‘Coming together federations’ like the United States and Switzerland form when previously autonomous regions choose to unite voluntarily for collective strength, driven by shared economic and political goals. These federations typically grant significant autonomy to their constituent units, which play a pivotal role in their formation and governance. In contrast, ‘holding together federations’ such as India and Spain adopt a federal structure as a means to decentralize power from a unitary state in order to maintain national unity while accommodating the diverse demands of regions or ethnic groups. These federations face the challenge of managing centrifugal forces by devolving power to the constituent units, aiming to balance unity with diversity. The key differences between the two lie in their origins, motivations, and approaches to managing autonomy and diversity within their borders. Understanding these distinctions provides insights into the diverse nature of federal systems around the world and the complex interplay between unity and diversity in governance.

<strong>Answer:</strong> <p style=”padding-left: 40px;”><strong>Judicial activism</strong> is a judicial philosophy that motivates the judiciary to depart from the traditional precedents in favor of progressive and new social policies. It is manifested when the Supreme Court or High Court compels the authorities to act and sometimes also directs the government, government policies, and the administration. Instances of judicial activism include directing the Centre to create new policy to handle drought, directing the Centre to set up a bad loans panel. <strong>Judicial Overreach</strong> refers to an extreme form of judicial activism where arbitrary and unreasonable interventions are made by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive. This is a situation where the court encroaches upon the role of the legislature by making laws. For example, some have argued that the court’s decision on closing the issuing of licenses for new liquor shops in and around highways, was a case of judicial overreach. <strong>Reasons for</strong> judicial activism as well as judicial overreach in a democracy like India can be attributed to various factors like asymmetry of power, Public Interest Litigations, lackadaisical approach of other organs and various other factors like growing consciousness of people for their rights, globalization, active media and civil society organizations, concerns for the environment among others.</p> <p style=”padding-left: 40px;”>While the higher courts have done a tremendous amount of good for the public through judicial activism; however, in many cases, the judiciary has used excess powers, which transcend the normal bounds of judicial activism. Such judicial overreach has given rise to the following concerns:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Undermining the doctrine of the separation of powers:</strong> The power vested in the Supreme Court through Article 142 of the Constitution is extraordinary. Frequent use of this power may be considered as a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers.</li> <li><strong>Oversight of the challenges faced by legislature and executive:</strong> Sometimes the judiciary passes the order without keeping in mind fund, function, framework, and functionary (4 F) that limit the work of the legislature and the executive. For example, cancelling of coal blocks allocations and spectrum allocations led to the poor health of the financial institutions of the country.</li> <li><strong>Lack of accountability towards people:</strong> Judiciary as an institution is not accountable to the people in the same way as the legislature and the executive are. Further, the judiciary also has the power to punish for ‘contempt of court. This way the judiciary may evade public criticism for many of its actions.</li> <li><strong>Threat to the credibility of the judiciary:</strong> Frequent transgressions in the domains of the legislature and the executive may diminish the image of the judiciary.</li> </ul> The Supreme Court has often highlighted the importance of judicial restraint. The judiciary must, therefore, exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to act as a super-legislature. Judicial activism is appropriate when it is in the domain of legitimate judicial review. However, it should not be a norm nor should it result in judicial overreach.

According to A.V. Dicey, the rule of law means the absolute supremacy or predominance of the regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness and discretion on the part of the executive. Constitutionalism or limited government is means t the essence of Rule of Law. Only a State that is governed by law and imbibes the ideals of justice and equity can be said to have the “Rule of Law”. A.V. Dicey’s Rule of Law: According to Prof. Dicey, Rule of law contains three principles:

• Supremacy of Law: No man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law. It includes protection from arbitrary arrest and the opportunity to defend oneself.
• Equality before Law: It means that all persons are equal before law, irrespective of their position or rank.
• Predominance of Legal Spirit: Constitution is the result of rights of Individuals as defined and enforced by Courts of Law.

This idea of rule of law is reflected in following provisions of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 13(1) states that any law that is made by the legislature has to be made in conformity with the Constitution failing which it will be declared invalid. Similarly, Article 14 of the Constitution lays down the principle of equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• The Preamble to our Constitution incorporates the word justice, liberty and equality which are a clear indicator of just and fair system without any existent disparity between the masses irrespective of their stature in life.
• The right to life and personal liberty which is the basic human right is also guaranteed to every person by the Constitution.
• Rule of law is a basic feature of the Constitution which permeates the whole of the constitutional fabric and is an integral part of the constitutional structure.
• Independence of the judiciary has been ensured in order to uphold the principle of the rule of law. It is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the state within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective.
• Rule of law is ensured through Constitutional Supremacy as the legislative and the executive derive their authority from the constitution.
• Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. The power of judicial review is also given to the Supreme Court so as to preserve the ‘Rule of law’.

Supremacy of law is the spirit that drives the Constitution which is based on justice and equality and the Rule of Law establishes it. The Rule of Law has evolved and it is also linked with human rights. In India, the Rule of Law has been upheld by the judiciary in many instances which led to creation of new remedies for human rights violations. Also, repealing of archaic laws, safeguarding against misuse of laws, curbing criminalization of politics etc. can be actions in the right direction to uphold the Rule of Law.

Answer: The UN peacekeeping forces have been helping countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace for over seven decades. UN peacekeepers have undertaken 71 field missions and a total of 119 countries have contributed military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping including India. India’s contributions towards UN peacekeeping efforts include:

• India has a long and distinguished history of service in UN peacekeeping, having contributed more personnel than any other country. To date, more than 2,53,000 Indians have served in 49 of the 71 UN peacekeeping missions established around the world since 1948.
• India served as chair of the three international commissions for supervision and control for Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos established by the 1954 Geneva Accords on Indochina.
• In 2007, India became the first country to deploy an all-women contingent to a UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia.
• Indian peacekeepers in the South Sudan mission also distinguished themselves through humanitarian service, including organizing medical camps, providing vocational training, carrying out significant road repair work, etc.
• The Indian contingent in the Upper Nile region received UN medals of honor for their dedication and service in peacekeeping. to UN missions.
• Indian peacekeepers have also brought the ancient Indian practice of yoga Members of the UN mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL and UNMISS, South Sudan celebrate International Yoga Day.
• India has also provided 15 Force Commanders to various missions and was the first country to contribute to the Trust Fund on sexual exploitation and abuse, which was set up in 2016.
• As many as 177 Indian peacekeepers have lost their lives while serving in UN peacekeeping missions, the highest from any troop-contributing country.

Challenges currently faced by the UN peacekeeping force:

• Safety of peacekeepers: The UN Security Council needs to call on host nations to ensure the implementation of measures adopted by the Council under Resolution 2589 of 2021 to address the issue of impunity of crimes against peacekeepers.
• Redundant missions: There are several examples of missions without any exit strategy, thereby draining the UN’s depleting resources. For instance, the UN mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2021 continues to deploy 17783 people including 12,384 troops despite starting as a small mission.
• Organizational challenges: Issues such as lack of coordination between the host nation and peacekeeping forces, no role of troop and police-contributing countries in the decision-making process, etc. result in unrealistic mission mandates. Further, the lack of power on the part of the UN Secretariat to ensure accountability of military forces deployed on UN missions leads to poor execution.
• Operational challenges: There is a need to introduce new and advanced technology in peacekeeping missions as well as strengthen the capabilities of the host states’ security forces to overcome security and mandate implementation challenges. Moving forward, prudent deployment of peacekeeping missions and establishing trust and coordination between the peacekeeping mission’s leadership and the host state would remain the key to achieving desired outcomes.

The President of India possesses veto powers, which allow the head of the state to exercise a degree of control over the legislative process.

1. Absolute Veto: The President can withhold their assent to a bill passed by the Parliament, effectively preventing it from becoming a law. This power is absolute, and the Parliament cannot override the President’s veto.

2. Suspensive Veto: The President can return a bill, other than a money bill, to the Parliament for reconsideration. If the Parliament passes the bill again, the President is obligated to give their assent.

3. Pocket Veto: The President can withhold their assent to a bill passed by the Parliament, effectively killing the bill if the Parliament is not in session. This is known as a pocket veto.

4. Ordinance Veto: The President can promulgate ordinances when the Parliament is not in session. However, these ordinances require the subsequent approval of the Parliament to become permanent laws.

The President’s veto powers serve as a check on the legislative branch, ensuring that bills passed by the Parliament are in line with the Constitution and the national interest. This power is particularly important in a parliamentary system, where the executive is drawn from the legislative branch.

The judicious use of these veto powers by the President can help maintain a balance of power between the different branches of the government, contributing to the overall stability and functioning of the Indian political system.