Current Affairs

Cabinet nod for internal reservation, slices SC quota into three categories

Context:

In a historic decision that is expected to bring a closure to the more-than-three-decades-old struggle for internal reservation in Karnataka, the State Cabinet approved a reservation matrix slicing the 17% reservation for Scheduled Castes with 6% each to Dalit Right (Holeyas) and Dalit Left (Madigas) groups and 5% to Lambani, Korama, Koracha and Bhovis (touchable castes), along with 59 microscopic communities.

• The decision comes just over a year after the Supreme Court allowed internal reservation to be provided among Scheduled Castes.
• According to Government sources an ordinance with this regard will be promulgated after the Monsoon session, and prioritisation of categories will be spelt out.
• However, in what is seen as succumbing to Dalit right and touchable castes, the State Cabinet decided to drop 1% reservation to microscopic communities and 1% reservation given to Adi Karnataka, Adi Dravida and Adi Andhra, as recommended by the one-man commission headed by retired judge H.N. Nagamohan Das.
• The commission, which submitted its report to the government on August 4, had recommended 5% reservation to Dalit Right, 6% to Dalit Left and 4% to touchable castes.

‘Bill for joint polls gives EC a free hand’

Context:

The proposed legislation for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies confers “unfettered discretion” to the Election Commission, former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna told a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).

• The committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary is reviewing the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, commonly called the one nation, one election Bill.
• Justice Khanna is the fifth former Chief Justice of India to underline this issue with the proposed legislation. Before him, Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Jagdish Singh Kehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also had pointed out various legal infirmities in the proposed legislation.
• The committee had a three-hour meeting where the members queried Justice Khanna on all aspects of the legislation.
• The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, proposes to insert Article 82A as well as clauses to Articles 83 and 172 of the Constitution.
• Basic Structure: Justice Khanna said Clause 5 of the proposed Article 82A “confers unfettered discretion” to the Election Commission to decide when the election to a Legislative Assembly cannot be conducted along with the Lok Sabha election. “This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution,” he noted in his written submission, which he also explained at meeting.
• Federal Structure: He also articulated that this clause gives powers to the EC and the government beyond what was envisaged in the Article 356 of the Constitution. “Postponement of elections by the Election Commission may result in indirect President’s Rule – in other words the Union Government taking over the reins of the State Government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution,” Justice Khanna noted.
• Justice Khanna said the Bill does not meet the basic objective of reducing policy paralysis induced by the differing election cycles in various States and the Lok Sabha. He was answering questions by the members. As per sources, he argued that the Model Code of Conduct will come into play whenever there are elections to the State Legislative Assemblies on premature dissolution, therefore it defeats the purpose for which the legislation has been mooted.
• Mr. Chaudhary, the panel chairperson, told that the committee will now be meeting economists to evaluate the financial implications of the proposed legislation. The government has argued that the legislation will significantly reduce expenditure.

States question Centre’s move seeking SC opinion to overrule ‘binding’ order

Context:

Two States, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, are asking whether the Centre, through the rare Presidential Reference mechanism, is egging the Supreme Court on to give an “opinion” which would overrule its own “binding” judgment.

• The States argue the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case has comprehensively answered constitutional questions about the powers and discretion of the President and State Governors while approving, withholding or reserving assent to proposed State laws.
• On April 8, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala fixed three-month timelines for the President and the Governors to deal with State Bills under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
• The timelines were not an invention of the Supreme Court, something pulled out of thin air. They were based on twin Office Memorandums issued by the Home Ministry in February 2016 highlighting the problem of “undue delay” caused by the President and Governors in taking a final decision on State Bills. The States highlighted the fact that the Union government has not assailed the April 8 judgment in a review or a curative petition. This would necessarily mean the Centre has accepted the timelines. If so, what is the need for a Reference now, they ask.
• The Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai have agreed to give the two States first audience to argue the maintainability of the Presidential Reference on August 19.
• A Reference made by the President to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution was contingent on the fact that ‘a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise’ and hence was not res integra (unsettled law). The States have argued that 11 of the 14 questions raised by the President in the reference have already been answered in the April 8 judgment.
• Kerala and Tamil Nadu point out that the questions referred to the Supreme Court ex facie show that no question of law or fact had arisen, or was likely to arise. “As the very questions stand conclusively and determinatively answered by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment,” they point out.
• The States have urged the court to reject the Reference as a gambit by the Centre to overrule a judgment already delivered. They want the Reference to be returned unanswered. Besides, the two States have asked how an opinion of the court on a Presidential Reference could overrule a binding judgment. A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. The State of Gujarat has held that a report made to the President in a reference was entitled to “great weight”, but could not supplant a judgment.
• The Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment was ‘law’ declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141, and binding upon the Council of Ministers. “An opinion rendered by the current Constitution Bench in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 cannot supplant or supersede or override such law, and being only an opinion, and not being law under Article 141, would not bind the President,” the States have argued.
• Incidentally, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have criticised the Reference for “suppressing” the very existence of the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment of April 8. This alone, they say, was ground enough for the Constitution Bench of the court to reject the Reference.

Governor can act independently: A-G

Context:

Attorney-General R. Venkataramani submitted before a five-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai that a Governor’s power to withhold assent to a proposed State legislation is an act independent of the Council of Ministers.

• He said a Governor, in such cases, acts outside the aid and advice of the Council, and even contrary to the mandate of the House/Council of Ministers. “A power to withhold necessarily involves personal independent judgment, guided by settled principles of laws,” he said.
• He referred to the post-1970s Constitutional Amendments which had modified the President’s duties but left the Governor’s role largely untouched. “The 42nd Amendment made Article 74(1) explicit that the President ‘shall… act in accordance with’ the Cabinet advice. But Article 163 (Governors) was not amended to match Article 74,” he said.
• He said that a Governor cannot be expected to be bound by the advice of the House if the proposed State law was found to be unconstitutional.

Home Minister to introduce 3 Bills for removal of PM, CMs, Ministers held on serious criminal charges

Context:

Union Home Minister Amit Shah is likely to introduce three Bills in the Lok Sabha to provide legal framework for removal of the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers and Ministers in States and Union Territories who are “arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges”.

• The Bills say that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Ministers of States and Union Territories who are arrested and detained in custody for 30 consecutive days on allegation of committing an offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more, shall be removed from office by the 31st day by the President, Chief Minister (in case of State Ministers), Governor (for Chief Ministers) and Lieutenant-Governor (for Chief Minister in Union Territories).
• The Bills say that they could be subsequently reappointed on release from custody.
• Mr. Shah wrote to the Lok Sabha office informing that the following three Bills be passed in the ongoing session — the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
• The statement of objects and reasons of the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, circulated among Lok Sabha members, said “the elected representatives represent hopes and aspirations of the people of India.
• It is expected that they rise above political interests and act only in the public interest and for the welfare of people.
• It is expected that the character and conduct of Ministers holding the office should be beyond any ray of suspicion.”
• It said that a Minister, who is facing allegation of serious criminal offences, arrested and detained in custody, may thwart or hinder the canons of constitutional morality and principles of good governance and eventually diminish the constitutional trust reposed by people in him.
• “There is, however, no provision under the Constitution for removal of a Minister who is arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges. In view of the above, there is a need to amend Articles 75, 164 and 239AA of the Constitution, for providing legal framework for removal of the Prime Minister or a Minister in the Union Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister or a Minister in the Council of Ministers of States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi in such cases,” it said.
• The other two Bills define the process of removal of Chief Minister, Ministers in the Union Territory of Puducherry and J&K.

‘India eyes 10% global green hydrogen demand’

Context:

India aspires to capture 10% of the global demand for green hydrogen, which is expected to exceed 100 MMT by 2030, Minister of State for New and Renewable Energy said. The goal is to make India a major producer of green hydrogen and a global hub for its export.

• This would need India to continue innovating to ‘strengthen certification and trading mechanism(s), ensure offtake certainty and unlock green finance via viability gap funding, green bonds and multilateral bank support.”