OTHER BODIES

OTHER BODIES

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC) and STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (SHRC)

The National Human rights commission is the watchdog of human rights in India. It is a statutory body established under the Protection of Human rights Act, 1993 in line with the Universal Declaration of Human rights Paris principles, endorsed by the United Nations general assembly, 1993.

Challenges/Limitations of NHRC/SHRC

1. Structural Issues
   • Appointment Bias: Tasked with appointing the chairperson and the members, the committee is dominated by the ruling party.
   • Selection Ambiguity: Because the criteria for evaluating candidates are not established, the selection process is confusing.
   • Overrepresentation of Judiciary: The Commission is overrepresented by Judges and judicial persons rather than persons qualified in Human Rights.
     • Fact: 3/5 are judges, leading to more judicial touch to its functioning and the rest 2/5 are also not Human Right experts. Political appointments.
   • Understaffed: Poor Staff Strength: Despite around 1400% increase in complaints between 1995 and 2015, NHRC staff strength had decreased by 17% in the same period [NHRC].
   • Not Binding Nature: The non binding nature of the commission makes it lack adequate power to implement the verdicts given by it.
     • Example: NHRC cannot provide practical relief to the aggrieved party for which it was termed as ‘India’s teasing illusion’ by Soli Sorabjee.
   • Fund Crunches: NHRC depends on the government for Funds, diminishing its Independence and other issues like inadequate funds. There is also a long pendency of the Commission’s requests for additional funds.
   • Lack of transparency and gender diversity: The commission does not adequately reflect the gender diversity of India, thus also lacking the gender sensitisation.
     • Fact: Global Alliance on National Human Rights Institution (GANHRI) downgraded NHRC status from A to B because of lack of transparency in member selection and poor gender diversity. Currently, the status has been restored to A.
   • Vacancies: Vacancies are not being filled in a timely manner. The majority of human rights commissions operate with fewer than the required number of members.
     • Data: 10 States do not have SHRC chairpersons.

1. Functional Issues
   • Bureaucratic approach: NHRC although works with NGOs, is manned by bureaucrats, hence facing issues like delays, nexus etc.
   • Flaws in Investigating Machinery: NHRC does not have any mechanism of investigation. In majority cases, it asks the concerned Central and State Governments to investigate the cases of the violation of Human Rights.
   • Overburdened: There are far too many complaints. As a result, the NHRC has been finding it difficult to deal with the growing number of complaints in recent days.
     • Data: Around 40,000 cases were pending with NHRC in 2015.
   • Time Clause: A large number of grievances go unaddressed because NHRC cannot investigate the complaint registered after one year of incident.
   • Rejection: NHRC faces rejection of their recommendations through the government. In some cases, there may be partial compliance.
   • Non Applicability on Defence: The NHRC’s ambit does not include the armed forces or areas under AFSPA, thus removing a large scope for it to exercise its power.
2. Others:
   • Political Interference: Perceived as a post-retirement benefit post, and thus those favorable to the government are selected.
   • Flawed verification Process: NHRC first sends complaints to the police station, which sometimes refuses to take action in the first place. Hence, many of the complaints are simply dismissed.
   • Poor Cooperation by State governments: Unexplained delays, sub-quality reports, and illegible documents.

Performance of NHRC

1. Successful:
   • Record of NHRC: Cases are resolved within months & compensation is granted in 90% of cases. In the last 25 years, NHRC disposed of 17 lakh cases and paid more than Rs 1 billion to victims of human rights violations [NHRC].
   • Prison Reforms: Since 2006, NHRC has been monitoring the living conditions of prisoners and ensuring that they are guaranteed basic human rights.
   • Custodial Deaths: NHRC guidelines in 1997 mandate every custodial death and encounter killing be reported to it within 24 hours.
   • Starvation Deaths: This was the case of starvations in Koraput, Bolangir, and Kalahandi districts in Orissa. A team was sent to explore the prevailing conditions. Further, a special report was also appointed by NHRC to look after the relief.
   • Silicosis Deaths: NHRC gave directions to the governments of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat about this tragedy and asked for a factual report within four weeks. The commission also dispatched and sent a team from the investigation division for a spot inquiry.
   • During COVID-19: Recommended inclusion of sex workers under informal worker category to avail benefits. Ministry to issue temporary documents.
   • Recommendation on manual scavengers: NHRC made recommendations for the public authorities to deal with Manual Scavenging. E.g., deploy Police investigation officer and establish vigilance committee.
   • Rights of Refugees: NHRC has taken a stand for rights of Rohingyas, Chakmas, etc.
   • Polavaram Irrigation Project: Directed collector to act on the issue of demolition of 16 houses without settling Resettlement and rehabilitation package.
2. Failure: [Please mention these examples if Failures are asked directly]
   • AFSPA
   • Encounter killings: Eg – Vikas Dubey case.
   • Pending Cases: High case pendency and lack of proper implementation of advice and recommendations given by NHRC.
   • Instances of Rape, Riots, Mob lynching.
   • Critics:
     • Jurist-judge V.R. Krishna Iyer called it “the biggest post office in India” (forwarding complaints to the government and its replies to complainants).
     • Lawyer Rajeev Dhavan said it was “a mere showpiece to convince the world that the government is committed to human rights protection.”
     • Supreme court has called it a ‘toothless tiger’.

Protection of Human Rights (Amendments) Act, 2019

Provisions:

• Expanded membership: Chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), Chairperson of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities will be members of the Commission.
• Reduced Term: of Chairperson and members to 3 yrs from 5 yrs
• Inclusion of Women: Members with knowledge of human rights issues increased from 2 to 3, out of which one must be a woman
• Chairperson: Now, the chairperson could be a retired judge of the Supreme Court or CJI

Function and Powers [Static Information]

1. Functions:
   • Inquire:
     • Inquire into violation of human rights.
     • Intervene in any court case/pending case.
   • Visit: Jail and other centres under the state government.
   • Research, Review and Recommend: On the basis of the study of International treaties.
   • Spread awareness: Literacy about human rights and awareness of safeguards.
   • Encourage Civil groups: Efforts of NGOs and other civil society groups must also be encouraged to uphold human rights.
   • Report: to President who further presents it in Parliament.
2. Power:
   • Civil court: While investigating, it acts like a civil court.
   • Investigation: It has its own investigating staff.
   • Independence:
     • Appointment: Done on the basis of the recommendation of the select committee.
     • Tenure: 3 years or age 70 (latest amendment).

Way forward

• A.M Ahmadi Committee
  • Increase the time limit beyond 1 year.
  • Change the definition of ‘Armed forces’, such that it does not include paramilitary forces.
• Enforcement Powers: Its decisions should be made enforceable by the government.
• Armed forces: Commission should be allowed to independently investigate cases of violation of rights.
• Amending law: Misuse of laws by the law enforcing agencies is often the root cause of human right violations. So, the weakness of laws should be removed and those laws should be amended or repealed if they run contrary to human rights.
• Commission’s membership: Members of NHRCs should include civil society, human rights activists, etc. rather than ex-bureaucrats.
• Independent Staff: NHRC should have its independent investigating staff recruited by itself, rather than the present practice of deputation.
• Implementation: The government should help NHRC implement and enforce decisions and give them the freedom to function in a way that does not restrict them significantly, as there is a lack of time addressing the grievances.
• Reasons for rejection: The government must also state the reasons in Parliament for the rejection of recommendations given by NHRC.
  • Example: The government gives reasons for non-implementation of recommendations given by UPSC.
• Coordination mechanism: Mechanism for coordination between NHRC and state HRC on lines of Indian judiciary system ‘Integrated and independent’ should be established.

The situation of persistent human rights violations like custodial violence and mob lynching strengthens the need to improve, strengthen, and empower NHRC to make it work more efficiently and independently.

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES

The National Commission for Minorities is a statutory body that works for the development of the recognized minorities in India.

Legal Provision

National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992

• Defines minorities: The act defines a minority as “a community notified as such by the Central government.”
• Six religious minorities notified: The Government of India has declared six religions, namely, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis (Zoroastrians), and Jains as religious minorities in India.
• Establish NCM: Under this act, the government formed the National Commission for Minorities which consists of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, and five Members.
• Members: The five Members, including the Chairperson, shall be from amongst the minority communities.
• Work: The commission monitors the working of the safeguards provided in the Constitution and in laws enacted by Parliament and the State Legislatures.
• Makes recommendations: It also makes recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards for the protection of the interests of minorities by the Central Government or the State Governments.

Functions

• Evaluate progress: It evaluates the progress of the development of minorities under both central and state governments.
• Monitor working of laws: It monitors the working of the constitutional laws enacted for the welfare of minorities, both by central and state governments.
• Make recommendation for safeguards: It makes recommendations for the implementation of protective safeguards for the minorities.
• Complaint dispensation: It is the authorized body to look into complaints regarding the deprivation of the rights and safeguards of the minority communities.
• Study concerns: It initiates studies concerning minorities’ issues arising from discrimination.
• Research and analysis: It conducts studies, research, and analysis concerning issues related to the socio-economic and educational development of minorities.
• Making Special reports: To the central government or any matter pertaining to minorities, particularly the difficulties faced by them.
• Any other matter: Which may be referred to it by the Central Government.
• Observe Minority Day: Observes the Minorities Rights Day every year on 18th December, which marks the adoption of the “Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” by the United Nations in 1992.

Need of such Commission

• Ambiguity of constitution: The Constitution is unambiguous about the rights of individuals, and of certain groups and minorities.
• To uphold minorities’ rights: Success of pluralistic democracy lies in these rational and robust institutions which protect those rights, or give those abstract ideas shape on the ground.
• Protect democracy: Degree of autonomy with which organizations like the NCM, NCSC, NCST, or NCBC are able to function eventually decides how healthy a democracy is.
• Instil confidence in minorities: These are systems that allow for a healthy evaluation of the state of the nation, a forum for airing discontent, which ultimately strengthens the system, apart from allowing individuals to fully exercise their rights.

Issues and Challenges

1. Institutional
   • No constitutional status: It does not have a constitutional status; hence, it lacks the autonomy it needs to carry out its functions effectively.
   • Lack of transparency in appointment: No prescribed selection process for making appointments, with arbitrarily picking up of names from a list suggested by the nodal ministry.
   • Absence of constitutional power: It lacks power to conduct independent enquiries or investigations in cases of the transgression of minorities’ rights, and especially in cases of communal violence, rendering the Commission legally incapacitated to fulfill its duty.
   • Dependent on government: Functioning of NCM and also the operations of state minority commissions are dependent on central and state governments. Its entire work is dependent upon the goodwill of the government.
   • Lack Suo-moto power: It cannot take action itself to safeguard minorities.
2. Procedural/Administrative
   • Toothless tiger: The decision of the Commission can be overturned by the district and high courts.
   • Underutilization of technology: There is no real-time communication of schedules and appointments for hearings with the complainants, which results in wastage of time and money.
   • Lacks human resource: The Commission is unable to effectively fulfill its mandate when the key positions of Commission members remain vacant.
     • For example: The Commission mandated to conduct hearings is unable to process the numerous cases it receives.
   • No reports tabled: Sources said that reports have not been tabled in Parliament since 2010. Further, its recommendations are routinely rejected or simply filed away and forgotten.
   • Pressure on NCM: With ineffective State Finance Commissions, the pressure is borne by the NCM, which further reduces its efficiency.
   • Lack of research: Only a small proportion of the allocated budget of the Commission is spent in research activities.
   • Partisan representation: While in past appointments included former chief justices, civil servants, academicians etc., the recent appointees were mostly “social activists” with links to the ruling party.
   • Overlapping mandates: Growing number of commissions have overlapping mandates, thereby reducing the scope of NCM.
     • For example: The formation of the new Commission on Linguistic Minorities cut into the work of NCM, which was restricted to only religious minorities.

Pro-active role

• In December 1998, the NCM wrote to the Election Commission for preventing the use of words like “votebank”, “appeasement”, “concessions” in reference to Minorities in the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections.
• The 2011 Bharatpur communal riots, as well as the 2012 Bodo-Muslim clashes in Assam, were investigated by the commission and their findings were submitted to the government.

Way Forward

• Provide constitutional status: The Commission could be more effective if it has greater authority to conduct independent enquiries in cases of the transgression of rights of the minorities.
• Set baseline target to decrease pendency rate: To reduce pendency of cases at the organizational level, the Commission should set certain baseline targets related to the pendency rates.
• Staff assessment: At regular intervals, conducting a staffing needs assessment may be a useful solution to address the problem of vacant positions at the leadership level.
• Take feedback: NCM should develop a Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey for parties to anonymously provide feedback regarding how their appeal was processed, irrespective of the decision made.
• Technological upgrades: Including investment in more sophisticated information management systems could help reduce the pendency rates of cases in the Commission, such as e-hearing.

NCM should be given a constitutional status and should be allowed to inquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards of minorities, and to investigate and monitor all matters regarding safeguards provided for minorities under the Constitution or any law. To summarize, the National Commission for Minorities protects the constitutional and legal rights of minorities in the nation. The minorities are one of the communities on whom the constitution of India has made special safeguards so that they could preserve their religion, language, script, and culture, and this has been done by carving out an exception to the principle of equality and secularism.

CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION 

CVC was set up in 1964 on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. In 2003, CVC got statutory status through the CVC Act, 2003. It acts as the apex vigilance institution and the nodal agency to tackle corruption in India.

Role /Function/Power/Static Information

1. Inquiry against Corruption: Inquire into offences committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants.
2. Superintendence over CBI: As per Supreme Court in Vineet Narain & Others vs. Union of India (1997), CVC is given a supervisory role over CBI.
3. Nodal agency for Whistleblowers: CVC acts as a nodal agency to act on complaints by whistleblowers, on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office.
4. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Empowered CVC to conduct inquiry and investigation into complaints referred by the Lokpal.
5. Supervise other departments: They also supervise vigilance departments of government ministries. E.g., CVC blamed the RBI for the Punjab National Bank loan fraud.
6. Recommendation in Appointment: Recommends the appointment of Director of Enforcement and Director of Prosecution in the Central Bureau of Investigation.
7. Advise on Civil services: Government consults CVC before making rules governing the disciplinary matters relating to members of AIS or civil services.
8. Recommends Disciplinary action: It recommends disciplinary actions against higher officials of Group A, B, All India services etc.
9. Spreads awareness: Through vigilance week (includes Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s birth anniversary).
   • Take an Integrity Pledge by all government ministries and organizations.
   • Establish Integrity Clubs in schools and colleges.
   • Aware Gram Sabhas to sensitize rural citizens about the ill-effects of corruption.

Provisions for Independence of CVC [Static Information]

• Appointment: The President appoints CVC on recommendation by a three-member committee—PM, Minister of Home Affairs (MHA), and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
• Re-appointment Post Retirement: After they retire, they are NOT eligible for reappointment in any central or state government agency.
• Fixed tenure: Their term is 4 years or 65 years, whichever is earlier.
• Removal: Can be removed from office only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after a Supreme Court inquiry.
• Accountability to Parliament: CVC is NOT controlled by any Ministry/Department. It is an independent body responsible only to the Parliament.
• Independent Mechanism: Has its own Secretariat, Chief Technical Examiners’ Wing (CTE), and a wing of Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDI).

Challenges/Limitations of CVC

1. Appointment: Appointments to CVC are indirectly under the control of Govt of India, diminishing its independence.
2. Not an investigating agency: For investigation work, CVC depends on agencies like CBI.
3. Only advisory body: The decisions of the CVC are not binding on the organizations or ministries.
4. Limited Powers:
   • CVC cannot direct CBI to initiate inquiries against any officer of the level of Joint Secretary and above on its own, without permission from the concerned department.
   • CVC does not have powers to register a criminal case and deals only with vigilance or disciplinary cases.
   • The Commission has no jurisdiction over private individuals, organizations of the State Governments, ministers, and members of Parliament.
5. Overlap of jurisdiction: with CBI and Lokpal, leads to work duplication and reduces the effectiveness. 
6. Lack of human resources: With sanctioned staff strength of 299, it is supposed to check corruption in more than 1500 central government departments and ministries. 7. Delays: Huge delays and very low conviction rate.

Way forward

• Ensure Independence: of appointment, outside government influence.
• Role Clarification: to avoid conflict with various agencies like Lokpal, CBI, etc.
• Funds and Functionaries: CVC should not depend on government.

Strengthening CVC will help in improving vigilance, which in turn will tame corruption in India.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier investigating police agency in India. It is a non-statutory body, deriving its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

Functions/Role

It takes up the following cases:

• Economic Crimes: for investigation of major financial scams and serious economic frauds, including crimes relating to Fake Indian Currency Notes, Bank Frauds, etc.
• Anti-Corruption Crimes: for investigation of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act against public officials, Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations, or Bodies owned or controlled by the Government of India.
• Suo Moto Cases: CBI can suo-moto take up the investigation of offences only in the Union Territories.
• Special Cases:
  • The Central Government can authorize CBI to investigate a crime in a State but only with the consent of the concerned State Government.
  • The Supreme Court and High Courts, however, can order CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the State.
• National Central Bureau of Interpol in India: It is the nodal police agency to coordinate investigation with respect to Interpol.
• Data management: It maintains crime statistics and disseminates criminal information.

Issues/Challenges related to CBI

1. Independence:

• Political Interference: The Supreme Court of India has criticized the CBI by calling it a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice,” due to excessive political interference in its functioning.
• Wrong use of Powers: It has often been used by the government of the day to cover up wrongdoing, keep coalition allies in line, and political opponents at bay.
• Lack of financial autonomy: CBI depends on the government for its financial needs.
• Direct involvement of government in deputing staff: The CBI, run by IPS officers on deputation, is also vulnerable to the government’s ability to manipulate the senior officers because they are dependent on the Central government for future postings.

2. Function:

• Limited autonomy: It is dependent on general consent given by the state. Recently, states like Andhra Pradesh (consent is again given after change of government in-state) and West Bengal withdrew consent.
• Lack of Accountability: CBI is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information Act, thus, lacking public accountability.
• Restricted Access: Prior approval of the Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation on the employees of the Central Government, of the level of Joint Secretary and above, is a significant obstacle in combating corruption.
• Overlapping jurisdiction: CVC, DoPT, and Lokpal all have control over CBI.

3. Functionaries:

• Lack of own cadre: Dependent on IPS deputation. The agency relies on the home ministry for staffing since many of its investigators come from the Indian Police Service.
• Appointment of Director: Though as per the CVC Act 2003, provisions like 2-year tenure are in place, there has been a recent tussle over it, negatively impacting the credibility of the organization.
• Insufficient manpower: Government’s austerity measures, lengthy recruitment procedures, and the need for multiple clearances contribute to acute manpower shortages in CBI.

4. Performance:

• Conviction rate: In corruption cases, the conviction rate is less than 3%.
• Mismanagement: There has been significant mismanagement in crucial cases like Bofors, Aarushi Talwar, etc.
• Delay: There have been delays in investigations in cases, e.g., Jain Hawala diaries case (1990).
• Loss of Credibility: The agency has been criticized for its mismanagement of several cases involving prominent politicians and mishandling of sensitive cases like the Hawala scandal, Sant Singh Chatwal case, Bhopal gas tragedy, etc.

Issue of State’s Consent to CBI

1. Police as state subject: Since police is a State subject under the Constitution, and the CBI acts as per the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the CBI needs the consent of the State government in question before it can make its presence in that State.
2. Withdrawal of Consent: Recently, states like Andhra Pradesh (consent is again given after change of government in-state) and West Bengal withdrew consent. As per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, state governments can withdraw the general consent accorded.
3. There are two kinds of consent:
   • Case-specific Consent: CBI has jurisdiction only over central government employees. It can investigate a case against state government employees only after that particular state government gives its consent.
   • General Consent: This consent is provided to help CBI easily perform its investigation into cases of corruption against central government employees in the concerned state. Almost all states have given such consent. Otherwise, the bureau would need consent in all cases.
4. Other Provisions after removal of consent:
   • The CBI would still have the authority to probe old cases registered when general consent existed.
   • Cases registered elsewhere in India but involving people stationed in states that have withdrawn consent would still allow CBI’s jurisdiction to extend to those states.
   • Withdrawal of consent will only bar the CBI from registering a case within the jurisdiction of states that have withdrawn consent. However, the CBI could still file cases in Delhi and continue to investigate individuals in such states.
   • Recently, the Supreme Court held that once a court takes cognizance of a corruption case investigated by the CBI, it cannot be set aside for lack of the State government’s prior consent.

Way Forward

1. Statutory status: The 2nd ARC, L.P. Singh committee, and various parliamentary standing committees have called for replacing the DSPE Act with a comprehensive and exclusive law to empower CBI.
2. Delink the CBI from the administrative control of the government: As long as the government has the power to transfer and post officials of its choice in the CBI, the investigating agency will not enjoy autonomy and will be unable to investigate cases freely.
3. CBI Director Appointment: It should be done through a collegium, as recommended by the Lokpal Act.
4. Financial Autonomy: The government must ensure financial autonomy for the agency.
5. Own Cadre of Officers: One demand that has been before the Supreme Court, and in line with international best practices, is for the CBI to develop its own dedicated cadre of officers who are not affected by deputation and abrupt transfers.
6. Recruitment through UPSC: Direct recruitment through UPSC can be resumed.
7. More autonomy: Empower CBI to fix its accountability only to Parliament, like the CAG.
8. USA FBI model: The local police give up its power when the FBI steps in for an investigation.
9. Convergence: Bring the Anti-Corruption wing of both CVC and CBI under Lokpal.
10. Supreme Court guidelines in Vineet Narain case:

• Establish a nodal agency for dealing with the political-criminal-bureaucratic nexus.
• CBI should submit its work report every 3 months.
• Establishment of a directorate of prosecution.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

The Central Information Commission is a statutory body, set up under the Right to Information Act in 2005 to act upon complaints from individuals who have not been able to submit or obtain information under the RTI Act.

Role/Functions/Powers

• Inquiry: The CIC can inquire on issues of non-compliance with the terms of the RTI if there are reasonable grounds.
• Powers of Civil Court: The CIC, while inquiring into any matter under this section, has the same powers as a civil court.
• Summon Records: The commission has the power to examine any record under the control of the public authority.
• Regulatory: Ensures compliance with its decisions by any public authority.
• Penal: The CIC can impose a penalty until the application is received or information is furnished in cases of information refusal or complaints.

• Disciplinary Action: In the event of refusal or gross negligence of duty, it can recommend disciplinary action against the Information Officers.
• Empowers RTI: The RTI act is essentially weak without the enforcement and protection offered to it by the CIC and state information officers.
• Protects Citizen Participation: Without the CIC, citizens are prone to refusals to furnish information on the part of state agencies.
• Deters opaqueness: Since information can be obtained with the intervention of CIC in cases, authorities are deterred from opaqueness in their functioning.

Right to Information Amendment Act 2019 [Covered under RTI, Governance]

Current Provisions To Ensure Independence

• Appointment: Appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister as Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
• Removal: Removal is done by the president on grounds of bankruptcy, unsound mind, infirmity of body or mind, sentenced to imprisonment for a crime, or engaging in paid employment. He can also be removed for proven misbehavior or incapacity if an SC inquiry finds him guilty. They can resign by writing to the president.
• Reappointment: No reappointment provisions, hence independence is ensured.

Issues

1. Lack of independence:
   • Tenure: The new amendment reduced the tenure from 5 to 3 years.
   • Salary: Earlier it was akin to the Election Commission; now the Central government will have the power to decide for both the centre and states.
   • Pensions: Rule 22 gives discretionary powers to the Centre. The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPR) raises concerns that the government uses this to determine different tenures for different commissioners at the time of appointment as a means to exercise control and influence.
   • Terms of service: Decided by the Central government.
   • Delay and Ignorance in Appointments: In the first nine years since it was formed in 2005, the CIC was headless for only 10 days. Since 2014, it has gone headless for 464 days.
   • Administration heavy body: The RTI Act envisages the appointment of individuals with eminence in different fields: management, science and technology, media, social service, administration, governance. However, 90% of information commissioners, in the Centre and states, are former government officers.
2. Dismal Performance: Report by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan and the Centre for Equity Studies states:
   • Unavailability during Covid-19 lockdown: Out of the total 29 ICs studied, 21 were not holding any hearings. Even the websites of many ICs, like Bihar, were inaccessible.
   • Pendency in cases: More than 3.75 lakh.
   • Delays and Backlogs: On average, the CIC takes 388 days to dispose of an appeal/complaint from the date of filing.
   • Poor Penalties: Government officials face hardly any punishment for violating the law.
3. Other Issues:
   • Absence of Centralised Database: There is no centralized database of RTI applicants at the centre/state level, resulting in decreased accuracy of the annual RTI reports.
   • Lethargic attitude of Public authorities and PIO: To harness information on demand of CIC.

Way Forward:

• Proper Appointments: There must not be vacancies at the state and centre level, and appointments must be done properly.
• Proactive disclosure: Public bodies must be more proactive in information disclosure and cooperate when summoned for information.
• Funds and Functionaries: The amendment act should not put any financial disadvantage to the body and its officers.
• Case redressal: The body must focus more on effective case redressal rather than case disposal.
• Prioritization of cases: Deal with information related to life and liberty.
• Digitalisation: Should be done on a priority basis.

If you strengthen the CIC, you strengthen RTI.

LOKPAL & LOKAYUKTAS

‘India against corruption’ led public movement for a Jan Lokpal led to the enactment of ‘Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013’. It established the institutional mechanism of Lokpal for the union and Lokayukta for the state to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries. The idea of such a mechanism was first mooted in the 1st ARC report in 1966.

Importance/Need for Lokpal

• Anti-corruption ombudsman: To holistically combat the menace of corruption, an independent and specialized institution is established.
• Citizen empowerment: Citizens can directly file cases against a wide range of public servants.
• Confusion and overlap of functions by existing bodies: CBI, CVC, and state agencies all deal with corruption cases.
• Lack of accountability and transparency: The erosion of public trust needs to be addressed through a robust mechanism.
• Lack of an independent anti-corruption agency: Most anti-corruption agencies are not independent. Even the Supreme Court has termed CBI as a “caged parrot” and “its master’s voice”.
• Lack of agencies with actual powers: Many of these agencies are advisory bodies without any effective powers, and their advice is rarely followed.

Powers of Lokpal

1. Power of superintendence and direction: Over any investigation agency including CBI for cases referred to them by Lokpal.
2. Attachment and confiscation of property: Of public servants, even while prosecution is pending.
3. Jurisdiction:
   • Public servants: All public servants from Group A to D, including the Prime Minister.
   • Foreign contribution regulation act (FCRA): Covers all entities receiving donations from foreign sources in excess of Rs. 10 lacs per year.
   • Officials of any organisation: Established by an act of parliament or wholly or partly funded by the centre.
4. Independence:
   • Appointment: It is a two-stage process comprising a search committee and selection committee.
   • No post-retirement opportunities.

Structure of Lokpal

• Multi-member body: Composed of one chairperson and a maximum of eight members.
• Members: Minimum 50% of members will be from SC/ST/OBC/minorities and women.
• Chairperson: Should be either a former Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, or an eminent person with a minimum of 25 years in matters related to anti-corruption.
• Tenure: 5 years or until attaining the age of 70 years.

Challenges in Lokpal

1. Design issues
   • Conditions on investigation of Prime Minister: Exception on inquiry for matters concerning international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy, and space.
   • Exclusion of Judiciary: Judiciary is excluded from the ambit of the act, so corruption charges against judges cannot be investigated.
   • Investigation Agency: The Lokpal does not have its own investigation agency and relies on other agencies, which are often alleged to be partial.
   • Time period: Complaints against corruption cannot be registered after 7 years from the occurrence. Thus, corruption acts discovered after 7 years cannot be investigated.
   • Selection process: The selection process is skewed due to the lack of guidelines for defining who qualifies as an “eminent jurist” or “a person of integrity.”
   • Appeal provisions: There are no proper procedures for appealing against Lokpal’s actions.
   • No Suo Motu power: Lokpal cannot initiate cases independently, unlike other bodies such as NHRC, NCSC/ST, NCW, etc.
2. Implementational issues
   • Complaints: Anonymous complaints are not entertained, deterring individuals who fear powerful figures from coming forward.
   • No Constitutional status: Lokpal lacks constitutional backing, equating it with other statutory bodies.
   • Appointment issues: The appointing committee includes political party representatives who may attempt to influence decisions.
   • Delayed appointment: The absence of a leader of the opposition in the house delays appointments as this role is essential for completing the selection committee.
   • No rules prescribing the form: The central government has not yet created rules for filing complaints to Lokpal. There is no legal foundation for Lokpal’s rulings or effective contesting methods.
   • Vacant positions: Positions such as the Director of Inquiry or prosecution have not been filled.
   • Lack of protection for whistleblowers: The 2013 act did not provide strong immunity for whistleblowers. The provision for initiating inquiries against complainants if the accused is found innocent may deter individuals from reporting corruption.

Challenges in Lokayukta

1. Appointment: Many states, such as Karnataka, have not made appointments.
2. Regional variation: States have the discretion to finalize details regarding Lokayuktas.
   • Qualifications: No specific qualifications are prescribed in states like Bihar, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan.
   • Structural variations: The structure of the Lokayukta varies across states, with no uniformity regarding its jurisdiction.
   • There are still other states like Punjab and Orissa that have designated officials as Lokpal. This pattern was not suggested by the ARC in the states. Similar variations exist in jurisdiction and Suo Motu powers.

Way forward

• Constitutional status: To make it independent of political intervention.
• Financial autonomy: The salaries should be charged on the consolidated fund of India.
• Functional autonomy: The investigation under these cases should be completed by a competent, independent authority.
• Suo-Motu powers: The Lokpal and Lokayukta should have Suo Motu power.
• Protection to whistle-blower: This was also a demand in the Jan Lokpal Bill.
• Uniform law for Lokayukta: To ensure overall parity.

To improve India’s ranking in the corruption perception index from the current rank of 80, the government must demonstrate greater willpower and work on the smooth functioning of the Lokpal and Lokayukta. Appointing the Lokpal is not the ultimate solution; instead, the government should focus on eliminating the root causes prompting the public to demand a Lokpal.

NITI AAYOG

NITI Aayog is the premier policy ‘Think Tank’ of the Government of India, providing both directional and policy inputs. It’s an executive body. NITI Aayog is a state-of-the-art resource centre with the necessary resources, knowledge, and skills that enable it to act with speed, promote research and innovation, provide strategic policy vision for the government, and handle contingent issues.

Background:

• Planning in India has historically been influenced by the socialist framework of the former USSR. The Planning Commission functioned as the planning apparatus for nearly six decades, with a control and command approach.
• In January 2015, the Government replaced the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India).

Structure:

• Chairperson: Prime Minister
• Vice-Chairperson: Appointed by the Prime Minister
• Governing Council: Chief Ministers of all states and Lt. Governors of Union Territories
• Regional Council: Addresses specific regional issues, comprising Chief Ministers and Lt. Governors, chaired by the Prime Minister or a nominee.
• Ad hoc Membership: Two members in ex-officio capacity from leading research institutions on a rotational basis.
• Ex-officio membership: Up to four members from the Union Council of Ministers, nominated by the Prime Minister.
• Chief Executive Officer: Appointed by the Prime Minister for a fixed tenure, with the rank of Secretary to the Government of India.
• Special Invitees: Experts and specialists with domain knowledge, nominated by the Prime Minister.

Features of NITI Aayog:

1. NITI Aayog’s activities can be broadly divided into four main categories:

• Design Policy & Programme Framework
• Foster Cooperative Federalism
• Monitoring & Evaluation
• Think Tank and Knowledge & Innovation Hub

2. Objectives:

• Foster cooperative federalism: Through structured support initiatives and bottom-up approach mechanisms with the States on a continuous basis, it creates a strong nation. It develops mechanisms to formulate credible plans at the village level and aggregate these progressively at higher levels of government.
• Foster competitive federalism: States compete with each other to attract funds and investments from the Union Government, facilitating efficiency in administration, social infrastructure within the State, and enhancing developmental activities. Investors prefer more developed states for investing their money.
  • NITI Aayog regularly publishes reports ranking states based on progress, such as the water performance index, health performance index, and education performance index.
• Special attention to marginalized: Focus on sections of society that may not benefit adequately from economic progress.
• Partnerships with National & International stakeholders: Provide advice and encourage partnerships between key stakeholders, national and international think tanks, and policy research institutions.
• Support through experts: Create a knowledge, innovation, and entrepreneurial support system through collaboration with experts, practitioners, and other partners.
• Maintain national security: Ensure that national security interests are incorporated into economic strategies and policies.
• Platform for resolution of issues: Offer a platform for resolving inter-sectoral and inter-departmental issues to accelerate the development agenda’s implementation.
• State-of-the-art Centre: Maintain a resource center for research on good governance and best practices in sustainable development and disseminate this information to stakeholders.

NITI Aayog – Achievements: 

The 2019-20 report highlights NITI Aayog’s achievements:

1. Agriculture:
   • Zero Budget Natural Farming: Promotes chemical-free agriculture.
   • Ensuring Minimum Support Price (MSP): PM-AASHA scheme.
   • Agricultural Reforms: Aimed at doubling farmers’ income.
2. Poverty Alleviation:
   • POSHAN Abhiyaan: Launched by the Ministry of Women & Child Development to reduce stunting, undernutrition, anemia, and low birth weight.
   • Performance and ranking states on outcomes in critical sectors: Includes the SDG Index of India.
3. Digital Payment:
   • BHIM App: Launched by NPCI, enabling real-time fund transfers.
4. Financial Inclusion:
   • Jan Dhan App: Integrates the poorest of the poor with bank accounts.

1. Health:
   • Public-Private Partnership in Health.
2. Skill Development:
   • Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital (SATH): Focused on consolidating and rationalizing schools.

NITI Aayog Hubs:

1. Team India Hub: Acts as an interface between States and the Centre.
2. Knowledge and Innovation Hub: Builds the think-tank acumen of NITI Aayog.
   • The Aayog planned to come out with three documents — a 3-year action agenda, a 7-year medium-term strategy paper, and a 15-year vision document.

Advantages:

• Cooperative federalism: Due to its composition, NITI Aayog provides better representation of States, facilitating direct interactions with ministries and addressing issues more promptly.
• Competitive Federalism: Reports such as Healthy States, Progressive India foster a spirit of competition with performance-based state rankings.
• Greater Accountability: Establishes a Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office to collect data on ministry performance in real time.
• Think tank of innovative ideas: Serves as a funnel through which ideas from industry, academia, civil society, and foreign experts enter the government system for implementation.
• Progress with new ideas: Collects and shares fresh ideas, helping states improve governance and implement innovative public service measures.
• Convergence for resolution: Acts as a common platform for similar issues faced by different sectors, enabling discussion and resolution.
• Enthusiasm: Introduces new hope and enthusiasm; recent efforts show an increase in planning and brainstorming for development.
• Flexibility: Unlike the 5-year plans of the Planning Commission, NITI Aayog introduced a 15-year vision document and 7-year mid-term goals with periodic reviews and amendments.

Challenges:

• Expectations: High expectations for immediate change, especially from those accustomed to older institutions.
• Too many voices: Large membership including ministers, experts, and state officials can make consensus difficult.
• Against Federalism: Dismantling the Planning Commission without state consultation is viewed as anti-federal.
• Non-Responsibility: Like the Planning Commission, NITI Aayog is non-constitutional and not answerable to Parliament.
• Financial Independence is under Question: Relies on the Finance Ministry for resource allocation, with no state input, challenging federal principles.
• Biases towards govt & private sector: Should maintain intellectual distance from government influence to remain neutral.

• Lack of decentralization power: One of the envisaged goals of NITI Aayog was to develop mechanisms to formulate credible plans at the village level and aggregate these progressively at the higher level.
• Missed opportunities for transformative change: The body has missed some opportunities to make a qualitative difference.
• Inadequate support to the states.

Way Forward:

• Functions in close cooperation and coordination: NITI Aayog functions in close cooperation and coordination with the states and other ministries for effective planning and execution of assigned tasks. This needs to be effectively implemented, and close coordination is always taken into consideration while making plans in the future.
• Priority to be given by Centre and State: NITI Aayog makes recommendations on various issues to the central and state governments. The Central and State governments need to give priority to the implementation of the reports submitted by the NITI Aayog.
• Decentralized Planning: A more decentralized approach to planning is required within the five-year plan format.
• NITI Aayog as an agent of change: NITI Aayog should act as an agent of change and support the government’s agenda for the overall development of the country.
• Obsolete one-size-fits-all approach: This approach to economic planning is obsolete and cannot make India competitive in today’s global economy.
• Clear Understanding of policy: To emphasize its role in policy formulation, NITI Aayog needs to prioritize with a clear understanding of the difference between policy, planning, and strategy.
• Needs Freedom: NITI Aayog must build trust and confidence beyond the Planning Commission. It requires various budgetary freedoms, not just in terms of plan and non-plan expenditures but with revenue and capital expenditure to address infrastructural deficits at all operational levels in the economy.

Suggesting Solutions to the problems of NITI Aayog:

• Balancing with the Finance Commission: NITI Aayog should be given a funding role to help with development experiences between states.
• Convert the Finance Commission into a permanent body: This body could oversee fiscal transfer mechanisms rather than issuing tax-sharing formulas every five years.
• Increasing accountability: Bureaucracy must shift from generalists to specialists, and accountability should be based on outcomes, not just inputs or funds spent. NITI Aayog should outline the implementation of these reforms.
• Allocation of more funds: NITI Aayog 2.0 should receive significant resources (e.g., 1%-2% of the GDP) to promote accelerated growth in lagging states and address infrastructure deficits, reducing developmental imbalances.
• More stakeholder involvement: The body should invite research inputs and expert recommendations, synthesizing findings based on empirical research to cut costs and time and improve policy inputs.

Reports published by NITI Aayog: 

SDG India Index, Composite Water Management Index, Atal Innovation Mission, SATH programme, Aspirational District Programme, School Education Quality Index, District Hospital Index, Health Index 2019 (Healthy states, progressive India), Composite Health Index, Digital Transformation Index, Agriculture Marketing and Farmer-Friendly Reform Index, India Innovation Index, Women Entrepreneurship Platform, Good Governance Index (in collaboration with other agencies).

DELIMITATION COMMISSION

The objective is to provide equal representation for equal population segments and a fair division of geographical areas so that no political party has an advantage. The Delimitation Commission’s orders cannot be questioned before any court.

Constitutional/Legal Provisions

• Article 82 states that the Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act after every Census.
• Article 170 states that States also get demarcated into territorial constituencies as per the Delimitation Act after every Census.
• Delimitation Commission Act 2002: An Act to provide for the readjustment of the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States, and the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State.

Functions

• Demarcation: Determines the boundaries and geographical composition of constituencies represented in the houses of Parliament and state assemblies.
• Representation: Determines representation to be given to SC/ST populations in a region.
• Constituency Formations: Determines the number and boundaries of constituencies to make the population of all constituencies nearly equal.

Need/Importance

• Reflecting Current Demography: Required to reflect the current demographic reality and update the constituency structure.
• Representation: Constituents have increased, making it difficult to represent large populations effectively with the current structure.
• New States: New states and union territories formed since the last delimitation require updated constituency boundaries.

Issues/Challenges

• Family Planning Concerns: States that have effectively implemented family planning may lose representation due to reduced population growth.
• Loss of Seats: States that led in population control face the potential reduction of their number of seats.
• Underrepresentation: The delimitation of 2008 was based on the 2001 census, while seat allocation was still based on the 1971 census, leading to discrepancies.
• Increase in Parliamentary Expenditure: More legislators necessitate higher parliamentary budgets and infrastructure.
• Strain on Proceedings: Increased numbers of legislators may result in longer parliamentary sittings and potential delays.
• South-North Issues: The freeze on seat allocation benefits northern states with higher population growth, disadvantaging southern states that implemented effective family planning.
• North-East Concerns: The 2008 delimitation excluded Arunachal, Manipur, Assam, and Nagaland due to concerns over the use of the 2001 Census data.
• Kashmir Issue: Redrawing assembly boundaries in Jammu and Kashmir is a complex issue, not just a matter of arithmetic, complicated further by issues like illegal migration.

Delimitation issue in North East

• Legality: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 states that delimitation in the four northeastern states falls under the Election Commission’s remit. Thus, the Centre’s notification of a separate Delimitation Commission was unnecessary.
• Hurts tribal interests: Tribal communities feared changes in the seat composition reserved for them, impacting electoral interests.
• Wastage of public funds: Any exercise by a new Delimitation Commission could be voided by the courts, leading to significant financial loss.

J & K Delimitation Panel Report

1. J&K is split into two divisions: The final draft earmarked six new Assembly seats for Jammu (increasing it to 43) and one for Kashmir (revised to 47), raising the total seats in the Union Territory from 83 to 90.
2. Nominate at least two Kashmiri Pandits: The Commission recommended nominating at least two Kashmiri Pandits to the Legislative Assembly.
3. Reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes (STs): Nine seats were proposed for STs—six in Jammu (e.g., Budhal, Gulabgarh, Surankote, Rajouri, Mendhar, Thanamandi) and three in Kashmir (e.g., Gurez, Kangan, Kokernag).
4. Reserved seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs): Seven seats reserved in the Jammu region.
5. Representation for displaced persons from POK: The Commission suggested Assembly representation for displaced individuals from Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
6. Unified Jammu & Kashmir region: Rajouri and Poonch (Jammu division) merged with Anantnag (Kashmir region), forming the Kishtwar-Rajouri constituency.
7. Renamed 13 constituencies for public sentiment: Constituencies were renamed to reflect public sentiment, such as restoring names like Gulmarg (from Tangmarg) and Hazratbal.
8. Added seven more Assembly seats: Jammu, with 43% of the population (53 lakh), will hold 47% of the seats; Kashmir, with 56% (68 lakh), will hold 52%.

Need for delimitation of J & K

• Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019: This Act changed the constituency boundaries, necessitating redrawing.
• Restarting democratic processes: Essential for resuming elections and political activities.

Issues associated with delimitation of J & K

1. Delimitation not aligned with population: The commission cited factors like topography and accessibility, not just population size.
   • Example: Kashmir’s population (68.88 lakh) is higher than Jammu’s (53.50 lakh).
2. Constitutionality of reorganisation: The Act has faced challenges as “palpably unconstitutional” and is under Supreme Court review.
3. Arbitrary process: Critics have also questioned the formula applied in the case of J&K by the commission and termed the Commission’s report as an arbitrary overhaul, disregarding terrain or population as basic parameters for redrawing the boundaries.

Way Forward

• Frequency: Conduct delimitation exercises after every census to ensure changes are manageable and not extensive, which can become difficult to accommodate later.
• Differentiated Weightage: Explore other bases for representation, such as policy implementation, population control, and addressing underrepresentation.
• Proactive approach: Although 2026 is still a few years away, starting a debate now on how to handle potential issues will prevent the postponement of the lifting of the freeze, as happened in 2001.

Delimitation has become essential today due to population growth in various states and the need to reflect federal changes in India. It must also accommodate the concerns of all states, particularly those that have effectively implemented population control methods.