News & Editorial Analysis 13 January 2023
The Hindu News Analysis
1 – Generalized System of Preferences:
GS II Topic International Relations
In terms of their trade and business partnerships, the Modi and Biden administrations are “thinking big,” according to Union Minister for Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal on Wednesday. He claimed that New Delhi does not prioritise the restoration of GSP and disregarded the previously negotiated micro trade agreement or free trade agreement.
India was stripped of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) that had been awarded to it by the previous Trump government. The GSP permits developing countries that meet certain criteria to export goods to the US duty-free.
The GSP, the most significant and long-standing US trade preference programme, aims to promote economic growth by enabling duty-free access to a wide number of products from designated beneficiary countries.
It is a catch-all phrase that refers to the vast bulk of preferential programmes developed countries receive from wealthy nations.
Examples of this include decreased Most Favored Nation (MFN) Tariffs or duty-free access for specific products exported by beneficiary countries to donor country markets.
Offering developing nations preferential tariff rates on the markets of industrialised countries was initially proposed at the first United Nations Summit on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) conference in 1964.
The GSP was created in 1971 after receiving UNCTAD approval in 1968 in New Delhi.
There are now 13 nation GSP systems that have been reported to the UNCTAD secretariat.
The value of GSP for the US:
India imports intermediate goods at lower prices, allowing US downstream industries to access cost-effective and competitively priced inputs.
Additionally, it helps US companies compete both domestically and internationally.
What is UNCTAD?
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established as a continuing intergovernmental organisation by the United Nations General Assembly in 1964.
It enables developing countries to reap the benefits of a globalised economy in a more efficient and equitable manner.
It consists of 195 nations.
2 – Public Debt:
GS II Topic Budget related issues
The Union Budget may show a lower-than-anticipated fiscal deficit of 5.8% of GDP, but rating agency ICRA predicts that the Centre and State governments would budget for higher market borrowings in the ensuing fiscal year.
Due to higher redemptions, it is anticipated that the gross market borrowings of the Centre and States will rise to 14.8 lakh crore and 24.4 lakh crore, respectively, in FY24 from 14.1 lakh crore and 22.1 lakh crore, respectively, in FY23.
About public debt:
Public debt is the total amount borrowed by a country’s government. Any liabilities owing by the Union government that must be paid from the Consolidated Fund of India are referred to as public debt in India. The entire amount of debt owed by the federal and state governments is also referred to by this phrase. The Union government, however, is careful to distinguish its debt responsibilities from those of the states. The overall commitments of the Union government and the states are referred to as General Government Debt (GGD) or Consolidated General Government Debt.
The Union government predominantly on market borrowing to finance its operational and development expenses, making the study of public debt crucial to understanding the financial health of the government. Examining several elements, such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, sustainability, and causes of the debt, is required to comprehend public debt. The fact that interest payments make up about one-fourth of all expenditures helps to explain the extent of the Union government’s debt.
The objectives of public debt and borrowing are:
Income and Revenue: The objective of public debt is normally to narrow the difference between anticipated income and budgeted expenditures in any given year. The government makes up the shortfall by taking on Indian and foreign debts when tax revenue declines owing to increasing administrative costs, severe weather events like floods and earthquakes, infectious diseases, and other unforeseen difficulties. This is the government’s income, which is separate from all other taxes and financing sources.
Depression is a condition that develops when costs go up, people are hesitant to engage in businesses, and there are no expectations for future financial success. When there is an increase in demand for products and services, which is possible when the country increases investment in public construction projects or, more crucially, the most essential infrastructure and public usage services, this condition can be eliminated.
To lessen inflation: Inflation is the phenomena of rising prices. Therefore, government can extract a sizable amount of labour from the populace by incurring debt, but contemporary economists argue that government taxation, as opposed to borrowing, is more important for putting a stop to inflation because, if borrowed money is never put to useful use, the burden on the government to repay the debt increases. However, the government’s coffers can readily be emptied of waste tax revenue, reducing pressure on the economy’s productivity.
To pay for development strategies: A deficit always exists in a developing economy. Because these countries have lesser levels of financial capability, Therefore, the government cannot use high taxes as an excuse. To end poverty in the country, however, it is equally essential to make goals for development. In this case, taking up public debt is the only choice. Therefore, the governments of impoverished countries incur debt from their inhabitants, other governments, or foreign governments in order to conduct financial transactions.
The financing of public enterprises: To secure money for independently running commercial businesses, the government takes on debt.
Expansion of Education and Health Services: The government may take on debt in order to construct new educational and medical facilities and to provide related services. Even if it doesn’t generate any direct revenue and isn’t financially successful, this helps to advance general social wellbeing.
Government debt issuance may be used to finance military operations. The government needs a lot of money to defend itself against foreign attacks, pay for self-defense services, and get ready for modern decoration in light of mounting international pressure and the possibility of nuclear war. However, it is extremely difficult to finance modern conflicts only through taxation due to the detrimental consequences on productivity. Therefore, the government can seek protection from both domestic and foreign public debt in order to handle this kind of catastrophe.
For the Establishment of Social Society: The government currently nationalises business and industry and runs it on its own in an effort to establish a socialist society. However, doing so necessitates a substantial sum of money, which the government can only get by incurring debt.
To cover administrative costs before receiving money: Spending starts at the beginning of the year, while tax money is available to the government at the end of the year. As a result, the government borrows money to fund its spending at the beginning of the year and then pays it back with tax income at the end of the year.
To sway the public’s opinion in favour: When citizens are unable to pay their taxes, the government is compelled to incur debt. The government periodically decides against raising taxes even though the populace is more capable because things are still looking up.
3 – National Human Rights Commission:
GS II Topic Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies
Human Rights Watch observed in their World Report 2023 that during 2022 to 2023, Indian authorities “intensified and extended” their persecution of media organisations and activist groups. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led administration’s “abusive and discriminatory measures” to repress Muslims and other minorities were also mentioned.
About the NHRC:
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which was later amended in 2006, designates the NHRC of India as a separate statutory organisation. It was established on October 12, 1993.
The NHRC celebrated its Silver Jubilee on October 12, 2018. (25 years). The company’s main office is in New Delhi.
It acts as the nation’s watchdog for human rights, which are those that are protected by Indian courts and guaranteed by the Indian Constitution or by international treaties. Life, liberty, equality, and the dignity of the individual are all related to these rights.
It was developed in accordance with the Paris Principles, which the United Nations General Assembly ratified on December 20, 1993 and which were accepted in Paris (October 1991) for the promotion and preservation of human rights.
How are human rights implemented?
According to the UN definition, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status, these rights are inherent to all persons.
A wide range of rights are covered by the term “human rights,” including the freedom from slavery and torture, the right to life and liberty, the freedom of speech, the right to a job and an education, among many others.
Everyone, without exception, has a right to these.
What led to the establishment of the NHRC?
On December 10, 1948, in Paris, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
It establishes universal protection for fundamental human rights for the first time, making it a major document in the history of human rights.
Human Rights Day is observed annually on December 10, which also marks the anniversary of the UDHR. 2018’s Human Rights Day honoured the declaration’s 70th anniversary.
Over time, it became clear how important it was to support national human rights organisations, and in 1991, a UN meeting in Paris resulted in the Paris Principles, a comprehensive set of principles.
On the basis of these concepts, national human rights institutions were created and are currently operated.
India adopted the Protection of Human Rights Act in 1993 in accordance with these ideas to improve accountability and protect the nation’s human rights.
This law also provided state governments the authority to establish state human rights commissions.
What is the Human Rights Council?
The Human Rights Council was created as an international body by a resolution voted by the UN General Assembly on March 15, 2006.
It has taken the place of the previous United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
One of its responsibilities is to confront incidents of human rights breaches and offer solutions. Additionally, it strengthens the global promotion and defence of human rights.
It may discuss any issue or theme pertaining to human rights that needs to be addressed all year long. It meets at the UN Office in Geneva.
The UN General Assembly elects the 47 UN member countries that are represented on the Council.
The purpose of the State Human Rights Commission:
The Governor appoints the State Commission’s chairman and members in consultation with the Chief Minister, State Home Minister, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly.
The chairperson and members are appointed for terms of three years, or until they reach the age of 70, whichever comes first.
The chairperson and other commission members are chosen by the governor, but only the president has the power to remove them.
What are the primary duties and functions of the NHRC?
It has all of the civil court’s authority and conducts business in a judicial manner.
Either on its own initiative or in response to a petition, the NHRC investigates claims of human rights abuses.
It has the power to get involved in any legal proceeding including a claim of a violation of human rights.
It is permitted to use the services of any officer or investigation agency of the federal or state governments to investigate claims of human rights abuses.
The Commission may look into a matter within a year of it happening, which means that it cannot do so more than a year after the alleged date of the alleged human rights violation.
Most of the commission’s responsibilities are advisory in nature.
It lacks the power to provide victims of human rights breaches with any kind of remedies, including financial assistance.
It has a limited role, range of authority, and scope with regard to military personnel violating human rights.
It is helpless to intervene when private parties violate human rights.
It is acceptable to visit any prison or other institution under the state government’s watch to look at how the convicts are living and give them advise.
The safeguards provided by the constitution or any other law for the preservation of human rights may be examined, and it may suggest the necessary remedial measures.
Research on human rights is carried out and supported by the NHRC.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) seeks to enhance human rights literacy among various society groups and raise awareness of the protections offered for these rights through publications, media, seminars, and other means.
Annual Commission reports:
The Commission shall submit an annual report to the Central Government and the appropriate State Governments.
The annual reports of the Commission, as well as a memo outlining the actions taken or proposed to be taken in response to the Commission’s recommendations and the reasons, if any, for not accepting them, must be laid before each House of Parliament or the State Legislature, as appropriate, by the Central Government and the State Government, respectively.
What are the Restrictions of the NHRC?
There is no system in place for the NHRC to conduct inquiries. Most frequently, it asks the concerned Central and State Governments to investigate cases of human rights breaches.
Soli Sorabjee, a former attorney general of India, called it “India’s taunting illusion” due to its inability to offer the affected party any real remedy.
The NHRC is only permitted to make recommendations; it does not have the power to make decisions.
The NHRC frequently attracts judges and bureaucrats with political sympathies who are looking for a place to retire, and its functions are further impeded by a lack of finance.
Many complaints remain unsolved as a result of the NHRC’s incapacity to review complaints submitted more than a year after the incident.
The recommendations of the NHRC are frequently flatly rejected by the government or only partially adopted.
Since they are unable to obtain information from the national government, state human rights commissioners are effectively denied the ability to investigate military units that are under national control.
The National Human Rights Commission’s ability to look into alleged violations of human rights by the armed forces is often limited.
What adjustments could be made to improve the efficiency of the NHRC?
To be a more effective vigilance agency against violations of international human rights, the NHRC requires a complete overhaul.
The government can improve the performance of the NHRC by making commission decisions enforceable.
It is necessary to change the composition of the commission to include activists and members of civil society.
The NHRC is required to create an independent personnel cadre with the required credentials.
By updating several of India’s out-of-date and archaic legislation, the government can boost regulation transparency.
If the human rights situation in India is to be enhanced and improved, collaboration between state and non-state organisations is necessary.
4 – Line of Actual Control:
GS II Topic International Relations
There have been “substantial advances,” and all-weather and alternative links are planned, according to Army head Gen. Manoj Pande. On the Chinese side, there have reportedly been reports of infrastructure development, but this has not been the case with our side.
Details of the LAC:
LAC stands for Line of Actual Control. It delineates the line separating China and India. Despite the fact that there was not yet a firm agreement on the locations of the two countries, the idea of a “Line of Actual Control” (LAC) was proposed in a bilateral agreement in 1993.
Areas ruled by China and those ruled by India are divided by the LAC. The Chinese and Indian armies are separated by a significant distance, maybe between 50 and 100 kilometres.
The Chinese government estimates the LAC to be about 2,000 km long, while India estimates it to be 3,488 km long.
The LAC is divided into three sections: the eastern section, which includes Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, the middle section, which includes Himachal Pradesh, and the western section, which includes Ladakh.
What sets LAC apart from LOC:
During the Kashmir War, the cease-fire line established by the UN in 1948 was crossed, which allowed the LOC to grow (UN).
In 1972, after the two countries’ Shimla Agreement, it was granted the name “LoC.” It is displayed on a map that has been signed by the DGMOs of both forces and has the international sanctity of an actual treaty.
However, the LAC is simply a concept; neither of the two nations accepts it, nor is it depicted on a map or well delineated on the ground.
India-China Conflict Close to the LAC:
Although the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh is claimed as South Tibet in the eastern sector, the LAC mainly aligns with China’s line of claim in this instance.
When the Indian Prime Minister visited China in May 2015, the Chinese refused the proposal to define the LAC.
However, China and India both emphasised that they will cooperate to “keep stability and peace in the border areas” at the summits in Wuhan (2018) and Mahabalipuram (2019).
In the current fighting that has occurred since May 2020 at Galwan Valley, Pangong Tso Lake, and other sites throughout LAC, soldiers from both countries have been killed. Tension along LAC has significantly increased since that time.
Generalized #System #Preference #GSP #GSII #Topic #International #Relations #Background #Value #US #United_Nations_Conference_on_Trade_And_Development #UNCTAD #Public #Debt #Budget #Issues #Objectives #Borrowing #National #Human #Rights #Commission #NHRC #Statutory #Non_Statutory #Bodies #How #Implemented #What #Led #Establishment #Human_Rights_Council #Purpose #State_Human_Rights_Commission #Primary #Duties #Functions #Annual #Reports #Restrictions #Line_of_Actual_Control #LAC #Details #LOC #India-China #Conflict #India #World #Daily #The_Hindu_Analysis #IAS #UPSC #Stact_PSC #Prelims #Mains #Geo_IAS
The Hindu Editorial Analysis
Entering A Year Of Uncertainty
Soothsayers routinely make bad predictions about the future, especially when it comes to geopolitics. The predictions of numerous prophets that ambiguity and transience will dictate the course of world events in 2022, however, were only partially accurate. Over the course of the year, geopolitical threats and issues grew, but few people foresaw that 2022 would be a year that would put the entire globe to the test.
Conflict between Ukraine and Russia:
The status quo has been severely upset by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which began in February 2022. It led to one of the largest demographic upheavals in recent memory. However, in retrospect, some of this may have been anticipated. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States were asked to provide Russia with a number of additional security guarantees in December 2021, including a promise not to extend the alliance eastward. Russia had begun a massive buildup around Ukraine by the middle of 2021.
It may not have been anticipated that Ukrainian nationalism would present itself in such a striking way and that the West, particularly NATO and the US, would act so quickly to assist Ukraine and extend military and other forms of cooperation. Only a select group of experts can accurately predict what the future holds or what all of this portends.
The conflict’s aftereffects:
It would be interesting to compare the current situation to that of World War I, particularly in 1916. At the moment, the risk of escalation—horizontally and vertically—was minimised. It might be a good idea to think about such occurrences. The use of nuclear weapons would be necessary if the situation vertically escalated.
New fronts would open up with any horizontal escalation. Like in 1916, there are a lot of “unknowns” nowadays. Unexpected events might have negative outcomes. A full-scale conflict can be seen looming in the distant.
There could be a number of additional effects. The economy is already being significantly impacted by the “proxy war” between Russia and NATO, Europe, and the United States. The continued sanctions against Russia imposed by the West and its allies, the removal of Russian banks from SWIFT, and the freezing of Russian assets abroad have resulted in an energy crisis.
In addition, oil is being used as a weapon by Russia, and prices for it are increasing. Despite the fact that the full scope of this is still not fully understood, it does suggest the possibility of a more serious conflagration.
Recent events in Europe have obvious effects. Outside of Europe, this is partially taking place. One example is the relationship between China and Russia. China has made the decision to now deepen its strategic ties with Russia. Both countries claim that the state of its relations is at its “best point in history.” In addition, other alliances are forming across Asia as a response of the West’s growing worries about Taiwan.
Defense spending is increasing:
As 2023 approaches and the arc of instability spreads, despite the economic difficulties all countries are experiencing, a significant increase in defence spending by virtually all governments is becoming obvious. In 2022, it is projected that global defence spending exceeded $2 trillion, and in 2023, it is expected to increase significantly.
The stability of defence alliances and, thus, the idea of strategic autonomy, are threatened by increased defence spending. New strategic alignments could upend the global order by eliminating old ideas like non-alignment and the advantages of not joining any one bloc.
Consequently, a lot of past ideas regarding economic, technological, and financial autonomy might be modified or rejected this year. History will advance more quickly in 2023, and the situation in Ukraine will be a major factor.
A good example of this is maybe India’s dependence on Russian military hardware, which has long been New Delhi’s primary anchor. Now that contemporary Western weaponry are outperforming Russian technology in the Ukraine conflict, this may change, and India may begin looking elsewhere for its upcoming defence purchases.
It’s possible that India’s current shift from a declared non-alignment strategy to multi-alignment could help it widen the scope of its defence alliances. Organizations like the Quad (the United States, Australia, Japan, and India) may one day be given more prominence in India’s defence architecture in light of the escalating tensions between India and China. It appears that India and France will have stronger defence connections in 2023, particularly in the area of cutting-edge defence technologies.
As a result, many additional changes are probably required. The conflict in Ukraine has shown Europe and other countries that without the United States and NATO, neither Ukraine nor any other country in Europe could have stopped the Russian advance, making ideas like strategic autonomy useless. When dealing with strong “bullies” like China, Asian nations’ decisions are likely to be influenced by the same conclusion.
The area around India:
Aside from Europe, it is projected that China, India, and parts of Asia may face serious difficulties in the future. Managing COVID-19 and the repercussions of its economic crisis would be China’s top worries. It is unlikely that China will start a fight or behave provocatively toward its neighbours this year as a result of this. However, China’s top concerns will still be Taiwan and any breach of the First Island Chain.
The altered structure of the international system offers little comfort to India. India’s long-standing strategic partnership with Russia is hurt by the China-Russia entente, which might have far-reaching effects.
India will still be harmed by the absence of fixed borders with both China and Pakistan in the interim. Many parts of the China-India border will still have active communities, and incidents like the one that happened recently in Yangtse could happen again, but a major conflict appears unlikely.
Pakistan’s internal problems and economic difficulties make it unlikely that it would pose a serious danger in 2023. However, it is anticipated that Pakistan will continue its provocations and use of terror techniques, which will lead to sporadic attacks in Jammu and Kashmir.
Additionally, in 2023, other problems that have emerged in South Asia will surround India. There may be issues with Nepal’s new government because it appears to have a Chinese leaning. Problematic as Afghanistan remains under the control of the Taliban, it is made worse by the rise in terrorist activity there, which is being spearheaded by groups like the Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISIS-K).
To maintain India’s delicately balanced relations with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, diplomatic competence will be required. India’s relations with the majority of West Asian countries, however, might not undergo any substantial changes this year. It could be used to assess the effectiveness of India’s long-term preference for a non-interfering strategic culture on its neighbours.
All indications are that terrorism will remain a persistent worry this year, but major terror attacks might not occur. The engagement and activities of the Islamic State in Afghanistan are just the top of the iceberg, according to certain indications, and the ISIS-K in particular appears to be reviving. As a result, everyone might need to use caution in 2023.
Entering #Year #Uncertainty #Conflict #Between #Ukraine#Russia #Aftereffects #Defense #Spending #Increasing #Area_Around_India #India #World #Daily #The_Hindu_Editorial_Analysis #IAS #UPSC #Stact_PSC #Prelims #Mains #Geo_IAS
The Indian Express Editorial Analysis
Securing Basic Structure
Recently, Indian Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Wednesday sparked a debate on the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.
He criticised the Supreme Court once more for using the basic structure principle to invalidate the constitutional amendment that established the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act.
Development of the “Basic structure” school of thought and the ability of Parliament to make amendments under Article 368:
The FRs were subject to Parliament’s ability to modify the Constitution:
In Shankari Prasad Singh vs the Union of India:
The controversial Articles 31A and 31B were added to the Indian Constitution in 1951 after a modification.
The Supreme Court of India received a petition opposing Article(s) 31A and 31B on the grounds that they invalidate Part III of the Constitution’s guaranteed rights and, as a result, go against the letter of Article13(2).
In the case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants the right to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, and that an amendment to the Constitution is not a “law” as defined by Article 13(2). The legislative authority of the Parliament, also referred to as its legislative power, is distinct from its amending or constitutive authority.
A number of alterations to the Constitution were made after that, and in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case, the extent of the changes was once more disputed.
Hidyatullah and Mudholkar highlighted concerns in their concurring opinion for the first time regarding Parliament’s unfettered power to amend the Constitution and limit individuals’ fundamental rights, even though all of the justices agreed with Shankari Prasad’s ruling.
Fundamental rights were excluded from the application of the constitutional amendment.
Golaknath versus the state of Punjab:
In an 11-judge bench decision, the Honourable Supreme Court decided 6:5 in favour of the exemption of the fundamental rights from constitutional amendment.
The Court further clarified that the term of “law” under Article 13 includes a change to the Constitution (2). Therefore, any amendment that violated the Fundamental Rights was invalid.
It was disproved that the right to amend the Constitution is a sovereign power that is apart from legislative authority and hence not susceptible to judicial review.
The 24th Constitutional Amendment was suggested to restore things to the way they were before the Golak Nath case took away the Parliament’s freedom to change the Constitution whenever it pleased.
The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case:
The Kesavananda decision was the outcome of multiple disputes between the judicial and executive branches, which were supervised by the prime minister at the time, Indira Gandhi.
After abolishing crucial measures like the privy purse, nationalisation of banks, and land reforms, the Parliament introduced a constitutional amendment to provide itself the authority to modify any aspect of the Constitution. Additionally, a legislation was established that forbids judicial scrutiny of the amendment.
The Court’s larger Bench of 13 justices was then required to evaluate the legitimacy of the land amendments as well as the scope of the Parliament’s constitutional amendment power. No amendment was allowed if it altered “the essential structure or foundation of the Constitution,” according to a 7:6 split judgement. Despite the fact that Article 368’s reach was quite broad—it covered all of the Constitution’s provisions, including those found in the Fundamental Rights Chapter—this was the case.
Amendments were brought in to challenge the Kesavananda Bharati decision:
By reading implicit limitations on the amending authority, the Supreme Court established a new precedent (overriding two prior judicial precedents).
The majority view, nevertheless, was roundly criticised. The basic structural theory was advanced, and it was claimed that by doing so, the Constitution’s defenders had inescapably changed into its defenders — constitutional adjudicators had transformed into constitutional rulers!
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed Raj Narain’s petition to remove Indira Gandhi from office on June 12, 1975. (He had run from Rae Bareilly in the 1971 elections against her)
In a hurry, Parliament passed the Constitution 39th Amendment Bill in August 1975. It specified, among other things, that no law passed by Parliament (i.e., current election laws) would apply to the election of a person appointed as prime minister; additionally, the election of such a person would not be regarded as being void or having ever become void, and would instead continue to be valid in all respects.
A constitutional amendment essentially sought to overturn Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha’s decision from the Allahabad High Court, which declared Mrs. Gandhi guilty of “corrupt practise” in accordance with the then-applicable election standards.
For the first instance since Kesavananda Bharati, a Constitution Bench of five judges rejected this strategy based on the notion of the Constitution’s fundamental structure.
In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), a Constitution Bench of the highest court decided that free and fair elections were a fundamental part of the Constitution, so fundamental as to be outside the scope of the amending authority. The 13-judge panel in Kesavananda Bharati had previously included all five of the judges on the Bench.
In the face of a determined majoritarian dictatorship, the decision marks a turning point in the Court’s judicial authority being asserted.
Long after, a separate Bench of nine justices in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu authoritatively upheld the narrow majority opinion (of 7:6) in Kesavananda Bharati and gave it long-lasting constitutional validity.
What core principles underpin the Indian Constitution?
The Supreme Court noted that this list was not exhaustive when it enumerated a few of the Constitution’s components that could be regarded as its “fundamental aspects” in the Kesavananda decision.
Judicial review, the rule of law, federalism, and the structure of a democratic republic are a few examples of fundamental components.
What is contentious about the doctrine?
Vice President Dhankhar’s remarks perfectly capture a common criticism of the theory and its application: that it is not expressly stated in the Constitution.
There is a charge that by creating a test that is not a textual application of judicial review, the judiciary is interfering with Parliament’s authority.
Senior attorney Raju Ramachandran and other critics of the idea have claimed that it is “anti-democratic and counter-majoritarian” for “unelected judges” to have the power to veto constitutional revisions based on this theory.
However, legal scholarship has upheld the test’s legitimacy over time, contending that the idea is founded on a plausible structural reading of the Constitution.
The “doctrine of basic structure” limits Parliament’s authority while permitting it to amend any part of the Constitution; nevertheless, any revisions must not change the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
As a result, it was used as the basis for several court decisions that raised public support for the constitution as well as the principles and framework of a robust democracy.
Securing #Basic #Structure #Present #Circumstances #FRs #Parliament #Ability #Modify #Constitution #Shankari_Prasad_Singh #vs #Union #Golaknath #Versus #State_of_Punjab #1973 #Kesavananda_Bharati #Case #Amendments #Brought #Challenge #Decision #Core #Principles #Underpin #Indian #Constitution #Doctrine #Conclusion #India #World #Daily #The_Indian_Express_Editorial_Analysis #IAS #UPSC #Stact_PSC #Prelims #Mains #Geo_IAS
WEBSITE : https://geoias.com/
FACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/geoiaskolkata
INSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/geoias
TWITTER : https://twitter.com/GeoIas
EMAIL ID : email@example.com
TELEGRAM : https://t.me/Geo_Ias
MOBILE APP : https://treeloki.page.link/Rg1u
YOUTUBE : https://www.youtube.com/@geoiasupsc
FORONLINE/OFFLINE CLASSES : +91 9477560001, 9477560002