Measures for Inclusive Governance in India
The Indian government has implemented several measures to promote representation of marginalized groups in Parliament and state legislatures:

1. Reservations:

Parliament: Seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) based on their population proportion.
State Legislatures: Similar reservations exist in state legislatures, with some states extending them to Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
2. Nomination:

Rajya Sabha (Upper House): The President can nominate 12 members with expertise in literature, science, arts, and social service. This provides opportunities for women and other under-represented groups.
3. Other Initiatives:

Women’s Reservation Bill: Proposes 33% reservation for women in Parliament and state legislatures, but hasn’t been passed yet.
Party Quotas: Some political parties implement internal quotas for women and minority candidates.
Effectiveness:

Reservations: Increased representation of SCs and STs, but benefits limited to certain groups.
Nomination: Provides space for expertise, but effectiveness in promoting marginalized groups varies.
Other Initiatives: Limited impact due to low quotas and uneven implementation.
Limitations:

Reservations: Can be seen as tokenism if not accompanied by measures to empower these groups.
Nomination: Limited number of seats doesn’t address systemic issues.
Party Quotas: Often not stringently enforced.
Comparison with Other Democracies:

Quotas: Several countries like Nepal, Rwanda, and Uganda have quotas for women in legislatures.
Proportional Representation: Systems like those in Germany and Israel encourage broader representation based on votes received.
Affirmative Action: Policies in the US focus on increasing opportunities for under-represented groups in education and employment.
Observations:

India’s approach has yielded some success, but more needs to be done for broader inclusivity.
Reservation policies alone may not be enough. Additional measures like capacity building and addressing social barriers are crucial.
Possible Reforms:

Passage of Women’s Reservation Bill.
Reviewing Reservation System: Assess its effectiveness and consider extending benefits to other marginalized groups.
Strengthening Party Quotas: Implement stricter enforcement mechanisms.
Exploring Proportional Representation: Encourage greater diversity in legislatures.
Investing in Education and Skill Development: Empower marginalized groups to compete effectively.
A multi-pronged approach, combining reservations, affirmative action programs, and social reforms, is likely to be more effective in achieving inclusive governance in India. By learning from other democracies and adapting their policies to the Indian context, the country can truly create a Parliament that reflects the rich tapestry of its society.

Removal of State Governors and Dismissal of State Governments in India
The Indian Constitution outlines distinct processes for the removal of state governors and the dismissal of state governments. Let’s delve into each:

Removal of State Governors:

Grounds for Removal: The Governor can be removed by the President only for “pleasure,” a euphemism for proven misconduct, violation of the Constitution, or incapacity.
Process: The President initiates the removal process, but the state legislature has no direct role. Parliament, however, can impeach the Governor on grounds of violation of the Constitution.
Dismissal of State Governments (President’s Rule):

Grounds for Dismissal: The President can dismiss a state government if:
Failure of Constitutional Machinery: The state government cannot function constitutionally, like a breakdown of law and order.
Threat to the Union: The state government acts in a way that threatens the nation’s security or integrity.
Financial Emergency: The financial situation of the state poses a threat to the nation’s financial stability.
Process: The President, upon receiving a report from the Governor or other credible sources, can proclaim President’s Rule. The state legislature is suspended, and the Governor takes over the administration. This period can last for a maximum of six months, extendable with Parliament’s approval.
Role of State Legislatures:

In both scenarios, the state legislature has a limited role. It cannot directly initiate the removal of the Governor or prevent President’s Rule.
However, the Governor’s actions are often based on reports and recommendations from the state government. A hostile legislature can make it difficult for the Governor to govern effectively.
Comparison with Subnational Executive Accountability in Other Federations:

United States: In the US, governors are directly elected and can be removed through impeachment by the state legislature. This empowers the legislature to hold the executive accountable.
Canada: Canadian provinces have Lieutenant Governors appointed by the federal government. However, unlike India, they hold a largely ceremonial role. Provincial Premiers (equivalent to Chief Ministers) are directly elected and can be removed through a vote of no confidence in the provincial legislature.
Australia: Similar to Canada, Australian state governors have a limited role. Premiers are directly elected and can be removed by a vote of no confidence in the state parliament.
Observations:

The Indian system gives the central government significant power over states. The President, often influenced by the party in power at the center, can dismiss a state government even if it enjoys a majority in the legislature. This can be seen as an infringement on federal principles.
The limited role of state legislatures weakens their ability to hold the Governor accountable.
Possible Reforms:

Granting state legislatures the power to initiate removal proceedings against the Governor with specific grounds and due process.
Making the Governor’s reports to the President subject to legislative scrutiny.
Exploring a system where state legislatures can hold votes of no confidence against the Chief Minister, similar to other federal democracies.

These changes could strengthen India’s federal structure by enhancing the accountability of the executive branch at both the state and central levels.

Answer: The case study pertains to the correctness of the provision of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which gives the Juvenile Justice Board the power to assess whether the perpetrator of a heinous crime aged between 16 and 18, had acted as a ‘child’ or as an ‘adult.’ The board will be assisted in this process by psychologists and social experts.
(a) Possible factors that can drive a child towards committing heinous crimes are following:

• Social: Social factors are undergoing changes due to urbanization, globalization and cultural changes.
  • Family: Broken homes, father’s work habits, cohesiveness of the family, relations between parents, affection of siblings, standards of home, parent’s discipline and affection etc. play a very important role in defining the behaviour of a child.
  • School and peer group relations: After family, the child spends most of its time in the school and with his friends. It can supplement the role of the family in enhancing values.
• Economic factors: In case of India, socio-economic injustice combined with violence and abuse is the major factor in breeding juvenile delinquency. Persistent unemployment and low incomes of families increases the likelihood of children’s involvement in any kind of criminal activities and unethical behaviour.
• Bad cultural influences: Cinema and Television have emerged as strong attractions for children in recent times. Sometimes, their content glorifies anti-social behaviour as heroic and exposes children to all kinds of criminal acts. Children, having an impressionable mind, are ill-equipped to differentiate what is good from bad.
• Individual factors: It includes certain personality traits like feeling of insecurity, fear, lack of self-control, emotional conflict etc.

(b) The debate on whether a child in conflict with law (CCL) should be treated as an adult often remains a contentious issue with both sides having some strong arguments. A CCL should be tried as an adult, because:

• Even though they are treated as juveniles because of their age, they have increasingly been found to be involved in heinous crimes in recent years. For examples, Nirbhaya rape case, Lucknow PubG murder etc.
• It is arbitrary that a person aged 17 years and 364 days will be tried as a juvenile while an 18 year old will be tried as an adult for the same crime.
• It provides a measure of consistency for the severity of the crime and also gives due seriousness to the severity that they deserve.
• It gives a sense of justice to the victims whose fundamental and legal rights have been violated.

Notwithstanding the above arguments, a CCL should not be tried as an adult, because:

• No one is born a criminal. Research has proved that the conditions are provided by the environment in which children are reared that dispose them towards antisocial behaviour.
• It is the duty of the state and society to provide equal opportunities for development of all children during the period of their growth, which would reduce inequality and ensure social justice.
  • Their failure to do so leads to conditions that are associated with juvenile crimes, such as: poverty; drug abuse; anti-social peer group; easy availability of firearms; abusive parents; single-parent child; child sexual abuse; lack of education opportunities etc.
• There are issues in deciding the age at which a person becomes an adult. Boundary between juvenile and adult is no longer as clear, as children appear to grow up faster, with more exposure to adult ideas.
• In law, the concept of ‘guilty mind’ holds an important place where a person should be mentally capable and willing to cause the effect of an illegal act to be blamed for that criminal activity. As children do not understand the gravity of the crime they have committed, it is not right to punish them for those crimes.

Thus, it is not just a problem whose onus can be put on children but reflects the malaise and corruption in the society and systemic limitations of the state. Hence, punishing children stands on a slippery ground ethically. It is important that the focus should be shifted from punitive justice to reformative justice. Moreover, socio-economic justice as promised by the Constitution should be pursued earnestly; else we will only address the symptoms but not the causes.

Answer: Gender affirmation refers to an interpersonal process whereby a person receives social recognition and support for their gender identity and expression. The term has gained wider significance owing to its increased use to specifically describe the process whereby individuals affirm their gender through social, legal, and/or medical pathways. The present case relates to gender affirmation of sexual minorities as well as its intersection with fundamental rights of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
(a) The case presents various moral issues across different stakeholders as can be delineated below:

• Disparities experienced by sexual minorities: Gender affirmation emphasizes that disparities experienced by people are rooted in intersectional stigma and underscores the importance of increasing access to all forms of gender affirmation as a means of reducing these disparities.
• Identity Politics: Group identities help individuals have a more secure sense of self and social belonging. Moreover, group identity propels sexual minorities to counteract inherited negative stereotypes, defend more positive self-images, and develop respect for members of their groups. However, it is also argued that group identities constraint rather than liberate individuals. For instance, when people are identified by the groups they belong to, they are stereotyped and denied a certain individuality that comes from their own distinctive character and freedom to affiliate as they see fit.
• Morality vs Social Obligations: We have a social obligation to address people and refer to them in the way they prefer. At the same time, a breach of a social obligation isn’t a moral failure. People’s names, titles, and pronouns are part of their identity, and to deliberately address them in a way other than they wish is a gratuitous insult. These are matters of etiquette as well.
• Political correctness and the right to free speech: Even if mis-naming is a breach of social obligation, and even when it may also be a breach of moral duty, the free speech principle prohibits people from regulating speech that is legal.
• Speech Prosecution vs Deliberate hate: It is argued that ‘pronominal intransigence’ may lead to repression of speech and language and generate resentment amongst people. However, it is also our duty to create/promote an environment in which people especially sexual minorities can learn and grow, without being insulted or needlessly exposed to risk. Prohibiting deliberate mis-naming therefore needs to be looked into more seriously.

(b) In the aforementioned case, the controversy that emanated from a debate has taken viral proportions. As the Chairperson of the Committee to look into the matter and its peaceful resolution, I would take the following steps to resolve the issue:

• I would arrange for a detailed investigation into the matter, giving due importance to both sides of the argument.
• The parties to the conflict shall be called in separately, to register their grievances and offer arguments in support of the same.
• The main issue is one of deliberate misnaming and advocating the same. I would point this out to the panellist and urge him to come up with a clarification that sends this message across to the aggrieved party.
• As regarding the College Association, I would assure them that their right to protest is valid. However, I would request them to appreciate diversity of opinion and have a detailed discussion with the panellist before any confrontation.
• I would also produce the clarification offered by the panellist to the college association and the Media, to explain that his views were bonafide and not malicious.
• I would also request the college administration to issue a statement distancing itself from the personal views of the panellists. I would clarify that University and college campuses are platforms of debate and discussions and it is through the same that the society progresses. I would especially address the Sexual Minorities on campus and assure them that the authorities do not condone deliberate hate/violence against them and the authorities would ensure that university campus offers them a safe place.

The past few years have witnessed a landmark re-emergence of gender diversity in public life and a surge in mainstream media representation. Sexual minorities are standing on decades of activism and increasingly bringing themselves to workplaces, schools, and other public places. It is therefore necessary to ensure them of their rights. However, progress in the society hinges upon the fundamental rights of citizens to free speech and expression. There needs to be a careful balancing of the two for greater societal development and progress.

Answer: The above case-study reflects the situation often seen in mineral rich states, where political corruption has historically remained high and officers are threatened, and made scapegoats in order to save the culprits.
(A) Stakeholders involved in the given case:

• News agency: It highlighted the illegal activities in the district and did its duty as the fourth pillar of democracy by questioning wrongdoings in governance.
• Minister: He not only misused his power but is also trying to harm the career of an innocent employee.
• District Magistrate: Who is at the position of establishing facts and bringing culprit(s) to the book. He also has the responsibility to uphold the spirit of the civil service by being impartial in the probe. His job and promotional aspects are also at stake here.
• Innocent government employee: Having no knowledge of what is happening behind the curtains and chances of becoming scapegoats for someone else’s wrongs.
• Ruling political party: Intention of projecting a corruption free image just before the elections is morally wrong and is against the spirit of democracy for not taking actions.
• Voters of the Minister’s constituency: Since the Minister is confident of returning to power, it is the duty of voters now to vote for the same and uphold democratic values.

Ethical issues in the given case:

• The reputation of an innocent employee is at stake: With ministerial pressure on the District Magistrate to take action against an innocent junior officer, the fortitude of the DM is tested to protect his junior employees from powerful people.
• Illegal exploitation of natural resources: Natural resources, which belong to the public are being exploited by powerful people against public interest.
• Government’s image: Because only one Minister is engaged in corrupt acts, exposing such wrongdoings so close to the elections may cast doubt on the efforts of the rest of the Cabinet and tarnish the government’s image.
• Upholding Objectivity: It is the duty of the civil servant to uphold the fundamental values of public service (7 principles as suggested by the Nolan Committee). Establishing the facts of the case without tampering and presenting the real culprit ensures objectivity in the case.
• Public trust needs to be upheld: It is the duty of the DM to uphold the trust of citizens in the bureaucracy by protecting the natural resources and naming the actual culprits irrespective of whatever post, in this case a minister, he is holding.

(B) As District Magistrate, I have the following options: Going ahead with the probe and naming the Minister in report:

• Merits

✓ This will fulfil the welfare agenda and establish the rule of law, which abhors corruption. ✓ Protects the innocent government employee. ✓ Strong signal to the future Ministers as well, thus protecting the natural resources of the district.

• Demerits

✔ May tarnish the image of the ruling party and lead to a loss in upcoming elections. ✓ It can lead to the DM’s transfer or suspension on false charges.
Protecting the minister by naming a junior government employee:

• Merits

✔ It will be a win-win situation for both the DM and the Minister as the Minister will help the DM in his career growth if the party comes into power.

• Demerits

✔ Punishing the innocent is a violation of justice. ✓ It leads to an erosion of ethical standards in discharging public service for the personal gains of the DM. ✔ It misguides the public trust, which is the core driving factor for the bureaucracy.
Taking issue to the Chief Minister of the State:

• Merits

✓ This will ensure that the hierarchy is respected. ✓ This may lead to at least political action against the concerned Minister.

• Demerits

✓ The CM may put pressure on the DM to follow the Minister’s orders in order to protect the government’s image, which may help the return the party to power.
(b) Considering the available options, an option which involves naming the Minister in the report, will be the best course of action. The reason being:

• Objectivity cannot be compromised for personal gains: The Minister being the real culprit in the given case, it is unethical to punish some other person. Threats to personal career are common in the service, and if a civil servant tries to compromise, then he will not do justice to his duty.
• Courage of conviction: By showcasing courage of conviction, the DM in this case can set an example for the fellow employees, which encourages them to take the right action irrespective of the culprit’s position in the system.
• Protecting public property: Such actions against the concerned Minister will create fear in the minds of corrupt individuals and thus help in protecting natural resources, which are the property of the public.

Just as it generally happens in the case of exposing illegal mining in India, civil servants should uphold the ethical standards and should keep personal benefits at bay when it comes to discharging their duties.