involve clearly defined eligibility criteria, objective assessment methods, and regular monitoring of the performance of lateral entrants.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Has the Cadre-based Civil Services Organization been the cause of slow in India? Critically examine. (UPSC IAS/2014)

  • Lok Sabha Speaker constitutes 6 new Parliamentary Committees 

    Why in the News?

    Lok Sabha Speaker has constituted six new Parliamentary Committees, for a tenure of 1year:

    Origin Composition Functions
    Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Established in 1921 under the Government of India Act, 1919
    • 22 members: 15 Lok Sabha + 7 Rajya Sabha;
    • Chairman from the Opposition,
    • Appointed by the LS Speaker.
    		 Examines public expenditure, scrutinizes CAG reports, and ensures efficient use of public funds.
    Committee on Estimates Traces back to 1921; reconstituted in 1950 (recommended by John Mathai)
    • 30 members,
    • All from Lok Sabha;
    • Elected annually through proportional representation.
    • Minister CANNOT be a member.
    		 Examines budget estimates, suggests economic efficiencies, and recommends alternative policies.
    Committee on Public Undertakings Established in 1964 based on the Krishna Menon Committee
    • 22 members: 15 Lok Sabha + 7 Rajya Sabha;
    • Chairman appointed by the Speaker,
    • Chosen from Lok Sabha members
    		 Examines accounts and reports of PSUs, and provides recommendations without interfering in operations.
    Committee on Welfare of OBCs The committee was constituted in June 2012 It comprises 30 members, with 20 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha Focuses on the implementation of policies for OBC welfare, evaluates reservations, and suggests improvements.
    Committee on Welfare of SC/ST N/A The committee consists of 30 members, with 20 elected from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha. Ensures implementation of safeguards for SCs and STs, reviews welfare programs, and suggests enhancements.
    Joint Committee on Office of Profit Joint Committee on Office of Profit was established by the Lok Sabha on July 23, 2019 15 members; 10 Lok + 5 from Rajya Sabha. Examines cases of MPs/MLAs holding offices of profit, determine qualification, and maintains legislative integrity.

     

    PYQ:

    [2018] 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 or 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

  • Egg, sperm donors have no parental right on child: Bombay HC held

    Why in the News?

    On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court affirmed that sperm or egg donors cannot claim biological parenthood or legal rights over a child born using their gametes.

    About the Present Case and Rival Contentions

    • Background of the Case: The Bombay High Court ruled on a custody dispute involving twin girls born through altruistic surrogacy. The mother, a 42-year-old woman, sought visitation rights after her estranged husband took the children to live with him and her younger sister, who was the egg donor.
    Note: Altruistic surrogacy is a type of surrogacy arrangement where the surrogate mother carries a pregnancy for intended parents without receiving any monetary compensation for her services, aside from reimbursement for medical and pregnancy-related expenses.

     

    • Family Dynamics: The egg donor is the younger sister of the mother and had donated her eggs to help her sister and brother-in-law conceive. After the egg donation, the sister faced a tragic accident that resulted in the loss of her husband and daughter, complicating the family dynamics further.
    • Rival Claims: The mother argued that her daughters are legitimate children born within wedlock (being married), asserting her rights as the biological mother. In contrast, the estranged husband claimed that the egg donor had legitimate rights over the children, arguing that she should be recognized as a biological parent.
    Legal Framework: The case was governed by the 2005 National Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) since the surrogacy agreement was signed before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The guidelines say that both the donor and surrogate give up all rights as parents.

    Other key provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: 

    • The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 permits only altruistic surrogacy in India, where the surrogate mother cannot receive any monetary compensation beyond reimbursement for medical expenses and insurance coverage.
    • Commercial surrogacy, which involves payment beyond medical costs, is strictly prohibited.
    • Eligibility Criteria: Intended parents must be a legally married couple, with the female partner aged between 23 and 50 years and the male partner between 26 and 55 years. They must not have any biological children from previous marriages or through surrogacy. The surrogate must be married and have at least one child of her own.

    What the Bombay High Court Ruled

    • No Parental Rights for Egg Donors: The Bombay High Court ruled that an egg donor does not have legal rights as a biological parent. The court emphasised that while the egg donor may be considered a genetic mother, she cannot claim parental rights over the children born through surrogacy.
    • Recognition of Legal Parents: The court affirmed that the twin girls are the daughters of the petitioner (the mother) and her estranged husband, as they were born from their wedlock with their consent. The ruling highlighted that the couple signed the surrogacy agreement, establishing them as the intending parents.
    • Legal Precedent: The ruling clarified the legal standing of sperm and egg donors in surrogacy arrangements, reinforcing that they do not retain any parental rights or duties in relation to the child, as per the existing guidelines.

    Conclusion: The Bombay High Court confirmed that egg donors have no parental rights. The ruling reaffirmed that legal parentage lies with the intending parents as per surrogacy guidelines and existing laws.

  • An overview of governance in Delhi

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Delhi’s LG can independently nominate 10 aldermen to the MCD which escalates tensions between the Union, Delhi, and local governments.

    How did the Delhi government evolve?

    • At the commencement of the Constitution in 1950, Delhi was classified as a Part C State.
    • Following the state reorganisation in 1956, it became a Union Territory governed by an administrator.
    • The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was established in 1958, and a limited local government was introduced in 1966.
    • Based on the Balakrishnan Committee’s recommendations in 1989, the 69th Constitutional Amendment in 1991 created a Legislative Assembly and council of ministers for the NCT of Delhi. 
    • However, the Union government retained control over public order, police, and land, excluding these subjects from the Delhi government’s jurisdiction.

    Why is there constant tension and friction between the Union government and the Delhi government?  

    • Legal Disputes: Legal battles have escalated tensions, particularly following Supreme Court judgments that have altered the balance of power between the elected Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor (LG). For instance, recent rulings have clarified the LG’s powers, allowing for unilateral actions that bypass the council of ministers.
    • Control Over Key Areas: The Union government retains control over critical areas such as police, public order, and land, which limits the Delhi government’s autonomy.
    • Administrative Confusion: The presence of multiple layers of governance, including the MCD and other local bodies, complicates accountability and governance, leading to blame-shifting during crises, such as the recent incidents of electrocution and flooding.
    •  Budgetary Conflict: The Delhi State Government has accused the Central Government of underfunding the MCD, leading to poor civic services, while the Central Government has argued that the State Government is not providing adequate support.
    • Division and Unification of MCD: In 2012, the MCD was trifurcated into three separate entities by the Congress-led state government, a move seen as an attempt to decentralize power. However, in 2022, the BJP-led Central Government passed a law to reunify the MCD, citing administrative efficiency, but the move was perceived by the Delhi State Government as an effort to centralize control.

    What did the 1989 Balakrishnan committee recommend?  

    1. On Union Territory Status: The Balakrishnan Committee recommended that Delhi must remain a Union Territory rather than achieving full statehood.
    2. On Governance Structure: The committee proposed a governance model that included an Administrator exercising powers based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, ensuring a balance of power while maintaining central oversight.
    3. On Representation and Accountability: The committee emphasized the need for a more effective representative democratic system to safeguard the rights of Delhi’s growing population.

    How has the Municipal Corporation of Delhi been involved in the power tussle? 

    • Multiple Authorities: The MCD operates under the Union government’s control, adding complexity to the governance structure in Delhi. For example in public services and urban management.
    • Electoral Conflicts: The MCD’s elected representatives have often been caught in the crossfire of political disputes between the Union and Delhi governments, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of coherent governance. The recent tragedies in the city have highlighted the consequences of this blame-shifting.

    Way Forward:

    • Revisiting Governance Structure: A constitutional amendment could be considered to delineate the powers of the central government and the Delhi government more clearly. For instance, the area of New Delhi (50-100 square kilometres) could be under central control, while the rest could be governed by the Delhi Assembly.
    • Implementation of triple chain accountability: Implementing the spirit of the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment, which emphasized a triple chain of accountability, could help restore balance and ensure that all layers of government are accountable to the people.
    • Promoting Consensus-Based Governance: Encouraging dialogue and consensus between the different layers of government could help mitigate conflicts and foster a more cooperative governance environment.

    Mains PYQ: 

    Q Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.(2018)

  • The top court as custodian of liberties    

    Why in the News?

    • Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was arrested in early 2023 by the CBI and ED in the Delhi liquor policy case. After nearly a year and a half in prison, the Supreme Court of India granted him bail, underscoring that bail should not be used as a form of punishment.

    Previous judgments on the ‘Right to Speedy Trial’:

    1. The Supreme Court referenced its earlier judgments, including Kashmira Singh (1977), P. Chidambaram (2020), and Satender Kumar Antil (2022), which establish that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution.
    2. The Court’s decision in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2020) was cited, reinforcing that liberty is a core component of constitutionalism.
    3. In recent scenario, the SC relied on its earlier order dated October 30, 2023, in Manish Sisodia vs Central Bureau of Investigation, which highlighted concerns about the large volume of evidence (56,000 pages of documents and 456 witnesses) potentially causing significant delays in trial proceedings.

    What are the present limitations?

    • Prolonged Incarceration: The ruling pointed out that the legal system often leads to excessive delays, which can result in individuals being punished without trial.
    • Dependence on Prosecutorial Statements: A concern was raised about the reliance on the prosecution’s assurances regarding the timeline for trial completion.  

    ‘Guarantee of Civil Liberties’:

    • Constitutional Foundation: The Supreme Court emphasized that individual liberties should not be contingent on the discretion of the prosecution.
      • In judgments like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded the understanding of due process, emphasising that any deprivation of liberty must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedures.
    • Judicial Responsibility: The judgment aims to prevent the misuse of stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and to uphold the dignity and rights of individuals.
      • In Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023), the Supreme Court emphasized judicial oversight in PMLA enforcement while ensuring trials follow underlying offenses.
    • Public’s trust on Judiciary: Presently, the Apex Court pointed out the flawed tendency of some judges to deny bail unnecessarily, ignoring the principle of timely trials. This may lead to loss of public trust in the judiciary.
    • Call for Systemic Change: The ruling urges a reevaluation of the political and legal systems to prioritize justice and individual rights over personal vendettas.
      • State of Maharashtra v. Rani Kusum (2005) underscores the necessity for reforms to address delays in the judicial process.
    • Bail is the Rule, Not the Exception: The Supreme Court’s decision in granting bail to Manish Sisodia reinforces the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception.

    Way forward: 

    • Adherence to procedural deadlines: In this situation, courts should enforce stricter adherence to procedural deadlines and prioritize cases involving prolonged incarceration to safeguard the right to a speedy trial.
    • Independent oversight committees: Need to establish independent oversight committees to regularly review cases of prolonged incarceration without trial, ensuring accountability and reducing reliance on prosecutorial assurances alone.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)

  • [12th August 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Parties, serious crimes and the need for judicial clarity

    [12th August 2024] The Hindu Op-ed: Parties, serious crimes and the need for judicial clarity

    PYQ Relevance:Mains: 

    Q) Money laundering poses a serious security threat to a country’s economic sovereignty. What is its significance for India and what steps are required to be taken to control this menace? (2013)

    Q) Discuss how emerging technologies and globalisation contribute to money laundering. Elaborate measures to tackle the problem of money laundering both at national and international levels. (2021)

    Note4Students: 

    Mains: Issues related to Section 70 of the PMLA;

    Mentor comments: Two recent Supreme Court observations in the bail petitions of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and ex-Deputy CM Manish Sisodia highlight significant legal issues. Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s Bench questioned the role of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in a PMLA case involving its leaders, asking if the party itself could be made an accused. This led the Enforcement Directorate to include AAP as an accused in Mr. Kejriwal’s case, marking the first time a political party is implicated under PMLA. This raises serious concerns given the pivotal role of parties in a parliamentary democracy.

    Let’s learn! 

    —

    Why in the News?

    Two Supreme Court Benches questioned the role of political parties under the PMLA, leading to AAP being accused, which raises important constitutional issues.

    About PMLA: 

    The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is a significant piece of legislation in India aimed at combating money laundering and related financial crimes. 

    Objectives:
    1. The PMLA is designed to prevent the process of money laundering, which involves concealing the origins of illegally obtained money.
    2. The Act provides for the confiscation of properties derived from or involved in money laundering activities.It establishes mechanisms for the detection and investigation of money laundering offenses.

    Issues related to Section 70 of the PMLA:

    • Application of Section 70 of PMLA to Political Parties: The legal question arises whether political parties can be categorized under the definition of “company” or “association of individuals” as per Section 70 of the PMLA. The law typically applies to bodies corporate or firms, which are transactional entities, unlike political parties.
    • Distinction in Definitions: Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, defines a political party as an association of citizens that calls itself a political party. This specific designation creates a legal distinction between general associations of individuals and political parties, it means political parties may not be intended to fall under the scope of Section 70 of the PMLA.
    • Ejusdem Generis Interpretation: The legal principle of ejusdem generis suggests that “association of individuals” under Section 70 should be interpreted as entities similar to bodies corporate or firms. Since political parties are not engaged in business or transactional activities like these entities, their inclusion under Section 70 is legally questionable.

    Issues related to Policy and criminality

    • Cabinet Decision-Making and Accountability: The cabinet, as the highest decision-making body in a parliamentary democracy, is collectively responsible for policy decisions. The judiciary typically does not examine the motives or correctness of cabinet policies, focusing instead on the process and legality. Charging individual ministers with criminality for collective cabinet decisions undermines the collective principle.
    • Ivor Jennings’ View on Cabinet Role: Constitutional authority Ivor Jennings describes the cabinet as the “directing body of national policy,” emphasizing that it is accountable to the legislature and ultimately to the people, who can disapprove of policies through democratic processes.
    • Policy vs. Criminality in Judicial Interpretation: The observation by the Bench in Mr. Sisodia’s case highlights the difficulty in drawing a line between policy decisions and criminal actions. Criminal charges against individual ministers for decisions made by the cabinet may disrupt the functioning of the cabinet and are legally unsustainable in a parliamentary democracy.

    Way forward: 

    • Clarification through Legislative Amendment: To address the ambiguity surrounding the applicability of Section 70 of the PMLA to political parties, the legislature could consider amending the PMLA to explicitly clarify whether political parties fall under the definition of “association of individuals.” This would provide legal certainty and prevent potential misuse or misinterpretation of the law.
    • Judicial Guidelines on Policy and Criminality: The judiciary could establish clear guidelines on the distinction between policy decisions made by the cabinet and criminal actions taken by individual ministers. These guidelines would help ensure that the cabinet’s collective responsibility is preserved while allowing for accountability in cases of individual misconduct that fall outside the scope of legitimate policy-making.

  • Opposition to move No-Confidence Motion against VP

    Why in the News?

    As many as 50 Opposition MPs have reportedly signed a resolution to bring a no-confidence motion against Vice-President (Rajya Sabha Chairman) Jagdeep Dhankhar.

    No-Confidence Motion against Vice President of India

    Details
    Provision Article 67(b) of the Indian Constitution
    Who Can Initiate Can only be introduced in the Rajya Sabha, not the Lok Sabha.
    Notice Requirement At least 14 days’ advance notice must be given before moving the resolution.
    Voting in Rajya Sabha Requires an effective majority (majority of all members present and voting) in the Rajya Sabha.
    Voting in Lok Sabha Requires a simple majority (more than 50% of members present and voting) in the Lok Sabha.
    Grounds for Removal Constitution does not specify any grounds or justifications for the removal of the Vice President.
    Temporary Vacancy If the Vice President is removed -> Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha assumes the role of Chairman.
    Historical Context No Vice President has ever been removed under this Article in Indian parliamentary history.

     

    PYQ:

    [2013] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are not the members of that House.

    2. While the nominated members of the two Houses of the Parliament have no voting right in the

    Presidential election, they have the right to vote in the election of the Vice President.

    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

  • Opposition moves Privilege Motion against Education Minister

    Why in the News?

    • The opposition has submitted a notice in the Rajya Sabha to initiate privilege proceedings against Union Education Minister.
      • It is alleged that the Minister ‘misled’ the House regarding the issue of the Preamble to the Constitution being ‘dropped’ from certain NCERT textbooks.

    What is a Privilege Motion?

    Details
    What is it?
    • A formal notice by an MP when rights or privileges of Parliament or its members are breached.
    • Parliamentary privilege refers to the right and immunity enjoyed by legislatures (Article 105).
    Who can move such motion? Any Member of Parliament (MP) from Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
    Governing Rules
    • Lok Sabha Rule book: Rule 222, Chapter 20
    • Rajya Sabha Rule book: Rule 187, Chapter 16
    Procedure
    • Requires consent from Speaker/Chairperson;
    • Notice must concern a recent incident needing House intervention.
    Role of Speaker/Chairperson
    • First level of scrutiny;
    • Can decide on the motion or refer it to the Privileges Committee.
    Privileges Committee
    • Lok Sabha: 15 members, nominated by Speaker
    • Rajya Sabha: 10 members, headed by Deputy Chairperson
    Outcome
    • Committee submits a report;
    • House may debate and pass a resolution based on the report.
    Historical Example 1978: Privilege motion against Indira Gandhi, leading to her expulsion from the Lok Sabha.
    Legal Implications
    • If a breach of privilege is established, the Parliament has the authority to impose penalties. 
    • These can range from a reprimand to expulsion from the House, depending on the severity of the breach.

     

    PYQ:

    [2014] Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India:

    1. There is no mention of a No-Confidence Motion in the Constitution of India.

    2. A Motion of No-Confidence can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only.

    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

  • Supreme Court to review PMLA verdict     

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court has postponed its review of the decision to uphold key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to August 28.

    Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)

    • The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is a crucial legislative framework in India aimed at combating money laundering and related financial crimes.
    • The PMLA was enacted by the Parliament of India and came into force on July 1, 2005. It was introduced to prevent money laundering and provide for the confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering.
    • The main objectives of the PMLA are:
      • To prevent and control money laundering.
      • To confiscate and seize property obtained from laundered money.
      • To address issues connected with money laundering in India.

    What is the Case?

    •  On July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the case of “Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India”.
      • The 540-page ruling accepted the government’s arguments on all challenged aspects, including reversing the presumption of innocence for bail, passing amendments as a Money Bill, and defining the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers.
    • On August 25, 2022, a different three-judge bench agreed to hear a review petition filed by Congress MP Karti Chidambaram. The petition raised concerns about at least two issues from the Madanlal decision.

    What are the Grounds for Review?

    • The Supreme Court’s verdict in Madanlal upheld stringent bail conditions for economic offences, imposing a reverse burden of proof on the accused.
    • Petitioners argue that, without essential documents like an FIR, charge sheet, case diary, and prosecution documents, an accused cannot adequately present their case.
    • The Madanlal verdict upheld Section 50 of the PMLA, allowing ED officials to record statements under oath, admissible in court. It distinguished ED officers from police officers, classifying their investigations as “inquiries.” Petitioners argue that the verdict overlooked provisions granting penal powers to the ED.

    How is a Judgment Reviewed?

    • The Supreme Court can review its judgments or orders under Article 137 of the Constitution.
    • A review petition must be filed within 30 days of the judgment. Typically, review petitions are heard through written submissions (“circulation”) by the same judges who passed the original verdict, rather than in open court.
    • Reviews are granted on narrow grounds to correct grave errors causing a miscarriage of justice. One common ground is “a mistake apparent on the face of the record,” which must be glaring and obvious, such as reliance on invalid case law.

    Way forward: 

    • Enhanced Transparency and Documentation: To address concerns about the adequacy of case presentation by the accused, there should be a mandate for providing all essential documents such as FIRs, charge sheets, case diaries, and prosecution documents to ensure a fair trial process.
    • Clarification of ED’s Powers and Procedures: Amendments to the PMLA should clearly define the scope and limits of the Enforcement Directorate’s powers, ensuring that ED officers are given appropriate procedural guidelines and oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse of penal powers and uphold due process.