16 March 2024

MAINS DAILY QUESTIONS & MODEL ANSWERS

Q1. The efficacy of the reservation policy depends on its capacity to authentically elevate the most disadvantaged segments of society. Evaluate this statement in light of the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Bill, 2024.

GS II – Government Policies and Interventions

Introduction:

• Recently, the Maharashtra State Assembly unanimously passed a bill that allocates 10% reservation in education and government jobs to the Maratha community. The Bill specifies the Maratha community as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class under Article 342A (3) of the Indian Constitution.

Some Key Arguments in Favour of Maratha Reservation:

• Recommended by Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission: The Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Bill 2024, was drafted based on a Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (Shukre Commission) report.
• This report identified the Marathas as socially and educationally backward, justifying the need for a reservation.
• The commission’s report highlighted “exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations” justifying reservations to the Maratha community above the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court
• Historical Marginalization: Despite being a historically dominant and influential community in Maharashtra, Marathas argue that they have faced marginalization in education, employment, and other spheres. They believe that reservation status will help address historical injustices and uplift the community.
• The Gaikwad Commission found that 76.86 % of Maratha families were engaged in agriculture and farm labor, around 50% lived in mud houses, only 35.39% had personal tap water connections, 13.42% of Marathas were not literate with only 35.31% having primary education, 43.79 % having cleared HSC and SSC.
• Economic Disparities: Many Marathas, particularly those in rural areas, face economic challenges and lack access to opportunities for socio-economic advancement. Reservation is seen as a means to provide them with better access to education and employment opportunities.
• The Shukre Commission describes extreme poverty, the decline in agricultural income, and partitions in land holdings as reasons for the poor status of the Marathas. It also notes that 94% of farmers who have died by suicide in the state belonged to the Maratha community.
• Inadequate Representation in Public Services: The demand for the Maratha reservation has been fueled by concerns over access to education and employment, particularly in competitive exams where limited seats are available.
• The Shukre Commission finds inadequate representation of the community in all sectors of public services and says the Marathas have remained “completely out of the mainstream” due to their backwardness.
• Social Mobility: Reservation for Marathas is seen as a means to facilitate upward social mobility within the community, enabling individuals from marginalized backgrounds to access overall social advancement.
• The Shukre commission notes that the population of Marathas in the state is 28%, while 84 % of them are not advanced, adding that such a large backward community cannot be added to the OBC bracket.

Some Key Arguments Against the Maratha Reservation:

• Lack of Social and Economic Backwardness: Marathas historically held significant land ownership and political power. Critics argue they may not meet the criteria for reservation as socially and economically backward.
• Marathas own over 75% of the land in the State as well as 86 of the 105 sugar factories besides controlling about 55% of educational institutions and over 70% of cooperative bodies.
• Domination in Political Landscape: Marathas have dominated the political landscape with 11 of the 20 Chief Ministers coming from the community, and over 60% of all the members of the Legislative Assemblies of Maharashtra have been Marathas since 1962.
• Need for a Detailed Inquiry: The Commission concluded its survey within a span of 9 days (from January 23 to January 31, 2024). However, as the report has not been made public, there is little information available regarding the sample design, the questionnaire used, or the methodology employed for data analysis.
• The bill declares Marathas to be socially and educationally backward, but the details available from the Shukre Commission’s report, seem to primarily emphasize the community’s economic backwardness. Almost nothing concrete is available about their social and educational backwardness.
• Legal Concerns: Maharashtra currently has a reservation of 52%, including various categories such as SC, ST, OBC, Vimukt Jati, Nomadic Tribes, and others. With the addition of 10% reservation for the Marathas, the total reservation in the state will now reach 62%.
• Extending reservations beyond the 50% cap set by the Supreme Court may also raise legal concerns.
• Political Motivations: Some critics question the timing and political motivations behind the push for the Maratha reservation.
• They argue the decision may be driven by electoral considerations rather than genuine concerns for social justice.

Some Strategies to Formulate Effective Reservation Policy:

• Need for a Comprehensive Socio-economic Census: Addressing demands of politically dominant groups such as the Marathas, which have stratifications due to significant intra-community variations in terms of income and educational outcomes, suggests a case for a comprehensive socio-economic census.
• Such a census will establish the true nature of backwardness and discrimination across States and could even clarify a new means of providing affirmative action based on the data while staying true to principles of social justice.
• Evidence-Based Legislation: Ensure that the Maratha Reservation Bill is legally sound and withstands judicial scrutiny by providing robust empirical data to justify the reservation beyond the 50% quota ceiling set by the Supreme Court.
• Need for Comprehensive Approach: Increasing more employment opportunities is often considered more essential than expanding reservation policies.
• The government should adopt integrated policies that combine reservation with targeted welfare programs, skill development initiatives, and infrastructure projects to ensure holistic development for Marathas.
• Ensure Fair Competition without Discrimination: Ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and without discrimination is a fundamental aspect of promoting equality. This means that people should not face disadvantages or privileges based on their background, such as their parents’ status.
• Encouraging competition on a level playing field, where individuals have equal opportunities to succeed based on their skills, abilities, and efforts, is crucial. This promotes excellence by motivating individuals to strive for their best.
• Balancing the Reservation and Merit: While giving reservations to the communities, the efficiency of the administration has to be looked upon too. Reservation beyond the limit will lead to ignorance of the merit, which will disturb the entire administration.
• The main purpose of reservation is to address the issue of historical wrongs done to the less advantaged communities but the merit beyond a certain point must not be neglected too.
• The reservation policy serves as a crucial tool for fostering a strong and inclusive society in India, but its effectiveness hinges on its ability to genuinely uplift the most marginalized sections of society. However, when reservation benefits are misused or manipulated for personal gain, it can undermine the integrity of the policy and perpetuate inequalities.

Q2. Analyze the factors behind the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Electoral Bonds Scheme. Propose recommendations for improving transparency in political funding in India.

GS II – Government Policies and Interventions

Introduction:

• Electoral bonds are money instruments like promissory notes, which can be bought by companies and individuals in India from the State Bank of India (SBI) and donated to a political party, which can then encash these bonds. In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court declared the electoral bond schemes unconstitutional and ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to cease issuing electoral bonds with immediate effect.

Some of the key factors behind the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Electoral Bonds Scheme:

• Violation of the Right to Information: The court held that the scheme, by permitting anonymous political donations, infringed upon the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• It pointed out that such a right is not only restricted to fulfilling the freedom of speech and expression but plays a key role in furthering participatory democracy by holding the government accountable. Thus, it is not just a means to an end but an end in itself.
• Possibility of Quid Pro Quo Arrangements: The verdict highlighted that economic inequality leads to differing levels of political engagement because of the deep association between money and politics. As a result, there is a legitimate possibility that financial contribution to a political party would lead to quid pro quo arrangements.
• Not Proportionally Justified to Curb Black Money: Relying on the proportionality test laid down in its 2017 verdict in the KS Puttaswamy case, which upheld the right to privacy, it underscored that the government did not adopt the least restrictive method to achieve its objective.
• As examples of such least restrictive methods, the Chief Justice cited the ₹20,000 cap on anonymous donations and the concept of Electoral Trusts which facilitate the collection of political contributions from donors.
• Unlimited Corporate Donations Violate Free and Fair Elections: The court found that amendment made to Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013, permitting unlimited political contributions by companies, to be manifestly arbitrary.
• The provision allows Indian companies to make financial contributions to political parties under specific conditions. However, through the Finance Act, of 2017, crucial changes were introduced, including the removal of the prior cap on the amount that companies can donate to political parties – 7.5% of the average profits of the preceding three fiscal years.
• Amendment to Section 29C of RPA, 1951 Quashed: Initially, Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, required parties to declare all contributions higher than ₹20,000, and specify whether they were received from individual persons or companies.
• However, the Finance Act, of 2017, amended this provision to create an exception wherein such a requirement would not apply to donations received through electoral bonds.
• Striking down the amendment, the court observed that the original requirement to disclose contributions of more than ₹ 20,000 effectively balanced the voters’ right to information with the right to privacy of donors.

Some measures required to improve transparency in political funding in India:

• Comprehensive Legal Reforms: Enact and implement comprehensive legal reforms to regulate political party finances, election expenditures, and the sources of funding.
• This may include revisiting and strengthening existing laws or introducing new legislation to address loopholes.
• Encourage cross-party consensus on the need for electoral funding reforms
• Independent Electoral Oversight:
• Strengthen the role of independent electoral oversight bodies, such as the Election Commission of India, to monitor and enforce compliance with campaign finance laws. Provide these bodies with adequate resources and autonomy.
• Limits on Expenditure: Expenditure limits safeguard politics from a financial arms race. They relieve parties from the pressure of competing for money even before they start to compete for votes. Though the RoPA, 1951 sets a limit on expenditure incurred by a candidate but it doesn’t set any such cap on the political parties.
• Some countries impose an expenditure limit on political parties. For example, in the UK, political parties are not allowed to spend more than Euro 30,000 (about Rs 30 lakh) per seat.
• Transparency in Political Party Funding: Mandate political parties to disclose all sources of funding, including details of donors and the amounts received.
• Ensure that this information is easily accessible to the public and regularly updated.
• Introduce an upper limit on the amount that can be donated to political parties to curb the influence of large corporate contributions.
• In the UK, a party needs to report donations received from a single source amounting to a total of more than Pounds 7,500 in a calendar year. The analogous limit in Germany is Euros 10,000.
• Providing Public Funding to Parties: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) advocated partial state funding to curb “illegitimate and unnecessary funding” of election expenses.
• For instance, in Germany, parties receive public funds on the basis of their importance within the political system.
• The Chilean Experiment: Under the Chilean system of “reserved contributions”, donors could transfer to the Chilean Electoral Service the money they wished to donate to parties, and the Electoral Service would then forward the sum to the party without revealing the donor’s identity.
• If the complete anonymity system worked perfectly, the political party would not be able to ascertain the sum donated by any specific donor — and would find it extremely difficult to strike quid pro quo arrangements.
• Establishing National Election Fund: Another option would be to establish a National Election Fund to which all donors could contribute. The funds could be allocated to parties based on their electoral performance. This would eliminate the so-called concern about donors’ reprisals.
• Under the Chilean system of “reserved contributions”, donors could transfer to the Chilean Electoral Service the money they wished to donate to parties, and the Electoral Service would then forward the sum to the party without revealing the donor’s identity.
• By embracing transparency in electoral funding in India, the nation can fortify the foundations of its democratic institutions and empower citizens with the knowledge and confidence that their electoral choices are influenced by ideas and values rather than the undue influence of financial interests.