Mar-17P Flashcards
1.1. INTER-STATE RIVER WATER DISPUTES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2017
Why in news?
Union Minister of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation introduced Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017 in Lok Sabha.
The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017 proposes to streamline the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes and make the present legal and institutional architecture robust.
Need: The Inter State Water Dispute Act, 1956 which provides the legal framework to address such disputes, suffers from many drawbacks
Under this Act, a separate Tribunal has to be established for each Inter State River Water Dispute.
Only three out of eight Tribunals have given awards accepted by the States. Tribunals like Cauvery and Ravi Beas have been in existence for over 26 and 30 years respectively without any award.
Delays are on account of no time limit for adjudication by a Tribunal, no upper age limit for the Chairman or the Members, work getting stalled due to occurrence of any vacancy and no time limit for publishing the report of the Tribunal.
Provisions
Dispute Resolution Committee
o Proposes to introduce mechanism to resolve the dispute amicably by negotiations, through a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) to be established by the Central Government consisting of relevant experts, before such dispute is referred to the tribunal.
o The Committee would strive to settle the dispute within a period of one year, which may be extended by 6 months.
o In case of failure of such negotiations, the dispute would be referred to the Tribunal.
Single Tribunal
o Bill proposes a Single Standing Tribunal (with multiple benches) instead of existing multiple tribunals.
o The tribunal shall consist of one Chairperson, one Vice-Chairperson and not more than six other Members
o The term of office of the Chairperson is five year or till he attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier, the term of office of Vice Chairperson and other member of tribunal shall be co-terminus with the adjudication of the water dispute.
Timeline: The tribunal should settle a dispute in four-and-a-half years.
The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding.
Data Collection:
o The Bill also provides for transparent data collection system at the national level for each river basin.
o For this purpose, an agency to maintain data-bank and information system shall be appointed or authorized by Central Government.
Technical Support: Provides for the appointment of Assessors to provide technical support to the tribunal. They shall be appointed from amongst experts serving in the Central Water engineering Service.
1.2. NITI AYOG TO PARTNER WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS
Why in news?
Recently an interaction session of NITI Aayog was held with the leading Civil Society organizations (CSOs) and key ministries of the Union Government, to deliberate upon taking forward the social sector initiatives of government.
The move is significant in the context of NITI Aayog’s view of late that the state governments were not taking enough steps to implement various centrally sponsored schemes in the social sector.
Impact of this partnership
Efficient utilisation of government resources in the social sector.
Innovative solutions to various problems such as eliminating poverty, hunger and all other forms of deprivation which may create a lasting impact on the lives of all citizens.
Improvement in service delivery of major government schemes through partnership with CSOs with government at all levels (national, state/district and ground level).
Ensuring inclusive growth and development down to the last mile.
1.3. ‘MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES’ IN DEATH PENALTY
Why in news?
The Supreme Court sought relevant mitigating evidence in the December 16, 2012 gang-rape case on recognizing that neither the trial court nor the high court considered any evidence regarding the mitigating circumstances of the accused before sentencing them to the death penalty.
Consequences of this judgement
Effective discovery of mitigating
circumstances by allowing defence counsel to hold regular meetings in privacy unlike lack of privacy space and limited time granted by prison authorities for lawyer-client meetings
Imposing no limit on the ‘nature of evidence’ as court allowed presenting details of relevant circumstances through affidavit, giving teeth to liberal and expansive construction of mitigating factors mandated in Bachan Singh case.
Sufficient time for collection of mitigating evidence and preparation required for counsel to aid an effective sentencing hearing by setting separate date for sentencing arguments gives. It also revises burden over defense counsel of making a case against death unlike earlier where prosecution had the burden of making a case for death.
It may set a good precedent of following procedural safeguards which involves determining sentences based on all relevant info gathered from accused, family, peers, mental health and other experts and not on absurd mathematical calculations using young age and number of dependents etc.
Box–Various cases associated with death penalty
Jagmohan case – where concern was raised regarding arbitrary power with judges
Bachan Singh case – apex court came up with ‘rarest of rare doctrine’ and giving great weight to ‘mitigating circumstances’
Bhullar case – created exception for the cases related to death penalty to person involved in terror activities
Shatrughan singh chauhan – gave guidelines regarding meeting with family, opportunity to challenge rejection of mercy petition, evaluation of mental health before executing death sentence. This judgement overrode Bhullar judgement
1.4. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL
Why in news?
Parliament has cleared the Employee Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2016.
Background
The Bill amends the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Act provides payment of compensation to employees and their dependents in the case of injury by industrial accidents, including occupational diseases.
Dispute related to an employee’s compensation are heard by a Commissioner (with powers of a civil court). Appeals from the Commissioner’s order lie before the High Court.
Amendments made in the Act
Duty to inform employee for right to compensation- in writing as well as through electronic media in English, Hindi or the relevant official language at the time of employing.
Penalty for failure to inform- enhanced the amount from 5000 to between 50,000 and 100,000
Revise the minimum amount involved in the dispute for which appeal can be filed to the High Court, from the existing Rs 300 to Rs 10,000.
The Bill deletes section 30A which deals with withholding payments of employee if the employer has appealed against the Commissioner’s order.
Way forward
The Bill is worker friendly but the focus should also be given on strong enforcement mechanism related to safety measures at the industrial sites.
Steps should also be taken to bring in the unorganized workforce into its ambit.
- JUDICIARY
1. 5.1. JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY
Supreme Court has ordered installation of CCTV cameras in courtrooms and its premises, without audio recording, in at least in two districts of all states and union territories within three months.
Such a move came after several rounds of deliberations happened between Union Executive and Supreme Court India to record court proceedings. Law Commission have recommended for audio-visual recording of court proceedings.
Earlier chairman of 20th Law Commission Ajit Prakash Shah have recommended for audio-visual recording of court proceedings.
However SC made it clear that footage of the CCTV cameras will not be available under Right to Information Act and anybody who want the video footage of court proceedings have to get permission of concerned High Court
1.5.2. JUDICIAL OVERREACH BY TRIBUNALS
Why in news?
Armed Forces Tribunal granted non-functional upgrade to armed forces.
Objections to Tribunal Orders
The government in principle accepts NFU to armed forces.
The Armed Forces Tribunal does not have the power to pass such an order.
The Anomalies Committee set up for the purpose is already looking into the issue.
About Administrative Tribunals
Administrative tribunals are set up under law by the Parliament (Article 323A) to hear cases related to service matters of employees of Union or of any State or local or other authority.
The Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), set up under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, must be either a sitting or a retired High Court Judge.
Article 323(B) provides for setting up of tribunals by appropriate legislature for adjudication of other matters which include: taxation; foreign exchange, import and export; industrial and labour related matters; land reforms; urban ceiling on property; elections to Parliament and state legislature; food stuffs and rent and tenancy rigths.
The Parliament or the relevant legislature can also provide by law to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters to be heard by these tribunals.
Box–Non-functional Upgrade (NFU)
NFU is given to alleviate stagnation in the service due to non-promotion.
It entitles an officer to get the pay scale of the highest promoted officer of their batch even if he or she is not promoted to the same rank after a certain period.
1.5.3. JUDICIAL DELAYS
Why in news?
The Supreme Court issued guidelines for fixed time-bound hearing and disposing of criminal cases.
Recently, at least 15 judges of the Supreme Court decided that they will be sitting in the forthcoming summer vacation to deal with three cases of Constitutional importance.
Significance of timely justice
Supreme Court has said that Article 21 of the Constitution entitles prisoners to a fair and speedy trial as part of their fundamental right to life and liberty.
It has been estimated that if court decisions were quick and delays reduced, economic growth could receive
a boost to the tune of 1-2% of gross
domestic product.
Speeding the process will also help the poor
and those belonging to disadvantaged social
groups.
Reasons for Judicial Delays
Poor Judges to Population Ratio: India has
only 17 judges per million population and
nearly 5000 posts in subordinate courts are
vacant. The Law Commission in 1987 had
proposed 50 judges per million population. In contrast, US has 151 and China has 170 judges for a million population.
Impasses over Appointments of Judges: Memorandum of Procedures for appointment of judges remains work in progress while vacancies in various High Courts have reached nearly 50% of their sanctioned strength.
Inefficient and time-consuming procedures: liberal adjournments of cases must be avoided and witnesses once produced must be examined on consecutive dates.
Management of cases depend not on judiciary but on availability of lawyers.
Police lacks training for scientific collection of evidences and also police and prison official often fail to fulfil their duty leading to long delays in trial.
Measures
Information and communication technology (ICT) tools and modern case management systems should be used to improve transparency and the flow of information.
Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism should be strengthened and people must be made aware about it.
International best practices such as judicial management of cases, plea bargaining, trial readiness , settlement conferences, fixed times for certain filings by attorneys, the elimination of preliminary inquiries, etc. have been developed that have proven to be most effective in eliminating delay and consequently reducing backlogs.
Police Reforms: The police administration need to be provided with more resources - financial and human both for its effective functioning and improvement of investigation system.
Physical infrastructure needs to be expanded and the necessary support staff be provided to declog the system.
The implementation of setting up Gram Nyayalayas to ensure that “opportunities for justice were not denied to any citizen by reason of social, economic or other disabilities” need to be sped up.
Box–Guidelines
High Courts should decide bail applications within a month and subordinate courts within a week.
Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, should normally be concluded within six months and sessions trials, with accused in custody, within two years.
High Courts to ensure that subordinate courts dispose of cases pending for five years by the end of 2017.
Cases before High Courts where accused are in custody for more than five years should be concluded at the earliest.
1.6. REMOVAL OF PROPERTY TAX
Why in news?
Aam Aadmi Party had promised to waive property tax on residential properties if it came to power in municipality elections of Delhi.
Background
Only 30-35% of the properties pay taxes in Delhi
Nationwide, municipal revenue is very low – just 0.75% of GDP to support 31% population living in urban areas as given by Jannagraha NGO in its Annual Survey of Indian City System, 2015. The property tax is collected from residential, commercial and industrial units as well as mixed land use.
Criticism of the move
It would require an amendment to the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957, which requires the approval of Parliament and hence does not come under the power of municipalities.
Delhi municipalities are not able to give salaries to their employees and this move will further cut the revenue of the municipalities.
It can become a nationwide epidemic as a populist move in other municipality elections which can drain out revenues of municipalities.
It is considered to be regressive as the people in upper strata will be benefitted.
Issuance of municipal bonds would be a challenge with decreasing revenue source.
Potential being wasted- Economic survey 2016-17 talks about property tax as the untapped potential to augment the revenue base of urban local bodies
Box–Revenue source of Municipalities
Tax revenue- property tax, Octroi, Advertisement tax, etc.
Non-tax revenue- municipal fees, lease amounts
Other receipts- sundry receipts, lapsed deposits, fines
Shared revenue- entertainment tax, surcharge on stamp duty, profession tax
Grants in aid
Loans
- ELECTORAL REFORMS
- 1.7.1. LIFE TIME BAN OF CONVICTED LAWMAKERS
Why in news?
Election commission (EC) has supported a Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court demanding a life time ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections and entering legislature.
EC is of the view that such a uniform ban is in spirit of Fundamental rights of the Constitution including Right to Equality.
Present Provisions for banning convicted lawmakers:
Section 8 of Representation of People Act, 1951 lays down certain rules for disqualification of MP’s and MLA’s such as:
Under Section 8 (1), (2) of the Act if any of the lawmakers are convicted of crimes like rape; murder; practicing Untouchability or Sati; violating Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; causing enmity over religion, language or region; indulging in electoral violations, insulting Indian Constitution; importing and exporting banned goods, indulging in terrorist activities; etc. will be disqualified for a minimum period of six years. It is irrespective of whether they are fined or imprisoned.
Crimes under section 8(1) and 8(2) are related to various acts of Indian Penal Code; Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955; Prevention of Corruption Act 1988; Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, etc.
Moreover any lawmaker convicted of any other offence under section 8(3) and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, he/she will be disqualified from date of conviction and further six years from the time released.
Section 8(4) of RPA, 1951 which had provisions for convicted lawmakers to hold on to their seats provided they filed an appeal in higher court within three months of their conviction against the order of lower court. However in 2013 Lily Thomas vs. Union of India case, SC struck down section 8(4) of RPA, 1951 calling it unconstitutional.
Henceforth there is automatic disqualification (his/her seat becomes automatically becomes vacant) of any lawmakers if they are convicted under sections 8 (1), 8 (2) and 8 (3).
Argument for
This will be help in Decriminalization of politics. As per Association for Democratic Reforms in 16th Lok Sabha (2014) 34% of newly elected MP’s have criminal cases filed against them. In 2009 this figure was 30%.
It will act as a deterrent factor in future for candidate to not indulge in criminal activities.
As candidates with clean background entering the legislature, common people will have more faith in Political system thereby strengthening the roots of Democracy.
Argument Against
Life-long punishment may seem disproportionate as candidate guilty of committing even minor crimes like breaking traffic rules, indulging in minor scuffling unlike heinous crimes like rape, murder, terrorism still he/she will be disqualified for life term from contesting elections.
There may be chances that ruling party leaders may deceitfully frame their rival leaders or genuine political activists/ innocent people to wipe out their opposition.
Way forward
Such a lifelong ban on convicted lawmakers will go a long way in cleansing the Political system of India and serves as a confidence building measure. However care should be taken that such ban happens only for heinous crimes.
1.7.2. MULTI PHASE POLLS
Why in News?
After polling in 5 states, Chief Election Commissioner of
India (CEC) has said that long-drawn-out, multiple-phase
elections will continue in near future.
Need
The Constitution provides us with the right to have free and
fair elections. Single phase election may be hard to monitor and may lead to unfair election practices.
Significance
Conduct of elections involves elaborate security management, including security of polling personnel, polling stations and polling materials.
o Multi-phase polls help in overcoming any challenges of manpower shortage related to security.
o It also improves monitoring and coordination between agencies conducting the election.
Multi-phase polls also distribute costs of conducting elections over a period of time rather than application of one-time costs thus removing logistical challenges.
Multi-phase polls reaches maximum amount of voter population preventing occurrence of violence and malpractices in elections.
Criticism
Many oppose the move as multi-phase polls undermine the authority of State Police in law and order because of the preference given to the Central police forces.
Multi-phase polls are also considered to be a hindrance to free and fair polling because –
o Even if election campaigning stops in one area, it still continues in other area due to the Section 126 of ROP Act 1951.
o This indirectly influences the voter of the other constituencies, thus violating the spirit of the law.
Model Code of Conduct is extended over a larger period of time in multi-phase poll. This causes hurdles to start new development projects in these poll states.
Way Forward
Although there are limitations of multi-phase polls, still in the present scenario of limited financial and human resources, the multi-phase poll is a way to remove any logistical challenges to the conduct of free and fair elections.
Box–Representation of People Act 1951
Section 126 – It forbids display of election matter through print or television, 48 hours before the polling starts.
This is valid only for the constituency in which the polling would begin and not in other constituencies in multi-phase polls.
1.7.3. ELECTION COMMISSION ON ASTROLOGY
Election Commission (EC) said that Predictions by astrologers, Tarot readers and Political analysts on election results cannot be published or broadcast by the media.
EC observed such kind of analysis is equivalent Exit polls.
At present, Exit polls are banned under Representation of People Act, 1951. Such restrictions are in place since 2010 with Introduction of Section 126(A) of RPA, 1951.
Box–
About Election Commission of India (ECI)
EC is Independent, Constitutional body established as per the provisions of Article 324 of Constitution.
At present ECI consists of one Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioner. They have equal powers; receive equal salary, allowances and other perks.
CEC can only be removed by President on the basis of resolution passed to that effect by both the houses of parliament with special majority either on ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity only. Other EC cannot be removed from the office except on recommendation of CEC.
Some of the major functions of ECI include Conducting free and fair elections of President, Vice President, Parliament, State legislatures; Preparing and periodically revising Electoral rolls; Granting recognition to Political Parties and allotting them symbols; Formulating Code of Conduct; Cancelling polls in case of rigging; Conduct by-polls; to advice President and Governor regarding disqualifications of members of Parliament or state legislatures; act as court to settle disputes between political parties
1.8. AADHAAR
Why in news?
The government has made Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns; for obtaining PAN; for availing benefits under Mid-Day Meal; and also for verification of mobile phone connections.
What is Aadhaar?
Aadhaar is a 12-digit number issued by the UIDAI to the residents of India, however, it does not confer any right of citizenship or domicile in respect of an Aadhaar number holder.
Any resident, irrespective of age and gender may voluntarily enrol free of cost to obtain Aadhaar.
Aadhaar is proof of identity, proof of residence and now also financial address for its residents.
Data collected includes:
Demographic information required: Name, Date of Birth, Gender, Address, Parent/Guardian details (required for children, optional for adults),Contact details phone and email (optional)
Biometric Information required: Photo, 10 finger prints, Iris
Features and benefits of Aadhaar
Aadhaar has helped save government more than INR 49,000 crore in subsidies and more than 106 crore people have already been allotted Aadhaar till date.
One Aadhaar: As it contains biometrics which is unique, it helps in identifying fake and ghost beneficiaries in a government scheme, thereby helping in better targeting and stemming leakages.
Identification Services: Agencies can check identity of a person online from anywhere in India by requesting UIDAI after obtaining prior consent of the person. This eliminates need of various identity documents required in opening bank accounts etc.
Blocking Biometrics: Aadhaar card holder gets alerts every time his/her identity is authenticated and can also block biometrics, thus not allowing anyone to access details for identification.
Marginalized and excluded residents not having sufficient documentation to meet the proof of identity or proof of address will also be issued Aadhaar number by way of “introducer” system.
Electronic benefit transfers: Aadhaar acts as financial address and thus offers a secure and low cost platform to directly remit benefits to intended beneficiaries.
Improving Efficiency and Efficacy: Clear accountability and transparent monitoring would significantly improve access and quality of entitlements to beneficiaries and the agency alike.
Self-service puts residents in control: Using Aadhaar as an authentication mechanism, residents should be able to access up-to-date information about their entitlements, demand services and redress their grievances directly from their mobile phone, kiosks or other means.
Issues with Aadhaar
Privacy Issues: Right to liberty and freedom of expression is compromised if right to privacy is not there. In the absence of a comprehensive privacy law in India, making Aadhaar mandatory may lead to misuse of personal information and surveillance by the State thus taking away privacy.
Release of Information: Information of an individual can only be revealed in two cases:
On the order of District Court
In the case of national security on direction of a “joint secretary” (Section 33(2))
National security is a vague term and these safeguards are weaker than those for telephone tapping as given in Telegraph Act, 1885 which allows sharing of data for public emergency or public safety and second, the order to share information can be issued only by Home Secretary.
Potential to profile individuals: The Act does not have provisions to protect against determining of behavioural pattern and profiling of a person using big data analytics.
It does not prohibit law enforcement agencies from using Aadhaar as a link across various datasets such as telephone records or air travel records
It does not prescribe maximum duration for which authentication record of an individual can be maintained.
Section 57 enables the government to impose Aadhaar identification in virtually any other context that is not mentioned in the bill.
Cognizance of offence: No court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint made by the UIDAI. Thus, a person who is aggrieved by breach of data has no remedy at his/her disposal.
Discretionary powers of UIDAI: The Act empowers UIDAI to specify other information that may be collected, without prior approval from Parliament.
No provision for public or independent Oversight: The Act does not provide for independent oversight or limitations on surveillance.
Prosecution: The Aadhaar Act does not make UIDAI liable for criminal prosecution in case of breach of data as per Section 43 of the Information Technology Act.
Compensation: Unlike in western countries, the Act does not have any provision for compensation to the person whose data is compromised.
Authentication Failure: In addition to wrong inclusion, exclusion of poor households, and misuse of biometric data, failure of biometric authentication stands approximately at 30 % due to connectivity and other issues.
Conclusion
Aadhaar presents a unique opportunity to improve governance processes and outcomes. It is a strategic policy tool for social and financial inclusion, public sector delivery reforms, managing fiscal budgets, increase convenience and promote hassle-free people-centric governance. It facilitates financial inclusion of the underprivileged and weaker sections of the society and is therefore a tool of distributive justice and equality.
Mar-17Polity
- Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendnt) Bill, 2017
- Niti Ayog to Partner with Civil Society Organisations
- ‘Mitigating Circumstances’ in Death Penalty
- Employees Compensation Amendment Bill
- Judiciary
- 1.5.1. Judicial Transparency
- 1.5.2. Judicial Overreach by Tribunals
- 1.5.3. Judicial Delays
- Judiciary
- Removal of Property tax
- Electoral Reforms
- 1.7.1. Life Time Ban of Convicted Lawmakers
- 1.7.2. Multi Phase Polls
- 1.7.3. Election Commission on Astrology
- Electoral Reforms
- Aadhaar
