UPSC Editorials Quiz : 5 January 2024

Solution: d)

In a landmark judgment delivered on November 10, 2023, in the State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), D.Y. Chandrachud, gave a creative interpretation to Article 200 of the Constitution of India which relates to the options before a Governor when a Bill, after being passed by the State Legislature, is presented to him for his assent. The new interpretation relates to the real meaning of the first proviso to Article 200 which says that the Governor may send the Bill back to the Assembly with a request for re-consideration of the Bill as a whole or certain provisions thereof.

It further says that if the Assembly after such re-consideration passes the Bill with or without the amendments, the Governor shall not withhold assent from the Bill. There has been a considerable amount of confusion about the meaning of Article 200 and this proviso. Most of the commentators of the Constitution, like D.D. Basu and others, have held the view that the Governor’s power to withhold assent under this Article has a finality about it, and once assent is withheld, the Bill dies a natural death. They were also of the view that the option of sending the Bill back to the Assembly for reconsideration under the first proviso is discretionary and not mandatory. Thus, there was a presumption that the Governor’s power to withhold assent from a Bill is absolute.

But the CJI by linking the withholding of assent with the sending of the Bill back to the Assembly for reconsideration has virtually knocked out the option of withholding assent. The judgment says that if the Governor decides to withhold assent, he has to send it back to the Assembly immediately for reconsideration, in which case he has no other option except to give assent. Needless to say that through his judgment, the CJI, in a far-sighted approach, has protected the rights of the legislature in the matter of law making, and in fact the entire constitutional system from the depredations of unelected Governors.

Article 213 deals with the ordinance-making power of Governors.

Source

Solution: a)

Constitution makes an indirect reference to the President’s assent to a State Bill in Article 254. Under clause (2) of this Article, a State law on an item in the Concurrent List will prevail in that State even when it contains a provision repugnant to the provisions of an existing central law if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent. This would mean that a Bill on a Concurrent subject can be or needs to be sent to the President for assent only if it contains provisions repugnant to an existing central law. But it does not indicate that every Bill on a concurrent subject should be sent to the President for assent.

In fact the President has no jurisdiction to scrutinise and give assent to a Bill exclusively on a subject in the State List because of the federal scheme of legislative division.

Source

Solution: c)

Reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President is an absolute option still available to a Governor. The crucial question is on what kinds of Bills a Governor can send to the President for his consideration. The second proviso to Article 200 mentions one kind of Bills which are mandatorily to be reserved for the consideration of the President. These are Bills which derogate from the powers of the High Court in such a way as to endanger the constitutionally designed position of that court. 

Article 213 deals with the ordinance-making power of Governors. Under this provision, in certain cases, the Governor can promulgate an ordinance only with instruction from the President. Under clause (b) of the above Article, the Governor can promulgate an ordinance only with instructions from the President in a case where he would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions as in the ordinance. The words “deemed it necessary” indicate the making of judgement by the Governor in terms of the constitutional scheme of the power of legislative division. In other words, the Governor cannot act on his whims while deeming it necessary to reserve the Bills.

Source

Solution: b)

In spite of the PESA Act being passed in 1996, not one of the State governments concerned has implemented the same in the correct spirit, by issuing policy directives. The Act envisions the empowerment of gram sabhas as the sole authority to govern various aspects of the socio-economic lives of the tribal community in the respective jurisdiction. The intent behind the Act was to bring people at the grassroots level face to face with the government, and was aligned to the tribal way of life in historical and traditional terms.

Source

Solution: d)

Concern about “period poverty” has fuelled campaigns globally calling for the end of the so-called tampon tax, which refers to consumption levies such as value-added tax (VAT) that most countries charge on items such as sanitary pads, tampons, panty liners and menstrual cups.

Since Kenya became the first country to scrap VAT on sanitary pads and tampons in 2004, at least 17 countries have followed suit.