13 May 2020: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

B. GS 2 Related

Category: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

1. Do numbers matter in Rajya Sabha?

Context:

The Rajya Sabha (RS), the Upper House of the Parliament of India, had its first sitting on May 13, 1952. This article is authored by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

Details:

• The Indian Constitution provides for parity of powers between the Lok Sabha (LS) and the Rajya Sabha in law, making an exception in some cases.
• The Money Bill or Finance Bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha, which only can approve the Demands for Grants.
• On the other hand, the Rajya Sabha has some special powers:
  • To adopt a resolution allowing Parliament to legislate on subjects in the State List.
  • Creating All India Services.
  • Approving proclamations of Emergency and President’s Rule when the Lok Sabha is dissolved.

Elections to RS and LS:

• Elections to the Lok Sabha are held every five years and before that on dissolution of the House.
• For the Rajya Sabha, one-third of the members are chosen every second year reflecting its permanent nature.
• While the Lok Sabha elections hold a mirror to the recent will of the people, the Rajya Sabha is envisaged to convey the same in different phases of development marking some continuity.
• The Executive lasts only as long as it has a majority in the Lok Sabha, but in law-making, both the Houses are at par. Given the possible variations in the composition of both the Houses on account of different modes of election to them, did it impact the nature and speed of legislation?

Has the Rajya Sabha been obstructionist?

• An analysis undertaken by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat recently revealed that during the past 68 years since the first general elections in 1952, the government of the day had a majority in the Rajya Sabha only for 29 years and was in a minority for 39 years, including an unbroken stretch for the past 31 years.
• This pronounced divergence in numbers in the two Houses of Parliament does not indicate any adverse impact on the broader course of legislation except in a few cases.
• There are, however, a few discordant notes during this long journey of legislation. But there is no case for terming Rajya Sabha as obstructionist.
• So far, Parliament held only three Joint Sittings to resolve differences between both the Houses.
  • The first instance was in 1961 when the then Nehru government enjoyed a majority in the Rajya Sabha but the Dowry Prohibition Bill, 1959 suffered a defeat.
  • In 1978, the Banking Services Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1977 was rejected by the Rajya Sabha.
  • In 2002, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002 could not pass the Rajya Sabha scrutiny.
• There were occasions when the Rajya Sabha sat over Bills passed by the Lok Sabha for a long time including the Prevention of Corruption Bill, 1987 and the Dock Worker (Safety, Health and Welfare) Bill, 1986.
• If this was checking hasty legislation, the Rajya Sabha had passed five Constituent Amendment Bills in one day on August 25, 1994 when the government of the day did not have the numbers. The Rajya Sabha has also made amendments to several Bills passed by the Lok Sabha and these were accepted in several cases by the other House.
• Though the present government too, does not have the required numbers in the Rajya Sabha, members of different parties rose to the occasion in passing landmark legislation relating to the GST, Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, Triple Talaq, Unlawful Activities, Reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir, Citizenship Amendment and so on.
• This goes to prove that numbers in the Rajya Sabha is not an issue as far as law-making is concerned. It is a different concern which applies broadly to the legislatures of the country.

Spirit of cordiality between RS and LS:

• Renowned British philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill, as early as in 1861, said in his great treatise ‘Considerations on Representative Government’ that management of free institutions requires conciliation; a readiness to compromise; a willingness to concede something to opponents and mutual give and take.
• The required spirit of cordiality between the two Houses suffered a dent on some occasions.
  • First, when Rajya Sabha members were not included in the Public Accounts Committee in 1952.
  • When the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1953, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, some members questioned its certification as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker. When the controversy was thickening, Prime Minister Nehru intervened, asserting that “For those who are interested in the success of the great experiment in nation building that we have embarked upon, it is a paramount duty to bring about this close cooperation and respect for each other (House).”
  • Rajya Sabha members objected when the Lok Sabha Speaker referred the Major Port Trust Bill, 1963 to its Select Committee without involving Rajya Sabha members and this Bill was later referred to its own Select Committee again.

Need for a second chamber:

• Continuing with some reservations voiced in the Constituent Assembly about having a second chamber, some members of the Lok Sabha moved resolutions as early as in 1954 and again later in 1971, 1972 and 1975 for the dissolution of the Rajya Sabha. But such efforts were thwarted.
• As per the constitutional provisions, the Rajya Sabha at best could hold a Money Bill for 14 days during when, it has to return such Bills without or with amendments for the consideration of the Lok Sabha.

This topic has been covered in 12^th May 2020 CNA. Click here to read.

Increasing disruptions:

• An analysis by the Secretariat revealed that the productivity of the Rajya Sabha till 1997 has been 100% and above and the past 23 years have thrown up a disturbing trend of rising disruptions. Productivity fell to 87% during 1998-2004, 76% during 2005-14 and 61% during 2015-19.
• While the time spent by the Rajya Sabha on legislation since 1978 remained the same, a concern emerges in respect of the ‘Oversight’ function of the House.
• Legislatures ensure accountability of the executive through Questions, Calling Attention Notices, etc. Time share of this important Oversight function of the Council of States in the total functional time of the House during 1978-2004 was 39.50%. This fell to 21.99% during 2005-14 and to 12.34% since 2015.
• This decline is primarily on account of disruptions forcing cancellation of Question Hour frequently. Disruptions also dent the quality of law-making as seen in passing of Bills without discussion sometimes.
• However, the Rajya Sabha is proving to be more and more a ‘deliberative’ body with increasingly more time being spent on this function. The time share on deliberations under instruments like Short Duration Discussions, Zero Hour, Special Mentions, Discussion on Budgets and working of ministries, Motion of Thanks to President, etc. was 33.54% during 1978-2004. It rose to 41.42 % during 2005-2014 and to a high of 46.59% during 2015-19.

Conclusion:

• After the initial frictions, Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha have proved to be constructive partners in steering the socio-economic transformation of the country since 1952, co-scripting pioneering laws.
• This partnership has been guided by the required spirit of cooperation and camaraderie despite divergence in the composition of both the Houses for most part of this journey.
• What needs to be addressed by all the stakeholders is that while enabling Rajya Sabha to retain its independence, it should not be seen as disruptive as evidenced over the past two decades.

D. GS 4 Related

Nothing here for today!!!

E. Editorials

Category: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

1. Riding roughshod over State governments

Context:

• The central government issuing guidelines to the state governments over the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background:

Federalism:

• Federalism signifies the independence of the Union and State governments of a country, in their own spheres.

7^th schedule:

• Under the Indian scheme of federalism, there is division of powers between the central and state governments. The 7^th Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains three lists – Union list, State list and Concurrent list.
• Parliament can legislate on matters under the Union List, State legislatures can legislate on matters under the State List and both Parliament and State legislatures can legislate on matters under the Concurrent List.
• The residuary power to legislate on matters that are not mentioned in either of the lists rests with Parliament.
• As per Articles 73 and 162, the executive power of the Centre and the States is co-extensive with their respective legislative powers, which means that the Central and State governments can only take executive actions in matters where Parliament and State legislatures, respectively, have powers to legislate.

Principle of Harmonious Construction:

• The principle of harmonious construction was laid down by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments, including in Godfrey Phillips v. State of U.P. & Ors (2005).
• The judgment notes that the entries in the legislative lists must be interpreted harmoniously, and in the event of any overlap between two or more entries, the specific subject matter contained in a particular entry must be deemed to have been excluded from another entry which may deal with a more general subject matter.

Details:

• The Central government has been issuing guidelines to the state governments. The guidelines contain varying restrictions on public activity and commerce which the States are expected to enforce.
• The Centre has been issuing guidelines under the Disaster Management Act of 2005.
  • The Disaster Management Act allows the Centre to issue guidelines, directions or orders to the States for mitigating the effects of any disaster.
• The Centre has directed the State governments to strictly enforce the set of guidelines, with the States only being allowed to increase and not dilute the restrictions.

Concerns:

• The current approach seems to be counterproductive, putting the federal structure of India under strain, and seems to be an overreach of powers by the Central government.

Top down approach:

• The Central government has so far followed a mostly top-down approach in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. There seems to be very limited consultation with the states with respect to policy formulation.

Counterproductive:

• Though a national level coordination and collaborative effort is necessary, the one size fits all approach seems to be having counterproductive results.
  • The Central government, in its latest guidelines, has classified all districts in the country as red, orange or green zones in a bid to lift lockdown restrictions in an area-specific manner. Some States/Union Territories objected to this classification. The states have argued that such a classification would lead to restrictions of economic activity in the entire district area even when cases had been reported only from a small portion of that district. They have called for micro zonation of hotspots beyond the district levels.
  • Kerala has performed relatively well in containing the pandemic and is in a position to relax the existing guidelines. However, the Central government has asked Kerala to refrain from relaxing restrictions in the State. This move seems to be questioning the wisdom and judgment of the State government which has a better understanding of the ground conditions.

Division of powers:

• The Supreme Court has held time and again that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution and stated that although the Union enjoys many more powers than States, the States are still sovereign.
• Reasonable and effective division of powers is the bedrock of a federal structure. This aspect seems to be under threat due to the government’s recent moves.

Disaster Management Act:

• Disaster management does not find mention in either State list or Concurrent list, nor does any particular entry in Union list specifically deal with this. Thus, the Disaster Management Act could only have been enacted by Parliament in exercise of its residuary powers of legislation.
• ‘Public health and sanitation’ is a specific field of legislation under the State list. This would imply that States have the exclusive right to legislate and act on matters concerning public health.
• The author argues that the Disaster Management Act cannot be applied to pandemics in view of the fact that the power to legislate on public health is vested specifically and exclusively with the States.
• The author argues that the Centre’s guidelines and directions to the States for dealing with the pandemic entrench upon the state’s power to legislate and take executive action in the field of public health and hence terms it unconstitutional.

Prevention of inter-State spread of contagious and infectious diseases:

• The author argues that Disaster Management Act is concerned with disasters in general and not pandemics in particular.
• ‘Prevention of inter-State spread of contagious and infectious diseases’ falls under the Concurrent list, wherein both Parliament and State legislatures are competent to legislate on related matters.
• ‘Prevention of inter-State spread of contagious and infectious diseases’ being a specific legislative head provided in the Concurrent list, the same must be deemed to have been excluded from Parliament’s residuary legislative powers.
• Therefore, the Disaster Management Act, which has been enacted under Parliament’s residuary legislative powers, cannot be applied to the prevention of inter-State spread of contagious and infectious diseases based on the principle of harmonious construction.

Neglecting existing laws:

• The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, has the specific objective of preventing the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases.
  • Under this Act, the State governments have the prerogative to take appropriate measures for arresting the outbreak or spread of a contagious or infectious disease in their respective States. The Central government’s powers are limited to taking measures for inspecting and detaining persons travelling out of or into the country.
  • Under this Act, the Central Government is not empowered to issue directions to the States to contain the pandemic within the State, but it can only deal with inter-State spread of the disease.
• The Central Government’s resorting to the Disaster Management Act instead of the Epidemic Diseases Act has enabled the central government to ride roughshod over State governments.

G. Tidbits

1. China waives tariffs on more U.S. imports

What’s in News?

China has suspended punitive tariffs on more U.S. goods, including radar equipment for aviation, amid pressure from President Donald Trump to buy more imports as part of a truce in their trade war.

• Washington agreed in January 2020 to cancel additional tariff hikes and Beijing committed to buy more American farm exports.
• Trump threatened to terminate the agreement if China fails to buy more American goods.
  • The two sides have raised duties on tens of billions of dollars of each other’s imports in a dispute over China’s technology ambitions and trade surplus.
• Fears have been rekindled in the financial markets, of more U.S.-Chinese conflict and potential disruption of global trade even as countries are reeling under the pandemic.
• Slumping economic activity due to the virus has prompted suggestions that China might be unable to carry out commitments to boost imports.
• The recent announcement is the third Chinese tariff cut since the January 2020 deal.

Q1. Arrange the following from North to South:

Q2. Consider the following statements with respect to Global Nutrition Survey:

Q3. Consider the following statements:

Q4. Consider the following statements:

I. UPSC Mains Practice Questions

1. In the light of the Central Government issuing guidelines to the state governments over the management of the COVID-19 pandemic under the Disaster management Act, there have been concerns raised over the undermining of the federalism principle. Examine. (10 marks, 150 words)
2. Evaluate and compare the centralized approach and state-led efforts in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in India. Suggest a suitable way forward for a more effective response. (15 marks, 250 words)
3. Discuss the reasons for the current precarious condition of the state finances and the concerns associated with it. Suggest suitable measures to reduce the fiscal pressures on the states. (10 marks, 150 words)

Read the previous CNA here.