© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Important topics and their relevance in UPSC CSE exam for December 12, 2023. If you missed the December 11, 2023 UPSC CSE exam key from the Indian Express, read it here
FRONT PAGE
5-judge Bench unanimously upholds Art 370 abrogation, end of J&K’s special status
Syllabus:
Preliminary Examination: Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.
Mains Examination: General Studies II: Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.
Key Points to Ponder:
• What’s the ongoing story– In a landmark ruling Monday, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously put its stamp of approval on the Modi government’s August 2019 decision to end the special status of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir by abrogating the contentious Article 370 of the Constitution.
• What special status was given to Jammu and Kashmir?
• What Article 370 of the constitution said?
• How was Article 370 enacted?
• What happened in Aug 2019?
• What did the Centre do in 2019?
• What specific aspect of Article 370 has been contested before the Supreme Court?
• What were the four key issues in the challenge to the decisions of the government?
• What did the Supreme Court rule on the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir?
• What did the Supreme Court said about Art 370?
• What Supreme Court said on the legality of the abrogation of Article 370?
• What Supreme Court said on the action that was taken under President’s rule?
• What was Karan Singh’s Proclamation of 1949?
• Why did Karan Singh make the proclamation?
• For Your Information-The court held the Constitutional order that revoked Article 370 as valid. A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, had reserved its verdict on as many as 23 petitions in the matter on September 5 this year, after 16 days of hearings. The bench also comprised Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant. The five-judge Bench, in three separate but concurring judgements, ordered restoration of statehood “at the earliest”, set a September 30, 2024 deadline for holding Assembly elections in the Union Territory of J&K and also upheld the validity of the Centre’s decision to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh from the erstwhile State.
Justice Kaul, in his ruling, recommended the “setting up of an impartial truth and reconciliation commission” to “investigate and report on the violation of human rights both by State and non-State actors perpetrated in Jammu & Kashmir at least since the 1980s and recommend measures for reconciliation”.
The Bench upheld the Constitutional validity of two Presidential Orders – The Constitution (Application To Jammu and Kashmir) Order (CO) 272 and 273 dated August 5 and 6, 2019 – by which the entire Constitution of India was made applicable to J&K, declaring all provisions of Article 370 inoperative.
The CJI, writing for himself and Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, held that the princely state of J&K “did not retain an element of sovereignty when” it joined the Union of India.
On the reorganisation of the State into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh in 2019, the Bench rejected the argument that the Bill for this under Article 3 could have been introduced only with the consent of the State Legislature, saying it had, in a previous case, held that such recommendation of the State Legislature is only recommendatory and not binding on Parliament.
“If the views of the State Legislature were binding on Parliament (which is not the case), there would be scope for debate on whether Parliament in exercise of powers under Article 356 (1) (b) could have substituted its views for the views of the Legislative Assembly of the State,” it said, declining to determine whether the reorganisation was permissible under Article 3 in view of the assurance by the Centre that statehood will be restored to J&K and that its status as a UT is temporary. The government also told the court that Ladakh’s UT status will not be affected by the restoration of statehood to J&K.
The CJI’s ruling said it is “alive to the security concerns in the territory” and “direct elections to the Legislative Assemblies, which is one of the paramount features of representative democracy in India, cannot be put on hold until statehood is restored”.
The CJI’s ruling directed that “steps shall be taken by the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act by 30 September 2024”. It said “restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible”.
The ruling rejected the contention of the petitioners that there was no merger agreement between J&K and Union of India (UoI) but only an Instrument of Accession (IoA) and as such, there was no complete surrender of sovereignty by the princely state to India. It held that “the State of J&K did not retain an element of sovereignty when it joined the UoI”.
Justice Kaul, however, said that the State of J&K “retained an element of internal sovereignty despite Maharaja Hari Singh signing the IoA with the Dominion. Article 370 of the Constitution recognized this internal sovereignty by recognizing the Constituent Assembly of the State”.
The Bench also rejected the contention that Article 370 was temporary only from 1951 to 1957 when the Constituent Assembly for J&K existed and became permanent thereafter.
The CJI ruling said that “the exercise of power by the President under Article 370 (1) (d) to issue CO 272 is not mala fide. The President in exercise of power under Article 370 (3) can unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist. The President did not have to secure the concurrence of the Government of the State or Union Government acting on behalf of the State Government… while applying all the provisions of the Constitution to J&K because such an exercise of power has the same effect as an exercise of power under Article 370(3) for which the concurrence or collaboration with the State Government was not required”.
• What was the SR Bommai judgment, which the SC relied on in its Article 370 ruling?
• What you know about landmark 1994 judgement in SR Bommai v Union of India?
• Do You Know-In Bommai, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court interpreted Article 356 of the Constitution to define the contours of proclamation of President’s rule. Article 356 contains provisions “in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States”, including that for the imposition of President’s rule.
While all nine judges unanimously upheld the provision, the Court ruled that the President’s decision would be subject to judicial review. Bommai is still the settled law on when and how President’s rule can be imposed, and was invoked in recent cases challenging President’s rule in Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016), both of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.
In 1989, the Congress government at the Centre dismissed the Janata Dal-led Karnataka government by imposing President’s rule.
After allegedly receiving 19 letters from MLAs withdrawing their support to Chief Minister SR Bommai’s government, then Karnataka Governor P Venkatasubbaiah recommended to the President that he take over the state’s administration.
He cited two reasons. First, that Bommai did not command a majority and, hence, “it was inappropriate under the Constitution,” for him to continue. Second, that no other political party was in a position to form the government.
This move, however, was extremely controversial. The SC ruling would later note that “the Governor did not ascertain the view of Shri Bommai” before making his report to the President. In fact 7 out of the 19 legislators who allegedly withdrew support to Bommai’s government would soon make a U-turn, complaining that their signatures on the aforementioned letters were obtained by misrepresentation.
Thus, the dismissed chief minister moved the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed his challenge against the Centre. Then, on appeal to the apex court, a nine-judge bench was constituted.
The SC unanimously held that the President’s proclamation can be subject to judicial review on grounds of illegality, malafide, extraneous considerations, abuse of power, or fraud. While the President’s subjective appraisal of the issue cannot be examined, the Court said that the material relied on for making the decision can be reviewed.
The verdict also made Parliamentary approval necessary for imposing President’s rule. Only after the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament can the President exercise the power. Till then, the President can only suspend the state legislature. If the Parliament does not approve the proclamation within two months, then the government that was dismissed would automatically stand revived.
The ruling also drew a redline for centre-state relationships.
The Bommai ruling, one of the first by the SC to scrutinise the conduct of the Governor’s office, came at a time when President’s rule was frequently imposed to dismiss state governments run by opposition parties.
According to research by Alok Prasanna Kumar, Senior Resident Fellow at Vidhi Karnataka, the imposition of President’s rule drastically decreased after the Bommai verdict. Between January 1950 and March 1994, President’s Rule was imposed 100 times or an average of 2.5 times a year. Between 1995 and 2021, it has been imposed only 29 times or a little more than once a year.
A key question in the Kashmir case was whether Article 370 could have been abrogated when the state was under President’s rule. The erstwhile state had been under President’s rule since 2018, and the question before the court was whether the President could give consent to the revocation of J&K’s special status.
Here, the Supreme Court relied on the Bommai ruling to hold that the actions of the President are constitutionally valid. The Court said that the Bommai ruling held that the actions taken by the President after issuing a Proclamation are subject to judicial review, but the judges had adopted varying standards to test the validity of the executive orders.
The Court cited two standards — one by Justice PB Sawant, and another by Justice Reddy. Justice Sawant had set the standard of whether the exercise of power was mala fide or palpably irrational, while Justice Reddy observed that the advisability and necessity of the action must be borne in mind by the President.
Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:
📍PM: It’s a historic verdict, resounding declaration of hope, progress for J&K
📍Between the lines: A tilt in federal balance towards Centre
📍An article of faith, abrogated
📍Key aspects of Article 370 verdict
📍What was the Bommai judgment, which the SC relied on in its ruling?
📍What was Karan Singh’s proclamation of 1949, cited by SC in verdict?
IN PARLIAMENT
Govt decides to withdraw three criminal law Bills
Syllabus:
Preliminary Examination: Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.
Mains Examination: General Studies II: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary-Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity.
Key Points to Ponder:
• What’s the ongoing story-The Centre has decided to withdraw the three new criminal law bills from Lok Sabha to bring in new draft laws, reflecting some of the changes suggested by the Parliamentary panel, including replacing “mental illness” as a defence of the accused with “unsound mind” in the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita (BNS) 2023.
• What is Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023?
• Why Centre decided to withdraw the three new criminal law bills from Lok Sabha?
• What were the suggestions given by the Parliamentary panel, headed by BJP MP Brij Lal?
• What’s wrong with the terms “mental illness” and “unsound mind” in the bill?
• For Your Information-The BNS 2023 is meant to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides protection from prosecution to a person of unsound mind. The BNS changes this to a person with mental illness. The Parliamentary panel, headed by BJP MP Brij Lal, was of the opinion that the government should bring back the term “unsound mind” since “mental illness” is “too wide in its import” and could even include mood swings and voluntary intoxication in its ambit.
“The committee has accordingly recommended that the word ‘mental illness’ in this Sanhita may be changed to ‘unsound mind’ wherever it occurs, as the present one can create problems during the trial stage, as an accused person can simply show that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the time of the commission of a crime and cannot be prosecuted even if he has committed the crime without intoxication,” the panel’s report states.
According to sources, the government has accepted the suggestion. The sources said that the government has rejected the proposal to retain the offence of adultery in BNS 2023 and to criminalise non-consensual sex between men, women, and/or transgender individuals by reintroducing section 377 of the IPC once again.
The BNS has omitted Section 497 of the IPC since the Supreme Court, in a ruling in 2018, had decriminalised adultery.
However, the committee has expressed concerns there is a need to retain the provision to safeguard the sanctity of the institution of marriage, while it can be tweaked to address the gender discrimination aspect.
The government has disagreed, sources said. The reworked bills may face opposition from the INDIA bloc in Parliament. The opposition parties have already decided to coordinate their floor strategy in Parliament on the three bills, as well as on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Bill.
They have decided to demand that the three Bills be referred to a joint Select Committee. The Bills have already been scrutinised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, and the government is unlikely to accept the opposition demand.
On August 11, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had introduced three Bills in Lok Sabha which were referred to a standing committee the same day.
From a new provision on mob lynching, punishable by seven years imprisonment or life imprisonment or death penalty; to enabling speedy justice through video trials, e-filing of FIRs; expanding the definition of sedition; bringing corruption, terrorism, and organized crime under the penal laws; introducing community service and solitary confinement as new forms of punishment; holding trials in the absence of an accused; among others — the new Bills provide for substantive changes in criminal jurisprudence.
• What exactly Government has proposed in Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023?
• What is criminal justice system in detail?
• What is Indian criminal justice system?
• The Indian Penal Code-Know its history
Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:
📍From holding trials on video to community service as punishment: Centre’s overhaul of criminal laws
GOVT & POLITICS
Oil producers’ water down provision on fossil fuel phase-out
Syllabus:
Preliminary Examination: General issues on Environmental ecology, Bio-diversity and Climate Change
Mains Examination: General Studies III: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.
Key Points to Ponder:
• What’s the ongoing story– After four days of deadlock, a new draft agreement text emerged at COP28 climate meeting that severely watered down earlier provision on fossil fuel elimination but singled out coal for a rapid phase-down, which could be problematic for India.
• What is the new draft agreement text emerged at COP28 climate meeting?
• For Your Information-A draft text on identifying some “global goals” on adaptation emerged for the first time Sunday and countries agreed to use this as a starting point to negotiate for a more meaningful outcome on this track.
On other subjects, including the contentious issue of fossil fuel phase-out, negotiators were still engaged in informal discussions to look for common ground. COP28 President, the UAE, convened a Majlis, or an assembly, to facilitate these informal discussions at an open platform. The meetings are expected to continue late into Sunday night, and a new draft text, reflecting the progress made in these, is expected to come out Monday morning. Negotiators only have Monday and Tuesday to wrap up their discussions and forge an agreement.
On the adaptation front, the small breakthrough that emerged was the draft text on the Global Goal on Adaptation, or GGA, after two years of discussions. GGA is an attempt to identify a common global goal on adaptation, just like keeping temperatures below the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold is a global goal on mitigation. It has been a long pending-demand of the developing countries, primarily to ensure more focus and resource mobilisation on adaptation.
However, identifying “global” goals on adaptation are not as straightforward as those on mitigation. Adaptation is essentially a local effort and yields local benefits. The planet benefits from emission reductions carried out anywhere in the world, but that is not the case with adaptation.
The draft text, therefore, talks about reducing climate-induced water scarcity, making food and agriculture production climate-resilient, strengthening resilience against climate-related health impacts and similar issues that are common points of interest for the world.
The text also asks countries to make an assessment of their risks and vulnerabilities, prepare and implement adaptation plans, and put monitoring and evaluation systems in place.
Developing countries made it clear that the adaptation draft fell well below their expectations and needed to be improved significantly. Right now, it only flags issues that are largely developmental in nature. Besides, there is no mention of how these objectives are to be realised or the mechanisms that will fund these efforts. The draft talks about launching a two-year work programme to develop indicators that would measure the progress being made on the adaptation goals.
It was at COP26 in Glasgow, in 2021, that countries had agreed to finalise a framework for GGA within the next two years. It is one of the deliverables at COP28 in Dubai.
• Role of fossil fuels in global warming-comment
• What is the Fossil fuel debate in COP28?
• How ‘phase-out’ is different from ‘phase-down’?
• India’s stand on coal phase-out-Know in detail
• From “phase-out” of coal to “phase-down” of Coal-what you understand by this?
• What was India’s Stand at the annual climate change conference in Glasgow for the “phase-out” of coal?
• What is India’s stand on renewable energy at COP 28?
• For Your Information-The climate pledges made by countries and corporate entities in the opening days of the COP28 climate meeting — which, according to host UAE, have already made this conference successful — are not enough to bridge even one-third of the emissions gap likely to exist by 2030, a new analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Sunday.
A pledge by more than 100 countries to triple global renewable energy capacity by 2030 and double the growth in energy efficiency, and a promise by about 50 oil and gas corporations to eliminate methane emissions from their production processes, were hailed as important breakthroughs — even though these were voluntary pledges made outside the formal COP process.
IEA, the global energy watchdog, said the pledges were welcome but, in themselves, not adequate to enforce the required emission cuts by 2030. “IEA analysis shows that the full delivery on these pledges — covering renewables, efficiency and methane — by the current signatories would result in global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 being around 4 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent lower than would be expected without them,” the IEA said.
As of now, about 130 countries have pledged to triple global renewable power capacity by 2030 and double the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements every year till 2030. The pledges are only a way to provide greater momentum to climate action, and not expected to fulfil any climate objectives on their own.
Incidentally, all these issues — tripling of renewable energy by 2030, doubling of energy efficiency growth and methane emission cuts — are being discussed in the formal negotiations as well and are expected to be part of final outcomes at COP28. There is, however, no unanimity between the countries on these issues in the formal process which, unlike the pledges, would become legally binding.
Tripling of renewable energy has a greater possibility of being agreed upon by the countries, but methane emission cuts are extremely contentious.
According to the latest projections, the current scale of climate actions being taken by countries would reduce annual global emissions by just 2 per cent by 2030 from 2019 levels. Science says this must be at least 43 per cent if any hope of meeting the 1.5 degrees-Celsius threshold has to be kept alive.
Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:
ECONOMY
Return to OPS by few states would exert huge burden on their finances: RBI study
Syllabus:
Preliminary Examination: Economic and Social Development-Sustainable Development, Poverty, Inclusion, Demographics, Social Sector Initiatives, etc.
Main Examination: General Studies II: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States and the performance of these schemes; mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.
Key Points to Ponder:
• What’s the ongoing story-The return to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) by a few states would put a huge burden on their finances, restricting them from undertaking capital expenditure to drive the growth, a report released by the Reserve Bank of India said. Any reversion to OPS by the states will be a major step backwards, undermining the benefits of past reforms and compromising the interest of future generations, the RBI said in State Finances: A Study of Budgets of 2023-24, released on Monday.
• What exactly RBI said in State Finances: A Study of Budgets of 2023-24?
• Do You Know-“The return to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) by a few states and reports of some other states moving in the same direction would exert a huge burden on state finances and restrict their capacity to undertake growth-enhancing capital expenditures,” the report said.
Internal estimates suggest that if all the state governments revert to OPS from the NPS, the cumulative fiscal burden could be as high as 4.5 times that of NPS, with the additional burden reaching 0.9 per cent of GDP annually by 2060, the RBI’s report said. This will add to the pension burden of older OPS retirees whose last batch is expected to retire by early 2040s and, therefore, draw pension under the OPS till the 2060s, it said. The report further said that states envisage a continuation of prudent fiscal management for 2023-24, with the consolidated gross fiscal deficit (GFD) budgeted at 3.1 per cent of GDP.
States’ total outstanding liabilities are budgeted to fall to 27.6 per cent of GDP for 2023-24 from the peak of 31 per cent in 2020-21. However, outstanding liabilities may remain higher than 30 per cent of gross state domestic product (GSDP) for many states.
The implementation of goods and services tax (GST) has led to increased tax buoyancy for the states. While the overall tax efforts of the states are strong, further improvement in tax revenues will require them to strengthen their tax capacity, including through tax reforms and effective and innovative tax administration, it said In case of non-tax revenues, there is considerable scope for states to increase them through revisions of user charges on electricity, water and other public services, royalties and premiums from mining, and better financial management of their public sector units (PSUs), the report said.
• What is the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)?
• Why the old pension scheme was discontinued?
• What is the New Pension Scheme (NPS)?
• What is the difference between the old and new pension schemes?
• Why have some employees criticised the New Pension Scheme?
• What is the argument over the financial burden of OPS?
Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:
📍On Old Pension Scheme, don’t be guided by short-term political gains
For any queries and feedback, contact priya.shukla@indianexpress.com
The Indian Express UPSC Hub is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Updates.
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
