Quasi-Judicial Bodies

This article deals with ‘Quasi-Judicial Bodies.’ This is part of our series on ‘Governance’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

What is Quasi Judicial Body

Emergence of Quasi Judicial Bodies

Quasi Judicial Action vs Administrative Action

Examples of Quasi Judicial Bodies

More about specific Quasi-Judicial Bodies

1 .National Human Rights Commissions

2 . Lok Adalats

3. Central Information Commissions

4. Central Vigilance Commission

5. Central Administrative Tribunals

Scheduled Areas

Constitutional Debate

• There  was  fierce  debate  regarding  the  provisions  of  the  5th  &  6th  Schedule  in  the  Constitutional Assembly. 
  • Advocates of Assimilation argued – Creation of Autonomous  Districts  and  Regional  Councils  will lead  to  their disassociation  from  the  rest of  the country & centre-state relationship  should  not  be  altered  for  the  Tribal  and  Scheduled  Areas. 
  • Some were also  in  the  favour  of  complete  isolation  of  the  tribals.
• However,  the  provisions  of  the  fifth  and  sixth schedule aim  at  gradual  integration  of the tribal  into  the mainstream  with their own  pace  and  wish.  This  was further stamped when Nehru laid down the Policy of Panchsheel for Tribals. 

Schedule 5	Administration and Control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any  states except four states –Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram(AMTM)
Schedule 6	Administrations of Tribal Areas in four states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram (we will discuss about 6th Schedule in next article. For more, Click here)

Introduction

• Interests of Schedule Tribes outside the North East are protected by Fifth Schedule
• 5th Schedule is concerned with administration of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any  states except four states –Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram (AMTM) Scheduled area has more than 50 percent tribal population.

Why this category was created?

• Scheduled Areas need to be treated differently from other areas in country because they are inhabited by aboriginal who are socially and economically backward and special efforts are needed to  improve their condition.

Features of Schedule 5

• President is empowered to declare an area to be Scheduled Area 
• Executive Power of state extend to Scheduled Area but Governor has special responsibility 
• Each State having Scheduled Area has to establish Tribal Advisory Council (TAC) to advise on welfare and advancement of Scheduled Tribes consisting of not more than 20 members,  3/4 of whom must be Tribal Representatives in State  Legislative assembly (Prelims  : TAC is constitutional body)
• State having ST population but not SA can also constitute TAC if President so desire
• Governor can direct that particular act of Parliament or State Legislature is not applicable there or applicable with certain modifications and exceptions + Can make regulations for peace and good governance in consultation with TAC  after getting assent of President which include transfer of land among members, regulate business of money lending etc
• Central Government also give Special Financial Assistance to States under Article  275 for implementation of schemes for development of STs
• President  should appoint a Commission to Report on Administration of these areas at any time but compulsorily after 10 years. Two commissions till date

1960	UN Dhebar Commission
2002	Dilip Singh Bhuria Commission

• Amendment of Schedule 5 : Parliament may from time to time by law (ie Simple Majority) amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any of provision of this schedule . No such law shall be deemed to be Amendment under Article 368

Analysis – Demand of the areas under 5th Schedule to Transfer to 6th Schedule

1. Fifth  Schedule  applies  to  an  overwhelming  majority  of  India’s  tribes  in  9  States.  But,  Fifth Schedule  has  failed  to  create desired  impact  because  it  has  never  been  applied  the way  it should have been. 
2. 5th Schedule has limited  autonomy provisions  compared to 6th  Schedule.
3. Issues with TAC:
   • In fifth schedule, tribal advisory council have only advisory powers . Unlike  the autonomous district councils (ADCs), which have legislative and financial powers .
   • No clarity on the composition of TAC, especially the remaining one-fourth of the membership
   • Sometimes cabinet ministers from tribal communities are also appointed as members, which is a conflict of interest because the person heading the state cabinet also chairs the TAC.
4. ADCs have considerable autonomy
   • They receive funds from consolidated fund of  India to finance schemes for development, health, education, roads
   • Have real powers to make laws

Otherwise  the  implementation  of  PESA  needs  to  be  done  earnestly.  It  has  been  suffering  from  severely  poor implementation,  with  states  showing  disdain  towards  the  Act.  

States with Schedule 5 Areas

Rajasthan	Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat	Odisha
Madhya Pradesh	Jharkhand
Maharashtra	Himachal Pradesh
Chhattisgarh

2018 : Area under Schedule 5 has been extended in Rajasthan.  Scheduled Tribes residing in Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh, and partial areas of Udaipur, Rajsamand, Chittorgarh, Pali and Sirohi districts of Rajasthan will get benefits of protective measures available under the Fifth Schedule

Special case of Delhi

Present  Status Autonomy  of  Delhi

• Constitutionally,  Delhi  is  a  Union  Territory (UT) (since  1991) with  a legislature.    
• Generally all the budgets of UT’s without Legislature is a part of Home Ministry Budget . Hence,  their financial powers are limited . But,  Delhi  has  unlimited Financial  Powers  as  long as  it  is  generating  its  own resources.     

69th Constitutional Amendment , 1991

69th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1991 provided following provisions

• Administrator was designated as Lt. Governor
• Strength of Legislative Assembly Fixed at 70 & Strength of council of Ministers to 7 (10%)
• Chief Minister is to be appointed by President(not Lt. Governor) & other ministers by President on advice of Chief Minister
• Lt. Governor   can promulgate ordinance during recess of Assembly but with prior permission of President

Restrictions  on  power  and  authority

• At  present, Delhi  Assembly,  like  other  State  Assemblies,  has  power  to make  laws on all subjects  except  on  3 (PPL) ie:
  1. Public  order
  2. Police  
  3. Land  
• Legislations  on  matters  related  to  Municipal  Governance  require the  consent  of  Lt Governor,  Union government  and  President  .  So,  the  Municipal  Corporation  is  not  under  the  full  control  of the  Delhi  government.  

Debate – Statehood for Delhi

2020	During Delhi elections, this was the major issue raised by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)
June 2018	Delhi Legislature passed resolution to make Delhi a Full State
2016	Proposal was to make Delhi a state with certain safeguards 1. Keep NDMC (Lutyens and Embassies) under Union Government 2. Appoint Governor instead of Lt Governor 3. Special Cadre of Officers for Delhi

Arguments for  statehood to Delhi

1. Due to present status , Delhi  Development  Authority  (DDA),  Police  and  Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) are not under Delhi Government. 
2. Multiplicity of Governance leading to lack of accountability : With such an overlap of responsibilities, Citizens cant hold governments accountable
   • Union Government : Lt Governor, Police, DDA
   • State Government : Water, Electricity, Transport, Health, Education etc
   • Local Government (MCD) : Birth Death Registration, Sanitation etc
3. Delhi  has population of  2 crore  (more  than  10  full-fledged states), but democratic aspirations of the people of Delhi cant be met without being granted Statehood
4. To update infrastructure, Delhi   needs  to  take  recourse  to  market  borrowing  but,  not  being  a state,  cannot  do  so.  
5. Evolution Process must reach conclusion : Union Territories were created with the idea  to provide a transitional status to become states. With time, Goa, Manipur, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura have been granted statehood.

Arguments against  full  statehood (with  way forward)

1. The capital region has diplomatic areas and other institutions of national interests. 
2. It  is  not possible  for  the  central  government  to  come  under  a  state  government’s administrative  jurisdiction.
3. Constituent Assembly Debates : This issue was raised for the first time by Pattabhi Sitaramayya in 1947 in the Constituent Assembly. But B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru and others opposed it.
4. To  ensure  police  accountability  to  Delhi,  statehood  may  not  be  necessary.  An Oversight  Committee  consisting  of  Delhi  CM and Union Minister  can  address  local  specific  problems.  
5. Macro Planning  for  the  National  Capital  requires  long-term  thinking  and  sound technical  advice,  which  the Ministry  of  Urban  Development  is  far  better equipped  to  provide.  

International Practices

Washington DC	– In  America,  a  district  (capital)  was  created  that  the  federal  government  could administer  itself  for  its  convenience.  – At  the  same  time,   local issues  were   relegated  to  its  local  mayoral  government. But Police in Washington is under Mayor .
Canberra	Canberra doesn’t have a same legislative INDEPENDENCE as other Australian States and Australian Governor General is the head of Australia’s capital territory
Beijing	In China , Central Government exercises more control not only over the city of Beijing ,the capital but also over important cities of Shanghai , Tianjin and  Chongqing.

Given the global experience & other reasons sited above,  it would not be prudent to give full statehood to Delhi. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the genuine rights of the citizens and balance them against the equally legitimate concerns of national nature.

Supreme Court Judgement : Is Lt. Governor bound by advise of Chief Minister?

Issue that Governor is bound to act on the aid & advice of Council of Ministers is settled fact by Supreme Court Judgements . But whether   extends to Union Territory of Delhi as well , is matter of debate due to unique position of Delhi (& Pondicherry as well) under Constitution. 

Issue

• 2015: AAP Government vs LG Najeeb Jung. Conflict over bureaucratic appointments, including who should be promoted as the chief Secretary of Delhi.
• AAP government blaming the LG of not clearing the schemes/initiatives/files related to health, education, PDS, transport, etc. and routinely referring every matter to President.

2018 Supreme Court Judgement

• Supreme Court judgement in the Government of NCT Delhi vs Union of India case, overturned the August 2016 judgment 
• Resolving the dispute over the demarcation of powers between the Union Government and the Government of Delhi, the Supreme Court laid down a few key principles:
  • Lt Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all areas except 3 exempted subjects
  • Lt Governor will be advised by Union government on the matters of public order, police and land.
  • When difference of opinion arises on “any matter”, the Lt Governor can’t take a decision on its own or force a decision on the cabinet. He has to refer such matter to the President of India. But, LG should not act in a mechanical manner without applying mind and forward every decision of the Council of Ministers to the President of India.

Analysis

• In a democracy , it is the will of democratically elected government that prevails. LG can only act as check on the abuse of power and cant become power into itself. 

Feb 2019 : 2 Judge Supreme Court Bench ruling

After July 2018 Judgement, it was thought that tussles between Union and State has been resolved .

• In a setback to Delhi Government, Supreme Court has ruled that Anti – Corruption Bureau is under the control of Lieutenant Governor which by extension means the center .
• On the question of who has the powers of transfers and postings of officers , both judges differed and hence matter has been referred to a larger bench.

Tribunals and Tribunalization of Justice

Tribunals

• Original Constitution did not contain provisions with respect to tribunals.
• Added via 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 :
  • Part XIV-A  titled ‘Tribunals’
  • Two Articles are related to this

Article 323 A	Administrative tribunals
Article 323 B	Tribunals for other matters.

1 . Administrative Tribunals

• Article 323 A empowers the
  • Parliament to establish administrative tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services of Center, states, local bodies, public corporations and other public authorities.
• In pursuance of Article 323 A,  Parliament has passed the Administrative Tribunals Act in  1985 and established one Central administrative tribunal and state administrative tribunals.

• Benefit : 
  • Provide speedy and inexpensive justice to the aggrieved public servants.
  • Reduced pendency of normal courts

1 . 1 Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

• Setup in 1985 with the principal bench at Delhi and additional benches in different states. At present 17  benches
• CAT exercises original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of public servants  .
• Its jurisdiction extends to
  • All-India services
  • Central civil services
  • Civil posts under the Centre
  • Civilian employees of defence services.

However,  members of the defence forces, officers and servants of Supreme Court and the secretarial staff of  Parliament are not covered by it.

Composition of CAT

Type	– Multi- member body : Chairman + members – Via Amendment to Administrative Tribunal Act, members have been given status of judges of High Court
Strength	– 1 Chairman + 65 members – Members are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams and are appointed by President. – They hold office for term of five years or until they attain age of 65 years in case of chairman and 62 years in case of members, whichever is earlier.

Other points regarding CAT

• Tribunals do not have to follow  procedure as laid down under Civil Procedure Code & under Indian Evidence Act but they have to follow the principles of Natural Justice.
• Only a nominal fee of 50 is to be paid by the applicant.
• Applicant may appear either in person or through a lawyer.
• Originally, appeals against the orders of the CAT could be made only in the Supreme Court and not in the high courts. However, in the Chandra Kumar case (1997),  SC declared this restriction on the jurisdiction of High Courts as unconstitutional. Now appeals against CAT decision lie with High Court.  

1 . 2 State Administrative Tribunals (SATs)

• Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central government to establish the State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) on specific request of the concerned state governments.
• So far (2013), SATs have been set up in the nine states of Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala. However, the Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh Tribunals have since been abolished.  
• Jan 2018 : Haryana setup SAT
• SATs exercise original jurisdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of state government employees.
• Chairman  and members of the SATs are appointed by President after consultation with the Governor .
• The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint administrative tribunal (JAT) for two or more states. 

2. Tribunals for other matters

Under Article 323 B,  Parliament and State Legislatures are authorised to provide for establishment of Tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to :

1. Taxation
2. Foreign exchange, import and export
3. Industrial and labour
4. Land reforms
5. Ceiling on urban property
6. Elections to Parliament and state legislatures
7. Food stuffs
8. Rent and tenancy rights

Articles 323 A and 323 B differs in  following three aspects

• While Article 323 A contemplates establishment of tribunals for public service matters only, Article 323 B contemplates establishment of tribunals for certain other matters (mentioned above).
• While tribunals under Article 323 A can be established only by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323 B can be established both by Parliament and state legislatures 
• Under Article 323 A, only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each state or two or more states may be established. There is no question of hierarchy of tribunals, whereas under Article 323 B a hierarchy of tribunals may be created.

In Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court declared those provisions  of these two articles which excluded the jurisdiction of the high courts and Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available against the orders of these tribunals. (In case of Tribunals other than CAT, direct appeal can be made to Supreme Court)

Issue : Tribunalization of Justice

First tribunal was set up in India 25 years ago to take the load off high courts. At last count, there are  93 specialised tribunals in India .

Benefit of Tribunals

1. Tribunals were established with the object of providing a speedy and cheap  determination of disputes
2. Relief to Courts:  system  gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already overburdened with numerous suits.
3. Specialised Body to adjudicate on special and technical issues as tribunals are manned by judicial as well as technical members. 
4. Flexibility : They do not have to follow any uniform procedure as laid down under the Civil Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act but they have to follow the principles of Natural Justice.

Problems with Tribunalisation of Justice

1. Against Doctrine of Separation of Powers  :
   • Tribunals are part of Executive and their creation to adjudicate matters means shifting powers of adjudication from Judiciary to the Executive
   • Article 50 (DPSP) : Separation of Judiciary from Executive
2. Increased the workload of Supreme Court : Government has made a provision that appeal from the decisions of such tribunals shall lie before the Supreme Court. Routine direct appeals to the highest court in commercial litigation affecting individual parties, without there being any issue of national importance, is overburdening Supreme Court=>  matters of constitutional importance are not getting the due priority 
3. Conflict of Interest : Central Government has  power to appoint the members of the tribunal and in large number of cases, Central Government itself is the stakeholder in the cases before the tribunal. 
4. Accessibility and Cost of Justice Issue : Tribunals are also not as accessible as high courts. For example,
   • Environmental Tribunals : there are just four benches of the Green Tribunal for the whole country. In comparison, high courts were easily accessible for environmental matters.
   • SEBI : A shareholder in Kerala or  Northeast would have to travel to  Mumbai to challenge any order by the SEBI.
5. Undermining the Authority of Judiciary: Tribunals have largely replaced high courts for disputes under the various Acts. An aggrieved, by an order of an appellate tribunal, can directly appeal to the Supreme Court, side-stepping the High Court. 
6. 2015 Supreme Court judgment  struck down the National Tax Tribunals (NTT) . Supreme Court said that the tribunal  couldn’t decide “questions of law”, adding these could only be decided by constitutional courts.
7. Tribunals do not follow any uniform procedures but principles of natural justice, adjudicators are unable to have a clear understanding of the procedures to be followed.
8. Sidestepping high courts: as in some cases, an appeal against the order of an appellate tribunal can directly be filed in the Supreme Court.

Way Forward

1. Tribunals should be made last word on facts and Supreme Court should restrict itself to the pure question of law.
2. Law Commission of India (LCI) , in its 272nd report, has laid out a detailed procedure for improving the working of the tribunal system in the country
   • Selection of the members of Tribunals should be impartial by Separate Selection Committee 
   • Chairman should hold office for 3 years or till he attains the age of 70 years
   • Tribunals must have benches in different parts of the country so that people may have easy Access to Justice, ideally where the High Courts are situated
   • In case of transfer of jurisdiction of High Court (or District Court) to a Tribunal, the members of the newly constituted Tribunal should possess the qualifications akin to the judges of the High Court (or District Court)

Elections to Lok Sabha & Legislative Assembly at same time

Why in news

• 2018 : Law Commission has released a white paper on Simultaneous Elections
• 2019 : Parliamentary Committee on Law & Justice has argued that Elections to Legislative Assembly & Lok Sabha should take place  at same time .

Historical Knowledge : After independence , first four elections were held at same time but after that  it couldn’t be continued . This was mainly done by Indira Gandhi , who wanted to cut the wings of regional leaders so that she needn’t depend on them for central power

Points in favour of this

• Recommendation of Committees 
  • 2018 : Law Commission has released a white paper on Simultaneous Elections.
  • 1999 : Law Commission Report recommended it
  • 2015 : Parliamentary Committee on Law & Justice  recommended this

• Political Reason
  • Frequent elections and implementation of Model Code of Conduct leads to policy paralysis and governance deficit impacting  development in country 

• Economic Reasons
  • Money & resources that are used on elections can be minimised  & used on Social Welfare

• Social Reasons : Elections in India are polarising events and promotes communalism , casteism etc . Hence, fewer elections are better

• Helpful in  Internal & External Security
  • Concurrent polls would free central armed forces and manpower that is deployed at regular intervals for election duty so that they can be used better for their regular functions.

• Examples from other countries : held successfully in Sweden & South Africa

Points against this

• Against Basic Structure of Constitution : To implement this system , there would be need of fixed tenure system .Fixed tenure is against Basic Structure of Constitution

• Result in lower Accountability : In present system, same political party has to approach voters multiple times (atleast 3 times) in 5 years. It  increases the accountability and answerability  

• Against the federal principle : National parties are going to benefit as Voters in India are not mature enough to vote on central & state issues at same time

• There is no report to vouch that development in India is stopped due to frequent elections

Alternate Way

Former Chief Election Commission Qureshi’s suggestion : Center should provide more paramilitary forces in bigger states like UP, Bihar etc so that election can be conducted in 1 Phase only and reduce time when Model code of conduct is in place 

Criminalisation of Politics

Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) Study

• Percentage of Members of Lok Sabha with Criminal Charges is increasing each passing Lok Sabha since independence.

17th Lok Sabha (2019)	43%
16th Lok Sabha  (2014)	34%
14th Lok Sabha (2004)	24%

• Chances of winning of candidate with criminal cases in Lok Sabha is 13% whereas with clean record is 5%

NN Vohra Committee Report (1993)

• Spoke about criminalization of politics and of the nexus among criminals, politicians and bureaucrats in India.

Reasons for Criminalisation of Politics

Increasing Money Power in Elections	Elections require huge expenditure which is impossible for normal person to fund.
Winnability only criteria	Parties focus on winnability of the candidate instead of education, morals and social work
Loopholes in functioning	Voters are not usually aware of the history of the candidate, qualification and cases pending against him.
Weak judicial system	3.2 crore pendency => takes long time to decide cases and as a result, criminals sit in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies
Historical Reason	Indira Gandhi’s 1969 decision to ban corporate donations to political parties led to crime-politics nexus. That action made campaigning dependent on black money
Crisis of morality	In materialistic society

Impact of Criminalisation of Politics

Decreasing legitimacy of Parliament
Increased Disruptions	People with such tainted backgrounds have been seen to disrupt the functioning of the Parliament
Funds not used for intended purposes	Such member under utilise funds like MPLADs
Impact on Police	Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms : It is the criminalization of politics that led to criminalisation of police
Views of various Committees	NN Vohra Committee => Criminalisation of Politics is making democracy hollow.

Reforms taken

• Lily Thomas Case : Already discussed (Click here to see)

• Association of Democratic Reforms Case : Supreme Court ordered Mandatory declaration of assets and existing criminal charges in self-sworn affidavits to the Election Commission of India prior to elections

• NOTA Button introduced to force political parties to put up better candidates .

• Expense Monitoring Cell setup by Election Commission of India

Way forward

• Bar candidates against whom charges have been framed by the court in heinous crimes from contesting elections
• Lifetime ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections (as suggested by Election Commission of India in Nov 2018)
• Set up fast track courts to dispose criminal cases pending against MPs & MLAs within a year.
• State Funding of elections => Black money will not be needed
• Make informed citizenry using Election Commission of India campaigns and utilising efforts of NGOs like ADR, PUCL etc 

State Funding of Political Parties

To deal with the issue of funding of Political Parties, State Funding of Political Parties can be used. This practice is used in many countries like Britain and various commissions and committees like Indrajit Gupta Committee, 255th Law Commission Report  & 2nd ARC Report have also recommended this.

Points in favour of State Funding

• State funding can limit the influence of wealthy people and control Crony Capitalism

• Creates equal playing field for small and big political parties . Corporates never fund  smaller political parties .

• In return for giving state funding, state can demand reasonable perquisites like transparency , internal democracy in party, women representations, representations of weaker section etc

• Various committees including Indrajit Gupta Committee 1998, Law Commission of India, 2nd ARC, National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, have favoured state funding

• In India, with high level of poverty, ordinary citizens cannot be expected to contribute much to the political parties. Therefore, the parties depend upon funding by corporate and rich individuals.  

Points against State Funding

• Tax payers are forced to support even those political parties , whose view they don’t subscribe to.

• State funding encourages status quo  and makes it difficult for the new parties.

• State funding increases the distance between political leaders and ordinary citizens as leaders do not depend on the citizens for mobilization of party fund.

• Political parties tend to become organs of the state, rather than being parts of the civil society

• Difficult to ensure that Parties are not taking funds apart from State Funds even after getting State funds (Election Commission of India also admitted this)

Electoral Bonds

Characteristics of Electoral Bonds

• The bonds will only be issued by SBI
• They are interest free banking instrument
• bond will be like a bearer cheque which will facilitate donor’s anonymity
• They will be available for any value in multiples of Rs 1000, Rs 1 Lakh , 10 Lakh, 1 Crore 
• Electoral bond will have life of 15 days.
• Purchase Period : Not available throughout the year =>  available 10 days of  each quarter
• Parties eligible =  secured not less than one % votes in last election to Lok Sabha or Legislative Assembly.
• Know Your Customer norm applicable
• Also the bonds can be encashed by eligible political parties only through designated bank account 

Analysis of the working of Electoral Bonds

Government’s Argument

• Provide anonymity to buyers => corporate houses can fund political parties legally without fear of retribution .  

Fears

• Decreases Transparency : According to Election Commission of India, it is a retrograde step as far as transparency of donations is concerned .
• According to RBI, Electoral Bond has the potential to increase black money circulation, money laundering and cross-border counterfeiting due to factors like anonymity .
• Danger to Democracy : All banks report to the RBI which, in turn, is subject to the Central government . Hence, Electoral Bonds although anonymous but ruling party can ascertain  donors
• Against equality : only those parties are eligible which have won 1% of votes in the preceding election, which pose a formidable entry barrier to new contenders 
• Ruling party got 94.6% electoral bond cash => designed to help ruling party.

Invisible Number on Electoral Bonds Issue

• Quint has confirmed that electoral bonds carry hidden alphanumeric numbers printed on them.
• SBI : According to SBI, it is security feature only and Bank don’t keep any record of this number . 

None of the Above (NOTA) Issue

Earlier	Representation of People’s Act had provision that elector not wishing to vote for any candidate had to inform the Presiding Officer about his decision
Supreme Court’s decision	– Declared above provision to be ultra vires Article 19 of constitution – Directed Election Commission of India to provide a NOTA option on the EVM and ballot papers (Reason = secrecy).

Positive  features  in  NOTA

• Ensures Freedom of expression
• Introducing  a  NOTA button  can  increase  the  public  participation  in  an  electoral  process. 
• NOTA  option  gives  the  voter  the  right  to  express  his  disapproval  with  the kind  of  candidates  that  are  being  put  up  by  the  political  parties. 

Negative  features  in  NOTA

• As  per  present provisions   , candidate  who  has  polled  the  largest  number  of  valid  votes  is  to  be  declared elected  .  NOTA  do  not  mean  rejection.    

NOTA  can  only  work  when  it  is  paired  with  Right  To  Recall  option  where voters  can  recall  candidates  they  have  elected. In such situation, NOTA will act as  a  pre-cursor  to  public  displeasure. 

Right to Reject

• June 2018 : Maharashtra State Election Commission (MSEC)  made an order for local body polls that fresh elections should be held if NOTA ‘emerges winner’. 
• Dec 2018 :Haryana State Election Commission going step further made an order that if all the contesting candidates individually receive lesser votes than NOTA then not only would “none of the contesting candidates be declared as elected,” but “all such contesting candidates who secured less votes than NOTA shall not be eligible to re-file the nomination/contest the re-election.”

With two State Election Commissions showing the way, the remaining State Election Commissions and the Election Commission of India should follow suit so that political parties are compelled to nominate sound candidates, and are forced to accept the will of the people, as desired by the highest court in the land.

Side Topic : NOTA & Rajya Sabha Elections

• Matter came up in August 2017. It was allowed during Gujarat Rajya Sabha elections
• Aug 2018 :  Supreme Court  scrapped the use of NOTA option in coming Rajya Sabha elections.

A Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra held that

• NOTA option is meant only for universal adult suffrage and direct elections and not polls held by the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote as done in  Rajya Sabha.
• NOTA in indirect elections, such as in  Rajya Sabha, would lead to horse-trading, corruption and use of extra constitutional methods to defeat a party candidate.