Why in the News?

Khap Panchayats have attracted attention due to their evolving role in addressing key socio-economic issues like unemployment, education, and rural development. Modernization efforts are underway to regulate these traditional councils, integrating them into formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems for better governance, accountability, and social justice.

What are Khap Panchayats?

Definition and Origin:

Khap Panchayats are community-based councils primarily found in North India, particularly in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and parts of Rajasthan. These informal bodies, composed of elders from kinship groups (Khaps), have historically served as local governance bodies that resolve disputes within their communities. Their origins trace back centuries and they function alongside formal legal systems, often prioritizing customary norms over constitutional law.

Historical Role:

Historically, Khap Panchayats have maintained social order in rural areas, acting as forums for dispute resolution related to marriage, property, and community matters. While their decisions were respected within their communities, they operated parallel to formal courts, and their influence was often seen as a stabilizing force in rural society. However, their structure has also contributed to the perpetuation of patriarchal practices and social exclusion.

Issues with Khap Panchayats

• Patriarchal Practices:Khap Panchayats have often been associated with gender inequality. They enforce rigid social norms that limit women's autonomy, particularly in matrimonial matters, inheritance rights, and personal freedoms. This has led to criticism for their role in suppressing women's rights.
• Honor Killings and Social Conservatism:Khap Panchayats are notorious for opposing inter-caste and same-gotra marriages, at times even endorsing honor killings to preserve social order. Such practices are violations of fundamental rights and personal freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
• Legality Concerns:The decisions of Khap Panchayats often clash with constitutional values such as equality, personal liberty, and dignity. Their informal judgments lack legal validity and frequently violate the rule of law, raising significant concerns about their adherence to India’s legal framework.
• Caste-based Discrimination:Khap Panchayats have been criticized for reinforcing caste hierarchies, which leads to discrimination and exclusion of marginalized communities. Their focus on preserving traditional caste structures often results in the oppression of the vulnerable, particularly lower-caste groups.

Gender Dynamics and Evolving Roles of Khap Panchayats

In recent years, some Khap Panchayats have started to show more progressive and inclusive stances, particularly in promoting gender justice:

• Support for Women Athletes:Khap Panchayats have begun to recognize and celebrate the achievements of women, particularly in sports. Several Khap bodies have felicitated women sportspersons, contributing to a growing culture of sports among rural women. This marks a shift from their traditionally patriarchal stance.
• Promoting Gender Justice:Notably, the MehamChaubisiKhap in Haryana has played a significant role in advocating for women’s rights and gender equality. It was involved in supporting the 2023 wrestlers' protest against sexual harassment, demonstrating a shift towards gender-related activism and social reform.

Supreme Court Ruling on Khap Panchayats:

In the landmark Shakti Vahini v. Union of India case (2018), the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of honor killings and inter-caste marriages. The Court emphasized that honor killings violate fundamental rights and called for strict measures to prevent such crimes. The Court further directed state governments to establish special protection cells for couples facing threats from their families and communities. This ruling underscored the importance of personal liberty and freedom of choice, regardless of community or caste.

What is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

Definition and Importance:

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to methods of resolving disputes without resorting to formal litigation. These methods include mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, all of which encourage cooperative problem-solving and mutually agreeable solutions. ADR is particularly important in India due to the overburdened judicial system, which faces a backlog of cases and delays.

ADR offers several advantages, including:

• Cost-effectiveness
• Confidentiality
• Flexibility
• Improved relationships between parties involved

Types of ADR Mechanisms:

• Arbitration: A formal process where an arbitrator resolves disputes and their decision is legally binding.
• Conciliation: A third-party neutral assists the parties in reaching an agreement, and the recommendations can be accepted or rejected.
• Mediation: A mediator facilitates communication between disputing parties, helping them reach a voluntary and mutually agreeable resolution.
• Negotiation: A direct negotiation between the parties without third-party involvement, aiming for a mutually acceptable settlement.

Integrating Khap Panchayats into the Formal ADR System

Given the potential of Khap Panchayats as community-based governance bodies, integrating them into the formal ADR framework can significantly enhance their role in dispute resolution. Here are some strategies for modernizing Khap Panchayats:

• Legal Recognition of ADR Role:Khap Panchayats can be legally recognized within the ADR framework, formalizing their role in mediation and dispute resolution, ensuring their decisions align with constitutional norms and human rights.
• Training and Capacity Building:Khap leaders can undergo training in ADR techniques such as mediation and arbitration, equipping them with skills to resolve conflicts impartially and in line with legal standards. This would help transition Khaps from informal bodies to more structured and legally compliant dispute resolution mechanisms.
• Legal Regulation and Oversight:Regulations can be put in place to define the scope and limitations of Khap Panchayats' authority, ensuring their decisions do not violate human rights or the constitution. Oversight mechanisms should be established to monitor their actions and prevent practices like honor killings or forced marriages.
• Shift Towards Developmental Roles:Some Khap Panchayats are already advocating for progressive reforms in areas like unemployment, education, and rural development. By focusing on these issues, Khap Panchayats can serve as agents of social change and contribute to community development.
• Awareness and Accountability:Awareness campaigns can educate rural communities about constitutional rights and the legal system, emphasizing the importance of formal legal frameworks and human rights. At the same time, Khap Panchayats should be held accountable for actions that undermine justice or equality.
• Collaboration with Formal Institutions:Khap Panchayats can collaborate with local governance bodies and judicial institutions, ensuring that their decisions align with the rule of law and contribute to social justice. This would enhance their role in inclusive decision-making and legally sound governance.

Conclusion

Khap Panchayats, with their deep-rooted history and influence, have the potential to evolve into modern governance institutions. By integrating them into the formal ADR framework, aligning their practices with constitutional values, and focusing on community development, they can contribute positively to dispute resolution and social reform in rural India. This transformation will require legal regulation, training, oversight, and awareness to ensure that Khap Panchayats function as effective, equitable bodies that respect the fundamental rights of all individuals.

In News:

• In 2023, the central government imposed a Net Borrowing Ceiling (NBC) on Kerala, limiting its borrowing capacity to 3% of the projected Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) for the fiscal year 2023-24.
• Impact on Kerala’s Finances: This ceiling has significantly impacted Kerala’s ability to meet its expenditure needs and fund developmental activities, triggering political and legal disputes. Kerala has approached the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the imposition of NBC infringes upon its constitutional rights under Article 293 of the Indian Constitution.

Constitutional Provisions on Borrowing Powers

Article 292: Borrowing Powers of the Centre

• Central Government’s Borrowing: Article 292 grants the Central Government the authority to borrow money on the security of the Consolidated Fund of India.
• Limits on Borrowing: The extent of borrowing by the Centre is determined by laws enacted by Parliament.

Article 293: Borrowing Powers of the States

• State Borrowing: Article 293 allows State Governments to borrow within India against the Consolidated Fund of the State. However, it imposes certain conditions:
  • If a State has outstanding loans or guarantees given by the Centre, the Centre’s consent is required to raise further loans.
  • The Central government can impose conditions when granting such consent.

Centre’s Role in State Borrowing

• Article 293(3) allows the Centre to impose conditions on a state’s borrowing if it has existing liabilities or guarantees outstanding.
• The Centre has wide discretion in granting or denying consent, which has been a point of contention in Kerala’s case.

The Imposition of Net Borrowing Ceiling (NBC)

Scope of the NBC

• Comprehensive Coverage: The NBC encompasses all borrowing avenues, including open market loans, loans from financial institutions, and liabilities from State public accounts. To curb circumventing of the borrowing cap via State-owned enterprises, the NBC also covers borrowings by these entities.

Purpose of NBC

• Fiscal Discipline: The NBC is designed to regulate borrowing and prevent states from accumulating unsustainable levels of debt, thus ensuring financial stability.
• Transparency: By including all borrowing avenues, including off-budget borrowings by state-owned enterprises, the NBC aims to provide a clearer picture of a state’s financial health.

Arguments for the NBC

• Macroeconomic Stability: The NBC helps maintain macroeconomic stability by controlling the borrowing levels of states, thus protecting the national economy.
• Compliance with FRBM Act: The NBC aligns with the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, aiming to keep the fiscal deficit within prescribed limits.
• Equitable Resource Distribution: The NBC ensures that wealthier states do not disproportionately borrow, thus promoting balanced regional development.

Arguments Against the NBC

• Erosion of Fiscal Autonomy: Critics argue that the NBC undermines the fiscal autonomy of states, as guaranteed by Article 293, by restricting their ability to make independent financial decisions.
• Impact on Developmental Activities: States, particularly Kerala, contend that the borrowing cap restricts their ability to fund key infrastructure projects and social welfare activities.
• Legal Concerns: The NBC’s impact on the interpretation of Article 293 raises legal questions regarding the extent of the Centre’s authority over state borrowing powers.

Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act

Overview of the FRBM Act

• Objective: The FRBM Act, 2003 was enacted to promote fiscal discipline and ensure long-term financial stability in India.
• Key Features:
  • Targets a 3% fiscal deficit of GDP for the Centre.
  • Requires states to enact similar laws to control their fiscal deficit.

Amendments to FRBM Act

• 2018 Amendment: The FRBM Amendment Act required the central government to ensure that the fiscal deficit did not exceed 3% of GDP and total public debt remained under 60% of GDP.
• Fiscal Deficit Reduction: By 2025-26, the fiscal deficit is expected to be reduced to below 4.5% of GDP.

Way Forward: Strengthening Article 293

Guidelines for Borrowing Powers

• Transparency in Decision-Making: The Centre should ensure that the borrowing process is transparent, with clear standards and procedures for accepting or rejecting state borrowings.
• Consultative Process: The Centre should engage in consultations with states before imposing borrowing caps or conditions, fostering a cooperative federal structure.
• Equitable Treatment: Borrowing restrictions should apply uniformly to all states to avoid bias or favoritism.

Strengthening Fiscal Federalism

• Fiscal Autonomy: States should be given the flexibility to manage their finances in a way that reflects their unique economic needs and challenges.
• Periodic Reviews: The Net Borrowing Ceiling should be reviewed periodically to account for changing economic conditions and developmental priorities.

In News:

India, the world's largest democracy, is at a crucial juncture where women’s active political participation is essential for holistic development and true democratic engagement. The year 2024 demands increased involvement of women in politics to address issues of gender inequality and ensure comprehensive policy representation.

Current Status of Women’s Political Representation in India

Women in Parliament

• Initial Representation: In 1952, women accounted for only 4.41% of the Lok Sabha. This gradually rose to around 14.36% in the 2019 elections.
• Recent Trends: In the 2024 elections, women made up approximately 16% of the Lok Sabha, with 74 women MPs, 43 of whom are first-time representatives.

Women in State Legislatures

• Representation in state legislative assemblies remains low, with the highest percentages in Chhattisgarh (14.4%), West Bengal (13.7%), and Jharkhand (12.4%).

Global Comparison

• According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), India ranks lower than many countries in terms of female representation in parliament, with global averages standing at 26.1%. India lags behind several African and South Asian nations.

Importance of Women’s Political Empowerment

• Enhancing Governance and Accountability: Political empowerment of women ensures better representation of gender-sensitive issues, promoting accountability in governance.
• Breaking Patriarchal Norms: Increasing women’s participation helps challenge the patriarchal structure that dominates Indian politics and promotes inclusive governance.
• Policy and Social Impact: Women in politics are more likely to advocate for policies that address issues like health, education, and gender equality, leading to improved societal welfare.
• Economic Benefits: Studies suggest that women in political leadership tend to improve economic outcomes for their constituencies by prioritizing social infrastructure.

Barriers to Women’s Political Participation

• Gender Gaps in Political Ambition: Women are less likely to pursue political careers due to gender conditioning, family pressures, and stereotypes about leadership abilities.
• Patriarchal Culture: A deeply ingrained patriarchal society hampers women’s political involvement, with male-dominated party structures and social norms limiting opportunities.
• High Election Costs: The financial burden of running for office often discourages women from contesting elections due to unequal access to resources.
• Male Gatekeepers in Politics: Political parties often show a preference for male candidates, especially for higher-profile positions, hindering the rise of women leaders.
• Criminalisation and Corruption in Politics: Growing criminalisation in politics and lack of political education further alienates women from the political process.

Key Legislative and Constitutional Measures for Women’s Political Empowerment

Legislative Measures

• Nari Shakti VandanAdhiniyam (2023): Provides 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
• 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992): Introduced 33% reservation for women in Panchayats and Municipalities.
• Gender-Neutral Rules: Lok Sabha adopted gender-neutral rules in 2014, promoting inclusivity in legislative procedures.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14 and 15: Ensure equality and non-discrimination, fundamental to women’s political participation.
• Article 243D: Mandates 33% reservation for women in Panchayats.

International Commitments

• CEDAW (1979): Advocates for women’s participation in political and public life.
• Beijing Platform (1995) and SDGs (2015): Call for removing barriers to women’s participation in politics.

Measures for Promoting Women’s Political Participation

• Quotas and Reservations: Ensuring mandatory quotas for women candidates in party tickets and legislative bodies can help bridge gender gaps.
• Capacity Building and Training: Offering political training programs for women can empower them with the skills and resources necessary for effective political participation.
• Strengthening Grassroots Movements: Support for Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) can build leadership among women at the local level.
• Supportive Political Ecosystem: Political parties should be encouraged to nominate women for higher office positions, such as the Rajya Sabha or state legislative councils.
• Raising Public Awareness: Public awareness campaigns focusing on the importance of women in politics can shift societal attitudes and garner wider public support.

Conclusion:

As India moves forward, the active participation of women in politics is not merely a matter of equity but an essential building block for a vibrant, inclusive, and effective democracy. Through structural reforms, public awareness, and the promotion of female leadership, India can strengthen its democratic framework, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of gender, have an equal stake in shaping the nation's future.

In News:

The Inter-State Council, which works for Centre-State and interstate coordination and cooperation, has been reconstituted with Prime Minister Narendra Modi as its chairman, all chief ministers and nine Union ministers as members and 13 Union ministers as permanent invitees.

About the Inter-State Council (ISC)

Formation of ISC

• Establishment: Created on May 28, 1990, through a Presidential Order following the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission (1988).
• Headquarters: New Delhi.
• Meetings: The Council has convened 12 times since its formation.

Constitutional Provisions

• Not a Constitutional Body: It was established under Article 263 of the Constitution, making it a non-permanent advisory body.
• Role: Article 263 empowers the President to create the ISC for improving coordination between States and the Union.

Powers and Functions

• Investigate and Discuss: The ISC discusses subjects of common interest between the Centre and States.
• Recommendations: It recommends measures for better coordination and addressing inter-state issues.
• Deliberations: The ISC also deliberates on matters referred by the Chairman.

Composition of the ISC

• Chairperson: Prime Minister of India.
• Members:
  • Chief Ministers of all States and Union Territories with legislative assemblies.
  • Lieutenant Governors/Administrators of Union Territories without assemblies.
  • 6 Union Cabinet Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister.
  • Governors of States under President’s rule.
• Standing Committee:
  • Chaired by the Union Home Minister.
  • Includes 5 Union Cabinet Ministers and 9 Chief Ministers.

Functions and Role of the ISC

Role in Centre-State Cooperation

• Facilitates better coordination and cooperation between the Centre and States.
• Addressing disputes related to Centre-State and Inter-State relations.

Additional Functions

• Make Recommendations: Based on discussions, it recommends actions to align policies.
• Promote Social Legitimacy: Through consensus-driven decisions, ISC strengthens policy acceptance among states.

Key Bodies Related to Centre-State Relations

Zonal Councils

• Purpose: Promote interstate cooperation and coordination.
• Constitution: There are five Zonal Councils (Northern, Central, Eastern, Western, Southern) and a separate North Eastern Council established in 1972.

River Water Dispute Tribunals

• Function: Set up under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, these tribunals resolve disputes over river water sharing between States.

GST Council

• Constitution: Established under Article 279A, the GST Council is responsible for decisions related to GST implementation, ensuring cooperative federalism.

In News:

On November 11, 2024, Justice Sanjiv Khanna was sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India (CJI) at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi, marking a significant milestone in the Indian judiciary. He succeeds Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who retired on November 10, 2024. Justice Khanna's term as CJI will last until May 13, 2025.

Background of Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Early Life and Legal Career

• Legal Practice: Justice Khanna began his legal career in 1983 after completing his law degree from Delhi University. He practiced in the District Courts of Delhi and handled cases in constitutional law, taxation, arbitration, and environmental law.
• Career in Delhi High Court: He was appointed as an Additional Judge to the Delhi High Court in 2005 and became a Permanent Judge in 2006.
• Appointment to the Supreme Court: Justice Khanna was appointed as a Supreme Court Judge in January 2019, without having served as a Chief Justice of a State High Court, and superseding 32 senior High Court judges.

Key Judicial Rulings of Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Major Constitutional Bench Decisions

• Abrogation of Article 370: Justice Khanna was part of the Bench that upheld the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.
• Electoral Bonds Scheme: He also contributed to the ruling that struck down the 2018 Electoral Bonds scheme, raising questions about the transparency of political funding.

Support for EVMs

• Justice Khanna defended the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and rejected calls to revert to paper ballots, emphasizing the need for technological progress and institutional trust.

Personal Liberty and Bail Decisions

• Arvind Kejriwal’s Interim Bail: Justice Khanna granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case, underscoring personal liberty as a fundamental right.
• Judicial Review of Bail Conditions: He also initiated discussions on setting standards for bail conditions in cases involving significant political figures.

Role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)

Appointment Process

• Article 124(2): A Supreme Court judge is appointed by the President of India, with the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court traditionally becoming the CJI.
• Qualifications: The CJI must be a citizen of India and have served as a judge in a High Court for at least five years or as an advocate in a High Court for ten years.

Powers and Responsibilities

• Master of the Roster: The CJI is the "Master of the Roster," responsible for assigning cases to specific benches and determining the court's schedule.
• Collegium System: The CJI, along with four senior judges, forms the Collegium that recommends judicial appointments for the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Ad-Hoc Appointments: The CJI can also appoint ad-hoc judges to the Supreme Court under Article 127 of the Constitution.

Removal

• A CJI can only be removed through a process initiated in Parliament, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament.

Appointment of CJI in Other Countries

United States

• The Chief Justice of the United States serves for life, with tenure continuing until impeachment or voluntary retirement.

United Kingdom

• The Lord Chief Justice in the UK is appointed by a special panel from the Appeal Court or the Supreme Court. The tenure is life, but mandatory retirement is set at 75 years of age.

Conclusion

Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s appointment as the 51st Chief Justice of India represents a significant moment in the country's judicial history. With his extensive experience and legal acumen, he faces numerous challenges, from dealing with case pendency to navigating sensitive constitutional issues. His tenure will likely shape the future trajectory of the Indian judiciary, with a focus on upholding justice and personal liberty while addressing the evolving needs of a democratic society.

In News:

The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (also called the Madarsa Act), while striking down certain provisions related to the granting of higher education degrees. The Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's previous decision, which had deemed the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the principle of secularism.

What is the Madarsa Act?

The Madarsa Act provides a legal framework for regulating madrasas (Islamic educational institutions) in Uttar Pradesh. The Act:

• Establishes the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, which oversees the curriculum and examinations for madrasas.
• Ensures that madrasas follow the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) curriculum for mainstream secular education alongside religious instruction.
• Empowers the state government to create rules for regulating madrasa education.

Allahabad High Court's Ruling

In March 2024, the Allahabad High Court declared the Madarsa Act unconstitutional, citing:

• Violation of secularism: The Court argued that the Act's emphasis on compulsory Islamic education, with modern subjects being optional, discriminated on religious grounds, violating the secular nature of the Constitution.
• Right to Education: The Court also claimed that the Act denied quality education under Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children.
• Higher Education Degrees: The Act's provisions allowing the granting of Fazil and Kamil degrees were found to conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which regulates higher education.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's decision on several grounds:

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court clarified that the basic structure doctrine, which applies to constitutional amendments, does not apply to ordinary legislation like the Madarsa Act. Therefore, a law cannot be struck down simply for violating secularism unless explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
• State's Authority to Regulate Education: The Court held that the state has the right to regulate education in minority institutions, as long as the regulation is reasonable and rational. It emphasized that the Madarsa Act does not deprive these institutions of their minority character.
• Right to Education for Minority Institutions: Referring to a 2014 decision, the Court ruled that the Right to Education Act (RTE) does not apply to minority institutions, as it would undermine their right to impart religious education and self-administer.

Striking Down Higher Education Provisions

While upholding most of the Act, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions related to higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil). It ruled that:

• Section 9 of the Act, which allowed the Board to grant these degrees, is in conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, which only permits degrees to be awarded by universities recognized by the UGC.

Implications of the Ruling

• Regulation of Madrasa Education: The ruling affirms the state's authority to ensure quality education in madrasas, balancing religious instruction with secular subjects.
• Protection of Minority Rights: By upholding the Madarsa Act, the Court protected the rights of religious minorities to run educational institutions while ensuring they meet educational standards.
• Focus on Inclusivity: The judgment emphasizes the integration of madrasas within the broader educational framework, ensuring that madrasa students receive quality education.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision supports the regulation of madrasa education while safeguarding the rights of minority institutions, except in areas related to the granting of higher education degrees, which remain under the jurisdiction of the UGC Act.

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.

Context

India's reservation system has long been a tool for uplifting historically marginalized communities, especially Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). However, recent debates have questioned whether the system serves its intended purpose, particularly in light of disparities within the SC groups. The need for a ‘quota-within-quota’ system has been raised to ensure more equitable outcomes across different SC subgroups.

The Reservation System: Origins and Objectives

Purpose of Reservations

• Historical Background: Established to correct centuries of social and economic exclusion faced by SCs and STs.
• Mechanism for Equality: Aimed to create opportunities in education, government employment, and public offices for historically marginalized groups.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Vision: Reservations were designed to transition from formal legal equality to substantive equality.

Challenges of the Current System

• Despite progress, certain SC subgroups seem to have benefited more than others.
• A Supreme Court ruling has led to calls for a 'quota-within-quota' to address intra-SC disparities.

Exploring Intra-SC Disparities: The Data Analysis

States Examined

• Key States: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
• Objective: To investigate whether some SC subgroups have disproportionately benefited from the reservation system.

Findings Across States

• Andhra Pradesh: Minor differences between SC groups (Malas vs. Madigas), with both groups showing similar socio-economic progress.
• Tamil Nadu: No significant disparity between Adi Dravida and Pallan groups, both benefiting equally from reservations.
• Punjab: Subdivision of quotas since 1975 has led to better outcomes for disadvantaged groups like Mazhabi Sikhs and Balmikis.
• Bihar: The Mahadalit category, introduced in 2007, failed due to political intervention, undermining the policy’s goals.

Key Insights

• In some states (e.g., Punjab), a subdivision of quotas has been effective in addressing intra-SC disparities.
• In other states, like Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the benefits of reservations are already distributed fairly evenly among SC subgroups.
• The gap between SCs and upper-caste groups remains much larger than the gap within SCs.

The Issue of Access to Reservations

Caste Certificates as a Proxy for Access

• Data from IHDS: Less than 50% of SC households in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar report having caste certificates, limiting access to reserved positions.
• Better Access in Some States: Over 60-70% of SC households in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have caste certificates.

Core Issue: Ensuring Access

• Access Challenges: Without proper access to caste certificates, many SCs are excluded from the benefits of the reservation system.
• Priority Area: Ensuring that all eligible SCs have access to reservations is a critical concern before considering subdivision.

The 'Quota-within-Quota' Proposal

Concept and Potential Benefits

• Targeted Assistance: A ‘quota-within-quota’ would provide more focused help to the most disadvantaged SC subgroups, as seen in Punjab.
• Political Considerations: However, the political motivations behind quota subdivision, as seen in Bihar, can undermine the policy’s effectiveness.

Criticism and Limitations

• Uneven Need for Subdivision: In many states, the need for further subdivision is minimal, as the benefits of reservations are already fairly distributed.
• Political Exploitation: The policy risks becoming a political tool rather than a genuine means of achieving social justice, as political influence often determines who is categorized as the most disadvantaged.

Addressing Inequality Beyond Reservations

Income-Based Criteria and Monetary Benefits

• Current Approach: Monetary benefits (e.g., scholarships, lower fees) are a part of the affirmative action system.
• Income Criterion: Should be used to determine eligibility for monetary benefits to focus assistance on those most in need.

The "Creamy Layer" Debate

• Supreme Court’s Suggestion: The introduction of a "creamy layer" exclusion for SCs, akin to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) model, remains contentious and requires stronger evidence.

Challenges of Economic Mobility

• Stigma and Discrimination: Economic progress does not necessarily eliminate social stigma or discrimination, especially for historically marginalized groups.
• Long-Term Goal: While reservations have contributed to creating a Dalit middle class, addressing stigma will require a gradual process.

The Need for Updated Data and Evidence-Based Policy

Data Deficiency

• Lack of Comprehensive Data: The absence of updated, reliable data on caste-based disparities limits the effectiveness of any policy reform.
• National Census Delay: India’s national Census, the only source of comprehensive data on caste, has been delayed, exacerbating the problem.

Evidence-Driven Reform

• Importance of Data: Robust and up-to-date data is essential to assess the true impact of reservations and to make informed policy decisions.

Conclusion: Reforming the Reservation System

• Reservations’ Success: The reservation system has played a significant role in improving the socio-economic status of SCs and STs.
• Intra-SC Disparities: While some subgroups benefit more than others, the broader gap between SCs and upper-caste groups remains far more pronounced.
• Focus on Access: The primary focus should be on improving access to reservations, ensuring that all eligible SCs benefit fully from affirmative action.

In News:

The issue of judicial delays and adjournments has become a significant concern in India’s judicial system. President Droupadi Murmu, while addressing the National Conference of District Judiciary in September 2024, emphasized the need to eliminate the culture of adjournments. These delays particularly affect the poor and rural populations, who often suffer in silence, avoiding court due to the fear of protracted justice.

Background of the Indian Judicial System

India’s judicial system has evolved under various legal frameworks, including the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Initially, civil courts dealt with a wide range of cases, while criminal courts focused on criminal offenses. The establishment of the Supreme Court and High Courts further strengthened India’s judicial architecture to handle constitutional and appellate cases.

To address the growing caseload, the Indian government introduced the tribunal system through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, aiming to manage specialized disputes. However, despite these reforms, case pendency continues to rise.

Key Issues Contributing to Judicial Delay and Pendency

• Judge-to-Population Ratio - India currently has 21 judges per million people, far below the recommended 50 judges per million as per the 120th Law Commission Report. The shortage of judges directly contributes to the growing backlog of cases.
• Vacant Judicial Positions - As of late 2024, 30% of High Court positions remain vacant, exacerbating the case pendency crisis. The delay in filling these vacancies has resulted in overburdened judges, further delaying case resolution.
• Legislative Overload - The enactment of laws without conducting prior judicial impact assessments leads to an increase in the number of cases, often without considering the capacity of the judiciary to handle them. This lack of foresight results in excessive pressure on courts.
• Overworked Judiciary - Judges often face a heavy workload, with some handling multiple responsibilities across different courts. This overburdening leads to mental fatigue, increased errors, and prolonged decision-making.
• Witness Delays - The absence of witnesses and delays in their appearance in court can significantly prolong the judicial process, contributing to case pendency.

Government Initiatives and Challenges

• • National Judicial Infrastructure Plan (NJIP): The NJIP aims to modernize judicial infrastructure, improving court functioning and case processing. However, its full implementation across the country remains a work in progress.
  • E-Courts Project: The E-Courts project aims to digitize the judicial process, including e-filing and virtual hearings. This initiative has shown promise in reducing procedural delays but still requires wider application.
  • Tribunal System: While tribunals were introduced to reduce the burden on regular courts, their success has been limited, and the abolition of six tribunals in 2021 has added additional pressure on High Courts.
  • Case Timeline Legislation: Laws prescribing time-bound adjudication for sensitive cases have been enacted, but due to inefficiencies in the system, deadlines are rarely met.

Recommendations for Reform

• • Enhance Judicial Strength

• • Increase the Judge-to-Population Ratio: The government should prioritize the appointment of judges to meet the 50 judges per milliontargets.
  • Fill Vacant Positions: High Courts should fill vacant positions six months in advance to ensure a steady supply of judges.

• • Judicial Impact Assessment
• Implement Judicial Impact Assessments: The Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee’s recommendation for judicial impact assessments should be made mandatory. Every new Bill should assess the likely increase in judicial workload, the required number of judges, and the necessary infrastructure.
  • Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• • Encourage ADR Mechanisms: Mediation and arbitration should be promoted as cost-effective alternatives to court proceedings. Public awareness campaigns and legal reforms can encourage the use of ADR.

• • Strengthen Infrastructure and Technology

• Modernize Court Infrastructure: The judiciary should invest in technology such as e-filing and virtual hearings to reduce administrative burdens and expedite case resolutions.
• Streamline Administrative Processes: Technology can also help automate administrative tasks, thereby reducing the workload on judges and speeding up case processing.

• Limit Adjournments

• Stricter Norms for Adjournments: Judicial bodies should enforce stricter norms for granting adjournments, ensuring that they are not used excessively.
• Oversight Mechanism: An independent body can monitor the frequency of adjournments and take corrective action if needed.

Conclusion

Addressing the issue of judicial adjournments and case pendency requires a comprehensive approach involving structural reforms, better resource allocation, and the adoption of technology. Strengthening the judiciary’s infrastructure, increasing judicial appointments, and promoting alternative dispute resolution are vital steps toward ensuring quicker, fairer justice. The collaborative efforts of the judiciary, government, and society at large are essential to ensuring that India’s judicial system can meet the demands of justice in a timely and efficient manner.

Overview

Election expenditure has become a pressing issue in modern democracies, with growing concerns about its implications for political integrity and fair competition. In India, the skyrocketing costs of elections—both in terms of candidate spending and political party expenditure—pose significant challenges to electoral transparency, governance, and equity.

Current State of Election Expenditure in India

The total expenditure on elections in India has risen dramatically in recent years. For the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the total expenditure by various political parties is estimated to reach around ?1,00,000 crores. This is a significant jump from the ?9,000 crores spent in the 1998 general elections. The expenditure per vote has also risen substantially, from ?25,000 in 1951 to ?1,400 in 2024.

The election expenditure limits for individual candidates are capped by the Election Commission of India (ECI):

• ?95 lakh for larger states (Lok Sabha constituencies)
• ?75 lakh for smaller states
• ?40 lakh for legislative assembly elections in larger states
• ?28 lakh for smaller states

However, these caps apply only to individual candidates. Political parties are not subject to any expenditure limits, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts during campaigns. This discrepancy leads to considerable financial disparities between well-funded national parties and regional or smaller parties, undermining the principle of equitable competition.

Global Comparisons: Election Financing and Spending Limits

Election financing varies widely across democracies, with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom adopting specific limits and regulations to curb excessive spending.

• United States: U.S. elections are financed largely through contributions from individuals, corporations, and Political Action Committees (PACs). Notably, Super PACs—which can raise and spend unlimited funds—have exacerbated concerns over money's influence on political outcomes. The 2024 U.S. presidential election is expected to cost around $16 billion (approximately ?1,36,000 crores).
• United Kingdom: Political parties are subject to strict expenditure limits. Each political party is allowed to spend £54,010 for each constituency, with an overall cap of £35 million for contests across all constituencies. This is aimed at ensuring that elections are not swayed by wealth alone and that smaller parties have a fighting chance.

Despite these measures, the United States still faces issues with unlimited corporate donations and the growing influence of wealthy donors, highlighting the complexities in curbing money in politics.

Challenges Posed by Rising Election Expenditure

The rising costs of elections present multiple challenges in India, exacerbating corruption, unfair competition, and political inequality.

a) Political Corruption and Influence

Large election expenditures are often funded by corporate donations and other private entities, creating a nexus between politicians and donors. This can lead to a quid-pro-quo relationship, where politicians may prioritize the interests of their donors over public welfare. This undermines public trust in the political system.

b) Unaccounted Money and Illegal Practices

A significant portion of the election expenditure is unaccounted for. The Centre for Media Studies (CMS) reports that in the 2019 general elections, around 25% of the total expenditure was spent on illegally distributing cash to voters. This practice, coupled with the absence of strict regulations on third-party campaigners, enables the use of black money in elections, further skewing the electoral process.

c) Uneven Playing Field

The absence of limits on party spending creates a situation where well-funded national parties have an inherent advantage over smaller regional parties and independent candidates. This financial inequality reduces the ability of under-funded candidates to compete based on ideas and merit rather than financial muscle. Furthermore, the growing influence of digital advertising and media campaigns has further widened this gap, with larger parties investing heavily in digital platforms like Google and Facebook, marginalizing those without the resources to do so.

Proposed Reforms to Address Election Expenditure Issues

To address these challenges, several reforms have been suggested by experts, committees, and the Election Commission. These reforms aim to curb excessive spending, ensure fairness, and increase accountability in the electoral process.

a) Capping Expenditure by Political Parties

There is a pressing need to introduce expenditure ceilings for political parties, in addition to those imposed on individual candidates. According to the 2016 Electoral Reforms Report by the Election Commission, political party spending should be capped at a level not exceeding the total expenditure limit for all candidates fielded by the party. This would level the playing field, ensuring that the influence of money is curtailed during elections.

b) State Funding of Elections

Recommendations for state funding of elections have been made by the Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) and the Law Commission Report (1999). The state could partially finance the campaigns of recognized political parties, ensuring that candidates are not solely reliant on private donations. However, this reform faces challenges in terms of feasibility and implementation, especially regarding the mechanism for allocation of funds.

c) Regulation of Third-Party Campaigners

India should follow the example of countries like Australia, where third-party campaigners are formally registered and required to disclose their funding sources. This would help in tracking illegal contributions and ensure that election spending is transparent.

d) Ban on Government Advertisements During Election Periods

The use of government advertisements by the ruling party during the run-up to elections often leads to an uneven playing field. A ban on government-funded ads during the six months before elections would ensure that the ruling party does not gain an unfair advantage through public resources.

e) Strengthening Electoral Oversight

An independent electoral oversight body could be established to oversee campaign financing and ensure that all parties comply with spending limits. This would include measures to audit party finances, track donations, and verify spending claims, making it more difficult for parties to evade rules or use black money.

Conclusion: The Need for Comprehensive Electoral Reforms

The rising costs of elections in India present significant challenges to the democratic process. While expenditure limits for candidates exist, the lack of restrictions on party spending creates financial inequalities that undermine fair competition. The increasing role of corporate donations, illegal cash distribution, and unregulated third-party spending further complicates the situation.

To ensure fair elections, it is crucial that India adopts reforms such as capping political party expenditures, state funding of elections, and stronger oversight mechanisms. These steps, coupled with bipartisan political will, could help create a more equitable, transparent, and accountable electoral system, fostering greater public trust in the democratic process.

By addressing these challenges head-on, India can work toward an election system that encourages political participation based on ideas and policies rather than financial clout, ultimately strengthening the foundations of democracy.

In News:

The Anti-Defection Law, introduced in 1985 through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, aims to curb political instability caused by legislators switching parties for personal or financial reasons. While the law has helped maintain political stability, it faces several challenges, including delays in decision-making, potential bias in adjudication, and lack of transparency in party directives. These issues undermine its effectiveness in safeguarding democratic integrity.

Historical Context and Genesis

The issue of political defections, exemplified by the term "Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram," traces its origins to the 1960s when frequent party-switching destabilized governments. To address this, the Anti-Defection Law was enacted in 1985, disqualifying members who voluntarily gave up their party membership or defied party whips on critical votes. Initially effective in reducing defections, the law has faced challenges due to emerging loopholes, particularly regarding party "splits" and "mergers."

Gaps and Loopholes in the Current Law

One major loophole was the provision allowing a party split if one-third of its members defected, exploited until the 91st Amendment in 2003, which increased the threshold for mergers to two-thirds. Despite this change, defections continue, particularly through "mergers." Another issue is the role of the Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions. Given that the Speaker is often affiliated with the ruling party, their decisions are sometimes seen as biased, leading to delays in resolving defection cases. Additionally, the lack of transparency in issuing party whips has caused disputes regarding their legitimacy.

Proposed Reforms

To address these challenges, two key amendments are proposed:

1. Fixed Time Frame for Decision-Making: A clear time frame—such as four weeks—should be established for the Speaker or an adjudicatory body to resolve defection cases. If no decision is made within this period, defecting members should automatically be disqualified.
2. Transparency in Whips: Political parties should be required to make the issuance of whips public, either through newspaper publications or electronic communication, to ensure that members are fully informed of party positions on critical votes.

Ethical Concerns and Impact on Democracy

While the Anti-Defection Law was introduced to promote political stability, it has inadvertently stifled internal dissent within parties. Legislators are often forced to follow party lines, even when their personal convictions or constituents' interests conflict. This limits their freedom of expression and undermines the representative nature of democracy. Furthermore, the law has not fully curbed unethical practices such as "poaching" of members or defectors seeking personal gain, which continue to destabilize governments and erode public trust in the system.

The Way Forward: Political Will and Comprehensive Reforms

To strengthen the Anti-Defection Law, reforms must balance party discipline with individual freedoms. Key steps include:

• Independent Adjudication: Establishing an independent tribunal to handle defection cases can reduce political bias and expedite the decision-making process.
• Clear Timeframes: Setting a fixed timeline for resolving defection cases will prevent delays and ensure accountability.
• Transparency in Whip Issuance: Ensuring public notice of party whips will reduce ambiguity and disputes.
• Promoting Ethical Conduct: Strengthening ethical guidelines to discourage "poaching" and protect the integrity of the electoral process.

In News:

• The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's draft guidelines (October 2024) aim to implement the Supreme Court's 2018 and 2023 orders on the right to die with dignity.

Legal Context: Supreme Court Rulings and Constitutional Rights

• Right to Refuse Treatment:
  • Common Law & Article 21: The right to refuse medical treatment is grounded in common law and is now recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, following the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India.
  • Supreme Court Rulings: The court's rulings in 2018 and 2023 affirmed that individuals have the constitutional right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and to die with dignity.

Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment

• Definition and Meaning:
  • What Is Life-Sustaining Treatment? Life-sustaining treatments, such as ventilators and feeding tubes, artificially replace vital bodily functions to sustain life.
  • Withholding/Withdrawal: This refers to discontinuing these treatments when they no longer improve the patient's condition or merely prolong suffering.
• When Is It Done?
  • End-of-Life Care: Withholding or withdrawing treatment is considered when further medical intervention is futile and would only artificially prolong the dying process.
  • Focus on Comfort: After withdrawing life-sustaining measures, the focus shifts to palliative care to alleviate pain and suffering.

Understanding Euthanasia and Misconceptions

• What Is Euthanasia?
  • Definition: Euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of a terminally ill patient’s life by medical professionals to relieve suffering.
  • Passive Euthanasia Misconception: In India, the term "passive euthanasia" is often mistakenly used to describe withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, but this does not involve the active killing of the patient.
• Legal Framework: The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) clarified in 2018 that "passive euthanasia" is not a legally accepted practice in the country.

The Role of Doctors: Ethical Dilemmas and Shared Decision-Making

• Is Withdrawing Treatment "Giving Up" on the Patient?
  • Not Abandonment: Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is not about abandoning the patient but recognizing when further interventions would cause unnecessary suffering.
  • Palliative Care: The patient’s comfort and dignity are prioritized through palliative care, which focuses on pain management and emotional support for both the patient and family.
• Doctors' Ethical Responsibility:
  • Shared Decision-Making: The process encourages a collaborative approach between doctors and the patient’s family or surrogate decision-makers. This joint decision-making ensures that the wishes of the patient are respected and relieves the doctor from bearing sole responsibility for life-and-death decisions.

Living Wills and Advance Medical Directives

• What Is a Living Will?
  • Definition: A living will is a legal document where a person outlines their medical preferences in the event they lose decision-making capacity.
  • Eligibility and Process: Individuals aged 18 or older, who are capable of making decisions, can draft a living will, naming at least two trusted surrogate decision-makers.
  • Legal Requirements: The document must be signed in the presence of an executor, two witnesses, and notarized to be legally binding.
• 2023 Supreme Court Guidelines: The Court simplified the procedure for making living wills to ensure that the right to die with dignity is upheld.

Medical Procedure for Withholding or Withdrawing Treatment

• Supreme Court Guidelines
  • The Supreme Court laid out a clear procedure for withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, emphasizing patient autonomy, expert assessments, and family consent.
• Primary and Secondary Medical Boards:
  • Primary Medical Board: The treating hospital sets up a Primary Medical Board, consisting of the treating doctor and two subject-matter experts, to assess the patient's condition and determine if life-sustaining treatment is appropriate.
  • Secondary Medical Board: A Secondary Medical Board, comprising independent experts, reviews the Primary Board's decision for added oversight.
• Consent from Family/Surrogate Decision-Makers:
  • The patient’s wishes, as outlined in an advance directive or by a surrogate, must be respected, and their consent is essential for proceeding with treatment withdrawal.
• Judicial Oversight:
  • Once the decision to withdraw treatment is made, the hospital is required to notify the local judicial magistrate, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Conclusion: Legal and Ethical Clarity in End-of-Life Care

• Shared Decision-Making: The process ensures that medical teams, families, and surrogate decision-makers collaborate, preventing any medical professional from facing moral or legal dilemmas alone.
• Protection of Autonomy: These frameworks and guidelines uphold patient autonomy, offering a legal and ethical pathway for terminally ill patients to exercise their right to die with dignity.

In News:

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority judgment of 4:1 ratio, upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which permits immigrants from Bangladesh residing in Assam to secure Indian citizenship, as a valid piece of legislation aligned to the Preambular value of fraternity.

Background:

• Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, deals with the citizenship status of immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before March 25, 1971.
• Introduced as part of the 1985 Assam Accord, it provides a special provision for Assam due to the unique demographic challenges posed by large-scale migration from Bangladesh.

Key Aspects of the Supreme Court Ruling

Majority Opinion

• Constitutional Validity: The Court reaffirmed that Section 6A does not violate Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution. These Articles set the cut-off for granting citizenship to migrants from East and West Pakistan. Section 6A, operating from a later date, is distinct and does not interfere with these earlier constitutional provisions.
• Justification of Cut-off Date: The March 25, 1971 cut-off date is upheld as reasonable. This date coincides with Operation Searchlight, launched by the Pakistani Army to suppress the Bengali nationalist movement. Migrants arriving before this date are considered part of India's post-partition demographic landscape.
• Fraternity and Equal Treatment: The Court emphasized that the principle of fraternity, as enshrined in the Preamble, cannot be selectively applied. Immigrants who arrived before March 25, 1971, are entitled to citizenship, while those arriving after are considered illegal immigrants. The ruling aims to balance the humanitarian aspect of migration with the state's right to protect its cultural and economic integrity.
• Historical Context: The judgment also invoked the Assam Accord, which was designed to address the issue of large-scale migration from Bangladesh, providing a political solution to Assam’s concerns. The Court held that the special provisions for Assam under Section 6A do not violate Article 14 (equality before the law) due to the distinct situation in Assam compared to the rest of India.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act: Provisions and Purpose

• Section 6A was introduced under the 1985 Citizenship (Amendment) Act following the Assam Accord. It allows migrants who entered Assam before January 1, 1966, to automatically gain citizenship. For those entering between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, citizenship can be granted after fulfilling specific conditions.
• Exclusion of Post-1971 Migrants: Migrants arriving in Assam after March 25, 1971, are not eligible for Indian citizenship under Section 6A and are considered illegal immigrants.
• Assam Accord Context: The Assam Accord sought to resolve the issue of illegal immigration from Bangladesh and address the political, cultural, and economic concerns of the indigenous Assamese population. It set the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, as a landmark for distinguishing between legal and illegal migrants.

Implications of the Supreme Court Judgment

Impact on Immigrant Recognition

• Continued Citizenship: By upholding Section 6A, the Court grants continued citizenship rights to immigrants from Bangladesh who entered Assam before the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. This decision affirms India's commitment to protect those displaced by the Bangladesh Liberation War.

Assamese Identity Preservation

• Cultural Protection: The majority opinion dismissed concerns that the presence of immigrants would infringe upon the cultural and linguistic rights of the Assamese people. The Court emphasized that existing constitutional safeguards (e.g., Article 29(1)) are sufficient to preserve the unique identity of the Assamese community, even in the face of demographic changes.

Demographic and Economic Impact

• Tensions on Demographic Shift: Critics argue that the continued influx of migrants, though legally recognized, may strain Assam’s demographic balance, potentially threatening its cultural identity and economic resources. This could fuel local demands for stricter immigration controls and increase political mobilization around cultural preservation.
• Resource Allocation Challenges: The judgment implies that immigrants who are granted citizenship will have access to public resources, adding pressure on Assam's limited economic resources. This may necessitate the implementation of more robust policies for equitable resource distribution.

Pressure on Immigration Laws and Enforcement

• Immigration Law Enforcement: The judgment stresses the need for more effective enforcement of immigration laws, particularly regarding the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants who entered Assam post-1971. The inefficiencies in the current mechanisms for detecting such immigrants were criticized, and the Court called for judicial oversight to improve the enforcement process.

Regional and International Implications

• Bangladesh Relations: The decision, by excluding post-1971 immigrants from citizenship, may strain India-Bangladesh relations, as it could be perceived as India pushing responsibility for these migrants onto Bangladesh. This has the potential to complicate regional cooperation on issues like border management, migration control, and security.

Conclusion: Balancing Humanitarian and Political Interests

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, reflects a delicate balance between humanitarian concerns—acknowledging the plight of displaced persons—and the political necessity of protecting Assam’s cultural and demographic integrity. While the judgment provides clarity on the legal status of immigrants in Assam, it also highlights the need for efficient immigration enforcement, greater judicial oversight, and equitable resource management to address the ongoing challenges posed by migration in the region.

Background

A recent incident involving Justice V Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court has raised serious concerns regarding judicial comments and conduct. During a hearing, Justice Srishananda referred to a locality in Bengaluru as being “in Pakistan” and made an objectionable remark against a female lawyer. Although he subsequently apologized, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, expressed serious concern, highlighting the rarity of such judicial reproach.

Constitutional Framework for Judicial Discipline

Impeachment: The Sole Recourse

Judges of constitutional courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, enjoy substantial protections to maintain independence from executive interference. However, this raises the question of accountability: who oversees the judiciary?

• Article 124(4): This article outlines that judges can only be removed through impeachment, which requires a political process involving both Houses of Parliament. The grounds for impeachment are limited to "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity."
• High Standards for Impeachment: The necessity for a two-thirds majority in both Houses makes successful impeachment exceedingly rare. Historically, only five impeachment proceedings have been initiated, with only one resulting in successful impeachment (Justice Soumitra Sen).

Challenges in Addressing Judicial Misconduct

Certain actions, such as indiscipline or bias, may not meet the impeachment standard but still warrant attention. The Supreme Court faces a dilemma: how to address these issues without the option of impeachment.

Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability

Judicial Intervention

The Supreme Court can intervene through judicial action, as evidenced by past cases:

• Contempt of Court: In 2017, the Supreme Court sentenced Calcutta High Court’s Justice C S Karnan to six months’ imprisonment for contempt. This case raised concerns about one constitutional court punishing judges of another, as it set a precarious precedent.

Transfer Policy

The Supreme Court also influences High Court judges through its Collegium system:

• Collegium Recommendations: The Collegium recommends the transfer of judges, which can serve as a disciplinary tool. The case of Justice P D Dinakaran illustrates this practice. Facing allegations of corruption, he was transferred from Karnataka to Sikkim, a move criticized as merely “transferring corruption.”

Conclusion

The incident involving Justice Srishananda underscores the complexities of judicial accountability in India. While the Constitution provides for impeachment as the only formal recourse against errant judges, the high threshold for such proceedings necessitates alternative mechanisms for maintaining judicial integrity. The Supreme Court's ability to intervene and the use of transfer policies are critical components in addressing judicial misconduct, but they also raise questions about the balance between accountability and judicial independence.

In News:

The recent spate of renewed violence in Manipur has once again triggered the discussion around Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions by the Centre.

What is our federal set-up?

India is a federation with governments at the Centre and the States. The Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution distributes the power between the Union and States. Under this scheme, it is the domain of the State governments to maintain law and order in their respective States.

What are emergency provisions?

The emergency provisions are provided in Part XVIII of the Constitution. Articles 355 and 356 deal primarily with the affairs of government in a State under this part.

Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance. It also specifies that the Centre should ensure that every State government operate according to the Constitution.

Article 356 allows for the imposition of the President’s rule if a State’s government cannot function in accordance with constitutional provisions. While in the U.S. and Australia, federal government functions also involve protecting States, their constitutions do not contain provisions for removing State governments.

B.R. Ambedkar explained the purpose of Article 355, keeping in mind the federal character of our polity, that if the Centre is to interfere in the State’s administration under Article 356, it must be by or under some obligation which the Constitution imposes on the Centre. Hence, Article 355 was incorporated to check any arbitrary or unauthorised use of Article 356.

What have the courts ruled?

Dr. Ambedkar again in the constituent Assembly wished that Articles 355 and 356 would never be called into operation and would remain a dead letter. However, it was a travesty of the Constitutional principles and federalism that Article 356 was misused on several occasions removing elected governments that enjoyed majority in the States. Reasons varied from loss in Lok Sabha elections to deterioration of law and order in the States. It was only after the Supreme Court’s categorical judgement in the S R Bommai case (1994) that such misuse was restricted. The court held that Article 356 should be imposed only in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery, as distinguished from an ordinary breakdown of law and order. It also held that the imposition of the President’s rule is subject to judicial review and should not be misused for political reasons.

On the other hand, the scope of Article 355 has been widened by various Supreme Court rulings. In State of Rajasthan Vs Union of India (1977), the court had a narrow interpretation of Article 355 as justifying the employment of Article 356. However, in subsequent cases such as Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights Vs Union of India (1998), Sarbananda Sonowal Vs Union of India (2005), and H.S.Jain Vs Union of India (1997), the legal position with respect to Article 355 has shifted. The scope of actions under this article has been widened to permit all statutorily and constitutionally available actions by the Union to discharge its duties of protecting the State and ensuring that its governance is in accordance with the Constitution.

What are the suggestions?

The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations (1987), the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002), and the Punchhi Commission on Centre-State Relations (2010) have all opined that Article 355 not only imposes a duty on the Union but also grants it the power to take necessary actions for the effective performance of that duty. Imposition of the President’s rule under Article 356 must be used as a last resort in situations of utmost gravity and urgency.

The situation in Manipur is grave. Large-scale violence against innocent civilians, women and children; looting of ammunition from police armoury; drone and missile attacks targeting civilians cannot be viewed as just an ordinary breakdown of law and order. Constitutional as well as political expediency, considering that the same party is in power at the Centre and the State, has resulted in Article 356 not being invoked. However, under Article 355, all possible instructions and actions should continue to be pursued to restore normalcy at the earliest.

In News:

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Jaseela Shaji vs. Union of India (2024) introduces new standards for preventive detention in India, aiming to strengthen safeguards for individual liberty.

Key Aspects of the Ruling

1. Strict Standards for Preventive Detention:
   • The Court emphasized the need for authorities to furnish all essential materials relied upon in detention orders to the detainee.
   • This includes providing documents in a language the detainee understands to ensure fair representation.
2. Constitutional Guarantees:
   • The ruling reinforced the constitutional right to personal liberty and the need for a fair process in preventive detention cases, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
   • The Court asserted that individual freedom is paramount and cannot be curtailed without adherence to due process.
3. Importance of Timely Representation:
   • The Court criticized the significant delays in handling and deciding the detainee's representation.
   • Authorities are mandated to act with “utmost expedition” in processing and deciding representations related to personal liberty.
4. Case-Specific Findings:
   • In the case of Appisseril Kochu Mohammed Shaji, the Court found that critical documents and witness statements were not provided to him, nor were translations of important documents made available in his native language, Malayalam.
   • The delay in handling Shaji’s representation was deemed “callous and casual,” impacting his right to challenge his detention effectively.
5. Criticism of Procedural Lapses:
   • The Court overturned the Kerala High Court's decision, finding that procedural lapses, including the failure to provide key documents and delays in processing representations, violated Shaji’s constitutional rights.
   • The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity for detaining authorities to avoid arbitrary actions and ensure the detainee’s rights are respected throughout the process.

Implications

This ruling has significant implications for preventive detention practices:

• Enhanced Accountability: Authorities must now ensure meticulous compliance with procedural requirements to avoid legal challenges.
• Stronger Protections for Detainees: The ruling reinforces the need for transparency and fairness in the detention process, potentially impacting future cases involving preventive detention.
• Administrative Efficiency: The Court’s focus on prompt processing of representations underscores the need for administrative efficiency and accountability in handling such matters.

What is Preventive detention?

• Preventive detention refers to the detention of an individual without a trial or conviction by a court. The primary objective of preventive detention is not to punish an individual for a past offence but to prevent them from committing an offence in the future.
• Preventive detention laws are enacted by governments to ensure public safety and maintain social order.
• The detention of an individual under preventive detention cannot exceed three months, as specified by the Indian Constitution's Article 22. However, if an advisory board reports sufficient cause for extended detention, the detention can be extended. The advisory board is an independent body that reviews the case and provides its opinion on whether the detention is necessary.
• Article 22 of the Indian Constitution grants protection to individuals who are arrested or detained. It has two parts—
  • The first part deals with cases of ordinary law, which includes situations where an individual is detained as part of a criminal investigation.
  • The second part deals with cases of preventive detention law, which pertains to the detention of individuals without a trial or conviction.

Two types of detentions

There are two types of detentions: preventive detention and punitive detention.

• Preventive detention is when someone is held in police custody based on a suspicion that they might commit a crime. The police can make arrests without a warrant in certain cases.
• Punitive detention is when someone is detained as punishment for committing a criminal offence. This type of detention occurs after the offence has been committed or attempted

Preventive Detention Laws in India

• Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971 (repealed in 1978)
• COFEPOSA, 1974
• National Security Act (NSA), 1980
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1985 (repealed in 1995)
• Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 (repealed in 2004)
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 (amended several times)

Important Judicial Cases

• Shibban Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1954): Established limited judicial intervention in preventive detention.
• Khudiram v. State of West Bengal (1975): Reaffirmed that the judiciary cannot assess the validity of detention grounds.
• Nand Lal Bajaj v. State of Punjab (1981): Criticized preventive detention laws as inconsistent with parliamentary principles.
• Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011): Urged limiting preventive detention to avoid violating fundamental rights.
• Mariappan v. District Collector (2014): Stressed preventive detention should prevent harm, not punish.
• Prem Narayan v. Union of India (2019): Highlighted that preventive detention should not be imposed casually.
• Abhayraj Gupta v. Superintendent, Central Jail (2021): Stressed that preventive detention should not duplicate existing detention.

Why is it in the News?

In a democracy, while elections are imperative, it's equally crucial for both the populace and our leaders to retain their moral integrity, as a loss of ethical grounding could result in repercussions that extend far beyond the periodic act of political selection.

Context:

•  Satyameva Jayate ("Truth alone triumphs") from the Mundaka Upanishad was adopted as the national motto on January 26, 1950, the day India became a Republic.
• A day earlier, the country's Election Commission was formed with the primary responsibility of enabling citizens to exercise their democratic right to choose a government.
• The Election Commission is expected to provide a level playing field so that candidates, political parties, and their campaigners do not unduly influence voters through excessive use of money, force, or dishonesty.

About The Model Code of Conduct (MCC):

• The Election Commission of India introduced the Model Code of Conduct with the hope that it would encourage self-control among political stakeholders.
• The 2019 Manual emphasized that those seeking public office should behave in a way worthy of being emulated by others.
• The Commission considers the Code an important contribution by political parties to democracy.
• It expects parties to exhibit model behaviour in their actions and rhetoric.
• However, reality often deviates from this expectation. Political discourse sometimes degrades into coarse and ignoble exchanges.
• This has led to debates on whether it should be called a moral code rather than just a model code.

The Complexity of Truth from a Philosophical Perspective:

• Francis Bacon's Essay of Truth commences with Pilate's profound questioning, "What is truth?" - a query that resonates through the ages, its answer shrouded in layers of complexity.
• This intricate nature finds symbolic representation in the Ashokan pillar's trio of visible lions, embodying the three dimensions of truth: my viewpoint, your perspective, and an objective third-person narrative.
• Yet, there exists a fourth, unseen dimension - that of absolute truth, often perceived as knowable only to a higher power.
• Amidst this philosophical labyrinth, the Election Commission of India (ECI) navigates the realm of human imperfection, striving to enforce the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) – a framework designed to curb dishonest practices during the electoral process.
• However, expecting individuals to adhere to this model solely for the duration of elections, if they have not upheld such principles in their daily lives, could be considered a naive endeavor.

The Intersection of Morality and Law in the Electoral Process:

• Foundations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC):
• At the core of the Model Code of Conduct lies a fundamental interplay between legal requirements and moral expectations.
  • Morality governs individual behaviour based on notions of right and wrong, often rooted in cultural, religious, or personal beliefs.
  • Law, conversely, comprises rules established by a governing authority to regulate conduct and ensure order and justice within society.
• Philosophical perspectives offer valuable insights into this dynamic. Immanuel Kant's philosophy distinguishes between morality and law, viewing moral actions as those driven by a sense of duty, while societal rules govern legal actions.
  • Utilitarianism, advocated by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their consequences and their contribution to the overall well-being of society.
  • In the context of the Model Code of Conduct, this perspective suggests that political behaviour should be assessed not only against legal standards but also by its broader impact on societal harmony and democratic health.
• Legal Framework and Enforcement:
• The legal framework encompassing the Model Code of Conduct includes specific provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  • These laws define actions that constitute corrupt practices and electoral offences, providing a legal basis for enforcing the Code.
  • However, the intersection of morality and law within this framework presents unique challenges.
• In legal terms, "mens rea" refers to the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing, and establishing mens rea is crucial for proving guilt in many cases.
  • The Model Code of Conduct implicitly addresses mens rea by prohibiting actions intended to manipulate or deceive voters, such as false promises or appeals to communal sentiments.
• Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act classify appeals to caste or communal feelings as corrupt practices, punishable under the law.
  • Similarly, Section 125 prohibits promoting enmity between different groups in connection with elections.
  • These legal provisions aim to curb divisive tactics and uphold the ethical conduct envisioned by the Model Code of Conduct.
  • However, enforcement requires clear evidence linking the actions to the intent of influencing electoral outcomes.

Ethical Reflection in the Electoral Process & Lesson from Mahabharata:

• Upholding Integrity: The imperative for ethical reflection in the electoral process stems from the need to uphold the integrity of democracy itself.
  • The conduct of elections must align with the core values of truth and fairness that underpin the democratic ethos.
• Ethical Lesson from Mahabharata: The story of Yudhishthira in the Mahabharata, who lost his moral high ground despite technically telling the truth, underscores the importance of ethics over mere adherence to rules.
  • Ethics in elections transcends simply following the law; it involves adhering to higher standards of honesty, integrity, and fairness.
• Moral Soundness over Legal Compliance: Ethical reflection ensures that political actions and decisions are not just legally compliant but also morally sound.
  • This is particularly crucial in a democracy, where the legitimacy of the government is derived from the consent of the governed, and this consent must be obtained through fair means.
• Safeguarding Democratic Norms: When ethical standards are compromised, democratic norms such as transparency, accountability, and fairness are weakened.
  • This erosion can lead to a governance crisis where the authority of elected officials is questioned, undermining the very foundation upon which democracy rests.

Conclusion

“Satyameva Jayate” is not just India’s motto however it encapsulates a guiding principle that should permeate the conduct of individuals and institutions alike. The Election Commission of India's efforts to enforce the Model Code of Conduct reflect an ongoing struggle to strike a delicate balance between legal enforcement and moral persuasion. For a truly democratic society to thrive, this equilibrium must be continually sought and maintained. The pursuit of political power must never be allowed to erode the foundational value of truth upon which the democratic edifice rests. By upholding the principle of Satyameva Jayate, not just in rhetoric but in action, the integrity of the electoral process and the sanctity of democratic norms can be safeguarded, ensuring that the will of the people remains the cornerstone of governance.

Why is it in the News?

The Supreme Court recently ordered the release of NewsClick Editor Prabir Purkayastha after hearing his plea, challenging the arrest by Delhi Police in an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case.

Context:

• The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India reaffirms its dedication to due process, dispelling assertions of subservience to the executive branch.
• Through a landmark judgment, the Court underscored the indispensable role of due process, especially concerning the arrest and detention of Prabir Purkayastha, founder-editor of Newsclick.
• This verdict emphasizes the crucial disparity between reasons for arrest and the grounds for arrest, emphasizing that the latter must be tailored to the individual and formally communicated in writing to safeguard personal liberty.

Why did the Supreme Court Invalidate Purkayastha’s Arrest?

• The court invalidated the arrest due to the absence of provided grounds, citing a precedent set in the Pankaj Bansal case (2023).
  • This landmark ruling emphasized the constitutional right, under Article 22(1), to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, deeming any infringement of this right as vitiating the arrest and remand process.
• Furthermore, the verdict underscored the fundamental and statutory right of an arrested person to receive a written copy of the grounds of arrest without exception.
  • The court criticized the clandestine manner in which the procedure was conducted, noting that the accused was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and avail legal representation.
• Additionally, the judgment clarified that an FIR serves to initiate criminal proceedings and is not exhaustive in detailing grounds of arrest.
  • The court emphasized that the grounds of arrest must convey specific, personal facts to the accused, distinct from general reasons for arrest.

What is the Due Process of Law?

• Due process of law is a foundational legal principle that ensures the fair and just application of laws while protecting individual rights.
• The concept requires the state to adhere to established legal rules and principles in every case, ensuring that all legal rights owed to a person are respected.
• It serves as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of government power.

Significance:

• Fairness and Reasonableness: Due process emphasizes fairness, reasonableness, justness, and non-arbitrariness in legal proceedings.
• Invalidation of Inequality: Any procedural inequality in the law can be rendered invalid under due process.
• Legislative Oversight: Courts consider legislative intent while evaluating statutes in light of due process.
• Protection of Individual Rights: Due process emphasizes the importance of individual rights and grants courts the authority to nullify biased laws.
• Adherence to Basic Legal Procedures: Laws must follow a fundamental process to receive state assent.

Historical Background:

• First mentioned in a statute by British King Edward III in the 14th century.
• The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution (1791) introduced due process in a constitutional framework.
• In India, due process was invoked by freedom fighters against unjust colonial laws.
• The Constituent Assembly considered including due process in India's Constitution but ultimately adopted a "procedure established by law" instead.

Evolution through Case Laws:

• The Supreme Court's interpretation of due process evolved over time.
• Initial judgments, such as A K Gopalan (1950) and ADM Jabalpur (1976), limited due process by focusing on the narrow meaning of "procedure established by law."
• The Bank Nationalisation case (1970) extended due process to property rights.
• The landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978) established due process as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, requiring laws to be reasonable, just, fair, and non-arbitrary.

Concerns Regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 and Due Process of Law:

The UAPA 1967 raises concerns regarding due process of law due to several provisions that deviate from established criminal law principles. These include:

• Extended Remand and Custody Periods: UAPA allows for 30-day remand orders instead of the usual 15 days and extends the maximum period of judicial custody before filing a chargesheet from 90 to 180 days.
  • In the 2023 Pramod Singla case, the Supreme Court highlighted the potential for abuse in preventive detention laws and emphasized the need for strict procedural adherence.
• Controversial Bail Provisions: Section 43D(5) of the Act makes obtaining bail extremely difficult for suspects if the court believes there are reasonable grounds to presume the charges are true.
  • The accused must prove the case is false without inviting the court to evaluate evidence, which human rights defenders argue is draconian and undermines due process.
• Expanded Scope Over Time: The Act was amended in 2004 and 2013 to broaden its coverage, including the declaration of unlawful associations, punishment for terrorist acts, and activities threatening the country's security.
  • This expanded scope, along with an increased ban on organizations from two to five years, raises concerns about potential misuse and erosion of due process protections.
• Pendency of Cases: According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 12,000 people were imprisoned under such laws in 2021, with 76% being undertrials in 2022.
  • Only 18% of UAPA cases result in conviction, and there is an alarming 89% pendency rate for UAPA cases in courts.
  • This raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of the Act in ensuring due process.

Achieving a Balance Between State Security and Due Process of Law:

Ensuring national security while preserving due process of law requires a nuanced approach that respects individual rights and maintains checks on state power. The following strategies can help achieve this balance:

• Clear Legal Framework: Establish precise laws that define the limits and procedures for state actions in the name of security.
  • This framework should ensure accountability and prevent misuse of authority.
  • A parliamentary committee can oversee and recommend changes to security legislation.
• Strengthened Judicial Oversight: Enhance judicial mechanisms to review and check arbitrary actions by state authorities, including scrutinizing the legality of detentions and other security measures.
  • A judicial review committee can assess cases under laws like the UAPA.
• Independent Monitoring Bodies: Create independent bodies to monitor the implementation of security laws and investigate abuses.
  • These entities should hold state actors accountable, with organizations like the National Commission for Minorities and NHRC playing crucial roles.
• Human Rights Training: Train law enforcement and security personnel on human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual liberties while maintaining security.
  • Develop training programs in collaboration with institutions such as the National Police Academy.
• Public Participation: Encourage public engagement in security policy discussions through platforms like MyGov.
  • This fosters transparency and acceptance of policies that balance security and rights.
• International Cooperation: Collaborate with international organizations like UNESCO and press freedom groups to promote best practices, upholding press freedom and ensuring a safe environment for journalists and media workers, as outlined in the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists.

Conclusion

As India continues to evolve, it is crucial to ensure that stringent laws, such as the UAPA, do not overshadow the fundamental rights of its citizens. Achieving a balance between state security and individual liberties is vital not only for the protection of personal freedoms but also as a testament to the strength and integrity of India's democratic society. By fostering a legal and constitutional ethos that values this equilibrium, India can pave the way for continued progress, safeguarding the well-being of its people and the future of its democracy.

Why is it in the News?

The top court has a chance, in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra, to resolve the clash between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

Context:

• In a recent hearing before a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra, two crucial questions have surfaced concerning the interpretation and implementation of constitutional provisions.
• The initial query revolves around elucidating the concept of "material resources of the community" as articulated in Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution.
• The subsequent issue delves into the potential discord between legislation crafted to fulfil the objectives delineated in Article 39(b) and the fundamental rights to equality and liberty enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

The Conflict Between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP):

• Inherent Dilemma: At the core of India's constitutional framework lies a significant tension between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy (DPSP).
  • Part III guarantees citizens' fundamental rights, while Part IV outlines DPSPs as guiding principles for state action.
  • This tension stems from the divergent nature of these provisions:
    • fundamental rights are legally enforceable
    • whereas DPSPs serve as moral and political directives without judicial enforceability.
• Clash of Objectives: The conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs arises from conflicting priorities: individual liberties versus collective welfare.
  • While fundamental rights focus on safeguarding individual autonomy and limiting state interference, DPSPs underscore the state's responsibility to foster social and economic justice for citizens' well-being.
  • This tension is compounded by India's diverse societal fabric, marked by varying social, economic, and cultural landscapes.
• Historical Discourse: The conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs has sparked considerable debate and legal scrutiny throughout India's constitutional history.
  • Courts have grappled with striking a balance between state intervention for societal welfare and safeguarding individual freedoms, especially when legislative measures aimed at fulfilling DPSPs impinge on fundamental rights.
  • The Supreme Court's pivotal role in adjudicating these conflicts has significantly shaped India's constitutional democracy.
• Intensified Debate: During the 1970s, the conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs reached a zenith, prompting amendments to shield certain laws from judicial review.
  • The landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case sought to address this conflict, yet it persisted, reflecting the ongoing struggle to reconcile competing constitutional imperatives.

What is the Article 31C of the Indian Constitution?

• The 25th Amendment (Birth of Article 31C): Enacted through the 25th amendment to the Indian Constitution, Article 31C was introduced to shield laws aimed at actualizing Article 39(b) and (c) from judicial scrutiny concerning potential violations of fundamental rights.
  • This constitutional provision sought to safeguard legislative measures crafted to secure the material resources of the community, shielding them from challenges under Articles 14 and 19, which safeguard equality and various freedoms, respectively.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (Challenging Article 31C): The landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case questioned the validity and breadth of Article 31C.
  • The Supreme Court deliberated on whether Article 31C, by immunizing certain laws from fundamental rights challenges, infringed upon the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • While affirming the principle of judicial review and the supremacy of the Constitution's basic structure, the ruling left uncertainties about the extent to which Article 31C could restrict fundamental rights.
• Expansion via the 42nd Amendment: Despite judicial scrutiny in Kesavananda, Parliament expanded Article 31C's reach through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
  • This amendment aimed to widen the immunity granted to laws furthering directive principles, extending beyond Article 39(b) and (c) to encompass any directive principle.
  • The 42nd Amendment marked a significant shift in the equilibrium between fundamental rights and directive principles, sparking concerns over potential encroachments on individual liberties.
• Minerva Mills Case  (Judicial Intervention): The constitutionality of the expanded Article 31C faced judicial scrutiny in Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980).
  • In a seminal verdict, the Supreme Court struck down the 42nd Amendment, emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles within the constitutional framework.
  • Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's assertion regarding fundamental rights serving as a check against unchecked state authority underscored the significance of this ruling.
• Ambiguities and Pending Matters: Following the Minerva Mills case, ambiguities persisted regarding the status of Article 31C and its alignment with the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's divergent opinions in Minerva Mills and Waman Rao vs Union of India added complexity to the issue.
  • The absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the validity of Article 31C has perpetuated the tension between fundamental rights and directive principles.

Property Owners Association Vs State of Maharashtra: Resolving a Constitutional Conundrum

• Comprehensive Legal Examination by the Supreme Court: At the heart of this case lies a critical examination of a law granting a state government board full control over dilapidated buildings, contingent upon the consent of at least 70% of residents.
  • The legality of this law is under scrutiny, particularly regarding its potential infringement on fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 19, which ensure equality and various freedoms, respectively.
• Rebalancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The verdict in the Property Owners case holds profound significance for recalibrating the equilibrium between fundamental rights and directive principles in India's constitutional fabric.
  • It will delineate whether laws designed to uphold directive principles, such as acquiring dilapidated buildings for the common good, can withstand challenges based on fundamental rights.
  • This raises fundamental questions regarding the hierarchy of rights and duties within the constitutional framework and the extent to which the state can limit individual liberties for the collective welfare.
• Addressing Ambiguities and Pending Issues: The Property Owners case offers an opportunity for the judiciary to clarify ambiguities surrounding the interpretation and implementation of Article 31C, considering previous judicial precedents.
  • Prior conflicting rulings in cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills have left unresolved queries regarding the validity and scope of Article 31C, particularly concerning its alignment with the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Despite subsequent judgments like Waman Rao and Sanjeev Coke vs Bharat Coking Coal (1982), which followed, the Supreme Court has yet to provide a definitive analysis of Article 31C introduced by the 25th amendment and its compatibility with the Constitution's foundational principles.
  • By offering clarity on these matters, the Supreme Court can foster a more coherent and uniform approach to reconciling the divergent demands of fundamental rights and directive principles.

Conclusion

The verdict in the Property Owners case stands as an opportunity to reinforce the core tenets of equality, liberty, and social justice embedded within the Indian Constitution. By delicately reconciling the safeguarding of individual rights with the advancement of societal well-being, the judiciary holds the key to preserving the integrity of India's constitutional democracy. Such a decision would ensure that principles of justice and fairness remain paramount in the governance of the nation, fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.

Why is it in the News?

The government must put in place measures to regulate standard essential patents before the judiciary causes further damage to India’s manufacturing dreams.

Context:

• The emergence of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and their implications for India's telecom manufacturing industry has become a significant policy issue.
• However, the utilization of SEPs by technology firms presents hurdles, potentially jeopardizing India's domestic manufacturing sector.
• Thus, it is crucial to delve into the intricacies of this matter, scrutinizing the role of SEPs, the regulatory challenges they present, and the necessity for regulatory action.

What are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)?

• EPS are patents indispensable for implementing a technical standard, particularly prominent in industries like telecommunications reliant on standards such as 3G, 4G, and 5G for seamless device and network communication.
• Typically owned by entities or individuals, these patents are vital for guaranteeing the interoperability and compatibility of products and technologies adhering to specific standards.
• Critical for fostering interoperability and competitiveness in the cellular phone market, EPS covers technologies adopted as industry standards.
• Despite their significance, conflicts over EPS licensing and infringement are common, often resulting in legal disputes and negotiations between companies and patent holders to establish equitable licensing terms.

Significance of Essential Patents and Regulatory Hurdles:

• Essential Patents (EPs) such as CDMA, GSM, and LTE serve as the linchpin of technological standards in the telecom industry, ensuring seamless compatibility among various cellular phone brands.
• However, the standard-setting process, predominantly governed by private Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs), limits India's influence in shaping these standards.
• Consequently, owners of EPs may demand excessive royalties, resulting in the "patent holdup" dilemma.
• Although SSOs strive for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing, opacity and anti-competitive behaviours persist, as illustrated by substantial fines levied on companies like Qualcomm by multiple jurisdictions.

Judicial Response to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) Issues:

• Competition Law Enforcement Inertia: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) commenced an inquiry in 2013 upon a complaint by Micromax against Ericsson, alleging SEP licensing abuse.
  • However, Ericsson contested the CCI's jurisdiction, resulting in protracted legal wrangling.
  • Despite a favourable ruling for the CCI in 2016, Ericsson's appeals prolonged the case until a final judgment in 2023.
  • India, due to this prolonged litigation, remains the sole major economy yet to examine potential anti-competitive SEP licensing practices.
• Patent Infringement Cases and Judicial Engagement: While competition law matters linger, the Delhi High Court actively hears lawsuits by SEP owners against cellular phone manufacturers accused of patent infringement.
  • These lawsuits entail intricate trials to ascertain patent validity, infringement, and damages.
  • Rather than pausing proceedings pending competition law resolution, the court issues interim measures favouring SEP owners.
  • Such measures often mandate manufacturers, many of them Indian, to deposit substantial sums with the court for ongoing production during trials.
• Unprecedented "Deposit" Orders: Issuing "deposit" orders, compelling manufacturers to deposit significant funds before trial, is unprecedented in commercial law.
  • These orders, lasting throughout lengthy trials, impose heavy financial burdens on defendants, depriving them of vital working capital.
  • While lacking legal foundation and fairness, the Delhi High Court justifies them using its "inherent powers to ensure justice."
  • This judicial activism, while aimed at expediting legal proceedings, raises concerns about procedural fairness and equitable treatment of litigants.

Impact of Judicial Interventions and Legal Battles on India's Manufacturing Goals:

• Undermining Investor Confidence and Market Stability: Extended legal battles and judicial interventions sow uncertainty, denting investor trust in India's manufacturing sector.
  • Foreign investors may perceive the unpredictable legal environment as a barrier to entering or expanding operations in the nation.
  • Uncertainty regarding SEP licensing practices and potential adverse court rulings disrupts market stability, impeding long-term investment planning for both domestic and international enterprises.
• Stifling Growth and Innovation: SEP-related disputes divert attention and resources away from fostering innovation and technological progress in the telecom manufacturing domain.
  • Rather than directing efforts towards research and development (R&D) or embracing new technologies, companies become entangled in legal disputes, hindering productive pursuits.
  • This diversion of resources curtails innovation, obstructs product development, and undermines India's global competitiveness.
• Impact on Employment and Economy: The manufacturing sector is a vital source of employment and economic advancement, especially in emerging economies like India.
  • However, uncertainties surrounding SEP-related litigation pose a threat to job stability and employment opportunities, particularly in the telecom manufacturing sector.
  • Protracted legal proceedings and financial burdens may compel companies to downsize operations, leading to workforce reductions and inhibiting future investments.
• Policy Inconsistencies: Contradictions arise between judicial rulings favouring SEP owners and government initiatives to incentivize domestic manufacturing.
  • While the government aims to attract investment and bolster indigenous production, SEP-related disputes undermine these objectives.
  • The disconnect between supporting manufacturers and overlooking financial burdens imposed by SEP owners questions the coherence of policies promoting industrial growth.
• Long-term Industrial Landscape Implications: Unresolved tensions surrounding SEP licensing practices and judicial handling of disputes cast shadows over India's industrial future.
  • Failure to address these issues may deter investors, jeopardize job creation, and impede India's transition to a knowledge-based economy.
  • With regulatory intervention to streamline legal processes and ensure fairness, India can catch up to global peers in manufacturing prowess.

Way Forward:

• The European Parliament's proactive stance on regulating SEPs offers valuable lessons for global intervention in this arena.
• Given India's constrained influence in standard-setting and obligations to uphold patents of foreign tech firms, it presents a strong rationale for similar regulatory action.
• Enhancing regulatory frameworks to foster transparency, equity, and non-discriminatory practices in SEP licensing is essential to protect India's economic welfare and foster indigenous manufacturing.

Conclusion

The Indian government must prioritize resolving regulatory uncertainties regarding SEPs to protect domestic manufacturers' interests and drive industrial advancement. Regulatory actions should strive for a harmonious balance between technology firms' interests and overarching goals of economic progress, innovation, and consumer protection. Through decisive intervention, India can assert its autonomy, cultivate fair competition, and cultivate an environment conducive to investment and innovation.

Why is it in the News?

During the ongoing election campaign, there have been intense debates between the ruling government and the Opposition regarding wealth redistribution, while the SC has formed a nine-judge Bench to interpret the DPSP concerning ownership and control of material resources.

Context:

• Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during the Lok Sabha campaign said that there will be a financial survey to determine the distribution of wealth in the country for addressing the issue of inequality.
• The ruling BJP targeted Gandhi and alleged that Congress if elected, would bring back the "socialistic model" of economics and hinder India's growth as an economy.

What is Wealth Redistribution?

• The meaning of wealth redistribution is the transfer of wealth from one individual to another through a social mechanism such as taxation, charity, or public services.
  • One biggest example of wealth redistribution would be income tax wherein higher earnings pay a higher percentage of tax compared to lower-income earners.
• Proponents of this exercise note that wealth redistribution is necessary to bridge the inequality gap between members of society.
• And in India, the gap between the rich and the poor is only growing further.
• As per a recent study, the country’s richest one per cent of the population now owns 40 per cent of the country’s wealth.
• According to the report titled Income and Wealth Inequality in India: The Rise of The Billionaire Raj, and published by The World Inequality Lab, “the inequality gap widened after the economy’s opening up in the early 1990s, but “between 2014-15 and 2022-23, the rise of top-end inequality has been particularly pronounced in terms of wealth concentration”.
  • Based on figures from the World Inequality Database, India’s income inequality is among the very highest in the world, behind only Peru, Yemen and a few other small countries.

What Does India’s Constitution Say on Wealth Distribution?

• The Preamble to the Constitution aims to secure for all citizens social and economic justice, liberty and equality.
• Part III of the Constitution lists down the fundamental rights that guarantee liberty and equality while Part IV contains the DPSP.
• These are principles that the central and State governments should follow to achieve social and economic justice in our country.
• Unlike the fundamental rights in Part III, the DPSP is not enforceable in court.
• They are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country.
• Article 39(b) and (c) in Part IV contain principles that are aimed at securing economic justice.
• They provide that ownership and control of material resources of the society should be distributed to serve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth to the common detriment.
• India’s Constitution-makers haven’t explicitly spoken of wealth redistribution.
• It’s noteworthy that when Article 39 (Draft Article 31) was being added to the Constitution, it was heavily debated.
• The economist KT Shah wanted the Constitution to outrightly prevent the creation of monopolies in industries.
• In agreement with him was Shibban Lal Saxena, who wanted it to be explicitly put down that the State shall control a few key industries.
• However, there were others Naziruddin Ahmad, who were not comfortable with the Constitution endorsing contested political and economic ideologies.

What is the Historical Context of the Redistribution of Wealth?

• The Constitution originally guaranteed the right to property as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f).
• It is provided under Article 31 that the state shall pay compensation in case of the acquisition of private property.
  • It is pertinent to note that at the time of independence, the main property rights related to agricultural and other land.
  • The government had to acquire the rights in such estates for carrying out land reforms and the construction of public assets.
• Considering the inadequate resources of the government and in order to provide greater flexibility in acquiring land for public welfare, various amendments were carried out curtailing the right to property.
• The Supreme Court in various cases has interpreted the relationship between fundamental rights and the DPSP.
  • Most of these cases were against constitutional amendments made by the state that curtailed the right to property which was then a fundamental right.
  • In the Golak Nath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights cannot be abridged or diluted to implement DPSP.
  • Finally, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), a thirteen-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 31C but made it subject to judicial review.
  • In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution exists on a harmonious balance between fundamental rights and DPSP.
• In 1978, in order to avoid excessive litigation directly in the Supreme Court by the propertied class, the 44th Amendment Act omitted the right to property as a fundamental right and made it a constitutional right under Article 300A.
  • The right to private property continues to be an important constitutional cum legal right.
  • Any law to acquire private property by the state should be only for a public purpose and provide adequate compensation.

What is the Current Debate on the Redistribution of Wealth?

• The government of India in the first four decades after independence followed a “socialistic model” of economy.
• The economic policies resulted in the nationalisation of banking and insurance, extremely high rates of direct taxes (even up to 97%), estate duty on inheritance, tax on wealth etc.
• The rationale behind these measures during those times was to reduce inequality and redistribute wealth among the poorer sections that constituted the majority of the population.
• However, such measures stifled growth and also resulted in the concealment of income/wealth.
• Taxes like estate duty and wealth tax generated revenue that was much less than the cost incurred in administering them.
• The nineties saw the country move from a closed economy towards liberalisation, globalisation and privatisation.
• A new industrial policy was unveiled in 1991 with the objective of empowering market forces, improving efficiency and rectifying deficiencies in the country’s industrial structure.
• Estate duty was abolished in 1985 and wealth tax in 2016.
• The market-driven economy has resulted in additional resources for the government that has helped in bringing people out of abject poverty.
• Nonetheless, this economic system has also resulted in growing inequality.
• A report by the World Inequality Lab states that the top 10% of the country’s population have a share of 65% and 57% of the wealth and income respectively as of 2022-23.
• The bottom 50% on the other hand have a meagre share of 6.5% and 15% of the wealth and income respectively.
• The manifesto for the current Lok Sabha elections of the Congress promises that there will be a financial survey to ascertain the distribution of wealth among the people in the country and address the issue of inequality.
• The ruling party campaigners led by the PM have targeted the Opposition on this matter.
• The SC meanwhile has constituted a nine-judge Bench to interpret whether material resources under Article 39(b) include private resources as well.

Way Forward:

• Growing inequality is a worldwide problem of a liberalised open-market economic system.
• It is the responsibility of the government to protect the interest of the poorer classes who are most dependent on the state machinery for their livelihood.
• At the same time past policies of extremely high tax rates, estate duty, wealth tax etc., did not achieve their desired goals. Instead, they only led to the concealment of income and wealth.
• Innovation and growth should not be curtailed but the benefits of growth should reach all sections especially the marginalised.
• It's essential to design inclusive policies through informed debates, aligning with current economic models, to ensure that the benefits of growth reach marginalized sections, in line with the constitutional principle of economic justice for all.

Conclusion

The debate on wealth redistribution in India underscores the complex challenge of balancing economic growth with equitable resource allocation. While past policies have had mixed results, it remains essential for the government to protect vulnerable populations and promote inclusive growth. To achieve this, policymakers must foster innovation while ensuring the benefits reach marginalized communities. By designing policies aligned with current economic models and adhering to the constitutional principle of economic justice, India can work towards a future where growth and social equity coexist harmoniously.

Why is it in the News?

Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa points out that a significant gap in the present framework is that the Model Code of Conduct for elections has not spelled out the consequences of defaults, thus diluting its deterrent effect.

Context:

• The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) plays a pivotal role in India's electoral process, having evolved considerably since its inception to uphold fairness in elections.
• While originally crafted to regulate conduct during elections, the MCC faces new hurdles in today's dynamic political environment.
• Hence, it becomes imperative to delve into the historical progression of the MCC, identify existing deficiencies, and suggest strategies to bolster its implementation.

Evolution of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC):

• Kerala was the first state to adopt a code of conduct for elections.
• In 1960, ahead of the Assembly elections in the state, the administration prepared a draft code that covered important aspects of electioneering such as processions, political rallies, and speeches.
• It was only in 1974, just before the mid-term general elections, that the EC released a formal MCC.
• It also set up bureaucratic bodies at the district level to oversee its implementation.
• So the EC, just before the 1979 Lok Sabha elections, released a revised Model Code with seven parts, with one part devoted to the party in power and what it could and could not do once elections were announced.
• The MCC has subsequently evolved as an integral part of conducting fair and free elections.

Challenges Faced by the MCC and the Imperative for Strengthening Enforcement:

• Escalating Violations: Political parties and candidates routinely flout the MCC's regulations, engaging in activities like hate speech, vote-buying, and spreading misinformation, undermining the trust in the electoral process and compromising its fairness and transparency.
• Exploitation of Loopholes: In today's political landscape, there's a discernible trend of exploiting MCC loopholes to bypass its regulations.
  • With the advent of technology and social media, political entities find novel ways to propagate propaganda and target voters, evading traditional MCC constraints and necessitating revisions to address these evolving challenges.
• Inadequate Deterrents: While the MCC sets ethical standards, it often lacks effective penalties for violations, resulting in politicians perceiving minimal risks in flouting its provisions.
  • Strengthening the MCC entails imposing clear and proportionate penalties for transgressions to foster a culture of accountability.
• Complexity of Enforcement: India's vast and diverse electoral terrain, coupled with a surge in reported violations, strains the Election Commission's enforcement capabilities.
  • Adjudicating MCC breaches can be arduous and resource-intensive, leading to accountability delays. Streamlining enforcement procedures and enhancing the EC's capacity is pivotal for ensuring prompt and efficient MCC implementation.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Widespread disregard for ethical norms and regulations can erode citizens' trust in the democratic process, fostering voter apathy and disenchantment.
  • Restoring public confidence in elections necessitates robust measures to strengthen the MCC and underscore the EC's dedication to upholding electoral integrity.

Proposed Reforms to Enhance MCC Enforcement:

• Clear and Comprehensive Guidelines: The initial step towards MCC reform entails establishing clear and comprehensive guidelines delineating permissible and impermissible conduct during electoral campaigns.
  • Regular updates to these guidelines are crucial to address evolving challenges and technological advancements, enabling political entities to navigate ethical standards effectively and prevent inadvertent violations.
• Strict Enforcement Mechanisms: Implementation of proportional penalties for infringements, such as fines, campaigning bans, and withdrawal of electoral symbols, constitutes a vital aspect of reform.
  • Streamlining enforcement procedures by the Election Commission (EC) ensures swift adjudication of cases, bolstering the MCC's credibility and deterrent impact.
• Indirect Liability for Political Parties: Imposing penalties on parties for MCC violations, irrespective of individual culpability, incentivizes enhanced oversight over members' conduct.
  • This fosters collective responsibility within political organizations, promoting greater accountability and ethical governance.
• Transparency and Public Accountability: Maintaining a publicly accessible database documenting all reported MCC violations and their dispositions empowers citizens to monitor regulatory compliance.
  • This transparency holds political actors accountable for their actions, reinforcing public trust in the electoral process.
• Timely and Credible Adjudication: Prioritizing prompt resolution of violations and ensuring impartial decision-making by the EC are essential to uphold the MCC's deterrent effect.
  • Timely adjudication prevents erosion of public confidence and underscores the EC's commitment to fair electoral practices.
• Continuous Evaluation and Revision: Vigilance in identifying areas for improvement and updating the MCC in response to emerging challenges and evolving electoral dynamics is crucial.
  • This iterative approach ensures the MCC remains relevant and effective in safeguarding India's electoral integrity.

The Role of Political Parties and Election Commission in Safeguarding Electoral Integrity:

Political Leadership's Responsibility:

• Political leaders wield significant influence in upholding electoral integrity by adhering to ethical standards and fostering responsible conduct within their parties.
• By exemplifying ethical leadership, politicians can instill a culture of integrity and accountability among their supporters and party members.
• Effective self-regulation within political parties is imperative to minimize MCC violations and preserve the integrity of electoral campaigns.
• Through a commitment to fairness, transparency, and democratic principles, leaders can instill confidence in the electoral process and encourage civic engagement among voters.

The Election Commission's Mandate:

• As the guardian of electoral integrity, the Election Commission plays a pivotal role in impartially adjudicating MCC violations and enforcing electoral regulations.
• Timely and decisive enforcement of the MCC is crucial for deterring violations and upholding the integrity of electoral campaigns.
• Maintaining transparency in its actions and decisions related to MCC enforcement is essential for the EC to uphold public accountability.
• By providing regular updates on reported violations, adjudication outcomes, and enforcement measures, the EC fosters public trust in its ability to safeguard electoral integrity.
• Enhancing the EC's capacity for MCC enforcement is paramount for effectively addressing emerging challenges and ensuring the integrity of electoral processes.
• This includes investing in training programs, technological infrastructure, and human resources to enable the EC to adapt to evolving electoral dynamics and enforce regulations effectively.

Conclusion

While the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) serves as a crucial bulwark against electoral misconduct, its effectiveness hinges on vigorous enforcement and adaptability to evolving scenarios. Through the adoption of suggested reforms and the cultivation of ethical leadership, India can fortify the integrity of its democratic mechanisms, guaranteeing equitable and transparent elections for its populace.

Why is it in the News?

The amended rules will prolong the life of drugs on account of frivolous patenting, increase their prices, and make lives difficult for patients.

Context:

• India's healthcare system depends largely on accessible medications, with the generic pharmaceutical sector crucial for delivering quality drugs at affordable rates.
• The expense of medicines represents a substantial part of healthcare spending, with almost half of individuals' medical costs dedicated to purchasing prescriptions.
• Yet, the considerable expenses associated with medications, largely influenced by patenting, create significant hurdles for obtaining vital treatments.

What is the Role of Generic Pharmaceutical Companies?

• Generic pharmaceutical companies are pivotal in addressing the challenge of affordability by offering cost-effective alternatives to patented drugs.
• India's generic industry has earned global recognition for its role in providing essential medications at accessible prices.
• The development of India's patent laws has significantly influenced its pharmaceutical sector and its capacity to produce generic drugs.
  • Initially, the Indian Patent Act of the early 1970s limited patent protection to the manufacturing processes rather than the products themselves.
  • This approach facilitated the growth of the generic industry, positioning India as a major exporter of generic drugs by the late 1980s.
• However, recent revisions to the Indian Patent Law pose a threat to this ecosystem and jeopardize access to affordable healthcare.

What is the Impact of the TRIPS Agreement on India's Pharmaceutical Industry?

• The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, introduced in 1995, had a significant impact on India's pharmaceutical sector, shaping its development and global position. Key aspects of this impact include:
• Transition to Product Patents: A critical change brought by TRIPS was the requirement for member countries to grant patents for both products and processes, including pharmaceuticals.
  • This shift from process to product patents posed challenges for India's thriving generic pharmaceutical industry, which had previously capitalized on producing affordable versions of patented drugs.
• Challenges for India's Generic Industry: The introduction of product patents threatened India's generic pharmaceutical sector, renowned for its capacity to manufacture low-cost essential medicines.
  • These patents granted exclusive rights to inventors, restricting generic manufacturers' ability to produce and distribute affordable alternatives.
• Pressure to Comply with International Standards: The TRIPS Agreement pressured India to align its intellectual property laws with international standards, encompassing pharmaceutical patent protection.
  • This necessitated amendments to India's Patent Act to comply with TRIPS obligations while preserving the interests of its generic pharmaceutical industry and public health priorities.
• Preserving Access to Medicines: Despite TRIPS challenges, India implemented measures to safeguard access to affordable medicines.
  • Provisions like Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act, introduced in 2005, aimed to prevent granting frivolous patents for incremental innovations lacking significant therapeutic benefits.
  • This ensured compliance with TRIPS requirements while maintaining access to affordable medicines.
• Balancing Innovation and Access: The TRIPS Agreement presented India with the challenge of balancing innovation and access to essential medicines.
  • While patents incentivize innovation and investment in research and development, they can restrict access to life-saving treatments, particularly in developing countries with limited healthcare resources.
• Global Leadership in Generic Manufacturing: Despite the challenges posed by TRIPS, India emerged as a global leader in generic drug manufacturing.
  • Leveraging its manufacturing capabilities and adherence to TRIPS flexibilities, the country's generic pharmaceutical industry continued to thrive, supplying affordable medicines domestically and globally.

What is Section 3(d) of India's Patent Act?

• Section 3(d) is a crucial provision in India's Patent Act that exemplifies the flexibilities embedded within the country's patent laws.
  • It tackles concerns related to "evergreening"—a practice used by pharmaceutical companies to extend patent life through minor modifications or incremental innovations.
• The primary objective of Section 3(d) is to prevent the granting of patents for incremental innovations that lack significant therapeutic efficacy or novelty.
  • By doing so, it aims to protect access to generic versions of essential medicines and promote affordability.
• Under Section 3(d), pharmaceuticals and chemical substances are eligible for patent protection only if they demonstrate enhanced efficacy compared to existing formulations.
  • This requirement ensures that patents are granted for inventions representing genuine advancements in therapeutic efficacy rather than minor modifications or variations of existing drugs.
• Through Section 3(d), India's patent laws strike a balance between innovation and public health priorities, contributing to the overall well-being and access to medicines for its citizens.

What are the Contemporary Challenges in India's Patent Regime?

• India's patent regime currently faces several challenges, including issues related to pre-grant opposition, competition, international trade agreements, and flexibilities in patent law. These challenges have implications for access to affordable medicines, the financial burden on patent opponents, and drug availability.
• Threats to Pre-Grant Opposition: Amendments to the Indian Patent Rules have made filing opposition to patents at the pre-grant stage more challenging.
  • This change could lead to granting patents for inventions lacking genuine novelty or therapeutic efficacy.
• Impact on Competition and Drug Prices: Limitations to the pre-grant opposition process may stifle competition in the pharmaceutical market and contribute to higher drug prices.
  • By hindering generic manufacturers and civil society organizations from challenging frivolous patents, the amendments impede the availability of affordable generic drugs.
• Pressure from Pharma Majors and International Trade Agreements: These amendments reflect pressure from multinational pharmaceutical corporations, particularly Western and Japanese companies, seeking to align India's patent rules with their interests.
  • Their lobbying efforts aim to weaken India's patent regime, facilitating patent grants for incremental innovations and extending market exclusivity for their products.
• Threats to Flexibilities in Patent Law: Amendments to India's patent rules threaten the flexibilities inherent in its patent law, including provisions such as Section 3(d) that set stringent patentability criteria based on enhanced efficacy.
  • Weakening these provisions undermines India's capacity to protect public health priorities and promote access to affordable medicines.
• Financial Burden on Opponents of Patents: Imposing fees on patent opponents could deter patients, civil society organizations, and generic manufacturers from filing pre-grant oppositions.
  • This financial burden limits stakeholders' ability to safeguard public health interests and promote affordable medicines.
• Impact on Compulsory Licensing and Drug Availability: The amendments also affect the issuance of compulsory licenses, crucial for ensuring access to medicines when patents hinder availability.
  • By weakening provisions that enable compulsory licensing and limit evergreening, the amendments impede efforts to address healthcare disparities and promote equitable access to essential medicines.

Conclusion

Access to affordable medicines is vital for public health and universal healthcare. Policymakers must preserve patent law flexibilities, promote competition, and protect patient interests to ensure healthcare systems uphold affordability, accessibility, and quality. Amendments to India's Patent Rules should balance innovation, intellectual property rights, and societal well-being, mitigating negative impacts on essential medicines and public health outcomes.

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.