Day 11 Mains Questions – Ace Answer Writing Program

Question 1: “The Indian model of separation of powers is more flexible compared to the strict model followed in countries like the USA.” Critically analyse this statement with suitable examples. (10 Marks, 150 words)

Introduction

The Indian Constitution adopts a flexible separation of powers, unlike the rigid model in the USA, allowing overlapping functions among the executive, legislature, and judiciary (Articles 50, 122, 123).

Body

Flexibility in the Indian Model –

1. Judicial Activism: Indian judiciary often steps into legislative and executive domains [e.g., Vishaka Guidelines].
2. Ordinance Power: The executive can legislate through ordinances during Parliament’s recess [e.g., Article 123].
3. Delegated Legislation: The legislature delegates certain powers to the executive [e.g., administrative rules].
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The executive is accountable to the legislature through mechanisms like Question Hour [e.g., parliamentary questions].
5. Judicial Review: The judiciary reviews laws and executive actions for constitutionality [e.g., Kesavananda Bharati case].

Comparison with the USA –

1. Strict Separation: The USA follows a more rigid separation of powers with clear boundaries [e.g., Presidential veto].
2. Independent Judiciary: The US judiciary operates independently without legislative interference [e.g., Marbury v. Madison].
3. Executive Orders: US Presidents issue executive orders within defined limits [e.g., DACA policy].
4. Congressional Authority: The US Congress has exclusive legislative powers without executive encroachment [e.g., power of the purse].
5. Impeachment Process: The US system has a distinct impeachment process for executive accountability [e.g., Nixon’s resignation].

Conclusion

The flexible separation of powers in India allows for efficient governance and adaptability, whereas the US model maintains strict boundaries to prevent overreach. This flexibility in India promotes dynamic interaction among branches, enhancing governance.

Additional Data –

• Committees: Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations discussed balance of power [e.g., recommendations on federal structure].
• Examples: Supreme Court’s role in policy-making [e.g., environmental regulations].
• Examples: Legislative control over the executive [e.g., Budget sessions, no-confidence motions].

Question 2: Compare the mechanisms for judicial appointments in India and the UK. What lessons can India draw from the UK system to enhance judicial independence and accountability? (10 Marks, 150 words)

Introduction

Judicial appointments in India and the UK involve distinct mechanisms, with India’s system outlined in Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, and the UK’s process governed by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

Body

Mechanisms in India –

1. Collegium System: Senior judges recommend appointments [e.g., Supreme Court, High Courts].
2. Executive Role: The President appoints judges based on the collegium’s recommendations [e.g., Articles 124(2) and 217].
3. Lack of Transparency: Collegium decisions often lack transparency and formal criteria [e.g., closed-door deliberations].
4. Judicial Independence: Aimed at protecting judiciary from executive influence [e.g., Second Judges Case].
5. Limited Accountability: Collegium system criticized for insufficient accountability [e.g., public criticism, lack of oversight].

Mechanisms in the UK –

1. Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC): Independent body selects judges [e.g., merit-based selection].
2. Transparent Process: Clear criteria and open applications enhance transparency [e.g., published selection criteria].
3. Executive and Legislative Oversight: Appointments reviewed by the Lord Chancellor and Parliament [e.g., checks and balances].
4. Diverse Representation: Efforts to promote diversity in the judiciary [e.g., gender, ethnicity].
5. Public Confidence: Transparent and accountable process boosts public trust [e.g., annual reports, public scrutiny].

Lessons for India –

1. Transparency: Implement transparent criteria and processes for appointments [e.g., public disclosure of selection criteria].
2. Independent Body: Consider an independent body like the JAC to recommend appointments [e.g., reducing executive influence].
3. Merit-based Selection: Emphasize merit and diversity in selections [e.g., broader representation].
4. Accountability Mechanisms: Strengthen accountability through oversight and reviews [e.g., parliamentary scrutiny].
5. Public Trust: Enhance public confidence through open and transparent processes [e.g., regular reports, stakeholder consultations].

Conclusion

Adopting elements from the UK’s judicial appointment system, such as transparency, an independent commission, and merit-based selection, can enhance judicial independence and accountability in India. This approach would strengthen the judiciary’s integrity and public trust.

Additional Data –

• Committees: Law Commission of India has recommended reforms in judicial appointments [e.g., 214th Report].
• Examples: UK’s JAC model praised for transparency and accountability [e.g., annual performance reports].
• Examples: Indian judiciary’s push for reforms in the appointment process [e.g., National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) proposal].

Question 3: Evaluate the effectiveness of India’s inter-state dispute resolution mechanisms in comparison to federal systems like Canada or Australia. Suggest measures for improvement. (15 Marks, 250 words)

Introduction

Inter-state dispute resolution in India, governed by Articles 262 and 263 of the Constitution, aims to address conflicts between states, such as those over water resources and boundaries.

Body

India’s Mechanisms –

1. Inter-State Council: Established for discussing and resolving disputes [e.g., Article 263, Sarkaria Commission].
2. Water Disputes Tribunals: Constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 [e.g., Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal].
3. Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Adjudicates disputes between states [e.g., Article 131, original jurisdiction].
4. Advisory Role: The President can refer inter-state disputes to the Supreme Court for advisory opinions [e.g., Article 143].
5. Inter-Governmental Negotiations: States often engage in direct negotiations mediated by the Centre [e.g., Narmada River dispute].

Comparison with Canada and Australia –

1. Canada’s Dispute Resolution: Utilizes the Supreme Court and inter-governmental negotiations for resolving disputes [e.g., federal-provincial conferences].
2. Council of Australian Governments (COAG): Facilitates inter-state and federal-state cooperation and dispute resolution [e.g., COAG meetings].
3. Federal Court of Australia: Handles inter-state disputes with binding decisions [e.g., original jurisdiction].
4. Collaborative Approach: Both Canada and Australia emphasize collaborative federalism and regular consultations [e.g., premiers’ meetings].
5. Effective Mediation: Institutional mechanisms in Canada and Australia provide structured mediation and arbitration [e.g., National Water Initiative in Australia].

Measures for Improvement in India –

1. Strengthening Inter-State Council: Regular meetings and a stronger mandate for dispute resolution [e.g., frequent consultations].
2. Permanent Water Tribunals: Establishing permanent bodies for water disputes to expedite resolution [e.g., continuous monitoring].
3. Enhanced Mediation: Developing robust mediation mechanisms with neutral third-party involvement [e.g., professional mediators].
4. Legal Reforms: Amending laws to provide clearer guidelines and faster dispute resolution processes [e.g., revised timelines].
5. Data Sharing: Improving data transparency and sharing among states to build trust and informed decision-making [e.g., centralized data repositories].

Conclusion

While India’s inter-state dispute resolution mechanisms have achieved some success, adopting practices from federal systems like Canada and Australia can enhance their effectiveness. Strengthening institutional frameworks and promoting cooperative federalism are key to resolving inter-state disputes efficiently.

Additional Data –

• Committees: Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations recommended enhancing the Inter-State Council’s role.
• Examples: Successful resolution of the Godavari Water Dispute through tribunals.
• Examples: Canada’s Supreme Court role in federal-provincial disputes, Australia’s COAG initiatives.