20 July 2022

20 July 2022 – Daily Mains Answer Writing & Model Answer

Q1. Do you agree that the Finance Commission in India serves as a supreme financial coordinator between the Centre and the States in numerous ways? Comment. (250 words)

Paper & Topic: GS II à Appointment to various Constitutional Posts, Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies

• Model Answer:

• Introduction:

• Under Article 280 of the Constitution, the President appoints a financial commission every five years.
• Its principal task is to make recommendations on how the Union government should split the taxes it collects with the states.
• These guidelines are for a five-year period.
• The commission also establishes guidelines for the central government’s distribution of grants-in-aid to states from the Consolidated Fund of India.
• It is also necessary to recommend strategies to supplement the resources of panchayats and municipalities, as well as ways to supplement the resources of states.

• Body:

• The Finance Commission as a link between the federal government and the states:

• Since colonial control, the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution were cognizant of difficulties relating to uneven development of native states and traditionally poorer hinterlands.
• The coastal states were wealthier than Central India’s drought-stricken provinces.
• Because the writers of the Constitution recognized the difficulty of rigidly allocating all financial resources and earnings among different areas, an independent Finance Commission (FC) was established.
• Since 1951, Finance Commissions (FC) have been formed with the specific macroeconomic and fiscal realities of the constituent period in mind.
• The Indian federal system allows the center and the states to share power and duties.
• Similarly, the powers of taxation are widely split between the center and the states.
• Because of scale savings in the collection of some taxes, the center collects the majority of tax revenue.
• Because of their proximity to local challenges and needs, states are responsible for delivering public goods in their territory.
• This can lead to states incurring costs that are greater than their revenue.
• Furthermore, due to significant regional discrepancies, some states are unable to raise sufficient resources in comparison to others. The Finance Commission advises that the amount of central money shared with states be increased to remedy these disparities.
• Any other problem that the President of India refers to the Commission in the interest of prudent financial management.
• Several matters have been presented to the Commission under this section, including debt relief, financing of state calamity relief, and increased excise levies.
• Because federal finance is inherently dynamic rather than static, constant readjustment of federal states – local financial relations is required. In every federation, “Balancing Factors” such as shared taxes and grant-in-aid central loans to federating units exist, the devolution of which has a significant impact on the country’s economic development and balanced regional growth. The FC aims to strike a balance between the balancing components.
• The Finance Body’s provision is meant to reassure the states that the union’s distribution system will not be decided arbitrarily, under duress, or with bias, but rather on the proposal of an impartial commission.
• T Lakdawala, a well-known economist, believes that “The Finance Commission is intended to act as a wise man, a judge between the states’ competing demands on the one hand and the central government’s on the other.”

• Concerns about the Finance Commission’s fifteenth session:

• To calculate the states’ portion of the divisible pool of taxes, FC took into account the population in 2011, as well as forest cover, tax effort, state area, and “demographic performance.”
• In order to recognize states’ population control efforts, the Commission devised a 12.5 percent weighted criterion for demographic effort, which is effectively the ratio of the state’s population in 1971 to its fertility rate in 2011.
• The FC also considered the total area of states, the area under forest cover, and “income distance” to arrive at the tax-sharing formula.

• Important points to consider:

• The Commission has lowered vertical devolution, or the share of tax income shared by the Centre and the states, from 42% to 41%.
• According to the Commission, it plans to form an expert group to establish a non-lapsable fund for defence spending.

• Distribution by state:

• Except for Tamil Nadu, the southern states’ stocks have declined, with Karnataka losing the most.
• State shares have increased marginally in Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu, all of which have fertility rates below the replacement level.
• Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, and West Bengal, on the other hand, have seen their shares shrink, despite having low fertility rates.
• According to an RBI assessment on state finances, Karnataka, the greatest loser in this exercise, also had the highest tax-to-GDP ratio in 2017-18.

• Criticisms:

• The Commission’s population metric has been chastised by the governments of the southern states.
• The previous FC calculated the states’ shares using both the 1971 and 2011 populations, giving the 1971 population (17.5 percent) more weight than the 2011 population (10 percent ).
• Because of the use of 2011 population statistics, states with higher populations, such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, have received larger shares, while smaller states with lower fertility rates have lost out.
• Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Jharkhand have a combined population of 47.8 million people.
• According to the 2011 Census, this represents about 39.48 percent of India’s total population and covers 32.4 percent of the country’s land area.
• The southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh, on the other hand, have just 20.75 percent of the population, living in 19.34 percent of the area and paying 13.89 percent of the taxes.
• As a result, the Commission’s conditions are stacked against the more progressive (and wealthier) southern states.

• Conclusion:

• Despite the numerous challenges surrounding the 15th finance commission, the subsequent FCs have attempted to serve as a lynchpin between the federal government and the states, upholding the principle of fiscal federalism.
• The Finance Commission has been recommending financial resources to the states in order to achieve balanced development, normalize the financial ties between the Centre and the States, and eliminate the country’s vertical and horizontal imbalances.

Q2. Using examples, critically assess the legitimacy of the Indian judiciary, which

       has recently been called into doubt, as well as the issues it faces. (250 words)

Paper & Topic: GS II à Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions.

• Model Answer:

• Introduction:

• The Supreme Court of India’s verdict in the Prashant Bhushan contempt case, and the retirement of Justice Arun Mishra, were both significant developments in the Indian judiciary in the last fortnight.
• These occurrences, each in their own way, highlight the Supreme Court’s flaws.

• Body:

• The Indian Judiciary’s Problems:

• Accusations of being a member of the Executive Court:

• A court that fails to keep a check on executive authority is known as an executive court.
• It means that, rather than being independent and fair in its decisions, a court renders findings in favor of the government.
• This, in turn, leads to political intervention in the functioning of the court, shatters the judiciary’s image in the eyes of the public, and results in the public losing trust and confidence in the judiciary.

• The following citations are used to support the allegations:

• Acceptance of Post-retirement Jobs by Judges:For example, a former Chief Justice of India was nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Kerala’s governor has been selected by yet another CJI.

• Judges making pro-government verdicts or openly applauding the Master of Roster system:

• The privilege of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to form benches to hear cases is known as Master of Roster. The Supreme Court Registrar prepares the roster on the Chief Justice’s orders.
• The topic of Master of Roster is significant since, in 2018, four SC Judges convened a news conference to express their dissatisfaction with the then-CJI.
• It was deemed extraordinary because internal tensions within the judiciary are generally kept hidden.
• The four SC Judges said at a news conference that the CJI was abusing his role as “master of roster” by assigning politically sensitive cases to specific benches in order to obtain a favorable outcome.

• Appointments to the Judiciary:

• The threat to India’s judicial independence is frequently attributed to the executive branch and, on rare occasions, the legislature. It’s a different thing when members of the judiciary become pliable to the other branches of government.
• The collegium has been slammed for its opaque appointment and transfer process due to the absence of information in the transfer resolution.
• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court due to excessive administrative influence in judicial appointment.

• Transparency is lacking:

• There have been significant claims against senior judges of the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.
• A former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was accused of sexual misconduct.
• Many fingers have been pointed at the judges on numerous occasions.

• Disobedience to the court:

• The Supreme Court has the right to penalize itself under Article 129 of the Constitution. The High Courts were given an equivalent power under Article 215 of the Constitution. The theory is backed up by the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.
• The ability of the court to hold someone in contempt has a chilling effect on genuine criticism. Individual judge and judgment criticism is sometimes misconstrued as an attack on the judiciary’s integrity. Using contempt powers to silence dissent while the court is adjudicating substantive values is incorrect. In cases like the Prashant Bhushan case, when many analysts believed the criticism was justified, the court has used contempt.

• Is the Indian judiciary’s legitimacy in jeopardy:

• Occasionally, issues are raised and criticism is leveled against the various democratic organs. It simply strengthens them.
• However, strong claims of bias, corruption, and an opaque system of operating raise doubts in the minds of the general public, causing the public’s faith in the Indian judiciary to dwindle.
• PILs, appointment procedures, and jurisprudence have all evolved over time, putting India’s constitutional framework on fragile ground. The judiciary appears to have fashioned itself as a governance institution, for better or worse, despite the fact that it is neither democratically elected nor appointed by a government.
• The appointments of those who govern us should be scrutinized for accountability. A new set of checks and balances is required for such an institution. A people’s court will inevitably receive input, if not outright criticism, from the same people it is supposed to represent.
• If the Indian judiciary wants to gain public trust, it must adopt some public accountability principles that it has long imposed on the country’s other institutions of governance.

• Next Steps:

• To make the system more open by disclosing the reasons for the judges’ transfers. When it comes to transfers, merit and seniority should take precedence above personal interests.
• Random computer allocation should be used to assign cases to benches to avoid bias. The Judges’ topic expertise was used to determine the allocation. Due to a suspected conflict of interest, they recuse themselves from hearing cases. Case allotment can be modeled after the European Court of Justice model.
• Politically sensitive cases should be handled by a larger bench, and a set of guidelines for their handling should be developed.
• Judges should be given a cooling-off period or be barred from taking new jobs once they retire.

• Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court’s recent contempt ruling against Prashant Bhushan has resurrected the issue of what constitutes legitimate criticism of India’s higher judiciary once again.
• But first, we must establish the higher judiciary’s identity as well as its new connection with the public.
• The Supreme Court has effectively transformed itself into a people’s court by evolving the judicial appointment system and expanding its public interest litigation (PIL) doctrine far beyond its basic constitutional scope.
• To provide checks and balances, this new identity necessitates new rules of accountability, criticism, and feedback.

Q3. The official secrecy statute directly contradicts the 2005 Right to Information

       Act. Examine the statement in light of the policies introduced during the Covid

       19 pandemic. (250 words)

• Paper & Topic: GS II àGovernment policies and interventions for

 development in various sectors

• Model Answer:

• Introduction:

• The details of pandemic response, vaccination cost, and expert committee meeting schedules are not available to the public.
• The workings of PM-CARES have been shrouded in secrecy, making it difficult to hold the government accountable.
• The ethos of Right to Information is undermined by bureaucratic concealment.

• Body:

• According to the Official Secrets Act of 1923, any government official can mark a document as confidential in order to prevent it from being published.
• In the event of a dispute between the two laws, the RTI Act’s provisions take precedence over the OSA’s
• Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that its requirements would take effect despite anything in the OSA that contradicts them.
• However, this has not been the case in the case of pandemic data. Official secrecy is at odds with RTI.

• Government criticism:

• The government’s responses to RTI queries filed over the past year have been characterised by blatant denials.
• Opacity serves as a cover for large-scale over-centralisation and misgovernance in COVID-19-related topics, from vaccine manufacture and pricing decisions to last year’s lockdown planning and the establishment and running of the ten-thousand-crore-plus PM CARES fund.
• Vaccine-related details:Bharat Biotech hasn’t released any peer-reviewed interim efficacy assessments from Phase 3 clinical studies until now.
• The DCGI has denied RTI requests regarding its decision to give Covaxin and Covishield emergency approval, saying that information about efficacy and safety is considered privileged commercial information.
• The ICMR will receive a 5% royalty on the vaccination.
• Only because the Supreme Court heard a suo motu PIL on the pandemic has these and other bits of information become public.
• The government’s summary dismissals not only violate citizens’ fundamental right to information, but also force RTI petitions into a two-year appeals procedure.
• Citizens must seek Information Commissions and High Courts to obtain basic information, wasting time and money.

• Effects on governance and the general welfare:

• Effective planning and administration cannot take place in the dark, and experts blame incompetence and a lack of preparation as much as the virus for the high death toll and misery.
• Official secrecy is jeopardising scientists’, public health experts’, and policy experts’ ability to provide timely input and recommendations to the government.
• The information blackhole is so bad that over 900 scientists have petitioned the Prime Minister for access to data and information.
• However, not much has changed.
• Because the government receives a large number of charity gifts, it must be accountable to the public for how these funds are spent.
• A lack of medicines, hospital beds, vaccines, and oxygen raises questions about the government’s preparedness to confront the pandemic.

• Conclusion:

• In accordance with Sections 4 and 7 of the RTI Act, which deal with proactive and urgent disclosures with life and liberty implications, the Supreme Court should require the government to suo motu reveal material connected to COVID-19 policies.
• Amartya Sen stated in a paper about famines in colonial India that mass hunger and death do not occur if information flows freely.
• The same may be said for pandemic preparedness.

Q4. What is the Gram Panchayat Model Citizen Charter? Throw light on its main

      characteristics and significance. (250 words)

• Paper & Topic: GS II àImportant aspects of Governance & Citizens’ Charter

• Model Answer:

• Introduction:

• A citizen’s charter is a voluntary, written document that outlines a service provider’s efforts to focus on their commitment to meeting the requirements of residents/customers.
• A Model Panchayat Citizens Charter/framework for delivering services across 29 sectors, aligning actions with localised Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), prepared by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) in collaboration with the National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR), was recently released through a virtual programme for Panchayats to adopt and customise.

• Body:

• Features to look for:

• The Panchayats will use this model and, with Gram Sabha’s agreement, will draught a Citizens Charter that will include a list of the many categories of services offered by the Panchayat, as well as their condition and time limit.
• “A Citizens’ Charter is a tool to create good governance,” the model framework declares.
• The successful implementation of the Citizens’ Charter improves service delivery, increases Panchayat functionaries’ responsiveness, and increases citizen satisfaction.”
• It is expected to empower residents and improve the operation of Panchayats.

The following information must be disclosed under service standards, according to the paper released:

• Service name
• Service details, such as beneficiaries and eligible individuals, fees, and so on
• The length of time it will take to deliver the service
• Name and contact information for the Panchayat official in charge of providing the service

Redress of grievances:

• The Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary shall be available to citizens to listen to their problems and provide contact information for the authorities to whom citizens should direct any such complaint.
• The framework further stipulates that the Panchayat should solicit the views of the Panchayat Secretary and other officers from the appropriate line departments when drafting the charter.
• PRIs are responsible for delivering basic services as enshrined in Article 243G of the Indian Constitution, specifically in the areas of Health & Sanitation, Education, Nutrition, and Drinking Water.
• PRIs are responsible for delivering basic services as enshrined in Article 243G of the Indian Constitution, specifically in the areas of Health & Sanitation, Education, Nutrition, and Drinking Water.
• The goal of establishing a Citizen Charter is to provide services to the people in a timely manner, resolving their grievances and improving their lives.
• This will help in making citizens aware of their rights on the one hand, and making Panchayats and their elected representatives directly accountable to the people on the other.

Conclusion:

• A Citizens’ Charter is a tool to ensure that the citizen is always at the centre of any service delivery mechanism, rather than an end in itself.
• Citizen’s Charter can benefit from best practise models like the Sevottam Model in becoming more citizen centred.