Kerala Government Challenges Governor's Role in Lawmaking Process

- The Kerala government has recently approached the Supreme Court, raising concerns
 about President Droupadi Murmu withholding assent to four Bills passed by the state
without disclosing any reason, and
 Governor Arif Mohammed Khan withholding assent to seven Bills for extended periods
before referring them to the President.
- Kerala has urged the top court to declare the referring of state Bills to the President as
“unconstitutional and lacking in good faith.”
- This move highlights the ongoing conflict between opposition-ruled states and their
Governors, who are appointed by the President on the Centre’s advice.
Governor’s Role in Lawmaking
- Art 200 of the Constitution outlines the Governor’s role in the lawmaking process. After a Bill
has been passed by the state legislature, it is presented to the Governor, who has three
options:
 Give assent to the Bill
 Withhold assent
 Reserve the Bill for consideration by the President
- If the Governor withholds assent, Article 200 states that the Governor should return the Bill to
the House or Houses “as soon as possible” with a message requesting reconsideration.
- If the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented
to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent. This provision gives the
state government the final say on enacting legislation.
- However, the lack of a specific timeline for the Governor to act has led to states approaching
the Supreme Court.

President’s Role in the Process of Lawmaking

- When a Bill is sent to the President for consideration, the President can
 either give or
 withhold assent, as per Article 201.
- If assent is withheld, the President requests the Governor to return the Bill to the state
legislature for reconsideration. The state government then has six months to reconsider the
Bill, failing which it lapses.
- If the Bill is passed once again by the state legislature, it must be sent back to the President,
who, unlike the Governor, is under no obligation to give assent when assessing the
reconsidered Bill.
- This is the only situation in which state governments do not have the final say in their own
lawmaking process.
Issues Raised by Kerala
- The Kerala government’s petition terms the actions of Governor Khan and President Murmu as
“manifestly arbitrary,” arguing that the decision to keep Bills pending violates Art 200 by not
deciding “as soon as possible.”
- The government claims that the Governor has “subverted the functioning” of the state
legislature and “rendered its existence itself ineffective and otiose (means serving no practical
purpose).”
- Regarding President Murmu’s decision to withhold assent to four Bills without giving any
reason, the Kerala government argues that this violates Art 201, which requires the President
to return the Bill with a message containing recommended amendments.
Situation in other states
- Several other opposition-ruled states have faced similar issues with their Governors:
 Tamil Nadu: Governor R N Ravi withheld assent to 10 Bills for extended periods before
returning them for reconsideration without reasons.
 Telangana: Former Governor Tamilisai Soundarajan refused to give assent to 10 Bills passed
by the state’s legislative assembly before eventually doing so.
 Punjab: Governor Banwarilal Purohit refused to give assent to four Bills, claiming they
were passed in breach of law and procedure.

Question of Timeline for Assent

- In November 2023, the Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot keep a Bill pending
indefinitely without any action, and if the Governor decides to withhold assent, he is bound to
follow the procedure provided in Article 200 and return it to the state legislature for
reconsideration.
- However, the court stopped short of providing a definitive timeline for the Governor to make
the decision. The Kerala government has now approached the Supreme Court to address this
issue.
 Resignation of Election Commissioner Arun Goel – Supreme Court’s caution
Supreme Court’s Stance on Multi-Member Election Commission – 1991 Judgement
- In a 1991 judgment, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of
having a multi-member Election Commission.
- The court stated, “There is no doubt that two heads are better than one, and particularly when
an institution like the Election Commission is entrusted with vital functions, and is armed with
exclusive uncontrolled powers to execute them, it is both necessary and desirable that the
powers are not exercised by one individual, however, all-wise he may be.”
T.N. Seshan Case Verdict: A Contrasting View
- However, in 1995, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the ‘T.N. Seshan’ case
judgment, introduced some ambiguity with a single line stating that the Election Commission
could be either a single-member body or a multi-member body, with the discretion lying with
the President.
- The Constitution Bench was interpreting clause 2 of Art 324, which states, “the Election
Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other
Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time-to-time fix…”

- Constitution Bench ultimately agreed with the S.S. Dhanoa judgment, affirming that a multi-
member Election Commission was perfectly in line with the plain language of Art 324.
 Supreme Court denies Immunity to Lawmakers in Bribery Cases
Published On Mar 05, 2024
- In Sita Soren vs UOI (2024) on Mar 4, 2024, the SC ruled that MPs & MLAs cannot claim
immunity from prosecution in cases involving bribery for votes/speeches in their respective
houses.
- The 7-judge bench, headed by CJI DY Chandrachud, overturned the 1998 judgment in the PV
Narasimha Rao v. CBI case.
PV Narsimha Rao Judgment vs State, 1998
- In the case, allegations had arisen that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had accepted
bribes to vote in favour of the government during a no-confidence motion in 1993.
- In 1998, a 5-judge constitution bench had ruled in favor of lawmakers, granting them immunity
u/a 105 & 194 of the C’n against criminal prosecution for bribery.
7 Judge Bench
- Over ruled the judgement in 1998 by 5 judge bench.
- The seven-judge bench emphasized the detrimental impact of corruption and bribery by
legislators on probity in public life.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges, and
the interpretation of the 1998 verdict is contrary to Art 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
 Art 105(2) - confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any
vote given by them in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.
 Art 194(2) grants similar protection to MLAs.
- Scope of Parliamentary Privilege: The SC clarified that the ruling applies to
 elections to the Rajya Sabha and
 the offices of the President and Vice President.
- Two-fold Test: Assertion of a privilege by an individual MP/MLA would be governed by a
twofold test:
1) privilege claimed has to be connected to collective functioning of the House, and
2) its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of essential duties of a
legislator.
- Jurisdiction of criminal court: Criminal courts are not excluded from hearing bribery cases
against legislators merely because it may also be treated by the House as contempt or a breach
of its privilege.
 SC seeks to Incentivize Super performer Judges

- This aims to motivate those (Super Performer Judges) efficiently clearing massive case backlogs
through additional incentives amidst a growing pileup.
 VISION IAS – MAR 2024

CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2024

Why in the news?
- Ministry of Home Affairs has amended Citizenship Rules, 2009 and notified Citizenship
(Amendment) Rules, 2024 to enforce the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.

Background
- Under Art 11, the Parliament passed CAA-2019 and received the President's assent in Dec
2019. However, the MHA had not framed the rules, so the Act could not be implemented.
- The CAA aims to give citizenship to the target group of migrants even if they do not have valid
travel documents as mandated in The Citizenship Act, of 1955.

Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019

- The amendment provides that illegal migrants who fulfil four conditions will not be treated as
illegal migrants under the Act. The conditions are:
 they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians
 they are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan
 they entered India on or before December 31, 2014
 they are not in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura included in
the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, or areas under the “Inner Line” permit, i.e.,
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.

- 5 grounds of cancelling OCI’s

- The Central Government exempted the said migrants from the adverse penal consequences of
the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946 and rules or orders made
thereunder.
- The period of naturalisation has been reduced from 11 years to 5 years for the above category
of migrants.
Key Highlights of CAA.
Eligibility To apply for citizenship by registration/naturalization one must be:
- Person of Indian origin
- Married to an Indian citizen
- A minor child of an Indian citizen
- A person whose parents are registered as an Indian citizen
 - Person or either of his parents was a citizen of Independent India
- registered as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder
Other - Applicant will have to present an affidavit verifying correctness of the
Qualifications for statements made in the application and an affidavit by an Indian citizen
citizenship by to testify the character of the applicant.
naturalization - Applicant must have adequate knowledge of one of the languages listed
in 8th Schedule of Indian Constitution
Proof of - Applicants now can provide 20 different documents as proof of entry
nationality into India.
Renouncing - Applicant shall have a declaration saying the citizenship of his country
citizenship of shall stand renounced irrevocably if the application for Indian
another country citizenship is approved.
Authority to - Under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, an application shall be
which submitted in electronic form to the Empowered Committee (EC) as
application is notified by the Central Govt.
made

Need of CAA 2019

Human Rights Perspective - The Act upholds the principles of human rights by providing
relief to persecuted individuals.
Strengthening National - Act is aimed at differentiating between illegal immigrants and
Security persecuted minorities.
Relief for Partition Victims - The Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh
provide for a specific state religion.
- As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist,
Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution
on grounds of religion in those countries.
 ONE NATION ONE ELECTION

Expert bodies advocated for simultaneous elections

- Law Commission of India (170th Report of 1999, 255th Report of 2015, Draft Report 2018)
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2002,
- Parliamentary Standing Committee Report in 2015,
- Working Paper of NITI AAYOG in 2017.
- Committee, headed by former President Shri Ram Nath Kovind, was established in September
2023 to examine the concept of 'one nation, one election' (ONOE).
- The committee advocated simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies,
and local bodies.

About One Nation and One Election/ Simultaneous Elections

- Aimed to synchronize the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies elections, Municipalities and
Panchayats such that voters in a particular constituency vote on the same day.
 Simultaneous elections do not mean that voting across the country for all elections needs
to happen on a single day.

Need for Simultaneous Elections

- Economic Benefits
- Focus on Governance
- Voter Participation
- Reducing the burden on Courts
- Reducing identity politics.

Issues with simultaneous elections and corresponding recommendations given by the Committee

Issue Recommendations
Legal challenges to Two steps to manage this challenge:
amend the Constitution - Firstly, hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State
to synchronise election Legislative Assemblies.
 To attain this step, Constitutional Amendment Bill will be
introduced amending Art 83 (Duration of Houses of
Parliament), and Art 172 (Duration of State Legislatures), &
insertion of Article 82A will be made.
 For this Amendment, ratification by the States is not
required.
- Secondly, within the hundred days of the Lok Sabha and State
Legislative Assemblies elections, synchronize the elections for
Municipalities and Panchayats.
- For this purpose, another Constitutional Amendment Bill will be
introduced in which
 insertion of Article 324A (to synchronise elections of
Municipalities and Panchayats)
 and amendment to Article 325 (to enable Single Electoral
Roll and Single Elector’s Photo Identity Card) of the
Constitution will be made.
Issue of hung - In the event of a hung House or no-confidence motion, the
Parliament/Assembly Committee proposes fresh elections for the House of the People,
and premature serving only the unexpired term of the preceding full term.
dissolution - Similarly, for State Legislative Assemblies, new elections shall
 last until the House of the People's full-term ends.
- A Constitution Amendment Bill will have to be introduced in the
Parliament amending Art 83 & Art 172.
Altering state elections - Countered by Art 327, empowers Parliament to make provisions
would violate the rights with respect to Parliament and state elections.
of the states - Need to amend RoPA, 1951
 empowers Parliament to make provisions with respect to
Parliament and state elections.
Synchronisation of -
elections to the House
of the People and State
Legislative Assemblies
Logistics, Manpower -
including VVPATs and
EVMs
 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Why in news
- SC invalidated mayoral elections held for the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.
Urban Local Bodes
- A Municipal Corporation has three authorities:
- The Council - The Council, comprising councillors, is the deliberative and
legislative wing of the Corporation that is headed by a mayor.
He is assisted by a Deputy Mayor.
- Though the Mayor is an ornamental figure, he is recognised as
the first citizen of the city.
- The Standing - The standing Committees were created to facilitate the
Committee working of the Council which is too large in size.
- The Commissioner - The Municipal Commissioner is responsible for the
implementation of the decisions taken by the Council and its
Standing Committees.
- Indian cities largely follow the ‘commissioner as chief executive’ (CACE) model as opposed to
the directly elected executive mayor’ (DEEM) model:
 DEEM Model: It’s a strong mayor model where a mayor has extensive executive power.
 CACE model: It’s a weak mayor model where the executive power lies in the hands of
the commissioner (An IAS officer).
About Municipal Elections
- To elect for local urban governing bodies
- For Municipal Corp are held as per Municipal Corporation Act
- For Municipalities are held as per respective Municipal act.
Constitutional Provisions
- Composition of Municipalities (Art 243R)
 By Direct election
 From the territorial constituencies in the
Municipal area.
 Each Municipal area divided into
constituencies known as wards.
- Reservation of seats (Art 243T)
- Duration of Municipalities (Art 243U)
 5 yrs from the date of appointment
 Elections to be held before the expiration of the duration of the municipality.
 If dissolved before the term of 5 yrs, the elections are required to be completed within a
period of 6 months from the date of its dissolution.
- State Election Commission (Art 243ZA):
 The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the
conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the SEC.

Challenges in Municipal Elections

- Delimitation and reservation
- Inconsistent Mayoral Terms
- SECs lack of power.
- Voter Apathy – Less voter turnout

Way Forward
- Single electoral for all three tiers of Government.
 S.R. BOMMAI JUDGEMENT (1994)

Why in the news?

- S.R. Bommai's judgement (1994) of the SC completes
30 years.

About S. R. Bommai (SRB) v. UOI,1994 Judgment

- In 1989, the Central government dismissed SRB’s
government in Karnataka under Art 356 and President’s Rule was imposed.
- A nine-judge bench of the SC interpreted Article 356 of the Constitution to define the contours
of the proclamation of President’s rule.
About Article 356
- State Emergency is also known as President's Rule or Constitutional Emergency. The
Constitution does not use the word 'emergency' for this situation.
- Art 356 finds inspiration in Sec 93 of the Government of India Act 1935.
- Ground to declare:
 Based on the report from the Governor of a State or otherwise,
 if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a State
cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
- Validity: The President’s Rule is valid for two months unless Parliament extends it for up to
six months.
 Extensions beyond a year are only permitted
o in a national security emergency or
o if the Election Commission certifies that holding assembly elections is difficult.
o Even then, the limit for the President’s Rule is three years.
Key Questions on SRB’s case
1) Whether proclamations of the President’s Rule were justiciable?
2) The scope and limits of the President’s power under Art 356.
 The Constitution is silent on what constitutes a failure of constitutional machinery making
the provision vulnerable to misuse.
3) Consequences if the Court hold the proclamation of the President’s Rule invalid even after
Parliament has given its approval.

Bommai judgement and Key Principles laid down:

- Judicial Review - SC declared, presidential proclamation under Article 356 is
subject to judicial review on substantial grounds.
- No restriction on the court from examining the material
based on which the President formed his satisfaction.
- SC or HC can strike down the Proclamation if it is mala fide or
based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds.

- Limits of the - The President should exercise the power only after his
President’s proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
powers - President’s power to dismiss the state govt. is not absolute.

- Consequences of - Both the Council of Ministers and the Legislative Assembly

invalidation of President’s should stand restored
Rule - The validity of the acts done, orders passed and laws, made
during the period of operation of the proclamation would
remain un-effected.
 - Other Observations - Laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the
support enjoyed by the party in power.
- The use of Art 356 was justified only when there was a
breakdown of constitutional machinery and not that of
administrative machinery.
- Based on the Sarkaria Commission report (1988), the SC in
this case has enlisted where the use of the exercise of power
under Art 356 could be proper or improper.
 Proper use example: Constitutional direction of the
Central government is disregarded by the state govt (Art
365).
 Improper use example: State govt is not given prior
warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme
urgency leading to disastrous consequence.
- Secularism, democracy and federalism are the essential
features of our Constitution and are part of its basic
structure.
 An attempt was made to define secularism: it is more
than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a
positive concept of equal treatment of all religions.

Impact of S R Bommai Judgement

Restrictive use of Art 356 - Between January 1950 and March 1994, the President’s Rule
was imposed 100 times or an average of 2.5 times a year.
- Between 1995 and 2021, it has been imposed only 29 times
or a little more than once a year.
Strengthen Federalism - The judgment made Article 356 proclamations justiciable
without undermining the President’s discretionary powers,
thus strengthening India’s federalism without diminishing its
separation of powers.

Conclusion
As India continues to navigate the complex dynamics of centre-state relations and the role
of secularism in governance, the principles established in the S.R. Bommai case remain vital in
upholding the constitutional ideals of federalism and pluralism.
 SIXTH SCHEDULE
Why in the news?
- People of Ladakh are protesting for Ladakh to
be recognized as a tribal area under the Sixth
Schedule.
More in News
- Ministry of Home Affairs argued that granting
sixth schedule status to Ladakh necessitates a
constitutional amendment, a complex
process.
- During a meeting with Ladakh representatives, the union home minister proposed extending
Article 371-like protections to the region.
About Sixth Schedule
- The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) of the
Constitution, is provided for the admn. of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, &
Mizoram.
Provisions of the Sixth schedule
- It empowers the Governor to create Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) and Autonomous
Regional Councils (ARCs) in these four states.
 Composition of ADCs: ADCs consist of not more than thirty members, out of which four are
nominated by the Governor while the rest are elected. (Bodoland Territorial Council is an
exception; it can have up to forty-six members).
 ARCs: If there are different Scheduled Tribes in an autonomous district, the Governor may
divide the area or areas inhabited by them into autonomous regions.
- The sixth Schedule conferred the following Financial, Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers
to ADCs and ARCs.
Power Subject
Legislative To make rules
Power - in respect of lands, management of forest (other than the Reserved Forest), shifting
cultivation, Chiefs or Headmen appointment.
- In respect to inheritance of property, marriage and divorce and social practice.
- Regulations and control of moneylending or trading by any person other than
Scheduled Tribe residents in that Scheduled District.
Executive - Power to establish or manage primary schools, dispensaries, markets, cattle ponds,
Power fisheries, roads, road transport and waterways in the districts.
- The Councils are also authorized to prescribe the language and manner of instruction in
the primary schools.
Judicial - Empowered to constitute Village and District Council Courts.
Powers - No other courts except the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction
over such suits or cases of the Council Courts
- However, these Council Courts are not given the power to decide cases involving
offences punishable by death or imprisonment for five or more years.
Financial - Empowered to prepare a budget for their respective Council.
Powers - Empowered to assess & collect land revenue and impose taxes on professions, trades
etc.
- given the power to grant licenses or leases for extraction of minerals within their
jurisdiction
Benefits Ladakh will get if included in Sixth Schedule
Address Local Issues - The ADCs could address issues specific to Ladakh- environmental
protection, tourism management, and sustainable development
practices
Land Rights - Ladakh enjoyed analogous autonomy as part of the erstwhile
state of Jammu and Kashmir through Art 35A of the Indian
Constitution till it was repealed in 2019.
 Hence, the Sixth Schedule would safeguard the land and
forest rights of the tribal communities and protects them
from alienation.
Safeguards for Tradition -
Resource Management - ADCs to have greater control on mineral resources in their
jurisdiction
Job Opportunities -

Issues in awarding Sixth Schedule Status to Ladakh

- Financial Viability: Establishing and running ADCs requires significant financial resources.
- Inter-Community Dynamics: Balancing the interests of the Buddhist majority in Leh and the
Muslim majority in Kargil within the framework of the Sixth Schedule could be challenging.
- National Security Considerations
 TEMPLE REGULATION IN INDIA
Why in the news?
- Karnataka Legislative Assembly passed the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 to regulate temples in the state.

More on the news

- The new bill amends the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments
Act, of 1997.
- Govt will collect – as follows
Old Bill New Bill
Temple earnings 5-10 lks – 5% >10 lks – 5%
between > 10 lks – 10% > 1 Cr – 10%
% to the Common Pool Fund
- Bill proposed to utilise the money for the welfare of archakas (priests) and the development of
temples whose annual income is less than ₹5 lakh.

Legal and Institutional Framework to Regulate

Temples
- Art 25 (1) gives the freedom of religion and
- Art 25(2) talks about areas where the State may
intervene and make laws or regulate religious
institutions.
- Art 26 provides for the freedom to manage the
religious affairs of the citizens and is subject to public order, morality and health.
- Entry 28 of List III of Schedule VII empowers both Union and State Legislatures to make law on
“Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious
institutions”.
- Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE): Several states across the country have
enacted legislative and regulatory frameworks to regulate these institutions through the
powers accorded by the Constitution.
- Hindu Religious Endowments Commission (1960): The Commission declared that government
control over temples was essential to prevent maladministration.
 THE CINEMATOGRAPH (CERTIFICATION) RULES, 2024

- Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, has notified the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,
2024, replacing the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.
- CBFC is a Statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Issues with Film Certification in India

- OTT platforms – Film certification does not regulate content on OTT platforms.
 ‘NITI FOR STATES’ PLATFORM

- Government has launched the ‘NITI for States’ platform.

 It is a comprehensive digital initiative designed to empower States/UTs in their pursuit of
national development goals.
- Key Features
 Centralised repository of valuable resources – Docs, Datasets, NITI Aayog publications etc.
 Multilingual – in 22 Indian and 7 foreign languages
 Capacity Building – @ Block, District and State lvl
 Expert Help
 TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT IN TRIPURA

- Between
1. Government of India,
2. Government of Tripura, and
3. The Indigenous Progressive Regional Alliance (TIPRA) &
and other stakeholders signed a tripartite agreement.
- To amicably resolve all issues of indigenous people of Tripura.
 DIGITAL CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CCMS)
- Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) launches unique Digital CCMS Platform.
- Digital CCMS designed by National Investigation Agency (NIA).
- To help State Police in their investigation.

Significance of Digital CCMS:

- Enable NIA personnel to better coordinate in terrorism and organized crime cases, thereby
improving justice delivery.
- Help State Police organise, integrate and digitalise data.
- Foster Stronger Cooperation
- Assist NIA and State Police.

- Additionally, MHA launched Sankalan app

 A compendium of New Criminal Laws by National Crime Records Bureau.
- Designed for navigating through new criminal laws
- as a bridge between old and new criminal laws.
- Will work in offline mode as well and its availability has been ensured in far-flung areas.