Introduction

• The recent episode in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, where Governor R.N. Ravi declined to deliver the customary address, has reignited debates surrounding the significance of the Governor’s Address.
• He actually walked out in response to an insult of National Anthem in TN Assembly.

President’s/Governor’s Address

• Constitutional mandate: Articles 87 and 176 of the Constitution confer authority upon the President and Governor, respectively, to address the legislature.
• Occasions for Address: The addresses are reserved for two specific occasions: the commencement of a new legislative session post-election and the inauguration of the annual legislative session.
• Significance: Termed the President’s or Governor’s Address, these speeches are pivotal for initiating legislative proceedings.

Governor’s Address to the State Legislature: A Constitutional Obligation

• Prescribed Duties: Article 176 delineates the Governor’s obligation to address the Legislative Assembly at the onset of each legislative year and post-general elections, with both Houses convened if a Legislative Council exists.
• Procedural Norms: Established rules govern the time allocated for deliberating the address’s contents, ensuring parliamentary discourse.

Global Parallels: Similar Practices across Democracies

• Cross-National Comparison: Analogous provisions are observed in democratic nations worldwide.
• State of the Union: In the United States, it manifests as the “State of the Union” address (1790), while in the United Kingdom, it is the Queen’s Speech (1536), heralding the parliamentary year’s commencement.
• Indian Context: India’s Presidential Address mirrors the British model, reflecting the ceremonial role of the President, a sentiment echoed during the Constitution’s framing by Dr. B R Ambedkar.

Features of the Address Content

[A] Address Content: Proposals and Achievements

• Legislative Agenda: The President’s or Governor’s speech encapsulates legislative proposals and government policy initiatives, coupled with a retrospective glance at previous accomplishments.
• Government Input: Inputs for this address are curated from various government ministries, embodying the administration’s agenda.

[B] Authorship and Agency: Government Responsibility

• Constitutional Mandate: Governed by constitutional mandate, both the President and Governor are obligated to adhere to the Cabinet’s advice (1950) in their functions, including address preparation.
• Policy Reflection: Hence, the address is meticulously crafted by the government, serving as a reflection of its policy stance.

[C] Flexibility vs. Normative Adherence: Presidential/Governor Discretion

• Adherence to Protocol: While refusal to deliver the address is impermissible, deviations from the prepared script are permissible.
• Instances of Departure: Instances of Governors veering off the scripted path have transpired, although such actions remain rare for Presidents.

Judicial Pronouncement: Upholding Constitutional Framework

• Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court, in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1975), underscored the President’s (or Governor’s) adherence to Cabinet advice across functions.
• Contested Discretion: While discretion to modify the speech is contested, any departure from parliamentary norms may invoke debate.

R. Venkataraman’s Perspective

• Venkataraman’s Critique: R. Venkataraman, who served as President from 1987 to 1992, vehemently opposed the practice of Presidential and Governor’s addresses, deeming it a “British anachronism” and a “meaningless formality.”
• Calls for Constitutional Amendment: Venkataraman repeatedly urged PM Rajiv Gandhi and Chandra Shekher to abolish this tradition through a Constitutional amendment, emphasizing its lack of relevance and inherent biases.

Perceptions of the Address

• Government’s Voice: Venkataraman viewed the address as a mere reflection of the ruling regime’s perspectives, rendering Presidents and Governors mere “mouthpieces” devoid of independent expression.
• Controversies and Criticism: He expressed dismay over controversies surrounding Governors’ addresses in states like Maharashtra and West Bengal, condemning the opposition’s heckling of figures like Governor Nurul Hasan.
• Symbolic Adjustments: Venkataraman, in presenting his maiden Presidential address in 1988, advocated for subtle changes like replacing “My government” with “The government,” aligning with India’s constitutional ethos framed by the people.
• Legacy of British Colonialism: He underscored the incongruity of retaining British-era conventions in India’s democratic framework, emphasizing the need for symbolic adjustments to reflect the nation’s sovereignty.

Conclusion

• Symbol of Governance: The tradition of Presidential and Governor’s addresses, rooted in constitutional mandate, and symbolizes the fusion of ceremonial protocol with legislative functionality.
• Executive-Legislative Nexus: As integral components of democratic governance, these addresses underscore the synergy between executive authority and parliamentary accountability, while navigating the delicate balance between tradition and evolving norms.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

• A public interest litigation filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeks to delete the words “Socialist” & “Secular” from the Preamble to the Constitution of India.
• The case questions the validity of the insertion of these words via the 42nd Constitution Amendment of 1976 during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s tenure.
• It argues that the amendment was beyond the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368.

Why discuss Preamble?

• Original Draft: The Preamble was adopted on November 26, 1949, by the Constituent Assembly of India, setting out the Constitution’s guiding purpose and principles.
• 1976 Amendment: The 42nd Constitution Amendment introduced the words “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble, altering its initial declaration.
• Legal Implications: The insertion faces scrutiny over its legality and alignment with the Constitution’s foundational principles.

Amending the Preamble

• Judicial Inquiry: During the hearing, Justice Datta remarked on the amendability of the Preamble. He pondered if the Preamble could have been amended earlier (by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976) to include the words Socialist and Secular while retaining the date of adoption (November 29, 1949).
• Discussion on Academic Grounds: The judge prompted counsels to consider, academically, the feasibility of amending the Preamble while preserving its original adoption date.
• Historical Context: Justice Datta noted that the Preamble, unique with its specified adoption date, underwent changes, but the inclusion of “Socialist” and “Secular” was a notable amendment.
• Legal Challenge: The petition challenges the constitutionality of the insertion, arguing that it contradicts the Constitution’s original intent and undermines the citizens’ right to choose their political ideologies.
• Kesavananda Bharti Precedent: The inquiry draws upon the landmark Kesavananda Bharti case (1973) where the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was an integral part of the Constitution and subject to amendment, provided it didn’t violate the Constitution’s basic structure.

Addition of “Socialist” and “Secular”

• The 42nd Amendment: During the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976, the terms “socialist” and “secular” were added to the Preamble through The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.
• Indira Gandhi’s Agenda: Indira Gandhi’s government aimed to emphasize a socialist and pro-poor image, aligning with slogans such as “garibi hatao” (Eradicate poverty). The addition of “socialist” highlighted socialism as a fundamental goal of the Indian state.
• Distinctive Indian Socialism: The Indian version of socialism did not endorse complete nationalization but emphasized selective nationalization of essential sectors.

Understanding “Secular”

• Religious Diversity: India is home to diverse religious beliefs and practices. The term “secular” was added to the Preamble to promote unity and fraternity among people of various faiths.
• State Neutrality: Secularism in the Indian context implies that the state maintains neutrality and impartiality towards all religions. It does not favor any particular religion as a “state religion.”
• Secularism as Law: Articles 25-28 of the Constitution secure the secular nature of the Indian state.
• Inherent in the Constitution: The philosophy of secularism was inherent in the Constitution even before the 42nd Amendment.

Debates Surrounding “Socialist” and “Secular”

• Consensus on Secularism: The concept of secularism was already part of the Constitution’s philosophy. The insertion of the word “secular” in the Preamble simply made explicit what was implicit in various provisions.
• Constituent Assembly Discussions: The Constituent Assembly debated including these words in the Preamble but decided against it.
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s Perspective: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar argued that issues related to the state’s policy, organization, and economic aspects should be determined by the people, not dictated by the Constitution itself.
• Ongoing Debates: Over the years, there have been petitions and discussions regarding the removal of “socialist” and “secular” from the Preamble. Some argue that these terms were added arbitrarily during the Emergency.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s inquiry into the amendment of the Preamble reflects a critical examination of constitutional principles.
• The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of parliamentary amending power and the preservation of constitutional integrity.
• The outcome of this legal challenge will have significant implications for the interpretation of the Constitution’s core values and the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

• The Supreme Court’s recent deliberation on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) within India’s reservation system raises questions about the balance of power between states and the Parliament.
• This highlights the socio-economic implications of such sub-classification.

Quest for Sub-Classification: SC Bench’s Examination

• Questioning Tinkering with the List: Justice B.R. Gavai queries whether state-level preferential allotment to certain sub-castes affects the parliamentary power to manage the Presidential list.
• Dismissal of “Balkanisation” Argument: The Bench dismisses concerns that sub-classification would lead to fragmentation of the SC list.
• Argument for Homogeneity: Senior advocate Manoj Swarup argues that SCs form a homogeneous group and preferential treatment would perpetuate inequality.
• Justice Gavai’s Counter: Justice Gavai challenges this view, highlighting the need for the upliftment of particularly backward groups within SCs.

Why discuss this?

[A] Socio-Economic Implications

• Equality and Empowerment: Justice Vikram Nath underscores the aim of sub-classification as uplifting backward groups within SCs.
• Ensuring Fairness: Justice Gavai emphasizes that preferential treatment should not exclude other deserving candidates from access to opportunities.

[B] Political and Societal Considerations

• Potential for Political Appeasement: Concerns raised about states using sub-classification for political gains and electoral advantage.
• Judicial Review and Empirical Basis: Justice Gavai highlights the role of High Courts in scrutinizing state decisions based on empirical data.

Why is the Sub-Classification needed?

• Addressing Inequalities: Graded inequalities persist among SC communities, with some having limited access to services.
• Disproportionate Representation: Certain sub-castes lack fair representation in employment and education due to current discrimination policies.
• Overcoming Hierarchies: SCs vary socio-economically, with some progressing while others still face disadvantages.
• Facilitating Mobility: Current policies hinder uniform benefits, leading to competition. Sub-categorization can aid in political empowerment and education.
• Ensuring Justice: Targeted approaches are needed to address specific vulnerabilities within SC sub-groups.
• Equitable Distribution: Sub-categorization prevents benefits from concentrating in certain groups, promoting fair resource allocation.

Challenges Associated

• Inequality: Sub-categorization may not effectively address disparities within Scheduled Castes, per recommendations from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), highlighting the need for existing schemes to reach the most backward communities first.
• Federalism Issue: While a 2004 Supreme Court ruling barred states from unilaterally sub-categorizing SC lists, a 2020 judgment indicated states could decide benefit allocations within these lists, pending review by a larger Bench.
• Identification Criteria Complexity: Determining sub-categorization criteria, as highlighted in judgments like State of Kerala v N M Thomas (1976) and E V Chinnaiah (2005), presents challenges in defining SCs due to socio-economic complexities.
• Data Accuracy Challenge: Obtaining accurate socio-economic data for SC communities is difficult, hindering decision-making on caste categorizations and allocations.
• Intra-group Disputes Risk: Sub-categorization may create internal divisions within SC communities, potentially exacerbating tensions as groups compete for affirmative action.
• Fragmentation Risk: Sub-categorization could fragment the SC community, diluting their political and social identity, and weakening their collective advocacy for rights, as per concerns raised.

Chief Justice’s Perspective

• Artificial Backward Class Creation: Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasizes the need for states to demonstrate objective criteria, like lack of representation, for sub-classification.
• High Court Review: Asserts that High Courts can review state decisions to ensure fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.

Way Forward

• Legal Options: Explore legal avenues like a constitutional amendment for sub-categorization, leveraging existing provisions like Article 16(4).
• Data Collection: Enhance data collection on socio-economic status through a caste-based census to inform policy formulation.
• Creamy Layer Concept: Apply the “creamy layer” concept within SCs to ensure fair allocation of benefits based on income eligibility.
• Transparent Criteria: Develop transparent criteria for sub-categorization, considering socio-economic status, education, and regional disparities.
• Balanced Approach: Strike a balance between recognizing diversity within SCs and maintaining unity, ensuring policies address specific needs without fragmenting the community.

Conclusion

• As the case awaits judgment, the need for a nuanced approach that balances legal principles with social justice imperatives remains paramount.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

• The recent enactment of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand, specifically addressing live-in relationships, has sparked debates concerning individual freedom and state intervention.

What are Intimate Associations?

• It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.
• This includes family relationships and other deep, personal connections that are important to individuals.

Uttarakhand UCC on Intimate Associations

• State Oversight: Section 381 of Uttarakhand’s common civil code mandates individuals intending to enter a live-in relationship to submit a “joint statement” before a Registrar, subjecting their intimate associations to state monitoring.
• Regulatory Measures: The Registrar is empowered to conduct an “enquiry” to determine the legitimacy of the relationship, infringing on the privacy of consenting adults.
• Registration Requirement: Couples must obtain a “registration certificate” from the State authority, imposing bureaucratic hurdles on the exercise of personal choice.
• Scope of Freedom: The freedom to choose a partner and enjoy their society is integral to personal autonomy and individual liberty, safeguarded under Article 19(c) of the Constitution.

Major Judgments upholding Intimate Associations

Critique of State Intervention

• Infringement on Privacy: The UCC’s intrusive provisions undermine the autonomy and privacy of individuals by subjecting their relationships to state scrutiny.
• Restriction on Freedom: Imposing regulatory requirements on live-in relationships contradicts established principles of personal liberty and restricts the exercise of fundamental rights.
• Potential Discrimination: State interference in intimate matters risks perpetuating discrimination and infringing on the rights of consenting adults to form relationships of their choice.

Arguments in Favor of such Associations

• Fundamental Rights: Denying individuals the right to choose their partners violates fundamental rights and equality.
• Union Recognition: Diverse couples lack legal recognition and access to marital rights and protections.
• Promotion of Equality: Legalizing diverse relationships reduces discrimination and fosters inclusivity.
• Positive Impact: Recognizing diverse unions positively impacts mental health and societal acceptance.
• Secularism: Recognizing diverse relationships aligns with democratic principles and equality.

Arguments Against

• Preservation of Norms: Altering traditional marriage norms challenges societal expectations.
• Cultural Preservation: Diverse relationships may conflict with cultural or religious beliefs.
• Social Impact: Concerns exist regarding family structures and societal cohesion.
• Legal Complexity: Legalizing diverse unions may introduce legal uncertainties and disputes.
• Social Stigma: Societal stigma and discrimination persist against diverse relationships.

Way Forward

• Advocacy: Continued advocacy for rights and societal acceptance of diverse relationships.
• Policy Reforms: Push for policy reforms to recognize and protect the rights of individuals.
• Support Services: Offer counseling and support services to address stigma and legal challenges.
• Community Building: Create safe spaces and support networks for individuals in diverse relationships.

Conclusion

• As debates continue, it is essential to strike a balance between regulatory measures and the protection of constitutional freedoms, fostering a society that values diversity and respects individual autonomy.

Try this PYQ:

Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice? (CSP 2019)

(a) Article 19

(b) Article 21

(c) Article 25

(d) Article 29

Post your answers here.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

• The impending delimitation exercise for Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, based on the first Census after 2026, has sparked discussions and raised pertinent questions.

Understanding Delimitation

• Definition: Delimitation entails fixing the number of seats and boundaries of territorial constituencies, including the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), based on census data.
• Constitutional Mandate: Article 82 (Lok Sabha) and Article 170 (State Legislative Assemblies) mandate readjustment of seats after each Census, performed by the Delimitation Commission.
• Historical Precedent: Delimitation exercises were conducted post the 1951, 1961, and 1971 Censuses, highlighting its periodic nature.

About Delimitation Commission

• The Delimitation Commission is a high-powered committee entrusted with the task of drawing and redrawing of boundaries of different constituencies for state assembly and Lok Sabha election.
• It is appointed by the President and works in collaboration with the Election Commission.
• The Commission consists of –

1. A retired or working Supreme Court Judge (chairperson)
2. Election Commissioner
3. Concerned State Election Commissioners

• DC’s orders have the force of law and CANNOT be called in question before any court.
• The orders are laid before the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies concerned, but they cannot effect any modifications in the orders.

Need for Delimitation

• Democracy and Representation: The essence of democracy mandates ‘one citizen-one vote-one value,’ necessitating periodic readjustment of seats to reflect population changes.
• Freezing of Seats: Seats have been frozen since 1971 to encourage population control, with the freeze extended until 2026 through the 84th Amendment Act.

Why is this exercise problematic?

• Uneven Population Growth: Population disparities among states pose challenges, with some states experiencing rapid growth while others stagnate.
• Options Discussed: Options include redistributing existing seats among states or increasing the total seats to reflect population changes.
• Constituency Shrinkage: Electorates often lose their representation due to the merger of constituencies.

International Perspectives

• United States: The U.S. redistributes seats among states after each Census to maintain proportionality, ensuring minimal disruption.
• European Union: EU Parliament uses a principle of ‘degressive proportionality,’ where seats are allocated based on population ratios.

Way forward

• Harmonizing Principles: Balancing democratic representation and federal principles is crucial. Capping Lok Sabha seats at the current 543 ensures continuity, while increasing State Legislative Assembly seats aligns with democratic representation.
• Empowering Local Bodies: Strengthening democracy involves empowering grassroots institutions like panchayats and municipalities, enhancing citizen engagement and governance.

Conclusion

• The delimitation exercise presents a delicate balance between democratic representation and federal principles.
• By adopting a nuanced approach that respects constitutional mandates while empowering local governance, India can navigate the complexities of delimitation, ensuring inclusive and effective representation for its diverse populace.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now