Content
- A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business
- Letter and spirit
- Welfare at the mercy of the machine
A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business
Basics
- Context: SC heard Presidential Reference on Governor’s powers under Article 200 regarding assent to state Bills.
- Trigger: SC (Justice Pardiwala bench) fixed a 3-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills.
- Issue: Debate whether judiciary can set time limits when the Constitution itself does not.
- Relevant Articles:
- Art. 200 → Governor’s options on Bills (assent, withhold, return, reserve).
- Art. 201 → President’s power on reserved Bills.
- Art. 163 → Governor bound by aid & advice of CoM (except specified discretion).
- Art. 355 → Union’s duty to ensure governance in accordance with the Constitution.
- Key Cases:
- Shamsher Singh (1974) → Governor bound by aid & advice, limited discretion.
- Nabam Rebia (2016) → Reinforced limits on Governor’s powers.
- Punjab Governor case (2023) → Governor cannot delay assent indefinitely.
- Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) → No discretionary withholding of assent.
Relevance :
- GS2 (Polity & Governance): Federalism, separation of powers, role of Governor, judicial review.
Practice Questions :
- “The deliberate omission of ‘discretion’ from Article 200 signifies the supremacy of elected governments.” Discuss.(250 Words)
Author’s Core Argument
- Governors are ceremonial heads, must act on ministerial advice.
- Constitution-makers deliberately omitted “discretion” (present in 1935 Act) → Governors have no independent power under Art. 200.
- Court’s timeline is justified because Governors misused silence by sitting on Bills for years.
- Fixing a time limit upholds federalism and prevents legislative paralysis.
- Judicial innovation is not “amending the Constitution” but clarifying ambiguities (as seen with Art. 21 expansion).
- Union under Art. 355 could direct Governors, but since it hasn’t, SC’s intervention became necessary.
Counter Arguments
- Judicial Overreach: Constitution doesn’t prescribe time → SC is effectively legislating.
- Executive Concerns: President and Governors are high constitutional authorities, cannot be bound by judicially invented timelines.
- Federal Balance: Could undermine centre–state relations by constraining the Governor’s role.
- Rare Discretion Cases: Sarkaria Commission allowed discretionary withholding when a Bill is “patently unconstitutional”. SC’s blanket bar may limit safeguards.
Overview
- Polity/Constitutional:
- Strengthens federalism and prevents “pocket veto” by Governors.
- Reaffirms parliamentary system supremacy → elected CoM runs state, not unelected Governor.
- Political:
- Prevents Governors (often politically appointed) from obstructing opposition-ruled states.
- May reduce Centre-State confrontations (Punjab, TN, Kerala cases).
- Governance:
- Timely assent ensures smoother legislative process.
- Enhances accountability of constitutional offices.
- Judicial:
- Reflects trend of judicial creativity to resolve constitutional silences.
- Could trigger executive-judiciary friction.
- Comparative Perspective:
- UK Monarch → No discretion; always acts on ministerial advice.
- India borrowed same principle by dropping “in his discretion” from 1935 Act.
Way Forward
- Codify a reasonable timeline (e.g., 3–6 months) in Constitution or parliamentary law.
- Clarify limited discretionary scope (only for unconstitutional Bills).
- Use Art. 355 to direct Governors if they stall governance.
- Promote convention-based restraint instead of judicial compulsion.
- Strengthen legislative-judiciary dialogue for smooth federal functioning.
Letter and spirit
Basics
- Context: SC judgment (15 Sept 2025) on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended the Waqf Act, 1995 governing Muslim religious endowments.
- Issue: Balancing religious autonomy vs. state regulation of vast waqf properties.
- Judgment outcome:
- Court stayed some provisions → preserved autonomy concerns.
- Court upheld others → validated state regulation powers.
- Key stakeholders:
- Govt view → Amendments needed to curb misuse, corruption.
- Critics (Opposition, community groups) → Arbitrary interference in Muslim affairs.
Relevance
- GS2 → Polity (Art. 25–30, minority rights, state regulation), governance, federalism.
- GS4 → Ethical dimension: balancing faith autonomy vs. accountability.
Practice Questions :
- “Regulation of religious endowments must be uniform and non-discriminatory.” Discuss in the context of the Waqf Act amendments.(250 Words)
Author’s Core Argument
- SC struck a balance: neither struck down entire Act nor upheld it fully.
- Valid provisions:
- Removal of waqf-by-user recognition (with protection for pre-April 8, 2025 registrations).
- Restrictions on waqf claims over protected monuments and tribal lands.
- Stayed provisions:
- Only Muslims practising for 5 years can create waqf.
- District Collectors as adjudicators of waqf disputes.
- Overrepresentation of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards/Councils (capped).
- Broader point: Religious autonomy cannot justify misuse, but state regulation must be applied fairly across communities.
- Laws must be passed with wider consensus, else they risk delegitimising democracy.
Counter Arguments
- Judicial restraint concern: By not ruling decisively, SC left ambiguities that may prolong disputes.
- Autonomy worry: Even capped non-Muslim membership and Collector’s role may still be seen as undermining community self-governance.
- Selective regulation: If state targets Muslim religious endowments while leaving others untouched, it raises equal protection (Art. 14) concerns.
- Legislative process: Building “complete consensus” is aspirational but often impractical in India’s adversarial politics.
Overview
- Polity/Constitutional:
- Article 26 → Freedom to manage religious institutions.
- State regulation allowed for public order, morality, health.
- Presumption of constitutionality upheld.
- Social Justice:
- Prevents mismanagement of community assets.
- Addresses intra-community accountability.
- Federalism:
- Collector’s adjudicatory role shifts control from community boards to state bureaucracy.
- Governance:
- Brings waqf properties into greater transparency and state oversight.
- Political:
- Risks deepening communal mistrust if perceived as discriminatory regulation.
- Opposition may use as evidence of state overreach.
- Comparative Perspective:
- Other religious endowments (e.g., Hindu temples under state boards, Christian trusts) also regulated → issue is consistency, not uniqueness.
Way Forward
- Ensure uniform principles of regulation for all religious endowments → equality before law.
- Establish independent tribunals (instead of District Collectors) for waqf disputes.
- Increase community participation while ensuring transparency.
- Build parliamentary consensus through dialogue with Opposition & affected communities.
- Regular audit and accountability mechanisms without curbing autonomy.
Welfare at the mercy of the machine
Basics
- Context: Govt mandated Facial Recognition Software (FRS) integration in Anganwadis via Poshan Tracker app (July 2025).
- Background:
- Anganwadis (est. 1975 under ICDS) → tackle child malnutrition, preschool education, maternal care.
- 14.02 lakh centres; each with 1 Anganwadi worker (AWW) + 1 helper.
- Legal mandate under NFSA, 2013 → Take Home Rations (THR) for children under 3 and pregnant/lactating women.
- Government’s stated aim:
- Prevent fake beneficiaries.
- Prevent diversion/theft by AWWs.
Relevance
- GS2: Governance, rights-based welfare, NFSA, child nutrition, cooperative federalism (Centre schemes vs. State delivery).
- GS3: Tech in welfare, leakage vs. exclusion trade-off.
- GS4: Ethics of surveillance, dignity, natural justice.
Practice Questions
- “In digital governance, the challenge is not technology, but the ethics of its application.” Discuss with reference to welfare delivery in India.(250 Words)
Author’s Core Argument
- Vonnegut metaphor: Welfare delivery turning into an “engineer’s paradise” where frontline workers and poor are at mercy of tech tools.
- Problems with FRS:
- OTP/e-KYC hurdles (phones not available, numbers outdated).
- Frequent app errors, poor connectivity, low phone capacity.
- AWWs know beneficiaries personally but cannot override app failures.
- Presumes guilt (“fake” women/children) rather than innocence.
- Mismatch of priorities:
- Main THR issues = poor quality, irregular supply, low budget (₹8/day since 2018), corruption, centralisation.
- FRS solves a non-problem (fake beneficiaries).
- Dehumanisation risk: Women and children treated as potential criminals.
- Lack of consultation: AWWs excluded from design/decision-making.
- Better alternative: Community monitoring and decentralisation via SHGs/mahila mandals.
Counter Arguments
- Govt defence:
- Digital verification ensures transparency, accountability, leakage prevention.
- FRS integration aligns with Digital India & JAM trinity.
- Past welfare leakages (e.g., PDS ghost beneficiaries) justify pre-emptive controls.
- Tech optimism:
- App-based systems build data for nutrition monitoring, enabling better policymaking.
- Future improvements in FRS may reduce errors.
- Implementation gap vs. design flaw: Problems may reflect execution weaknesses (training, connectivity, device upgrades), not tech itself.
Overview
- Polity & Rights:
- NFSA, 2013 → legal right to food; tech cannot obstruct this.
- Principles of natural justice violated (innocent until proven guilty).
- Right to dignity (Art. 21) undermined.
- Governance:
- Over-centralisation through apps vs. decentralisation ordered by SC (2004).
- Weakens frontline discretion and trust-based community relations.
- Technology:
- FRS = invasive, error-prone, high-cost.
- International precedent: San Francisco banned FRS due to privacy/accuracy concerns.
- Social Justice:
- Vulnerable women/children bear brunt of tech failures.
- Anganwadi workers face hostility without authority.
- Economy/Policy:
- ₹8/day ration budget since 2018 = grossly inadequate.
- Focus should be on funding, supply-chain reform, local production, not surveillance tools.
- Ethics:
- Welfare as rights vs. welfare as conditional benefits.
- Risks dehumanisation, dignity erosion.
Way Forward
- Re-prioritise core THR issues: quality, funding revision, decentralisation, supply regularity.
- Transparency: Publish data if large-scale fraud exists; justify FRS publicly.
- Participatory governance: Consult AWWs, SHGs, communities before rollout.
- Tech redesign:
- Use simpler verification (QR cards, community attestations).
- Enable offline access for poor-connectivity areas.
- Rights-first approach: Guarantee entitlements irrespective of app performance → “No denial due to tech failure.”
- Legal safeguard: Build accountability for exclusion errors in welfare digitisation.
