3. Polity Notes 04

Elaborate Notes

LOKPAL

The concept of an ombudsman, an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against public administration, has its roots in Scandinavian countries, with Sweden establishing the institution in 1809. In India, the idea of a constitutional ombudsman was first proposed in the early 1960s by Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen.

• Genesis and Terminology: The term ‘Lokpal’ (meaning ‘protector of people’) and ‘Lokayukta’ was coined by jurist and diplomat Dr. L. M. Singhvi in 1963. The First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) (1966–1970), chaired initially by Morarji Desai, formally recommended the creation of these two-tier institutions at the central and state levels to redress citizens’ grievances. This recommendation was a response to the growing concerns about corruption in public life.
• Legislative Journey: Despite the ARC’s recommendation, several attempts to pass the Lokpal Bill failed over decades. The movement gained significant momentum with the “India Against Corruption” movement led by Anna Hazare in 2011, which created immense public pressure. This culminated in the enactment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
• Composition and Structure: The Lokpal is a multi-member body.
  • It consists of one Chairperson and a maximum of eight members.
  • The Chairperson should be a former Chief Justice of India, a former Supreme Court judge, or an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of not less than 25 years in matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.
  • Of the eight members, 50% must be Judicial Members (former Supreme Court judges or former Chief Justices of a High Court).
  • The remaining 50% of members must be from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Minorities, and Women.
• Jurisdiction: The Lokpal’s jurisdiction is extensive, covering the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Groups A, B, C, and D officers and officials of the Central Government. The Prime Minister is brought under the purview of the Lokpal with specific safeguards, excluding allegations of corruption relating to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space.
• Inquiry and Investigation Wing: The Act mandates the establishment of an Inquiry Wing headed by a Director of Inquiry (not below the rank of Joint Secretary) and a Prosecution Wing. The Lokpal can refer complaints to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which then sends a report. If a prima facie case is found, the Lokpal can order an investigation by any agency, including the CBI. A significant lacuna, as highlighted, is the non-appointment of the Director of Inquiry, which hampers the independent inquiry mechanism envisaged by the Act.
• Timelines: The Act prescribes strict timelines to ensure speedy disposal of cases: 60 days for a preliminary inquiry and six months for the completion of an investigation by agencies like the CBI. This six-month period can be extended by the Lokpal on the CBI’s written request.
• Removal Mechanism: The Chairperson or any Member of the Lokpal can be removed from office by the President on grounds of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court, on a reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Chairperson or such Member ought to be removed. A petition for such an inquiry requires the signature of at least 100 Members of Parliament.
• Lokayuktas: The Act mandates that states must establish the institution of Lokayukta through a law passed by their legislature within one year of the Act’s commencement. However, the Act does not provide a uniform model, leaving it to the states to determine the specific structure and powers. Maharashtra was the pioneer, establishing its Lokayukta in 1971, even before the central Act was passed. Kerala established its Lokayukta with significant powers in 1999. Their jurisdiction typically covers the Chief Minister, Ministers, and other state government officials.

DELIMITATION COMMISSION

Delimitation is the act or process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body.

• Constitutional Mandate: Article 82 of the Constitution of India provides that upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) to the states and the division of each state into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine. A similar provision exists in Article 170 for State Legislative Assemblies.
• The Delimitation Act: Following this mandate, Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. The Central Government then constitutes a Delimitation Commission to carry out the exercise.
• Composition: The Commission is a high-powered body designed to be independent and impartial. It is typically composed of:
  1. A serving or retired judge of the Supreme Court as the Chairperson.
  2. The Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner nominated by the CEC.
  3. The State Election Commissioner of the concerned state as an ex-officio member.
• Finality of Orders: The orders of the Delimitation Commission are legally binding and have the force of law. Crucially, they cannot be challenged in any court of law. This provision is intended to prevent the process from being tied up in endless litigation, ensuring that elections can be held on time with newly demarcated constituencies. The orders are laid before the Lok Sabha and the respective State Legislative Assembly, but no modifications are permitted.
• Historical Commissions: Delimitation Commissions have been set up four times in India:
  1. 1952: Under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952.
  2. 1963: Under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962.
  3. 1973: Under the Delimitation Act, 1972.
  4. 2002: Under the Delimitation Act, 2002.
• Freezing of Delimitation:
  • The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, froze the allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha to the states and the division of each state into territorial constituencies till the year 2000. This was done as a population control measure, to ensure that states that had successfully reduced their population growth were not penalized with fewer seats in Parliament.
  • The 84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, extended this freeze on the number of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats for another 25 years, up to the year 2026. However, it allowed for the readjustment and rationalization of territorial constituencies within the states based on the 1991 census figures. Subsequently, the 87th Amendment Act, 2003 provided for delimitation on the basis of the 2001 census figures, without altering the number of seats allotted to each state. The 2002 Delimitation Commission functioned based on these provisions.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (ED)

The ED is a specialized financial investigation agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. It was formed as an ‘Enforcement Unit’ in 1956 in the Department of Economic Affairs, for handling Exchange Control Laws violations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA).

• Governing Legislations: The ED’s primary mandate is to enforce two key fiscal laws:
  1. Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002: A criminal law to prevent money laundering and to provide for the confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering.
  2. Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999: A civil law that replaced the draconian FERA. It regulates foreign exchange and promotes the orderly development of the foreign exchange market in India.
• Investigative Powers:
  • Power to Summon and Record Statements: Under Section 50 of the PMLA, an ED officer has the powers of a civil court to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary to give evidence or produce any record.
  • Admissibility of Statements: In a landmark judgment, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors vs Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of various PMLA provisions. It ruled that statements recorded by an ED officer under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible in evidence, as the officer is not a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
  • Power to Arrest: Under Section 19 of the PMLA, if an authorized ED officer has reason to believe (on the basis of material in his possession) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person. The ED can initiate an investigation and make arrests without a formal FIR being registered by the police, based on a ‘scheduled offence’ predicate.
  • Power to Seize Assets: The ED has the power to attach property and assets believed to be ‘proceeds of crime’ to prevent their disposal during the investigation and trial. This attachment is provisional and must be confirmed by an Adjudicating Authority within 180 days.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)

The CBI is India’s premier investigating agency. It originated from the Special Police Establishment (SPE) set up in 1941 to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in transactions with the War and Supply Department of India. It derives its statutory powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.

• Superintendence and Control:
  • For investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, its superintendence vests with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
  • For all other matters, the superintendence vests with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) in the Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Grievances.
• Types of Investigations:
  • Anti-Corruption Crimes: Investigating cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of All India Services, Central Government, Public Sector Undertakings, and corporations.
  • Economic Crimes: Investigating major financial scams, bank frauds, cybercrime, and large-scale economic fraud. Often, cases involving money laundering are transferred by the CBI to the ED, as the latter has specialized jurisdiction under PMLA.
  • Special Crimes: Investigating serious, sensational, and organized crime under the Indian Penal Code and other laws, usually upon the request of a state government or on the orders of the Supreme Court or High Courts.
• Jurisdictional Constraints and General Consent:
  • The CBI can take up investigations suo-moto only in Union Territories.
  • Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, mandates that the CBI requires the consent of the concerned state government to conduct an investigation within its territory.
  • General Consent: This is a standing consent given by a state to the CBI to investigate specified classes of offences against certain categories of public servants. This avoids the need for the CBI to seek fresh permission for every single case. Several states, including West Bengal, Mizoram, Punjab, and Kerala, have withdrawn their general consent in recent years, citing political misuse of the agency.
  • Exceptions to Consent: Despite the withdrawal of general consent, the Supreme Court and High Courts can order the CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country without the state’s consent. This power is derived from Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. Additionally, consent is not required for catching an official red-handed while accepting a bribe.
• National Investigation Agency (NIA): Formed under the NIA Act, 2008 after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, the NIA is the central counter-terrorism law enforcement agency. Unlike the CBI, the NIA can take suo-motu cognizance of terrorist activities in any part of India and register a case without permission from the states. The NIA (Amendment) Act, 2019 expanded its mandate to investigate scheduled offenses committed outside India and allowed the central government to designate Sessions Courts as Special Courts for NIA trials.

MISSION KARMAYOGI

Launched in 2020, Mission Karmayogi, or the National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (NPCSCB), is a major reform initiative aimed at transforming the Indian bureaucracy.

• Core Philosophy: It marks a shift from a “rule-based” to a “role-based” human resource management system. The focus is on developing specific roles, activities, and competencies for every government position. A civil servant’s career progression will be linked to the competencies they acquire.
• Integrated Government Online Training (iGOT) Karmayogi Platform: This is the digital backbone of the mission. It is an online learning platform that provides curated, domain-specific content to civil servants.
  • My iGOT: Provides a personalized learning path for each officer based on their role and competency gaps.
  • Blended Programs: Combine online learning with traditional offline classroom training, like the VIKAS (Variable & Immersive Karmayogi Advanced Support) program.
  • Curated Programs: Ministries and departments can create their own specific training modules to cater to their unique needs.
• Institutional Framework: The mission is guided by a Prime Minister’s Public Human Resources (PMHRC) Council. A Capacity Building Commission has been set up to harmonize training standards and create shared faculty and resources.
• Conduct Rules: The reference to Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in the summary highlights the ethical dimension of governance. Rule 14 governs the acceptance of gifts, and recent instructions have been issued to regulate the acceptance of awards by civil servants from private bodies, ensuring there is no conflict of interest or quid pro quo.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (RTI)

The RTI Act, 2005 marked a paradigm shift in Indian governance, moving from a culture of official secrecy to one of transparency and accountability.

• Historical Background: The movement for RTI was grassroots-led, notably by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan in the 1990s, which demanded access to official records on drought-relief work. The Supreme Court, in cases like Raj Narain vs. State of UP (1975), had already recognized the right to information as a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Key Provisions: The Act allows any Indian citizen to request information from a public authority (a body of Government or “instrumentality of State”), which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The nodal agency for its implementation is the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
• Exemptions: The Act balances transparency with the need to protect certain state interests.
  • Section 8(1): Provides exemptions from disclosure for information that would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic interests, information forbidden by a court, information that would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament, commercial confidence, trade secrets, information available in a fiduciary relationship, etc.
  • Section 24: Exempts certain intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule (e.g., Intelligence Bureau, RAW, Directorate of Enforcement, BSF). However, this exemption is not absolute. The proviso to Section 24 states that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded.
  • Public Interest Override: Section 8(2) contains a crucial public interest override. It states that notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or the exemptions under Section 8(1), a public authority may allow access to information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

AADHAAR

• Constitutional Challenge: The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, was challenged on multiple grounds. A key challenge was its passage as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution, which effectively bypassed the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha. Another major challenge was on the grounds that it violated the Right to Privacy, which was declared a fundamental right by a nine-judge bench in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017) judgment.
• Supreme Court Verdict (2018): In the subsequent Aadhaar judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. UoI, 2018), a five-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Act by a 4-1 majority.
  • Money Bill: The majority opinion held that since the Act’s primary purpose was to provide benefits and subsidies from the Consolidated Fund of India, it qualified as a Money Bill. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented, calling it a “fraud on the Constitution.”
  • Right to Privacy: The Court applied the “proportionality test” and held that while Aadhaar did impinge on privacy, the intrusion was justified for the legitimate state aim of ensuring that welfare benefits reach the intended recipients.
  • Reading Down Provisions: The Court struck down or read down certain provisions. It held that Aadhaar would be mandatory for availing welfare schemes and filing income tax returns (linking with PAN), but it could not be made mandatory for opening bank accounts, getting mobile phone connections, or school admissions. Section 57, which allowed private entities to use Aadhaar for verification, was struck down as unconstitutional.

REGULATION OF ONLINE GAMING

• Legal Framework: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) acts as the nodal ministry for online gaming. It amended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to regulate this sector.
• Key Amendments:
  • Self-Regulatory Bodies (SRBs): The framework proposes a self-regulatory mechanism. The government will notify multiple SRBs, which must be registered as not-for-profit entities under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013.
  • “Permissible Online Game”: An SRB will verify an online game as “permissible” if it determines that the game does not involve wagering on any outcome. Any game involving betting or gambling will be prohibited.
  • Obligations on Intermediaries: Online gaming intermediaries (like app stores) must make reasonable efforts to not host, display, or share any online game that is not verified as permissible. They must also not host advertisements for non-permissible games.
  • Due Diligence for Gaming Intermediaries: They must display a mark of verification, inform users about withdrawal/refund policies, conduct KYC of users as per RBI norms, and not provide credit facilities to users. This aims to protect users from financial risks and addiction.

CONSUMER PROTECTION IN INDIA

• Legislative Evolution: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, replaced the erstwhile Act of 1986. The new Act was necessitated by the changing nature of the marketplace, particularly the rise of e-commerce, tele-shopping, and digital transactions.
• Key Institutions and Mechanisms:
  • Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA): A key feature of the 2019 Act, the CCPA is a regulatory body with powers to conduct investigations into violations of consumer rights, order the recall of unsafe goods and services, and impose penalties for misleading advertisements.
  • Three-Tier Grievance Redressal Machinery: The Act retains the three-tier quasi-judicial structure:
    1. District Commissions: Jurisdiction for claims up to ₹50 lakh.
    2. State Commissions: Jurisdiction for claims between ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore.
    3. National Commission: Jurisdiction for claims above ₹2 crore. (Note: These pecuniary jurisdictions were revised by the Consumer Protection Rules, 2021)
  • E-Daakhil Portal: A digital platform launched to facilitate the electronic filing of consumer complaints, making the redressal process more accessible and efficient.
  • ConfoNet Project: A long-standing project to computerize and network the consumer fora across the country to improve their operational efficiency.
  • INGRAM Portal: An Integrated Grievance Redress Mechanism portal for consumers to register their grievances online.
• Guidelines for Influencers and Celebrities: To tackle misleading endorsements in the digital space, the CCPA issued “Endorsements Know-hows!” guidelines.
  • Disclosure: Any material connection (monetary compensation, free products, etc.) between the endorser and the advertiser must be clearly and prominently disclosed using simple terms like “advertisement,” “sponsored,” or “paid promotion.”
  • Due Diligence: Endorsers must have personally used or experienced the product/service they are endorsing and must be able to substantiate the claims being made.
  • Specific Rules for Financial and Health Influencers: Financial influencers (“Finfluencers”) must be registered with SEBI to give investment advice. Health influencers must disclose their professional qualifications and clarify that their advice is not a substitute for professional medical consultation.

FOREST RIGHTS ACT, 2006

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, commonly known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), is a landmark piece of legislation that seeks to correct the “historical injustice” meted out to forest-dwelling communities.

• Nodal Agency: The Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal agency at the central level for the implementation of the Act.
• Types of Rights Recognized (under Section 3):
  • Individual Forest Rights (IFR): Right to hold and live in forest land for habitation or self-cultivation for livelihood by an individual or a family. The maximum land that can be claimed is 4 hectares.
  • Community Rights: These include rights over common property resources, such as nistar (customary rights of villagers), grazing grounds, and traditional seasonal resource access.
  • Community Forest Resource (CFR) Rights: This is a more powerful right under Section 3(1)(i), which gives communities the right to protect, regenerate, conserve, or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use.
  • Other Rights: Right of ownership, access to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce; rights for the conversion of pattas or leases; right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge.
• Central Role of the Gram Sabha: The FRA is a radically democratic law that places the Gram Sabha (village assembly) at the center of the rights recognition process. It is the Gram Sabha that is empowered to initiate the process, receive and verify claims, and pass a resolution to that effect, which is then forwarded to higher authorities.
• Nature of Land Titles: The land rights conferred are heritable but not alienable or transferable. This is to prevent the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals.
• Applicability in Protected Areas: The Act explicitly applies to National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves, recognizing that forest dwellers are integral to the survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.

OTHER POINTS

• Panchayat Development Index (PDI): Released by the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj, the PDI is a composite index to measure the performance of Panchayats on various parameters of development and governance, aligned with the Localization of Sustainable Development Goals (LSDGs). It ranks and grades panchayats (A, B, C, D), fostering a spirit of competitive and cooperative federalism at the local level.
• Article 311(2)(c): Article 311 of the Constitution provides crucial safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.
  • Article 311(1): A civil servant cannot be dismissed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them.
  • Article 311(2): It mandates that a proper inquiry must be held where the civil servant is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
  • Exception under 311(2)(c): This clause is an exception to the rule of inquiry. It allows for the dismissal of a civil servant without an inquiry if the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry. This is a powerful provision used in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the recent case in Jammu & Kashmir.

Prelims Pointers

• Lokpal:
  • The term ‘Lokpal-Lokayukta’ was coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi in 1963.
  • Recommended by the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-70).
  • Enacted through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
  • Composition: A Chairperson and a maximum of 8 members.
  • 50% of members must be Judicial Members.
  • 50% of members shall be from SC/ST/OBCs, Minorities, and Women.
  • Removal is by the President after an SC inquiry initiated on a petition signed by 100 MPs.
  • First state to establish a Lokayukta was Maharashtra in 1971.
• Delimitation Commission:
  • Mandated by Article 82 of the Constitution.
  • Composition: Chairperson (retired/sitting SC Judge), Chief Election Commissioner (or nominee), and respective State Election Commissioner.
  • Its orders have the force of law and cannot be challenged in any court.
  • Commissions were set up in 1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002.
  • 42nd Amendment (1976) froze delimitation till 2000.
  • 84th Amendment (2001) extended the freeze on the number of seats till 2026.
• Directorate of Enforcement (ED):
  • Enforces the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999.
  • Statements recorded by ED officials under PMLA are admissible as evidence in court (SC ruling, 2022).
  • Can arrest persons under PMLA without a police FIR.
• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
  • Derives statutory powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.
  • Requires consent from the state government to investigate in its territory, as per Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
  • SC and High Courts can order a CBI probe anywhere without state consent.
  • Superintendence in Prevention of Corruption Act cases lies with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
• National Investigation Agency (NIA):
  • Established under the NIA Act, 2008.
  • Can take suo-motu cognizance of terrorist activity in any part of India without state permission.
• Mission Karmayogi:
  • Full name: National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (NPCSCB).
  • Aims to shift from a rule-based to a role-based HR management system.
  • iGOT Karmayogi is its digital learning platform.
• Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005:
  • Nodal Agency: Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
  • Section 24 exempts intelligence and security organizations in the Second Schedule.
  • Proviso to Section 24: Information on corruption and human rights violations is not exempt.
  • Section 8(1) lists categories of information exempt from disclosure.
  • Section 8(2) allows disclosure if public interest outweighs harm.
• Aadhaar:
  • The Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed as a Money Bill.
  • Its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case (2018).
  • Not mandatory for opening bank accounts or for mobile connections.
• Regulation of Online Gaming:
  • Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
  • Regulated via amendments to IT Rules, 2021.
  • Mechanism involves Self-Regulatory Bodies (SRBs), which are Section 8 (not-for-profit) companies.
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
  • Replaced the CPA, 1986.
  • Established the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).
  • E-Daakhil is the portal for online filing of consumer complaints.
• Forest Rights Act, 2006:
  • Recognizes Individual Forest Rights (IFR) and Community Forest Rights (CFR).
  • Gram Sabha is the authority to initiate the process of determining rights.
  • Land titles are heritable but not alienable or transferable.
  • Nodal Agency for implementation is the Ministry of Tribal Affairs at the centre.
• Panchayat Development Index (PDI):
  • Released by the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj.
  • Ranks and grades panchayats based on their performance.
• Article 311(2)(c):
  • An exception to the procedure of inquiry before dismissal for a civil servant.
  • Can be invoked if the President/Governor is satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State.

Mains Insights

1. Strengthening Anti-Corruption Architecture vs. Institutional Weakness:

   • Cause-Effect: The enactment of the Lokpal Act, 2013 was a direct result of sustained public demand and civil society movements against rampant corruption. It was intended to create a powerful, independent ombudsman.
   • Debate/Challenge: However, the institution has been criticized for being a “paper tiger.” The delay in its establishment (operationalized only in 2019), non-appointment of key officials like the Director of Inquiry, and lack of adequate resources undermine its effectiveness. This highlights the gap between legislative intent and political will in implementation.
   • Historiographical View: Scholars like Pratap Bhanu Mehta have argued that without deep-rooted political and administrative reforms that ensure genuine autonomy, such institutions risk becoming mere symbolic gestures rather than effective tools of accountability.

2. Delimitation: Balancing Democratic Principles with Federal Concerns:

   • Cause-Effect: The freezing of delimitation based on population was a policy response to the uneven population growth across states, aimed at encouraging population control measures in northern states.
   • Debate/Challenge: The impending delimitation after 2026 poses a significant federal challenge. States in southern India, which have been more successful in population control, stand to lose political representation in the Lok Sabha to the more populous northern states. This could lead to a North-South political divide, impacting fiscal federalism and policy-making.
   • Perspective: The debate revolves around the principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ versus the need to maintain federal balance and not penalize states for effective governance. Potential solutions discussed include increasing the total number of seats in Parliament or finding alternative models for representation.

3. Investigative Agencies: Autonomy, Accountability, and Federalism:

   • Cause-Effect: The frequent allegations of misuse of central agencies like the CBI and ED against political opponents have led to a trust deficit. In response, several states have withdrawn their “general consent” to the CBI, asserting their federal rights.
   • Debate/Challenge: This creates a complex situation. On one hand, it hinders the investigation of inter-state and complex corruption cases. On the other, it reflects the genuine federal concerns about the encroachment of central agencies into the domain of ‘police,’ a State List subject. The Supreme Court’s description of the CBI as a “caged parrot” in 2013 continues to resonate.
   • Perspective: This issue underscores the urgent need for reforms to ensure the operational autonomy and political neutrality of these agencies. Ideas like a truly independent appointment process for their heads, fixed tenures, and an independent oversight mechanism are crucial for restoring their credibility.

4. From Secrecy to Transparency: The Evolving Journey of RTI:

   • Cause-Effect: The RTI Act, 2005, fundamentally altered the relationship between the citizen and the state, empowering citizens to question authority and demand accountability.
   • Debate/Challenge: The Act faces persistent challenges. Amendments, such as the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, which changed the tenure and status of Information Commissioners, are seen by activists as attempts to dilute the independence of the institution. High pendency of appeals, attacks on RTI activists, and a reluctance by public authorities to part with information remain significant hurdles.
   • Perspective: The effectiveness of RTI is a constant tussle between the citizen’s right to know and the state’s tendency towards opacity. Its success depends not just on the letter of the law but on a supportive institutional culture, judicial vigilance, and active citizenry.

5. Forest Rights Act: Reconciling Conservation, Development, and Justice:

   • Cause-Effect: The FRA, 2006 was enacted to correct the historical injustice done to forest-dwelling communities whose rights were not recorded during colonial and post-colonial forest consolidation.
   • Debate/Challenge: Implementation remains a major challenge. There is often a conflict between the Forest Department (focused on conservation from a traditional, exclusionary perspective) and the Tribal Affairs Department (the nodal agency for FRA). The rejection rate of claims is high, and the recognition of Community Forest Rights (CFR) is particularly slow, despite its potential for democratic forest governance.
   • Perspective: The FRA represents a paradigm shift from state-centric conservation to community-led conservation. Its successful implementation is critical not only for social justice but also for achieving conservation goals, as it legally empowers communities to protect their forests, as argued by scholars like Madhu Sarin and C. R. Bijoy.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

1. With reference to the Delimitation Commission, consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2012)

   1. The orders of the Delimitation Commission cannot be challenged in a Court of Law.
   2. When the orders of the Delimitation Commission are laid before the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly, they cannot effect any modifications in the orders. 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: (c) Both 1 and 2. Both statements are factually correct as per the provisions of the Delimitation Act.

2. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it. (UPSC Prelims 2018) While this is not directly from the summary, the principle of judicial review is relevant. A more relevant question is: The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. (UPSC Prelims 2019 - Statement 2 of a question) This statement is incorrect. The removal of a Lokpal member has a similar flavour. A direct question on the topic: Which one of the following is the national nodal agency for the implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006? (UPSC CAPF 2021) (a) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (b) Ministry of Panchayati Raj (c) Ministry of Rural Development (d) Ministry of Tribal Affairs Answer: (d) Ministry of Tribal Affairs. It is the nodal ministry at the central level for overseeing the implementation of the FRA.

3. The Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement? (UPSC Prelims 2018) (a) Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution (b) Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV (c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III (d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution Answer: (c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III. The Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.

4. Consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2022)

   1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
   2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
   3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
   4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only While not direct, it touches upon constitutional bodies and their powers. A more direct question: With reference to India, consider the following statements: (UPSC Prelims 2021)
   5. When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right.
   6. State Governments have their own Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? Answer: (b) 2 only. Parole is not a right. This question tests knowledge of state-specific rules, similar to how Lokayukta rules are state-specific.

5. With reference to the “Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)”, consider the following statements: (UPSC Question pattern)

   1. It is a statutory body established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
   2. It is empowered to conduct investigations into violations of consumer rights and institute complaints/prosecution.
   3. The CCPA can impose penalties on manufacturers/endorsers for false or misleading advertisements. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect as the CCPA was established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, not the 1986 Act.

Mains

1. “The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular state is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute.” Explain with special reference to the federal character of India. (UPSC Mains 2021, GS Paper II) Answer Framework:

   • Introduction: Briefly introduce the CBI and its statutory basis (DSPE Act, 1946). Mention its role as a premier anti-corruption agency.
   • States’ Power to Withhold Consent: Explain Section 6 of the DSPE Act, which mandates state consent for the CBI to operate within its jurisdiction. Discuss the concept of ‘general consent’ and the recent trend of states withdrawing it, citing concerns of political misuse and encroachment on the state’s domain (Police is a State subject). Link this to the principles of federalism and state autonomy.
   • Why State’s Power is Not Absolute: Detail the exceptions where state consent is not required.
     • High Courts (under Art. 226) and the Supreme Court (under Art. 32) can order a CBI probe anywhere in the country to uphold justice.
     • The CBI can investigate cases in Union Territories without any consent.
     • Cases registered in one state can be investigated in another state if there is a link.
     • Cases where officials are caught red-handed while taking a bribe.
   • Conclusion: Conclude by highlighting the tension between the need for a central agency to investigate complex, inter-state corruption and the federal rights of states. Suggest the need for procedural safeguards and institutional reforms to ensure the CBI’s impartiality and restore trust, thereby strengthening cooperative federalism.

2. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, has been a significant step in the fight against corruption, yet its performance has been underwhelming. Critically analyze the factors responsible for the limited effectiveness of the Lokpal. (UPSC Mains question pattern) Answer Framework:

   • Introduction: Briefly explain the context of the Lokpal Act, 2013, as a culmination of the anti-corruption movement and its objective to create an independent ombudsman.
   • Positive Aspects/Significance: Mention its vast jurisdiction (including PM), clear timelines for investigation, and mandate for states to create Lokayuktas.
   • Factors for Limited Effectiveness (Critical Analysis):
     • Political Will: Significant delay in appointment of the first Lokpal (appointed in 2019).
     • Institutional Deficiencies: Non-appointment of the Director of Inquiry, crippling its independent inquiry wing. Lack of adequate manpower and resources.
     • Procedural Hurdles: The process for initiating an inquiry is complex. The removal process is also very stringent, making accountability difficult.
     • Lack of Uniformity in Lokayuktas: The Act gives states discretion, leading to weak Lokayukta laws in many states.
     • Exclusion of Judiciary: The judiciary is kept out of the ambit of the Lokpal.
   • Conclusion: Conclude that while the Lokpal Act is a robust legislative framework, its potential has been unrealized due to a lack of political commitment and institutional support. Suggest measures like timely appointments, resource allocation, and greater transparency to vitalize the institution.

3. The Forest Rights Act, 2006, represents a paradigm shift in forest governance and conservation. However, its implementation has been fraught with challenges. Discuss. (UPSC Mains question pattern) Answer Framework:

   • Introduction: Explain the historical context of the FRA, 2006, as a law meant to correct the “historical injustice” against forest-dwelling communities and recognize their rights.
   • Paradigm Shift:
     • Shift from state-centric to community-led forest governance.
     • Recognizes the symbiotic relationship between forests and forest dwellers.
     • Empowers the Gram Sabha, deepening grassroots democracy.
     • Acknowledges a spectrum of rights (individual, community, and resource management).
   • Implementation Challenges:
     • Institutional Resistance: Reluctance from the forest bureaucracy to cede control over forests.
     • Lack of Awareness: Low levels of awareness about the Act’s provisions among tribal communities and officials.
     • Procedural Issues: Incorrect interpretation of the Act, high rates of claim rejection on flimsy grounds, and slow processing.
     • Focus on IFR over CFR: The focus has been more on individual land titles rather than the more empowering Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights.
     • Conflict with other laws: Dilution of FRA provisions through compensatory afforestation laws (like CAMPA).
   • Conclusion: Conclude that the effective implementation of the FRA is crucial for both social justice and sustainable conservation. Suggest measures like capacity building for Gram Sabhas and officials, a robust monitoring mechanism, and convergence between the Tribal and Forest Departments.

4. Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on the Right to Privacy. (UPSC Mains 2017, GS Paper II) Answer Framework:

   • Introduction: Start by mentioning the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment where a nine-judge bench unanimously declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.
   • Placement of the Right: Explain that the Court held privacy to be an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and as inherent in other fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution.
   • Scope and Dimensions of Privacy:
     • Bodily Integrity: Right to make personal choices about one’s body.
     • Informational Privacy: Right to control the dissemination of one’s personal data.
     • Privacy of Choice: Right to make decisions on matters like marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation.
     • Digital Privacy: Protection from unauthorized surveillance and data collection.
   • Impact on other Fundamental Rights:
     • Article 19: Strengthens freedom of speech and expression by protecting against surveillance that can have a chilling effect.
     • Aadhaar Case (Puttaswamy 2018): Explain how the court used the privacy doctrine to test the validity of the Aadhaar Act, upholding it for welfare but striking down its use by private entities.
     • Other Issues: Discuss its implications for Section 377 (Navtej Singh Johar case), data protection laws, and surveillance reforms.
   • Conclusion: Conclude that the judgment has expanded the scope of fundamental rights, providing a strong constitutional basis for protecting individual autonomy and dignity against state and non-state intrusion in the digital age.

5. “Institutional quality is a crucial driver of economic performance”. In this context, suggest reforms in the Civil Service for strengthening democracy. (UPSC Mains 2020, GS Paper II) Answer Framework:

   • Introduction: Establish the link between high-quality public institutions, good governance, and economic performance. Define Civil Service as the backbone of governance delivery.
   • Need for Reforms: Mention issues plaguing the civil services like political interference, corruption, resistance to change, and a focus on rules rather than results.
   • Reforms for Strengthening Democracy:
     • Capacity Building (Mission Karmayogi): Explain the shift from a rule-based to a role-based approach. Discuss how continuous, competency-based training (via iGOT platform) can create a more efficient, innovative, and citizen-centric bureaucracy.
     • Ensuring Accountability: Suggest strengthening performance appraisal systems, making them more objective. Emphasize the role of RTI in promoting transparency and accountability.
     • Promoting Specialization: Advocate for domain expertise and lateral entry to bring in specialized talent, particularly in technical and economic ministries.
     • Ensuring Political Neutrality: Recommend reforms in the appointment, transfer, and posting mechanisms to reduce political interference. Suggest a fixed tenure for key administrative posts.
     • Citizen-Centric Approach: Emphasize the need for reforms that encourage public participation, grievance redressal, and a service-oriented mindset among civil servants.
   • Conclusion: Conclude by stating that a professional, accountable, and dynamic civil service is not just vital for economic growth but is a cornerstone for deepening democracy by ensuring effective and equitable service delivery to the citizens.