GS Notes

17. Polity Notes 40

24 min read

Elaborate Notes

NATIONAL COMMISSIONS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OBCs

These are constitutional bodies established to safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable sections of society. Their evolution reflects the growing recognition of the need for specialized institutional mechanisms for social justice.

  • Historical Evolution:

    • Initially, the Constitution provided for the appointment of a Special Officer under Article 338 to investigate all matters relating to the constitutional safeguards for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This officer was designated as the Commissioner for SCs and STs.
    • The 65th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1990 replaced the one-member system with a multi-member National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    • Recognizing the distinct issues faced by the STs, the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003 bifurcated the combined Commission into two separate bodies: the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) under Article 338 and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) under Article 338A.
    • The 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2018 conferred constitutional status on the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), which was previously a statutory body under the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993. The NCBC was established under the new Article 338B. This amendment was a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India (1992) case, which recommended the creation of a permanent body to address complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion in the lists of OBCs.

  • Functions of the Commissions (under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B):

    • Investigative and Monitoring Role: The primary function is to investigate and monitor all matters related to the constitutional and other legal safeguards for SCs, STs, and OBCs, and to evaluate their working. This includes reviewing the implementation of policies like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
    • Adjudicatory Role: They are mandated to inquire into specific complaints concerning the deprivation of rights and safeguards of these communities. For instance, the NCSC frequently investigates cases of caste-based discrimination in employment or education.
    • Advisory Role in Planning: The commissions participate in and advise on the planning process for the socio-economic development of their respective communities and evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any State. They provide critical feedback on schemes like the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) or Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan (SCSP).
    • Reporting Mandate: They are required to present an annual report to the President (and at other times as they deem fit). The President places these reports before both Houses of Parliament, along with a memorandum explaining the action taken on the recommendations. If a recommendation pertains to a State Government, the report is forwarded to the Governor, who tables it before the State Legislature.
    • Recommendatory Function: They recommend measures that should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation of safeguards and for the protection, welfare, and socio-economic development of these communities.
    • Other Functions: The President may specify other functions related to the protection, welfare, development, and advancement of these communities.

  • Powers of the Commissions:

    • The commissions are vested with the powers of a civil court while investigating any matter or inquiring into any complaint. This power is crucial for their fact-finding missions.
    • These powers include:
      • Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining them on oath.
      • Requiring the discovery and production of any document.
      • Receiving evidence on affidavits.
      • Requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office.
      • Issuing summons for the examination of witnesses and documents.

COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

The cooperative movement in India is rooted in the philosophy of collective action for economic upliftment, envisioned as a middle path between capitalist and socialist models.

  • Historical and Philosophical Context:

    • The idea of cooperation was central to Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of ‘Gram Swaraj’ (village self-sufficiency). He saw cooperatives as instruments for rural prosperity, moral development, and decentralized economic power.
    • The formal cooperative movement began under British rule with the enactment of the Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1904, primarily to relieve farmers from the clutches of moneylenders.
    • Post-independence, cooperatives were seen as a key instrument for planned economic development, especially in the agricultural sector. However, the movement faced challenges like government interference, politicization, and financial mismanagement. The failure of land ceiling legislation to redistribute land effectively further highlighted the need for collective farming models, but emotional attachment to land proved a significant barrier.

  • Constitutional Status and Legislative Framework:

    • The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011 was a landmark step to revitalize the movement by giving it constitutional sanctity and promoting autonomous functioning.
    • Fundamental Right: It amended Article 19(1)(c) to include the “right to form co-operative societies” as a fundamental right, placing it on par with the right to form associations or unions.
    • Directive Principle: It inserted a new DPSP, Article 43B, which directs the State to “endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies.”
    • New Constitutional Part: It added Part IX-B to the Constitution, titled “The Co-operative Societies” (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT), which lays down detailed provisions regarding the incorporation, board of directors, elections, and audit of cooperative societies.
    • Federal Dimension: ‘Co-operative societies’ is a subject under Entry 32 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule. However, societies with objects not confined to one state are governed by central law. The Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, regulates these larger cooperatives, such as the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO).
    • Supreme Court Judgment (2021): In Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (2021), the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of Part IX-B. It held that while Parliament could legislate for Multi-State Cooperative Societies, provisions concerning state-level cooperatives could not be enacted without ratification by at least half of the state legislatures, as required by Article 368(2), because the subject falls under the State List. This judgment reaffirmed the principles of federalism.

  • Recent Developments and Challenges:

    • The creation of a separate Ministry of Cooperation in 2021 by the Union Government aims to provide a separate administrative, legal, and policy framework for strengthening the cooperative movement, realizing the vision of ‘Sahkar se Samriddhi’ (Prosperity through Cooperation).
    • Despite their potential, cooperatives, especially sugar cooperatives in Maharashtra and Karnataka, have faced issues of corruption, lack of democratic functioning, and control by vested political interests.
    • The recent amendments to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act aim to improve governance, enhance transparency, increase accountability, and reform the electoral process to make the management more accountable to the members.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SOME STATES (ARTICLES 371-371J)

These provisions, enshrined in Part XXI of the Constitution, are a testament to India’s model of asymmetric federalism, where special arrangements are made to accommodate the specific historical, cultural, and developmental needs of certain states.

  • Article 371 (Maharashtra and Gujarat): Authorises the President to provide for the Governor to have special responsibility for establishing separate development boards for regions like Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra, and Saurashtra and Kutch in Gujarat. This was intended to address regional imbalances in development.
  • Article 371A (Nagaland): Inserted by the 13th Amendment Act, 1962, following the 1960 agreement between the Naga People’s Convention and the Government of India. It protects Naga identity by stipulating that no Act of Parliament concerning their religious or social practices, customary law, administration of justice, and ownership of land shall apply to Nagaland unless the State Legislative Assembly so decides. It also grants the Governor special responsibility for law and order.
  • Article 371B (Assam): Inserted by the 22nd Amendment Act, 1969. It provides for the creation of a committee of the Assam Legislative Assembly consisting of members elected from the tribal areas of the state to protect their interests.
  • Article 371C (Manipur): Inserted by the 27th Amendment Act, 1971. It provides for a committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly consisting of members from the Hill Areas of the state. The Governor has a special responsibility to ensure its proper functioning and submits an annual report to the President.
  • Article 371D & 371E (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana): Inserted by the 32nd Amendment Act, 1973, to address the demands of the ‘Jai Andhra’ movement for equitable opportunities. It empowers the President to provide for equitable opportunities in public employment and education for people from different parts of the state. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, extended these provisions to the state of Telangana.
  • Article 371F (Sikkim): Added by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, which made Sikkim a full-fledged state. It contains unique provisions, such as a minimum strength of 30 for the Legislative Assembly and grants the Governor special responsibility for peace and for an equitable arrangement for ensuring the social and economic advancement of different sections of the population.
  • Article 371G (Mizoram): Added by the 53rd Amendment Act, 1986. Similar to Nagaland, it protects Mizo religious practices, customary law, and land ownership from central legislation without the state assembly’s consent.
  • Article 371H (Arunachal Pradesh): Added by the 55th Amendment Act, 1986. It grants the Governor special responsibility for law and order.
  • Article 371-I (Goa): Inserted by the 56th Amendment Act, 1987. It simply specifies that the Legislative Assembly of Goa shall not have less than 30 members.
  • Article 371J (Karnataka): Added by the 98th Amendment Act, 2012. It provides for the establishment of a separate development board for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region (now Kalyana-Karnataka) and ensures reservation in education and public employment for residents of that region to address developmental backwardness.

STATUTORY BODIES

Statutory bodies are non-constitutional entities created by an Act of Parliament or a State Legislature. They are established to perform specific functions which require a degree of independence from the executive.

  • Nature and Purpose:

    • Their powers, functions, composition, and tenure are defined by the specific statute under which they are created.
    • They are established for various purposes: to act as regulators (e.g., SEBI, TRAI), to protect the rights of citizens (e.g., NHRC, NCW), to provide oversight (e.g., CVC), or to address specific environmental or legal issues (e.g., NGT).
    • They play a crucial role in modern governance by reducing the burden on the executive and judiciary and bringing domain expertise to administration.

  • National Human Rights Commission (NHRC):

    • Genesis: The NHRC of India was established on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993. Its establishment was in consonance with the Paris Principles adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993, which set out international standards for national human rights institutions.
    • Objectives: Its core objective is to promote a culture of human rights and act as a watchdog against their violation by public servants. It aims to strengthen the institutional framework for human rights protection and complement the efforts of the judiciary.
    • Composition (as per the 2019 Amendment):
      • Chairperson: A retired Chief Justice of India or a retired Judge of the Supreme Court.
      • Members: One member who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court; one member who is or has been a Chief Justice of a High Court; and three members having knowledge or practical experience in matters relating to human rights (of which at least one shall be a woman).
      • Ex-officio Members: Chairpersons of the NCSC, NCST, NCBC, National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, National Commission for Women, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
    • Appointment: The Chairperson and members are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a high-powered committee comprising the Prime Minister (as Chairperson), Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, and the Union Home Minister.
    • Tenure (as per the 2019 Amendment): They hold office for a term of 3 years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. They are eligible for reappointment.
    • Functions:
      • Inquire, suo motu or on a petition, into complaints of violation of human rights or abetment thereof or negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant.
      • Intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court.
      • Visit jails or any other institution under the control of the State Government to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations.
      • Review the safeguards provided by the Constitution or any law for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation.
      • Promote human rights literacy and encourage the efforts of NGOs.

Prelims Pointers

  • National Commissions:

    • NCSC: Constitutional body under Article 338.
    • NCST: Constitutional body under Article 338-A (created by 89th Amendment Act, 2003).
    • NCBC: Constitutional body under Article 338-B (created by 102nd Amendment Act, 2018).
    • All commissions submit their annual report to the President.
    • They have the powers of a civil court.

  • Cooperative Societies:

    • Right to form cooperative societies is a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(c).
    • Promotion of cooperative societies is a DPSP under Article 43B.
    • Part IX-B (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT) deals with cooperative societies.
    • These provisions were added by the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2011.
    • ‘Co-operative societies’ is a subject in the State List (Entry 32, Seventh Schedule).
    • Multi-State Cooperative Societies are regulated by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.
    • The Supreme Court in 2021 struck down parts of the 97th Amendment Act related to state cooperatives for want of ratification by states.

  • Special Provisions for States:

    • Article 371: Maharashtra and Gujarat (Development Boards).
    • Article 371A: Nagaland (Protection of Naga customary law).
    • Article 371B: Assam (Committee for tribal areas).
    • Article 371C: Manipur (Committee for hill areas).
    • Article 371D: Andhra Pradesh & Telangana (Equitable opportunities).
    • Article 371F: Sikkim (Special provisions, minimum 30 Assembly members).
    • Article 371G: Mizoram (Protection of Mizo customary law).
    • Article 371H: Arunachal Pradesh (Governor’s special responsibility for law and order).
    • Article 371-I: Goa (Minimum 30 Assembly members).
    • Article 371J: Karnataka (Development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region, inserted by 98th Amendment, 2012).

  • Statutory Bodies & NHRC:

    • Statutory bodies are created by an Act of Parliament, not by the Constitution.
    • NHRC was established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
    • NHRC Chairperson: Retired CJI or a retired Supreme Court Judge.
    • Tenure of NHRC members and chairperson: 3 years or 70 years of age, whichever is earlier.
    • They are eligible for reappointment.
    • Appointment is made by the President on the recommendation of a 6-member committee headed by the Prime Minister.

Mains Insights

  1. Effectiveness of National Commissions (SC/ST/OBC): A Critical Analysis

    • Cause-Effect: These commissions were created to provide an institutional safeguard against historical injustice (cause), aiming to achieve social equity and empowerment (effect). However, their effectiveness is often debated.
    • Debates & Viewpoints:
      • Advisory vs. Binding Powers: A major limitation is that their recommendations are only advisory and not binding on the government. This often leads to their reports and suggestions being ignored, as noted by scholar Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who argues that many Indian oversight institutions are designed to absorb public anger rather than deliver substantive justice.
      • Politicization: Appointments to these commissions are often seen as political rewards, leading to a lack of independent and unbiased functioning. The Second ARC report recommended that appointments should be transparent and based on merit, involving individuals with a proven track record in social work.
      • Lack of Enforcement Power: While they have the powers of a civil court, they cannot penalize or prosecute offenders directly. They can only recommend such action to the government or judiciary. Granting them powers of contempt could enhance their authority.
      • Structural Issues: The commissions are often underfunded and understaffed, limiting their ability to conduct thorough investigations and outreach programs across the country.

  2. Cooperatives: Federalism, Governance, and Economic Potential

    • Federal Tussle: The 97th Amendment and the subsequent Supreme Court judgment highlight the classic tension between the Union’s intent to standardize and reform a sector and the states’ exclusive legislative domain. The judgment reinforces the idea that cooperative federalism requires consultation and consensus, not unilateral central action.
    • Governance Challenges vs. Economic Model: The cooperative model offers immense potential for inclusive growth, especially in agriculture (e.g., AMUL model pioneered by Verghese Kurien). However, it is plagued by issues of elite capture, political interference, and poor management. Revitalization requires a focus on the core cooperative principles: voluntary membership, democratic member control, and professional management, as envisaged in Article 43B.
    • Ministry of Cooperation: The creation of a separate ministry can be seen as a positive step to provide focused attention. However, it also raises concerns about centralizing a state subject and potentially undermining the autonomy of cooperatives, turning them into instruments of the central government.

  3. Article 371 and Asymmetric Federalism: A Tool for Unity or Division?

    • Historiographical Viewpoint: Asymmetric federalism, as explained by scholars like Louise Tillin in her work Remapping India, is not a deviation but a core feature of the Indian Constitution, designed to manage its immense diversity. Articles 371-371J are prime examples, providing special status to accommodate unique regional aspirations and prevent alienation.
    • Arguments for (Unity in Diversity): These provisions have been crucial in integrating peripheral regions (e.g., Nagaland, Mizoram) into the Indian Union by respecting their distinct identities. They address developmental backlogs (e.g., Karnataka) and prevent conflicts that could arise from a rigid, one-size-fits-all federal structure.
    • Arguments Against (Potential for Division): Critics argue that such provisions can foster a sense of separatism and create vested interests that resist integration into the national mainstream. They can also lead to administrative complexities and allegations of preferential treatment, challenging the principle of equality among states. The debate revolves around balancing national unity with regional autonomy.

  4. NHRC: A ‘Toothless Tiger’ or a Beacon of Hope?

    • Critical Perspective: The NHRC is often criticized as a “toothless tiger” or a “recommendatory body.” Its inability to act directly against the armed forces (it can only seek a report from the Central Government) and its lack of punitive powers are significant limitations. Former Supreme Court Justice K.T. Thomas famously described its helplessness in this regard.
    • Positive Role: Despite its limitations, the NHRC plays a vital ‘naming and shaming’ role, bringing human rights violations into the public domain and pressuring governments to act. Its suo motu cognizance in key cases (e.g., post-Godhra riots in 2002) and its guidelines on issues like custodial deaths have had a significant impact. It has been instrumental in spreading human rights awareness and fostering a rights-based discourse in India.
    • Path Forward: For the NHRC to be more effective, reforms suggested by the Venkatachaliah Commission (National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution) should be considered, such as making its recommendations binding and giving it more investigative powers.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. Consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2023)

    1. The Constitution of India classifies the ministers into four ranks viz. Cabinet Minister, Minister of State with Independent Charge, Minister of State and Deputy Minister.
    2. The total number of ministers in the Union Government, including the Prime Minister, shall not exceed 15 percent of the total number of members in the Lok Sabha.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Answer: (b)

    • Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. The Constitution does not classify ministers into ranks. This classification is based on conventions of the parliamentary government. Statement 2 is correct. This provision was added by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 (Article 75(1A)).

  2. With reference to the ‘97th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2011’, consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2021 - Rephrased from similar themes)

    1. It gave constitutional status and protection to co-operative societies.
    2. It made the right to form co-operative societies a fundamental right.
    3. It included a new Directive Principle of State Policy on the promotion of co-operative societies.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

    Answer: (d)

    • Explanation: The 97th Amendment Act of 2011 did all three. It added Part IX-B for constitutional status, amended Article 19(1)(c) to make it a fundamental right, and added Article 43B as a new DPSP.

  3. The National Commission for Backward Classes was given constitutional status by which of the following constitutional amendment acts? (UPSC Prelims 2019/2020 - Based on theme) (a) 100th Amendment Act (b) 101st Amendment Act (c) 102nd Amendment Act (d) 103rd Amendment Act

    Answer: (c)

    • Explanation: The 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 inserted Articles 338B and 342A, giving constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

  4. Under which Schedule of the Constitution of India can the transfer of tribal land to private parties for mining be declared null and void? (UPSC Prelims 2019) (a) Third Schedule (b) Fifth Schedule (c) Ninth Schedule (d) Twelfth Schedule

    Answer: (b)

    • Explanation: The Fifth Schedule deals with the administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. It contains provisions that empower the Governor of a state with Scheduled Areas to prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area.

  5. Consider the following statements regarding the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India: (UPSC Prelims 2020 - Based on theme)

    1. Its Chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India.
    2. It has powers of a civil court and its recommendations are binding on the government.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Answer: (d)

    • Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. After the 2019 amendment, the Chairperson can be a retired Chief Justice of India OR a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is incorrect. While it has the powers of a civil court for inquiry, its recommendations are advisory and not binding.

Mains

  1. “Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful.” Analysing the structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures. (UPSC Mains 2021, GS Paper II)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Briefly introduce the NHRC and SHRCs, established under the PHRA, 1993, as statutory watchdogs for human rights.
      • Contributions: Mention their role in raising awareness, suo motu cognizance in major cases (e.g., custodial deaths, encounter killings), setting guidelines, and providing a platform for victims.
      • Limitations (Structural and Practical):
        • Recommendatory Nature: Their recommendations are not binding, making them a “toothless tiger.”
        • Limited Jurisdiction: Inability to inquire into violations by armed forces; limited role in cases older than one year.
        • Dependence on Government: Rely on government for funds and investigating staff (often from police forces, leading to conflict of interest).
        • Appointment Process: Concerns about the selection process being influenced by the executive.
      • Remedial Measures:
        • Amend the PHRA to make recommendations binding, at least in certain cases.
        • Grant powers of contempt to punish non-compliance.
        • Provide an independent investigating staff.
        • Broaden the scope of appointments to include activists and academics with proven track records.
        • Strengthen State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs).
      • Conclusion: Conclude that while the commissions are vital, empowering them through legal and structural reforms is essential for them to effectively challenge the powerful and uphold the rule of law.

  2. The 97th Constitutional Amendment Act, while aiming to empower cooperatives, ran into federal roadblocks. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s verdict on the amendment and its implications for Centre-State relations. (Hypothetical, based on theme)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Explain the objectives of the 97th Amendment Act – to promote democratic, professional, and autonomous functioning of cooperatives.
      • Provisions of the Act: Mention the three key changes – FR under 19(1)(c), DPSP under 43B, and the addition of Part IX-B.
      • The Federal Roadblock: Explain that ‘cooperatives’ is a State List subject. The Union government did not get Part IX-B ratified by 50% of state legislatures as required under Article 368(2) for amendments affecting the federal structure.
      • Supreme Court’s Verdict (Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah): Detail the court’s reasoning. It upheld the validity of the provisions related to multi-state cooperatives but struck down the parts of Part IX-B that pertained to state-level cooperatives, reinforcing federal principles.
      • Implications for Centre-State Relations:
        • It reasserts the legislative supremacy of states over subjects in the State List.
        • It serves as a judicial check on the Union’s attempts to legislate on state subjects without following due constitutional process.
        • It highlights the importance of cooperative federalism and consensus-building.
      • Conclusion: The verdict is a landmark judgment that balances the need for reform with the sanctity of India’s federal structure, setting a precedent for future Centre-State legislative interactions.

  3. To what extent has the constitutional separation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) been effective in addressing the specific concerns of the tribal population in India? (Hypothetical, based on theme)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Explain the rationale behind the bifurcation through the 89th Amendment Act, 2003 – the recognition that the STs have distinct cultural, social, and economic problems (e.g., land alienation, forest rights) that were overshadowed in a combined commission.
      • Effectiveness of NCST:
        • Focused Approach: The NCST has been able to focus specifically on issues like the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and PESA, 1996.
        • Policy Intervention: It has provided specific recommendations on tribal welfare, health, and education. It has investigated cases of displacement and land alienation due to development projects.
        • Increased Visibility: The creation of a separate body has given greater visibility and voice to tribal issues at the national level.
      • Challenges and Ineffectiveness:
        • Similar issues as NCSC: advisory powers, understaffing, and political appointments.
        • Lack of on-the-ground presence in remote tribal areas.
        • Often struggles to enforce its recommendations against powerful corporate and state interests involved in mining and industrial projects in tribal lands.
      • Conclusion: While the separation was a conceptually sound and necessary step that has allowed for a more focused approach, the NCST’s overall effectiveness remains constrained by the same structural weaknesses that affect other national commissions. Empowering it further is crucial for protecting the rights of India’s indigenous population.

  4. The special provisions for certain states under Article 371 are a manifestation of India’s commitment to ‘asymmetric federalism’. Discuss. Do these provisions dilute national unity? (Hypothetical, based on theme)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Define asymmetric federalism as a system where different constituent states possess different powers. Explain that Article 371 and its clauses are a prime example.
      • Manifestation of Asymmetric Federalism:
        • Provide examples: Art 371A for Nagaland (protecting customary law), 371F for Sikkim (political arrangements), 371J for Karnataka (addressing regional backwardness).
        • Explain how these provisions cater to unique historical contexts, cultural identities, and developmental needs.
      • Do they Dilute National Unity?
        • Argument for ‘No’: These provisions are a pragmatic tool for nation-building. By accommodating diversity and addressing grievances, they prevent alienation and secessionist tendencies, thereby strengthening national unity. They are a “safety valve.”
        • Argument for ‘Yes’ (Counterview): Critics argue they can create a sense of otherness, perpetuate regionalism over nationalism, and create administrative hurdles. They can be seen as undermining the principle of equality of all states.
      • Balanced Conclusion: Conclude that these provisions have been more of a unifying force than a divisive one. They represent a mature constitutional mechanism for managing diversity, which is the bedrock of Indian unity. The key lies in ensuring these provisions meet their intended goals of development and protection without fostering permanent separatism.

  5. Critically evaluate the performance of statutory regulatory bodies in India in ensuring transparency and accountability in the economic and social sectors. (Hypothetical, based on theme)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Define statutory bodies and their role as independent regulators. Mention key examples like SEBI, TRAI, IRDAI (economic) and NHRC, NCW (social).
      • Positive Performance:
        • Economic Sector: SEBI has played a crucial role in protecting investors and regulating capital markets. TRAI has been instrumental in the telecom revolution and ensuring fair competition.
        • Social Sector: NHRC and NCW have brought crucial issues to the forefront, acting as watchdogs and providing a voice to the vulnerable.
        • Expertise: These bodies bring specialized knowledge, improving the quality of governance.
      • Critical Evaluation (Challenges and Failures):
        • Autonomy Issues: Appointments and funding often remain under government control, raising questions about their independence (the “caged parrot” analogy used for CBI can apply here).
        • Regulatory Capture: Risk of bodies being influenced by the very industries they are supposed to regulate.
        • Accountability Deficit: Lack of robust parliamentary oversight and public accountability mechanisms.
        • Enforcement Gaps: Many bodies, especially in the social sector, have only recommendatory powers, limiting their impact.
      • Conclusion: Statutory bodies are an indispensable part of modern governance, but their performance is mixed. To enhance their effectiveness, it is essential to strengthen their autonomy, ensure transparent appointments based on merit, and equip them with adequate powers and resources to enforce accountability in their respective sectors.

Graph View