Most Important Current Affairs For UPSC Prelims Exam 2022 Part 2

Table of Contents

6. Language in High Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has asked a journalist facing contempt of court proceedings to speak only in English as that was the language in the higher judiciary.

Article 348 in The Indian Constitution

Language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc
1.Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part, until Parliament by law otherwise provides

all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court,
the authoritative texts

Constitutional Provisions:

The Article 348 of the Constitution mandates that the language of the High Court would be English.

What the High Court Rule says?

In the High Court, there is a rule even if any party who does not hire a lawyer and appears in person has to speak and argue in English only.

of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State,
of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and
iii)of all orders, rules, regulations and bye laws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State, shall be in the English language

Article 343 of the Constitution, which came into effect in January 1950, stated that “the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script”.
The Constitution also allowed for the continued usage of English for official purposes for 15 years, before phasing out the language entirely.

Assembly Compromise Formula

the famous ‘Munshi-Ayyangar formula’ came to be worked out as a compromise.
The solution, co-authored by parliamentarians N Gopalaswami Ayyangar and KM Munshi called for letting English continue as the official language along with Hindi for a period of 15 years, with an option of an extension granted to Parliament.
It was hoped that by January 1965, Hindi would emerge as the sole official language of the country. But in 1963, the government enacted the Official Languages Act, which provided an extension to the continued use of English as an additional official language.
In an attempt to quell violent anti-Hindi agitations in South India then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru further gave an assurance that English would not be substituted by Hindi until the non-Hindi speaking people desired a change.
This assurance was honoured by an amendment to the above Act after his death in 1964.
While Tamil Nadu is at the forefront of anti-Hindi agitations, Karnataka, West Bengal and Maharashtra have also seen protests “The Official Languages (Amendment) Act of 1967 came into effect to guarantee the indefinite use of Hindi and English as official languages.
This ensured the current virtual indefinite policy of bilingualism of the Indian Republic,”
“The Effectiveness of Establishing Hindi as a National Language”.
The Indira Gandhi government also introduced the National Policy on Education in 1968, which first formulated the three-language formula.
The policy provided for the study of Hindi, English and “modern-Indian language” in the Hindi-speaking states and Hindi, English and a regional language in the non-Hindi speaking states.
Another legal bias is reflected in Article 348(2) of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963, which allow Hindi-speaking states, such as Bihar and Rajasthan, to use Hindi in their respective high courts.
Although the Tamil Nadu government urged the Centre to make similar provisions for Tamil, the court rejected the petition, arguing that such a change would impact the transfer and posting of high-court judges across India.

Elevation of Hindi in official

More recently, Hindi’s use as an official language, in government addresses by the Prime Minister, Health Minister, or the Finance Minister — excluding people who speak other regional languages — has given it a further stamp of prominence.
Railway tickets are only printed in Hindi and English and government websites rarely go beyond these two languages.
In Delhi, examinations and courses are mostly offered in English and Hindi, although Urdu is an official language, too.
Hindi holds a special place in national consciousness because of the belief that it is spoken by “most” people in India, with the 2011 census pegging the number of Hindi speakers at almost 44%.
However, G.N. Devy, who headed the People’s Linguistic Survey of India, notes that this apparent majority of Hindi speakers doesn’t necessarily paint an accurate and representative picture.
Arguably, only five states in India have Hindi as their “native” language.
But even in these regions, research shows locals either speak in dialects associated with their communities or converse in a form of Hindi that is drastically different from the mainstream version.
For instance, in Bihar, the Bhojpuri dialect or the mother tongue Maithili are more common; in Chattisgarh, people use a dialect known as Chattisgarhi.

Court’s Stand on Issue

While passing the judgment on a public interest litigation (PIL), the Gujarat high court observed that in India, although a majority of people have accepted Hindi as a national language, it’s not officially the national language.
With this observation, the court refused to issue directions that packaged commodities must contain details about goods in Hindi.
Subsequently, several other high court judgments have delivered judgments in favour of mother tongues.
For instance, in 2002, the Patna high court ruled in favour of a petitioner fighting against the Bihar government to ensure primary school children in Maithili-speaking regions of the state were taught in the same regional language.
In June 2020, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of Haryana government to enforce Hindi as official language in all subordinate courts and tribunals across the state. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy asked the petitioners what was wrong with the law given that around 80% of the litigants do not understand English.
Last August, the apex court suggested that the Centre should amend the Official Languages Act, 1963, to allow publication of official notifications in all the 22 scheduled languages, not just Hindi and English.
Most recently, in September, the Madras high court made it clear that the Central government is duty-bound to communicate in English with those states that have not adopted Hindi as their official language.
The two-member bench pointed out “linguistic fanaticism is more dangerous as it would give an impression that one language alone is superior and being imposed upon the people speaking different languages”, adding that different ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities have to be protected.
Clearly the trend is slowly but surely moving towards linguistic equality.

7. Suspension of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly

Why in News?

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court revoked a year-long suspension of 12 MLAs of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.

Ground of Suspension:

The resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly suspended the MLAs for a period of one year on the pretext of their disorderly behavior during the ongoing monsoon session.

Challenge to the Suspension in Supreme Court:

The suspended MLAs filed a writ petition (Ashish Shelar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and anr.) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The challenge to suspension relied mainly on grounds of denial of the principles of natural justice and violation of laid-down procedure.
The MLAs were not allowed to present their opinions, and their suspension in itself violated Article 14[2] (equality before law) of the Constitution.

Why it is Revoked?

The Hon’ble Court held that the suspension of MLAs was ‘unconstitutional’, ‘substantively illegal’ and ‘beyond the powers of the assembly’.
The court held that the resolution passed by the House was ‘irrational’ since the suspension should be limited to the time frame of the ongoing session.
The bench took note of the fact that a suspension for one full year was even worse than expulsion.
For, in cases of expulsion the vacant seats would be filled up through suitable mechanisms.
A reduction in the number of members of the Opposition party would put the coalition government at a higher pedestal since the opposition might not be able to effectively participate fearing such suspensions.
The bench referred to Article 190(4), which lays down that the House may declare the seat vacant of a member who is absent for 60 days without permission.
Section 151(A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 mandates a bye-election for filling any vacancy shall be held within six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy.
This indicates that no constituency can have a vacant seat for more than six months.

What about the length of the suspension?

This is the point that the bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar took up during the hearing.
The basic structure of the Constitution would be hit if the constituencies of the suspended MLAs remained unrepresented in the Assembly for a full year, the bench said.
The bench referred to Article 190 (4) of the Constitution, which says, “If for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.”
Under Section 151 (A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, “a bye-election for filling any vacancy… [in the House] shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy”. This means that barring exceptions specified under this section, no constituency can remain without a representative for more than six months.
The Supreme Court said that the one-year suspension was prima facie unconstitutional as it went beyond the six-month limit, and amounted to “not punishing the member but punishing the constituency as a whole”.

What are the rules on the length of suspension of a Member of Parliament?

Rules 373, 374, and 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha provide for the withdrawal of a member whose conduct is “grossly disorderly”, and suspension of one who abuses the rules of the House or willfully obstructs its business.
The maximum suspension as per these Rules is “for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less”.
The maximum suspension for Rajya Sabha under Rules 255 and 256 also does not exceed the remainder of the session. Several recent suspensions of members have not continued beyond the session.
Similar Rules also are in place for state legislative assemblies and councils which prescribe a maximum suspension not exceeding the remainder of the session.
On the first day of Parliament’s winter session last month, 12 Rajya Sabha members were suspended for the remainder of the session for alleged unruly conduct on the last day of the monsoon session on a motion moved by the government.
The Opposition criticised the suspensions, arguing that action in regard to an incident from the previous session violated the Rules of Procedure.
Constitutional experts, however, say that the court has clarified in previous rulings that the judiciary can intervene in case of an unconstitutional act done by the House.

8. Office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker

Article 93 for Lok Sabha and Article 178 for state Assemblies state that these Houses “shall, as soon as may be”, choose two of its members to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
Articles 93 to 97 of the Constitution of India deals with the office of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Article 93 states that the Lok Sabha shall “as soon as maybe” choose one Member as the Speaker and another Member as the Deputy Speaker.
Article 94 deals with the vacation of office, resignation and removal of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
Article 95 specifically states that while the office of Speaker is vacant the duties of the Speaker shall be performed by the Deputy Speaker.
Hence, Deputy Speaker is a constitutional post and the Constitution mandates that the Deputy Speaker is appointed by the Lok Sabha “as soon as maybe”.
Article 94(2) states that if the Speaker has to resign, he must tender the resignation letter to the Deputy Speaker.
the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker should be completely independent of the executive.
B. R. Ambedkar opposed the amendment and was of the view that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are appointed by the Lok Sabha and therefore if they want to resign, they must tender their resignations to the House (LS Speaker)
The Constitution neither sets a time limit nor specifies the process for these elections.
It leaves it to the legislatures to decide how to hold these elections.
In Lok Sabha and state legislatures, the President/Governor sets a date for the election of the Speaker, and it is the Speaker who decides the date for the election of the Deputy Speaker.
The legislators of the respective Houses vote to elect one among themselves to these offices.

Role

According to the book Practice and Procedure of Parliament, published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Speaker is “the principal spokesman of the House, he represents its collective voice and is its sole representative to the outside world”.
The Speaker presides over the House proceedings and joint sittings of the two Houses of Parliament. It is the Speaker’s decision that determines whether a Bill is a Money Bill and therefore outside of the purview of the other House.
The Deputy Speaker is independent of the Speaker, not subordinate to him, as both are elected from among the members of the House.
The Deputy Speaker ensures the continuity of the Speakers office by acting as the Speaker when the office becomes vacant (by death, as in the case of the first Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar in 1956, and G M C Balayogi in 2002,
or because of resignation by Speaker N Sanjiva Reddy in 1977 for fighting the Presidential election.).
In addition, when a resolution for removal of the Speaker (as in 1987 against Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jakhar) is up for discussion, the Constitution specifies that the Deputy Speaker presides over the proceedings of the House.
The tradition for the post of the Deputy Speaker going to the Opposition party started during the term of Prime Minister Morarji Desai’s government.
The two subsequent Lok Sabhas had members from the DMK (G Lakshmanan) and AIADMK (Thambidurai, in his first stint in this position) becoming Deputy Speaker.
During the governments of PMs V P Singh and Chandra Sekhar, Shivraj Patil of the Congress was the Deputy Speaker.
The first time the Deputy Speaker’s position went to the BJP was during the term of Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao.
In the 13th Lok Sabha, during the tenure of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Congress MP P M Sayeed became the Deputy Speaker.
In Prime Minister’s Manmohan Singh’s two terms, the Deputy Speaker’s position went first to the Shiromani Akali Dal and then to the BJP.
Then in the 16th Lok Sabha, the office of Deputy Speaker was again occupied by Thambidurai, whose party, AIADMK, was an ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.

Election of the Speaker

No specific qualifications
Speaker must be a member of the House
by a simple majority of members present
removal through a resolution passed by an effective majority (majority of total strength)

Powers

conducts business in Lok Sabha
Casting vote
disqualify a Member of Parliament from the House on grounds of defection

9. Freedom of Religion

Why in News?

27 students were barred from entering a government-run pre-university college — which is equivalent to a high school — for wearing hijabs in the coastal town of Kundapur in Karnataka’s Udupi district.

Freedom of Religion:
Constitutional Provisions:

Article 25: It imparts freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
Article 26: It gives freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 27: It sets freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
Article 28: It gives freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.

Article 28 in Detail:

Article 28 provides freedom from any religious instruction in educational institutions which are maintained completely out of State funds.
This article is not applicable to an educational institution if it is administered by the State, but was established under any endowment or trust requiring certain religious instruction to be imparted in that institution.
This article also protects a person from taking part in any religious instruction or attending any religious worship which may be conducted in an institution recognized by State or receiving aid from State funds unless his guardian has consented.

A25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
but State can make any law

a)regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

Essential Religious Practice

According to the essential religious practices doctrine evolved by the court in the 1950s, practices and beliefs considered integral by a religious community are to be regarded as “essential”, and protected under Article 25.
Our Constitution combines the freedom of religion with a mandate to the state to intervene in religious affairs if social welfare so demands

10. Delimitation Commission

Why in News?

The Delimitation Commission is proposing to effect significant changes to the electoral boundaries of Jammu and Kashmir by creating a trans-Pir Panjal Lok Sabha constituency while redrawing the existing assembly constituencies.

What is delimitation

Delimitation is the act of redrawing the boundaries of an Assembly or Lok Sabha seat to represent changes in population over time.
This exercise is carried out by a Delimitation Commission, whose orders have the force of law and cannot be questioned before any court.
The objective is to redraw boundaries (based on the data of the last Census) in such a way so that the population under all seats, as far as practicable, is the same throughout the state.
Aside from changing the limits of a constituency, the process may also result in changes in the number of seats in a state.

What is Delimitation

process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies
Fair division of geographical areas
One Vote One Value
Various approaches (Gerrymandering)

Delimitation Commission:

In India, such Delimitation Commissions have been constituted 4 times – in 1952 under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, in 1963 under Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in 1973 under Delimitation Act, 1972 and in 2002 under Delimitation Act, 2002.
It is appointed by the President of India.
It works in tandem with the Election Commission of India.
The Delimitation Commission in India is a high power body whose orders have the force of law and cannot be called in question before any court.
These orders come into force on a date to be specified by the President of India in this behalf.
According to Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament must pass a Delimitation Act following each census.
Under Article 170, the states also get classified into territorial constituencies after every census.

Delimitation commission

appointed by the Presidentof India and works in collaboration with the Election Commission of India.
Composition:
- Retired Supreme Court judge
- Chief Election Commissioner
- Respective State Election Commissioners
Although the freeze on the number of seats in Lok Sabha and Assemblies should have been lifted after the 2001 Census, another amendment has postponed this until 2026.
This was justified on the ground that a uniform population growth rate would be achieved throughout the country by 2026.

Why in News?

27 students were barred from entering a government-run pre-university college — which is equivalent to a high school — for wearing hijabs in the coastal town of Kundapur in Karnataka’s Udupi district.

11 National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation

These are some of the findings revealed in an all-India survey conducted by the Chief Justice of India’s office, which is part of CJI N.V. Ramana’s proposal to set up a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation (NJIC) to develop judicial infrastructure in trial courts.
Only 27 per cent of courtrooms in the subordinate judiciary have computers on judges’ dias while there are still 10 per cent courts that do not have access to proper internet facilities.
The idea for such an agency was first proposedby CJI Ramana in March this year, even before he took office.
Soon after he was sworn in, the CJI commenced work on the NJIC and a survey of 6,000 trial courts in various states was undertaken as part of this exercise.
The survey indicated a substantial gap in infrastructure and availability of basic amenities in the lower judiciary such as court halls, residential accommodation, waiting room for litigants in trial courts, especially in smaller towns and rural areas.
According to sources familiar with the developments, CJI Ramana has already worked out a model of the NJIC based on the findings of the survey, which is still underway.
“The survey, which is still on, has provided us with a consolidated data on the deficiencies plaguing trial courts.
These deficiencies are there because there is no agency to ensure use of funds allocated to augment judicial infrastructure,
“Experience shows that budgetary allocation for state judiciary often lapses since there is no independent body to supervise and execute works related to improving court premises. NJIC is expected to fill this vacuum and overcome problems related to infrastructure,” he added.
The CJI has also discussed his proposal with the chief justices of high courts.
“The first round of deliberations was done during the online Chief Justices conference in June.
The second round will happen soon and, thereafter, the CJI will finalise the proposal and send it to the government for its approval,”

Survey’s findings

For the survey, the CJI’s office set up an online portal outlining the parameters to be filled by HCs and trial courts.
According to the survey, 22 per cent trial court complexes do not have any toilet facilities for women while 16 per cent don’t have such a facility for men either.
Furthermore, there are 620 court complexes that still operate from rented premises and only 54 per cent of the total complexes have basic medical facilities.
The survey also noted that there are approximately 24,280 judicial officers in trial courts but only 20,143 court halls.
About 55 per cent of the trial courts surveyed have a separate room for the staff attached to judges while 54 per cent are equipped with drinking water facilities.
Only 55 per cent courts have centralised filing centres and 31 per cent have meditation halls.
Most court complexes also do not have a waiting area for litigants with only 33 per cent buildings with this facility.
Besides this, over 3,900 judges serving in trial courts live in rented residential accommodation. There are also no meeting halls for judges in at least 83 per cent courts and only 51 per cent have library facilities for judicial officers.
The trial courts have also been flouting the top court’s 2017 judgmentthat directed all public institutions to be disabled-friendly.
Of the 6,000 courts surveyed, 67 per cent do not have provisions to make access easier for people with disabilities.

Reasons behind infrastructural lag

According to sources in the Supreme Court, one of the primary reasons for the infrastructural lag in trial courts is the lack of funds.
To develop judicial infrastructure, funds are extended by the central government and states under the Centrally-Sponsored Scheme for Development of Judiciary Infrastructure, which began in 1993 and was extendedfor another five years in July this year.
Under the scheme, the ratio of fund sharing between the Centre and state is 60:40 for all states except those in the Northeast and the Himalayan region where it is 90:10.
However, sources noted, states do not come forward with their share of funds and consequently, money allocated under the scheme is often left unspent with them and lapses.
In some cases, they claimed, states have also transferred part of the fund for non-judicial purposes.
Even in the judiciary, particularly trial courts, nobody is willing to take responsibility to execute infrastructure projects,
Most district judges, who head trial courts, also do not vigorously pursue development projects due to short-term appointments and transferable jobs among others.
“It is not about resources but how to spend it,”,
Hence, the NJIC will be an “honest” agency that will monitor the execution of work for which the funds are earmarked.
NJIC will be a specialised body with a guiding role to perform
The basic idea behind NJIC was not to leave HC chief justices — who mostly undertake infrastructure-related projects in trial courts — at the mercy of state governments

‘Funding, executing & supervisory agency for development’

While the NJIC will be the nodal agency for infrastructural developments, it will not be involved in judicial appointments in trial courts.
Appointments will continue to be made by the state governments and the respective high courts.
A third source clarified that the NJIC will be a funding, executing and supervisory agency for development works.
According to the CJI’s proposal, both the central and state governments will contribute their share of funds outlined in the centrally-sponsored scheme to the NJIC, which will then release the finances to the high courts according to their requirement.
The structure of the corporation is likely to be modelled on the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), a national body based in Delhi that provides free legal services.
At the national level, the CJI will be the patron of the NJIC, which will include two senior SC judges, the finance secretary from the central government, two to three senior chief justices of state HCs, and a member of the Niti Aayog.
Each state is likely to have a local corporation as well, which will be led by the state HC chief justice along with a senior judge and senior state government bureaucrats.
“This composition will also ensure regular interaction between the two stakeholders – judiciary and the executive – over improving court infrastructure,”
The NJIC will not suggest any major policy change but will give complete freedom to HCs to come up with projects to strengthen ground-level courts.
It may recommend a model structure of how a court complex, courtroom or a waiting area for litigants should be.
However, it will be up to the high courts to adopt and modify the suggestions according to their requirements.