In India, the fundamental rights for armed forces personnel differ significantly from those enjoyed by civilians due to the unique nature of their duties and the need for discipline and efficiency in the military. The Constitution of India provides these distinctions to maintain the integrity and efRead more
In India, the fundamental rights for armed forces personnel differ significantly from those enjoyed by civilians due to the unique nature of their duties and the need for discipline and efficiency in the military. The Constitution of India provides these distinctions to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the armed forces.
For instance, Article 33 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to restrict or abrogate the fundamental rights of members of the armed forces to ensure proper discharge of their duties and maintain discipline. This means that rights such as freedom of speech, association, and assembly can be curtailed. A soldier, unlike a civilian, cannot join a political party or participate in a protest march, as it might compromise military discipline and cohesion.
A practical example of this is the restriction on freedom of speech and expression. Armed forces personnel are prohibited from openly criticizing government policies or actions, which is permissible for civilians. This restriction ensures that the armed forces remain apolitical and focused on national security.
Similarly, the right to form associations or unions is limited for military personnel. This prevents the formation of groups that could disrupt the chain of command and operational effectiveness, essential for the swift and decisive actions required in military operations.
These restrictions highlight the balance between safeguarding individual rights and ensuring the collective security and operational readiness of the nation’s armed forces, showcasing the unique demands placed on those who serve in uniform.
See less
The "Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker" principle might have been designed to promote impartiality but may also prove a boon and a bane to efficient parliamentary business management in India. Advantages: It would highly increase the impartiality of the Speaker because there would be no chance of eveRead more
The “Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker” principle might have been designed to promote impartiality but may also prove a boon and a bane to efficient parliamentary business management in India.
Advantages:
It would highly increase the impartiality of the Speaker because there would be no chance of ever returning to active party politics and, hence, any perceived or actual biases that may result from future political ambitions.
Strengthen Democratic Norms: This convention would strengthen the non-partisan character of the office of the Speaker, hence improving the democratic process and further instilling confidence in the institution among the people.
Reduced Impact of Political Pressure: Since there is no hope of political benefits in the future, the Speaker may not be under so much pressure to make political decisions but rather make impartial ones.
It may be considered a limitation of the political career of someone holding the office of Speaker, thereby discouraging men and women of good standing from holding such an office.
-Potential Not to Join Party After Term Has Been Completed: The potential not to join their party once their term has been served would reduce the incentive for highly qualified people to seek the position of Speaker.
Detachment from Political Realities: A Speaker permanently disconnected in active politics may become disoriented from the dynamic political scenario and thus would not be able to efficiently preside over the business of parliament and understand the nuances of contemporary political oratory.
Constitutional Issues: It may even attract constitutional questions because it can breach one’s right to associate oneself or oneself with political activity.
Alternative approaches to the “Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker” principle can be utilized to neutralize the office of the Speaker as follows:
-Strengthening the existing norms and conventions: It could be in focusing on strengthening existing norms and conventions governing the office of the Speaker to be directed toward non-partisanship and impartiality.
-Public awareness of the importance of the Speaker’s neutrality as well as to the need of maintaining the office dignity.
See less-Policies on periodical and clear review of conduct of the Speaker so that judgment is perceived not to be arbitrary and concerns will be addressed.