Summary

Polity Class 12

RESERVATION- (5:01 PM)

EWS reservations -
Supreme court was asked to look into various constitutional issues.
Do they violate article 16, where reservations can be provided only on the basis of social and educational backwardness and also for SC, ST & OBCs?
Do these EWS reservations go against the Supreme court's own judgment in a Mandal case wherein the Supreme court has ruled that reservations cannot exceed 50%?
Since these reservations exclude SC/ST & OBCs does it not violate the basic structure of our constitution (equality before the law)?
Supreme court in a 3-2 judgment ruled the following:
1. It has ruled that the 50% limit imposed by the Supreme court in a Mandal commission is not sacrosanct i.e it is not fixed and it can be changed.
2. Supreme court has ruled that Parliament has the sovereign power to decide reservations.
3. Supreme court also ruled that reservations can be given on any criteria decided by the Parliament including economic backwardness.
4. Through a majority verdict it also ruled that this reservation does not violate article 14 of our constitution because other groups are already covered under different categories like SC/ST/OBCs.
Reservations based on local domicile-
With the advent of LPG reforms, the country has seen widening disparities in growth and development.
It led to the creation of islands of prosperity in an oven of poverty.
It means that very few States are developed compared to the rest of the country.
It resulted in the migration of people from backward regions to developed States.
This migration led to conflicts between locals and outsiders.
Some State governments had come out with legislation to protect the interest of their residents by providing reservations for locals in public sector enterprises and also in the private sector.
But it must be remembered that under Article 16 of our constitution, only the Parliament is authorized to make legislation regarding the same.
At present Articles, 371 D and E provide reservations for locals in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana respectively.
The demand for reservations for locals in the private sector also has increased in recent times due to the jobless growth, the country is witnessing in the recent past.
Globalization and liberalization demand complete freedom to be given to the private sector without any restrictions.
If these limitations are imposed on the functioning of the private sector it can make the process fail.
The USA being a capitalist country recognise this fact and opted for procedural equality.
India cannot afford to put restrictions on the functioning of the private sector as the rapid economic growth and development of the country directly depend on our ability to attract investment.
What should be done-
The focus should be on improving both physical and social infrastructure.
Both the central and the State governments must invest at least 6% of their GDP in health and education.
It can help in transforming our demographic bulge into a demographic dividend.
At the same time, sufficient investment should be made in a physical infrastructure also so that the private sector can also invest in industrialization.
It can help in generating employment and also in moving towards job-led growth.

ARTICLE 17 (ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY)- (5:51 PM)

Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offense punishable in accordance with the law.
But our constitution has not defined the term untouchability nor any other legislation passed by the Parliament.
It was the Mysore High court that tried to define untouchability as a practice as it had developed historically in the country.
It refers to the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of people by reasons of their birth in a certain caste.
Article-18 (Abolition of titles)-
During British rule, Britishers deliberately created differences among citizens of the country by conferring special privileges on certain sections of society.
Similarly, the dominance of the princely State also meant that some of these titles had become hereditary in nature.
Our constitutional makers felt that these titles go against the concept of equality before the law.
It clearly mentions that the State should not confer any special privileges on any class of citizen.
Article 18 abolishes titles and has four provisions in this regard.
1. It prohibits the State from conferring any title (except military or academic distinctions) on anybody whether a citizen or a foreigner.
2. It prohibits a citizen of India from accepting any title from any foreign State.
3. A foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the State cannot accept any title from any foreign State without the consent of the President.
4. Similalry no citizen or a foreigner holding any office of profit or trust is to accept any present or emolument or office from any foreign State without the consent of the President.
The government has banned colonial titles like Maharaja, Rai bahadur, Diwan, etc.
In 1996 Supreme court ruled that the national awards given by the government including Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padam Shri are not titles within the meaning of Article 18.
They do not violate equality under Article 18.
Supreme court also ruled that these titles cannot be used as prefixes or suffixes by awardees.
If they use it then they would forfeit these awards.
These national awards were instituted in 1954, Janta party government 1977 discontinued these awards but they were revived again by the Congress government in 1980.

ARTICLE 19- RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION- (6:30 PM)

It guarantees 6 different types of freedoms to all citizens.
1. Right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. Right to assemble peacefully without arms.
3. Right to form associations and Unions or cooperative societies.
4. Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
5. Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
6. Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
In the original constitution, article 19 contains seven rights.
7. Right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property but it was deleted by the 44th CAA in 1978 and it was converted into an ordinary legal right.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION- 7:23 PM

It implies that every citizen has a right to express his opinions, views, thoughts, beliefs, and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picturing, or any other manner.
Supreme court has held that freedom of speech and expression includes the following:
-Right to propagate one's views and the views of others.
-Freedom of the press.
-Freedom of commercial advertisements.
-Right against tapping of a telephone conversation.
-Right to telecast (the government has no monopoly over electronic media).
-Right against bandh called by a political party or any organization.
-Right-to-know activities of the government (RTI).
-Freedom of silence.
-Right against the imposition of pre-censorship on a newspaper.
-Right to demonstration or picketing but not right to strike.
The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offense.
Issues related to the right to freedom of speech and expression-
Sedition- sedition laws had their origin during colonial, section 124 A of IPC deals with the law.
Sedition is defined as an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite, disaffection towards the government established by law in India by words, either spoken or written or signs or by visible representation or otherwise.
A person is liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or up to 3 years with a fine.
During the freedom movement, most of the freedom fighters were imprisoned under this draconian legislation.
The constituent assembly discussed the continuation of sedition law and felt that they should not be there in a democratic polity.
But they were allowed to continue as it was felt that decisions should be taken by future generations taking into consideration issues related to the safety and security of the nation.
In 1962 Supreme court in Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar upheld the validity of the sedition law.
The court significantly reduced the scope of sedition law only to those cases where there is an incitement to imminent violence towards the overthrow of the State.
Supreme court also held that it was not merely against the government of the day but the institutions as symbols of the State.
In other judgments, the Supreme court ruled that the sedition act can be applied only when there is a disruption to public order, an attempt to violently overthrow a lawful government.
Threatening the security of the State or public.
In recent times there are many cases of sedition filed against political opponents by the government at central and the State levels, raising questions about the misuse of sedition laws.
Arguments in favor of continuation of section 124 A.
It is part of reasonable restrictions and under article 19 (2) of the constitution.
When there is a threat to the unity and integrity of the nation from Naxalites, terrorists, and other anti-national elements sedition laws can protect the country.
Supreme court has already imposed restrictions on the use of sedition laws.
Misuse of particular legislation cannot be a ground for its repeal.
Misuse can be prevented by imposing more restrictions rather than deleting the entire legislation.

The topic for the next class- Continuation of the topic 'Article 19'