Model Answer

Introduction

The practice of “Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker” implies that the Speaker should not return to active party politics even after their term ends. This approach aims to impart objectivity and neutrality to the office of the Speaker, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of parliamentary proceedings.

Potential Benefits

1. Impartiality: Adopting this practice would reinforce the impartiality of the Speaker, as they would not be beholden to any political party during or after their term. This could lead to fairer decision-making and a more balanced approach to managing parliamentary debates.
2. Strengthening Democracy: Ensuring the neutrality of the Speaker would contribute to a healthier democratic process by promoting fair debate and discussion in the house. A non-partisan Speaker can facilitate a more inclusive environment for all political parties.
3. Enhancing Credibility: The perception of the Speaker as an unbiased figure would enhance the credibility of the office and boost public trust in the parliamentary process. This trust is essential for the effective functioning of democracy.

Potential Implications

1. Restriction of Political Career: The practice could be seen as a limitation on the political career of the individual serving as the Speaker, as they would not be able to return to active politics after their term. This might deter experienced politicians from accepting the role.
2. Reduced Incentive for Qualified Candidates: The prospect of not being able to rejoin their party after their term might discourage qualified individuals from taking up the position of the Speaker, potentially leading to a lack of experienced leadership in this critical role.
3. Detachment from Political Realities: A Speaker permanently detached from active politics might lose touch with the evolving political landscape, which could hinder their ability to effectively manage parliamentary proceedings and respond to the needs of the members.
4. Constitutional Challenges: Implementing such a practice might face constitutional challenges, as it could be perceived as an infringement on the individual’s right to participate in political activities, raising questions about the balance between impartiality and political freedom.

Conclusion

Balancing the need for impartiality with the individual’s right to engage in political activities and the practical realities of the political landscape is crucial for ensuring the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India. An alternative approach could be to focus on strengthening the existing norms and conventions that govern the office of the Speaker, rather than imposing a permanent restriction on their political career.

Model Answer

Introduction

India’s federal structure features a bicameral legislature in several states, comprising an Upper House known as the Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) and a Lower House (Legislative Assembly). Currently, states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh have Legislative Councils, established under specific constitutional provisions.

Constitutional Provisions

Establishment of Legislative Councils

• Article 169: This article empowers Parliament to create or abolish Legislative Councils in states. A resolution must be passed by a majority of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly, with not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Composition and Membership

• Article 171: The composition of the Legislative Council is defined, stating that it should not exceed one-third of the Legislative Assembly’s total members and must have a minimum of 40 members. Members are elected through various methods, including:
  • Indirect elections by the Legislative Assembly.
  • Elections by local authority electorates, graduates, and teachers, as well as nominations by the Governor.

Working of Legislative Councils

• Legislative Councils review and scrutinize bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. However, their powers are limited compared to the Assembly. They can recommend amendments and delay bills but cannot permanently block them. If a bill is not passed within a certain period, the Legislative Assembly can reintroduce it, deeming it passed by both Houses.
• Notably, Legislative Councils cannot initiate or reject Money Bills; they can only suggest amendments.

Current Status and Illustrations

As of now, six states in India maintain Legislative Councils: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh. A recent example is the abolition of the Legislative Council in Jammu and Kashmir when the state was reorganized into a Union Territory in 2019.

The necessity and relevance of Legislative Councils continue to spark debate. Proponents argue they provide checks on legislation and representation for diverse groups, while critics contend they are a financial burden and often hinder legislative efficiency.

Conclusion

The discussion around Legislative Councils underscores the complexities of balancing diverse interests and effective governance within India’s federal framework, reflecting ongoing challenges in legislative processes.

Model Answer

Introduction

Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), which include Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, were established to enhance governance in urban areas through the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992. Despite this, states in India appear hesitant to empower ULBs functionally and financially.

Reluctance to Empower ULBs Functionally

1. Decentralization Challenges

Despite the constitutional provisions, many states are reluctant to delegate substantial powers to ULBs, undermining grassroots democracy. This is evident in various states where local governance remains heavily centralized.

2. Manpower Shortages

ULBs often lack skilled personnel, which hampers their operational effectiveness. For instance, smaller cities face a shortage of qualified professionals to handle complex urban planning tasks, resulting in mismanagement.

3. Bureaucratic Control

In several states, bureaucratic oversight stifles local initiative. For example, in Lucknow, bureaucrat-led committees frequently override decisions made by ULBs, leading to ineffective governance.

4. Limited Role in City Planning

Although ULBs are intended to lead city planning, state agencies often take precedence. In Bengaluru, crucial planning initiatives are frequently conducted by state bodies, sidelining municipal corporations.

5. Lack of Autonomy in Service Delivery

Key services like water supply and waste management are often controlled by state governments. In Delhi, overlapping authorities have led to fragmented service delivery, adversely affecting urban management.

Reluctance to Empower ULBs Financially

1. Dependence on Grants

Most ULBs rely heavily on state and central grants, experiencing financial challenges when these funds are delayed. This reliance limits their operational flexibility

2. Financial Mismanagement

Many ULBs face allegations of financial irregularities. The recent corruption case in the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (2022) highlights this issue.

3. Lack of State Finance Commissions

Few states have established State Finance Commissions to ensure equitable financial distribution, resulting in dysfunctional financial management for ULBs.

4. Property Tax Control

States often hesitate to empower ULBs over property tax reforms, limiting their financial autonomy. For instance, in Karnataka, ULBs have restricted authority in setting property tax rates.

5. Limited Access to Bond Markets

While some ULBs, like Pune, have successfully raised funds through bond markets, many states do not encourage this financial avenue, restricting capital acquisition for development.

6. User Charges and PPP Reluctance

States are often reluctant to allow ULBs to adjust user charges, negatively impacting their revenue. Additionally, there is a broader hesitance to adopt Public-Private Partnerships for urban projects, inhibiting innovative financial solutions.

Conclusion

The vision of decentralized urban governance, as outlined in the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, remains unfulfilled due to states’ reluctance to fully empower ULBs. Addressing these issues is essential for creating self-reliant and efficient urban local bodies, paving the way for sustainable urban development in India.