National Register of Citizens

National Register of Citizens

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

National Register of Citizens

What is the National Register of Citizens (NRC)?

  • On the eve of Independence, the Indian government felt the need to identify Indian Citizens. Hence, the National Register of Citizens was conducted in 1951 in respect of each village, showing the houses and holdings of each person in a serial order. Based on the National Register of Citizens, the Citizenship of each person was confirmed.
  • This Register was used to be kept in the office of the District Collector and Sub Divisional Officer. But in 1960, on the orders of the Home Ministry, all data was given to the Police and was never updated after that.
  • The issue in Assam: Due to the large-scale migration of Bangladeshis in Assam, the need was felt to recognize the Indian Citizens. 

Assamese vs Outsiders

The issue of Outsiders coming into Assam dates back in history.

  • Assamese used to resent the settlement of outsiders (Bengali and Bihari labourers) brought by Britishers to work in Tea Plantations. 
  • After Independence, Assam saw a large-scale arrival of Bengalis.  
  • During the persecution of Bengali Muslims in Bangladesh at the end of the 1960s, more than 10 lakh people came to Assam to take shelter. After the formation of Bangladesh, most of them went back, but some stayed.
  • Even after 1971, Bangladeshis kept on settling in Assam. 

All this created fear in the indigenous population of Assam. They started to fear demographic change, converting them into a minority and heavy stress on the limited resources of Assam.

Assam Accord

1978: Powerful agitation under the All Assam Students Union (AASU) started, which demanded that before conducting elections, the problem of illegal migrants should be solved. They demanded the removal of those who arrived after 1961 from Assam.

1985: Assam Accord between Rajiv Gandhi Government and AASU

  • Those who arrived between 1951 and 1961 will be given full Citizenship and the right to vote. 
  • Those who have arrived after 1971 will be sent back
  • Those who arrived between 1961 and 1971 were given Citizenship, but the right to vote wasn’t given
  • A Special Package was given for the development of Assam
  • Oil Refinery, Paper Mills and Technical institutions would be opened in Assam

But due to politics, little happened over the decades. Finally, in 2014, the Supreme Court asked the state government to update the 1951 NRC in a timebound manner and conduct the exercise under its supervision.

NRC updating process in Assam

NRC updating involves the procedure of adding the names of individuals (or their descendants) whose names are found in either of the following lists.

  • Any of the Assam’s Electoral Rolls up to March 24 1971, or
  • National Register of Citizen of 1951, or
  • Any of the admissible documents stipulated, such as land or tenancy records, citizenship certificate, permanent residential certificate, etc.

In August 2019, the updated and final National Register of Citizens, which validates bonafide Indian citizens of Assam, was released with over 19 lakh applicants who had failed to make it to the list (and many were Hindus).

Hence, this process has the danger of exclusion and inclusion errors, and a large number of legitimate Indian citizens could end up being denied their rights. Along with that, Illegal migrants out of NRC will be sent back to Bangladesh. However, India does not have any deportation treaty with Bangladesh. Moreover, there are apprehensions that a large number of stateless people can be created in India, thus impacting the overall image of people.

Assam Accord vs Citizenship Amendment Act

There are inherent differences between the Assam Accord and the Citizenship Amendment Act, as the Amendment provides citizenship rights to Hindu migrants who have arrived post-1971.

Citizenship – Indian Polity

Citizenship – Indian Polity

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


Citizenship - Indian Polity

Some Fundamental Rights belong to citizens alone, such as

Rights available only to Indian Citizens only

Only (Indian) citizens can hold certain offices, such as​

  1. The President of India
  2. The Vice-President of India
  3. The Judges of the Supreme Court  
  4. The Judges of the High Court  
  5. The Governor of a State
  6. The Attorney General of India
  7. The Advocate General of the State
  8. Only citizens can vote in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections.
  9. Only citizens of India can become MLA and MP

However, apart from enjoying these exclusive rights, the citizens must also fulfil certain ​duties towards the Indian State (called the Fundamental Duties), e.g., paying taxes, respecting the national anthem and national anthem, defending the country, etc.

Different countries follow different principles for granting Citizenship of a country. These include

  1. Right of the Soil/Jus Soli: If a person was born in the territory (within the borders) of that country
  2. Right of Blood/Jus Sangunis: If one or both of his parents are citizens of that country.
  3. By Marriage: If a person is married to a person who is a citizen of that country.
  4. Naturalization: If a person obtains Citizenship by passing through the legal process of naturalization.

Presently, India follows the principle of the Right of Blood (with some caveats) and Naturalization for its Citizenship. However, the process has changed since independence. Initially, everyone born in the Indian territory was granted Citizenship, i.e. India followed the right of the land principle. But it was changed through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 1986 when the condition was added that a person born in India could become a citizen only if one of the parents was an Indian citizen.

Note: In India, anybody who is a citizen of India, whether by birth or naturalized, can become President, but only a citizen by birth can become President in the USA.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 5 to 11 of Part II deals with Citizenship. It only identifies persons who will become citizens on January 26, 1950 and leaves it to Parliament to make laws relating to other matters of Citizenship. Consequently, the Parliament of India enacted the Citizenship Act 1955, which has been amended many times, subsequently in 1957, 1960, 1985, 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2015 and 2019.

Article 5 of Indian Constitution

Article 6 of Indian Constitution

Article 7 of Indian Constitution

Article 8 of Indian Constitution

Article 9 of Indian Constitution

Article 10 of Indian Constitution

Article 11 of Indian Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955

The Parliament of India made this Act following the constitutional provisions.

It provides 5 ways of acquiring Indian Citizenship

1. By Birth

A person born in India

Indian Citizenship by Birth

2. By Descent

A person born outside India will be considered a Citizen of India by descent if

Indian Citizenship by Descent

3. By Registration

The registration process is applicable for those who have some Indian connection. The person should fulfil the following conditions.

  1. Person of Indian Origin who is ordinarily residing in India for 7 years ( i.e., 12 months ​immediately before making the application and 6 years in the aggregate in the 8 years preceding the 12 months)
  2. A person married to an Indian citizen & ordinarily residing here for 7 years.
  3. Minor children or children of the full capacity of persons who are Indian citizens
  4. A person registered as OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) for 5 years and residing for ONE YEAR in India before making the application.

Individuals falling into the groups mentioned above must take an oath of allegiance before being officially recognized as Indian citizens.

4. By Naturalisation

Indian Citizenship, through the process of naturalization, can be acquired by a foreigner (not an illegal migrant), and he/she must follow all the conditions given below:-

  • Must not be a citizen of the country where Indian citizens are barred from becoming citizens.
  • Must renounce previous Citizenship.
  • A person must be ordinarily resident of India for 12 years (i.e., twelve months ​immediately before making an application and Eleven years in the aggregate in the twelve years ​ preceding the twelve months).
  • Must have knowledge of at least one language specified in Schedule 8.
  • Such a person should intend to reside in India or continue to work for the Government of India.

Furtherthe Government of India may waive all or any of the above conditions for naturalization if, in its opinion, the person has rendered distinguished services in the field of science, art, philosophy, world peace, literature, or human progress.

5. By Incorporation of Territory

  • If foreign territory becomes part of India in future. In that case, the Government of India may specify the residents of the territory to be citizens of India by orders notified in the Official Gazette.
  • E.g., When Pondicherry was acquired by India & the Government of India issued the Citizenship (Pondicherry) Order, 1962, under the Indian Citizenship Act,1955.

Loss of Citizenship

The Citizenship Act 1955 prescribes three ways for it

1. Renunciation

  • A citizen of full capacity can make a declaration renouncing his Citizenship.
  • It must be noted that when a person renounces his Citizenship, their minor children cease to be citizens of India. But such children may make a declaration one year after attaining the age of 18 years that they wish to resume Indian Citizenship.

2. Termination

  • When a citizen voluntarily accepts Citizenship of another country.
  • However, the provision of termination doesn’t apply when India is engaged in any war.

3. Deprivation

Compulsory termination of Indian Citizenship by the government when

  • Citizenship is obtained by fraud.
  • Citizen has shown disloyalty towards the constitution.
  • Citizen has unlawfully traded with the enemy country during the war.
  • Citizens within 5 years after registration or naturalization have been imprisoned for two years in any country.
  • The citizen has been ordinarily out of the country for 7 years.

Single Citizenship

  • In India, there is single Citizenship, i.e. all the persons are citizens of India, and there is no citizenship of state (unlike the USA)
  • All the citizens owe allegiance to India and not to any particular state.

Side Topic: Concept of Dual Citizenship

  • Dual Citizenship means a person can be a citizen of two or more countries simultaneously. Dual citizens have two passports and can live, travel and work in both countries, i.e. their native and the naturalized country.
  • Some countries do allow dual Citizenship. However, the Indian constitution doesn’t allow Dual Citizenship. 

Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)

  • Initially, India did not allow any rights to people of Indian origin who are residents of other countries. However, the High-Level Committee on Indian Diaspora, under the Chairmanship of LM Singhvi, recommended the Person of Indian Origin Card (PIO) Scheme and Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) for establishing a constructive relationship with the Indian diaspora. Subsequently, the Indian Parliament amended the Citizenship Act in 2002 and provided two special statuses, i.e. Person of Indian Origin Card (PIO) Scheme and Overseas Citizenship of India. These schemes were later merged into “Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder.” 
  • Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) is a person who, or any of their ancestors, were Indian nationals and presently holding another country’s Citizenship and passport (other than Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Benefits available for OCI

  • Facilitate visa-free travel to India.
  • Rights of residency in India.
  • Rights regarding participation in business and educational activities in the country

However, such persons shall not have the following rights as given to Citizens of India, which include

  • Right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
  • Eligibility for election as President of India, Vice President of India, Member of the Lok Sabha, Member of Rajya Sabha, Member of State Legislative Assemblies or Councils
  • Eligibility for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge and High Court Judge

Evolution of Indian States & UTs

Evolution of Indian States & UTs

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

Evolution of Indian States & UTs

During British times

During British colonial rule, the states and territories in India were characterized by a complex administrative structure consisting of two main categories: Provinces and Princely States.

  1. Provinces: These were governed directly by British Officials.
  2. Princely States: These were ruled by the local hereditary rulers (Maharajas, Nawabs, or Rajas), who acknowledged the suzerainty of the British Crown through treaties or agreements but maintained a significant degree of autonomy over their internal affairs. 

At the time of Independence

When India became independent on August 15, 1947, the Britishers dissolved their existing treaties with more than 600 Princely States. They were allowed to either accede to India or Pakistan or declare Independence. Most Princely States (except 3) joined India voluntarily or through armed intervention.

Three notable exceptions stood out among these princely states: Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Jammu & Kashmir. These states posed unique challenges to the newly formed Indian Union and required distinct approaches for their integration.

Junahgarh The issue of Junagadh’s accession was resolved through a Referendum
Hyderabad The integration of Hyderabad was achieved through a military intervention known as “Operation Polo” or the “Police Action.”
Jammu & Kashmir The State of Jammu & Kashmir’s accession to India is a complex and contentious chapter in Indian history. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, signed the Instrument of Accession, aligning the State with India. This led to a series of events, including tribal incursions and conflict with Pakistan, ultimately resulting in the establishment of the Line of Control.  

In 1950, India’s administrative framework underwent a comprehensive reorganization, leading to a four-fold classification of states:

Part A These included the nine Governor’s Provinces of British India—Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. 
These states were placed under the governance of a Governor.
Part B These included nine former Princely States or groups of Princely States with Legislative Assemblies—Jammu & Kashmir, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat, Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU), Mysore, Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin, Saurashtra, and Vindhya Pradesh. 
These states were under the governance of Rajpramukh, often a Royal Prince.
Part C This category included Commissioner’s Provinces and certain Princely States, totaling ten—Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Cooch-Behar, Coorg, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur, and Tripura. 
These states were placed under the jurisdiction of a Chief Commissioner.
Part D Part D State included Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
A Lieutenant Governor administered it.

Linguistic Provinces Commission/Dhar Commission of 1948

  • Boundaries of Indian provinces were drawn haphazardly, and no heed was paid to linguistic and cultural cohesion. Hence, there was a constant demand for the linguistic reorganization of states. 
  • In the wake of such demands, a Linguistic Provinces Commission, also known as the Dhar Commission, under the Chairmanship of SK Dhar, was constituted by the Constituent Assembly in 1948 to look into the reorganization of states in India. 
  • In the course of its deliberations, the Dhar Commission conducted a meticulous examination of the prevailing dynamics, consulting a broad spectrum of stakeholders, intellectuals, and experts across the nation. 
  • In its report, the Commission recommended that the reorganization of states should be based on administrative convenience rather than on a linguistic basis.
  • But the stance on prioritizing administrative convenience sparked intense debates and discussions throughout the nation. Proponents of linguistic states expressed concerns about the potential dilution of cultural identity and argued that administrative efficiency should not overshadow the emotional and historical bonds that language shared among communities. 

JVP Commission of 1949

  • Indian National Congress, in its Jaipur Session, set up a high-level committee consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramiah (JVP Committee) to consider the recommendation of the Dhar Commission.
  • It concluded that language couldn’t be considered the basis for State Reorganisation, and utmost caution should be observed in proceeding with the linguistic reorganization of States.
  • But it resulted in strong agitations. The commission’s recommendations particularly impacted the Telegu-speaking regions of Madras. Tragically, the agitation took a grave turn when Poti Sriramulu, a prominent Congress leader, embarked on a hunger strike demanding the creation of a separate Andhra state. His sacrifice and subsequent death due to the fast further exacerbated tensions, resulting in violent riots and disturbances. The government, under pressure, carved out Andhra Pradesh from Madras by separating the 16 Telugu-speaking districts of Madras State. 
  • This move, although addressing the immediate concerns of the agitating masses, set a precedent and emboldened other linguistic groups across the country to demand similar reorganization based on linguistic affinity.  

State Reorganization Commission or Fazl Ali Commission of 1953

  • The creation of Andhra sparked agitations all over the Union of India, where the various linguistic and religious regions demanded separate statehoods. Hence, Jawaharlal Nehru appointed the States Reorganization Commission (1953), under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali and consisting of KM Panikkar and HN Kunzru, to resolve the issue.
  • Recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission or State Reorganization Commission 
    1. Language as the Basis for Reorganization: The commission was to accept language as the fundamental criterion for the reorganization of states. 
    2. Rejecting ‘One Language, One State’: While the commission endorsed the principle of linguistic states, it rejected the notion of a strict ‘one language, one state’ policy.
    3. Comprehensive Considerations: Financial, economic and administrative considerations, as well as planning & welfare of people, should also be considered in state reorganization.
    4. Abolishing Four-Fold Classification: 4 fold classification of states should be abolished, and 16 states & 3 centrally administrative territories should be created instead.
  • Subsequently, the State Reorganisation Act of 1956 was passed, leading to the 7th Amendment, which resulted in 14 states & 6 UTs. 

Formation of States

The reorganization of existing state boundaries since the consolidation of the Indian Union in 1950 can be broadly classified under 3 phases.

Phase 1: Linguistic Reorganization (Till 1960)

Andhra Pradesh 1953 Andhra Pradesh was established by separating 16 Telugu-speaking districts from Madras State, fulfilling the linguistic aspirations of the Telugu-speaking population.  
Kerala 1956 The State Reorganisation Act of 1956 led to the creation of Kerala by combining the princely states of Travancore and Cochin, thus consolidating all Malayalam-speaking regions.  
Karnataka 1956 Karnataka emerged as a state predominantly for Kannada speakers, encompassing areas of the Erstwhile princely state of Mysore.  
Gujarat and Bombay 1960 The state of Bombay was divided to form the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra, responding to linguistic and cultural identities.  

Phase 2

Nagaland 1962 Nagaland was created by separating it from Assam, recognizing the unique identity and aspirations of the Naga people.  
Punjab and Haryana 1966 The division of Punjab resulted in the creation of Haryana as a separate state, with Chandigarh serving as a union territory shared by both states.  
Himachal Pradesh 1970 Himachal Pradesh attained statehood, transitioning from a Union Territory.  
Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura 1971 These were first made ‘autonomous states’ within the State of Assam by the 22nd Constitutional Amendment. Later they were made full-fledged states in 1971.
Sikkim 1974    Sikkim was originally ruled by the Chogyal dynasty and a Protectorate of India. But in 1974, Sikkim was given the status of an Associate State through the 35th Constitutional Amendment. Subsequently, in 1975, the rule of Chogyals was abolished, and Sikkim was incorporated into India as a full-fledged state.  
Mizoram 1986 Mizoram was established as a separate state, recognizing the unique identity of its people.  
Arunachal Pradesh 1986 The North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) was reorganized and granted full statehood as Arunachal Pradesh.  
Goa 1987 Goa was separated from the Union-Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and was made a full-fledged State of Goa. The remaining regions, i.e. Daman and Diu, remained as Union Territories.  

Phase 3: 2000s to Present

From 2000s, the basis of the demanding state has changed from linguistic principles to ethnicity, backwardness, administrative convenience etc. For example, the State of Uttarakhand was created based on administrative convenience, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand based on tribal ethnicity and Telangana based on backwardness. 

Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand 2000 These states were carved out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar, respectively, addressing regional imbalances and tribal aspirations.  
Telangana 2 June 2014 Formed through the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014, Telangana emerged as a separate state, addressing issues of backwardness and regional disparities.

Ongoing Demands: Aspirations and Challenges 

Despite the substantial reorganization, several demands for new states persist based on different criteria:

  1. Gorkhaland (West Bengal): Ethnic considerations underlie the demand for Gorkhaland.
  2. Kamtapur (Assam): The Koch Rajbangsi community seeks a separate Kamtapur state.
  3. Bodoland (Assam): The Bodo people aspire for a separate Bodoland state.
  4. Vidarbha (Maharashtra): Calls for Vidarbha statehood are grounded in developmental and regional concerns.
  5. Saurashtra (Gujarat): The demand for a Saurashtra state reflects regional identity and underdevelopment.
  6. Fourfold Division of Uttar Pradesh (Harit Pradesh, Awadh Pradesh, Purvanchal, Bundelkhand): Administrative convenience and developmental factors underpin demands for dividing Uttar Pradesh.

Union and its Territory – Indian Polity

Union and its Territory – Indian Polity

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


Under International Law as laid down under the Montevideo convention, to be recognized as STATE some basic components are required like

  1. Permanent Population
  2. Defined Territory 
  3. Government
  4. Capacity to enter into relations with other states

Hence, TERRITORY plays a significant role in making a recognized state. 

Territory serves as a cornerstone in the establishment of statehood due to its multifaceted implications. A defined territory not only provides a physical space where a population resides and governance takes place but also serves as the spatial jurisdiction within which the State exercises its authority. This territorial demarcation delineates the scope of a state’s legal, political, and economic activities while also acting as a symbol of its sovereignty and distinct identity on the global stage. 

(E.g., Kurds have a Permanent Population, even a somewhat independent government, and they enter into relations with other powers like the US, but they don’t have a defined Territory which is internationally recognized by other states; hence, although Kurds are a nation but not State).

Union and its Territory - Indian Polity

Constitutional Provisions

Articles 1 to 4 of Part 1 deal with Union and its Territory.

Article 1

Article 1 of Indian Constitution

Analysis of Article 1(1)

  • Article 1(1) states that India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States. Hence, the official name of India is ‘India that is Bharat‘. The nomenclature of “India that is Bharat” underscores the country’s rich cultural heritage and historical continuity. It serves as a bridge between the modern and ancient, acknowledging the deep-rooted historical legacy while embracing the contemporary identity.
  • India is a Union of States and not a Federation of States because
    • India is not the result of an agreement among different states.
    • No state can secede from the Union.
    • States can’t change the boundaries on their own free will.
  • It should also be noted that the term ‘Union’ was preferred over ‘Centre’ because 
    • States are neither the agencies of the Union nor derive their powers from it. Both the entities, i.e. the Union and the States, are the creation of the Constitution, and both derive their respective authority from the Constitution.
    • The Constitution clearly demarcated the Legislative and Executive powers between Union and States.
    • The relationship between Union and States is not of subordination but cooperation.
  • Point to note
India Indestructible Union of destructible state
USA Indestructible Union of indestructible states
Canada Destructible Union of destructible states

Analysis of Article 1(2)

  • Article 1(2) of the Indian Constitution states that the states and territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
  • Hence, Schedule 1 of the Indian Constitution contains the name of states and Union Territories along with their territorial extent.

Analysis of Article 1(2)

Article 1(2) of the Indian Constitution delineates the expansive and dynamic concept of the territorial boundaries of India. This provision lays down the comprehensive composition of the territory of India, highlighting the multi-faceted nature of its geographical and political entity.

The Territory of India consists of

  • Territory of States: The first component encapsulates the territories of the different states that collectively form the Indian Union. 
  • Union Territories:  The second aspect encompasses the Union Territories (UTs), regions directly administered by the central government.
  • Territories that the Government of India may acquire at any time: The third facet introduces a dynamic and potentially evolving aspect of India’s territory. It emphasizes that the territorial scope of India is not static, as the Government of India has the authority to acquire additional territories at any time. 

Hence, the Territory of India is greater than the Union of India. While the Union of India comprises only those states that are members of the federal structure and share powers with the central government, the Territory of India extends beyond this federal composition. It encompasses not only states but also union territories and, importantly, leaves room for potential future territorial acquisitions.

Article 2

  • Article 2 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to admit new States into the Union and the power to establish new States on such terms & conditions as it thinks fit.
  • This article is meant for the newly acquired area, which wasn’t part of India earlier. Parliament exercised this power to admit the French enclaves of Pondicherry, Karaikal, and others, as well as the Portuguese enclave of Goa, into the Indian Union.
  • Significant Supreme Court Judgements in this regard include
    • In N. Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner of Pondicherry, the Supreme Court held that mere having administrative control over the Territory of Pondicherry didn’t mean the territory had been transferred to India. For the legal transfer of territory, ratifying the cession between France and India is necessary.
    • Similarly, later in SR Bhansali v. Union of India, it was held that mere physical control of territory by force of arms didn’t amount to ‘acquisition’ and the territory conquered in the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 had not become a part of the Territory of India.

Hence, ratification by both sovereigns is an essential condition for the acquisition of territory.

Article 3

Article 3 of Indian COnstitution


  • Bill can be introduced in any house with the prior recommendation of the President.
  • Before recommending the bill, President would send it to the concerned state legislature to seek its opinion within the time limit.
  • If State doesn’t respond within time, it can be extended or introduced in Parliament without the State’s recommendation.
  • Parliament is not bound to act on the recommendation of the State Legislature (ruled by the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. the State of Bombay).
  • The bill needs to be passed by the Parliament with a simple majority.

Recent development happened in 2017 when the above provision was challenged in Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation. In the case of the creation of the State of Telangana, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2013 was decisively rejected by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council. But the same did not deter the Government from going ahead with the passage of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (Telangana) in the Parliament. Hence, the petition demanded to declare bifurcation to be Unconstitutional. The petition claimed that the 

  • The Centre had introduced the bill when the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature rejected it. They contended that the bifurcation violated the basic provisions of federalism.
  • There should be a “federal index” for State formation. The Union can’t have roughshod over the federal structure.

A full verdict is awaited. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will clarify the procedure to be followed in case of such bifurcations.

There are instances where the State Legislatures have passed a resolution for creating new states. But constitutionally, states cannot initiate the creation process of states. The motion passed by Uttar Pradesh Assembly in 2011 to divide the State into 4 parts – Poorvanchal, Paschim Pradesh, Awadh Pradesh, and Bundelkhand had only suggestive value but no material significance in Constitutional terms.

Article 4

Laws made under Article 2 & Article 3 are not Amendments to Constitution under Article 368 and hence can be passed by a simple majority. The ordinary legislative procedure can pass such laws through a simple majority.

Supreme Court rulings on the important questions

Do the power to diminish the area of the State also constitute the power to cede territory to a foreign country?

  • The matter arose in the Berubari Union Case of 1960 when India ceded the Berubari Union region in West Bengal to Pakistan (under the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958).
  • The Supreme Court said  Parliament doesn’t have the power to diminish area by ceding its territory to another country under Article 3 as its implementation would reduce the total area of India. Consequently, amending Article 1 and pertinent sections of the Constitution’s First Schedule becomes necessary, requiring a Constitutional Amendment as per Article 368.
    • Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment was enacted in 1960 to transfer Berubari to Pakistan.
    • In 2015, when India ceded 111 Land Enclaves to Bangladesh, the 100th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed. It amended the First Schedule of the Constitution. 
  • In the 1970s, India ceded Katchatheevu Island to Sri Lanka after signing a bilateral treaty. The decision was against the Berubari Judgement as Indian territory can be ceded to any foreign country through a constitutional amendment. Hence, Tamil groups challenged this action in the Supreme Court of India, and the case is still pending before the Supreme Court. 

How to settle boundary disputes?

  • In the Ram Kishore case / Berubari II Case, the Supreme Court held that cessation of the territory is different from the settlement of the boundary.  
  • Settlement of boundary disputes & the implementation of the International Tribunal’s Award is within the executive powers of the Government. It doesn’t require any amendment and can be done by executive order.

Leasing of Territory

In Sukumar Sengupta v. Union of India, Supreme Court held that where territory was leased to another State (in this case, it was leased to Bangladesh), it wasn’t necessary to Amend the Constitution. There was no cessation and abandonment of the Sovereignty of India over the territory. 

Administration of Tribal Areas

Administration of  Tribal  Areas

Areas under Schedule 6

Assam 1. North Cachar Hills
2. Karbi Anglong
3. Bodoland
Meghalaya 1. Khasi Hills
2. Jaintia Hills
3. Garo Hills
Tripura Tripura Tribal Areas District
Mizoram 1. Chakma
2. Mara
3. Lai

Need of 6th Schedule

  • Tribes of other states have more or less assimilated with culture of majority of people where they live but Tribes in these states still have their roots in their own culture .
  • Needs to be treated differently . As a result,  sizable autonomy given to them in Governance

Features of 6th Schedule

  • Tribal Areas in these areas to be called Autonomous Districts but fall inside authority of State concerned
  • If more Tribes in Autonomous District ,then Governor can divide district to various Autonomous Regions
  • Each A.D has District Council consisting of 30 members
26 Elected by Universal Adult Franchise . Tenure of 5 years
4 Nominated by Governor and hold office till pleasure of Governor
  • Each Autonomous Region has separate Regional Council
  • Legislative power – District and Regional Councils administers area under them and can make laws on specified matters like land , forest, canal water, shifting agriculture, money lending etc . But  these laws require assent of Governor
  • Councils empowered to collect revenue and impose tax on specified things
  • Acts of Parliament and State assembly don’t apply to these areas or apply with certain modifications

Jan 2019 : Union cabinet approved  constitutional amendment stating that Finance Commission will now “recommend the devolution of financial resources” to the district councils in the Sixth Schedule areas.

Analysis of working of 6th Schedule

  • Representation Issues
    • Demography has changed a lot over last six decades but changes are not effectively represented in the structure of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs)
    • Women need to be represented in them . Unlike in Panchayati Raj Institutions , there isn’t any provision of reservation wrt women
  • Governance Issue
    • Poor quality of governance . Many of them have not codified even the customary laws
    • Corruption and illegal activities –  Some members of autonomous council are helping the extremist group factions. North Cachar autonomous council is under scrutiny of CBI and NIA
  • Financial Issues
    • Financial dependence on the state and centre for funds
    • No provisions regarding Audit of accounts 
    • State Finance Commission is not constitutionally bound to include Terms of References wrt Schedule 6 Areas . They don’t get any grants like PRIs and hence are always under Financial Crunch
  • Issues wrt Elections
    • No  express  provision  for  holding  election  within 6 months  of  the  date  of  dissolution  of  a  District Councils.
    • In elections , no Model Code of Conduct and no expenditure ceiling.  
    • Anti Defection Laws are not applicable.
  • No further decentralisation – ADCs have not gone for further decentralisation and not formed Autonomous Regions and Regional Councils in case there are more tribes  .  For example in Bodo Territorial Area districts, there is only district council although there are other Tribes in that region too.
  • Concept  of  Sixth  Schedule   has  encouraged ethnic  divisions. 

Measures to improve working of 6th Schedule

  • Training and capacity building of Autonomous District Council Members for healthy governance.
  • Regular elections should be conducted by State Election Commissions
  • Create a permanent watchdog with powers to order inquiry and initiate actions when irregularities are discovered
  • Many activities are undertaken by State Government as well as District Councils. This duplication is a major source of confusion and obfuscates responsibility. Clarity of functions and roles is needed.
  • Venkatachaliah  Commission,  2002 (recommendations)
    • Audit of accounts  by  the  Comptroller and  Auditor-General  of  India.
    • Make  the  Anti-Defection  Law   applicable  to  the  Sixth  Schedule areas.
  • Ramachandran  Committee, 2007 (recommendations)
    • Remove overlaps  in  functional  responsibilities  between  the States  and District  Councils.
    • Need to constitute State Finance Commission for recommending ways to devolve  funds to District Councils & Regional Councils
  • 14th Finance Commission (recommendations)
    • Finances of 6th Schedule Areas should also be looked at par with Panchayati Raj Institutions

125th Constitutional Amendment Bill

Bill Following are the issues the bill seeks to address:

  • Bill proposes that Finance Commission will now recommend the financial devolution to the Autonomous District council.
  • Bill increases the number of members in some council  (more than 30) considering demands  that some councils were not able to represent major and minor tribes
  • Reserves at least one-third of the seats for women in the village and municipal councils.

Union Territories

Union Territories

U.T are those areas which are under direct administrative control of Central Government.  This  is a Conspicuous departure from federalism in India .

Creation of Union Territories

Why they are created ?

Different reasons

Political & Administration  considerations Delhi & Chandigarh
Cultural Distinctiveness Pondicherry, Daman & Diu , Dadra & Nagar Haveli
Strategic Importance Andaman & Nicobar + Lakshadweep
Special Treatment of Backward & Tribals Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura(later granted statehood)

Administration of Union Territories

  • Article 239 to 241 of Part VIII
  • 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

Election Funding

Election Funding


1969 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 .
        1. Samajvadi Party =  94%
        2. 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 FinancingIndrajit 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) .

Anti-Defection Law

Anti-Defection Law

‘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

  1. Provides greater stability in the politics of nation
  2. Facilitates democratic realignment of parties in legislature by way of merger of parties
  3. Reduces corruption at political level
  4. Give clearcut constitutional recognition for existence of political parties for first time

Criticism of Anti Defection Law

  1. 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
  2. Increased High Command Culture as  MP’s  cannot  vote  on any  issue  independently.  
  3. 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 .
  4. 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.
  5. Coalition and pre-poll alliances are not covered under Tenth Schedule
  6. 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

  1. Disqualification  provision  should  be applicable when Legislators  votes  contrary to  matters  which  are core  to  the  party’s  manifesto
  2. 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.
  3. 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. 
  4. 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

Alternate Dispute Resolution and Lok Adalats

Alternate Dispute Resolution and Lok Adalats

Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques  short of litigation like Lok Adalats.

Various Provisions of Alternative Dispute Resolution

  • Historical Approach: Panchayats in India are the earliest known Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. 
  • Constitutional provision: The mechanism finds its basis in the
    • Article 14 (Equality before Law)
    • Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) for Equal Justice and Free legal Aid under Article 39A.
  • Legal Provisions
    • Gram Nyayalayas Act,2009
    • Legal Services Authorities Act (1987) (established Lok Adalat System)
  • Committees
    • Justice Malimath Committee (1989- 90) suggested the need for establishing Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism 
    • Justice BN Srikrishna Committee

Need of Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms?

  • In country like India, where there is huge backlog (3.2 crore) , Alternative Dispute Resolution can play a huge role in making justice available to all
  • Right to timely justice is an implicit part of the fundamental Right to Life and liberty. 
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution can also be implicitly related to the Directive Principles of State Policy  for Equal Justice and Free legal Aid under Article 39A.
  • Judicial proceedings in India not only take time but are also expensive . Alternative Dispute Resolution is way to provide inexpensive justice to people.
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution  allows the parties to come up with more creative solutions that a court may not be legally allowed to impose.

Arbitration , Mediation and Conciliation

  • Three main types of Alternative Dispute Resolution are
    • Arbitration : Very close to court but instead of Court , there will be some third party to decide issue  . Process of arbitration can start only if there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties prior to the emergence of dispute. Both parties agree to abide by decision beforehand .
    • Mediation : Third party is catalyst helping them to  reach at some middle ground.
    • Conciliation : Same like Arbitration in which third party will give verdict but that is not binding .

Important Notes

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution processes conform only to civil disputes.
  • Mahatma Gandhi Tanta Mukti Abhiyaan : Scheme of Maharashtra to resolve small disputes in villages by way of Arbitration within Village . United Nations has recognised this Scheme for bringing harmony

Lok Adalats

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Hindrances to Access to Justice

  1. Poverty of claimant => can’t hire Advocate and can’t afford to attend court proceedings by skipping his daily wages .
  2. Delay in disposal of justice as it take decades for case to reach its logical conclusion.

Legal Services Act was enacted to take care of such problems 

To check above hindrance , two things done under Legal Services Authorities Act

  • Legal Services Authorities at the National, State and District levels to  provide free & competent legal services to the weaker sections of  society
  • Lok Adalats : For faster disposal of Justice (explained below)

Lok Adalat = People’s Court


  • Organiser = The National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) .
  •  Idea of Lok Adalat was advocated by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, a former Chief Justice of India.
  • It is Non-adversarial system, whereby mock courts (called Lok Adalats) are held by the National (NALSA), State , District Authority etc
  • Lok Adalat is
    • presided  by sitting or retired judicial officer as chairman, with two other members, usually lawyer & social worker.
    • There is no Court Fee.
    • procedural laws and the Evidence Act are not strictly followed 
    • Can deal with all Civil Cases – Matrimonial Disputes, Land Disputes,  Property Disputes etc.
  • First Lok Adalat was held  in 1982 in Gujarat.
  • LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ACT 1987 ,  gave statutory status to Lok Adalat.
  • Main condition of the Lok Adalat is that both parties in dispute should agree for settlement. The decision of Lok Adalat is binding on the parties to the disputes and its order is capable of execution through legal process. No appeal lies against the order of the Lok Adalat.

How Lok Adalat is different

  • Less expensive & fast
  • Focus on compromise. When no compromise is reached, the matter goes back to the court &  if a compromise is reached, an award is made and is binding on the parties.
  • Disputing parties plead their case themselves . No advocate or pleader is allowed
  • No court fees levied
  • Award has same effect as of a Civil Court decree

Limitations of Lok Adalat

  • Lok Adalats are not suitable for complex cases  because repeated sittings at short intervals with  same judge are  not possible
  • Lack of Confidentiality – Lok Adalat proceedings are held in the open court 
  • Lok Adalats are criticized for being in hurry. It should be kept in mind that ‘Justice should not only be done, it must also be seen to be done’
  • Article 39 A calls for equal justice . But Lok Adalats don’t provide this.

Therefore Lok Adalats can at most supplement the legal redressal mechanism rather than being an alternative to the formal institution of Judiciary

Other things done for Alternate Dispute Redressal

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act amended
  • Justice BN Srikrishna Committee to review Arbitration Mechanism in India which has called for
    • Making Arbitration Promotion Council of India (APCI) to improve quality of arbitration in India
    • Amend National Litigation Policy to declare that PSU Litigations will be solved via Arbitration instead of Courts
  • Special Commercial Courts have been made for speedy disposal of Commercial disputes above ₹1 cr

Parliamentary Privileges & Contempt of House

Parliamentary  Privileges & Contempt of House

This issue remains in news like

  1. 2019 : Breach of privilege motion was moved against Prime Minister and Defence Minister claiming they had misled Parliament on the Rafale fighter jet deal issue
  2. 2017 :  Karnataka assembly Speaker ordered the imprisonment of two journalists for a year based on recommendations of its privilege committees.
  3. 2003 : TN  Speaker directed arrest of 5 journalists for publishing articles that were critical of AIADMK government

Meaning of Parliamentary Privilege

  • ‘Privilege’ means a special or exceptional right  or  immunity enjoyed by a particular class of persons 
  • Idea behind parliamentary privileges is that members who represent the people 
    • Should not be obstructed in any way in the discharge of their parliamentary duties
    • They are able to express their views freely and fearlessly inside the Houses of Parliament   
    • Ensure sovereignty of Parliament .

Collective Privileges

  • Right to publish its Reports & Proceedings & also right to prohibit others from publishing same(44 Amendment – Press can publish true report without permission)
  • Can hold secret sitting 
  • Can make rules to regulate its own procedures
  • Right to receive immediate information about arrest, detention etc of its member
  • Courts are prohibited to inquire into proceedings of House 
  • It can punish members as well as outsiders for breach of privileges

Individual Privileges

  • Cannot be arrested during the session and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of the session . 
  • Freedom of Speech in the Parliament . No member is liable  for anything said  in Parliament 
  • Exempted from jury service . Can refuse to give evidence and appear as a witness when Parliament is in session .

Breach of Privileges vs Contempt of the house

  • Any act or omission which
    • obstructed a House of the Parliament / its Member / its Officer in the performance of their functions or
    • which has tendency to produce result against the dignity , authority and honour of the House
  • is treated as Contempt of the House
  • Breach of Privilege and Contempt of the House are used interchangeably but may have different implications
    • Contempt of the House has wider implications – It may be a Contempt of the House without specifically committing a Breach of Privilege
    • Example : Disobedience to a legitimate order of House is not a breach of the Privilege but can be a Contempt of the House

Important Cases

  • Keshav Singh Case , 1965 : Related to committal to prison of Keshav Singh by the UP Vidhan Sabha for committing a breach of privilege and contempt of the House .  It was held that Judiciary cant interfere in this.
  • Searchlight case, 1959 : Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 194 indicate that Freedom of Speech referred in it is different from the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be cut down in any way by law contemplated by clause(2) of Article 19.

Need of Codified Act regarding Privileges

There is need for a law for codifying the privileges, define the limits of penal action for breach of privilege and procedures to be followed.

  • Article 105 (Article 194 for LA) : Privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament shall be such as may be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined shall be those which are enjoyed by House of Commons of Britain .
  • Hence, until now since separate Law is not there, Parliament enjoys same privileges as that of House of Commons .
  • Note : expression ‘until so defined’ does not mean an absolute power to not define privileges at all.

Issue :

  1. Indian Parliament is not Supreme while British Parliament is. Hence, giving same power to Parliament as that of House of Commons is wrong because
    • Fundamental Rights of Citizens can be curtailed
    • other limitations on Parliament cant be applied
  2. Historical reasons : Parliamentary privileges were wrested by Parliament from  King in England. In India, Privileges were granted by People so that their representatives can work without any fear

National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (NCRWC) , 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC)& All India Whips  has also recommended that the privileges of legislatures should be defined by law.

Australia passed Parliamentary Privileges Act in 1987, clearly defining privileges, the conditions of their breach and consequent penalties.