2 CURRENT AFFAIRS AUGUST 2020
c o m
¾ Central Government’s Stand:
€ The amendment was necessitated to benefit EWS
who are not covered under existing schemes of
reservation, which as per statistics, constitute a
considerably large segment of the country’s
population.
€ The 50% limit in the Indira Sawhney ruling cannot
be applied in the present petitions as the Sawhney
case dealt with memoranda issued by the
government while what is under challenge now
is a constitutional amendment.
¾ Substantial Question of Law Involved:
€ Whether the challenged 103rd Amendment Act
violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution,
with reference to equality provisions of the
Constitution.
€ In the case of the Union of India that though
ordinarily, 50% is the rule, the same will not prevent
the amendment of the Constitution itself in view
of the existing special circumstances to uplift the
members of the society belonging to EWS.
Demand for 6th Schedule
Status: Arunachal Pradesh
Why in News
The recent revival of the demand for two autonomous
councils in Arunachal Pradesh has led to the call for
bringing the entire Arunachal Pradesh under the ambit
of the 6th Schedule or Article 371 (A) of the Constitution.
¾ Arunachal Pradesh is a 5th Schedule State. Currently
the 6th Schedule is applied in Assam, Meghalaya,
Mizoram and Tripura.
¾ On the other hand, Article 371 A is applied in
Nagaland which provides special status to Nagaland.
Key Points
¾ 6 Schedule:
th
€ The 6th Schedule of the Constitution provides for
the administration of tribal areas in Assam,
Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram to safeguard
the rights of the tribal population in these states.
This special provision is provided under Article
244(2) and Article 275(1) of the Constitution.
Note:
www.d rish t i I A S.
z The tribes in the above states have not
assimilated much with the life and ways of the
other people in these states. These areas still
have the presence of anthropological specimens.
z Based on the reports of the Bordoloi Committee
formed by the Constituent Assembly, the 6th
Schedule was formulated to provide limited
autonomy to the tribal regions of North-East.
z The committee report stated that there was a
need for a system of administration that would
allow tribal areas to become developed.
z The report also called for the protection of
these tribal areas from exploitation by the
people in the plains and preserving their
distinct social customs.
¾ Administration in the 6th Schedule:
€ The tribal areas in the 6th Schedule area have been
constituted as autonomous districts. The
autonomous districts have been given varying
degrees of autonomy within the State Legislature.
z There are 10 autonomous districts – three in
Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram and one in
Tripura.
z Each autonomous district can also have a
separate regional council.
€ The tribals have been given freedom to exercise
legislative and executive powers through an
autonomous regional council and autonomous
district councils (ADCs).
€ The ADCs are empowered with civil and judicial
powers. They can also make laws on matters like
land, forests, fisheries, social security, etc. with
due approval from the governor.
w w w. d r i s h ti IA S.c om
€ The Acts passed by Parliament and state
legislatures may or may not be levied in these
regions unless the President and the governor gives
her or his approval, with or without modifications
in the laws for the autonomous regions.
¾ Governor’s Control:
€ Despite various degrees of autonomy, the 6 th
Schedule area does not fall outside the executive
authority of the state concerned.
€ The governor is empowered to organise and re-
organise the autonomous districts. He can
increase or decrease the areas of autonomous
districts or change their names or define their
boundaries and so on.
z If there are different tribes in an autonomous
district, the governor can also divide the
district into several autonomous regions.
¾ Composition of Autonomous Councils:
€ Each autonomous district and regional council
consists of not more than 30 members, of which
four are nominated by the governor and the rest
via elections. All of them remain in power for a
term of five years.
€ However, the Bodoland Territorial Council is an
exception as it can constitute up to 46 members.
¾ Article 371 A:
€ The Acts of Parliament relating to the following
matters would not apply to Nagaland unless
decided by the State Legislative Assembly:
z Religious or social practices of the Nagas.
z Naga customary law and procedure.
z Administration of civil and criminal justice
involving decisions according to Naga
customary law.
z Ownership and transfer of land and its
resources.
Report on
Clause 6 of Assam Accord
Why in News
Recently, a Ministry of Home Affairs appointed
committee on implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam
Accord has proposed a definition for ‘Assamese people’
in its report.
Note:
CURRENT AFFAIRS AUGUST 2020 3
¾ The 14-member committee, headed by the High
Court judge Biplab Kumar Sarma was set up in 2019
following widespread protests against the
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.
Key Points
¾ Assam Accord:
€ It was a tripartite accord signed between the
Government of India, State Government of
Assam and the leaders of the Assam Movement
in 1985.
€ The signing of the Accord led to the conclusion
of a six-year agitation that was launched by the
All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) in 1979,
demanding the identification and deportation of
illegal immigrants from Assam.
€ It sets a cut-off of midnight of 24th March 1971,
for the detection of illegal foreigners in Assam.
z However, the demand was for detection and
deportation of migrants who had illegally
entered Assam after 1951.
¾ Clause 6 of the Accord:
€ It says that constitutional, legislative and
administrative safeguards, as may be appropriate,
shall be provided to protect, preserve and
promote the cultural, social, linguistic identity and
heritage of the Assamese people.
€ The committee chaired by Biplab Kumar Sarma
was constituted to define ‘Assamese People’ and
institute safeguards for them.
¾ Recommendation of the Committee:
€ Definition of Assamese: The report proposes
January 1951 as the cut-off date for any Indian
citizen residing in Assam to be defined as an
Assamese for the purpose of implementing
Clause 6.
€ Reservation for Assamese: The report seeks
reservation for Assamese in Parliament, state
assembly, local bodies. It recommended creating
an Upper House (Legislative Council of Assam)
whose seats will be reserved for the ‘Assamese
people’.
z The report also seeks quotas in government
jobs.
€ Regulation of Outsiders: The report recommends
regulation of entry of people from other states
4 CURRENT AFFAIRS AUGUST 2020
into Assam, which include the implementation of
an Inner Line Permit (ILP) regime in the state.
z The ILP is a system in which a special permit is
required by people from other regions of India
to visit the state.
z Currently the ILP is applicable in Manipur,
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram.
€ Other Rights: The report also talks about issues
related to land and land rights, linguistic, cultural
and social rights and protection of the state’s
resources and biodiversity.
¾ Issues Involved:
€ According to the recommendations, people who
migrated between 1951 and 1971, including large
sections of post-Partition refugees, would be
Indian citizens under the Assam Accord and the
National Register of Citizens (NRC), but they
would not be eligible for safeguards meant for
“Assamese people” under Clause 6 of the Accord.
€ East Bengal migrants who entered Assam before
1951 would be considered Assamese.
€ There is no mechanism to prove that a person has
been in Assam prior to 1951.
z The 1951 NRC is not available in several parts
of the state and the current NRC being made
uses 1971 as a cut-off.
Habeas Corpus
Cases in Jammu & Kashmir
Why in News
After the abrogation of the special status (under
Article 370 of the Constitution) of the erstwhile state of
Jammu & Kashmir in August 2019, the Jammu & Kashmir
High Court was confronted with an unprecedented
number (250 plus) of habeas corpus petitions.
¾ The habeas corpus petitions were filed to challenge
the detentions under the J&K Public Safety Act (PSA),
1978.
Key Points
¾ Background: After the abrogation of the special
status, thousands of people were detained from
across the Kashmir valley under the preventive
detention law. Of these, several hundred were
detained under the PSA.
Note:
www.d rish t i I A S. c o m
€ The other preventive detention laws under which
people were booked are National Security Act
(NSA) 1980 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act 1967.
¾ J&K Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978
€ Definition: It is a kind of preventive detention
law, under which a person is taken into custody
to prevent him or her from acting in any manner
that is prejudicial to the security of the state or
the maintenance of public order.
€ Period of Detention: Up to 2 years.
€ Enforcement: Detention order is passed either by
Divisional Commissioner or the District Magistrate.
€ Challenging the Detention: The only way the
administrative preventive detention order can be
challenged is through a habeas corpus petition
filed by relatives of the detained person.
z The High Court and the Supreme Court have
jurisdiction to hear such petitions and pass a
final order seeking quashing of the PSA.
z However, if the order is quashed, there is no
bar on the government passing another
detention order under the PSA and detaining
the person again.
z There can be no prosecution or any legal
proceeding against the official who has passed
the order.
¾ Habeas Corpus:
€ It is a Latin term which literally means ‘to have
the body of’. Under this the court issues an order
to a person who has detained another person, to
produce the body of the latter before it. The court
then examines the cause and legality of detention.
€ This writ is a bulwark of individual liberty against
arbitrary detention.
€ The writ of habeas corpus can be issued against
both public authorities as well as private
individuals.
€ The writ, on the other hand, is not issued where
the:
z detention is lawful,
z the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature
or a court,
z detention is by a competent court, and
z detention is outside the jurisdiction of the
court.