Polity Set 166
π
π Constitutional Bodies β’ CAG
Q.1) The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal (Article 148). What is the tenure of the CAG?
Ans > 6 years or up to 65 years of age
- Constitutional Framework: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) is an independent constitutional authority established under Article 148. The President appoints the CAG, highlighting the high status and independence of the office. The tenure is firmly fixed at six years or until the age of 65 (whichever is earlier) to ensure stability.
- Guardian of the Public Purse: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar considered the CAG to be the most critical officer under the Constitution. The CAG controls the entire financial system at both the Union and State levels, ensuring that all public funds are spent efficiently, legally, and for their intended purposes.
- Strict Independence Safeguards: To insulate the office from political pressure, the CAG can only be removed by the President in the exact same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, after retiring, the CAG is entirely ineligible for any further employment under the Central or State governments.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ CAG
Q.2) The CAG submits audit reports relating to the accounts of the Union to the:
Ans > President of India (who lays them before Parliament)
- Constitutional Reporting Protocol: Under Article 151 of the Indian Constitution, the CAG does not submit Union audit reports directly to the legislative body (Parliament). Instead, they must submit them to the executive head, the President of India, who is constitutionally obligated to lay these reports before both Houses of Parliament.
- Role of Parliamentary Committees: Once the President presents the reports to Parliament, they are rigorously scrutinized by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The CAG acts as a “friend, philosopher, and guide” to the PAC, helping Members of Parliament decode complex financial data and hold government departments accountable for misappropriations.
- The State-Level Equivalent: A similar constitutional hierarchy exists at the state level. For state-level finances, the CAG submits audit reports directly to the Governor of the respective state. The Governor is then responsible for ensuring these reports are laid before the State Legislature for review.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ CAG
Q.3) The CAG submits three main audit reports to the President. Which of the following is NOT one of them?
Ans > Audit report on Monetary Policy
- Evaluating Appropriation Accounts: The audit report on Appropriation Accounts is vital for legislative oversight. It compares the actual expenditure of the government against the exact funds that Parliament sanctioned through the annual Appropriation Act, highlighting unauthorized overspending or unutilized allocated funds.
- Assessing General Finance Accounts: The Finance Accounts report evaluates the overall financial health of the Union government. It details annual receipts (taxes and non-tax revenues) and disbursements, allowing the legislature to understand the government’s fiscal deficit, public debt, and general economic management.
- The Exclusion of Monetary Policy: The CAG audits the performance and finances of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), but monetary policy falls strictly outside its mandate. Monetary policyβwhich involves managing interest rates, inflation, and money supplyβis the exclusive domain of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
π Constitutional Bodies β’ Attorney General
Q.4) The Attorney General for India (Article 76) holds office during the pleasure of the President. Does the Attorney General have the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament?
Ans > Yes, but without the right to vote
- Status as Highest Law Officer: The Attorney General (AG) is the highest law officer in India, appointed under Article 76 by the President. The appointee must possess the qualifications required to be a Supreme Court judge. The AG holds office solely during the pleasure of the President and provides legal counsel to the Union Government.
- Parliamentary Privileges Granted: Despite not being an elected Member of Parliament, Article 88 grants the AG special privileges. The AG has the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, as well as any joint sittings, providing expert legal perspectives during legislative debates.
- Voting Restrictions and Private Practice: While the AG enjoys parliamentary immunity for their speech in the House, they are explicitly denied the right to vote, preserving democratic voting rights only for elected or nominated MPs. Additionally, the AG is not a full-time government servant and is allowed to maintain a private legal practice.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ Advocate General
Q.5) The Advocate General of a State (Article 165) is appointed by the Governor. Does the Advocate General have the right to speak in the State Legislature?
Ans > Yes, but without the right to vote
- The State’s Chief Legal Advisor: Serving a role parallel to the Attorney General, the Advocate General is the highest law officer of a State under Article 165. Appointed by the Governor, the individual must be qualified to be a High Court judge and serves at the Governor’s pleasure to advise the state executive on legal matters.
- Legislative Participation: Article 177 grants the Advocate General the constitutional right to speak and participate in the proceedings of the State Legislative Assembly (and the Legislative Council in bicameral states). They can also participate in legislative committees to which they are appointed.
- The Prohibition on Voting: Mirroring the rules at the Union level, the Advocate General cannot vote in the state legislature. Their role in the assembly is strictly advisory and informative, ensuring the state government’s legislative drafting and policies align with constitutional and legal frameworks.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ JSPSC
Q.6) Under Article 315, a Joint State Public Service Commission (JSPSC) can be created for two or more states. How is a JSPSC created?
Ans > By an Act of Parliament (on the request of the State Legislatures concerned)
- Statutory Nature of the Commission: Unlike the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and individual State Public Service Commissions (SPSCs) which are established directly by the Constitution, a Joint State Public Service Commission (JSPSC) is a statutory body. It is created to streamline civil service recruitment for two or more states that agree to cooperate.
- The Legislative Creation Process: A JSPSC cannot be imposed by the Union unilaterally. First, the State Legislatures of the interested states must pass resolutions requesting a shared commission. Following this official request, the Parliament of India must pass a specific Act to legally establish the JSPSC for those states.
- Historical Precedents: This mechanism provides flexibility within India’s federal structure. A famous historical example is the State of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which utilized this provision to create a Joint Public Service Commission for the newly reorganized states of Punjab and Haryana.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ JSPSC
Q.7) The Chairman and members of a Joint State Public Service Commission (JSPSC) are appointed by the:
Ans > President of India
- Avoiding Inter-State Conflicts: Even though a JSPSC serves multiple state governments, its leadership is not appointed by the Governors of those states. To ensure absolute neutrality and prevent any single participating state from dominating the commission, the Constitution vests the appointment power in the President of India.
- Centralized Oversight: Because the JSPSC is born from an Act of Parliament, the Union Executive maintains administrative oversight. The President determines the number of members in the JSPSC and establishes their conditions of service, ensuring uniformity and fairness across the participating state bureaucracies.
- Resignation and Removal Mechanisms: The centralized control extends to the end of their tenure as well. The Chairman and members of a JSPSC address their resignation letters to the President, not the state Governors. Furthermore, they can only be removed by the President following a Supreme Court inquiry, similar to UPSC members.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ UPSC
Q.8) What is the tenure of the Chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)?
Ans > 6 years or up to 65 years of age
- Guaranteeing Institutional Independence: The UPSC is India’s premier central recruiting agency. To guarantee that its members can select civil servants based purely on merit without political interference, the Constitution grants them a highly secure tenure. They serve for six years or until they reach 65 years of age, whichever comes first.
- Protection from Arbitrary Dismissal: Unlike ministers who serve at the pleasure of the President, UPSC members enjoy security of tenure. The President can only remove them before their term expires through a strict constitutional procedure that requires the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry and prove misbehavior.
- Strict Post-Retirement Limitations: To eliminate the temptation of currying favor with the government for future jobs, retiring UPSC Chairmen are constitutionally banned from any further employment under the Central or State governments. Members can only be elevated to the post of UPSC Chairman or an SPSC Chairman.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ SPSC
Q.9) What is the tenure of the Chairman and members of a State Public Service Commission (SPSC)?
Ans > 6 years or up to 62 years of age
- The Difference in Age Limits: While the term length for an SPSC member is six years (identical to the UPSC), the retirement age limit is lower. A member of an SPSC retires at the age of 62, compared to 65 for UPSC members. This age limit was raised from 60 to 62 by the 41st Amendment Act (1976).
- The Separation of Appointment and Removal: A vital exam point is the separation of powers regarding SPSC personnel. While the Governor of the state appoints the Chairman and members, the Governor has absolutely no power to remove them. Removal can only be executed by the President of India.
- Career Progression Rules: To ensure impartiality, a retiring Chairman of an SPSC cannot take regular government jobs but is eligible for lateral or upward movement. They can be appointed as the Chairman or member of the UPSC, or as the Chairman of another State’s Public Service Commission.
π Constitutional Bodies β’ NCSC
Q.10) The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) is a constitutional body (Article 338). It consists of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and how many other members?
Ans > Three
- Constitutional Evolution: Originally, the Constitution provided for a single Special Officer for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The 65th Amendment (1990) created a multi-member body, and later, the 89th Amendment (2003) bifurcated it into two distinct bodies: the NCSC (Article 338) and the NCST (Article 338A).
- Structure of the Commission: The NCSC is structured as a five-member body to ensure diverse representation and comprehensive oversight. It strictly comprises one Chairperson, one Vice-Chairperson, and three additional members. The President of India appoints all five members by warrant under his hand and seal.
- Judicial Powers during Investigation: The NCSC’s primary mandate is to monitor safeguards for Scheduled Castes. When investigating complaints of rights violations, the Commission functions with the powers of a civil court. It can summon individuals, demand the production of documents, and receive evidence on affidavits from across India.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.11) The historic Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case applied the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that which of the following is a basic feature of the Constitution?
Ans > Free and fair elections
- The Emergency Context: Following a High Court ruling that invalidated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election due to malpractices, the Parliament hastily passed the 39th Amendment during the Emergency. This amendment sought to place the election disputes of the Prime Minister entirely beyond the jurisdiction of all Indian courts.
- Enforcing the Basic Structure: Utilizing the Basic Structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court struck down the core provision of the 39th Amendment. The Court boldly declared that “free and fair elections” are a foundational pillar of Indian democracy and cannot be destroyed by parliamentary amendment.
- Preserving Judicial Review: By overturning the amendment, the judiciary reaffirmed that no individual, regardless of their high office, is above the law. The ruling ensured that the power of courts to review electoral disputes remains intact, preventing the ruling executive from retroactively legalizing electoral fraud.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.12) In the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case, the Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd Amendment, ruling that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between:
Ans > Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- Countering the “Mini-Constitution”: The 42nd Amendment (1976) attempted to drastically alter the Constitution by granting Parliament unlimited amending power and establishing the absolute supremacy of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) over individual Fundamental Rights. The Minerva Mills case challenged this massive power grab.
- The Chariot Wheel Analogy: The Supreme Court struck down the offending clauses, famously ruling that the Constitution rests on the harmonious balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles). The Court likened them to two wheels of a chariot, asserting that giving absolute primacy to one destroys the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
- Limitations on Amending Power: The judgment also invalidated the amendment’s attempt to remove judicial review of constitutional amendments. The Court ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is a limited power, and it cannot use this limited power to grant itself unlimited power to rewrite the fundamental nature of the Republic.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.13) In the Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) case regarding the Anti-Defection Law, the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker/Chairman acts as a:
Ans > Tribunal, and therefore their decisions are subject to judicial review
- Evaluating the Tenth Schedule: The Kihoto Hollohan case evaluated the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), introduced by the 52nd Amendment in 1985. A major legal dispute was that the law made the Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) the sole and final arbiter on defection cases, initially barring court intervention.
- The Quasi-Judicial Role: The Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Defection Law but redefined the Speaker’s role. The Court ruled that when a Speaker decides a disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule, they do not act in their usual legislative capacity but function as a statutory Tribunal resolving a legal dispute.
- Opening the Doors to Judicial Scrutiny: Because the Speaker acts as a Tribunal in these instances, their final decisions are legally subject to judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court. The judiciary can overturn a Speaker’s decision if it suffers from mala fides (bad faith), perversity, or violates constitutional mandates.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.14) The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case is famous for laying down guidelines on President’s Rule. In this case, the Supreme Court also explicitly declared which concept to be a Basic Feature of the Constitution?
Ans > Secularism
- Curbing Article 356 Misuse: Prior to the Bommai judgment, the Central Government frequently misused Article 356 (President’s Rule) to arbitrarily dismiss state governments run by opposition parties. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines, ruling that a state government’s majority must be tested on the assembly floor, not in the Governor’s office.
- The Religious Context: The case also dealt with the Center’s dismissal of several state governments following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, citing the states’ failure to uphold secular values. The Supreme Court upheld these specific dismissals, asserting that secularism is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
- Defining State Neutrality: The Court elaborated that in matters of the State, religion has absolutely no place. If a state government actively subverts the secular fabric of the nation or aligns itself with a particular religion to the detriment of others, it constitutes a breakdown of constitutional machinery.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.15) In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (Article 226) and Supreme Court (Article 32) is a basic structure, thereby striking down provisions that attempted to exclude their jurisdiction over:
Ans > Administrative Tribunals
- The Threat of Alternative Courts: The 42nd Amendment had introduced Articles 323A and 323B, allowing the creation of Administrative Tribunals to handle service and tax disputes. Crucially, these articles attempted to completely bypass the High Courts, directing appeals from these Tribunals directly to the Supreme Court.
- Reaffirming Constitutional Remedies: A seven-judge bench unanimously ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts (Article 226) and the Supreme Court (Article 32) is an integral part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure. Consequently, Parliament cannot pass laws that exclude this fundamental jurisdiction.
- Tribunals as Supplementary Bodies: The judgment clarified that while Administrative Tribunals are useful as courts of first instance to reduce case backlogs, they cannot act as total substitutes for the higher judiciary. Therefore, all decisions made by Administrative Tribunals are strictly subject to the writ jurisdiction of their respective state’s High Court.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Basic Structure
Q.16) In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are NOT immune from judicial review if they violate the basic structure and were added after:
Ans > April 24, 1973
- The Intended Constitutional Shield: The First Amendment (1951) created the Ninth Schedule as a constitutional safe harbor to protect agrarian land reform laws from being struck down for violating Fundamental Rights. However, over time, governments increasingly used it to shield various controversial and unconstitutional legislations from any judicial scrutiny.
- Establishing the Cut-off Date: A nine-judge bench finally resolved this anomaly by establishing a strict cut-off date: April 24, 1973. This specific date was chosen because it is the exact day the Supreme Court delivered the historic Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which birthed the “Basic Structure” doctrine.
- Ending Absolute Immunity: The Court ruled that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after this cut-off date is no longer completely immune. If a protected law violates Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 19, 21) in a way that destroys the Basic Structure, the judiciary possesses the power to strike it down.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Fundamental Rights
Q.17) In the landmark National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) case, the Supreme Court officially recognized which community as the ‘Third Gender’ under the Constitution?
Ans > Transgender persons
- Overcoming Historical Erasure: Before this historic judgment, transgender individuals in India faced severe systemic discrimination. They were legally invisible, often forced to identify as male or female on official documents against their self-perceived identity, which severely impacted their access to education, healthcare, and employment.
- The Right to Self-Identification: The Supreme Court delivered a progressive verdict officially recognizing transgender persons as a “Third Gender.” The Court affirmed that gender identity is a core element of personal autonomy and self-expression, which is fundamentally protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
- Mandating State Action: The judgment extended all Fundamental Rights to the transgender community. Crucially, it directed the Central and State governments to legally recognize this gender identity on all documents and treat the community as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) to provide them with affirmative action and reservations.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Fundamental Rights
Q.18) In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for violating which Fundamental Right?
Ans > Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression)
- The Draconian Digital Law: Section 66A of the IT Act was widely criticized and abused by law enforcement to arrest citizens for simply posting critical comments or “liking” political satire on social media. The law criminalized sending digital messages that were deemed “grossly offensive” or caused “annoyance.”
- The Vague Terminology Trap: The Supreme Court struck the section down entirely, ruling it unconstitutional because its terminology was excessively vague and broad. Without clear legal definitions for words like “annoying” or “inconvenient,” the police wielded arbitrary power, creating a severe “chilling effect” on legitimate digital dissent.
- Protecting the Digital Public Square: The Court ruled that Section 66A directly violated Article 19(1)(a), the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The judges asserted that the law did not fall under the narrowly defined “reasonable restrictions” permitted by Article 19(2), effectively protecting free speech on the internet.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Fundamental Rights
Q.19) In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by partially striking down which Section of the Indian Penal Code?
Ans > Section 377
- The Victorian-Era Prohibition: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a colonial-era law drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay. It criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” For over a century, this archaic law was weaponized to persecute, harass, and marginalize the LGBTQ+ community in India.
- Correcting a Judicial Error: The five-judge bench delivered this verdict to explicitly overturn the Court’s own regressive 2013 judgment (Suresh Kumar Koushal), which had reinstated the ban. The 2018 bench went so far as to issue an apology to the LGBTQ+ community for the historical injustices they suffered due to the law.
- Triumph of Constitutional Morality: By partially striking down Section 377 to decriminalize consensual adult same-sex relations, the Court ruled that the law violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. The judgment stressed that “Constitutional Morality” must supersede societal morality, ensuring that majority prejudices do not strip minorities of their fundamental dignity.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Fundamental Rights
Q.20) In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a 158-year-old colonial law that treated women as the “chattel” of their husbands, thereby decriminalizing:
Ans > Adultery (Section 497 IPC)
- The Mechanics of the Adultery Law: Under Section 497 of the IPC, adultery was treated strictly as a criminal offense against the husband. The law allowed a husband to prosecute a man who had sexual relations with his wife without his consent. However, the wife could not be punished, nor could she prosecute her husband.
- Striking Down Patriarchal Ownership: The Supreme Court unanimously struck down this 158-year-old law for being blatantly unconstitutional. The bench noted that the law was steeped in patriarchal dominance, treating women as the “chattel” or property of their husbands and completely stripping them of their sexual autonomy and agency.
- Equality and Civil Remedies: The Court ruled that Section 497 violated Article 14 (Equality) and Article 21 (Dignity). A law that discriminates based on gender and marital status cannot stand. While the Court decriminalized adultery (meaning no one goes to jail for it), it clarified that adultery remains a valid civil ground for divorce.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Fundamental Rights
Q.21) In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously ruled that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under:
Ans > Article 21
- The Aadhaar Catalyst: This monumental case originated from petitions challenging the mandatory nature of the government’s Aadhaar biometric ID program. The government argued that previous historical judgments implied the Indian Constitution did not explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right.
- A Historic Unanimous Verdict: To settle this constitutional ambiguity once and for all, a massive nine-judge bench was formed. They unanimously overruled the older judgments, declaring unequivocally that the Right to Privacy is an inherent, natural right guaranteed by the Constitution, fundamentally changing Indian jurisprudence.
- Privacy as an Inalienable Right: The Court established that privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21. Furthermore, they instituted a proportionality test: any state action infringing on privacy must be backed by a law, serve a legitimate state aim, and be proportionate to the objective.
π Supreme Court Judgments β’ Fundamental Rights
Q.22) In the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) case, the Supreme Court lifted the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age into which famous temple?
Ans > Sabarimala Temple, Kerala
- The Clash of Rights: The Sabarimala case represented a profound constitutional conflict between the fundamental right to equality and the freedom to practice religion. Tradition dictated that women of menstruating age (10 to 50 years) were barred from entering the Ayyappa temple to maintain the deity’s celibate nature.
- Prioritizing Constitutional Equality: In a 4:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court struck down the rules enforcing this ban. The majority ruled that excluding women based purely on biological functions violates their fundamental right to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and the freedom to practice religion (Article 25).
- Rejecting Notions of Impurity: The judgment dismantled the patriarchal concepts of “purity and pollution” historically associated with menstruation. The Court held that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination, asserting that physiological characteristics cannot dictate a citizen’s right to access public places of worship.
π Writs β’ Article 32 & 226
Q.23) Under Article 32, the Supreme Court’s power to issue writs is considered a Fundamental Right in itself. Is the High Court’s power to issue writs under Article 226 a Fundamental Right?
Ans > No, it is a Constitutional Right, but not a Fundamental Right
- The Nature of Article 32: Article 32, which Dr. Ambedkar called the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, is physically located within Part III (Fundamental Rights). Therefore, the right to approach the Supreme Court for writ remedies is itself a fundamental right, and the Court generally cannot refuse to exercise this jurisdiction.
- The Constitutional Placement of Article 226: In contrast, Article 226, which grants writ powers to High Courts, is located in Part VI of the Constitution. Because it is outside Part III, approaching a High Court is a Constitutional Right, not a Fundamental Right. The High Court has discretionary power and can refuse writ petitions if alternative remedies exist.
- The Paradox of Scope: While Article 32 is a stronger right, its scope is narrower. The Supreme Court issues writs strictly for enforcing Fundamental Rights. However, under Article 226, a High Court has a wider scopeβit can issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights and for “any other purpose” (like statutory violations).
π Parliament β’ Elections
Q.24) The President of India is elected by a system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The voting at such an election is done by:
Ans > Secret ballot
- The Electoral College: The President is indirectly elected by a specific Electoral College. This college comprises only the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the State Legislative Assemblies (including Delhi and Puducherry). Nominated members are completely excluded from voting in this election.
- The Value of Votes: The election uses a proportional representation system to ensure uniformity in the scale of representation across different states. The value of an MLA’s vote varies depending on the population of their state, while the value of an MP’s vote is standardized.
- Absolute Freedom of Choice: To prevent coercion, Article 55(3) of the Constitution explicitly mandates that voting in the Presidential election must be by secret ballot. Political parties cannot issue binding whips dictating how their MPs or MLAs must vote, ensuring electors can vote strictly according to their conscience.
π Parliament β’ Elections
Q.25) Elections to the Rajya Sabha (by MLAs) use the same proportional representation system. Since a 2003 amendment to prevent cross-voting and bribery, voting in Rajya Sabha elections is done by:
Ans > Open ballot
- The Problem of Cross-Voting: Historically, Rajya Sabha elections were conducted using secret ballots. However, this system became plagued by corruption. MLAs were frequently bribed or influenced to engage in “cross-voting”βvoting for wealthy independent candidates or rival party nominees instead of their own party’s official candidate.
- The Legislative Remedy: To combat this blatant erosion of political morality, the Parliament amended the Representation of the People Act in 2003. This crucial amendment eliminated the secret ballot for Rajya Sabha elections, introducing an open ballot system to enforce transparency and party discipline.
- How the Open Ballot Works: Under this system, an MLA belonging to a political party must show their marked ballot paper to an authorized agent of their party before casting it. If they defy the party’s choice, they don’t immediately lose their seat under the Anti-Defection Law, but the party can take disciplinary action against them.
π Parliament β’ Elections
Q.26) The 2003 amendment regarding Rajya Sabha elections also did away with the requirement that a candidate must be:
Ans > An elector (domiciled voter) in the state from which they are contesting
- The Original Intent: When the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) was created, the law required candidates to be registered electors in the specific state they wished to represent. The logical intent was to ensure that the Upper House genuinely comprised local representatives who understood their state’s unique issues.
- The Domicile Loophole: Over time, political parties found this restrictive. To bring key national leaders or technocrats into Parliament from states where the party had a majority, leaders frequently forged residential addresses to become registered voters in states they did not actually belong to.
- Establishing National Candidacy: To end this widespread practice of submitting false residency declarations, the 2003 amendment completely removed the domicile requirement. Today, any Indian citizen registered as a voter in any constituency in India can contest a Rajya Sabha seat from any state, provided they secure enough MLA votes.
π Parliament β’ Procedures
Q.27) The concept of the “Whip” in the Indian parliamentary system is derived from:
Ans > Conventions of the British Parliamentary system
- An Unwritten Concept: From an examination perspective, it is critical to know that the term “Whip” is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of India, nor is it codified in the standard Rules of Procedure of the Houses. It operates entirely on established parliamentary conventions inherited from the British Westminster system.
- Enforcing Party Discipline: A whip refers to both a designated party official and the written directive they issue. The primary job of a whip is to ensure party discipline on the floor of the House. They track member attendance and issue instructions on how members must vote on specific, crucial bills.
- The Consequence of Defiance: Whips are taken very seriously, especially a “three-line whip” which mandates both attendance and voting according to the party line. Under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), if a legislator votes contrary to their party’s whip without prior permission, they face disqualification from Parliament or the Assembly.
π Parliament β’ Procedures
Q.28) What is the fundamental difference between a “Vote on Account” and a “Vote of Credit”?
Ans > Vote on Account is for regular budget delays; Vote of Credit is for unexpected, undefined emergencies.
- Managing Routine Fiscal Timelines: A “Vote on Account” (Article 116) is a routine parliamentary tool. Since the full budget process takes time and may not conclude before the new financial year begins on April 1st, the Lok Sabha uses this to grant the government advance funds (usually for two months) to keep daily operations running.
- The Emergency Blank Cheque: A “Vote of Credit” is entirely different. It is an extraordinary grant made by the Lok Sabha to meet an unexpected, sudden demand upon the nation’s resources. It is used when the demand is so unusual (like a sudden war) that the details cannot be itemized in a regular budget.
- Frequency of Use: While a Vote on Account is passed frequently (especially during election years when a full budget is delayed), a Vote of Credit is extremely rare. It essentially acts as a blank cheque given by the legislature to the executive during times of severe national crisis.
π Parliament β’ Procedures
Q.29) In Parliament, what is a “Starred Question”?
Ans > A question requiring an oral answer, allowing for supplementary questions to be asked.
- The Importance of Question Hour: The first hour of a parliamentary sitting is usually dedicated to the Question Hour. This is the primary mechanism through which MPs hold the Council of Ministers accountable for the administration of their departments and the implementation of government policies.
- Distinguishing Starred Questions: MPs submit questions in advance. If an MP wants an immediate, spoken reply from a Minister on the floor of the House, they mark the question with an asterisk (*). This makes it a “Starred Question,” requiring a live, oral answer during the session.
- The Power of Supplementary Questions: The crucial feature of a Starred Question is that it permits spontaneity. After the Minister gives their oral answer, the original questionerβand other MPs permitted by the Speakerβcan fire off immediate “supplementary questions” to cross-examine the Minister, preventing evasive replies and forcing administrative transparency.
π Parliament β’ Structure
Q.30) Finally, which Article definitively affirms that “There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People”?
Ans > Article 79
- The Westminster Framework: Article 79 outlines the structural composition of the Indian Parliament. By mandating that the Parliament consists of the executive head (the President) alongside the two legislative chambers, India firmly adopted the British Westminster model, rejecting the American system where the President is completely separated from the legislature.
- The President’s Integral Role: It is a vital constitutional nuance that while the President is not a Member of Parliament and does not sit in legislative meetings, they are an inseparable part of Parliament. This is fundamentally because a bill passed by both Houses cannot become law without the President’s formal assent.
- Executive-Legislative Synergy: Beyond giving assent to bills, the President performs crucial parliamentary duties that justify their inclusion in Article 79. The President summons and prorogues the sessions of Parliament, holds the power to dissolve the Lok Sabha, and promulgates Ordinances when the Houses are not actively in session.
π Quick Summary β Polity Set 166
- CAG (Article 148): Tenure is 6 years or 65 years. Submits audit reports to the President (not directly to Parliament). Does not audit monetary policy.
- Law Officers: Attorney General (Art 76) and Advocate General (Art 165) can speak in their respective legislatures but have no right to vote.
- Public Service Commissions: JSPSC is created by an Act of Parliament (members appointed by President). UPSC tenure is 6 yrs/65 age. SPSC tenure is 6 yrs/62 age.
- NCSC (Article 338): A five-member constitutional body consisting of a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and three other members.
- Basic Structure Judgments: Indira Gandhi (free/fair elections); Minerva Mills (FR vs DPSP balance); Kihoto Hollohan (Speaker as Tribunal); Bommai (Secularism); L. Chandra Kumar (Judicial Review over tribunals); I.R. Coelho (Ninth Schedule reviewable after 1973).
- Fundamental Rights Judgments: NALSA (Third Gender); Shreya Singhal (Sec 66A IT Act struck down); Navtej Johar (Sec 377 decriminalized); Joseph Shine (Adultery decriminalized); Puttaswamy (Right to Privacy under Art 21); Sabarimala (women entry).
- Writs Jurisdiction: Supreme Court’s writ power (Art 32) is a Fundamental Right. High Court’s (Art 226) is a broader Constitutional Right.
- Elections: President elected by secret ballot. Rajya Sabha elected by open ballot (domicile requirement removed in 2003).
- Parliamentary Procedures: The ‘Whip’ is based on British conventions. Vote on Account is routine; Vote of Credit is for emergencies. Starred questions require oral answers.
- Parliament (Article 79): Officially consists of the President, the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), and the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
Timer β³
20:00
Progress (0/30)
Click any card to flip and reveal the summarized answer!
Smart Review: Questions you got wrong appear here for focused study.