Indian Polity

Model Answer

Analysis of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act on Welfare Redefinition in India

Positive Impacts:

1. Promoting Inclusive Development: The amendment widens welfare measures to include economically weaker sections, fostering inclusive growth (Source: Indian Constitution).
2. Addressing Economic Inequalities: It transitions reservations beyond caste, tackling economic disparities effectively (Source: Indian Judiciary).
3. Emerging Criteria: Introducing socio-economic factors like poverty and regional backwardness broadens discussions on deprivation (Source: Legal Proceedings).
4. Elevating the Poor in General Category: EWS reservations offer economic justice and expand affirmative action perspectives (Source: Legal Precedents).
5. Fulfilling Constitutional Mandate: Aligns with Article 46, emphasizing weaker section upliftment (Source: Indian Constitution).

Concerns:

1. Social Upliftment vs. Poverty Alleviation: Reservations might overlook poverty alleviation alternatives (Source: Social Policy Experts).
2. Equality Violation: Excluding OBCs and SC/STs challenges equal opportunity principles (Source: Social Justice Observers).
3. Income Criteria Issues: The Rs. 8 lakh annual income limit raises concerns over inclusivity (Source: Socio-Economic Analysts).
4. Artificial Criteria: Solely economic grounds for discrimination fail to address caste-based biases (Source: Academic Discourse).

In redefining welfare, precise targeting and evolving frameworks are vital for effectively aiding the most deserving. Continuous refinement is imperative to ensure the policy’s inclusivity and relevance in combating India’s persistent challenges of deprivation and discrimination.

Model Answer

Challenges in Election Funding in India

Election funding in India is governed by various laws like the Representatives of People Act (1951) and the Income Tax Act (1961), but it faces several issues:

1. Lack of Transparency: Political parties are not required to disclose the sources of their funds. Despite a ruling from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in 2013, parties continue to evade transparency laws by claiming autonomy (Source: ADR Report).
2. Unregulated Party Expenditure: While there are limits on candidate expenditures, political parties themselves face no such cap, leading to disproportionate spending and influence during elections.
3. Electoral Bonds: Electoral bonds allow anonymous donations, strengthening the connection between corporate entities and political parties, raising concerns over transparency and accountability.
4. Uneven Playing Field: Parties with access to more financial resources can dominate elections, often using money and muscle power, undermining fairness in elections.

Measures to Address Election Funding Challenges

1. Transparent Funding: Implementing strict rules to cap anonymous donations and ensuring full disclosure of donors’ details to be publicly available (Source: ADR Report).
2. RTI Compliance for Political Parties: The Central Information Commission’s 2013 ruling should be enforced, making political parties public authorities under the RTI Act for better accountability.
3. State Funding of Elections: The 1999 Law Commission recommended state funding for elections to reduce reliance on private donations, thus reducing corruption and undue influence.
4. Electoral Reforms: Introducing caps on corporate donations, regulating political party operations, and ensuring the auditing of party accounts by independent auditors are crucial steps.
5. Strengthening Election Commission’s Role: The Election Commission should have more powers to penalize or de-recognize non-compliant political parties, ensuring fairer practices.

By addressing these issues, election funding can be made more transparent and equitable.

Model Answers

Introduction: Separation of Powers in India

The doctrine of separation of powers is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that each branch of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—operates independently without infringing upon the functions of the others. Articles 122, 121, and 212 provide mechanisms to maintain this separation between the Legislature and Judiciary, with the aim to prevent judicial overreach.

Judicial Activism and Its Impact

Despite these constitutional provisions, judicial activism in India has often blurred the lines between the roles of the Legislature and the Judiciary. Judicial activism refers to instances where the judiciary intervenes in matters traditionally within the domain of the legislature, arguing that the courts have a role in addressing issues of public concern.

Public Interest Litigations (PILs)

Judicial activism in the form of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has seen the judiciary stepping into legislative roles. For example, in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down sexual harassment guidelines for workplaces, assuming a legislative function until Parliament passed a law. This was viewed as the judiciary encroaching upon the legislative domain.

Law-making and Judicial Review

Another example of judicial activism is the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case, where the Court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, invoking the “basic structure” doctrine. Similarly, in striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, the Supreme Court intervened in a matter that could be considered the domain of the legislature.

Conclusion: Judicial Overreach and the Thin Line

While judicial activism can play a crucial role in enforcing constitutional principles and protecting citizens’ rights, it raises concerns about judicial overreach when the judiciary impinges upon legislative powers. Therefore, maintaining a balance is essential for upholding the principle of separation of powers in India.

Sources:

• Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)
• Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
• NJAC Case (2015)

Model Answers

Comparison of Judicial Systems: India, USA, and UK

The judicial systems of India, the USA, and the UK, though rooted in democratic principles, differ in structure, powers, and scope of authority.

India vs. USA

In both India and the USA, the Constitution is the supreme law, and the judiciary has the power of judicial review. However, the scope of judicial review is broader in the USA, allowing its judiciary to review both federal and state laws extensively. India’s judicial review is more limited, focused primarily on constitutional matters and ensuring laws are in alignment with the Constitution.

India operates under the “procedure established by law,” whereas the USA follows “due process of law,” which demands fairness in legal procedures. The Indian Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction mainly in federal matters, while the US Supreme Court has broader jurisdiction, including state and federal cases. Additionally, India’s Supreme Court has the discretion to grant Special Leave to Appeal (Article 136), which the U.S. system does not offer. India also has an advisory jurisdiction (Article 143), absent in the U.S. system (Source: Indian Constitution).

India vs. UK

India’s judicial system is unified, with the Supreme Court overseeing both central and state matters. In contrast, the UK has separate legal systems for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, with the UK Supreme Court acting as the final appellate body. India practices a blend of judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the UK operates on parliamentary supremacy, limiting judicial review of parliamentary acts. India has explicit provisions for judicial review in its Constitution, unlike the UK, where judicial review depends on the courts’ discretion (Source: UK Constitution).

Model Answers

Importance of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 in Ensuring the Effective Functioning of Indian Democracy

The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 plays a pivotal role in ensuring the effective functioning of Indian democracy by providing a legal framework for the smooth and fair conduct of elections. It complements the constitutional provisions under Article 327, which empowers Parliament to regulate elections and electoral processes.

Decriminalization of Politics

One of the key provisions of the RPA, 1951, is its role in decriminalizing Indian politics. The Act establishes qualifications and disqualifications for candidates, barring individuals convicted of crimes like bribery or promoting religious disharmony from contesting elections. This reduces the entry of criminals into the political system and fosters cleaner governance (Source: RPA, 1951).

Transparency and Accountability

The Act mandates candidates to maintain separate accounts of election expenditures under Section 77, ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. This curbs the misuse of power and ensures fair election practices (Source: RPA, 1951).

Strengthening Participatory Democracy

The RPA, 1951 also ensures the right to vote for all eligible citizens, fostering greater participation in the democratic process. It guarantees provisions for special voting procedures for certain groups, encouraging active citizen engagement (Source: RPA, 1951).

Dispute Redressal Mechanism

The Act establishes a framework for resolving election-related disputes, empowering High Courts to address election petitions, thus ensuring fair adjudication of electoral issues (Source: RPA, 1951).

Overall, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, upholds the integrity of the electoral process, ensuring a more robust and transparent democracy in India.