Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Monday, February 8, 2016
TPP:
Conclusion of TPP with the major countries like USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Chile, Australia etc., shows the changing patterns of global trade based on multilateral agreements. It accounts for nearly 40% of the global GDP comprising major powerhouses of the world.
Reasons for opposing TPP:
1) TPP includes obligations on 'new issues' such as labour, investment, environment, e-commerce, competition and government procurement. All these are the favourable steps for developed countries mitigating the interests of the developing countries.
2) TPP will lead to proliferation of private standards which are heavily tilted towards the interests of developed countries.
3) Strict implementation of intellectual property regime that is being practiced in advanced countries. This will obstruct the exemptions given to developing countries in TRIPS agreement, and thus, their economies.
4) Clauses like 'Rule of Origin' seriously obstructs the trade among the members and non-members of the TPP.
5) It is being criticised for building alternative global trade regime bypassing WTO regulations and threatening its relevance as a whole.
6) Unilateral ideation and declaration and lack of transparency in functioning.
7) Strict domain of USA creates loss of flexibility and decision making of developing countries.
1) TPP includes obligations on 'new issues' such as labour, investment, environment, e-commerce, competition and government procurement. All these are the favourable steps for developed countries mitigating the interests of the developing countries.
2) TPP will lead to proliferation of private standards which are heavily tilted towards the interests of developed countries.
3) Strict implementation of intellectual property regime that is being practiced in advanced countries. This will obstruct the exemptions given to developing countries in TRIPS agreement, and thus, their economies.
4) Clauses like 'Rule of Origin' seriously obstructs the trade among the members and non-members of the TPP.
5) It is being criticised for building alternative global trade regime bypassing WTO regulations and threatening its relevance as a whole.
6) Unilateral ideation and declaration and lack of transparency in functioning.
7) Strict domain of USA creates loss of flexibility and decision making of developing countries.
India's stance:
1) What if India does not join TPP:
> India might witness diversions in trade and foreign investments and decline in the outsourcing services from India.
> The rules like 'Yarn forward rule' and 'Rule of Origin' rules our inclusion of any other countries outside that of the trade agreement for availing duty preference, which in turn makes India in-competitive.
> Hurt market access benefit and have an adverse impact on other products such as processed food, heavy manufacturing, crops, sugar, vegetables, fruits etc.
> Companies might be interested in reaping benefits of an open and inviting market of TPP member countries.
1) What if India does not join TPP:
> India might witness diversions in trade and foreign investments and decline in the outsourcing services from India.
> The rules like 'Yarn forward rule' and 'Rule of Origin' rules our inclusion of any other countries outside that of the trade agreement for availing duty preference, which in turn makes India in-competitive.
> Hurt market access benefit and have an adverse impact on other products such as processed food, heavy manufacturing, crops, sugar, vegetables, fruits etc.
> Companies might be interested in reaping benefits of an open and inviting market of TPP member countries.
2) What if India joins TPP
> Chances of India experiencing export gains, but in the longer run.
> Countries with which India has signed FTA's may not suffer trade disadvantage.
> India's output may also increase lending the employment generating sectors like textile, leather, fish, dairy etc.
> Mandate of high global standards of TPP makes Indian companies to adopt new technologies and makes them efficient and reduce carbon footprint in the economy.
> However, suffers from ever-greening of patents and delay the entry of generic medicines.
> Chances of India experiencing export gains, but in the longer run.
> Countries with which India has signed FTA's may not suffer trade disadvantage.
> India's output may also increase lending the employment generating sectors like textile, leather, fish, dairy etc.
> Mandate of high global standards of TPP makes Indian companies to adopt new technologies and makes them efficient and reduce carbon footprint in the economy.
> However, suffers from ever-greening of patents and delay the entry of generic medicines.
3) Safeguards for India
> Concluding bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements like Broad Based Trade and Investment with EU, RCEP, SAFTA etc.
> High degree of preparedness and smart coalition-building with like-minded allies to bring violations of TPPs trade practices against WTO regulations to the the dispute settlement mechanism.
> Identifying trade interest areas and propose alternative negotiating templates like bio-piracy, protection of traditional knowledge as per TRIPS and CBD etc.
> Concluding bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements like Broad Based Trade and Investment with EU, RCEP, SAFTA etc.
> High degree of preparedness and smart coalition-building with like-minded allies to bring violations of TPPs trade practices against WTO regulations to the the dispute settlement mechanism.
> Identifying trade interest areas and propose alternative negotiating templates like bio-piracy, protection of traditional knowledge as per TRIPS and CBD etc.
Whatsoever, the time has ripen for India to enhance its capabilities by way of infrastructural development and cost effectiveness of India's products to make them competitive in the global markets.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
GDP concerns and Employment
Earlier
GDP was computed keeping 2004-05 as base year however in 2014 it was revised to
2011-12. This change is hugely debated questioning the credibility of the GDP
numbers. Nonetheless GDP numbers do not capture the real state of the economy,
New series of GDP calculation is improvement upon the old series and in any
case the new series is comparable to international series. The new methodology
is more consistent than the previous one.
Policy
makers are conscious enough of the fact that real GDP numbers do not capture
the state of the economy and also devising plans and policy which are actually
required.
Employment
generation:
Employment
generation is the biggest concern of the economy right now. Even though India
is the fastest growing economy in the world the situation on the employment
front is dismal. There is a demand of 8 million jobs every year but we are able
to generate only half a million, which is a tremendous backlog on employment
front. Reasons for it is technological obsolescence-because of which lots of
jobs are going out, second is labour laws, and third is skill issue.
It is
pertinent with respect to India that it learns few lessons from china model of
growth in which it not only grew at 8-10 % for 30 years, but also created
employment at the same time. India needs to learn from china on how capital
intensive industry can evolve in terms of creating more jobs.
People
are getting educated like never before in last decade. It is now the duty of the
state to guide young generation by skilling them to meet the demands of
contemporary global skill gap.
On the
rural side it is necessary to address variety of issues that are creating a
potential problem in employment generation. The issues like MSP, Climate change
,MGNERGA wages etc needs to be dealt in a sensible way so that the employment
is not displaced to urban areas cresting whole set of new problems. It is very
important to address these issues to say that growth rate of GDP and employment
generation are going in tandem.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
European Council’s Convention 108
In the light of the European Council’s Convention 108, discuss the concept and importance of data privacy, the measures needed to ensure privacy in this digital age.
Convention 108 is the first legally binding international treaty that protects right to privacy of individuals.Data privacy is defined as appropriate use of data.It is the relationship between collection of data,technology,the public expectation of privacy and the legal and political issues surrounding them.Thus,data privacy implies data security
IMPORTANCE-
1.Data privacy gains important in the wake of Fourth Industrial Revolution which is marked by velocity,scope and system impacts where transfer of even minutest data at speed of light across globe is possible.
2.It is important to protect the right of privacy of a person who has reposed immense faith upon an organisation/govt.
3.Its importance further lies in the budding of cyber threats and terrorism where defaulter can be an individual/country/or any organisation.
4.Ethically,data privacy tests the character of an organisation which try to win the trust of public.
1.Data privacy gains important in the wake of Fourth Industrial Revolution which is marked by velocity,scope and system impacts where transfer of even minutest data at speed of light across globe is possible.
2.It is important to protect the right of privacy of a person who has reposed immense faith upon an organisation/govt.
3.Its importance further lies in the budding of cyber threats and terrorism where defaulter can be an individual/country/or any organisation.
4.Ethically,data privacy tests the character of an organisation which try to win the trust of public.
MEASURES REQUIRED-
1.make right to privacy fundamental right and at international level include it in Universal declaration of human rights.
2.All policy documents at national and international level should deal with security and privacy standards.
3.Educate the users about their choices and importance of data privacy.
4.Strict laws and measures to punish the defaulters at national and international level and make organisations responsible for the breaching of data privacy
5.In India,Implement the recommendations of AP Shah committee including choice,notice,consent,openness and accountability etc,recognising multiple dimensions of privacy and technology and amend IT Act 2002
6.Using data encryption standard can also help
1.make right to privacy fundamental right and at international level include it in Universal declaration of human rights.
2.All policy documents at national and international level should deal with security and privacy standards.
3.Educate the users about their choices and importance of data privacy.
4.Strict laws and measures to punish the defaulters at national and international level and make organisations responsible for the breaching of data privacy
5.In India,Implement the recommendations of AP Shah committee including choice,notice,consent,openness and accountability etc,recognising multiple dimensions of privacy and technology and amend IT Act 2002
6.Using data encryption standard can also help
Saturday, January 30, 2016
गांधी एक प्रेत का नाम है... | अपूर्वानंद | BBC Hindi
साझा कीजि
Getty
गांधी से ख़ुद को जोड़ने की कोशिश करने वाले ज़्यादातर लोग राजघाट तो जाते हैं लेकिन बिड़ला भवन नहीं, क्योंकि वहां जाने के मायने हैं उस व्यक्ति की हत्या से रूबरू होना जिसे राष्ट्रपिता कहा जाता है.
या जैसा एक लेखक ने कहा, बिड़ला भवन में एक प्रेत रहता है. हम उसका सामना करने से घबराते हैं. वह किसका प्रेत है?
गांधी की हत्या को उचित मानने वालों की संख्या कम नहीं है और वे सब राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ, हिंदू महासभा या शिव सेना के सदस्य नहीं हैं.
पढ़िए पूरी रिपोर्ट
Kamran Zuberi
एक बार राष्ट्रीय नाट्य विद्यालय में एक सभा में इस हत्या का जिक्र करने के बाद एक श्रोता ने सुझाव दिया कि इस हत्या की आलोचना करते वक्त दूसरे पक्ष के तर्क को नज़रअंदाज नहीं करना चाहिए.
विद्यालय के एक कर्मी ने पास आकर बहुत शांति से पूछा कि क्या मैंने इस पर कभी सोचने की ज़हमत उठाई है कि नाथूराम गोडसे जैसे सुशिक्षित व्यक्ति को यह क़दम उठाने की ज़रूरत महसूस क्यों हुई?
“आखिर कुछ सोच-समझकर ही उन्होंने यह क़दम उठाया होगा !”
AP
एक घनिष्ठ संबंधी ने मुझसे इस पर विचार करने को कहा कि गांधी की सारी महानता के बावजूद यह तो क़बूल करना ही होगा कि अपने अंतिम दिनों में वह जो कर रहे थे वह एक नवनिर्मित राष्ट्र के हितों के लिहाज़ से घातक था.
जब पाकिस्तान भारत के ख़िलाफ़ आक्रामक कार्रवाइयों में लगा था, गांधी जिद बांधकर उपवास पर बैठ गए थे कि भारत पाकिस्तान को अविभाजित देश के ख़जाने से उसका हिस्सा, पचपन करोड़ रुपये देने का अपना वादा पूरा करे. यह किसी भी दृष्टि से क्षम्य नहीं हो सकता था.
गांधी को समाप्त करना एक राष्ट्रीय बाध्यता बन गई थी क्योंकि यह अनुमान करना कठिन था कि जीवित रहने पर अपनी असाधारण स्थिति का लाभ उठाते हुए भारत सरकार को वे कहां-कहां मजबूर करेंगे कि वह राष्ट्रहित के ख़िलाफ़ फ़ैसला करे. आखिर सरकार उनके शिष्यों की ही थी!
AP
गांधी की उपस्थिति और उनका जीवन अलग-अलग लोगों के लिए अलग-अलग दृष्टि से असुविधाजनक था. उनके प्रति नाराज़गी उनके अपनों में भी थी.
अपने पक्के गांधीवादी अनुयायियों की जगह, जो धार्मिक भी थे, उन्होंने एक ‘नास्तिक’ जवाहरलाल नेहरू को स्वतंत्र भारत का नेतृत्व करने के लिए अधिक उपयुक्त पाया था.
उनके इस निर्णय के लिए आज तक गांधीवादी उन्हें क्षमा नहीं कर पाए हैं.
साम्यवादियों की समस्या यह थी कि ग़रीबों की मुक्ति का दर्शन तो उनके पास था लेकिन वे ख़ुद गांधी के पास थे.
Getty
इसके लिए वे गांधी की पारंपरिक भाषा और मुहावरे को ज़िम्मेदार मानते थे जो सामान्य जन को उनके अंधविश्वासों के इत्मीनान में रखकर एक लुभावना भ्रमजाल गढ़ती थी.
क्रांतिकारी समझ नहीं पाते थे कि जनता यह क्यों नहीं समझ रही कि वे कहीं अधिक कट्टर साम्राज्य विरोधी हैं और गांधी के बहकावे में क्यों आ जाती है.
यह बात कुछ-कुछ भगत सिंह ने समझने की कोशिश की थी. उनके लेखन से इसका आभास होता है कि अगर वह जीवित रहे होते तो संभवतः उनका गांधी से संवाद कुछ नई दिशाएं खोल सकता था लेकिन भगत सिंह की फांसी के लिए भी गांधी को ही जवाबदेह माना जाता है.
GANDHI FILM FOUNDATION
गांधी को सुभाष चंद्र बोस का अपराधी भी माना जाता है.
गांधी की अहिंसावादी राजनीति ने समझ लिया था कि बोस में ऐसे रुझान थे जो उन्हें आखिरकार हिटलर और जापानी नेता हिदेकी तोजो के करीब ले गए. यह बात तो तरुण भगत सिंह ने भी लक्ष्य कर ली थी और वह भी 1928 में.
समाज के निरक्षर, गरीब, नीच जाति के लोगों को सर चढ़ाने के लिए ज़मींदार और उच्च जाति के लोग गांधी से यों ही खफ़ा थे.
Getty
गांधी ने राजनीति को और राज्यकर्म को संपन्न और अपनी सामाजिक स्थिति के कारण शिक्षित समुदाय के कब्जे से कुछ-कुछ आज़ाद कर यह साबित कर दिया था कि सिर्फ मनुष्य होना ही काफी है.
गांधी से न तो पूरी तरह हिंदू खुश थे और न मुसलमान, ख़ासकर दोनों के संपन्न और ऊंचे तबके.
यह बात अधिकतर लोगों के ध्यान में नहीं कि हिंदू राष्ट्र का नारा देने वाली हिंदू महासभा और इस्लामी राष्ट्र का परचम बुलंद करने वाली मुस्लिम लीग को एक दूसरे के साथ मिलकर सरकार बनाने में उज्र न था.
AP
लेकिन दोनों ही समावेशी राष्ट्रीयता के गांधीवादी सिद्धांत का नेतृत्व स्वीकार करने को तैयार न थे.
आखिरकार गांधी के समावेशी राष्ट्रीयता के आग्रह ने उन्हें ऐसे तमाम लोगों की निगाह में अपराधी बना दिया जो एक धर्म के आधार पर एक साफ़-सुथरी राष्ट्रीय पहचान चाहते थे.
गांधी यह ज़िद करके कि हिन्दू-मुसलमान-सिख-ईसाई या अन्य मतावलम्बी साथ-साथ बराबरी से रह सकते हैं, सब कुछ धुंधला कर रहे थे.
गांधी के इस कृत्य के लिए उन्हें माफ़ करना मुश्किल था इसलिए जिस व्यक्ति ने भी उन्हें मारा हो, उसने एक साथ अनेक लोगों की शिकायत पर अमल किया.
Getty
तभी तो उस मौत पर एकबारगी सदमा तो छा गया लेकिन फिर हत्या की उस विचारधारा के साथ उठने बैठने, हँसने-बोलने में हमने कभी परहेज नहीं किया.
इसीलिए हम बिड़ला भवन जाते नहीं; डरते हैं, कहीं वह प्रेत हमारी पीठ पर सवार न हो जाए !
ZIKA VIRUS
The World Health Organization is convening an emergency committee on Monday to decide if the Zika virus outbreak should be declared an international health emergency.
At a special meeting on Thursday in Geneva, WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan said the virus — which has been linked to birth defects and neurological problems — was “spreading explosively.”
Chan said although there was no definitive proof that the Zika virus was responsible for a spike in the number of babies being born with abnormally small heads in Brazil, “the level of alarm is extremely high.” She also noted a possible relationship between Zika infection and Guillain-Barre syndrome, which can cause temporary paralysis.
“The possible links, only recently suspected, have rapidly changed the risk profile of Zika from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions,” Chan said.
Zika virus was first detected in 1947 and for decades only caused mild disease. But Chan noted that “the situation today is dramatically different.” According to the US Centers for Disease Control, the Zika virus is now in more than 20 countries, mostly in Central and South America.
Chan cited four main reasons why WHO is “deeply concerned” about Zika: The possible link to birth defects and brain syndromes, the prospect of further spread, a lack of immunity in populations in the newly affected areas and the absence of vaccines, treatments or quick diagnostic tests for the virus.
Still, convening an emergency committee does not guarantee that a global emergency will be declared — WHO has held 10 such meetings to assess the Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus and no emergency has been announced.
Declaring a global emergency is akin to an international SOS signal and usually brings more money and action to address an outbreak. The last such emergency was announced over the 2014 devastating Ebola outbreak in West Africa; polio was declared a similar emergency the year before.
Marcos Espinal, WHO’s director of infectious diseases in the Americas region, said Brazil is conducting studies to determine if there is scientific evidence that Zika virus causes birth defects and neurological problems. He said they are hopeful Brazil may have data to share in a couple of months.
Brazil’s Zika outbreak and the spike in microcephaly have been concentrated in the poor and underdeveloped northeast of the country, though the prosperous southeast, where Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are located, are the second hardest-hit region. Rio de Janeiro will host the Aug. 5-21 Olympic games.
Earlier this week officials in Rio ramped up their fight against the mosquitoes that spread Zika, dispatching a team of fumigators to the Sambadrome, where the city’s Carnival parades will take place next month.
There is no specific treatment or vaccine for Zika, which is related to dengue — scientists have struggled for years to develop a dengue vaccine but have failed to create an effective shot so far.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/un-to-decide-if-zika-virus-is-a-global-health-emergency/#sthash.bqr9bgom.dpufUDAY (Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana)
Electricity is a subject in the concurrent list and the UDAY (Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana) scheme is a show of collaborative federalism between centre and the states because of their shared responsibilities to revive discoms:
States' part in taking the responsibilities:
1, States will take over 75% of the debts of discoms over the two years till 2016-17. This will give more flexibility to manage the debt, as it is taken over by states.
2, States will take the losses of discoms in a graded manner till 2021
3, State DISCOMs shall comply with the Renewable Purchase Obligations as directed by the Ministry of Power.
Centre's part in incentivising states:
1, The debt taken by states in this regard will not be shown in the calculation of the fiscal deficit of states, giving some respite to state finances.
2, Participating states will receive priority funding from schemes like Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyothi Yojana, Power sector development fund, Integrated power Development Scehme and other schemes.
3, States will be supported through additional incentives to utilize its full power generation capacity like issue of coal at notified prices, low cost power from NTPC and other CPSEs.
As both the centre and states feel the need to revive Discoms for them to operate efficiently and get them out of the vicious debt cycle in financing their operations, it is clear show of collaborative federalism. Obligations on states and incentives from the centre to make sure the states show interest in the revival of the Discoms is a healthy way and collaborative effort in moving forward to rejuvenate the Electricity Sector of the country.
Friday, January 29, 2016
anti-defection law
The anti-defection law was passed by parliament in 1985. Twenty-five years down the road, it is pertinent to trace the several modifications and to evaluate how well the law has worked.
The 52nd amendment to the Constitution added the Tenth Schedule which laid down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection. A member of parliament or state legislature was deemed to have defected if he either voluntarily resigned from his party or disobeyed the directives of the party leadership on a vote. That is, they may not vote on any issue in contravention to the party’s whip. Independent members would be disqualified if they joined a political party. Nominated members who were not members of a party could choose to join a party within six months; after that period, they were treated as a party member or independent member.
The law also made a few exceptions. Any person elected as speaker or chairman could resign from his party, and rejoin the party if he demitted that post. A party could be merged into another if at least two-thirds of its party legislators voted for the merger. The law initially permitted splitting of parties, but that has now been outlawed.
Experience so far
In the 24 years of this law, complaints have been made against 62 Lok Sabha MPs. Of these, 26 were disqualified. It is pertinent to note that ten of these disqualifications were after the trust vote of July 2008 (over India-US civil nuclear co-operation). Four cases were made against Rajya Sabha MPs (two in 1989 and two in 2008) and all were upheld. In state legislatures, up to 2004, out of 268 complaints, 113 were upheld.
Challenges and Interpretations
The anti-defection law raises a number of questions, several of which have been addressed by the courts and the presiding officers.
Does the law impinge on the right of free speech of the legislators? This issue was addressed by the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1992 (Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu and others). The court said that “the anti-defection law seeks to recognise the practical need to place the proprieties of political and personal conduct…above certain theoretical assumptions.” It held that the law does not violate any rights or freedoms, or the basic structure of parliamentary democracy.
What constitutes “voluntarily” resigning from a party? Various judgements and orders indicate that a member who publicly opposes the party or states his support for another party would be deemed to have resigned from his party. News reports may be used as evidence for this purpose.
Can the decision of the presiding officer be challenged in the courts? The law states that the decision is final and not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court struck down part of this condition. It held that there may not be any judicial intervention until the presiding officer gives his order. However, the final decision is subject to appeal in the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Issues for consideration
Should the law be valid for all votes or only for those that determine the stability of the government (such as the confidence and no-confidence motions)? The main intent of the law was to deter “the evil of political defections” by legislators motivated by lure of office or other similar considerations. However, loss of membership is hardly a penalty in cases ahead of the scheduled time of general elections—as seen last year. It also loses significance if the House is likely to be dissolved. On the other hand, the voting behaviour may be affected even on issues not related to the stability of the government. A member may be unable to express his actual belief or the interests of his constituents. Therefore, a case may be made for restricting the law to confidence and no-confidence motions. The Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms (1990) recommended this change, while the Law Commission (170th report, 1999) suggested that political parties issue whips only when the government was in danger.
Should the law apply only to pre-poll alliances? The rationale that a representative is elected on the basis of the party’s programme can be extended to pre-poll alliances. The Law Commission proposed this change with the condition that partners of such alliances inform the Election Commission before the elections.
Should the judgement be made by the presiding officers? Several MPs had raised this issue at the time of passage of the law. The Supreme Court upheld the law in the Kihoto Hollohon judgment. The Goswami Committee, the Election Commission and the Venkatachaliah Commission to Review the Constitution (2002) have recommended that the decision should be made by the president or the governor on the advice of the Election Commission. This would be similar to the process for disqualification on grounds of office of profit.
Should there be any additional penalties on defectors? The Venkatachaliah Commission recommended that defectors should be barred from holding any ministerial or remunerative political office for the remaining term of the House. It also said that the vote of any defector should not be counted in a confidence or no-confidence motion.
There is no ambiguity in the legality of current provisions related to these issues. Any change would require legislative action. There is, however, need for public debate on the working of the anti-defection law.
---------------------
The 52nd amendment to the Constitution added the Tenth Schedule which laid down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection. A member of parliament or state legislature was deemed to have defected if he either voluntarily resigned from his party or disobeyed the directives of the party leadership on a vote. That is, they may not vote on any issue in contravention to the party’s whip. Independent members would be disqualified if they joined a political party. Nominated members who were not members of a party could choose to join a party within six months; after that period, they were treated as a party member or independent member.
The law also made a few exceptions. Any person elected as speaker or chairman could resign from his party, and rejoin the party if he demitted that post. A party could be merged into another if at least two-thirds of its party legislators voted for the merger. The law initially permitted splitting of parties, but that has now been outlawed.
Experience so far
In the 24 years of this law, complaints have been made against 62 Lok Sabha MPs. Of these, 26 were disqualified. It is pertinent to note that ten of these disqualifications were after the trust vote of July 2008 (over India-US civil nuclear co-operation). Four cases were made against Rajya Sabha MPs (two in 1989 and two in 2008) and all were upheld. In state legislatures, up to 2004, out of 268 complaints, 113 were upheld.
Challenges and Interpretations
The anti-defection law raises a number of questions, several of which have been addressed by the courts and the presiding officers.
Does the law impinge on the right of free speech of the legislators? This issue was addressed by the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1992 (Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu and others). The court said that “the anti-defection law seeks to recognise the practical need to place the proprieties of political and personal conduct…above certain theoretical assumptions.” It held that the law does not violate any rights or freedoms, or the basic structure of parliamentary democracy.
What constitutes “voluntarily” resigning from a party? Various judgements and orders indicate that a member who publicly opposes the party or states his support for another party would be deemed to have resigned from his party. News reports may be used as evidence for this purpose.
Can the decision of the presiding officer be challenged in the courts? The law states that the decision is final and not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court struck down part of this condition. It held that there may not be any judicial intervention until the presiding officer gives his order. However, the final decision is subject to appeal in the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Issues for consideration
Should the law be valid for all votes or only for those that determine the stability of the government (such as the confidence and no-confidence motions)? The main intent of the law was to deter “the evil of political defections” by legislators motivated by lure of office or other similar considerations. However, loss of membership is hardly a penalty in cases ahead of the scheduled time of general elections—as seen last year. It also loses significance if the House is likely to be dissolved. On the other hand, the voting behaviour may be affected even on issues not related to the stability of the government. A member may be unable to express his actual belief or the interests of his constituents. Therefore, a case may be made for restricting the law to confidence and no-confidence motions. The Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms (1990) recommended this change, while the Law Commission (170th report, 1999) suggested that political parties issue whips only when the government was in danger.
Should the law apply only to pre-poll alliances? The rationale that a representative is elected on the basis of the party’s programme can be extended to pre-poll alliances. The Law Commission proposed this change with the condition that partners of such alliances inform the Election Commission before the elections.
Should the judgement be made by the presiding officers? Several MPs had raised this issue at the time of passage of the law. The Supreme Court upheld the law in the Kihoto Hollohon judgment. The Goswami Committee, the Election Commission and the Venkatachaliah Commission to Review the Constitution (2002) have recommended that the decision should be made by the president or the governor on the advice of the Election Commission. This would be similar to the process for disqualification on grounds of office of profit.
Should there be any additional penalties on defectors? The Venkatachaliah Commission recommended that defectors should be barred from holding any ministerial or remunerative political office for the remaining term of the House. It also said that the vote of any defector should not be counted in a confidence or no-confidence motion.
There is no ambiguity in the legality of current provisions related to these issues. Any change would require legislative action. There is, however, need for public debate on the working of the anti-defection law.
---------------------
The Anti-defection provides for the disqualification of the members of Parliament and state legislatures on the ground of defection from one political party to another. It was enacted to reduce 'Horse-trading' which was eating into the credibility of elected representatives and was increasing the role of money in Indian politics. Though enacted with good intentions, it has been argued that rationalising the law is necessary for improving Parliament's efficiency due to the following reasons:
-Does not differentiate between 'dissent' and 'defection' and curbs legislator's right to dissent and freedom of conscience.
-It's distinction between individual defection and group defection is irrational.
-Does not provide for expulsion of legislators from his party for his activities outside the the legislature.
-Discrimination between an independent member and a nominated member is illogical. If the former joins a party, he is disqualified while the later is allowed to do the same.
-Vesting of decision-making authority in presiding officer is criticised since the officer lacks legal knowledge and experience and may not exercise this authority in an impartial and objective manner due to political exigencies.
Hence, we can conclude that although the law has proved effective in curbing defections, it's further refinement will be in favour of improving Parliament's efficiency.
Article 356
The NDA government has asked for President’s rule in Arunachal and President Pranab Mukherjee has sought clarifications from the central government on the need to invoke Article 356 of the Constitution in this instance.
BACKGROUND
Article 356 is inspired by sections 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided that if a Governor of a province was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the powers of the government and discharge those functions in his discretion. The Governor, however, could not encroach upon the powers of the high court. This background has imbued this article with a whiff of a ‘controlled democracy’, which is what the British would have intended then.
As the idea that India is a federation of states gained currency, regional and Left parties articulated why federalism was important and the Opposition would protest almost every time Article 356 was imposed.
The Sarkaria Commission notes that while in the first few years after the Constitution, it was invoked only thrice; between 1975 and ‘79, it was invoked 21 times; and between 1980 and ‘87, 18 times.
In 1989, after the Centre dismissed the SR Bommai government in Karnataka, SC had said the validity of a proclamation for President’s rule can be subjected to judicial review.
KEY TAKEAWAY
The Article has almost always been used to dismiss state governments where the party in power is not the same as that ruling at the Centre. So Jawaharlal Nehru found it easy to dismiss the EMS Namboodiripad government in Kerala in 1959, but AB Vajpayee could never bring his government to dismiss BJP’s Narendra Modi government in Gujarat in 2002.
However, a rare exception would be the imposition of President’s Rule in Punjab for over a year by the Indira Gandhi government in 1983. The then Punjab Chief Minister Darbara Singh was battling militancy in 1983.
Recent cases of Article 356
President’s Rule was in force in Delhi with the Assembly in suspended animation from February 14, 2014, to February 11, 2015. This was after Arvind Kejriwal resigned as CM after his move to introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill fell through in the Assembly
Imposed in Maharashtra from September 28, 2014, to October 31, 2014, after Prithviraj Chavan resigned following the break-up of the 15-year-old Congress-NCP alliance in the state.
In Andhra Pradesh from February 28, 2014, to June 8, 2014, due to a political crisis caused by the resignation of CM N Kiran Kumar Reddy and other Congress legislators on February 19, protesting against the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill that bifurcated the state and created a separate state of Telangana.
In Jharkhand from January 18, 2013, to July 12, 2013, as the Arjun Munda-led BJP government was reduced to a minority after the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha withdrew support. Munda resigned and sought dissolution of the state Assembly.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/article-356-use-misuse/#sthash.pejJzr0U.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)