Administered by President through Administrator appointed by him. But Administrator is just agent of President & not head of U.T like Governor
Different Nomenclature for agent – Lt. Governor (LG), Administrator & Chief Commissioner
Pondicherry(1966) & Delhi(1992) are provided with Legislative Assembly . But this doesn’t diminishes the supreme control of President & Parliament over them
Parliament can make law over all three lists and this power extends to Delhi & Pondicherry too . But in addition with that their Legislative Assemblies can also make laws on state & concurrent list( in case of conflict , central law prevails )
President can make regulations for peace & good governance of U.Ts of A&N, Lakshadweep, Dadra &Nagar Haveli and Daman &Diu (not Chandigarh) & these regulations have force of Act of Parliament
Parliament can establish High Court for U.T or put it under Jurisdiction of High Court of adjacent state (Note : only Delhi has separate High Court)
Constitution don’t contain separate provisions for administration of acquired territories & same provisions apply to them as that of Union Territories
Home Minister’s Advisory Committees for U.T
Made under
Government of India(Allocation of Business) Rules 1961
Made for all
5 UTs without legislature
Consist of
Administrator + Member of Parliament + Members from Local Bodies
Committee
discuss general issues relating to social & economic development of
U.Ts
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 :
Taxation
Foreign exchange, import and export
Industrial and labour
Land reforms
Ceiling on urban property
Elections to Parliament and state legislatures
Food stuffs
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
Tribunals were established with the object of providing a speedy and cheap determination of disputes
Relief to Courts: system gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already overburdened with numerous suits.
Specialised Body to adjudicate on special and technical issues as tribunals are manned by judicial as well as technical members.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Tribunals should be made last word on facts and Supreme Court should restrict itself to the pure question of law.
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
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
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)
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 .
– In 1969, PM Indira Gandhi government amended the Companies Act and imposed a total ban on corporate funding given to political parties.
Reason : 1. Official Reason : To remove political corruption 2. Real Reason : Cut wings of Syndicate within Congress which had good relations with Business houses + Increasing Corporate Support to Right wing Swatantra Party and Jana Sangha
Result : This eliminated the most important source of election funds to parties without providing an alternative financing mechanism (such as state funding) & effectively pushed campaign finance underground .
1985
– Rajiv Gandhi Government legalised Corporate Funding recognising previous mistake – But Corporates still prefers to give fund under the table in order to avoid retribution from other party
Problem 1 : Transparency
Loophole in Representation of People Act : All the income of Political Parties are tax exempted provided , they file return of income to IT Department and they tell the source of donations above 20,000 to Election Commission of India annually . Most political parties show donations of less than 20,000 from individuals as their main source .
Data to corroborate this
According to Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)
69% of Funding of parties is from undisclosed sources
In Regional parties , Undisclosed Funding is even more .
Samajvadi Party = 94%
Shiromani Akali Dal = 86%
Despite provisions under section 29 of Representation of People Act, 1951, parties do not submit their annual audit reports to Election Commission of India
Parties are also out of the ambit of Right to Information act.
Problem 2 : Issue on spending in Elections
Capped Expenditure is for period
starting from EC notification , whereas
parties actually start spending money on campaigns much before that.
There is no ceiling
on party election expenditure —
only candidates’ expenses are capped.
Ceiling on election expenditure
(From 2014)
Lok Sabha
Assembly
Bigger States
₹70 Lakh
₹28Lakh
Problem 3: Problem with IT ACT 1961:
Section 13A of IT act 1961
provide tax
exemption to Political Parties for income
from house property, voluntary contribution, capital gains and other
sources. Case may occur where Political Parties
may be formed only for the sake of avoiding income tax for the property
Remedies wrt Funding of Political Parties
Bring Political Parties under Right to Information
Increase number of days for campaigning . This was done in Britain and is successful
State Financing : Indrajit Gupta Committee, 255th Law Commission Report & 2nd ARC Report has also favoured this . (for more on State Funding,Click here)
Limit on Total Undisclosed Funding that
parties can accept
: Law Commission and Election
Commission favoured this . Undisclosed money should be 20 Crore or 20% of total
funding of party (whichever is less) .
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.
‘Defection’ has been defined as, “To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group”.
Politics of Defection
Surge in
defection was first seen after 4th Lok
Sabha in 1967 when out of 16 states ,
Congress wasn’t able to get clear Majority in 8 states
No party was
in clear majority and as a result frequent Defections were seen to topple
the governments. In 17 months, 17 governments changed in states due to
defectors
Reasons of Defection
Death of main leader resulting in fight
between earlier equals (ie Ministers) to become Chief Minister or Prime
Minister
Total absence of ideology in Politics. As a result of
its absence, legislators don’t shy while changing parties
Various factions within the parties. When particular faction perceive that other faction is getting
more power, they indulge in defections
Lure of
Ministerial Posts
Tremendous gap between emoluments , status and other benefits
to Minister and Ordinary Legislator
52nd Amendment Act,1985 & 91st Amendment Act,2003
In our original constitution , there wasn’t any provision for Anti Defection
These were added through 52nd Amendment, 1985 & 91st Amendment ,2003
It added 10th Schedule to Indian constitution.
Provisions of 10th Schedule
Provision 1 : Provisions for Members elected as officers of the house
They are
allowed to leave their party while
in the office but they are not
allowed to leave their own party & join other party
Provision 2 : Members who are elected but are independent
If he join
any political party after election , then he would be charged under Anti
Defection Laws
Provision 3 : Nominated Members
If any member
is nominated & he doesn’t belong to any party , he/she has full
freedom to join any party within 6 months of nomination but after
expiration of this period ,he would be liable to be tried under Anti
Defection laws
Provision 4 : Elected Member belonging to any political Party
There are two grounds for application of Anti Defection Laws
If he/she voluntarily
gives up the membership of the party
Votes or abstains
from voting in legislature, contrary to the direction
(whip) of the party.
Supreme Court in it’s
previous judgements has ruled that “voluntarily giving up the membership of the party”
is not synonymous with “resignation”. It could be “implied” in participation of
the member in anti-party activities
Provision 5 : Exceptions to 10th Schedule
There were two exceptions in original Amendment (52nd Amendment
,1985) ie Split and Merger but 91st Amendment repealed Split.
Split
– This has been repealed through 91st Amendment – Exemption from disqualification in case of split by 1/3rd members of part
Merger
– This provision is still present – Will not be disqualified when atleast 2/3rd members agrees to such merger
Provision 6 : Deciding Authority
Chairman of House & his decision shall be
final
Provision 7 : Caveat
There is no time limit for leader/chairman of
house to decide on matter of disqualification
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu, 1993
Supreme Court declared this provision to be unconstitutional
Supreme Court Argued
It bars jurisdiction of Supreme Court & High Court . To bar jurisdiction of Supreme Court /High Court , Amendment must be passed by Special Majority by both houses + ratified by 50% of state legislature
While operating under the Anti-defection Law, the Speaker was in the position of a tribunal and therefore, his decisions like those of all tribunals were subject to judicial review.’
Present Situation : there may not be any judicial intervention until the Presiding officer gives his order. However, the final decision is subject to appeal in the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Advantages of Anti Defection Law
Provides greater stability in the politics of nation
Facilitates democratic realignment of parties in legislature by way of merger of parties
Reduces corruption at political level
Give clearcut constitutional recognition for existence of political parties for first time
Criticismof Anti Defection Law
It’s vesting of decision-making authority in the Presiding officer is criticized on two grounds.
He may not exercise this authority in an impartial manner due to political exigencies.
He lacks the legal knowledge and experience to adjudicate upon the cases. 2 Speakers of the Lok Sabha (Rabi Ray-1991 and Shivraj Patil-1993) have themselves accepted this
Increased High Command Culture as MP’s cannot vote on any issue independently.
Reduced democratic accountability : MPs are elected by people to represent constituency . But due to Anti Defection Law, MP cant go against party line even it is against the interest of people he / she is representing .
Against the basic freedom of association and opinion guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights . Freedom of association and opinion did include the freedom of changing associations and opinions.
Coalition and pre-poll alliances are not covered under Tenth Schedule
It is against Articles 105 and 194 which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression in the Houses of Legislatures at the Center and in the States.
Changes needed in Anti-Defection Law
Disqualification provision should be applicable when Legislators votes contrary to matters which are core to the party’s manifesto.
Anti-Defection cases shouldn’t be handed by Chairperson /Speaker of RS/LS . Dinesh Goswami Committee Recommendation :The issue of disqualification should be decided by the President/ Governor on the advice of the Election Commission.
Time in which such cases should be disposed off should be clearly defined because Speakers don’t take up matter for Months and even Years related to Defection.
Law Commission Recommendation : Pre-poll electoral fronts should be treated as political parties under anti-defection law.
Jan 2020 : Supreme Court asked Parliament to amend the Constitution to strip Legislative Assembly Speakers of their exclusive power to decide on the matter of disqualification under the anti-defection law
Elections to Lok Sabha & legislative Assemblies, are held in accordance with First-Past-the Post (FPTP) system
Elections to Rajya Sabha and Legislative Councils are under the system of proportional representation through single transferable vote
How First-Past-the PostSystem Works
Voters vote for one candidate => candidate polling highest number of votes is declared elected.
Advantages of First-Past-the Postsystem
It is easy to understand for electors.
Counting is simple.
Leads to stable governments in diverse country like India
There is an identified representative for each constituency, accountable to his electorate.
Makers of our Constitution also felt that Proportional Representation based election may not be suitable for giving a stable government in a parliamentary system
Disadvantages of First-Past-the Postsystem
Winner takes all approach
Parties having diffused base are not able to win even a single seat
Results in Minority Democracy ruling the country. Eg : Present NDA Government
got 37.4 % Vote (17th Lok Sabha)
Why we adopted First-Past-the Postsystem
Simplicity – Low literacy levels at the time of independence, and unable to understand the complexity of the Proportional Representation SYSTEM.
Familiarity – Before independence several elections were held regularly on the basis of First-Past-the Post system
Proportional Representation SYSTEM establishes party as a major center of power whereas First-Past-the Postgives an individual as a representative of the people
Why Opposition now
Opponents of First Past-The-Post (FPTP) system advocate the introduction of Proportional Representation System because of issue like in diverse country like India all people don’t get their legitimate representation. Eg in the general election of 2014, party like the BSP ended up without a single representative despite over 20 per cent vote share in state.
First Past the Post versus Proportional Representation
Hybrid System
Hybrid
System : two
systems are merged into one combining the positive features from more than
one electoral system.
Total seats are divided into
Halves . Half of the seats in Parliament are filled by First Past the
Post and Half seats by Proportional Representation
System is running
successfully in Germany, New Zealand
and Italy.
In Germany, while voting,
Person cast two votes, one to Candidate and other to the Party .
Need of this system
Parties with even 20% share
of votes in state don’t even get one seat (as happened in 2014 National
Votes in UP with BSP)
Law Commission’s 170th and 255th report
also have suggested that 25% more seats should be added to the present
Lok Sabha and be filled by Proportional Representation.
System running successfully in many European
nations
Better compromise between
FPTP System and PR System
