Cultural and Educational Rights

This article deals with ‘Cultural and Educational Rights .’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Article 29

• Article 29 has two clauses
  • Any section of citizens residing in any part of India having distinct language, script or culture has right to conserve it
  • No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institute maintained by state  or receiving aid on grounds only of religion, race, caste & language
• First clause right of group &  second right of individual citizen

• Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this
  • Scope not restricted only to minorities as commonly assumed
  • Section of citizen include minority as well as majority
  • Right to conserve language also include right to agitate for it and making promises for conservation of language of section of people don’t amount to corrupt practices under Representation of People’s Act ,1951

Article 30

• Grant following rights to minorities( religious or linguistic)
  • Right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
  • Compensation amount fixed by state for compulsory acquisition don’t apply to minority educational institution (44th Amendment) 
  • In granting aid, state shall not discriminate against educational institute managed by minority
• Minority include both religious and linguistic minority
• Reasonable restrictions can be imposed to promote efficiency & reduce maladministration.
• However term minority is  no where defined in the constitution

To claim the benefits conferred by Article 30, institution must prove  (by Supreme Court in case involving Linguistic Minority)

1. Institution is established by members of community which are in minority in that state
2. Institution is administered by members of community which are in minority in that state
3. Institution is primarily for the benefit of the minority community of the state where it is established.

What is meant by minorities ?

Constitution hasn’t defined term Minority . But it is defined by various Acts

• National Commission for Minorities Act , 1993 : 6 communities have been notified ie Muslims, Sikhs , Buddhist , Christians , Parsis and Jains. (no linguistic minority has been notified till date.)

• TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2003) : Basis of determining (linguistic) minorities shall be population in the concerned state . Court also noted the fact states are re-organised on the basis of language while arriving at given decision

International Perspective

These rights are recognised internationally by

1. UN Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR)
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Issues related to Cultural and Educational Rights

Issue 1: Minority Status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) & Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI)  in Question

2019 : Issue regarding Minority Status of AMU referred to 7 Judge Bench of Supreme Court

History

• AMU was founded by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan as the Madrasat ul Uloom in 1875 in Aligarh
• In 1920,  Indian Legislative Council passed act to make it University.  

After Independence

• 1966 : SC said in Azeez Basha case that it is not clear from Act of 1920 that AMU was established by Muslims of India & hence it cant be given Minority Status
• 1981 : Parliament clarified  via Amendment => AMU was established by Muslims , although Act was made by Parliament.
• 2005  : Allahabad HC declared 1981 Amendment to be unconstitutional

Reservation policy

• In minority institutions , 50% seats can be reserved for that minority and rest 50% seats are open
• Apart from that  their land could only be acquired by the government after paying compensation.

Arguments against their Minority Status

• Jamia & AMU setup by Acts of Parliament. Government in secular country cant setup religious institutions.
• Reservations on communal lines are not in the interest of National unity and Integrity
• Due to minority character given to these universities, they do not reserve 50% seats for SC/ST and OBC’s, which is against Social Justice

Arguments in favour of their minority status

• In  Azeez Basha versus Union of India case,  AMU was not a party
• In Azeez Basha case, Supreme Court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution as it was set up by the British legislature, and not by Muslims. But  any central university can only be setup by an Act of Parliament( or state Legislature) 
• Sachar Committee => Muslims in Higher Education are very low due to absence of reservation for Muslims . Hence, such institutes are in national interest
• Right given under Article 30 is to prohibit state against making discrimination with minority institutions while giving any aid and not prohibiting state in funding minority institutions
• Since Universities can only be established by Act of Parliament, so question was asked whether Art 30 don’t hold good for Universities . In The Kerala Education Bill case, SC stated that the key to understanding the true meaning  of Article 30(1) is the phrase “of their choice”. It means there is no limitation on  types and nature of the educational institutions that minorities can establish.

Issue 2: Are Sikhs religious minority in Punjab ? Or Muslims in J&K or Lakshadweep? Or Christians in Meghalaya/Nagaland?

Cases going on

Case 1 : Are Sikhs Minority in Punjab 

• High Court rejected the minority status to Sikhs in Punjab on the grounds that the community was numerically strong.
• Moreover, it held that the Punjab government had produced no material to show that Sikhs “apprehended deprivation of their religious, cultural or educational rights in the State of Punjab from any other community.” (case has to be settled by Supreme Court)

Case 2 : Are Hindus minority in Punjab ?

Apex court in DAV College case held Hindus as religious minority in the State of Punjab and thus there can be reservation of Hindus in the minority institutions run by them in the Punjab

Case 3 : Are Muslims Minority in J&K?

• Case is also in Supreme Court.

Constitutional issues involved 

• Minority is nowhere defined in Constitution –  As a result Supreme Court has to define it in constitutional cases.
• There are two types of minorities ie religious & linguistic but can same consideration of geographical area will apply to both is other issue.

Earlier cases

• Bal Patil judgment (2005) : Supreme Court held that a community should be protected as a minority only if there was an apprehension that the community may be “dominated” by other communities.

• Kerala Education Bill case , 1957 :  Court held that minorities are to be defined at the level of state 

• Constitution Bench of  11-judge in the historic 2002 T.M.A. Pai Foundation judgment held that it is the State, and not the whole of India, for determining a community as a linguistic minority. 

Suggestion

• One approach can be to
  • Define religious minorities nationally and
  • Linguistic minorities on the basis of the state.

• Other approach can be ,
  • If it is a Parliamentary law that is being challenged, minorities must be defined nationally.
  • If it is a state law, then minorities must be determined at the state level keeping in view numerical inferiority within the state.

Right to Freedom of Religion

This article deals with ‘Right to Freedom of Religion .’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Article 25

Freedom of conscience & free profession, practice & propagation of religion

• Available to all citizens and non citizens
• These are actually religious rights of individuals
• This article also says that Sikhs has Right to carry kirpan & Hindu in constitution also include Sikhs , Buddhist and Jains

Controversies

• Freedom of Religion isn’t unlimited & Government can impose restrictions  to protect public order, morality and health.
  • Government can interfere in religious matters for rooting out certain social evils. For example in the past, the government has taken steps banning practices like sati, bigamy or human sacrifice. Such restrictions cannot be opposed in the name of interference in right to freedom of religion.
  • But when government seeks to restrict some activities of any religious group, people of that religion feel that this is interference in their religion.
• Constitution has guaranteed the right to propagate one’s religion. This includes persuading people to convert from one religion to another. However, some people resent conversions on the ground that these are based on intimidation or inducement. The Constitution does not allow forcible conversions. It only gives us the right to spread information about our religion and thus attract others to it.

Article 26

Freedom to manage religious affairs

• All religious denominations has following rights
  • Right to establish & maintain institution for religious & charitable purposes
  • Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
  • Right to acquire and own movable and immovable property
  • Right to administer such property in accordance with law
• These are rights of religious denominations as whole

Doctrine of Essential Practices

• First propounded in  Shirur Mutt Case
• In India , judiciary can prescribe outer limits of what could be called the sole domain of religion and aspects beyond essential practices have no protection from state intervention under Article 26.
• But this doctrine has been propounded by judiciary itself & exhibit signs of judicio-papism ie  where judges can completely overrule religious authority.
  • Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avdhoot vs Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1984) :  Tandava is not Essential Religious Practice 
  • Mohammad Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar (1958) :  Cow Slaughter on Bakarid  is not essential practice of Muslims
  • In news during Babri Masjid Case : Ismail Faruqui v. Union Of India (1994) : Mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam and Namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere . 

Article 27

Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion

• State shouldn’t spend money collected from tax on promotion or maintenance of any particular religion
• This doesn’t prohibit to levy fees. Fee can be levied on pilgrims to provide them some special service or safety measure

Article 28

Freedom from attendance at religious worship or instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained by state

Types of educational institutions and Article 28

Wholly maintained by state	Religious instruction completely prohibited
Institutions administered by state but established under any trust	Religious instruction permitted
Institutions recognised by state Institutions receiving aid from state	Religious instruction permitted on voluntary basis

One must distinguish between Religious Instructions and Academic Pursuit . In DAV College vs State of Punjab (1971) , where Guru Nanak Dev University , Amritsar provided for pursuing of academic career in teachings and philosophy of Guru Nanak Dev ji . Question was whether state was promoting religion & imparting religious instructions. SC said we have to distinguish between religious instruction and academic pursuit in teachings of Guru Nanak Dev ji cant be said to be promoting any religion or imparting religious instruction.

2019 Issue : Chanting of Shaloka Tamasoma Jyotir Gamaya in Kendriya Vidyalaya?

• Does chanting Sanskrit Shloka from Upanishads in prayer in Kendriya Vidyalayas amount to religious instructions and should this practice in KVs that operate under Educational Ministry be stopped ?
• Supreme Court referred this petition to Constitutional Bench

Issues Related to Freedom of Religion

Issue 1: Right to Convert  & Anti-Conversion Laws

In news because :

• 2018 : Hadiya Case Judgement
• “Ghar Wapsi” i.e. re-conversion attempts by certain right-wing organizations fueled controversy around religious conversions.  

Is Right to Convert a Fundamental Right

• Article 25 : freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion . The term propagation implies transmit one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets  without any element of fraud, coercion and allurement for conversion.

• It may be pointed out that the right to convert other person to one’s own religion is distinct from  individual right to get convert to any other religion on his own choice. The latter is undisputedly is in conformity with the freedom of religion  while the former is the subject of long prevailing controversy .

Leaders View

Gandhi	He opposed proselytising and people of one faith trying to convert others.
Ambedkar	He saw conversion as a means of social elevation and a way to revolt against the discrimination of caste system. Ambedkar’s 1956 conversion to Buddhism inspired about 3,65,000 erstwhile “untouchables” to follow suit.

Judicial Interpretations / Important Cases regarding this issue

Arun Ghosh vs State of West Bengal  (1950)	– Attempt to raise communal passions through forcible conversions would be a breach of public order  – Supreme Court  held that the States were empowered under Entry 1 of List II of 7th Schedule to enact local Freedom of Religion laws to restore public order making forcible religious conversions a cognizable offence
Rev. Stanislau vs State of MP (1977)	– Article 25 does not grant the right to convert other persons to one’s own religion but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets. – Upheld the validity of two  anti-conversion laws of the 1960s — the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act.
Hadiya Case Judgement (2018)	– Hadiya was 26 year old girl who converted to Islam and married Muslim man – Person’s right to choose religion and marry is intrinsic part of liberty.

Issue 2: Women Entry in Temples 

Related Cases that are going on

• Sept 2018 (v imp) : Sabarimala Shrine , Kerala : SC in Indian Young Lawyers’Association v/s State of Kerala Case declared the restriction on women “of menstruating age” from entering sanctum sanctorium as ultra vires the Constitution.  (Belief that Lord Ayappa is Naisthik Brahmachari)

• Haji Ali Dargah. August 2016 – Bombay HC recognised women’s right to enter and worship at Dargah

• March 2016:  HC recognised women’s right to enter in Shani Shingnapur Temple (Maharashtra)  .

• Dec 2017 : Historically, the women & descendants of women who marry outside the religion have not had access to Zoroastrian religious institutions. The SC is deciding a case that who can have access to  temples.

Arguments : Why State should intervene / Why women entry must be allowed

• Infringes Fundamental Rights: Ban imposed on women devotees “contravenes Articles 14 (equality before law),  and 25 (free profession and practice and propagation of religion) of the constitution”.

• Fundamental Duties – Article 51A(e)  => Renounce all practices derogatory to dignity of women.

• Views of founding fathers : B.R. Ambedkar was  of view that most powerful tool by which an unequal society expressed and reinforced its hierarchies is through denial of equal access to religious spaces & this had to be smashed.

• Nature of Indian Secularism : India do not have a “wall of separation” between religion and state that, eg , exists in  US.

• Infringes Right against Untouchability : Exclusion is mainly based on Purity – Pollution argument as women are considered impure due to Menstruation

• Doctrine of Essential Practices in Religious Affairs :  practice of not allowing women to enter temples is certainly not Essential Practice

Way forward : SGPC ACT (management of Sikh Gurudwaras) gives equal rights to women to participate in all religious activities and even hold any office including Chief of SGPC . Other religions can learn from this.

Right against Exploitation

This article deals with ‘Right against Exploitation .’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Article 23

• Prohibition of traffic in human beings and begar & other similar forms of forced labour
• Note – Just Begar and Forced Labour is prohibited by Constitution. In all cases regarding this Article , thing to interpret was what constitute  Force in Forced labour which was widened by SC to things like
  • Legal compulsion (demanding labour by making law),
  • Physical Compulsion ,
  • Psychological Compulsions ,
  • Economic Compulsions  and
  • Any factor that deprives a person from Choices and Alternatives

• Traffic in human beings include
  • Selling and buying men,women & children like goods
  • Immoral traffic in women and children including prostitution
  • Devadasis
  • Slavery

• Law: Bonded Labour Systems(abolition) Act,1976
• Available to both citizens & non citizens and against state & private persons

Note : Issue of Women being bought by Haryanvi and Punjabi men from West Bengal, Odisha , Chattisgarh etc known as ‘Paros’ , Molkis or Kudesan in common language due to low Sex Ratio in these states also comes under Human Trafficking .

Cases

• Constitution doesn’t specifically define Begar . It was defined by Supreme Court as  Labour extracted without giving remuneration . 

• In Thangkul vs Shailer Case regarding Manipur based Custom in which each person of village has to give one day of free labour to headman was held violative of Article 23 . Hence, Cultural Customs don’t stand in front of Article 23

• (Landmark Case) Asiad Case(mentioned in NCERT too) in which Labour Laws of Minimum wages were violated by Union of India, Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Administration .  SC ordered that  paying less than Minimum Wage comes under Forced Labour even if it is Voluntarily agreed .

Article 24

• Prohibition of employment of children below age of 14 years in any factory, mine or other hazardous activities 
• But it doesn’t prohibit their employment in any harmless or innocent work
• Main legislation: Child Labour(Prohibition & Regulation)Act,1986 amended in 2016
  • 1986 Act banned Under-14 employment only in 18 hazardous industries .
  • New Act bans Under-14 employment in all  occupations except Work done in farmlands, family enterprises and audio visual entertainment industry (FFE)  , provided it is done after school hours and during vacations

Cases

• (Landmark Judgement): MC Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu / Sivakasi Firework Factories Case –  Public Interest Litigation against practice of employing children in Sivakasi fireworks factories . 

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India / UP Carpet Factories Case : Against employment of Children in Carpet Industry in UP . 

• Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India – SC instructed government to prohibit the employment of children in Circus business . The salvaged children to kept in Protective Homes till they achieve age of 18 years and design rehabilitation 

Important Note

• In 2017, India ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour and Convention 138 on Minimum Age of Employment.
• These were to
  • Appropriately raising the age of employment in hazardous occupations from 14 to 18 years. India has already done so by passing of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2016  
  • Prohibit and eliminate the worst forms of child labour: These Include 
    • child slavery
    • child prostitution
    • use of children for illicit activities such as drug trafficking, and
    • exposure to any hazardous work which is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.

Amendments to Child Labour(P&R) Act, 1986

• 1986 act was weak and ineffective in curbing the child labour . It prohibit employment of children below 14  in 18 occupations 
• Contradiction with Article 21A and Right to Education (RTE) 2009 which make schooling compulsory for 6-14 years old
• Does not regulate adolescent labour as mandated by ILO conventions 138&182

Changes in new Act

• New Act bans Under-14 employment in all  occupations except Work done in farmlands, family enterprises and audio visual entertainment industry (FFE)  , provided it is done after school hours and during vacations
• Prohibit employment of adolescent in 14-18 years age in occupations unsuitable to their age
• Punishment :
  • Employer : punishment of 20,000 fine on first instance and 50,000 on second
  • Parents exempted on first instance , 10,000 subsequently

Analysis

Benefits

• Act is aligned with the statutes of the International Labour Organization (ILO) convention.
• Inline with Right to Education . Hence , children can get primary education  till 14 years
• It takes into account the realities of family enterprises where children help their parents

Problems

• Law opens loopholes to sustain or encourage child labour . Family Enterprise fall in unorganised sector which is an amorphous legal entity difficult to govern
• ‘Family’ has not been defined. As UNICEF India has commented, this could lead to more children working in unregulated conditions.
• Adversely affect the girl child . They do domestic work

Right to Freedom

This article deals with ‘Right to Freedom .’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Article 19

Guarantees 6 Rights to Citizens but these rights are

• Protected against only state action & not private individual
• Available to citizen only & not to foreigner & legal persons

Speech	Movement
Assembly	Residence
Association	Profession

Article 19(1)(a) Freedom of Speech & Expression

Citizen has right to express his views, opinion, belief etc via writing, painting , picturing etc

SC verdicts has increased scope of this to other areas

• Right to propagate ones & other’s view
• Right to Silence
• Freedom of press
• Right to telecast ie state don’t have monopoly on electronic media
• Right to know about government activities

Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950) – Freedom of Speech and of Press laid at the foundation of all democratic organisations , for without free political discussion there is  no public education , which is  essential for proper functioning of popular government .

First  Amendment  to  Indian  Constitution  authorized  the  Union  and  State  legislatures  to  put  ‘reasonable restrictions’  on  free  speech  under Article 19(2) on 8 grounds

• Sovereignty & integrity of nation
• Security of state
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order
• Decency and Morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to an Offence

Fodder : Cases in news where Freedom of Expression was suppressed

Ranking	India ranks 138 among 190 nations on the World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters without Borders (behind even Afghanistan (120)
Murder of Rationalists	Rationalists like Dabholkar , Pansare & Gauri Lankesh  were killed by Right wing for taking rationalist view
Movies	Ban on movies under threat to Public order. Recent examples include Padmavati

Article 19(1)(b) Freedom of assembly

• Citizen has right to assemble peacefully & without arms
• Freedom can be exercised in public & not private land
• Doesn’t protect violent, disorderly, riotous assemblies which cause breach of Public peace

• Restriction – on 2 grounds
  • Sovereignty & integrity of nation
  • Public order including maintenance of traffic in area

Article 19(1)(c) Freedom of association

• All citizens have right to form Associations or Unions or Cooperatives (Co-Operatives were added by 97th  Amendment , 2011)
• Restrictions can be imposed on grounds of
  • Sovereignty & integrity of India
  • Public order
  • Morality
• SC Rulings – Trade Unions have no right to effective bargaining or right to strike or right to declare lock out & Right to Strike can be controlled by appropriate Industrial Law

Article 19(1)(d) Freedom of movement

• All citizens are  entitled to move freely throughout the territory of country (underline idea that India is one unit)
• Restrictions can be imposed on two reasons  –
  • Interest of general public
  • Protection of interests of any Scheduled Tribe
• SC ruling – Freedom of movement of prostitutes can be restricted on the ground of public health & in interest of public morals
• Freedom of Movement has two dimensions

Internal	Right to move inside country (dealt by Article 19)
External	Right to move out of country & right to come back to country (dealt by Article 21)

Article 19(1)(e) Freedom of residence

• All citizens have right to reside in any part of territory of India
• Has two parts –
  • To stay temporarily,
  • To set up home or domicile at any place permanently
• Restrictions : Reasonable restrictions can be imposed
  • In Interest of general public
  • Protection of interest of any scheduled tribes
• SC ruling – Certain areas can be banned for certain kinds of people like Prostitutes & habitual Offenders
• Right to Reside & Right to movement are overlapping to some extend & are complementary to each other

Article 19(1)(f)

• Right to acquire, hold & dispose off property
• Was there in original constitution but removed after 44th Amendment

Article 19(1)(g) Freedom of profession

• All  citizens has  right to practise any profession or carry any occupation, trade or business
• State can impose restrictions in
  • Prescribe professional or technical qualification for practicing some profession
  • Carry by itself any trade as complete monopoly

• According to SC Judgements , Right doesn’t include professions that are immoral(prostitution) or dangerous(drugs & explosive) & can prohibit or regulate these

Side Topic – Doctrine of Res Extra Commercium  

• Res extra commercium (lat. “a thing outside commerce”) is a doctrine originating in Roman law and was understood to include things of the nature which cannot be traded between individuals. 
• SC has used this in following cases
  • Various decisions of Supreme Court regarding to fundamental right of a citizen to trade in liquor. In recent case of PIL deciding banning sale of Liquor on Highways. 
  • In RMD Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India , Apex Court held that gambling was an activity res extra commercium

Issues related to Article 19

Issue 1: Heckler’s Veto

• Heckler’s veto is phenomenon in which  by threatening public disorder or disturbance, socially powerful groups can shut down critical or inconvenient speech 
• In S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) ,  Supreme Court ordered that it was the state’s constitutional duty to maintain law and order, and Government can’t say in order to preserve peace they are curbing the other person’s freedom of speech.

Issue 2 : Shreya Singhal Case & Section 66-A of IT Act

Section 66-A of IT Act

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device any information that is

• grossly offensive ,
• false information intending to cause annoyance etc.,
• intended at deceiving about the origin of the message

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Court’s Judgement (Shreya Singhal vs Union of India) 

Court has propounded a new test to check the limit of Freedom of Speech & Expression

• According  to court there are three concepts fundemental in understanding this freedom ie Discussion, Advocacy & Incitement

Discussion Advocacy	Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a).
Incitement	Only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) ie curtailing speech & expression kicks in

Words used such as annoying, inconvenient, grossly offensive, etc  shows that no distinction is made between mere discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view with  incitement 

Hence,  Section 66A can’t be saved under Article 19(2) and is  unconstitutional.

Issue 3: Criminal Defamation

Subramaniam Swamy vs Government of India (GoI) ( June 2016) Judgement

Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of Criminal Defamation (Section 499 and 500 of IPC) . 

• SC declared that Right to “reputation” was protected under Article 21 & Right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) had to be “balanced” against the right to “reputation” under Article 21. 

Note – Sections 499 and 500 of IPC prescribes two years’ imprisonment for a person found guilty of defamation

Note : Article 19(2) contains 8 grounds in the interests of which a law may reasonably restrict the right to free speech. Defamation is one of the 8 grounds, but the provision is silent as to which type of defamation, civil or criminal

Arguments : Section 499 & 500 of IPC should be scrapped

Philosophical Argument	Reputation is not absolute. It is a social construct based on shared perceptions which can change with time
Chilling impact on freedom of speech	State & Corporations use it as a means to coerce the media to adopt self-censorship.     Law Commission had also spoken of its “chilling effect”
Has outlived its use	Defamation originates from the concept of scandalum magnatum – the slander of great men – which protected the reputations of aristocrats.  It was brought to India by Colonists .
No Reason it to be Criminal Offence	One has to distinguish between private harm and social harm . Defamation don’t cause any social harm . Hence, keeping it in Statute books as Criminal offense doesn’t make sense. It should be made civil offence .
International Examples	United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression  has all called upon States to abolish criminal defamation In 2009, the UK (from whom India borrowed this) abolished criminal defamation altogether.

Argument : It shouldn’t be removed

• Article 19 (2) uses the word ‘defamation’ in the context of reasonable restriction. 
• Right to Reputation under Article 21
• Proper Safeguards introduced :  If it falls under any of the 10 exemptions under law, defamation case cant be filed . 
• It takes lot of time , more than decade on average , to settle Civil Disputes. 
• In India, citizens are unlikely to have enough liquidity to pay damages for civil defamation and hence criminal defamation is necessary.

Article 20

• Protection in respect to Conviction for Offences
• Grants protection against arbitrary & excessive punishment to an accused person whether citizen or foreigner or legal person
• This Article can not be suspended even during National Emergency.

It has three important provisions

No Ex-post facto Law	– Person shall be tried according to law which was there at time of commission of act – No penalties retrospectively   Hence, it limit the rights of the sovereign legislature in a limited manner .
No Double Jeopardy	– No person can be punished for same crime more than once – Not available to department & administrative proceedings because they arent judicial in nature     2017: Fodder Scam (Lalu Prasad Case) – SC held that a general conspiracy which gives birth to a cascade of distinct offences (smaller conspiracies) committed in various places spread over several years and involving different accused persons cannot be boxed into one trial. It over-ruled Jharkhand HCs Judgement in which it was held that since they have been convicted in one of the cases linked to the fodder scam, they need not stand trial for the others and it will lead to Double Jeopardy .
No self incrimination	– No person can be compelled to witness against himself – For Criminal & not Civil proceedings   Note 1. Right to Silence : Burden to prove the guilt is on state and Accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt  are implicit in Protection against Self Incrimination 2. Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) – Forcible administration of scientific techniques/tests like narco analysis , Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test etc during course of investigation would be unjustified intrusion into mental privacy and would be violative of self incrimination.

Related Topic : Anti-Torture Law

Supreme Court has  told Government to make Anti-Torture Law many times in the recent past. 

Why we should have Anti Torture Law

• India signed UN Convention against Torture (CAT) in 1997 (but is yet to ratify it)
• Due to absence of such law, large number of requests for extradition are turned down. Eg : extradition request relating to Purulia arms drop case suspect Kim Davy failed 
• Indian Police Agencies frequently resort to Torture to extract confession.
• 273rd Report of the Law Commission has recommended to pass a law to prevent custodial torture . 
• India also faced tough peer review at UNHRC due to Custodial Tortures 
• For protection of  Article 20 &  21 

Prevention of Torture Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2010 , but it lapsed . It was a progressive legislation which included sleep deprivation, sound bombardment etc apart from  murder and broken bones (grievous hurt) under torture. 

Article 21

Article 21 – Protection of Life & Personal Liberty

• No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
• Available for both citizens & non-citizens
• This FR is available against state only . If private individual or company or autonomous body leads to encroachment of this right , remedy is available either under Article 226 or general law

Can be seen in two phases

AK Gopalan Case

– 1950 – Supreme Court took narrow interpretation – Ruled that Article 21 is available against arbitrary Executive Action & not from Legislative Action . State can deprive Right to Life based on law – Because of expression ‘procedure established by law’ which is different from  ‘due process of law’

Maneka Gandhi Case

(Case was basically against impounding of passport of Maneka Gandhi without giving him due hearing) – 1978 – Supreme Court overruled its previous judgement & gave wider interpretation. – Article 19 & 21 are not water tight . Law coming under Article 21 must satisfy Article 19 too – Hence introduced ‘due process of law’ ie life & personal liberty can be deprived by law provided that law is reasonable, fair & just – Protect not only from executive but also from legislative action

After Maneka Case , Supreme Court increased the ambit of Article 21 to include following

Right to live with human dignity	Right to livelihood
Right to decent environment	Right to health
Right to shelter	Right to free legal aid
Right to free education upto age 14	Right to speedy trial
Right against public hanging	Right against custodial death
Right against hand cuffing	Right against solitary confinement

Increased it to Right to Reputation in Subramanium Swami vs Government of India Case (June 2016)

Side Topic : US Supreme Court Judgements influenced decisions under Article 21

• Munn vs Illinois (1876) – Justice Field explained that meaning of term LIFE is very wide and is more than mere animal existence. Similarly , term LIBERTY is something more than mere freedom from physical restraint or bounds of prison

Issues related to Article 21

Issue 1  : Right to Privacy Issue

Main Case : Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India

• July 2017 : Justice K. S. Puttaswamy  (retd.) vs Union of India, a 9 judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that right to privacy is an intrinsic part of life and liberty under Article 21.
• Case was just to decide Right to Privacy

Judicial History of Right to Privacy

• MP Sharma Case (1954) : 8 Judge bench held that  Right to Privacy is not a FR under Indian Constitution

• Kharak Singh vs State of UP (1962) :  Kharak Singh was arrested in a case of dacoity, but was released as there was no evidence against him. Uttar Pradesh Police brought him under “surveillance” which he challenged . SC held that Right to Privacy is not FR.

But after that many judgements came which ordered State to be sensitive of Privacy of Citizens

• Malak Singh vs State of Punjab (1981) : Police shouldn’t violate privacy of a citizen while exercising surveillance over him

• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)  vs Union of India (1997) : Wiretapping without adopting reasonable procedure established by law is a violation of an individual’s privacy .  

Right to Privacy declared Fundamental Right under Article 21

• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (retd.) vs Union of India, a nine judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that right to privacy is an intrinsic part of life and liberty under Article 21.

But with development of S&T and the rate at which privacy destroying technology has developed , Right to Privacy Act specifically dealing with all aspects of privacy is need of the hour

 International  Conventions

• Right  of Privacy  is  integral  part  of
  • Universal Declaration  on  Human  Rights (UDHR)
  • International Covenant on  Civil  and  Political  Rights (ICCPR),  1966
  • UN Charter  (1945)
• India is member of all .

Right to Privacy in other countries

• In US , SC declared that Right to Privacy is FR  in 19th century in response to yellow journalism (yellow journalism : newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news & instead use eye-catching headlines for increased sales)

• UK too recognises Right to Privacy as Right under “castle doctrine” of English common law, meaning an Englishman’s home was his castle. 

(Conclusion) Why Right to Privacy should be Fundamental Right

• As opined by SC in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, Right to Privacy is intrinsic part of Article 21

• Castle Doctrine & other countries : Castle Doctrine says that Person’s home is his Castle and is part of laws of many countries including UK .  In US , SC has already declared it to be FR

• Conventions : Various Conventions like Universal Declaration  on  Human  Rights (UDHR)  & International Covenant on  Civil  and  Political  Rights (ICCPR),  1966 of which India is part also state about this .

• Various Commissions like Justice AP Shah Commission on Privacy  Law and Justice BN Srikrishna Commission has recommended need to protect the privacy of persons .

• To Prevent digital colonisation by digital & e-commerce businesses which treat Data as new currency   

Issue 2  : Euthanasia

• Word ‘Euthanasia’-   originated in Greece,  meaning mercy killing
• Two types
  • life ending medication is administered to the patient by a third party, usually a doctor (Active Euthanasia) or
  • Life support is withdrawn (Passive Euthanasia)

Arguments against Euthanasia

• Constitution of India – according to SC judgement in Gian Kaur Case,1996 , Right to Life doesn’t include Right to die
• Neglect of Healthcare by State – example : Holland. 
• Malafide intention –  misusing Euthanasia by family members or relatives for inheriting the property of the patient . This was held in Aruna Shanbaug Case too.

Arguments in favour of Euthanasia

• Supreme Court Judgement : Common Cause Case (2018) held that Right to Life include Right to refuse treatment and Die with Dignity and allowed Passive Euthanasia and living wills regarding this.
• Hospitals are already overcrowded. Hospitals should devote resources on those patients which can be cured.
• Care-givers Burden: The caregiver’s burden is huge .  Many families have gone bankrupt to ensure medical care for a terminally ill person  .
• Encouraging Organ Transplantation
• Law Commission  in various reports has spoken in favour of Passive Euthanasia

Aruna Shanbaug Judgement

• Didn’t allow Active Euthanasia but allowed ‘Passive Euthanasia’ in rarest of the rare cases  subject to safeguards  
  • Have to take approval of High Court Bench, based on consultation with a panel of medical experts.
• Only  hospital could make such a request (friends and relatives cant). 

2018 : Passive Euthanasia and Living Will Judgement (Common Cause vs Union of India)

• PIL filed by NGO Common Cause in 2005 in Supreme Court.
• It held that
  • Right to life  includes right to refuse treatment and die with dignity ie it allowed Passive Euthanasia
  • It allowed LIVING WILL   regarding Passive Euthanasian made in presence of Judicial Magistrate .

Issue 3 : Right to Marry

Supreme Court (SC) of India has recognised Right to Marry within scope of Right to Life and Personal Liberty .

Various Judgements regarding this

1. 2018 – PIL in Shakti Vahini Case : Supreme Court has took firm stand against Khap Panchayat in their interference in marriages and honour killings. 
2. 2018 – Hadiya Judgement : Right to Marry is included in Right to life and liberty
3. Lata vs State of UP (2006) : Right to Marry is a fundamental part of Right to Life under Article 21 . 
4. Bhagwan Das vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2011) : Honour Killings fall within the ambit of ‘rarest of rare cases‘ and perpetrators deserve death punishment.

US Supreme Court has given strong judgement with regard to marrying person of his / her own choice

• Loving vs Virginia (1967) : US SC invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage
• Bostic vs Schaefer (2015) : Validated same sex marriage

Issue 4 : RIGHT TO LIFE & GREEN LAWS

Several instances where court intervened

1. Basis of the “polluter pays” principle pronounced in Bichhri Judgement in Rajasthan, where groundwater and wells were poisoned by industrial effluents.
2. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996) – SC recognised Right to live in Healthy Environment is FR and is part of Article 21
3. Doon Valley Case (1989) – SC had to deal with dispute involving mining in hilly areas . 
4. MC Mehta Case : CNG in Delhi and order to implement Bharat Stage norms

Issue 5 : Lynchings

In news due to Cow Vigilantism and lynchings done on the name of protecting cow .

Reasons of lynchings

1. Political Reasons
   • Instrumentalisation of prejudice for political ends.
2. Religious reasons
   • Cow considered mother in hinduism. People easily mobilised using cow symbol
3. Rumours
   • Whatsapp used to spread rumours

Aspects of the problem

• People are being executed either on the name of religion or caste. Major targets are
  • Minority especially Muslims – On allegations of eating and trading in beef. 
  • Low Caste : They depend on work in the meat and leather industries.
• Fundamental Rights violated :
  • Right to Life (Article 21) of Minority communities
  • Article 19(1)(g) : Right to Freedom of Profession
• Government’s negligence 
  • Government is not acting with firm hand and protecting perpetrators of Crime
• Legislation
  • Lynching does not find mention in the Indian Penal Code. 
  • Government maintains no data on Lynchings & NCRB don’t record lynching as separate offence

Consequences of increased lynchings

1. Mob Justice mentality on rise
2. Loss of faith of minority in state machinery . They can pick up arms if further alienated
3. Impact on Farmers : Farmers are feeling the heat because animal husbandry is side business of Farmers  . But due to fear of Cow Vigilantes during transportation, market and price of Cattle has come down exponentially.
4. Communalism on rise   
5. India coming under huge pressure from Human Right Groups and faced lot of criticism at UNHRC peer review
6. Loss of trade – Leather and Meat industry both impacted which was Foreign Exchange earner .

Uttar Pradesh Law Commission (UPLC) earlier last month took the initiative, unprompted by the Uttar Pradesh government, to recommend a draft anti-lynching law. It commends a law which closely follows in almost every major detail the first law against lynching passed in this country, a remarkable ordinance introduced by the Manipur government late last year, indeed the most significant statute against religious hate crimes in the country.

Ashok Gehlot-led government in Rajasthan has also tabled Rajasthan Protection From Lynching Bill, 2019 (second after Manipur)

• Setting up of special courts
• appointment of a dedicated nodal officer
• Enhanced punishments : Life term with fine upto 5 lakh
• Provide legal aid, compensation and rehabilitation .

Lacunae : unlike the law on mob lynching in Manipur, it does not prescribe any punishment for dereliction of duty.

Solution

• Government should pass MASUKA (Manav Suraksha Kanoon) proposed by NGO (National Campaign against Mob Lynching)  to act tough against vigilante groups
• Government should adopt Zero Tolerance towards such acts . Feeling of Impunity gives these Vigilante Groups encouragement .
• Judiciary must be vigilant enough to protect Right of Life
• Urgent need for police reforms by improving organizational capabilities or insulating the police from political pressure

Article 21 A

Right to education

State shall provide free & compulsory education from age 6 to 14 via 86th Amendment,2002

• Earlier under Article 45 but  wasn’t justiciable 
• 1993 – SC ruled Right to education is included in Article 21 itself
• Right of Children to Free & compulsory Education (RTE),2009 was enacted by Parliament in its pursuance

Article 22

• Protection against Arrest & Detention
• Grants protection to persons who are arrested or detained

Contain two parts

Part 1

Deals with Punitive detention & confers following Rights

1. Rights to be informed of grounds of arrest as soon as arrest is made
2. Right to consult & to be defended by legal practitioner of his choice
3. Right to be produced before magistrate within 24 hrs
4. Right to be released after 24 hr unless magistrate authorises so

Available to alien  also (but not enemy alien)

Part 2

Deals with Preventive detention & confers following rights

1. Detention can’t exceed 3 months unless advisory board consisting of HC judge advices so
2. Grounds of detention should be communicated to detenu
3. Detenu should be afforded opportunity to make representation against detention order

44th Amendment – reduced period from 3 to 2 months but not yet brought into force

India is the only democracy in world which has preventive detention as integral part of constitution

An accused person can be compelled to give his thumb impression but cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself

2018 Judgement : Supreme Court held that Preventive detention of a person by a State merely because the normal legal process is ineffective and time-consuming is illegal.

Analysis of Preventive Detention in India

A person can be put in jail / custody for two reasons. One is that he has committed a crime. Another is that he has potential to commit a crime in future. The custody arising out of the later is Preventive Detention  .

Historical background of Preventive Detention in India

India has a long history of “Preventive Detention”.  Acts using Preventive Detention are

• Bengal Regulation III , 1818
• Preventive Detention Act, 1950
• TADA , 1985 (to deal with terrorism in Punjab)
• PSA (Public Safety Act) => in force now

States and Goonda Acts

Goonda Acts	– Using Provisions of Preventive Detention , States have enacted Goonda Laws – Goonda  Act  are enacted for Preventive Detention of   habitual  offenders
PSA	2019 : MP Government charged persons under Public Safety Act for Bovine trade

Arguments against the provision

• Repugnant to modern democratic constitutions. They are not found in any of the democratic countries. 
• Detaining person under Preventive Detention  affects  the  life  and  liberty  of  the  citizen  under  Articles  14,  19,  21  and 22  .
• It obviates the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which permits that rights can only be limited “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” but it allows detention in peacetime as well.
• The long period of detaining (3 months) poses a threat of torture.
• In the absence of proper safeguards, preventive detention has been misused, particularly against the Dalits & minorities.
• States are misusing these provision to make Goonda Acts . Political scores are settled using these provisions

Arguments for the provision

• Circumstances at the time demanded such provisions. Bhimrao Ambedkar who was liberal in orientation too spoke in favour of these provisions as challenges of centrifugal forces faced by newly formed nation were great at that time.
• Number of persons detained in these acts is not a very large and due attention is made before preventive detention.
• Having such kind of acts has a restraining influence on the anti-social and subversive elements.

Conclusion : The PD is a “necessary evil”. But problem is its misuse for political and other motives.

Note : It was Vallabhbhai Patel, a mascot for the advocates of a “hard state”, who introduced and got the preventive detention bill passed in 1950. But the bill was not easy on his conscience. He conceded that he spent two sleepless nights before introducing the bill in Parliament and moved it only because of the political and social turmoil that followed Partition and Independence.Over the last 70 years, provisions of preventive detention which were incorporated to be used as  “necessary evil”, has come to be normalized as a “necessary condition” and transitioned from being exceptional measures for exceptional situations, to extraordinary measures for ordinary situations.

Current cases of Preventive Detention

MP Cow cases (2019)	MP government used PSA to detain those who have alleged to have committed offences related to cattle laws (maximum punishment of which can be just 1 year)
Kishorechand Wangkhem	Dec 2018 => Manipur Journalist arrested under Preventive Detention (under PSA) for 1 year after he called Manipur CM to be puppet of Centre.
Chandra Shekhar Azad / Ravan	2018 : Arrested under PSA

Right to Equality

This article deals with ‘Right to Equality .’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Article 14

Article 14 provides – Equality before law & equal protection of law

Equality before Law	Equal protection of Law
British concept	American concept
Negative concept	Positive concept
Consist of – Absence of any special privileges in favour of any person – Equal subjection of all persons to ordinary law of land	Consist of – Equality of treatment under similar circumstances – Like should be treated alike without discrimination

Article 31-C

• When Article 31-C comes in Article 14 goes out.
• Article 31-C says that  implementing Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 39(b)&( c )cannot be challenged on grounds that they violate Article 14

Article 15

Article 15(1)

• Prohibition of discrimination only on grounds of religion , race, caste , sex or place of birth
• Deals only with actions of state and not individuals

Article 15(2)

• No citizen shall be subjected to any disability only on grounds of religion ,race,caste , sex or place of birth wrt
  • Access to shops,restaurants,hotels & places of public entertainment
  • Use of wells,tanks,ghats ,roads & public place
• Deals with state as well as private individuals

Exceptions

• Article 15(3) : State can make special provisions for women & children
• Article 15(4) : State can make special provision for advancement of Socially & Educationally Backward Classes and SC & STs
• Article 15(5) : State can make special provisions regarding their admission to Educational Institutions including private ones for above sections (93rd Amendment,2005)

Article 16

• Article 16(1) : Equality of Opportunity in matter of Public Employment 

Exceptions

• Article 16(4) :  Can provide Reservation in favour of certain Backward Class if not adequately represented

Article 17

• Abolition of Untouchability
• For this  Protection of Civil Rights Act (PCRA) ,1976
  • Under Act, where any of forbidden practices is committed in relation to a member of SC , the Court shall presume unless contrary is proved , that such act was committed on ground of Untouchability
• This right is available against State as well as Private Individual
• Although term Untouchability is no where defined

Mysore High Court Ruling

• It constitute practice as it has evolved historically in country
• Refers to social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons by reason of their birth in certain castes
• Doesn’t include social boycott of few individuals or their exclusion from religious services

Article 18

Abolition of Titles and make four provisions

Supreme Court ruling 1996

• It upheld the constitutionality of National Awards like Padma Bhushan etc  as
  1. They are not hereditary . But they cant be used as prefix and suffix in names  
  2. Along with that, clause (j) of Article 51A (Fundamental Duties) exhorts every citizen “to strive towards excellence , so that nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement”. It is , therefore , necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to recognise excellence in performance of these duties.

Issues related to Right to Equality

Issue 1  : Classification for Purpose of Legislation

Concept of Equality before Law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among all.  Article 14 also includes the phrase ‘equal protection of the laws’ which means right to equal treatment in similar circumstances.

What Article 14 prohibits is ‘class legislation’ and not classification for the purpose of legislation  . But the classification should not be arbitrary and have relation to the object of legislation. So Article 14 does not mean that every person shall be taxed equally, but that persons under the same circumstances should be taxed by the same standard.

In order to be reasonable and not arbitrary, a classification must satisfy following  conditions 

1. Classification should be based on intelligible difference which distinguishes those  grouped together from others.
2. Difference must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act.
3. Single Individual may be treated as class on account of some reasons applicable to him and not others.

Examples of Classifications

1. 25% reservation to children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in private schools. 

Issue 2 : Reservation

Reservation  in Indian law is quota based affirmative action . 

Why founding fathers opted reservation?

• To achieve Equality in true spirit : Although Equality and Reservation are on opposite ends of spectrum but it is well known fact that , unequal persons can’t be expected to compete on equal terms
• To provide justice as enshrined in Preamble .

Points regarding Reservation

1 . All societies face serious challenges due to institutionalised inequality

US	African Americans + American Indians
Europe	Gypsies
Australia	Aborigines
China	Non Han Minorities

But nowhere in the world is inequality by birth and moral neutrality to such discrimination so institutionalised as in Indian society.

2 . How Caste System became such an oppressive system ?

This happened because of certain features of Caste System like

1. Denial of education for all but a few “upper” castes
2. Linkage between caste and occupation
3. Institutionalised  untouchability 
4. Tradition of endogamous marriages within caste

3. Even before independence, Reservations  had a place in India for over a century

• In 1902, Pune’s Chhatrapati Maharaj reserved seats in educational institutions
• Mysore Maharaja and the states of Madras and Travancore 

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 15(3)  –  State can  make special  provision for  women and  children
• Article 15(4)  –  State  can  make  special  provision  for  the  advancement  of  any  socially  and  educationally backward  classes   or  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes
• Article  16(4)  –    reservation  of  appointments  or  posts 
• Article 16(4A) reservation in promotion for SC & ST .
• Article  46  –  To  promote  the  educational  and  economic  interests  of  SCs,  STs,  and  other  weaker  sections  of society

Types of Reservation

Vertical Reservation	In case of SC/ST/OBC Quota
Horizontal Reservation	Special reservation for women within SC / SC/ OBC

Important Supreme Court judgements

• MR Balaji vs State of Mysore (1963) : 
  • Quota cant be more than 50% (reiterated in Indira Sawhney/Mandal Judgement) 

• Indira Sawhney Case / Mandal Commission Case : In this , 27% reservation made for backward classes apart from SCs & STs was challenged . Was decided by 9 Judge Constitutional Bench . SC ruled that
  1. Reservation shouldn’t be more than 50% . 50% rule should be applied each year
  2. Caste can be made sole basis for determining social backwardness. Caste is quite often is a social class in India
  3. There is no constitutional bar to classify citizens into backward and more backward classes
  4. Creamy layer in OBC  can and must be excluded
  5. Creamy layer did not apply to Scheduled Castes (S.Cs) and Scheduled Tribes (S.Ts)
  6. There should be no reservation in promotion
  7. Backward class of citizens cant be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria

• M. Nagaraj and others vs Union of India : Supreme Court  held that before providing reservations in promotion , “the concerned state will have to show in each case the existence of 
  • Backwardness to be shown by quantifiable data
  • Inadequacy of representation to be shown by quantifiable data
  • Overall administrative efficiency will not be effected

• Jat  Reservation Case :  UPA included Jats from  nine states, and  two Rajasthan districts, in the central list of OBCs going against advice of NCBC . SC scrapped it  ruling  that  “caste”  and  “historical  injustice”  cannot  blind  a  state  in according  backward  status  to  a  community  and  that  new  emerging  groups  such  as  transgenders  must  be identified  for  quota  benefits.

Issues with reservation policy of India

• Stagnant:  reservation  policy   was  initiated  as  a temporary  provision  (for  10  years) 
• Hindrance to develop National Consciousness by dividing  society on Caste lines  
• Elite Sub-stratum : Reservation has created class within class . Presently, it is not the poorest but non-poor, middle income groups of SC/ST/OBC who are beneficiaries of reservations. 
• Used as tool of Political  Mobilization:  Political  parties  are  utilizing  caste-based  reservation  for  vote  bank politics  
• Dissatisfaction:  in  communities  excluded  from  reservations

Reforms required

• Develop  Capabilities: Best way is  develop the  capabilities  of  the  deprived  and excluded  section  .
• Deprivation Points – JNU implements this system of admissions which takes a more nuanced view of disadvantage .  
• Use Socio-Economic Caste Census data : Data in SECCs, which takes a broader view of deprivation should be used
• Introducing Reserved category certificate which can be used only once in 20 years

Benefits

After Tina Dabi (SC Girl) & Kanishk Kataria (SC boy) topped UPSC Civil Services examination , some experts have been trying to give it as an evidence to positive impacts of Reservation given to SCs/STs.

Note : some people say that they oppose today’s reservations because they believe reservation should be made on the basis of income rather than social background. However, reservation is intended not to be an anti-poverty programme. The government has many programmes which are, in principle, accessible to all poor people. Reservation exists because, in addition to being more likely to be poor than general castes, Dalits, backward Muslims, and Adivasis face social discrimination and exclusion that poor people from general caste backgrounds do not face. Reservation is a useful tool to level the playing field: we cannot expect groups who have been historically deprived of education, skills, and access to other means of economic mobility to suddenly start competing with those from groups who have had access to these means for centuries.

Issue 3 : Reservation in Promotions

• Indira Sahni Case : There should be no reservation in promotion
• 77th Amendment & Article 16 (4A): overturned Indra Sawhney on the issue of promotions (Article 16(4A) provides reservation in Promotion)
• M. Nagaraj  vs Union of India : Supreme Court  held that before providing reservations in promotion , “ concerned state will have to show in each case the existence of 
  1. Backwardness to be shown by quantifiable data
  2. Inadequacy of representation to be shown by quantifiable data
  3. Overall administrative efficiency will not be effected

Issue due to Judgement : requirement for quantifiable data had made it difficult to extend quota benefits to employees. Government was of the view that being SC/ST is itself proof that they are backward and no other data is required

Sept 2018 Judgement : Main points

• There is no need to show backwardness by quantifiable data but bench did not make changes about the two other conditions given in  Nagaraj verdict which dealt with adequacy of representation and administrative efficiency.
• Court also asked the government to examine the possibility of introducing creamy layer for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) says that if some sections bag all the coveted jobs ,it will leave the rest of the class as backward as they always were

Points in favour of reservation in promotions

• Skewed SC/ST representation at senior levels–  representation of SCs/STs, though, has gone up at various levels, representation in senior levels is highly skewed against SCs/STs due to prejudices.
• + all points in favour of reservations

Points against reservation in promotions

• Hurts efficiency of administration: This aspect becomes important in highly technical domains such as Nuclear research, space program, etc.
• Provisions under articles 16(4) & 16 (4A) of Constitution are only enabling provisions, and not a fundamental right.
• In a case the Supreme Court ruled that no reservation in promotions would be given in appointment for faculty posts at the super specialty block in AIIMS.

Issue 4 : Upper Caste Quota

103rd Constitutional Amendment Act

• Article 16(6) -provides 10% resevation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in higher education & government jobs
• Such reservation will not apply to minority educational institutions. 

Eligibility

• Annual  salary of less than ₹8 lakh per year
• Owns less than 5 acres of land

Points in favour of this quota

• DPSP contained in Article 46 of the Constitution enjoins that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people

• Ram Singh v. Union of India (2015) – SC asserted that  there is a need to evolve new yardsticks to move away from caste-centric definition of backwardness as social deficiencies may exist beyond the concept of caste (e.g. economic status / gender identity as in transgenders).

• It will lead to destigmatisation of reservation .

Points against this quota

• Legal arguments
  • Indira Sawhney  Judgement :  backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion
  • Breaches 50% ceiling & hence against Right to Equality

• Constitutional
  • violative of the basic structure of the Constitution

• Assembly Debates
  • B R Ambedkar in his speech in the Constituent Assembly explicitly said that equality of opportunity would require that reservation should be for the “minority of the seats” and only in favour of “backward classes who had not so far had representation in the state”.

• Historical Argument
  • From the Poona Pact (1932) between M K Gandhi and Dr B R Ambedkar to the Constituent Assembly debates, reservation was talked about in the context of social backwardness of classes. The 124th Amendment makes a departure by extending reservation to the economically disadvantaged. 

• Reservations can’t go to a section that is already adequately represented in public employment. Government doesn’t has quantifiable data to show that people from lower income groups are under-represented in Service

• Practical Issue: taxable population is still very low due to misrepresentation of income, implementing economic eligibility criteria would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Issue 5 : New  Communities Demanding Reservation

Following new communities are demanding reservation

1. Jats in Haryana
2. Patels/Patidars  in Gujarat
3. Kapus in Andhra
4. (Dec 2018) Marathas : Maharashtra State Assembly unanimously passed a Bill providing 16% reservation for Marathas). 

Important point to note that all these castes are mainly agricultural castes & are well placed in social hierarchy .

Reason for increase in demand now

• Squeezing of agricultural incomes  after LPG reforms + Average size of farms is  decreasing making agriculture unviable.

• Inability to fit in Post Reform Economy – Post- LPG reforms skill intensive jobs have been created in service sector . But these communities have not acquired sufficient education to fit in service sector

• India’s Jobless Growth : Although India has been able to grow at rate of around 7% but this growth was jobless  

• Resentment against other OBC communities like Kunbi, Yadav, Gujjar, Reddy , and Saini which are socially and economically placed on same position is rural society are in OBC category.

• Political Support : These communities know that they have political support as well as numbers to bend political parties according to their needs .

• Competition for fewer brides : These castes have skewed sex ratio and Parents of girls prefer grooms with stable income – those with government jobs are often their preferred choice. 

Solutions

• Make available quality education to whoever wants
• Fast, job-producing economic growth.
• Relooking at feasibility of implementation of MS Swaminathan Report 

Introduction to Fundamental Rights

This article deals with ‘Introduction to Fundamental Rights .’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Introduction

Constitution and Fundamental Rights

• Article 12-35 of Part III deals with Fundamental Rights

Why are Fundamental Rights fundamental

• Protected and guaranteed by Constitution which is fundamental law of land
• Most essential for all round development of individual

Fali S Nariman : Individuals possess basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the fact that they are members of the human family. A Constitution does not “confer” Fundamental Rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection.

Present Status of Fundamental Rights

Originally 7 now 6 only (Right to Property conferred by Article 31 was removed by 44th Amendment and now it is legal right under Article 300-A Part XII)

1 . Right To Equality(14-18)

Article 14	Equality before law & Equal protection of law
Article 15	Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion ,race, caste,  place of birth or sex only
Article 16	Equality of opportunity in matter of public employment
Article 17	Abolition of Untouchability
Article 18	Abolition of titles except military and academic

2. Right to Freedom (19-22)

Article 19	Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of 1. Speech 2. Assembly 3. Association 4. Movement 5. Residence 6. Profession
Article 20	Protection wrt conviction of offences
Article 21	Protection of life & personal liberty
Article 21A	Right to elementary education
Article 22	Protection against arrest & detention

Features of Fundamental Rights

• Some are available to citizens only &  others to all persons

• They are qualified & not absolute  ie state can impose reasonable restrictions on them but whether it is reasonable or not is decided by court
• Most of them against arbitrary action of state with few against action of private individual. If rights that are protected against states action is violated by person only legal remedy and not constitutional remedy is available
• Most of them negative in character but some are positive in character too conferring certain privileges
• Not sacrosanct and can be repealed or modified but only by Constitutional Amendment (but in such a way that they don’t affect Basic Structure )
• Can be suspended during national emergency except Article 20 & 21 and Article 19 can be suspended only in External emergency & not internal
• Most of them are directly enforceable while others can be enforced by law. But such laws can be made by Parliament to ensure uniformity in whole country( Article 35)

Preamble of Indian Constitution

This article deals with ‘Preamble of Indian Constitution.’ This is part of our series on ‘Polity’ which is important pillar of GS-2 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Introduction

First Preamble	Constitution  of USA  was the first to have Preamble
Based on	Objective Resolution, 1947 drafted & moved by Nehru and adopted by Constituent Assembly
Words added later	SECULAR SOCIALIST INTEGRITY – Three words by 42nd Constitutional Amendment
Reveals	Four things   1. Source of authority : Derives power from people of India 2. Nature of state : Sovereign, Socialist , Secular, Democratic, Republic 3. Objective :To achieve Justice,Liberty,Equality & Fraternity 4. Date of Adoption : Nov 26,1949

Important Note : Order  is important for Prelims

Sovereign -> Socialist -> Secular -> Democratic -> Republic (S3DR)

Keywords & Meaning 

1 . Sovereign

• India is neither dependency nor dominion of any nation
• 1949 controversy : India declared continuance of full membership of commonwealth and accepted British crown as head of commonwealth but this did not affect sovereignty in any respect

2. Socialist

• Added by 42nd Amendment : Explicitly mentioned via Amendment although implicitly already present in form of Directive Principles
• Indian Socialism is Democratic Socialism which hold faith in mixed economy and has blend of both Marxism & Gandhism  leaning heavily towards Gandhism

3. Secular

• Added by 42nd Amendment : Amendment stated it explicitly,  although implicitly it was already present
• Constitution makers assured this through Articles 25 to 28
• Indian constitution envisaged positive concept of secularism ie equal protection of all religions by state (western countries have adopted negative concept of secularism and constructs wall between State & Religion )
• Concept of secularism of state ie State  will have no religion  was propounded in Minerva Mills Case 1980

4. Democratic

• Based on doctrine of popular sovereignty
• In India, Democratic system is indirect & Parliamentary

5. Republic

• Democratic polity can be of two types 
  • Monarchy
  • Republic
• India is Republic i.e head of state is elected and not hereditary
• All public offices in India are opened to all citizens

6. Justice

• Justice – social, economic & political
• Secured through various Directive Principles & F.R.

Social Justice	Equal treatment of all
Economic Justice	Non discrimination of people on economic basis
Political Justice	Equal political rights to all people

• Taken from Russian Revolution

7. Liberty

• Absence of restraints on activities of individuals and providing opportunities for development
• Secured through Fundamental Rights which are enforceable in court of law
• Qualified and not absolute
• Taken from French Revolution

8. Equality

• Absence of special privileges to any section of  society
• There will be equality both of status as well as of opportunity.

9. Fraternity

• Fraternity means sense of brotherhood
• Promotes sense of brotherhood by single citizenship
• Fundamental  Duties Article 51A also calls for fraternity

Preamble as part of Constitution

Question was raised that whether Preamble is part of constitution or not ? Various judgements of Supreme Court has given answer to these questions.

1 . Berubari union Case,1960

• Preamble is not part of constitution but shows key to minds of constitution makers
• When terms in constitution are ambiguous , preamble can be used in interpretation

2. Keshavananda Bharti case,1973

• Rejected earlier decision and held that Preamble is part of constitution
• But
  • Neither source of power to legislature nor prohibits it
  • Non justiciable & not enforceable by court

Amendability of Preamble

Another question which came up was that – Whether Preamble can be amended or not ? Supreme Court has given judgement on this issue

Keshavananda Bharti case,1973

• Preamble is part of constitution & since it is part of constitution it can be amended under Article 368
• But subject to condition that basic features are not amended in doing so/basic structure is not damaged.

Present Controversy on Socialism & Secularism Debate

BJP leaders frequently raise this issue that word Socialism and Secularism which was added in Preamble should be removed . But this is a controversial issue which needs serious debate .

My take on this issue

1. Doctrine of Basic structure says that Socialist + Secular + Preamble constitute Basic Structure of Constitution.  44th Amendment reverted almost all key aspects of 42nd Amendment but Preamble remained unchanged .
2. During Constituent Assembly Debates, Issue of including Secularism and Socialism in Constitution was sufficiently discussed. They were not included because
   • Secularism : There was only one model of secularism known at that time which makes wall between State and Religion. But when in 1970s , we were sure that Indian variant of Secularism is different, we included it in Preamble
   • Socialism : Same reason
3. Elimination of economic inequality still remains our national goal & MNREGA & food security bill and Jan Dhan Yojana point towards that . Hence, Socialism remains important even today and shouldn’t be removed

Sources of Constitution

Indian constitution has adopted various features from different sources especially constitutions of other countries .

1. Government of India Act of 1935 – Federal Scheme, Office of governor, Judiciary, Public Service Commissions, Emergency provisions and administrative details.
2. British Constitution – Parliamentary government, Rule of Law, legislative procedure, single citizenship, cabinet system, prerogative writs, parliamentary privileges and bicameralism.
3. US Constitution – Fundamental rights, independence of judiciary, judicial review, impeachment of the president, removal of Supreme Court and high court judges and post of vice-president.
4. Irish Constitution – Directive Principles of State Policy, nomination of members to Rajya Sabha and method of election of president.
5. Canadian Constitution – Federation with a strong Centre, vesting of residuary powers in the Centre, appointment of state governors by the Centre, and advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
6. Australian Constitution – Concurrent List, freedom of trade, commerce and inter-course, and joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament.
7. Weimar Constitution of Germany – Suspension of Fundamental Rights during Emergency.
8. Soviet Constitution (USSR, now Russia) – Fundamental duties and the ideal of justice (social, economic and political) in the Preamble.
9. French Constitution – Republic and the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble.
10. South African Constitution – Procedure for amendment of the Constitution and election of members of Rajya Sabha
11. Japanese constitution – procedure established by law

Interior of Earth

This article deals with ‘Interior of Earth and Earths’s Magnetism .’ This is part of our series on ‘Geography’ which is important pillar of GS-1 syllabus . For more articles , you can click here

Direct and Indirect Evidences

Earthquake & Seismic Waves

Structure of Earth

Side Topic : Discontinuities interior of Earth

Lithosphere , Asthenosphere , Mesosphere and Barysphere

Earth’s Magnetism