Daily News Simplified - DNS

18 08 20
Notes
SL. THE HINDU
TOPICS
NO. PAGE NO.

1 SC to study context of charges against judges 1

2 Reimagining and reinventing the Indian economy 11

4
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

Title SC to study context of charges against judges (Page Number 1)

Syllabus GSII: Polity and Governance

Theme Understanding contempt of court

Highlights Context: The Supreme Court said that the 2009 criminal contempt case against advocate
Prashant Bhushan for alleged statements against judiciary in an interview raises some
larger, pertinent questions which it would like to examine. Appearing for Bhushan, senior
advocate Rajeev Dhavan told the bench that corruption allegations per se cannot be
contempt. Justice Mishra pointed out that there is a judgment by Justice J S Verma (1992),
which observed that instances where such allegations involve judges should not be made
public at the first instance, and must instead be reported to a court for further inquiry.
The Supreme Court in the backdrop of Contempt Case against senior advocate Prashant
Bhushan has decided to re-look into the matter of allegations of corruption against Judicial
Ecosystem including the following matters –
• If statements on judicial corruption are made in public, then under what
circumstances they can be made.
• Procedure to be adopted in case such allegations of corruption are made in public
against sitting and retired judges
• If similar matter is sub-judice, i.e. under Court’s consideration on which final verdict
has not been pronounced, then to what extent can the matter be argued in public
through the media or other mode of communication.
These questions were framed by the Supreme Court while hearing a contempt case
initiated against advocate Prashant Bhushan for his remarks on corruption in judiciary in
an interview to Tehelka magazine published in 2009.

1992 Judgment – Media should not be involved in case of corruption against Judges
• The Bench referred to the majority judgment delivered by Justice J.S. Verma for a
Constitution Bench in 1992 concerning the removal of Justice V. Ramaswami, a
Supreme Court judge.
• The judgment had laid down the procedure to deal with allegations against a sitting
judge. The judge had to be given a fair opportunity to be heard before an inquiry
committee formed under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The judgment had
limited the inquiry process against a judge to be done within a tight and limited
circle of high judicial functionaries and parliamentarians, without involving the
media.
• The dominating spirit of the 1992 judgment was to “preserve the right, interest and
dignity of the judge, which is commensurate with the dignity of all the institutions
and functionaries involved in the process”.
• According to the 1992 judgment, Supreme Court is the epitome of the Indian
judiciary and an attack on it does not only have the effect of tending an ordinary
litigant of losing the confidence in the court but also may tend to lose the
confidence in the mind of other judges in the country in the highest court. In this
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

regard, hearings on allegations of corruptions against Judges should not be made

public.
• The Bench said the judgment was against publicly making allegations against
judges. But senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan had earlier warned that not going to the
press was a bad decision.

Important Facts
• The procedure to remove Supreme Court Judge was exercised for the first time
in 1991 when 108 members of Ninth Lok Sabha submitted a notice to the Speaker
of Lok Sabha for removal of Justice Ramaswami of the Supreme Court.
• Justice Ramaswami was charged of financial irregularities while he was the Chief
Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• An Enquiry Committee was formed under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Before
the committee could present its report, Lok Sabha was dissolved.
• In the case of Sub-committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, the question
arose whether dissolution of Lok Sabha puts an end to the motion for removal of
the concerned Judge.
• Supreme Court held that motion for removal of a Judge under Article 124 (4) does
not lapse with the dissolution of Lok Sabha.
• The report of the Committee was tabled in Parliament in December 1992 and was
debated in Lok Sabha. A lawyer was also allowed to defend the case of Justice
Ramaswamy.
• However, the motion to remove Justice Ramaswamy could not be passed by
requisite majority due to absence of certain members of Parliament during the
time of vote.

Personal
Notes
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

Title Reimagining and reinventing the Indian economy (Page Number 11)

Syllabus GSIII Economy

Theme Strategies for Atma Nirbhar Bharat

Highlights
Context:
In response to the economic slowdown caused due to COVID-19, the Government has
unveiled Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Package worth Rs 20 lakh crores. However, the article
argues that more needs to be done to kickstart economic revival and hence accordingly,
it has given number of recommendations.
The article basically recommends the Government to focus on 4 pillars of Economic
Revival- Big Businesses, MSMEs, Start-ups and Foreign Investment.

Strategies highlighted in the Article

Attract Companies from China: The rising anti-china sentiments accompanied by
increase in the labour costs in China has been prompting the companies to shift their
production bases to labour surplus countries such as India. Already, smaller economies
such as Vietnam, Bangladesh etc. have been able to benefit from such decisions of the
companies. Going forward, the Indian Government needs to lay down a conducive
framework to attract such companies through tax incentives, ease of doing business,
easier land acquisition, reforms in the labour laws etc. This would give necessary push to
Make in India.
Industrial Cities: The share of Manufacturing Sector to India's GDP has remained stagnant
at almost 16-17% of India's GDP since 1991 LPG Reforms. The growth of Manufacturing
sector is quite critical to optimally utilise demographic dividend and create more
employment opportunities. At the same time, growth of manufacturing sector can absorb
the excess labour presently employed in Indian agriculture and hence promote inclusive
growth. Hence, the State Governments should establish Industrial Cities to give an added
thrust to manufacturing sector.
Focus on Sunrise Sectors: India needs to leverage the opportunities that would be
created by Industrial Revolution 4.0 technologies. Hence, according there is a need to
focus on new-age technologies such as blockchain, robotics, machine learning, big data,
AI etc. India also needs to focus on other sunrise sectors such as battery manufacturing
and solar panel manufacturing.
Boosting Innovation through Start-Ups: The Start-ups are considered to be major driver
of innovation and employment creation. However, the Start-ups have been affected due
to lack of access to liquidity due to the economic slowdown. Hence, the Government
must lay down a conducive ecosystem for nurturing and promoting start-ups through
access to finance, handholding, tax incentives, access to market etc.
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

Attracting foreign Investment though Plug and Play Model: Under the plug-and-play
model, the investors are provided with land at affordable cost with all the necessary pre-
clearances including Environmental clearances. It would provide in-built office spaces and
all the basic facilities such as Electricity, water etc. One of the biggest advantages of such
a model is that it kickstarts the production as early as possible without any hurdles. Some
of the States such as Maharashtra, Haryana etc. have decided to adopt such a model to
boost foreign Investment. This model needs to be replicated by the other states as well.
Investments of NRIs and OCIs: The Government must call upon the NRIs and OCIs to
make more foreign Investments into India to aid the economic revival. The Government
may consider tax exemptions to NRIs and OCIs to attract their Investments

Personal
Notes
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

Title Jurisdictional conflict in the running of Delhi – Page Number 6

Syllabus GS II: Polity and Governance

Theme Issue of LG Vs CM

Highlights Context: Delhi’s Lieutenant-Governor Anil Baijal in his capacity as Chairperson of the Delhi
Disaster Management Authority has overruled two decisions of Delhi government related
to COCID-19 treatment.

The decisions which have been overruled

1. The first decision of Delhi Government allowed only residents of Delhi to be
treated and admitted in government and private hospitals of Delhi. LG has
overruled this decision of the Delhi Government thereby allowing even non-
residents of Delhi to be treated in hospitals of Delhi.
In his order, the L-G made it clear that the Supreme Court had “invariably held in
several successive judgments that ‘Right to Health’ is an integral part of ‘Right to
Life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution”. He directed all departments and
authorities concerned to ensure that monitoring/treatment is not denied to any
COVID-19 patient on the ground of not being a resident of NCT of Delhi.
2. Delhi Government had ordered COVID-19 Test only for symptomatic patients.
However, this order of delhi government has also been overruled. LG has ordered
to follow ICMR guidelines without deviation regarding testing of contacts of
patients for COVID-19.

Right to health as part of Article 21

• The Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India has held that the
right to live with human dignity, enshrined in art 21, is derived from the directive
principles of state policy and therefore includes protection to health.
• Consumer Education and Resource Centre Vs Union of India - Supreme Court has
held that the right to health and Medical care is a fundamental right under Article
21 of the constitution as it is essential for making the life of the workman
meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. “Right to life” in Article 21
includes protection of the health and strength of the worker. The expression ‘life’
in Article 21 does not connote mere animal existence. It has a much wider
meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

conditions on workplace and leisure. The right to life with human dignity
encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which
makes life worth living.
• Supreme Court in a landmark judgment the case of Common Cause v. Union of
India and Another in March 2018, has laid down broad legal framework to protect
the dignity of a terminally ill patient or those in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS)
with no hope of cure or recovery and in the process has allowed 1. Passive
Euthanasia 2. Right to give Advance Medical Directives or a valid ‘Living Wills’ to
smoothen the dying process as a part of fundamental right to live with dignity.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 239 provides for Administration of Union Territories.
As per Article 239 (1).... Union territory shall be administered by the Presi
through an Administrator to be appointed by the President.
Article 239 (2) says that...President may appoint the Governor of a State a
Article 239
administrator of an adjoining Union Territory, and where a Governor is so
he shall exercise his functions as such administrator independently of his
Ministers.

Article 239A provides for Creation of local Legislatures or Council of M

both for certain Union Territories. This article was added by Constitut
(Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962.
Article 239A Clause 2 of Article 239A mentions that any law which provides for creatio
legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union Territories s
deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purpose of Ar
even though certain provisions of the Constitution are amended.
Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution was added by Constitution (Six
Amendment) Act, 1991. It says that Union Territory of Delhi shall be call
National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Administrator thereof app
under Article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor.
There shall be a Legislative Assembly for the National Capital Territory (
Delhi and the seats in such Assembly shall be filled by members chosen b
Election from territorial constituencies in the NCT.
The Legislative Assembly of Delhi shall have power to make laws for th
Article 239AA
any part of NCT with respect to any matters enumerated in State List or i
Concurrent List. However, Legislative Assembly of Delhi cannot make law
following entries under the State List –
• Entry 1: Public Order;
• Entry 2: Police (including railway and village police);
• Entry 18: Land, that is to say any right in or over land, land tenu
the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents,
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultur

colonization.
• They also cannot legislate on Entries 64, 65 and 66 of State List s
relate to the above entries – 1, 2 and 18.
Thus, the government of Delhi does not enjoy all the powers with res
making which are enjoyed by other states. Moreover, NCT is primarily
Territory which has a legislative assembly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of not more than ten p
the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly. The Chief Min
head to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise to his
relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has po
laws, except in so far as he is, by or under any law, required to act in his
If there is any difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor an
Ministers on any matter, the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the
for decision and act according to the decision given thereon by the Pr
However, if the matter sent to the President is pending before the Presid
the Lieutenant Governor can take immediate action or give such direction
the matter is of urgency or importance.

Five Judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has clarified that an elected government of
Delhi cannot be undermined by an unelected Administrator. This has effectively restored the
primary role played by the “representative government” in the National Capital Territory of
Delhi which was earlier restricted by the Delhi High Court judgment.
Supreme Court held that apart from subjects that are not in the Delhi government’s
jurisdiction (police, land and public order), the Lieutenant-Governor’s (LG) consent is not
required for every decision. It also held that the LG could, in the event of disagreement with
the council of ministers, refer a decision to the President, but would be bound by the
President’s decision on the matter.
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

• The recent controversies over routine administrative

Backdrop issues between the LG of Delhi and Delhi’s Chief Minister
of the had led to paralysis of work due to use of discretionary
Judgment power by the LG in administrative decisions.
• Earlier in 2016, the Delhi High Court in its judgment held
that
ü the Lieutenant Governor is the administrative
head of the National Capital Territory and not the
Chief Minister of Delhi and
ü Delhi continues to be a Union Territory rather
than a full-fledged state.
• High Court of Delhi further declared that LG enjoys
discretionary power as per the Constitution and has
greater role to play in the administration of National
Capital Territory of Delhi.
• In response to the above judgment, the Government of
Delhi filed an appeal to the Supreme Court and asked
whether the LG can unilaterally administer the National
Capital without being bound by the “aid and advice” of the
elected government in all matters of daily governance.
• The Delhi government also asked the Constitution Bench
to specify those areas where LG can use his discretionary
power so that both the LG and the government of Delhi
can work in a harmonious manner.

Judgment of Supreme Court

• The Court held that insertion of Article 239AA by 69th

SC On Aid Constitution Amendment has envisaged a
& Advice representative form of Government for the NCT of
Delhi.
• The said provision intends to provide for the Capital a
directly elected Legislative Assembly which shall
have legislative powers over matters falling within the
State List and the Concurrent List, (except police, land
and public order).
• It further provides a mandate upon the Lieutenant
Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

Ministers except when he decides to refer the matter to

the President for final decision.
• Thus, the Lieutenant-Governor has no independent
decision-making power. He has to -
ü either act on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council
of Ministers or
ü he is bound to implement the decision taken
by the President on a reference being made by
him
• In case of difference of opinion, the LG should
straightaway refer the dispute to the President for a
final decision without sitting over it or stultifying the
governance in the National Capital.
• The Lieutenant Governor must, by a process of
dialogue and discussion, seek to resolve any difference
of opinion with a Minister. If it is not possible to
resolve the dispute, then LG must approach the
Council of Ministers for resolution of dispute on any
matter.
• A reference to the President is contemplated by the
Transaction of Business Rules only when the above
modalities fail to yield a solution. In such situations the
matter may be referred to the President.

• Supreme Court held that the word “any matter”

referred in the proviso to clause (4) of Article 239AA
cannot be inferred to mean “every matter” by the LG.
SC on Role • Thus, the power of the LG under the said proviso
of represents the exception and not the general rule
Lieutenant which has to be exercised in exceptional
Governor circumstances.
• Supreme Court held that governance of Delhi cannot
rest upon the whims of one functionary namely the
Lieutenant-Governor as he cannot refer every
matter of the Delhi Government to the President. This
will create work paralysis.
• The Bench further cautioned the LG against sending
every “trivial” dispute with the government to the
President and suggested that “LG must work
harmoniously with his Ministers”.
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

• The Bench advised both CM & LG of Delhi holding

constitutional posts to work in a collaborative manner
so as to fulfill the concept of “Collaborative
Federalism” as envisaged in our Constitution.
• Such co-operation will strengthen the concept of
constitutional governance and will help in cultivating
the idea of respect for representative government.

On The Court did not agree on the demand of full statehood of

demand of Arvind Kejrival Government and the critical powers over
statehood Ø Police,
Ø Land and
Ø Public order
Still remain vested with the Centre.

The Supreme Court took reference from the 1987

Balakrishnan Committee report to conclude that Delhi is
not a State.
• It refers to the collaborative nature of functioning of
Court’s Union along with states so as to ensure development
emphasis and progress.
on • The concept of collaborative federalism applies to
Collaborati Delhi owing to its special status under the
ve Constitution.
Federalism • The Bench said - The Union government and the State
governments should endeavour to address the common
problems with the intention of arriving at a solution by
showing statesmanship, combined action and sincere
cooperation. In collaborative federalism, the Union and the
State governments should express their readiness to
achieve the common objective and work together for it.
Date: 18. Aug.2020 DNS Notes - Revision

• The Court held that it is the people who are sovereign

SC on in a democracy and the decisions of the elected
Sovereignt government in Delhi represent public will, perception
y of People and popular sentiment.
• Supreme Court observed that a well-deliberated
legitimate decision of the Council of Ministers cannot
be stymied by the negative attitude of the LG. As the
Council represents members elected by the people.
• The negative attitude of LG impacts the concept of
collective responsibility as mandated in the
Constitution of India.
• It is emphatically submitted that if the collective
responsibility of the Council of Ministers is not given the
expected weightage, then there will be corrosion of the
essential feature of representative government.

• Balakrishnan Committee was formed in 1987. It recommended that Delhi should continue
to be a Union Territory but should be provided with a Legislative Assembly and a Council of
Ministers responsible to such Assembly with appropriate powers to deal with matters of
concern to the common man.
• The Committee also recommended that with a view to ensuring stability and permanence,
the arrangements should be incorporated in the constitution to give the National Capital a
special status among the Union Territories.
• Hence as per Constitution (69thAmendment) Act, 1991, Article 239AA and Article 239AB
were added to the Constitution to give constitutional status to the National Capital
Territory of Delhi.

Personal
Notes