24 Mar 2018: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

A. GS1 Related

• The Dravidian language family, consisting of 80 varieties spoken by nearly 220 million people across southern and central India, originated about 4,500 years ago, a study has found.
• This estimate is based on new linguistic analyses by an international team, including researchers from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, and the Wildlife Institute of India in Dehradun.
• The researchers used data collected first-hand from native speakers representing all previously reported Dravidian subgroups. The findings, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, match with earlier linguistic and archaeological studies.
• South Asia, reaching from Afghanistan in the west and Bangladesh in the east, is home to at least six hundred languages belonging to six large language families, including Dravidian, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan.
• The Dravidian language family, consisting of about 80 language varieties (both languages and dialects) is today spoken by about 220 million people, mostly in southern and central India, and surrounding countries.
• The Dravidian language family’s four largest languages — Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu — have literary traditions spanning centuries, of which Tamil reaches back the furthest, researchers said.
• Along with Sanksrit,Tamil is one of the world’s classical languages, but unlike Sanskrit, there is continuity between its classical and modern forms documented in inscriptions, poems, and secular and religious texts and songs, they said.
• The study of the Dravidian languages is crucial for understanding prehistory in Eurasia, as they played a significant role in influencing other language groups.
• Neither the geographical origin of the Dravidian language nor its exact dispersal through time is known with certainty.
• The consensus of the research community is that the Dravidians are natives of the Indian subcontinent and were present prior to the arrival of the Indo-Aryans (Indo-European speakers) in India around 3,500 years ago.
• Researchers said that it is likely that the Dravidian languages were much more widespread to the west in the past than they are today.
• In order to examine questions about when and where the Dravidian languages developed, they made a detailed investigation of the historical relationships of 20 Dravidian varieties.
• Study author Vishnupriya Kolipakam of the Wildlife Institute of India collected contemporary first-hand data from native speakers of a diverse sample of Dravidian languages, representing all the previously reported subgroups of Dravidian.
• The researchers used advanced statistical methods to infer the age and sub-grouping of the Dravidian language family at about 4,000-4,500 years old.
• This estimate, while in line with suggestions from previous linguistic studies, is a more robust result because it was found consistently in the majority of the different statistical models of evolution tested in this study.
• This age also matches well with inferences from archaeology, which have previously placed the diversification of Dravidian into North, Central, and South branches at exactly this age, coinciding with the beginnings of cultural developments evident in the archaeological record.

The day Rajasthan government extended term of its existing Lokayukta S S Kothari by 3 more years, the Supreme Court went on to ask chief secretaries of 12 states to give reasons for not appointing a Lokayukta. These states are Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi and West Bengal.

What is Lokayukta?

• Lokayukta is an anti-corruption authority or ombudsman – an official appointed by the government or by parliament to represent the interests of the public. Most importantly, it investigates allegations of corruption and mal-administration against public servants and is tasked with speedy redressal of public grievances.

Genesis:

• The Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Late Morarji Desai in 1966 recommended the setting up of the institution of Lokayukta for the purpose of appointment of Lokayukta at the state’s level, “to improve the standards of public administration, by looking into complaints against the administrative actions, including cases of corruption, favouritism and official indiscipline in administrative machinery.”
• The Bill provides for the appointment of a Lokayukta “to investigate and report on allegations or grievances relating to the conduct of public servants.”It also called for establishment of Lokpal at the Centre.
• While many states, thereafter, set-up Lokayukta institution, a comprehensive bill was passed in 2013 after a long debate on the issue.The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, commonly known The Lokpal Act was passed by the Parliament of India in December 2013.

States that have Lokayukta

• Maharashtra was the first State to introduce the institution of Lokayukta in 1971 and so far 21 states have established the same.
• Karnataka’s Lokayukta is considered one of the strongest.
• Santosh Hegde, former Lokayukta of Karnataka, uncovered one of the biggest mining scams (quantified at Rs.12, 228 crore) of the country in 2011. His activism and strong evidences resulted in the then Chief Minister Yeddyurappa being jailed for 21 days in October 2011.

How does Lokayukta work?

• The Lokayukta works along with the Income Tax Department and the Anti Corruption Bureau. The Lokayukta (sometimes referred to the institution itself) investigates allegations of corruption and mal-administration against public servants and is tasked with speedy redressal of public grievances. However, public can’t lodge complain for any issue which is more than 5 years old.

Who is appointed as the Lokayukta?

The Lokayukta is usually a former High Court Chief Justice or former Supreme Court judge and has a fixed tenure.

Selection of Lokayukta

• The Chief Minister selects a person as the Lokayukta after consultation with the High Court Chief Justice, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Chairman of the Legislative Council, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council. The appointment is then made by the Governor.
• Once appointed, Lokayukta cannot be dismissed nor transferred by the government, and can only be removed by passing an impeachment motion by the state assembly.

Tenure of a Lokayukat:

The tenure of Lokayukta is generally 5 years. However, in Uttar Pradesh it is 8 years and now in Rajasthan also it will become 8 years.

Jurisdiction:

The public servants who are covered by the Act include:

• all Ministers and Members of the State Legislature;
• all officers of the State Government;
• Chairman, Vice Chairman of local authorities, Statutory bodies or Corporations established by or under any law of the State Legislature, including Co-operative Societies;
• Persons in the service of Local Authorities, Corporations owned or controlled by the State Government, a company in which not less than 50% of the shares are held by the State Government, Societies registered under the State Registration Act, Co-operative Societies

Process:

If after investigation, the Lokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence, he may initiate prosecution without reference to any other authority. Any prior sanction required under any law for such prosecution shall be deemed to have been granted.

Limitations

Lack of prosecution powers, adequate staff, funds and lack of independence are some of the limitation of the Lokayukta.  In many States, the office of the Lokayukta is vacant. For instance, Gujarat did not have a lokayukta for eight years until Governor Kamla Beniwal appointed Justice R.A. Mehta to the post. But the Narendra Modi government challenged it at the Supreme Court and the court upheld the appointment on January 2. Besides these, many cases are pending before the Lokayukta.

 Context:

• The MLAs has been earlier disqualified for holding offices of profit
• That’s because they were appointed parliamentary secretaries to ministers in the Delhi government in 2015
• The MLAs told the Delhi high court the EC’s order disqualifying them was passed in ‘complete violation of natural justice’

• In a big victory for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Delhi high court today restored membership of its 20 disqualified MLAs and referred the case back to the Election Commission (EC).
• The HC said the disqualification of AAP MLAs was bad in law, and therefore remanded their plea back to the EC which will hear it afresh. The court further said there was a violation of natural justice and no oral hearing was given to the AAP MLAs before disqualifying them as legislators.
• On January 19, the EC recommended the AAP MLAs be disqualified for holding offices of profit. Two days later, President Ram Nath Kovind approved the disqualification. The EC was referring to the fact the MLAs had been appointed parliamentary secretaries to ministers in the Delhi government in March 2015.
• The MLAs then approached the Delhi high court challenging their disqualification.A Delhi high court bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar wrapped up hearings in the case on February 28, and reserved its judgment after the legislators, the EC and other parties had concluded their arguments.
• The MLAs had told the court that the EC’s order disqualifying them was passed in “complete violation of natural justice” as they were not given an opportunity to explain their stand before the poll panel.
• In response to a query from the bench during the hearings, the legislators had agreed to have the case sent back to the poll panel so that the MLAs could be granted an oral hearing.
• Backing its recommendation to the President for AAP MLAs’ disqualification, the poll panel had submitted that the legislators cannot claim that they were not holding office-of-profit. It had also claimed that these MLAs’ pleas were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

Background

Office of profit

• The expression “office of profit” has not been defined in the Constitution or in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Its ambit has to be inferred only from pronouncements of courts and other competent authorities, like the Election Commission and the President.
• In India, the concept of “officeof profit” disqualifying the holder was imported from Britain and it made its appearance for the first time in the Act of 1909, which embodied the Morley-Minto Reforms proposals.
• An office of profit is a term used to refer to executive appointments. The basic idea was — and remains — that the legislators should not be vulnerable to temptations an executive can offer.

In Indian context-

• According article 102 (1) (a) and article 191 (1) (e) of the Indian constitution bars members of both houses of Parliament and state assembly/council for holding any office of profit.
• According to above articles a person shall be disqualified for being elected as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament/state assembly if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament/respective assemblies by law not to disqualify its holder.

Meaning

• Office-> if they have the office to work
  • “The word ‘office’ is of indefinite content. It has various meanings
  • The Supreme Court in case of Statesman (Private) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb and Ors, Said that: “An office means no more than a position to which certain duties are attached According to Earl Jowktt’s Dictionary a public office is one which entitles a man to act in the affairs of others without their appointment or permission”
• Profit->obtaining any pecuniary Gain- If the office carries with it, or entitles the holder to, any pecuniary gain other than reimbursement of out of pocket/actual expenses, then the office will be an office of profit for the purpose of Article 102 (1)(a)

103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members

• If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause ( 1 ) of Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final
• Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion

Rationale for the disqualification for holding an Office of Profit-

• The underlying concept behind these two articles is the principle of separation of power between the functionaries of a state like legislative, judiciary and executive.
• The principle of separation of powers enjoins that the three organs of the government- the executive, the legislature and the judiciary should be separate from each other
• This is to ensure the isolation, immunity or independence of one branch of government from the actions or interference of another and to ensure checks and balances.

This provision is thus designed to protect the democratic fabric of the country from being executive patronage and also secures the independence of MPs from the influence of the so that they discharge their functions without fear or favor The presumption is that if corrupted by Government a legislature receives benefits from the Executive than he may not be able to independently scrutinize the actions of the Government. It ensures that the parliament does not contain persons who may be obligated to the government and be amenable to it influence because they are receiving favors and benefits from it

Supreme Court in case of Shivamurthy Swami vs. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa said the test which may be applied to determine whether an office is “office of profit” under the state government thus:-

• Whether the Government makes the appointment;
• Whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder;
• Whether the Government pays the remuneration;
• What are the functions of the holder
• Does the Government exercise any control over the performance of those functions?

Joint Parliamentary Committee Recommendation

The Committee suggested the definition of “office-of- profit” as:

• any office under the control of the Government of India, or the government of a state, whether or not the salary or remuneration for such office is paid out of the public revenue of the government of India or of the government of state
• Any office under a body, which is wholly or partially owned by the government of India or the government of any state and the salary or remuneration is paid by such body
• any office the holder of which is capable of exercising executive powers delegated by the government including disbursement of funds, allotment of lands, issuing of licenses and permits or making of public appointments or granting of such other favors of substantial nature or legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Since the judicial decisions gave varying interpretations depending upon the facts of each case

Previous cases-

• In 2006 Sonia Gandhi resigned from Lok Sabha after the issue of office of profit was raised. (She was holding chairmanship of National Advisory Council). Later the prevention of disqualification act was amended in 2006 to add the position of NAC chairperson to the list of exempted posts.
• Jaya Bachchan was disqualified from the Rajya Sabha, while she was also chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Federation.

Parliamentary Secretaries- President declines assent to Delhi govt’s bill

• The Delhi government had sought an amendment to the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997. The bill, aims to exclude the post of parliamentary secretary from the office of profit and exempt the post from disqualification provisions.
• President Pranab Mukherjee has rejected a bill passed by the Delhi assembly last year seeking to exempt 21 AAP MLAs appointed as parliamentary secretaries from the purview of `office of profit’ criteria.

 Implications:

• Section 15 of the government of NCT of Delhi Act, 1991 says a person shall not remain an MLA if he or she holds any office of profit under the Centre or government of a state or UT.

 What the law says?

• Various petitions in the High Court have challenged the appointment of Parliament Secretary, arguing that the post is in contradiction to Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution which provides for limiting the number of Ministers in the State Cabinets to 15 per cent of the total number of members of the State Legislative Assembly.
• Article 164 (1A) was inserted in the Constitution on the recommendation of the National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution headed by former Chief Justice of India, M.N. Venkatachaliah on misuse and drainage of public money to put a ban on over-sized cabinet.
• This was added by 91^st

Judgments

• Because a Parliament Secretary often holds the rank of Minister of State, the Calcutta High Court, in Vishal Bhattacharya vs The State of West Bengal and Others (2015), in June 2015, quashed the appointment of 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in West Bengal dubbing it unconstitutional.
  • Bombay High Court in 2009 for the appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries in Goa in Aires Rodrigues vs The State of Goa, 2009 and by the
  • Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2005 for the appointment of eight Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and four Parliamentary Secretaries in the State.
• In May 2015, the Hyderabad High Court stayed the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries in Telangana
  • The court ruled that parliamentary secretaries represented the government in the assembly and, while assisting the CM, would have the authority to pass orders. They would also participate in the decision-making process and take decisions themselves and this, in “spirit and substance”, meant they were equivalent to Cabinet ministers.

Delhi’s Case

• The number of Cabinet Ministers in Delhi cannot exceed 10 per cent of the total 70 seats — that is seven — as per Article 239AA of Constitution.
• As of now, only one Parliamentary Secretary to the Chief Minister is authorised.