In News:

A crucial 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled on the scope of government powers over private property, with a focus on Articles 39(b) and 31C of the Constitution.

Key Issues Considered by the Court

• Article 31C: Whether it still protects laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and 39(c), even after amendments and past rulings.
• Interpretation of Article 39(b): The meaning of “material resources of the community” and the limits on government acquisition.

Legal and Constitutional Background

• Article 31C and 39(b) Overview:
  • Article 31C was introduced by the 25th Amendment (1971) to protect laws related to the distribution of resources for the common good.
  • Article 39(b) (Directive Principle of State Policy) mandates that resources should be distributed to best serve the common good.
• Historical Context:
  • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court affirmed the Constitution’s "basic structure," impacting the interpretation of amendments to Article 31C.
  • Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Court struck down further amendments to Article 31C.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling in 2024

• Restoration of the Post-Kesavananda Position: The Supreme Court clarified that the interpretation of Article 31C is restricted, and the protection under this article applies only to laws implementing Articles 39(b) and 39(c), not all directive principles.
• On Redistributing Private Property:
  • The majority opinion held that not all privately owned properties can be considered “material resources of the community” for redistribution under Article 39(b).
  • The Court dismissed the broad interpretation of "material resources" used in previous rulings (e.g., Justice Krishna Iyer’s dissent in the Ranganatha Reddy case, 1977).

Dissenting and Concurring Opinions

• Justice Nagarathna’s Concurring Opinion:
  • Acknowledged that certain privately owned resources could be considered material resources (e.g., forests, wetlands), but emphasized a balanced approach.
  • Distinguished between personal belongings and resources that could be considered part of the public domain.
• Justice Dhulia’s Dissent:
  • Argued for a broader interpretation, in line with past rulings, that private resources could be considered material resources if they served the public good.

Interpretation of Article 39(b)

• Scope of the Article:
  • Article 39(b) directs the State to ensure that the ownership of material resources is distributed to serve the common good.
  • It imposes a positive obligation on the State to create policies for resource distribution, but does not authorize arbitrary expropriation of private property.
• Private Property as Material Resources:
  • The Court clarified that private property cannot be deemed a material resource of the community unless specific conditions are met (e.g., scarcity, public welfare implications).
  • The judgment emphasized a case-by-case analysis rather than a blanket approach.

Criteria for Assessing Material Resources

The Court provided criteria to evaluate whether a private property could be considered a “material resource of the community”:

• Nature of the Resource: What is the resource’s fundamental characteristic?
• Impact on Public Welfare: Does the resource impact the common good or public interest?
• Ownership Type: Is the resource privately owned or under state control?
• Scarcity: Is the resource scarce or in finite supply?
• Concentration of Ownership: Are the resources concentrated in the hands of a few private entities?

Implications of the Ruling

• Protection of Private Property Rights: The ruling strengthens protections against arbitrary State acquisition of private property, reinforcing the constitutional safeguards for property rights.
• Economic Implications: The Court noted that India’s economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to a market-based economy, and that resource redistribution policies should reflect this change.
• Policy Shifts: The ruling marks a shift away from a socialist economic ideology towards one that emphasizes private property rights, while still considering public welfare in resource distribution.

Conclusion

• Balancing Individual Rights with Public Welfare: The ruling underscores the importance of balancing private property rights with the need for equitable resource distribution to serve the common good.
• Implications for Constitutional Interpretation: This judgment marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of property rights in India, affirming the evolving nature of the Constitution in response to dynamic economic and social policies.

Why is it in the News?

The case involving DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) and DAMEPL (Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd) which has been in and out of courts for over a decade, has concluded with the Supreme Court verdict on April 10.

Context:

• On April 10, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the case concerning the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL), bringing it to a close.
• This ruling holds exceptional importance within the legal sphere, setting a notable precedent for arbitration tribunals and courts.
• Moreover, it carries significant implications for public service delivery via partnership models and demonstrates effective litigation strategies for infrastructure projects, contributing to India's future resilience.

What is the Dispute Between DMRC and DAMPEL?

• The dispute between the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL) arises from the development and operation of the Airport Metro Express Line, a crucial infrastructure project in India's capital city, which began operations in 2011.
• The partnership between DMRC and DAMEPL followed a public-private partnership (PPP) model, where DMRC was responsible for constructing civil structures such as tunnels, viaducts, and station buildings, while DAMEPL was in charge of laying tracks, overhead equipment, signaling, and procuring rolling stock.
• Problems arose shortly after the line became operational.
  • In 2012, DAMEPL suspended operations on the line, citing defects in the civil engineering works executed by DMRC.
  • DAMEPL claimed that these defects compromised safety and functionality and demanded that DMRC rectify the issues within 90 days, threatening to treat the situation as a material breach of the agreement and terminate the contract if not addressed.
• DMRC attempted to resolve the issues through conciliation proceedings, but these efforts proved unsuccessful.
  • Consequently, DAMEPL issued a notice of termination, asserting that DMRC had failed to remedy the defects.
  • This led to a breakdown in the relationship between the two parties and prompted legal battles.
• Despite the challenges, DMRC and DAMEPL submitted a joint application in November 2012 to the commissioner of metro rail safety for inspection and permission to restart operations.
  • Train services were eventually restored on the line by DAMEPL in 2013, with train speeds on the line increasing to 80 km/h. However, in June of the same year, DAMEPL announced its unwillingness to continue operating the line and ceased operations almost immediately.
• Recognizing the importance of the metro line for the public, DMRC stepped in to operate the nearly abandoned Airport Metro Express Line.
  • DMRC resumed train operations and provided other ancillary services to maintain public transportation on the line.
  • This intervention prevented a complete suspension of services and ensured continuity for commuters.

Findings of the Arbitration Tribunal:

• The tribunal awarded DAMEPL Rs 2,782 crore with interest after concluding that the termination notification was legitimate.
• In 2018, the Delhi High Court's single-judge bench maintained the award notwithstanding DMRC's protest.
• The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, responding to DMRC's appeal, criticized the arbitral tribunal's methodology, pointing out errors such as failing to consider safety considerations and failing to read contractual provisions. As a result, the arbitration decision was revoked.

Supreme Court's Intervention and Final Judgement:

• Both DMRC and DAMEPL appealed to the Supreme Court through special leave petitions, leading to a significant legal process.
• Initially, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's ruling and reinstated the arbitral award in 2021.
• However, following DMRC's curative petition, the Supreme Court revisited the case.
• After a thorough examination, considering various factors including factual background and tribunal decisions, the Court found significant errors in the arbitral award.
• Concluding that the award lacked coherence and resulted in serious injustice, the Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, deeming the award as flawed and illegal.
• This reversal of its earlier decision restored the parties to the status quo as per the Division Bench's judgment.

Importance of the Supreme Court Verdict:

• Establishing Precedent for Arbitration: The verdict sets a precedent for arbitration tribunals and courts, outlining the meticulous scrutiny required for arbitral awards.
  • It underscores the importance of coherence and evidence-based reasoning in such decisions, ensuring fairness and consistency in dispute resolution.
• Ensuring Fairness and Justice: By reinstating the parties to the status quo as per the Delhi High Court Division Bench's judgment, the Supreme Court prioritizes fairness and justice in public-private partnership (PPP) projects.
  • This safeguards public utilities from undue financial strain and upholds the interests of all stakeholders involved in contractual disputes.
• Promoting Accountability and Due Diligence: The ruling emphasizes accountability in infrastructure projects, stressing the need for due diligence and adherence to contractual obligations.
  • It underscores the responsibility of all PPP participants to act in good faith, particularly in managing critical public infrastructure, thereby fostering transparency and integrity.
• Guiding Future Infrastructure Ventures: The judgment provides clarity for pending cases, especially in the infrastructure domain, offering a roadmap for handling disputes arising from PPP agreements.
  • It ensures that future projects benefit from transparent and equitable dispute resolution mechanisms, enhancing the efficiency and credibility of infrastructure development efforts.
• Boosting Confidence in PPPs: By reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to legal integrity and fairness, the ruling instills confidence in both public and private entities engaging in PPPs.
  • This confidence is essential for attracting investment in infrastructure projects, driving economic growth, and modernizing India's infrastructure landscape.

Conclusion

The prolonged legal conflict between DMRC and DAMEPL highlighted the complexities and challenges inherent in PPP projects, spanning over a decade with various assertions from both sides. This case serves as a testament to the judiciary's pivotal role in preserving equity and integrity within PPP ventures, crucial for advancing the nation's infrastructure. Furthermore, it underscores the significance of adhering to principles of fairness in contractual disagreements and the enduring influence of legal precedents on the trajectory of public-private collaborations

Why is it in the News?

The Supreme Court of India has recently mandated the public disclosure of all pertinent information regarding corporate funding of political parties, with the State Bank of India and other entities directed to comply with the court's directive.

Context:

• The recent landmark ruling by the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, represents a pivotal moment in Indian democracy.
• This ruling specifically addresses the legality of the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) initiated through the Finance Act of 2017.
• Beyond its immediate implications, the verdict underscores fundamental principles such as equality, transparency, and proportionality concerning corporate contributions to election funding.

What is the Supreme Court verdict on the Electoral Bond Scheme?

• Nullification of Electoral Bond Scheme: The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) unconstitutional, citing concerns over unrestricted donations, anonymity of contributions via promissory notes, and exemption of corporate donors from disclosure obligations.
  • This underscores the imperative of transparency in corporate election financing, aligning with constitutional rights outlined in Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(a) (right to information).
• Immediate Cessation of Electoral Bonds and Disclosure Mandates: The Court mandated the immediate cessation of electoral bonds and directed all pertinent authorities to disclose relevant information dating back to April 12, 2019.
  • The State Bank of India's request for an extension was met with skepticism, prompting a contempt petition against them for non-compliance.
• Guidelines on Legislative Passage via Money Bill Route: While the verdict didn't specifically address the Speaker's authority to classify bills as money bills, it offered guidance suggesting that not all legislative determinations qualify as financial or economic decisions.
  • This challenges the presumption of constitutionality and underscores the need for a nuanced approach in evaluating bills passed via the money bill route.

What is the Reason Behind SC's Scrutiny of Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS)?

• Elimination of Donation Caps: The court closely examined the EBS due to its elimination of donation caps imposed on political parties, as outlined in the Finance Act 2017.
  • This removal of restrictions allowed for unrestricted inflow of funds into electoral campaigns, posing a potential threat to the democratic principle of a level playing field.
• Anonymity of Donations via Promissory Notes: An area of concern highlighted by the court was the provision in the EBS allowing for anonymous donations to political parties through promissory notes issued by recognised banks.
  • This mechanism raised significant issues regarding transparency and accountability, as it enabled substantial financial backing to political entities without disclosing the identity of the contributors.
• Exemption of Corporate Donors from Disclosure Requirements: The EBS faced scrutiny for exempting corporate donors from the obligation to disclose their contributions in balance sheets, a highly contentious feature.
  • This exemption created opacity surrounding corporate funding of political parties, undermining the transparency necessary for a robust democratic process.

SC’s Analysis of the Proportionality Doctrine: Its Implications on Legislative Goals and the Restriction of FR

• Evolution of the Proportionality Doctrine: The judgment highlights the proportionality doctrine as a tool for self-discipline in constitutional judicial review, aimed at balancing governmental powers with individual rights
  • Serving as a foundational aspect of constitutional discipline, it establishes parameters applicable to all governance institutions.
• Differentiation Between Manifest Arbitrariness and Reasonable Exercise of Power: A crucial distinction is drawn between manifest arbitrariness and the reasonable exercise of power, with the court emphasizing that restricting a fundamental right does not equate to abrogating it entirely.
  • This distinction safeguards against arbitrary exercise of governmental authority, stressing the necessity for reasonable and proportionate limitations on rights.
• Legitimate Goals and Appropriate Means: Applying the proportionality test, the court scrutinizes the legislative objectives behind the Electoral Bond Scheme, mandating that any restriction on a fundamental right must serve a legitimate goal and utilize suitable means.
  • Questions are raised regarding the legitimacy of curbing black money as a specific ground under Article 19(2), emphasizing the need for the state to justify its actions with reasonable objectives.
• Nexus Between Law and Stated Objectives: Introducing the concept of a reasonable nexus, the court holds that laws should demonstrate a rational connection between means employed and objectives sought to be achieved.
  • This requirement ensures that restrictions on fundamental rights are directly related to their intended purpose, avoiding arbitrary infringements.
• Balancing Conflicting Rights: A notable development is the introduction of the double proportionality test, addressing conflicts between equal rights such as donor privacy and voter information and influence.
  • The court mandates a secondary proportionality assessment to ensure that any infringement on one right is justified and not disproportionate in impact.
• Alternative Measures and Judicial Restraint: While advocating proportionality, the court suggests alternative measures to achieve legislative goals, such as setting up electoral trusts or imposing caps on corporate funding.
  • Additionally, it exercises judicial restraint, respecting the autonomy and powers of the executive and legislative branches.
• Chief Justice M C Chagla's Warning: The judgment recalls Chief Justice M C Chagla's 1958 caution regarding the influential role of big business and money in democracy, highlighting a long-standing concern about corporate influence.
  • Chagla's foresight underscores the judiciary's role in preventing improper or corrupt influence, emphasizing the need to safeguard democratic values.
• Historical Perspectives by the CJI: Chief Justice Chandrachud's historical perspective underscores the judiciary's responsibility to prevent improper influences on democracy, advocating for a proactive role in safeguarding democratic values.
  • The court's assertion aligns with the idea of acting as a check against attempts to compromise the democratic process, particularly by powerful corporate entities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's nullification of the Electoral Bond Scheme is a staunch defense of democratic principles. By rejecting elements that undermine transparency, equality, and accountability, the court reaffirms core democratic values. This landmark ruling signifies a crucial juncture in India's legal narrative, establishing a precedent for safeguarding democracy against opaque financial influences.

Why is it in the News?

A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud unanimously rejected same-sex marriage recognition. In a 3-2 majority decision, the Bench also refused to authorize civil unions for non-heterosexual couples.

What is the Supreme Court's Observation?

The Denial of Marriage as a Fundamental Right:

• All five judges on the Bench agreed that there's no fundamental right to marry in the Constitution.

Limitations on Modifying the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954:

• They also unanimously agreed that changing the Special Marriage Act (SMA) of 1954 using gender-neutral language to allow same-sex marriage isn't possible.
• The petitioners wanted the Supreme Court to interpret the word marriage as being between spouses instead of man and woman.
• Alternatively, they asked for removing the gender-restrictive provisions of the SMA.
• The Chief Justice of India (CJI) said that striking down the SMA provisions would impact the legal framework for interfaith and inter-caste couples.
• Interpreting the SMA in a gender-neutral way, he added, would be like making new laws from the judiciary, which goes against the separation of powers.

Rejection of Civil Unions for Non-Heterosexual Couples:

• The bench ruled 3:2 against allowing civil unions for non-heterosexual couples.
• The minority judges believed that the right to form unions comes from the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life.
• They argued that the right to enter into a union shouldn't be restricted based on sexual orientation, as it's a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution.
• The majority view was that it's the legislature's role, not the Court's, to recognize and grant legal status to non-heterosexual relationships formally.
• Regarding rights for non-heterosexual couples, all five judges noted that a high-level Cabinet committee will consider the rights that can be given to non-heterosexual couples.
• This could include joint bank accounts, same-sex spouses being beneficiaries for provident funds, pensions, inheritance, and making medical decisions for the other spouse.

Considerations on Adoption Rights of Children:

• On the rights to adopt children, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that one's sexual orientation shouldn't determine one’s suitability to be adoptive parents.
• However, in a 3:2 split verdict, the Court upheld the existing regulations that deny unmarried couples, including queer individuals, the right to adopt a child as a couple.
• Since same-sex marriage isn't legal in India, they also cannot adopt children as a couple.
• In 2022, the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) issued new Adoption Regulations, requiring a couple to be in a stable marital relationship for two years to be eligible for adoption.
• This made it impossible for queer couples to adopt, as it prohibited individuals in live-in relationships from adopting children.
• The minority view by CJI Chandrachud and Justice Kaul argued that CARA's guidelines discriminate against unconventional, unmarried couples seeking to adopt children.

What is the Legal Status of Same-Sex Marriages in India?

• The right to marry isn't explicitly recognized as a fundamental or constitutional right in the Indian Constitution; instead, it's a statutory right.
• However, the recognition of marriage as a fundamental right has evolved through judicial decisions by India's Supreme Court.
• These legal declarations are binding on all courts throughout India under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Earlier Views of the Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriages:

• Marriage as a Fundamental Right (Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and others 2018):
• The Supreme Court, while referring to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Puttaswamy case, determined that the right to marry a person of one's choice is an integral aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Article 16 (2) in the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of these factors.
• The right to marry is an inherent part of the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution as a fundamental right, as it pertains to individuals' ability to make decisions crucial to their pursuit of happiness, including matters of belief and faith.
• LGBTQ Community's Entitlement to Constitutional Rights (Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India 2018):
• The Supreme Court ruled that members of the LGBTQ community "are entitled, just like all other citizens, to the complete spectrum of constitutional rights, including the liberties protected by the Constitution."
• They have the right to equal citizenship and "equal protection of the law.

What are the Arguments Supporting Same-Sex Marriage?

• Equal Rights and Protection Under the Law: Every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the fundamental right to marry and build a family.
• Parity in Legal Rights: Same-sex couples should enjoy the same legal rights and safeguards as heterosexual couples.
• Combating Discrimination: The non-recognition of same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination that undermines the dignity of LGBTQIA+ couples.
• Strengthening Families and Communities: Marriage offers social and economic advantages to couples and their families, which are equally valuable to same-sex couples.
• Cohabitation as a Fundamental Right: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has recognized cohabitation as a fundamental right, emphasizing the government's responsibility to legally acknowledge the societal significance of such relationships.
• Challenging Absolute Biological Gender: The Supreme Court of India acknowledges that biological gender is not an absolute concept and that gender is more intricate than merely one's physical characteristics.
• The understanding of a man or woman is not fixed.
• Global Acceptance: Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in many countries worldwide.
• Denying this right to individuals in a democratic society contradicts global principles. Notably, same-sex marriage is legal in 32 countries.

What are the Arguments Opposing Same-Sex Marriage?

• Religious and Cultural Beliefs: Many religious and cultural communities uphold the belief that marriage should exclusively involve a man and a woman.
• They contend that altering the traditional definition of marriage would contradict their fundamental religious and cultural principles.
• Procreation: Some argue that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, and same-sex couples are unable to have biological children.
• Consequently, they believe that permitting same-sex marriage contradicts the natural order of reproduction.
• Legal Concerns: There are apprehensions that legal issues may arise if same-sex marriage is allowed, including complications related to inheritance, taxation, and property rights.
• Some argue that modifying existing laws and regulations to accommodate same-sex marriage would be overly complex.
• Adoption Challenges: When queer couples adopt children, it can lead to societal stigma, discrimination, and potential negative effects on the emotional and psychological well-being of the child.
• This is particularly relevant in Indian society, where universal acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ community is not yet achieved.

What Can Be the Way Forward?

• Promoting Awareness: Conduct awareness campaigns to foster equality and acceptance of all sexual orientations, broadening public understanding of the LGBTQIA+ community.
• Legal Reforms: Consider amending the Special Marriage Act of 1954 to permit same-sex couples to legally marry and access the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.
  • In the interim, establishing contract-like agreements can provide similar rights for LGBTQIA+ individuals.
• Dialogue and Engagement: Initiate conversations with religious leaders and communities to bridge the gap between traditional beliefs and contemporary attitudes regarding same-sex relationships.
• Legal Challenges: The Indian LGBTQIA+ community can legally challenge the constitutionality of existing laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.
  • Such challenges can set a legal precedent, potentially leading to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
• Collaboration: Achieving the legalization of same-sex marriage necessitates a collective effort involving various stakeholders, including the LGBTQIA+ community, government, civil society, and religious leaders.
• Collaboration is key to creating a more inclusive society where everyone has the freedom to love and marry whomever they choose, regardless of their gender.

What is the Special Marriage Act (SMA) 1954?

In India, all marriages can be registered under their respective personal laws, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or the Muslim Marriage Act, 1954. Alternatively, couples can choose the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for their marriage registration, ensuring the protection of the rights of both partners.

About:

• The Special Marriage Act, 1954, is legislation enacted by the Parliament of India that provides for civil marriages, open to Indian citizens and nationals abroad, regardless of their religious or faith affiliations.
• This act enables individuals from diverse religious backgrounds to unite in matrimony and outlines the procedures for both solemnizing and registering the marriage.

Key Provisions:

• Advance Notice to the Marriage Officer: Couples are required to provide a notice to the Marriage Officer, along with the necessary documents, 30 days prior to the intended wedding date.
• Registration Process: After the submission of documents, both parties must be present for the issuance of a public notice, inviting objections.
• The registration takes place 30 days after the notice date, following the resolution of any objections that may have arisen during that period, overseen by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM).
• Presence of Parties and Witnesses: On the registration day, both parties, along with three witnesses, must be present to complete the marriage registration process.

Why is it in the News?

Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur on Monday filed a PIL in the Supreme Court for implementing the Women's Reservation bill before the 2024 general elections. Former congress president Sonia Gandhi also alleges BJP govt of creating anti-women policies and deprived women of their rights.

What Are the Main Provisions of the Women’s Reservation Bill?

• Reservation for Women in the Lower House: The Bill introduces Article 330A to the constitution, borrowing inspiration from Article 330, which focuses on seat reservations for SCs/STs in the Lok Sabha.
• The Bill proposes the rotation of reserved seats for women among different constituencies in states or Union Territories.
• For seats designated for SCs/STs, the Bill aims to reserve one-third for women in a rotational manner.
• Reservation for Women in State Legislative Assemblies: The Bill introduces Article 332A, making it mandatory to reserve seats for women in every state Legislative Assembly.
• Additionally, one-third of the seats reserved for SCs and STs must be specifically allocated to women, and one-third of the total seats filled through direct elections in the Legislative Assemblies will also be reserved for women.
• Reservation for Women in NCT of Delhi (New Clause in 239AA): The Bill amends Article 239AA of the constitution, which grants special status to the Union Territory of Delhi as the national capital concerning its administrative and legislative functions.
  • The amendment specifies that laws enacted by the parliament shall apply to the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• Commencement of Reservation (New Article - 334A): The reservation for women will take effect after the census conducted following the Bill's commencement has been published.
• Subsequently, delimitation will occur to allocate reserved seats for women. This reservation will initially be implemented for a 15-year period.
• However, it will persist until a later date, as determined by a law passed by Parliament.
• Rotation of Seats: Seats reserved for women will undergo rotation after each delimitation, in accordance with a law enacted by Parliament.

What Is the Historical Background of Women's Reservation in Indian Politics?

• The roots of women's reservation in Indian politics can be traced back to the Indian national movement.
• In 1931, leaders Begum Shah Nawaz and Sarojini Naidu, representing three women's organizations, submitted a joint official memorandum to the British Prime Minister.
• This memorandum addressed the status of women in the new Constitution.
• The National Perspective Plan for Women, proposed in 1988, recommended reserving seats for women at various political levels, starting from the panchayat and extending to Parliament.
• These recommendations paved the way for the groundbreaking 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution.
• These amendments mandated that all State governments reserve one-third of seats for women in Panchayati Raj Institutions and one-third of chairperson positions at all levels of Panchayati Raj Institutions, as well as in urban local bodies.
• Within these reserved seats, one-third were specifically allocated for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe women.
• In 2001, the National Policy for the Empowerment of Women expressed the idea of considering reservations in higher legislative bodies.
• In May 2013, the Ministry of Women and Child Development established a committee on the status of women, which recommended ensuring a minimum of 50% reservation of seats for women in various governmental bodies, including local bodies, State Legislative Assemblies, Parliament, ministerial positions, and all government decision-making bodies.
• In 2015, the Report on the Status of Women in India highlighted the inadequate representation of women in state assemblies and Parliament.
• It recommended reserving at least 50% of seats for women in local bodies, State Legislative Assemblies, Parliament, ministerial positions, and all government decision-making bodies.

What Are the Supporting Arguments for the Bill?

• Historical Underrepresentation: Despite some progress, the number of women Members of Parliament remains relatively low.
• Research has shown that women elected under reservation policies invest more in public goods closely related to women's concerns.
• Reservations in local bodies have enabled women to make meaningful contributions.
• Gender Equality: Enhancing women's representation in politics is a crucial step toward achieving gender equality.
• However, India's ranking in the Global Gender Gap Report 2022, at 48th out of 146 in Political Empowerment, suggests room for improvement, with a score of 0.267, notably lower than top-ranking countries like Iceland and Bangladesh.
• Women's Right to Self-representation and Self-determination: Ensuring proportional representation for underrepresented groups in the political system is vital for their ability to influence policy-making.
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women underscores the need to eliminate discrimination in political and public life.
• Diverse Perspectives: A more diverse legislature, including a substantial number of women, can bring a broader range of perspectives to decision-making.
• This diversity can lead to more effective policy formulation and governance.
• Empowerment of Women: Women's reservation in politics empowers them at various levels, encouraging their participation in politics and inspiring them to take on leadership roles in other sectors.
• Promotion of Women's Issues: Women in politics often prioritize and advocate for issues directly affecting women, such as gender-based violence, women's health, education, and economic empowerment.
• Their presence can lead to the prioritization of these issues in policy discussions.
• Role Models: Women leaders in politics can serve as role models for young girls, encouraging them to aspire to leadership positions in various fields.
• Representation in politics can break stereotypes and inspire future generations.
• Examples include Indira Gandhi, India's first and only female Prime Minister, who served from 1966 to 1977, and Sushma Swaraj, the second woman External Affairs Minister of India after Indira Gandhi.

What Are the Arguments Against the Bill?

• Exclusion of Separate OBC Reservation: The Bill, while providing separate reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes women within the existing one-third quota, does not include separate reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBC) women, who constitute a significant portion of the female population.
• No Reservation in the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Councils: The Bill does not extend the reservation to women in the Rajya Sabha and legislative councils, which limits the scope of its impact.
• Dependence on Census and Delimitation: The implementation of reservation for women in Parliament relies on the census and delimitation processes.
• The delay in conducting the census and the potential political sensitivity of delimitation, particularly in regions with slower population growth, could hinder the bill's effectiveness.
• Concerns of Women as Proxies: The phenomenon of 'Panchayat Patis' in local governments, where husbands use their wives as proxy candidates for reserved seats, has raised concerns.
• With an extension of reservations to women in Parliament, there is a fear of the emergence of 'MP and MLA Patis,' where husbands wield real power.
• Challenges to Equality Principles: Opponents argue that the bill contradicts the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
• Some believe it may perpetuate the unequal status of women, as they might not be perceived as competing on merit.
• Diverse Interests of Women: Women do not constitute a homogenous group, unlike caste-based groups.
• As a result, the arguments used to justify caste-based reservations may not be directly applicable to reservations for women.
• Women's interests cannot be isolated from other social, economic, and political strata.
• Restriction of Voter Choice: Some opponents of the Bill argue that seat reservations for women would limit voter choice.
• They propose alternative methods such as reservations for women within political parties and the implementation of dual-member constituencies.
• Lack of Widespread Consultation: The bill was introduced through a "supplementary list" in a hastily organized Parliament session.
• Critics argue that such a vital constitutional amendment for women's reservations should have been introduced following extensive discussion and analysis.

How Can Effective Implementation of Women's Representation be Achieved?

• Strengthen Independent Decision Making: Establishing independent monitoring systems or committees that explicitly prevent family members from exerting influence on the decision-making process of women representatives.
• This can be achieved by reducing the impact of patriarchal mindsets.
• Increasing Awareness and Education: Disseminate awareness among women about their rights and the significance of their participation in politics.
• Educational programs and awareness campaigns are instrumental in raising women's political engagement.
• Addressing Gender-based Violence and Harassment: Gender-based violence and harassment are significant barriers to women's involvement in politics.
• Address these issues through policy and legal measures to create a safer and more supportive environment for women in politics.
• Electoral Process Reforms: Implement reforms, such as introducing proportional representation and preferential voting systems, to enhance women's representation in politics.
• These reforms ensure that more women can be elected.

These are only a few strategies to increase the number of women in Indian politics. Achieving lasting change necessitates a multifaceted approach that tackles various challenges simultaneously.