Context: Ministry of Law & Justice has unveiled the new Notary Portal. The portal will provide a paperless, faceless and efficient system for managing Central Notraries. Notaries are regulated by the Department of Legal Affairs.
About the Notary Portal
The Notary Portal has been created by Department of Legal Affairs under Ministry of Law & Justice in associated with NIC.
The portal has a module-based design which will be rolled out in phases.
Phase I: In the first stage, module relating to issue of Certificate of Practice to the provisionally selected Notaries has been launched.
Modules relating to renewal of Certificate of Practice and submission of Annual Returns will be launched in due course.
Benefits of the Notary Portal
Notary Portal provides an online interface between notaries and Government for various services like submission of applications for appointment as notaries, issuance and renewal of certificates of practice, change of practice area, submission of annual returns etc.
Through the portal, Central Notaries will be able submit applications/requests through the portal and monitor its progress. Thus, doing away with the need for physical submissions.
The portal will result in following benefits:
System of selection and appointments of notaries will be faster, efficient and transparent.
Help in creating a digital storage facility of all notary related records.
Context: The legal action initiated by the French authorities against Pavel Durov impinges on the protection that is accorded to social media platforms across jurisdictions under a provision known as “safe harbour”.
What are ‘Safe Harbour’ Rules?
Since social media platforms are generally understood to be crucial tools of free speech, safe harbour is viewed as a basic tenet of enabling freedom of expression on these platforms.
The basic premise of safe harbour protection is: since social media platforms cannot control at the first instance what users post, they should not be held legally liable for any objectionable content that they host, provided they are willing to take down such content when flagged by the government or courts.
Legal Protection in India
Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 it classifies social media platforms as intermediaries and broadly shields them from legal action over the content that users post.
However, this protection extends to companies operating in India with some caveats.
Under The Information Technology Rules, 2021, social media companies with more than 5 million Indian users have to appoint a chief compliance officer who can be held criminally liable if the platform does not adhere to a takedown request, or violates other norms.
Hence, certain officials from the social media company in question can be legally prosecuted if the platform violates laid-down rules.
Context: The Ministry of Education (MoE) has defined ‘literacy,’ and what it means to achieve ‘full literacy,’ in the light of the renewed push for adult literacy under the New India Literacy Programme (NILP).
Definition of literacy and full literacy
Literacy: May be understood as the ability to read, write, and compute with comprehension, i.e. to identify, understand, interpret and create along with critical life skills such as digital literacy, financial literacy etc.
Full literacy: To be considered equivalent to 100% literacy, will be achieving 95% literacy in a State/UT that may be considered as equivalent to fully literate.
Criteria for literacy certification:
Non-literate person may be considered as literate under the NILP, when she/he has been declared literate after taking the Foundational Literacy and Numeracy Assessment Test (FLNAT).
Significant challenge associated with literacy in India:
According to the Census 2011, with 25.76 crore non-literate individuals in the 15 years and above age group, comprising 9.08 crore males and 16.68 crore females.
Despite the progress made under the Saakshar Bharat programme, which certified 7.64 crore individuals as literate between 2009-10 and 2017-18, an estimated 18.12 crore adults in India remain non-literate.
Non-literate individuals face disadvantages in various aspects of life such as financial transactions, job applications, comprehension of media and technology, understanding of rights and participation in higher productivity sectors.
About New India Literacy Programme (NILP):
Type of scheme: Centrally Sponsored Scheme.
Aim: The goal is to impart foundational literacy and numeracy to one crore learners aged 15 years and above across all states and union territories each year from FY 2022-27.
Key features:
Also known as ULLAS (Understanding of Lifelong Learning for All in Society).
Implemented through volunteer teachers, students of schools and Higher Education Institutions and Teacher Education Institution.
Critical life skills (including financial literacy, digital literacy, commercial skills, health care and awareness, child care and education, and family welfare),
Vocational skills development (with a view towards obtaining local employment),
Basic education (including preparatory, middle, and secondary stage equivalency); and
Continuing education (including engaging holistic adult education courses in arts, sciences, technology, culture, sports, and recreation, as well as other topics of interest or use to local learners, such as more advanced material on critical life skills).
It keeps a record of the discussions and decision of the cabinet, circulation of memorandum on issues awaiting cabinet approval and circulation of the cabinet decisions to all the ministries.
Preparation and submission of monthly summaries on many specified subjects to the cabinet.
It oversees the implementation of the cabinet decisions by the concerned ministries and other executive agencies.
He is appointed by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit.
The Cabinet Secretary functions under the leadership of the Prime Minister.
The chief function of the Cabinet Secretary is to aid the council of ministers, ensure inter-ministerial coordination, he deals primarily with cabinet affairs.
Responsible for administration of Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961.
He is the head of the civil service and ensures that the moral of the civil servants remain high. He also acts as a buffer between the politicians and the civil servants and protect the interest of the latter in situations of conflict between the two.
He is also the ex-officio ChairmanofCivil Services Board (CSB).
Context: The concept of free speech is under discussion after the arrest of Telegram Founder Pavel Durov. In this context let us understand the concept of Free Speech and Article 19 of Indian Constitution.
Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Originally, Article 19 contained seven rights. But the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property was deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978.
These six rights are protected against only state action and not private individuals. Moreover, these rights are available only to the citizens and to shareholders of a company but not to foreigners or legal persons like companies or corporations, etc.
The State can impose 'reasonable' restrictions on the enjoyment of these six rights only on the grounds mentioned in the Article 19 itself and not on any other grounds. The six rights contained in Article 19 and the grounds of imposing reasonable restrictions on them are mentioned below:
Sl. No.
Rights
Grounds of Restrictions
1
Right to freedom of speech and expression - Article 19(1)(a)
Under Article 19(2): (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by the 16th Amendment Act, 1963)
(ii) Security of the State
(iii) Friendly relations with foreign states (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951) (iv) Public order (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951)
(v) Decency or morality
(vi) Contempt of court
(vii) Defamation
(viii) Incitement to an offence (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951)
2
Right to assemble peaceably and without arms - Article 19(1)(b)
Under Article 19(3): (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by the 16th Amendment Act, 1963)
(ii) Public order
3
Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies - Article 19(1)(c)
Under Article 19(4): (i) Sovereignty and integrity of India (added by the 16th Amendment Act, 1963)
(ii) Public order (iii) Morality
4
Right to move freely throughout the territory of India - Article 19(1)(d)
Under Article 19(5): (i) In the interests of the general public
(ii) Protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe
5
Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India - Article 19(1)(e)
Under Article 19(5): (i) In the interests of the general public
(ii) Protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe
6
Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property - Article 19(1)(f) (Omitted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978)
No longer applicable
7
Right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business - Article 19(1)(g)
Under Article 19(6): (i) In the interests of the general public
(ii) Requirement of necessary professional or technical qualification
(iii) Any trade, business, industry or service carried on by the State to the exclusion of citizens (added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951)
Context: Article 163 of Constitution of India is in news in context of MUDA scam in which Governor Thawarchand Gehlot has allowed investigation against Chief Minister of Karnataka in Mysore Urban development Authority scam.
About Article 163: Article 163 deals with Council of Ministers to aid and advice the Governor in the States.
Article 163(1): There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is required to exercise his functions at his discretion.
Article 163(2): If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
Article 163(3): The advice tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court.
Background information in this case
The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the Governor is “bound” by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
However, C.M. Siddaramaiah has argued that the Governor is bound by the resolution of the Council of Ministers as per Article 163, asking Governor to withdraw the show-cause notice. Instead, the Governor has given sanction for investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act without justifying why the allegations require an investigation or a trial.
Question of Law: Whether Governor is bound by aid and advice of Council of Minister in such cases.
Relevant cases
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution explicitly allows the Governor to act in his discretion. He/ she is not required to act person· ally without the aid and advice of the council of ministers or against the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): This case dealt with the role of the Governor under Article 356, which is related to President’s Rule. While discussing Article 163, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Governor's discretion is limited and he must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations provided by the Constitution.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Primarily a case on Article 356, it also discussed the role of the Governor under Article 163. The Supreme Court held that the Governor's report to the President under Article 356 must be based on objective material, and the Governor’s actions are subject to judicial review.
M. P. Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004): This case dealt with the Governor’s discretion in granting sanction for prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled that in certain circumstances, the Governor may act independently of the Council of Ministers, especially where the ministers themselves are under investigation.
Present Status: Case is ongoing and Karnataka High Court is yet to determine if the governor was bound by the advice of Council of Minister or if facts, circumstances, and precedent of M. P. Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) are enough to go ahead with prosecution.
Context: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has issued an advertisement seeking applications for “talented and motivated Indian nationals for Lateral Recruitment” to the posts of Joint Secretary, Director, and Deputy Secretary in 24 ministries of the Union government.
A total of 45 posts have been advertised with individuals having appropriate qualifications and experience from State/UT governments, PSUs, statutory organisations, research institutes and universities, and even the private sector eligible to apply.
The advertisement mentions that all posts are “suitable for candidates belonging to the category of Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD).”
Lateral entry into the bureaucracy
In 2017, NITI Aayog, in its three-year Action Agenda, and the Sectoral Group of Secretaries (SGoS) on Governance in its report submitted in 2017, recommended the induction of personnel at middle and senior management levels in the central government.
Rationale: Lateral recruitment is aimed at achieving the twin objectives of bringing in fresh talent as well as augment the availability of manpower. Keeping in view their specialised knowledge and expertise in the domain area, lateral recruitment at the level of Joint Secretary, Director and Deputy Secretary in Government of India, has been undertaken to appoint persons for specific assignments.
Criteria:
Individuals working at comparable levels in Private Sector Companies, Consultancy Organisations, International/Multinational Organisations with a minimum of 15 years’ experience.
Besides those working in central public sector undertakings, autonomous bodies, statutory organisations, research bodies and universities.
These ‘lateral entrants’ would be part of the central secretariat which, till then, had only career bureaucrats from the All India Services/ Central Civil Services. They would be given contracts of three years, extendable to a total term of five years.
Based on the above recommendation, the first vacancies for lateral entrants were advertised in 2018, but only for Joint Secretary level positions. Posts of the rank of Director and Deputy Secretary were opened later.
A Joint Secretary, appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), has the third-highest rank (after Secretary and Additional Secretary) in a Department, and functions as the administrative head of a wing in the Department.
Directors are one rank below Joint Secretaries, and Deputy Secretaries are one rank below Directors, although in most ministries, they perform the same job.
Lateral entry is one kind of reform in Civil Services:
- Civil servants play a prominent role in the administration, policy formulation and implementation in India. - However, reforms are needed for civil servants to brace up for rapid and fundamental changes caused by the evolving international, economic, social, technological, and cultural environment.
- Role of facilitator: Responsibilities of civil servants have increased from being regulator to facilitator of services, reflected in ‘minimum government and maximum governance’, which demands a proactive role. - Need for specialisation: Increased complexities in laws, technology and governance processes demand ‘specialised generalists’ in civil services having domain knowledge and work experience. - Outcome-based policy-making: Shift of government’s focus to outcome-based policies, demand reforms in traditional functioning of bureaucratic systems to achieve efficiency or positive outcomes. - Private Participation: Increased privateparticipation in governance and services delivery through PPP model, demands change in role of civil servants to promote transparency, curb corruption and avoid conflicts of interests. - Increasing Corruption: Rampant corruption in public services due to a sense of permanency in power and growing political nexus heightens need for transparency and accountability among civil servants. - Rising Majoritarianism: To curb rising majoritarianism and populist decisions, reforms are required for politically neutral and expert advice.
Need for lateral entry:
Shortage of mid-senior level officers
Need for Specialists and domain experts
Incentives to innovations and out of the box thinking
To induce Competition
Challenges associated/ Criticism of lateral entry:
No reservation: Lateral entries have been criticised on the grounds that there are no quotas for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates in such recruitment.
Potential for Backdoor Entry: UPSC is a constitutional body and has retained legitimacy and credibility of the selection process over the years. There are concerns that lateral entry could be misused as a backdoor for political appointments or favouritism. Introducing a new recruitment channel could potentially dilute the merit-based system established by the UPSC.
Limited Impact:
Short-term contracts can hinder the ability of lateral entrants to implement long-term strategies.
Contrasting work environments of the private and public sectors can lead to friction and inefficiencies.
Piecemeal Approach: Lateral entry might address specific skill gaps but does not tackle the root problems of the bureaucracy.
Offers not lucrative enough: Most of the time, the terms of recruitment are not rewarding enough to attract the best of talents. Even the recent lateral entry initiative would recruit professionals for only 3 years with remuneration not competitive with the private sector.
Opens door to privatisation: Some civil servants believe that it would open the floodgates to privatisation. And eventually the government would lose its socialist and welfare characteristics.
Way Forward
2nd ARC in its 10th report titled "Refurbishing of Personnel Administration – Scaling New Heights” (2008) has recommended an institutionalised, transparent process for lateral entry at both the Central and state levels.
In addition to lateral entry, other reforms are needed:
Use of information and communication technologies in governance to make it more accessible, effective and accountable.
Conducting disciplinary proceedings by appropriate changes in Article 311 of the Indian Constitution.
Legally-binding Code of Ethicsfor civil servants incorporating values of integrity, merit and excellence in public service.
Mid-career training and skill assessment. 360-degree performance appraisal and compulsory retirement for underperforming officers.
A transformational change in Civil Services would play a vital role in implementing National and State policies of welfare and planned development processes.
Context: On August 5, 2024, Google lost a major antitrust case brought against it by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that sought to establish that the tech giant had a monopoly in the web search and advertising sectors.
What is the Google 'monopoly' antitrust case: Major Highlights
The lawsuit accused Google of using its dominant position in the search engine market to push out rivals and maintain monopoly.
Google’s search dominance was majorly achieved through a strategy of exclusive distribution agreements, or default distribution, i.e., Google entered into lucrative contracts with “browser developers, mobile device manufacturers, and wireless carriers” so that it was the first or default search engine that users of such services or new phones were given.
Its exclusive deals with handset makers were brought before the court as evidence.
In the end, the U.S. District Judge ruled that Google was a monopolist. Asper the court, Google used its monopoly power in two markets: general search services and general search text advertisements. Essentially, the court found that Google has abused its monopoly power by engaging in anti-competitive practices to maintain its dominance in both markets.
Impact of monopolistic practices on consumers
Monopolistic practices harm consumers by reducing competition, leading to higher prices, lower quality, and less innovation.
Higher prices: With fewer or no competitors, a monopolistic company can set higher prices for its products or services without the risk of losing customers. A monopoly can control the supply of a product or service, creating artificial scarcity or flooding the market to manipulate prices and demand.
Lack of diversity/ Less incentive to improve quality: The lack of competition can lead to a homogenisation of products, with fewer unique or diverse options available to consumers. With fewer alternatives, consumers might be stuck with lower quality services, as monopolies have less incentive to improve.
Privacy concerns/data exploitation: In digital monopolies, like Google, consumers may have less control over their personal data, which can be exploited for profit without adequate alternatives or competition to offer better privacy options.
Competition Act, 2002
The Competition Act, 2002 is a key legislation in India concerned for preventing practices that have an adverse effect on competition. It replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) to ensure the regulation standards are in line with the international standards.
Rationale: To prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few entities and ensure healthy competition in the market segment.
The Act establishes the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as the national competition regulator to enforce its provisions. The CCI has the power to investigate anti-competitive practices, impose penalties, and issue orders to ensure compliance.
Key Objectives:
Prevent Anti-Competitive Practices: The Act prohibits agreements that have the potential to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India. This includes cartels, collusion, price-fixing, and other practices that limit market competition.
Regulate Combinations: It governs mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations that could lead to an adverse effect on competition. CCI has the authority to approve, modify, or block combinations that may harm competition.
Prohibit Abuse of Dominant Position: The Act seeks to prevent entities with significant market power from engaging in practices that could exploit consumers or stifle competition, which includes predatory pricing and restrictive trade practices like limiting production or technical development, denying market access etc.
Promote Fair Competition: It aims to create a level playing field for businesses in the market, encouraging innovation and efficiency while ensuring that consumers have access to a wide variety of goods and services at competitive prices.
Draft Digital Competition Bill, 2024
In February 2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs constituted a Committee on Digital Competition Law (CDCL) to examine the need for a separate law on competition in digital markets.
The CDCL concluded that there was a need to supplement the current ex-post framework under the Competition Act, 2002 with an ex-ante framework. It laid out this ex-ante framework in the draft Digital Competition Bill.
The Draft Digital Competition Bill, 2024 is a proposed legislation aimed at addressing the unique challenges posed by digital markets and ensuring fair competition in the rapidly evolving digital economy. The Bill has driven its inspiration from the European Union's Digital Market Act 2022.
It seeks to put in place several obligations for large digital enterprises (Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises/SSDEs), including news aggregators, in efforts to ensure a level playing field and fair competition in the digital space.
Ex-Post vs. Ex-Ante Competition Regulation
# Ex-Post regulation: The Competition Act, 2002 operates on an ex-post framework. This means that CCI can use its powers of enforcement only after the anti-competitive conduct has occurred. E.g., CCI has fined many MNCs in India who hadabused their dominant position. - In October 2022, Google was fined Rs. 1337 crores by the CCI as it had engaged in anti-competitive practices by abusing its dominant position in the Android mobile ecosystem. Google was found to have imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions on mobile phone manufacturers, particularly in the form of agreements that required these manufacturers to pre-install Google’s proprietary apps (such as Google Search, Chrome, and YouTube) on their devices. These conditions created a dependency on Google’s ecosystem, stifled competition and limited consumer choice.
# Ex-Ante Regulation: The rapid pace of innovation and growth in digital markets has highlighted the limitations of the ex-post approach which is time consuming and allows offending actors to escape timely scrutiny. The ex-ante regulatory framework would empower the CCI to proactively identify and regulate large digital platformsbefore they engage in anti-competitive behaviour. By intervening early, the CCI can prevent market failures and promote fair competition.
Context: After the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, there is a debate around the system of elections in India, and should India go for the Proportional representation system in place of the presently used First Past the Post System.
Proportional Representation System vs FPTP
First Past the Post System (FPTP): Under this system, the candidate who polls more than any other in a constituency is declared elected.
Proportional Representation System: The Proportional Electoral System is an electoral system where the political parties get as much representation (number of seats) in the legislature as per the share of votes they secure in the elections.
Advantages of Proportional Representation (PR) over First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
Fairer Representation:
PR: Ensures that political parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive. This means minority groups and smaller parties get better representation in the legislature.
FPTP: Often results in a significant disparity between the percentage of votes a party receives and the percentage of seats they win. Smaller parties may be underrepresented.
Reduces Wasted Votes:
PR: Fewer votes are "wasted" as most votes contribute to the election of a representative.
FPTP: More number of votes can be wasted (i.e., not contributing to the election of any candidate) if they are cast for losing candidates.
Encourages Multi-Party Systems:
PR: Facilitates the existence and success of multiple political parties, promoting a broader spectrum of political viewpoints and policy options, essential for a vibrant democracy like India.
FPTP: Often leads to a two-party system, marginalizing smaller parties and reducing voter choice.
Higher Voter Turnout:
PR: Voters may be more motivated to participate when they feel their vote has a higher likelihood of influencing the outcome.
FPTP: Voter turnout can be lower if individuals feel their vote is unlikely to impact the result, particularly in "safe" seats. (As observed in 2024 General elections)
Coalition Governments:
PR: Encourages coalition governments, which can lead to more collaborative and consensual policymaking.
FPTP: Usually leads to single-party majority governments, which may result in more adversarial politics.
Challenges associated with Proportional Representation (PR) compared to First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
Complexity:
PR: Involves a more complex voting and counting processes, which can be harder for voters to understand and may require more administrative resources.
FPTP: Simple and straightforward, with voters selecting one candidate and the candidate with the most votes winning.
Instability:
PR: Coalition governments can be less stable, potentially leading to more frequent elections if coalitions break down.
FPTP: Single-party majority governments are generally more stable and less prone to collapse.
Fragmentation:
PR: Can lead to a fragmented legislature with many small parties, making it difficult to form a cohesive government leading to stalemate on basic issues.
FPTP: Typically results in fewer parties with clearer majorities, enabling more decisive governance.
Accountability:
PR: Coalition governments can dilute accountability as it may be unclear which party or individual is responsible for specific policies or decisions.
FPTP: Voters can more easily identify who is responsible for government actions, facilitating greater accountability.
Extreme ideologies Parties:
PR: May give seats to extremist parties that receive a small but significant portion of the vote, potentially allowing them to influence policy. (Far Right AfD of Germany has been able to secure 15 seats in recently held EU elections.)
FPTP: Less likely to give representation to extremist parties, as they typically cannot win enough votes in any single constituency.
Way forward:
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) system can be explored.
The Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system combines elements of both proportional representation (PR) and first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral systems.
The law commission in its 170th report, ‘Reform of the electoral laws’ (1999), had recommended the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) system on an experimental basis. It suggested that 25% of seats may be filled through a PR system by increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha.
Working of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP): A proportion of the parliament (E.g.: roughly half in the cases of Germany, Bolivia, and Venezuela) is elected by plurality-majority methods, usually from single-member constituencies, while the remainder is constituted by PR lists.
Two Votes per Voter: In some of these systems, the voters are entitled to two kinds of votes.
Party Vote: Voters cast a vote for a political party. This vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party will receive in the legislature.
Candidate Vote: Voters also cast a vote for a specific candidate to represent their local constituency. The candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins a seat in the legislature.
Merits of Implementing MMPR
Challenges associated with the implementation of MMPR
-Proportional Representation: The overall distribution of seats matches the proportion of votes each party receives, addressing the issue of disproportionality in pure FPTP systems. -Local Representation: Voters still have a direct representative for their local constituency, maintaining the link between constituents and their representatives. -Reduced Wasted Votes: Votes for smaller parties are less likely to be wasted since these parties can gain compensatory seats even if they do not win many (or any) seats. -Increased Voter Choice: Voters can support a local candidate from one party while voting for a different party on the party list, providing greater flexibility and choice. -Balanced Governance: Combines the stability of FPTP (through representatives) with the fairness of PR, potentially leading to more balanced and inclusive governance. -Implementation examples: The Bundestag (Federal parliament) of Germany uses MMP. Scotland and Wales
-Complexity: The system is more complex than either pure FPTP or pure PR, requiring voters to understand two types of votes and how they contribute to the overall result. -Potential for Overhang Seats: If a party wins more seats than it is entitled to based on its proportion of the party vote, additional seats (overhang seats) may be created to maintain proportionality, potentially complicating the size and structure of the legislature. -Coalition Governments: Like pure PR systems, MMP often results in coalition governments, which can be less stable and require more negotiation and compromise among multiple parties. -Dual Accountability: Representatives elected through the party list may be less accountable to specific local constituencies, potentially leading to a perception of less direct representation.
The Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system which is a hybrid electoral model can capture the benefits of both FPTP and PR systems. It can ensure ensure fairer representation while maintaining direct local accountability.
The delimitation exercise to increase the number of seats is due based on the first Census to be conducted after 2026. Determining the number of seats in Lok Sabha solely in proportion to population may go against the federal principles of our country and may lead to a feeling of disenchantment in the States (Southern, Northeastern, and smaller States in the northern region) that stand to lose through such representation.
Context: In the ongoing parliament session, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha has expunged the remarks of Leader of opposition Mallikarjun Kharge. In Lok Sabha, parts of LoP Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on the PM and the ruling party were expunged from the records on the orders of Speaker Om Birla.
About freedom of Speech in the House
Article 105 of the Constitution of India confers certain privileges and freedom of Speech and expression in Parliament on MPs.
If the words, phrases, and expressions of an MP are deemed “defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified” the MPs are asked to withdraw those remarks, if the MPs do not comply, those words are deleted or expunged from records on the order of the Speaker of the House.
The powers to expunge are conferred upon the Speaker by the Rules of Parliamentary etiquettes which are laid out to ensure discipline and decorum.
For this purpose, the Lok Sabha Secretariat also maintains a comprehensive list of ‘unparliamentary’ words and expressions.
Grounds of expunction:
Unparliamentary Language: Words or phrases that are considered offensive, abusive, or disrespectful to other members, the Speaker, or any other person or institution can be expunged. (The Lok Sabha has a list of expressions that are considered unparliamentary.)
Defamatory Statements: Any remarks that defame, malign, or cast aspersions on the character or conduct of individuals, whether they are members of the house or not, can be expunged.
Irrelevance or Breach of Decorum: Speeches or comments that are irrelevant to the subject under discussion, or that breach the decorum and dignity of the house, can be expunged.
Sensitive or Confidential Information: Statements that disclose sensitive or confidential information, particularly if it pertains to national security or the privacy of individuals, can be ordered to be expunged.
Personal Attacks: Personal attacks or derogatory remarks directed at other members of the house can be expunged to maintain the decorum of parliamentary proceedings.
Inaccurate or Misleading Information: Statements that are factually incorrect or intentionally misleading can also be ordered to be expunged, especially if they have the potential to misinform the house or the public.
Prejudicial to National Interest: Words deemed prejudicial to national interest or detrimental to maintaining friendly relations with a foreign State, derogatory to dignitaries, likely to offend national sentiments.
Other Words or statements which are likely to discredit the Army, not in good taste or otherwise objectionable or likely to bring the House into ridicule or lower the dignity of the Chair, the House or the members can also be expunged.
Remarks against MP:
Rule 353 of the Lok Sabha (Rules of procedure and conduct of business in Lok Sabha) prohibit the allegation of defamatory or incriminatory statements against fellow MPs unless the person has given adequate advance notice to the speaker and concerned minister. Minister concerned will conduct an inquiry into the allegation and come up with the facts when the MP makes the allegation in the House.
However, the Speaker may at any time prohibit any member from making any such allegation if the Speaker is of opinion that such allegation is derogatory to the dignity of the House or that no public interest is served by making such allegation.
Rule 353 does not apply to an allegation against a Minister in the government. Since the Council of Ministers is accountable to Parliament, the Members of the House have the right to question Ministers and make imputations against their conduct as Ministers.
Procedure of expunction:
Rule 261 of Rules of Procedure of Rajya Sabha: If the Chairman is of opinion that a word or words has or have been used in debate which is or are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, Chairman has the discretion to order that such word or words be expunged from the proceedings of the Council.
Rule 380 and 381 of Rules of procedure of Lok Sabha: If the Speaker is of opinion that words used in debate are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker in his/her discretion may, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.
Context: The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), facilitated by the World Bank, is a landmark transboundary water-sharing mechanism between India and Pakistan. But disagreements persist.
In an unprecedented move, India called for amendments to the agreement last year due to its dissatisfaction with the dispute resolution process. It blamed Pakistan’s continued “intransigence” in implementing the treaty — particularly its material breach. Pakistan sought arbitration at The Hague for resolution of its differences and objections over India’s Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, bypassing the treaty-compliant Neutral Expert proceedings.
This topic is crucial for the understanding of India-Pakistan Relations under GS II.
General Studies- II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations.
India and its neighbourhood- relations.
Hence in the ensuing discussion we are going to understand:
Geographical locations (Rivers)
The need for a treaty
Mains provisions of the treaty
Current challenges with the treaty
Way forward
Indus Water Treaty Explained
Indus Waters Treaty, treaty, signed on September 19, 1960, between India and Pakistan and brokered by the World Bank. The treaty fixed and delimited the rights and obligations of both countries concerning the use of the waters of the Indus River system.
The Need for water sharing:
Geographical Context:
The waters of the Indus system of rivers begin mainly in Tibet and the Himalayan mountains in the states of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. They flow through the states of Punjab and Sindh before emptying into the Arabian Sea south of Karachi and Kori Creek in Gujarat.
Partition Impact
The partition of British India, based on religion not on geography basis, created a conflict over the waters of the Indus basin. The newly formed states were at odds over how to share and manage what was essentially a cohesive and unitary network of irrigation.
Furthermore, the geography of partition was such that the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India. Pakistan felt its livelihood threatened by the prospect of Indian control over the tributaries that fed water into the Pakistani portion of the basin. Where India certainly had its own ambitions for the profitable development of the basin, Pakistan felt acutely threatened by a conflict over the main source of water for its cultivable land.
Agriculture Dominance:
Irrigation and cultivation in the Indus plains are central to both economies. The Indus is responsible for over 90 per cent of Pakistan’s agricultural output and accounts for 25 per cent of the GDP. Given the ballooning population and corresponding consumption, deteriorating water quality poses an additional threat to food and nutritional security, human health and biodiversity.
Sharing of water (Treaty):
Eastern rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej were allocated to India for unrestricted use.
Western rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were allocated largely to Pakistan. India is permitted certain agricultural uses and can build 'run of the river' hydropower projects with limited storage.
Permanent Indus Commission (PIC): Commissioners are appointed by both countries for cooperation and information exchange regarding their use of the rivers.
The treaty provides a 3-tier dispute resolution mechanism:
PIC is the first stage.
A neutral expert is the second stage.
The Court of Arbitration is the third stage.
IWT does not have a unilateral exit provision: The treaty is supposed to remain in force unless both countries ratify another mutually agreed pact.
Issues:
Dissatisfaction over water apportionment: There is long lasting dissatisfaction in India because 80% of the water is allocated to Pakistan.
Suboptimal data sharing: Diplomatic tensions lead to suboptimal data sharing, and the quality of shared data is often questioned. There is no mechanism for the research community to access this data.
Ambiguous and room for conflict: The technical nature of the treaty and the fact that the western rivers flow through the conflicted region of Jammu and Kashmir pave the way for conflict. Perceived impacts of infrastructure development on downstream flows, and Pakistan’s concerns as a lower riparian state.
Changing realities such as climate change also fuel the need for amending the treaty.
In 2015, the Indus basin was ranked by NASA as the world’s second most over-stressed aquifer. An estimated 31 per cent of the net basin flow originates from climate-impacted glaciers and snow melts, making mean annual flows more volatile and seasonal. Other factors like unpredictable monsoons also contribute to increased variability of flow volume.
Lack of mutual trust: There is a lack of trust-building mechanisms between India and Pakistan. Perceived impacts of infrastructure development on downstream flows, and Pakistan’s concerns as a lower riparian state.
A recent case in point is Pakistan’s accusation of “water terrorism” against India for the Shahpurkandi barrage project. But Ravi’s water-flow from India into Pakistan is not substantial in the first place, and the dam would streamline the river’s flow — as legally permitted within the IWT — to support power supply and agricultural growth in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir.
Limited role of the Guarantor: In disputes like those involving the Krishanganga and Ratle Hydroelectric Projects, the World Bank had to appoint the Neutral Expert and chairman of the CoA simultaneously. This concurrent appointment poses practical and legal risks. Moreover, the World Bank lacks the power to decide which one should take precedence.
Lack of adequate environmental safeguards: The treaty lacks sufficient provisions to protect the environment.
To resolve these conflicts:
It's essential to view the Indus river system as a cohesive geographical unit, benefiting all stakeholders.
An ecological perspective should be integrated into the governance framework of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), including the institutionalization of Environmental Flows (EF).
According to the Brisbane Declaration (2018), EFs are necessary to sustain aquatic ecosystems, which support human cultures and economies. Harmonizing EFs with the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention principles—equitable use and prevention of transboundary harm—is crucial.
International customary law, such as the 2004 Berlin Rules on Water Resources, also emphasizes sustainability and ecological flows. The 2013 Permanent Court of Arbitration's verdict on India's Kishanganga project underscores the obligation to release EFs in transboundary basins, setting a precedent for similar cases.
Ratification of the UN Water Convention to ensure the sustainable use of transboundary water resources by facilitating cooperation.
Promoting open data policy encouraging open data policies to international supervisory bodies and other stakeholders to promote transparency and applied scientific research.
Both countries should undertake joint research on the rivers to study the impact of climate change for future cooperation, as underlined in Article VII of the IWT.
Additionally, a nuanced understanding of climate change and population pressures on the Indus basin's hydrology is needed. This includes developing a robust mechanism for real-time data-sharing between India and Pakistan, supervised by the World Bank, to ensure accountability and enhance policy-making. Recognizing climate change as a shared vulnerability and focusing on holistic basin management will strengthen the IWT, improving India-Pakistan relations and serving as a model for global transboundary climate cooperation.
Context: The talks over special category status for the states of Bihar and Andhra Pradesh have once again gained momentum after the victory of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
About Special Category Status (SCS):
It is a classification granted by the Centre to assist the development of States that face geographical or socioeconomic disadvantages.
Also to safeguard the interest and aspirations of certain backward regions or to protect cultural and economic interests of the tribal people or to deal with the disturbed law and order in some parts of India.
It was introduced in 1969 on the recommendation of the Fourth Finance Commission (FC).
The criteria for SCS are based on Gadgil Mukherjee formula:
The 14th and 15th Finance Commissions have increased the devolution of divisible pool funds to states from 32% to 41%. However, 14th FC did not consider special category states in its recommendations even 15th FC made no mention of the SCS.
14th FC proposed the continuation of higher grants and lower cost sharing for central government and centrally sponsored projects.
Constitutional provision of SCS:
The Indian Constitution does not provide for 'special category states.' However, states have special provisions under Articles 371, 371-A to 371-H, and 371-J.
States under SCS:
Assam, Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, and Telangana, have been designated as special category states.
Why are Bihar and Andhra Pradesh demanding Special Category Status?
Bihar: Bihar has been asking for it ever since the mineral-rich Jharkhand was carved out of it back in 2000.
Bihar has been ranked as the poorest state in India, according to the Centre's ‘Multidimensional Poverty Index’ (MPI) report. It is estimated to have nearly 52% of its population, without having proper access to requisite health, education and living standards.
While the state meets most of the criteria for the Special Category Status, it does not fulfil the criteria of hilly terrain and geographically difficult areas.
Andhra Pradesh:
After its bifurcation in 2014, Andhra Pradesh has also seen many of its political leaders demanding a Special Category Status on the grounds of revenue loss due to the city of Hyderabad going to Telangana.
Benefits provided to SCS:
For Special Category States 90% of the Central assistance is given as grant and 10% as Loan. In the case of Non-Special Category States, however only 30% of NCA is given as grant and 70% as Loan.
Special packages are purely discretionary. They may be need-based, but the need is not the proximate reason for granting a special package, which is an additional grant under Article 282, which falls under ‘Miscellaneous Financial Provisions’.
Tax sops such as concession on Customs duty, income tax and corporate tax etc. for industrial development.
Special category states can carry forward unspent money from one financial year to the next without it lapsing.
Benefits for Special category status:
To preserve cultural identity (Goa).
To address socio-economic and infrastructural backwardness (Bihar).
To compensate for the loss of taxation rights under the GST mechanism.
To provide special support for recovery and resilient infrastructure due to frequent natural calamities, such as earthquakes, floods, or cyclones (Odisha).
To enhance infrastructure for national security, particularly in areas near international borders (Rajasthan).
Challenges associated with SCS:
It places an additional economic burden on the center and fosters a culture of economic dependency among states.
Granting special status to one state often prompts similar requests from other states.
It will weaken the foundations of fiscal federalism, as it will result in diverting national resources away from other States, which too may have pressing needs.
May be driven by political motives instead of objective criteria and become a tool of political bargaining.
Way forward
Recommendations of Raghuram Rajan Committee:
Suggested "multi-dimensional index" of backwardness is proposed, based on per capita consumption according to National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data, poverty ratios, and other measures aligned with the multi-dimensional approach to defining poverty in the 12th Five-Year Plan.
States that score 0.6 and above on the Index may be classified as "least developed"; States that score below 0.6 and above 0.4 may be classified as "less developed"; and States that score below 0.4 may be classified as "relatively developed".
Each state should get a basic fixed allocation and an additional allocation depending on its development needs and development performance.
Design specialized programs that address the needs of vulnerable groups with a focus on preserving their cultural identities.
