Indian Polity - JUNE 2019 Polity.pdfRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl. Political Parties Sunil Arora € The

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

Source : www.thehindu.com Date : 2019-06-04

LAW MINISTRY IS NOT A POST OFFICE, SAYS PRASADRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Judiciary in India: its Structure, Organization & Functioning, Judges of SC &

High Courts, Judgments and related Issues

Balancing act:Ravi Shankar Prasad taking charge.PTIPTI

Senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad, who took charge as Law Minister on Monday, said hisMinistry would fast-track judicial appointments but asserted that it would not act as a post office.

“We will try to fast-track judicial appointments, obviously with the consultation of the HonourableSupreme Court. We will work as a team. But I would like to say with great humility that as LawMinister, I will not be a post office. The Law Minister and the Law Ministry have a role as astakeholder, obviously giving due respect to the collegium system,” Mr. Prasad told reportersafter taking charge.

“But as Law Minister, neither me nor my department will remain a post office. We have a stakeand we will continue to pursue that stake in consultation with the Honourable Supreme Courtand Honourable High Courts.”

Mr. Prasad’s comments are significant as the government had, as recently as last month,returned recommendations made by the Supreme Court collegium — made up of the five senior-most judges — regarding the elevation of Justice Aniruddha Bose, who was the Chief Justice ofthe High Court of Jharkhand, and Justice A.S. Bopanna, who was heading the Gauhati HighCourt. The collegium, however, reiterated its recommendation and elevated them.

Since 2014, the government and the Supreme Court collegium have had opposing views withregard to certain appointments.

From objecting to the elevation of senior advocate Gopal Subramanian as a Supreme Courtjudge in June 2014 to opposing the elevation of former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High CourtK.M. Joseph to the apex court in April 2018, there have been several instances of thegovernment and the collegium taking different viewpoints.

On the contentious issue of the memorandum of procedure (MOP) regarding the appointment ofjudges, Mr. Prasad said, “We will work it out.”

All India service

Mr. Prasad also said his Ministry would soon take up the issue of creating an All India JudicialService and discuss the matter with the judiciary and the State governments. The sanctionedstrength of the judicial officers in the district and subordinate courts is 22,644 but there arenearly 5,000 vacancies.

The process of selection and appointments in the subordinate courts is the responsibility of theHigh Courts and the State governments but the Centre has suggested the creation of a pan-India judicial service that doesn’t encroach upon the States’ powers.

“We want good people into the judicial services and the selection should be merit based. Thereshould be an intake of the best talent,” he said.

Providing easy access to legal services for the common people, creation of better legal

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

infrastructure and making India an arbitration hub were among the other priorities listed by theMinister. Mr. Prasad, who made his Lok Sabha debut by defeating Congress’ Shatrughan Sinha,also reached out to the lawyer community by assuring that his Ministry would improve theworking conditions of the lawyers, providing medical insurance and improving facilities for thosewho work in remote areas.

Join our online subscriber community

Experience an advertisement-free site with article recommendations tailored for you

Already a user? Sign In

To know more about Ad free news reading experience and subscription Click Here

or Please whitelist our website on your Adblocker

ENDDownloaded from crackIAS.com

© Zuccess App by crackIAS.com

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


EC TO REVIEW PENALTY FOR ‘FALSE PLAINT’Relevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

Sunil Arora

The Election Commission may “revisit” the rule for prosecution of a voter for making a falsecomplaint of malfunction of an electronic voting machine or a voter verifiable paper audit trailmachine, Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora has said.

“Now that the current elections are over, we will probably be discussing it internally whether itshould be modified, softened etc. ... we may revisit it,” he said when asked about the penalprovision which many feel is unwarranted.

Rule 49MA

A voter who claims that the EVM or the VVPAT machine did not record his or her vote correctlyis allowed to cast a test vote under Rule 49 MA of the Conduct of Election Rules. However, if thevoter fails to prove the mismatch, poll officials can initiate action under Section 177 of the IndianPenal Code for giving a ‘false submission’.

The Section says the person “shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which mayextend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

In April, the Supreme Court had sought a response from the poll panel on a plea seeking torevoke the rule. The plea alleged that putting the onus on the elector in cases of arbitrarydeviant behaviour of machines used in election process infringes upon a citizen’s right tofreedom of expression under the Constitution.

The petition also pointed out that presently the burden of proof rests on the elector for reportingany deviant behaviour of EVMs and VVPAT machines.

A Bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took note of the plea, which alleged thatRule 49MA of the Conduct of Elections Rules was unconstitutional as it criminalises reporting ofmalfunctioning of EVMs and voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) machines.

The poll body has maintained that if there is no penal provision, people may make false claims.The penal provision is used as “an exception, very, very, very rarely”, Mr. Arora said, adding thatthe intention of the provision must have been to discourage those who want to disrupt theelectoral process by making such complaints.

According to EC officials, it takes 20 to 30 minutes to go through and settle complaints aboutVVPAT machines malfunctioning.





crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m




crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


WHAT IS VOTE TRADING IN POLITICS?Relevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

This refers to any manner of voting where people agree to vote in certain ways in which theywould not have voted otherwise in exchange for immediate or future benefits. A certain politicalparty that is in Opposition, for instance, may decide to support a certain legislation that it wouldnot have supported otherwise in exchange for favours it expects to receive from the ruling party.Vote trading is considered to be unethical by some political observers who have a problem withthe purely transactional nature of such voting. While common in the political arena, vote tradingis also present in other places like big businesses and other large organisations.

Please enter a valid email address.

It opens the window for India to take advantage of economic opportunities in the geopoliticalspace








crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


FREE SPEECH CANNOT BE CHOKED BY ARREST: SCRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Indian Constitution - Features & Significant Provisions related to Fundamental

Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties

Jagisha Arora, wife of journalist Prashant Kanojia, speaking to reporters outside the SupremeCourt.PTI

Ordering the immediate release on bail of arrested journalist Prashant Kanojia, the SupremeCourt on Tuesday said, “We are not appreciative of the manner of his tweets, but we arebothered about his arrest and incarceration...”

Addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the UttarPradesh government, Justice Indira Banerjee said, “We live in a country where there is aConstitution. Proceed against him in accordance with law, but should he be behind bars?”

‘Not absolute right’

Mr. Banerjee countered that free speech is not “absolute” and another’s right cannot be trampledupon. “With great liberty comes great responsibility,” he said.

To this, Justice Banerjee said free speech and criticism on social media cannot be choked byincarceration. “Even we take in a lot from social media, but does that mean incarceration? Showyour magnanimity,” she told the State.

To this, the ASG said, “This order of release should not be seen as a endorsement of histweets.”

Justice Banerjee responded, “It is very wrong to think whatever uploaded will be swallowed bythe public. People are educated.”

However, the court later clarified in its order that the journalist’s release should not be construedas an “endorsement” of his tweets, but as a firm stand taken by the highest court to protectpersonal liberty.

The court said fundamental rights of free speech and personal liberty were “non-negotiable.”

“We need not comment on the nature of the posts/tweets for which the action has been taken.The question is whether Prashant Kanojia ought to have been deprived of his liberty for theoffence alleged. The answer to that question is prima facie in the negative,” it recorded in theorder.

The court said the State would follow procedure as per law in Kanojia’s case. “We direct that thepetitioner’s husband [Kanojia] be immediately released on bail on conditions to the satisfactionof the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate ,” it said.

The U.P. government then referred to how the court, in another case on May 14, asked BJPYuva Morcha leader Priyanka Sharma to apologise on her release from custody for posting amorphed image of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on social media.

Justice Banerjee was heading that Bench too.

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

“That was on entirely different facts. It was a photo,” Justice Banerjee replied.

The hearing on Tuesday was based on habeas corpus petition moved by Mr. Kanojia’s wife,Jagisha Arora, under Article 32 of the Constitution to know the whereabouts of her 26-year-oldhusband.








crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


THIN-SKINNED MASTERS: ON JOURNALISTS ARRESTRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Indian Constitution - Features & Significant Provisions related to Fundamental

Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties

The Supreme Court order granting immediate bail to journalist Prashant Kanojia, arrested by theUttar Pradesh Police for sharing on Twitter a video pertaining to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath,was not unexpected. It was obvious that the arrest was arbitrary, unwarranted and without anybasis in law. The State government’s attempt to justify its action smacked of perversity andmalice. The vacation Bench, comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi, made theright call in ignoring technical objections by counsel for the State government that the apex courtshould not intervene as only a regular bail petition could secure relief to someone remanded bythe jurisdictional magistrate. The Bench did not consider the controversial tweets as sufficientgrounds for abridging personal liberty. In observing that the order of release would not amount toan endorsement of Mr. Kanojia’s tweets, the court was only making a minor concession to thepolice claim that he was making inflammatory comments on social media. It is difficult to believethat at a time when social media networks are full of rampant abuse and distasteful material, thepolice can be allowed to choose one or two that appear to target political functionaries andincarcerate those airing such views, disregarding well-established norms for arrest and remand.In Mr. Kanojia’s case, defamation, a non-cognisable offence, and Section 66 of the InformationTechnology Act were cited initially. The latter relates to damaging computer systems, and isinapplicable to a social media post. It was quite clear that there was no case for remand.

SC orders immediate release of journalist on bail

There was a more flagrant illegality when Mr. Kanojia was taken out of Delhi without a transitremand from a local magistrate, mandatory when an accused is taken from one State toanother. Faced with criticism, the U.P. Police added a section dealing with the offence ofcausing public mischief and disturbing public tranquillity, besides Section 67 of the IT Act, whichrelates to sharing of obscene or prurient material, with the motive of obtaining a remand order. Afew other journalists have been arrested for discussing the content of the video clip, in which awoman is seen expressing her wish to marry the Chief Minister. What is disquieting, butunsurprising, is the perfunctory attitude of civil servants towards the personal liberty of citizens. Itis one thing to pursue violations through legal action, but quite another to lock up people forposts they deem offensive to their political masters and conjure up justifications for their arrest. Itis time magistrates who pass mechanical orders without application of mind and officers whocarry out illegal instructions from the political leadership are made to face exemplary disciplinaryaction.


As Prime Minister Modi returns to power, he must swear by the Indian civilisational ethos






crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

Source : www.pib.nic.in Date : 2019-06-13

CRACKDOWN ON UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS OFPUBLIC PREMISES

Relevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Indian Constitution - Amendments, Schedules, and Important Articles

Cabinet

Crackdown on Unauthorised Occupants of Public Premises

Summary Eviction proceedings for UnauthorisedOccupants in Residential Accommodations

Cabinet approves “The Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Amendment Bill, 2019

New Bill to be introduced in the ensuing session ofParliament

Posted On: 12 JUN 2019 7:56PM by PIB Delhi

In a crackdown on the unauthorisedoccupants of residential accommodations in publicpremises, the Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has given a goahead to introduce "The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Bill,2019".

Impact:

The amendments will facilitate smooth and speedy eviction of unauthorised occupants fromGovernment residences, and those vacant residences will be available for allotment to eligiblepersons on maturity of their turn in the waiting list.

This will decrease the waiting time for availing the facility of residential accommodation.

Implications:

The new bill comes in place of "The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Amendment Bill, 2017".

It will be introduced in the ensuing Session of Parliament.

Implementation:

The Bill seeks amendments in Section 2, Section 3 and Section 7 of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, by inserting clause (fa) before clause (fb) inSection 2, a new section 3B below section 3A of Section 3 and a new sub-section 3A below sub-Section (3) under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971.

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

The proposed amendments would enable the Estate officer to apply summary proceedings forevicting unauthorised occupants from residential accommodations and to levy damage chargesfor accommodation held during the period of litigation.

This Bill result in speedy eviction of unauthorised occupants from Government residences andincreased availability of residential accommodations for eligible persons.

Background:

The Government of India has to evict unauthorized occupants from Governmentaccommodations under the provisions of PPE Act, 1971. However, the eviction proceedingstake unusually long time, thereby reducing the availability of Government accommodations tonew incumbents.

Under the existing PPE Act,1971 as amended by PPE Amendment Bill, 2015, the evictionproceeding take around 5 to 7 weeks’ time. However, it takes much longer, even years, to evictunauthorized occupants. Under the proposed bill, the state officer will not have to followelaborate proceedings like serving notice, show cause, inquiry, rather he or she can initiatesummary eviction proceedings.

The decision is yet another reflection of the Government’s commitment for a transparent andhassle-free governance for the citizens of the country.

****

AKT/AK

(Release ID: 1574088) Visitor Counter : 227

Read this release in: Gujarati



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


QUALIFYING FOR LEADER OF THE OPPOSITIONRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Parliament - structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges

and issues arising out of these

“For the success and survival of democracy, an effective Opposition is an imperative.” PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh with the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj,during the golden jubilee celebrations of the Central Vigilance Commission in New Delhi in2014.PTI

After the election of the Lok Sabha Speaker, the question of a formally recognised Oppositionparty and Leader of the Opposition (LoP) of the Lok Sabha under the Salary and Allowances ofLeaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977, will arise. The Act extends to LoPs in the LokSabha and the Rajya Sabha the same official status, allowances and perks that are admissibleto Cabinet Ministers. In the case of the Lok Sabha, however, this is subject to recognition of theleader by the Speaker. In the 16th Lok Sabha, the largest party in the Opposition, the Congress,had 44 seats. After careful consideration, it was decided not to recognise the party’s leader asLoP. Now, the matter needs to be revisited in the context of the 17th Lok Sabha.

The election to the 17th Lok Sabha was the most fiercely and bitterly fought one in the history ofthe Republic. The decisive victory of the ruling alliance and its leadership has been widelywelcomed as being in the best interests of the polity and the people. Above everything, thenation needs a stable government and a strong leader capable of taking firm decisions to ensuresecurity, development and good governance within the rule of law. However, for the successand survival of democracy, an effective Opposition is also a categorical imperative. It is said thatif no Opposition exists, one may have to be created. Also, if there is no Opposition outside, thereis every danger that it may grow within.

Historically, the first officially designated Opposition party in Parliament emerged from the breakup of the all-dominant Congress party in power. In 1969, when Indira Gandhi was the PrimeMinister, the Congress split to form the Indian National Congress (Requisitionists) and the IndianNational Congress (Organisation). The Leader of INC(O), Ram Subhag Singh, became the firstperson to be formally recognised as LoP in the Lok Sabha.

In the 6th Lok Sabha, the Congress sat in the Opposition. Following splits in the Congress aswell as the Janata Party, Yashwantrao B. Chavan, C.M. Stephen and Jagjivan Ram weresuccessive LoPs.

Until 1977, there were no emoluments and perks attached to the position of LoP. There is noprovision in the Constitution or even in the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure in regard to therecognition of the LoP. Right from the first Lok Sabha, the practice has been to recognise theleader of the largest party in Opposition as the LoP provided that party has a strength that isenough to constitute the quorum for a sitting of the House, or one-tenth of the total membershipof the House — at present that comes to 55 members. From the 9th to the 15th Lok Sabhas,since the requirement of having a minimum strength of 55 members was fulfilled, the Lok Sabhahad duly recognised Opposition parties and LoPs, including Rajiv Gandhi, L.K. Advani, AtalBihari Vajpayee, P.V. Narasimha Rao, Sharad Pawar, Sonia Gandhi and Sushma Swaraj.

The 1977 Act defines LoP as that member of the House who is the “Leader in that House of theparty in opposition to the Government having the greatest numerical strength and recognised assuch by the Chairman of the Council of States or the Speaker of the House of the People, as thecase may be.” The Speaker’s decisions in this regard have so far been determined by Direction

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

121(c) which laid down one of the conditions for recognition of party or group as having “at leasta strength equal to the quorum fixed to constitute a sitting of the House, that is one-tenth of thetotal number of members of the House”. The Leaders and Chief Whips of Recognised Partiesand Groups in Parliament (Facilities) Act, 1998 also refers to a recognised party in the LokSabha as a party that has not less than 55 members.

In the recently concluded election to the Lok Sabha, the Opposition was decimated, butthankfully not obliterated. In fact, the largest party in Opposition, the Congress, has improved itsposition from 44 in 2014 to 52 now. It is short of only three members to reach the magicalnumber of 55. Given the level at which ground-level politics has been operating in recentdecades, it should not be difficult for the Congress leadership to augment its party strength bythree members. At the same time, the ruling dispensation is expected to show magnanimity atthis hour of its splendid victory, and the new occupant of the office of Speaker, realising theimportance of an effective and respected Opposition in a democracy, may reconsider thecontent of Direction 121(c) suitably.

Since there is no constitutional provision, the 1977 law does not provide for the requirement of55 members as an essential pre-requisite. As it all depends on the Speaker’s directions anddiscretion, it may be hoped that rightful action will be taken. The simple way out is to substitute‘pre-poll alliance’ for ‘party’ or say ‘party or pre-poll alliance’. In any case, pre-poll alliances are afact of our political life and are already being extended credibility and legitimacy in the matter ofthe President and Governors deciding on who to call first for forming the government in caseswhere no party secures a clear majority support in the House.

Incidentally, what is decided in the matter of recognition of the LoP, and in treating pre-pollalliances at par with parties, may hold tremendous potential for the growth of a sound two- orthree-party (or alliance) system. It could end the present system, a preposterous one, of morethan 2,000 parties being registered with the Election Commission. If and when the much-awaitedlaw for political parties is enacted, it may provide for candidates of an alliance contesting on acommon symbol and an agreed common minimum programme with only national alliances orparties contesting for the Lok Sabha. These aspects, however, call for separate in-depthanalysis, consideration and debate.

Subhash Kashyap is a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha


It opens the window for India to take advantage of economic opportunities in the geopoliticalspace







crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


AN IDEA WHOSE TIME MAY NOT HAVE COMERelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

Not even a month after the world’s largest elections in history were over, the debate around “onenation, one election” has been resurrected. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had continued toflag the issue for the last five years, has now called for a meeting on the subject with leaders ofother political parties.

The 2014 manifesto of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) read: “The BJP will seek, throughconsultation with other parties, to evolve a method of holding Assembly and Lok Sabha electionssimultaneously. Apart from reducing election expenses for both political parties andGovernment, this will ensure certain stability for State Governments.”

In an interview with a news channel in January 2018, the Prime Minister had rightly highlightedthe demerits of the country being in constant election mode. “One election finishes, the secondstarts,” he said. He argued that having simultaneous Parliament, Assembly, civic and Panchayatpolls once every five years and completed within a month or so would save money, resourcesand manpower. This, he pointed out, happened on account of a large section of the securityforces, bureaucracy and political machinery having to be mobilised for up to 200 days a year onaccount of electioneering.

The BJP’s 2019 manifesto also mentions that simultaneous elections for Parliament, StateAssemblies and local bodies to “ensure efficient utilisation of government resources and securityforces and… effective policy planning”. It goes on to say that the party “will try to buildconsensus on this issue with all parties”. It is in this spirit of reform and consensus building thatthe Prime Minister has revived this debate, calling an all-party meeting for discussions on June19.

The re-elected Chief Minister of Odisha, Naveen Patnaik, has already welcomed the idea,saying, on June 15, that frequent elections affect the development climate, and hence it is betterto have simultaneous elections in the country.

The Law Commission had recommended simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabhaand the local bodies as far back as in 1999. The BJP’s L.K. Advani also supported the idea backin 2010 in an eloquent blog post. The matter was examined by a Parliamentary StandingCommittee in December 2015, and was also referred to the Election Commission of India (EC).Both supported it in principle.

The concerns raised are indeed genuine, and the idea is worth debating. First, it is becomingmore and more difficult to contest elections. The 2019 general election was the most expensiveon record; a whopping 60,000 crore was reportedly spent on the whole exercise. Given thatthere is no cap on the expenditure incurred by political parties, they spend obscene amounts ofmoney in every election. It is argued that simultaneous elections would help reduce this cost.

Second, frequent elections hamper the normal functioning of the government and disrupt civiclife. This happens because the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) comes into operation as soon asthe EC announces the election dates. This means that the government cannot announce anynew schemes during this period. This results in what is often referred to as a policy paralysis.The government cannot make any new appointments or transfer/ appoint officials. The entiregovernment manpower is involved in the conduct of elections.

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

I would also like to add that elections are the time when communalism, casteism and corruptionare at their peak. Frequent elections mean that there is no respite from these evils at all. Thishas directly resulted in the souring of the political discourse, something that was on full displayduring the 2019 general election.

From the point of view of EC, simultaneous elections make perfect sense because the voters forall three tiers are the same, polling booths are the same and staff/security is the same — thesuggestion of “one nation, one election” seems logical.

The idea, however, has some hurdles. First, how will “one nation, one election” work in case ofpremature dissolution of the Lok Sabha, for instance, as happened in late 1990s when theHouse was dissolved long before its term of five years was over? In such an eventuality, wouldwe also dissolve all State Assemblies? Similarly, what happens when one of the StateAssemblies is dissolved? Will the entire country go to polls again? This sounds unworkable bothin theory and in the practice of democracy.

Second, as for the implementation of schemes of the government during the MCC period, onlythe new schemes are stopped as these could be tantamount to enticing/bribing voters on theeve of elections. All ongoing programmes are unhindered. Even new announcements that are inurgent public interest can be made with the prior approval of the EC.

Additionally, frequent elections are not so bad for accountability after all. They ensure that thepoliticians have to show their faces to voters regularly. Creation of work opportunities at thegrass-root level is another big upside. The most important consideration is undoubtedly thefederal spirit, which, inter alia, requires that local and national issues are not mixed up.

Now, as the debate has been rekindled, wider deliberation on the need for a range of reformsmust be considered. Till the idea achieves political consensus, there are two alternativesuggestions to deal with the problems that arise due to frequent elections.

First, the problem of uncontrolled campaign expenditure can be remedied by introducing a capon expenditure by political parties. State funding of political parties based on their pollperformance also is a suggestion worth considering. Private and corporate fund collection maybe banned.

Second, as I have suggested elsewhere, the poll duration can be reduced from two-threemonths to about 33 to 35 days if more Central armed police forces can be provided. Theproblems associated with a multi-phased election have been getting compounded, with moreissues being added to the list with every election. Violence, social media-related transgressionsand issues related to the enforcement of the MCC which are unavoidable in a staggered electionwill vanish if the election is conducted in a single day. All that needs to be done is to raise morebattalions. This will also help in job creation.

To conclude, it is undeniable that simultaneous elections would be a far-reaching electoralreform. If it is to be implemented, there needs to be a solid political consensus, and an agendaof comprehensive electoral reforms should supplement it. The pros and cons need to beappropriately assessed and practical alternatives sincerely considered. It is good that thegovernment continues to encourage a debate on the subject rather than forcibly pushing itthrough.

S.Y. Quraishi is a former Chief Election Commissioner of India and the author of ‘AnUndocumented Wonder — the Making of the Great Indian Election’

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m









crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

Source : www.indianexpress.com Date : 2019-06-19

VOICE OF INCLUSIONRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Parliament - structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges


© 2019 The Indian Express Ltd.All Rights Reserved

The writer is head of outreach PRS Legislative Research.

A watchful Parliament forms the foundation of a well-functioning democracy. The presidingofficers of Parliament are the key to securing the effectiveness of this institution. The MPs lookto them to facilitate debate, protect their rights and uphold the dignity of Parliament. OnWednesday, Lok Sabha MPs are set to elect one amongst themselves, to play the pivotal role ofthe presiding officer for the 17th Lok Sabha.

The primary challenge before the new Speaker will be to conduct the proceedings of the LokSabha free from disruptions. To do so, the Speaker will have to earn the trust of the Members ofParliament: One way to earn the trust of MPs will be by being neutral, both in practice andperception while running the House.

Securing the neutrality of the Speaker is a question that experts in India have been grapplingwith for 60-plus years. In Britain, the promise of continuity in office for many terms is used toensure the Speaker’s impartiality. By convention, political parties (usually) do not field acandidate against the Speaker at the time of general elections. And the Speaker can continue inoffice, until deciding otherwise. By convention, the Speaker also gives up the membership ofhis/her political party.

The first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, G V Mavalankar, was aware that the British convention forsecuring the neutrality of the Speaker might not be an easy sell in the nascent years of ourdemocracy. In his 1952 acceptance speech as Speaker of the first Lok Sabha, he said: “Wehave yet to evolve political parties and healthy conventions about Speakership, the principle ofwhich is that, once a Speaker he is not opposed by any party in the matter of his election,whether in the constituency or in the House, so long as he wishes to continue as Speaker.” Hewent on to say, “to expect the Speaker to be out of politics altogether without the correspondingconvention is perhaps entertaining contradictory expectations.”

In 1951 and 1953, the Conference of Presiding Officers of legislatures in India passed aresolution for the adoption of the British Convention. Mavalankar tried to create a consensusamong political parties on adopting this British convention but was unable to make muchheadway. The 1954 decision of the Working Committee of Congress in response toMavalankar’s attempts sealed the fate of the issue. It stated, “The Working Committeeconsidered Shri G V Mavalankar’s letter for establishing a convention for the uncontestedelection of Speakers and felt that this was not a feasible proposition for the present in view ofother political parties being involved in the question.”

With no security in the continuity of office, the Speaker is dependent on his or her political partyfor reelection. This makes the Speaker susceptible to pulls and pressures from her/his politicalparty in the conduct of the proceedings of the Lok Sabha.

Jawaharlal Nehru alluded to this aspect of the Speaker’s responsibility in 1948. At the unveilingof the portrait of Vithalbhai Patel, he said: “We would like the distinguished occupant of this chair

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

now and always to guard the freedom and liberty of those from every possible danger, evenfrom the danger of an executive incursion. There is always that danger even from a NationalGovernment — that it may choose to ride roughshod over the opinions of a minority, and it ishere that the Speaker comes in to protect each single member, or each single group from anysuch unjust activity by a dominant group or a dominant government.”

Other than the election of Mavalankar, every other Lok Sabha Speaker has been electedunanimously. After the election, the Speaker is escorted to her/his chair by the leaders of boththe ruling and opposition party. These conventions are meant to reflect that after her/hiselection, the Speaker belongs to the entire House. For the next five years, all her/his actions willbe weighed on the scale of neutrality. She/ he will have to be vigilant to defend the sanctity ofthe institution and also have the vision to strengthen it. In this challenging journey, her/hisguiding light will be the Constitution and the rules of procedure of Lok Sabha.

Download the Indian Express apps for iPhone, iPad or Android

© 2019 The Indian Express Ltd. All Rights Reserved



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

Source : www.hindustantimes.com Date : 2019-06-21

CAN ONE NATION, ONE POLL WORK?Relevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in one of his first political initiatives after winning a spectacularmandate, convened an all party meeting on Wednesday to deliberate on a pet theme: onenation; one poll. This was an idea that the PM had floated soon after taking over in 2014. But thelack of adequate political strength to engineer the required constitutional changes, the divisionson the issue across the Indian political spectrum, and other priorities meant that the matterreceded to the background. Yet, the push was strong enough for three important bodies — aparliamentary committee, the Niti Aayog and the Law Commission — to deliberate on it. He hasreturned to the idea less than a month after the 2019 election results.

The underlying logic, instinctively, sounds appealing to many. India has too many elections: aLok Sabha poll every five years; a few state assembly polls every year. This distracts from thecore task of governance and forces parties to think about short term political considerationsrather than long term challenges of administration and reforms. It is also expensive business,both for the state which incurs expenditure in organising polls as well as for political partieswhich spend massively during campaigning. It also keeps society perpetually divided, forelections often rely on sharp polarisation. So why not change the system? Have one election forboth the Centre and all assemblies once every five years. And spend the rest of the time ongovernance. This is broadly the case of political advocates of the cause, including the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP).

But the Indian Constitution, Indian democracy, and the Indian federal scheme cannot bereduced to such a simplistic assessment. Yes, elections are expensive (and there needs to be afar more focused debate on political finance). Yes, elections distract from governance. Butregular elections serve an altogether different, and perhaps far more important, function. Theykeep a check on the political executive. They serve as a regular democratic feedbackmechanism. Just take the three state assembly polls at the end of last year. It was perhaps aturning point for 2019 because it made the BJP realise that it needed a course correction. Somestates have polls aligned with the Centre; many do not. And that is just fine because the diversitywithin the Indian political system should allow states to follow their own political calendar. It isnot just a question of desirability. It is also a question of feasibility. Having one poll would requiremajor changes in the Indian Constitution; it leaves open questions about what happens if agovernment at the Centre or any state falls mid-term. Constructive ideas to reform Indianelections and a healthy debate around it are essential. The one nation, one poll idea may notserve that purpose.

First Published: Jun 20, 2019 19:17 IST



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


MISPLACED PRIORITIES: ON SIMULTANEOUS POLLSRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

The decision to form a committee to examine the issue of holding simultaneous elections to theLok Sabha and the State Assemblies is a significant step towards achieving Prime MinisterNarendra Modi’s objective of synchronising elections across the country. The fact that he tookthe initiative to convene a meeting of leaders of all political parties so early in his second stint inoffice shows that he attaches considerable importance to it. Advocates of such elections point topotential benefits. There is the obvious advantage of curbing the huge expenditure involved andreducing the burden on the manpower deployed. The second point in its favour is that rulingparties can focus more on governance and less on campaigning. The idea that some part of thecountry is in election mode every year, resulting in impediments to development work due to themodel code of conduct being in force, is cited in favour of reducing election frequency. But thereare challenging questions of feasibility that the political system must contend with. First, it mayrequire the curtailment or extension of the tenure of State legislatures to bring their elections inline with the Lok Sabha poll dates. Should State governments bear this burden just to fulfil theideal of simultaneous elections? There is an obvious lack of political consensus on this. Anotherquestion is: what happens if the government at the Centre falls?

The Law Commission, in its working paper on the subject, has mooted the idea of a ‘constructivevote of confidence’. That is, while expressing loss of trust in one government, members shouldrepose confidence in an alternative regime. Another idea is that whenever mid-term polls areheld due to loss of majority, the subsequent legislature should serve out only the remainder ofthe term. These measures would involve far-reaching changes to the law, includingamendments to the Constitution to alter the tenure of legislatures and the provision fordisqualification of members for supporting an alternative regime. In terms of principle, the mainissue is whether getting all elections to coincide undermines representative democracy andfederalism. In a parliamentary democracy, the executive is responsible to the legislature; and itslegitimacy would be undermined by taking away the legislature’s power to bring down a minorityregime by mandating a fixed tenure just to have simultaneous elections. The interests ofregional parties may take a beating, as regional issues may be subsumed by national themes ina common election. Given these challenges, there is simply no case for hastening theintroduction of simultaneous elections. The government must accord priority to other electoralreforms. For instance, it should seek ways to curb spending by candidates and parties, whichhas reached alarmingly high levels and poses a threat to free and fair elections.


As Prime Minister Modi returns to power, he must swear by the Indian civilisational ethos






crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


SIMULTANEOUS POLLS ARE NEEDED TO ADDRESSDISTORTIONS IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Relevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.Political Parties


The writer is CEO, Bluekraft Digital Foundation and was earlier director (content) MyGov

Should there be economic reforms? Almost instinctively, most people would answer thisquestion in the affirmative. But why are reforms necessary? Leaving aside the ideological andconceptual changes in direction, most of the time, reforms are simply necessary becauseprocesses usually do not perform as well in the long term as they do in the short term.

Now, if this is true for the economy, would it not be equally true for other aspects, say theprocess of holding elections? The renewed pitch for “One Nation One Election” if understood interms of process improvement, or reforms, makes eminent sense. What are the distortions thathave crept in due to the year-round election cycle?

First, the Rajya Sabha has simply stopped reflecting the current will of the people. No, this is notan argument to assert that Rajya Sabha should reflect the reality of the Lok Sabha mandate,although some people have made a plausible case for that as well. But is it anybody’s case thatthe Rajya Sabha members should not reflect the current will of their respective state’s mandate?Consider the situation that a fixed term (six years) for a Rajya Sabha MP has produced. ElevenRajya Sabha members were elected from Uttar Pradesh in June 2016: Seven of them were fromthe SP, two from the BSP and just one each from the BJP and Congress. These resultsreflected the reality of the then state assembly of UP. These seats will be up for re-election inJune 2022. In between, the people of the state decisively voted in favour of the BJP in March2017. The UP assembly is due for elections in February-March 2022. This would mean that theassembly elected in 2017 would have had zero say in its entire tenure on these 11 seats.

If the BJP faces this quandary in UP, the Congress does so in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.In the March 2018 Rajya Sabha elections, Rajasthan assembly returned three out of threemembers for the BJP. These seats would now be due for election only in March 2024. Theassembly elected in December 2018, which the BJP lost, and which will again go for election inDecember 2023, will simply have no say over these seats. These are not just isolated examplesbut prevalent across the board.

Second, assembly elections two years either side of Parliamentary elections, in states ruled by adifferent party than that at the Centre, have led to an almost continuous confrontationist attitude,severely compromising federal cooperation and governance delivery. Take the case of WestBengal. Before the 2019 general elections, Ayushman Bharat was suspended, PM Kisan wasnot implemented, CBI jurisdiction was impeded. Even a natural calamity could not persuade thechief minister to cooperate with the Centre. The general elections are now over but has thesituation returned to normal? No, because the state elections are less than two years away.

Third, although governments are nominally elected for five years, the frequent imposition of theModel Code suspends decision making and implementation every few months. Alternatively,every decision taken is looked through the prism of the next round of elections. This has

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

squeezed out space for ideas that may be vital but have no immediate electoral salience.

Fourth, the competitive nature of electoral democracy inevitably means choosing to make theeasiest promise. Think of the Delhi government’s promise of free rides to women in the Delhimetro. Routed in the general elections and fearing similar result six months later, who wouldwant to invest time in arduous efforts to effect real, long-term changes?

Fifth, the ubiquitous nature of social media has meant that almost everybody is now not just aninformed political animal but a participating political animal. Once you have taken a position on apolitical issue, then the very nature of the beast will compel you to keep on participating withyour political lens, for the next election is around the corner and how can you let your sidedown? What this does is that it completely eliminates any chance of reconciliation post elections.

By chairing an all-party meeting on the issue so early in his second term, Prime MinisterNarendra Modi has put “One Nation, One Election” centrestage. There have been variousmodels proposed for implementing the idea of simultaneous elections. They will surely bedebated and a plausible method to reconcile the practicalities be evolved. It took us about adecade to agree to GST. It was a one-time adjustment at the national and state level and wehave already started seeing the benefits of this structural change. “One Nation One Election” isalso about one-time structural change. First align various cycles and then evolve a structure, byconsensus, which can serve us for the decades to come. It is an idea whose time has come.

This article first appeared in the print edition on June 20, 2019 under the title ‘The nextstructural change’. The writer is CEO, Bluekraft Digital Foundation and was director(content), MyGov





crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


WHILE ONE NATION ONE POLL IS DOABLE WITHDIFFICULTY, IS IT WORTH IT?

Relevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.Political Parties


Meghnad Desai loves to cook, watch and write about old Bollywood movies and shuttlesbetween London, Delhi and Goa. He pursues controversies on economics, history and anythingelse which catches his attention. He is also a British parliamentarian sitting in the House ofLords. He has written over 25 books, over 200 articles in learned journals and hundreds ofnewspaper columns in UK and India.

Narendra Modi has secured for himself five or perhaps even ten years. He may be the first toequal Nehru’s record by winning three elections in succession. But, he is a man in a hurry. Thisis why One Nation One Poll (ONOP) has been taken up at an early stage in the Modi 2.0 era.

The first constitution of India was the 1935 Government of India Act. It had strong states and aweak Centre. After the Partition, the Constituent Assembly changed the scheme from aConfederation to a Union. The Centre was all powerful and states were to be its creatures.

The assumption then was that the Congress would be in power at the Centre and in all states.Each unit in the Union would follow the Westminster system and a majority in the popularlyelected Chamber was required to form a government. Governments could be dismissed by a no-confidence vote at the Centre and in the states. The implicit tension in a Union of many statesand a Westminster test of legitimacy was not tested for the first four elections. Congress ruledeverywhere (except Kerala in 1957).

From 1967 onwards, it has not been possible to hold all elections simultaneously. The five-yearcycle of government at the Centre was interrupted and two consecutive elections five yearsapart for Centre did not recur till 1999. At the state level, the pattern is bewildering with short-lived governments, defections, President’s Rule etc.

Over time, states have increased their power vis-a-vis the Centre except in financial matters.Regional parties are powerful at home but may be weak at the Centre. What keeps the Uniontogether is the electoral freedom for states to go at their own pace.

Unless the BJP/NDA repeats the old Congress hegemony for a very long period, restoringsimultaneous elections across the Centre and states would require restrictions on the power ofthe Opposition to defeat a government in a confidence vote. This could be done only by rulingout no-confidence motions completely at the state and the central level. For example, it could belegislated that if a government fell in midterm, it would not be replaced by another party, but byPresident’s Rule till the date of the next ONOP.

Even if this was possible, the problem of the government at the Centre is insuperable. You canimpose President’s Rule at a state level, but who can impose Article 356 at the Centre? ThePresident acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Council is not likely to urge him tosign their death warrant.

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

A provision would have to be added that in case of losing a confidence motion, the incumbentgovernment at the Centre must request the President to take over the reins of power till the duedate of the next ONOP.

But while ONOP is doable with difficulty, is it worth it?

The advantage of ONOP is economy of effort, reduction in disruption of normal business, anduniformity. The risk is that truncating the democratic powers of legislature for the sake ofmarching in step may disturb the spontaneous unity which has sustained the Union, especially ifthe party in power at the Centre is not in power at the state level.

This article first appeared in the print edition on June 23, 2019, under the title One Nation,One Poll





crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

Source : www.prsindia.org Date : 2019-06-26

PRSINDIARelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Indian Constitution - Amendments, Schedules, and Important Articles

IntroducedLok SabhaJun 24, 2019Gray



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


GREENER PASTURESRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties


The writer is a former secretary general of the Lok Sabha.

The 10th Schedule of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the anti-defection law, is facingthe most serious challenge yet in its 34 years of existence. The challenge is not judicial, butpolitical. Legislators show a tendency to ignore the law and defect to the parties in power. Earlierthis month, 12 out of the 16 members of the Congress Legislature Party in Telangana “merged”with the TRS, the ruling party in Telangana. Close on the heels of this defection, four membersof the Rajya Sabha, from the Telugu Desam Party “merged” with the BJP and became membersof the legislature party of the BJP in the Rajya Sabha. Quite surprisingly, the media in generalhas approved of this act of defection as a valid exercise in accordance with the law — that iftwo-thirds of the legislators of a party merge with another party, it would be a legally validmerger. This is a wrong interpretation of the law.

The 10th Schedule was enacted to put an end to the scourge of defection. The political classviewed defection as such a serious menace to the stability of the democratic system that theanti-defection law was made a constitutional law. Constitutional authorities such as theChairman of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of Lok Sabha, who act as tribunals in defectioncases, have scrupulously followed the spirit of the law in deciding the cases under the 10thSchedule.

The spate of defections taking place now have brought back the focus to this law once again.Does any provision of this law actually allow any legislator to move out of his party and joinanother party without any legal hitch? This question has assumed great importance in thecontext of the Telangana Congress MLAs merging in the TRS and the TDP MPs of Rajya Sabhamerging with the BJP. They seem to assume that having two-third of the total number ofmembers of their respective parties means they can merge with the other parties, withoutincurring disqualification.

Para 2(1)(a) of the 7th Schedule disqualifies a legislator, however, if he voluntarily gives up themembership of his party. So any MLA or MP is liable to be disqualified if he leaves his partyvoluntarily. But Para 4 is in the nature of an exception. It exempts such legislators fromdisqualification upon fulfilling two conditions: One, his original political party has merged with theother party; two, two-thirds of the legislators of that party have agreed to such a merger. TheSpeaker can exempt them from disqualification only on the fulfilment of these two conditions.This makes it clear that any merger mentioned is between the original political party and theother party. But a mere merger between two parties is not enough for invoking the protection ofPara 4.

After all, the entire 10th Schedule relates to the defection of legislators. Therefore, their role inthe merger process is very crucial. Thus, this Para says, that for the purpose of exempting adefecting legislator, the merger shall be deemed to have taken place only if two-thirds of thelegislators have agreed to such a merger. If the legislators have not agreed to the merger, thereis no merger under Para 4. The lawmakers have used words very carefully. The words “two-thirds of the Members. have agreed to such merger”, used in Para 4(2), make it abundantly clear

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

that the merger takes place between two parties and the requisite number of legislators of thatparty must agree to such merger. Thereafter, the speaker exempts those legislators fromdisqualification. It may be noted here that the legislators do not merge, they only agree to themerger done by their original political party. Thus, a merger between the political partiesconcerned has to take place first. Only then can the legislators “agree to such merger”.

In all the cases mentioned above, the legislators have acted on the assumption that all that isrequired to do is for them to “merge” with the other party and the merger of their original politicalparty is not necessary.

This is a misreading of the law. The sooner they realise it, the better for them as well as for thedemocratic system.

The writer is a former secretary general of the Lok Sabha





crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


A DEMOCRATIC REQUIREMENTRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Parliament - structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges


Today the parliamentary Opposition in India is not merely fragmented but also in disarray. Thereseems to be hardly any Opposition party with a vision or strategy for its institutional working orfor the Opposition as a whole. Such a state of affairs is probably worse than the defeat most ofthe Opposition parties have suffered in the elections to the 17th Lok Sabha. Given this impasse,some of them may seek an alternative in strengthening their State-level bases either to ward offpoaching by the ruling dispensation or to work to better their prospects in the elections in theoffing. There would also be much showcasing of Opposition unity particularly during a LokSabha session. While such exercises could be defended as modes of survival in hard times, oreven as inevitable tactics, should the Opposition limit itself merely to them? Should not theOpposition reinvent a distinct and broader role for itself? Is the despondency the parliamentaryOpposition is caught in conducive to the pivotal role it is called upon to play in a post-colonialdemocracy such as India?

At the time of India’s first elections, there was little doubt regarding the potential ruling party ofthe country. The matter of concern, however, was the state of the parliamentary Opposition.There was little doubt in anyone’s mind, unlike probably today, that without a viable and effectiveOpposition, parliamentary democracy would largely be a sham. Without it there would not be aneffective oversight on representative concerns, in eliciting responsiveness from wielders ofpower and enforcing accountability. While there could be other organs of the state for specificpurposes, it was the parliamentary Opposition, it was believed, that held the popular trust to itssafe-keeping. In other words, India’s claim to be a working democracy rested not in posting anelectoral majority, but in engendering a parliamentary Opposition that would be the conscienceof the nation.

Qualifying for Leader of the Opposition

Jawaharlal Nehru was acutely conscious of the absence of an effective Opposition in the House,and once wrote provocatively, under the pseudonym Chanakya, saying, “a little twist andJawaharlal might turn into a dictator sweeping aside the paraphernalia of a slow- movingdemocracy”. He repeatedly cajoled Jayaprakash Narayan, who had opted for public serviceoutside the electoral arena, to enter Parliament and lead the Opposition. It is a different matter,though, that when such an Opposition came to crystallise, it was not much to his liking! ThisOpposition was made of disgruntled leaders moving out of the ruling party and the existingparliamentary Opposition largely made of socialists and communists. The Bharatiya Jan Sanghand the Swatantra Party were to soon foist their distinctive markers on the Opposition. Thedevelopment produced dozens of truly outstanding parliamentarians — Hriday Nath Kunzru, J.B.Kripalani, A.K.Gopalan, H.V.Kamath, Ram Manohar Lohia and M.R. Masani, just to name a few.India’s parliamentary Opposition was an invention of its own and a development of momentoussignificance with certain distinct characteristics.

From the early 1960s powerful movements broke out all over India on issues such as landreforms, rights of the industrial working class, unemployment, foodgrains and their distribution,ethnic demands and language rights. While the strength of the parliamentary Oppositioncontinued to be puny and divided till 1967, it was enormously bolstered by linking itself to thesesocial movements, and vice-versa. Such a bonding, however, went alongside a reflectivecommitment to constitutional and parliamentary democracy. It encompassed the broadestspectrum of the Opposition, including the communists, a section of whom had initially

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

entertained doubt regarding the prospects of social revolution under the aegis of constitutionaldemocracy. While the government proceeded against some of the leaders for their role in thesocial movements, there was obviously a limit to which it could go.

In the early 1970s, the parliamentary Opposition became the site that reflected a comprehensivecritique of the direction charted by India’s democracy. The parliamentary communists, with alltheir internal ideological and political squabbles, continued to employ the frame of class struggle— imperialism, big capital and landlordism on the one hand, and working class, peasantry andmiddle classes on the other. But it was the socialists who made the terrain of democracy inplace as their anchor, developed a critique of the path of industrialisation, centralisation andconcentration of power, deployment of institutions of constitutional democracy asinstrumentalities of the ruling regime as well as the resultant outcomes of agrarian crisis,devastation of traditional crafts and small-scale industry, assault on citizenship rights,intolerance of dissent, aversion to federalism and decentralisation of power, rise in bureaucraticstranglehold and security apparatuses, muzzling of the media and disregard to languages andlocal cultures.

Who will lead the Opposition ranks?

It was this Opposition that issued the call for civil disobedience as foundational to democracywhen the parliamentary Opposition came to be subdued. Jayaprakash Narayan became therallying symbol for this Opposition, bringing down the authoritarian regime of the Emergency(1975-77), and enabling it to ride to power with huge popular support in the elections.

It is a different matter that the internal squabbles within the ruling Janata Party, its inability toorder its priorities, and its susceptibility to the insinuations of the Opposition in place gave thisexperiment a short shrift. The Congress party in Opposition (1977-1979) too experimented withan oppositional stance which was largely to discredit the party in power, and seek a restorationof the post-colonial regime. The strategy of merely discrediting the ruling regime as anoppositional stance does not hold much prospect today, given the unity of the ruling regime andits hold over media and communication networks. Besides, it does not reflect the creativity andingenuity that the Opposition has imparted to parliamentary democracy in India.

From the 1980s parliamentary Opposition came to make a place for itself by advancing one orthe other conception of nationalism. There are clearly three significant conceptions in contention.The first is a majoritarian conception which argues against any special consideration tominorities and disparages pluralism. The second is a secular conception that upholds equalcitizenship while extending special considerations to distinct concerns and ways of life. The thirdargues that Indian nationalism and the post-colonial polity have largely been in the service of aprivileged strata and measures should be taken to tilt this balance in favour of the disadvantagedas well as reflect India’s deep diversity. It is important to bear in mind that while each one ofthese conceptions has tried to outwit the others, they have selectively reached out to someelements of the rest with the aim of securing electoral majorities.

A majoritarian conception of the polity, avowing a strong state that has an overriding say withregard to rights and freedoms, but with a pronounced tilt to the market, has been triumphaltoday. But it can hardly be said that other perspectives in contention have lost their salience andthe legacy of the parliamentary Opposition in India has lost its mettle.

In this context, the parliamentary Opposition in India has much to learn from its own legacy. Itcan draw from it lessons to position itself as the representative voice of democratic andegalitarian urges that is at the same time critical of the idea of the nation that has left behind asignificant section of its population from any meaningful sense of belonging to it. But it also may

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

be the opportune context to think of new ways by which dissent and opposition can be sustainedin a new media-induced public culture that invariably breeds docility and compliance.

Valerian Rodrigues had taught political Science at Mangalore University and Jawaharlal NehruUniversity









crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


WHAT IS ‘FUTARCHY’ IN POLITICSRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

This refers to a form of government where voters get to vote on the values that need to upheldby their government, but the best policies that need to be adopted in order to achieve thesepopular values is decided through the means of prediction markets. It is believed that predictionmarkets, where investors bet money on the future outcomes of various policies, can offer betterpolicy ideas than regular democracies where politicians decide the policies of the government.Futarchy was first proposed by American economist Robert Hanson who summarised the ideaas “vote on value, but bet on beliefs” in a manifesto released in 2000.


The draft National Policy on Education has an important reform on the first stage of education








crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


PARLEYRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl.

Political Parties

Last week, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi convened an all-party meeting to discuss theidea of ‘one nation, one poll’, several parties stayed away, calling the idea “anti-democratic” and“anti-federal”. In a discussion moderated by Anuradha Raman, Tiruchi Siva and Jagdeep S.Chokkar speak of the implications of the proposed move. Edited excerpts:

Tiruchi Siva: One of the reasons the ruling party puts forth [to hold simultaneous elections] isthe huge expenditure involved in the election process. In a democratic country, it the right of thepeople to exercise their franchise. It is the discretion of the people to elect or unseat agovernment. Citing expenses incurred in elections is not such a big issue in a country as vast asours.

Our main contention is that as long as we have Article 356 in the Constitution, which allows anyState government to be removed by the Central government, how can you be sure that theCentre will not unseat a State government for its own personal reasons by using Article 356 ifsimultaneous elections are held? What will happen to the remaining tenure of that electedAssembly? As long as Article 356 is in the Constitution, no State government is assured its fullterm of five years. Will somebody give us an assurance that Article 356 will be removed from theConstitution?

Jagdeep S. Chokkar: Well, are we trying to get the cheapest possible democracy or are wetrying to get the most effective and representative democracy? I think it is wrong to put amonetary value on democracy and elections.

The point on the issue of expenses is, who spends this money? The money that theGovernment of India and the Election Commission spend, which is public money, is minusculecompared to the money that political parties and candidates spend. If political parties andcandidates want to reduce expenditure, they can do that. Nobody is asking them to spend thatmoney. They spend this money because no political party is internally democratic.

‘One Nation, One Election’ — is it a wise idea? | Parley podcast

The Model Code of Conduct only says that if the government wants to introduce a programme ora policy which may have a bearing on the result of the elections, it has to seek clearance fromthe Election Commission. There are a number of cases where the Election Commission hasgiven such permission. The Model Code does not say that all existing schemes should bestopped. So, to say that development stops because of the Model Code is strange. The reasonis that parties which are in power think of development programmes in the last six months orthree months before the elections.

Then there’s the point about the government machinery getting caught in the election process.Every State has two elections every five years — one for the Assembly and one for Parliament.Today, elections to a small and remote State Assembly are considered to be a referendum onthe national government, so much so that the national government and the politicalestablishment gets into that election. A State election should be fought by the people of theState. Why should Ministers of the Central government and the Prime Minister go to every Stateto campaign? As a matter of fact, a case can be made that the Minister who takes an oath tofulfil his ministerial duties to the best of his ability for five years and then goes on electoral

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

campaigns violates the oath of office which requires him to do his work as a Minister. If there arepeople required to campaign everywhere in the country, let them not be made Ministers. Ifelections are held in one or two States, why should the administration in the remaining Statesstop functioning?

TS: Adding to what Mr. Chokkar said, till 1967, simultaneous elections were in vogue. Thesituation changed after that. All the reasons Mr. Chokkar gave are valid. You see, in ademocratic country, an election is the core thread through which people can express their viewsabout the government. At other times, the government has the upper hand. Saying that a fewcrores being spent on elections is a waste is not a valid argument.

The Hindu Explains: One nation, one election

Then I come to the Lok Sabha. In 1977, the Lok Sabha’s term lasted only for three years. In1989 it lasted only for two years. In 1996, the 11th Lok Sabha lasted for 18 months, and the 12thLok Sabha lasted 13 months. Even the Lok Sabha cannot be assured of a full term. And if theLok Sabha is dissolved and the State governments are stable, what is the solution to that?

TS: Yes, there is an apprehension that it is so. What is the urgency when there are so manyissues to debate? There are serious concerns about the federal structure and its future againstthe backdrop of this proposal.

JSC: Part VI of the Constitution concerns the States. The States have an independentconstitutional entity and existence. They have their own rhythm of elections. To forcibly changea constitutional entity’s natural progression is unconstitutional. And as has been said by Siva, itis a violation of the federal structure. So, one, there is independent constitutional existence, andtwo, there is the famous Kesavananda Bharati judgment in which a 13-judge Bench said, yes,Parliament does have the power to amend the Constitution, but that power does not extend tothe point where the basic structure can be changed. The basic structure has been definedvariously by several Supreme Court judgments. And in all those descriptions the federalcharacter of the Constitution is a permanent component and prevents Parliament from amendingthe basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, I maintain that even if all parties agree thatsimultaneous elections should be held, it is unconstitutional and it will not stand the test ofjudicial scrutiny. It is against the spirit of democracy and it should not be done.

If the party in power wants to have absolute control over all the States, it should move a formalproposal to have a presidential form of government. I have no problem with that, but that shouldbe discussed in that form and not through this devious and circuitous way.

TS: Importance to States was accorded only after the emergence of regional parties. Till then,the national party dominated. After the emergence of regional parties, importance was given tolocal issues, and regional importance, of course, gained momentum. That cannot be sought tobe undermined or underestimated in the future. If a simultaneous election comes through, thenational party may take that as a sign for a simultaneous verdict. There are chances that theprevailing situation will help a party to remain in power at the Centre and in the States. Thisproposal will undermine the federal structure by pushing the regional parties out.

JSC: Absolutely. I feel that this is perhaps one of the unstated intentions. To get rid of all theminor parties, so to say, is to get rid of the Opposition. Regional parties will lose out because itwill be argued that we are also voting for Parliament and for national issues. So, should the voterbe voting on national issues in the State elections or on regional issues?

I had written a piece with Sanjay Kumar for your newspaper [in 2016] where I had said that [from

crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m

the 1989 general election onwards], out of 31 instances where elections for State Assembliesand Parliament were held simultaneously, in 24 cases the same party was voted for the StateAssembly and Parliament. So, the chances of voters voting together for the same party for theState and the Centre are high.

Even when the Congress was in power, and during Indira Gandhi’s time, there was a proposalfor a presidential form of government, though the slogan of ‘one nation, one election’ was notused. So, it is a fact that any party which finds itself in a rather strong position feels likeperpetuating its rule. But that does not mean that it is democratic.

The third issue is that in the last three years, there have been a number of discussions onsimultaneous elections. And this government, even before Parliament meets, calls a meeting ofthe political parties on this issue. This makes me wonder whether it is a diversionary tactic of thegovernment so that people don’t think about other issues.

JSC: It is ironic that there is a limit on the expenditure that a candidate can incur duringelections but there is no limit on the expenditure that a party can incur. What is the source ofincome of political parties? Nearly 70-80% of the income of parties on an average is fromunknown sources. And now, on top of that, we have this new scheme called electoral bonds.This is a blatant way of converting black money into white. Data show that in 2017-18, 95% ofthe bonds were received by the party in power. Now, this is a way of choking the funding to allOpposition parties, big or small. And if funding to all Opposition parties is choked, obviouslyother parties will be unable to function. That’s why we are in the Supreme Court and the matteris under the consideration of the Court. Our contention is that it is against all the apex court’sjudgments on transparency. I mean, the whole exercise of making electoral bonds a Money Bill,which it is not, is questionable. There are many things wrong with electoral bonds and they willmake the election expense issue even more opaque.

I repeat, election expenses are not an issue. If political parties are going to be truly democratic intheir internal functioning, they have to stop choosing candidates on their winnability quotient, theexact definition of which is not known to anybody, but we do know that money and musclepower form two very important parts. Till that is corrected, the election expenditure issue is notgoing to be sorted out.

TS: I would like to know how much money can be saved by holding simultaneous elections. Wewill oppose the move and continue to do so. The government cannot paralyse the best practiceswhich have been followed so far.

Jagdeep S. Chokkar is one of the founding members of the Association for Democratic Reforms,and Tiruchi Siva is a DMK member in the Rajya Sabha from Tamil Nadu.


The draft National Policy on Education has an important reform on the first stage of education




crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m





crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


PRSINDIARelevant for: Developmental Issues | Topic: Health & Sanitation and related issues




crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m



IntroducedLok SabhaDec 18, 2017Gray



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m



PromulgatedJan 12, 2019GrayLapsed



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


PRSINDIARelevant for: Developmental Issues | Topic: Education and related issues

PromulgatedMar 07, 2019



crac

kIAS.co

m

crac

kIAS.co

m


PRSINDIARelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Indian Constitution - Amendments, Schedules, and Important Articles




Documents

Indian Polity - JUNE 2019 Polity.pdfRelevant for: Indian Polity | Topic: Elections, Election Commission and the Electoral Reforms in India Incl. Political Parties Sunil Arora € The