Model Answer

Parliamentary Privileges

Parliamentary privileges are special rights and immunities granted to members of Parliament, enabling them to perform their duties effectively. These privileges extend to individuals participating in parliamentary proceedings, such as the Attorney General and Ministers. Breaches of these privileges are punishable under parliamentary law, as outlined in Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures.

Types of Parliamentary Privileges

1. Collective Privileges:
   • Exclude non-members from proceedings and conduct secret sessions.
   • Prohibit press reporting on secret sittings.
   • Only Parliament can regulate its own proceedings, and courts cannot question parliamentary procedures.
2. Individual Privileges:
   • Protection from arrest in civil cases during sessions and a 40-day period before and after.
   • Immunity from legal proceedings for statements made within Parliament.
   • Exemption from court appearances while Parliament is in session.

Need for Codification

Codifying parliamentary privileges is essential to address their ambiguity and potential misuse. Article 105(3) implies the need for a clear legal framework, as the privileges are often interpreted based on outdated House of Commons practices. Other democracies, like Australia and Canada, have codified similar privileges to enhance accountability.

Misuse of these privileges, such as in the 1998 Supreme Court case of P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. CBI, highlights the risk of evading accountability and undermining democratic values. Therefore, establishing clear guidelines can help protect citizens’ rights while ensuring lawmakers are held to ethical standards.

In conclusion, the codification of parliamentary privileges is vital for clarity and accountability, ensuring they serve their intended purpose without infringing on democratic principles.

Model Answer

Introduction

The role of Governors in withholding assent to bills passed by state assemblies has been a contentious issue, with several recent instances highlighting delays in granting assent. The discretion afforded to Governors under the Indian Constitution has raised concerns about its potential for misuse, leading to questions about whether a prescribed time limit should be imposed for Governors to either approve or reject bills.

Instances of Governors Delaying Assent to State Assembly Bills

1. Tamil Nadu NEET Exemption Bill (2023): The Governor withheld assent to this bill for over a year, prompting concerns about political interference and undermining the autonomy of the state government.
2. Kerala Lokayukta Amendment Bill (2022): The Governor refused to assent to this bill, citing concerns about its constitutionality and its impact on the functioning of the anti-corruption watchdog.

Constitutional Veto Powers of the Governor

1. Article 200: This provision grants Governors the power to withhold assent, reserve the bill for the President, or grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. It offers a significant degree of discretion, which can be exercised based on the Governor’s interpretation of the bill.
2. Article 201: If a bill is presented again after being returned by the Governor, the Governor must give assent if it is passed once more by the state legislature.

Should There Be a Specified Time Limit for Governors to Accept/Reject Bills?

Yes:

1. Promotes Accountability: A time limit ensures Governors act promptly and transparently, preventing arbitrary delays or political interference.
2. Protects Legislative Autonomy: A clear timeframe for decision-making would safeguard state legislatures’ autonomy by ensuring timely responses.
3. Reduces Uncertainty: Setting a deadline for assent would reduce ambiguity in the legislative process.
4. Strengthens Federalism: Time limits can foster a more balanced and functional relationship between state and central governments.
5. Aligns with Democratic Principles: A timely decision from the Governor supports democratic processes by allowing elected representatives to execute their duties without unnecessary delays. The Supreme Court’s Nabam Rebia judgment (2016) emphasized that the Governor’s discretion under Article 163 is not arbitrary.

No:

1. Impeded Deliberation: A time limit might hinder thorough analysis, leading to rushed decisions that could overlook important issues.
2. Limited Need: Instances of delay are relatively rare, and imposing a blanket time limit may not be necessary.
3. Potential for Judicial Intervention: Setting time limits could invite legal challenges, further complicating the legislative process.
4. Discretion by Design: Governors’ discretionary powers are crucial for maintaining federal balance and democratic governance.
5. Respecting the President’s Role: Constitutional provisions provide greater powers to the Centre and the President, which might still override a Governor’s decision.

Conclusion

While the imposition of time limits could streamline the legislative process and enhance the autonomy of state assemblies, the current system respects the Governor’s role in ensuring constitutional stability. As the Rajamannar Committee suggests, Governors should act as constitutional heads of state rather than as agents of the Centre, and any reforms, including time limits, would require constitutional amendments. Until such reforms are considered, maintaining a balance between autonomy and federal integrity remains essential.

Model Answer

Issues Associated with Census-Based Delimitation of Lok Sabha Constituencies

Census-based delimitation aims to redraw the boundaries of Lok Sabha constituencies to ensure nearly equal voter representation. However, this approach raises several concerns:

1. Disincentivizing Population Control

Northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh have higher population growth rates (12-15% every decade), while southern states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have slower growth rates (6-10%). This disparity leads to a skewed representation, where higher-population states, primarily in the north, would gain more seats, further entrenching their political power. This dynamic reduces the incentive for southern states to control population growth, as they may lose out on seat allocations in future redistributions.

2. Imbalance in Representation

The scheduled delimitation after 2026 is expected to cause a significant redistribution of seats, with northern states likely to gain over 30 seats at the expense of southern states. For example, states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh may lose approximately 24 seats. This redistribution could result in a regional imbalance, weakening the political voice of the southern states in the national legislature.

3. Erosion of Regional Parties’ Influence

The seat redistribution will disproportionately affect the southern states, potentially diminishing the influence of regional parties, which are stronger in these areas. The increased dominance of northern political parties could marginalize regional interests, skewing the political landscape in favor of larger, more populous states.

4. Impact on Reserved Seats for SC/STs

The process of delimitation also influences the allocation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST). Changes in constituency boundaries could alter the representation of marginalized communities, potentially diluting their political presence in Parliament.

Suggested Solutions

• Fixed Proportionality: Establishing fixed proportionality before any delimitation can help balance the political representation between northern and southern states.
• Deviation for Special Circumstances: Special consideration should be given to specific populations, such as those in hilly or remote areas, ensuring their adequate representation.
• Increasing the Total Number of Seats: An increase in the total number of Lok Sabha seats would prevent any state from losing its current seat allocation, promoting a more equitable representation.

In conclusion, while census-based delimitation aims for equal voter representation, it risks amplifying regional imbalances and diminishing the power of certain states and communities. A more nuanced approach is needed to ensure fair and inclusive representation.