June CA Magazine
Polity
New Parliament House
- BKG : Central Vista Project, 1931 → Rashtrapati Bhavan, North & South Blocks, Parliament House, Record Office(National Archives)+ India Gate Monument + Civic Garden on Rajpath
- OLD BUILDING : By Edwin Lutyen & Herbert Baker, 6 Yrs 1921-27 // Housed Imperial Legislative Council // Circular Shape from - Chausath Yogini Temple in Morena, MP // 1956 2 Floors Added for Space // First Eleceted Parliament in 1952
- NEW BUILDING : LS Peacock (National Bird) // RS Lotus (National Flower) // Premise Banyan (National Tree) // Speaker Chair (Senegol Sceptre - Sym of Tranfer of Power) // Roof Ashokan Pillar // Carpet Hand Woven Bhadohi Carpet City // 6 Gates Land Water & Sky // Gate Ashoka Chakara + Satyameve Jayate Written // Wood Nagpur, Marble Gujarat, Stone Rajasthan, Bamboo Tripura // Spirit - Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat
- Need
- Narrow Seating - Need More Seats After 2026 Delimitation
- Benifits
- Stregthen Governance Infrastructure
Law on Sedition
22nd Law Commission // 279th Report // “Usage of Law of Sedition” → Retain Sedition
Section 124A, IPC, 1870 : Defines sedition as acts that incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government
Criticism Over Years
- Subjective Definition: Shreya Singhal Case (2015) vague, over-broad offenses unconstitutional
- Chilling Effect on Dissent: Fear of sedition charges leads to self-censorship
- Low Conviction Rate: Fluctuating between 3-33%, 95% pendency in 2020
- Misuse Allegations: Difficult bail, prolonged trials, harassment (Vinod Dua v Union of India)
- Existence of Other Laws: Preventive detention, restrictions under CrPC Section 144
- Repealed Elsewhere: UK (2009), Australia, Singapore - for free speech
Arguments for Retention
- Unity and Integrity of India: Combats anti-national, secessionist elements.
- Reasonable Restriction under Article 19: Art 19(1)(a)Not absolute, sedition reasonable restriction.
- Necessity Beyond Counter-Terror Laws: Fills gap not covered by UAPA, NSA.
- Independent Judgement, Not Colonial Legacy: Colonial origin not sole repeal reason.
- Jurisdictional Realities: Other countries have different contexts, histories, laws etc
- Misuse Not a Ground for Removal: Adequate procedural safeguards can control misuse, repeal may harm national security and integrity
Judiciary Interpretation of Section 124A (Sedition) Over Years
- Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950:
Judgment: Criticism of government does not justify restriction on freedom of expression, unless it undermines state security or tends to overthrow the state.
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962:
Upheld Section 124A: Recognized state's need for protection for IS
Limitation: Only speech likely to incite public disorder qualifies as sedition.
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India, 2021:
Ruling: Can Criticise Government, provided it does not incite violence against the government established by law
- S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023:
Directive: Keep all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under Section 124A in suspensio
Opinion: Section 124A's rigors not suitable for current social milieu, intended for colonial era.
Law Commission Recommendations on Sedition Law
- Integration of Kedar Nath Judgment (1962):
Current: Section 124A IPC vague.
Proposal: Add "tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder" for clarity
- Sentencing Revision:
Current: Up to 3 years or life imprisonment, wide sentencing discretion.
Proposal: Enhance to up to 7 years or life imprisonment, reducing judge's discretion.
- Procedural Safeguard:
Current: No specific procedural safeguard.
Proposal: FIR registration only after preliminary inquiry by police officer (Inspector rank or above).
- Other Suggestions:
Limited Application: Use Section 124A Judiciously
Police Training and Awareness: Section 124A
GRAI (Grievance Redressal Assessment Index)
GRAI 2022 Overview
- Conceptualization: By Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions.
- Part of: 10-step CPGRAMS reforms by DARPG
- Index Framework: Based on 12 Indicators across 4 dimensions - Efficiency, Feedback, Domain, Organizational commitment
- Assessment: 89 Central Ministries and Departments ranked
- Improvement Noted: Reduction in average disposal time from 32 days (2021) to 27 days (2022).
Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM)
- Importance: As per 2nd ARC Report, vital for citizen-centric administration.
- Nodal Agencies:
- DARPG, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
- Directorate of Public Grievances, Cabinet Secretariat
Issues with Current Public Grievance System
- Low Awareness of Citizen: Many unaware of existing redressal systems in government departments
- Judiciary Overburdening: Ineffective internal grievance systems leading to court petitions on minor issues
- Non-Uniformity: Variations in grievance handling frameworks and capacities across ministries and organizations.
- Lack of Statutory Backing: GRM not mandatory like RTI in many departments.
- Resource Shortage: Public Grievance Cells face staff, resource scarcity, and inadequate empowerment.
- Ineffective CPGRAMS Role: Cases where complainants directed to state governments without forwarding grievances.
- Systemic Issues: Administration slackness, low morale, inertia, lack of incentives, authority, and accountability.
Measures to Strengthen GRM
- Identify Grievance-Prone Areas: Audit and address corruption/grievance-susceptible sectors.
- Raise Awareness: Publicize through national, regional, local, and electronic media.
- Civil Servants' Attitudinal Change: Reward good work, punish negligence.
- 2nd ARC Recommendations:
- Public Grievance Officers: Similar to Public Information Officers under RTI Act.
- Timely Disposal: Grievances resolved within 30 days.
- Penalties for Delay: Financial penalties for exceeding time limits.
- Parliamentary Committee Suggestions (2021):
- CPGRAMS as Facilitator: Respect federalism while facilitating grievance redressal.
- Regular Review: Ministries to monitor grievances in media regularly.