Latest news with #42ndAmendment
New Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Will delaying national census to 2027 trigger delimitation?
In the increasingly fragile centre-state relations, the national census of 2027 promises to be a Thug Life teaser. The stodgy federal system has resigned itself to the fate of a faceless clown in the circus as double-engine 'sarkars' across the country vow to power state economies. In the post-GST era, the state governments, those who do not fall in the double-engine category, continue to reel under a severe fund crunch, with no respite in sight, while others wallow in excessive central aid! Then, there is cultural, linguistic, and social hegemony that you are subject to. Regional identities and languages are under constant threat. The ASI sits indefinitely on archaeological truth dug from the past. Yet, the onus is on the state to salvage the collapsing federal structure! The big boots of central probe agencies have efficaciously stifled many a regional voice. Relentless ED, CBI, and I-T raids have stamped out many in the name of 'corruption'. Some are on a forced sabbatical; others have feigned ignorance of the lurking dangers around. MK Stalin has happily seized the opportunity to pose some uncomfortable questions. While fighting AIADMK, his party's direct political rival now in an uneasy alliance with the BJP, Stalin is vying for a return to power in 2026. Not the national census, but its delay has handed Stalin another political delicacy on a platter. What makes it intriguing is the 'deliberate deferment' of the census to 2027, a year after the 42nd Amendment's freeze, which was designed to avoid penalising states (read southern states) with effective family planning and population control, expires in 2026. Unless there is a change initiated, the Constitution demands delimitation (the process of redrawing parliamentary and assembly constituency boundaries as per population data) based on the first census after 2026.
India Gazette
27-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Vice President emphasises indigenous strength, says
New Delhi [India], May 27 (ANI): Emphasising that India needs indigenous strength for national security, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar said on Tuesday that war is best avoided from a position of strength. Speaking at the inaugural session of Rajya Sabha Internship Program-phase 7, the Vice President said that Operation Sindoor has changed the mindset of people massively with regard to national security, national economy and national welfare. 'We are now nationalistic as never before,' he said. 'The recent episode, Operation Sindoor, has changed our mindset massively. We are now nationalistic as never before. And this is reflected in participation of all political landscape in delegations that have gone abroad to project our message of peace and our complete intolerance to terrorism. And therefore, having seen recent events, well, we have no choice. We have no other option but to remain united and grow stronger,' he said. 'Like institutions, even political tribes have a moral duty to the national cause, because ultimately all Institutions, the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Executive, the focal point is national growth, national welfare, public welfare, to generate transparency, accountability, honesty. On issues of national security, economic progress, all factions need to put national interest over partisan priorities. I will appeal to everyone in the political spectrum to seriously reflect, come to a conclusion that on issues of national security, on issues of growth, on issues of our internal security, there must be consensus. Sometimes politics get too hot for nationalism and security, something we need to overcome,' he added. The Vice President said that technological progress and arms strength also contribute to national strength. 'For national security, we need indigenous strength. War is best avoided from position of strength. Peace is secured when you are ever ready for comes apart from technological prowess, conventional arms strength, from people also.' He highlighted the need for the citizens to carry out their duties. 'The balance has to be maintained. Let us not cherry-pick. We'll go for fundamental rights, claiming them 24x7, and be totally oblivious of fundamental duties!...if we focus only on our rights and not on duties, we don't measure up to the requirement of a citizen in the largest democracy, the oldest, the most functional. There are 11 fundamental duties. These duties were not initially there in the Constitution. And I'll tell you for a reason. Our founding fathers obviously expected that we will be aligned to these duties. We will respect those duties,' he said. 'But when it was noticed that it is required to spell them out in the Constitution so that people in particular become aware of these. And these were introduced by 42nd Amendment and 86th Amendment. If I have to give a sense of fundamental duties, it is to prioritise national well-being. To contribute optimally for public discourse, public order, public discipline, environment, everything which is known as goodness in life for one and all,' he added. The Vice President said Swadeshi is closely connected with economic nationalism. 'Economic nationalism means we must consume Swadeshi. We must always take into consideration being vocal for local. This will inspire our people also to cater to our needs. But if we start importing from other countries, items that are generated in this country, that can be made in this country, we are immediately inviting three troubles,' he said. 'One trouble, there is an avoidable hole in our foreign exchange reserve, and this is in billions of dollars. Second, when we import items that can be made in this country, we are snatching work from our own people. We are depriving them of work. And thirdly, more importantly, we are blunting entrepreneurship. So every individual can contribute. What clothes he wears, what he eats, what he wears, his shoes also. Everything. These are consumables. We fancy what is abroad. Unmindful of the situation that we are injuring our national economy. I therefore assert economic nationalism is business of the people,' he added. Dhnakhar, who is Rajya Sabha Chairman, said the Indian parliament is much beyond a legislative body. 'It is reflection presently of 1.4 billion people's will. It is the only legitimized constitutional platform that reflects authentically the will of the people, and therefore, Parliament has primacy. Parliament has primacy not in everything because there are areas where executive has primacy, how to govern. Judiciary has primacy, how to deal with justice system but parliament has primacy on two counts- it is ultimate authority to make law,' he said. 'Secondly, it holds executive accountable. Because governance is defined by some fundamentals and one fundamental is transparency. Second is accountability, and in modern times, we have added a third facet to it. Optimal performance by institutions to gallop our progress trajectory. Parliament is a place, ultimate place, for debate, dialogue, discussion, and discourse,' he added. He underlined the significance of cooperation and consensus. 'Our constitution, boys and girls, is a most sacred document. You will come to know how it was formalised, little less than three years, by our founding fathers who dealt with divisive issues, contentious issues, issues that were highly inflammatory, but they dealt with an approach of coordination, cooperation, consensus, something you have to learn in life,' he said. 'And for that, what is important is that you must always respect the other point of view. Because if you think you alone are right, the other person is wrong, you are depriving yourself of a great benefit of input. And secondly, my own experience is, more often than not, the other point of view is the correct view,' he added. The Vice President said the Constitution grants fundamental rights, but it also ordains every citizen to perform duties. (ANI)
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Who should control education?
In recent days, debates among politicians and academicians have resurfaced over moving education back to the state list. These discussions seem prompted by controversies surrounding centrally conducted exams such as NEET, NET, and CUET , which have been riddled with paper leaks, impersonation, grace marks, corruption, and other irregularities. The debate over education being in the concurrent list carries strong political undertones. States opposing it are largely ruled by opposition parties, which at times use the issue for vote-bank politics. The British introduced the Govt of India Act, 1935, which for the first time established a federal structure in the country. Legislative subjects were divided between the federal govt (present-day Union) and the provinces (now states). Education, seen as an important "public good", was placed in the provincial list. After independence, this continued, and education was included in the state list under the Constitution's distribution of powers. Following the Emergency in 1975, the Congress govt set up the Swaran Singh Committee to recommend constitutional amendments. One was to move education to the concurrent list, allowing the Union govt to frame national education policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kan 3 millioner kr vare 30 år inn i pensjonisttilværelsen? Fisher Investments Norden Undo This led to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, which shifted education from the state to the concurrent list, though no rationale was given for the move. Even before the 42nd Amendment, Entries 65 and 66 of the Union list gave the Centre powers to set up professional, vocational, and training institutions and regulate standards in higher education and research, which was how the University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in the 1950s. After the Emergency ended in 1977, the Janata govt came to power and introduced the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) to reverse several changes made by the 42nd Amendment. One was to return 'education' to the state list. While it passed in the Lok Sabha, it failed in the Rajya Sabha, so education remained in the concurrent list. The 1983 Sarkaria Commission, set up by the Govt of India to study Centre-state relations, recommended maintaining the status quo. However, it advised that the Union govt consult states before legislating on concurrent list subjects. Education, as a concurrent subject, is a shared responsibility. While the Centre sets national policies, states adapt and implement them based on local needs and resources. Central and state govts can enact laws on education. However, in case of a conflict, the central law prevails unless the state law has received the President's assent, in which case it can take effect. This ensures uniformity and smoother coordination in implementing education-related laws. Concurrent jurisdiction in education covers areas such as curriculum, pedagogy, teacher training, vocational and adult education, infrastructure, standards, and quality assurance. Central and state govts can frame policies and regulations in these domains, and the shared status enables collaboration to achieve common goals in the education sector. It also allows both govts to monitor institutions for compliance with laws and standards. Funding, too, is shared, with the central govt providing support through grants and schemes. Those advocating for shifting education back to the state list offer several arguments. States, they say, bear 75% of education-related expenditure and should have greater authority to regulate educational institutions without interference from the Centre. Also, restoring education to state control would enhance autonomy, allowing them to frame policies tailored to local aspirations. States would have the freedom to launch new schemes and develop educational models suited to their regions without waiting for central approval. This flexibility could lead to more creative approaches to learning and teaching. Accountability is another factor. When states design their own policies, they are more likely to take responsibility for their success or failure. Also, central policies such as NEET, CUET, and the NEP conflict with state-level frameworks designed to meet regional needs. Those in favour of keeping education in the concurrent list say the Centre plays an important role in ensuring standards and equal access to quality education. Many states lack the resources to improve quality and enrolment, especially in higher education, which central involvement helps address through targeted schemes and financial support. A standardised national curriculum is also essential to align youth skills with the demands of a pan-India and global job market. It would also enable the Centre to address emerging national and global issues such as sustainability, climate change, digital literacy, and AI with suitable policies, while accommodating state-specific concerns. Central leadership offers policy direction, supervision, and consistency in implementation across institutions. Ten years before the 1976 shift, the Kothari Commission advocated for a common national educational framework to promote national integration and cultural exchange. A balance between national standards and state flexibility supports both unity and diversity. The concurrent list status also allows the Centre to establish and manage institutions of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, NITs, and AIIMS, whose innovation and research have a global impact. At the core of the issue lie two competing needs: national coordination and standards, and greater state autonomy and flexibility. A possible way forward may lie in reconciling the two through "collaborative federalism", a concept recommended by the Kothari Commission. Under this model, the Centre can set broad national policies, standards, and guidelines, while allowing states the autonomy to adapt and implement them based on local needs. Many of the arguments made for shifting education to the state list, such as tailoring policies to regional demands, can still be achieved under the concurrent list if collaborative mechanisms are implemented. With many states struggling to fund their universities, the concurrent list enables the Union govt to offer financial and technical support while ensuring states have the resources to manage their systems effectively. What truly matters is not where education sits constitutionally, but how well the principles of federalism are applied to improve the quality of education and research nationwide. The way forward lies in collaboration, not confrontation. (The writer is a former member of the Union Public Service Commission and former Vice Chancellor of Anna University.)
Indian Express
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Yogendra Yadav: ‘The North and South should make a deal on population vs revenue over delimitation'
Yogendra Yadav, member, Swaraj India, and national convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan, discusses the challenges of delimitation, freeing up the process from bias and streamlining voters' lists. The session was moderated by Amitabh Sinha, Science and Climate Editor On the impact of delimitation Delimitation, as it is called in India, or redistricting as it is called in the US, is a standard procedure or requirement for any electoral democracy to readjust the number of seats to reflect the changes in population. These changes in numbers and patterns mean the system has to ensure that the equality in representation is maintained. It has to address the need to change the nature of seats, the number of seats or their boundaries and so on. That's broadly what is called delimitation. In the Indian context, it has three different components. The first is reallocation. Since population changes, some states have more population than others. Within a state, some areas, typically urban areas, have more population than earlier. Therefore, they should get more seats. The second component is the redrawing of boundaries. You have decided Haryana should have 10 constituencies. What exactly should be their boundaries? If you have decided that Gurugram should have four Assembly constituencies, should it continue to be in one city or be split? There is a special third component, which is deciding upon reservations. Let's say among the 10 parliamentary seats of Haryana, which ones should be reserved for Scheduled Castes? In Jharkhand, how many seats should be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and which seats should be reserved? Our constitutional provision (regarding delimitation) was fairly straightforward and followed a fundamental democratic principle of parity. The Constitution says, as far as possible, every Lok Sabha constituency should have the same population. The basic principle is one person, one vote. That's the parity principle. The Constitution says that after every census, which was assumed to be every 10 years, you could look at the population, re-allocate the number of seats for each state, re-allocate within the state, redraw boundaries and re-fix which constituency should be reserved. That is the constitutional position of the original constitutional state. On the history of delimitation There was a delimitation between 1952 and 1956 and then after the 1961 and 1971 census. But by then, the growth of the population was very uneven. Some states were beginning to lose systematically, others were beginning to gain systematically. So, in the 42nd Amendment, the constitutional provision was changed which froze delimitation or the allocation of seats for Parliament and Assembly constituencies. It froze reserved seats and even the boundaries. Everything was frozen for 25 years. The argument was that since the country was going through family planning, it wasn't fair to punish states doing well in family planning. So if their population went down, their representation in Lok Sabha must not be allowed to go down. Cut to 2001 when that was frozen once again. The then Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, after intense discussions and negotiations, decided to freeze delimitation for another 25 years. But with a change. It said while seat allocation for different states would remain as it was, it would unfreeze the allocation within a state because that would not change the federal balance. Also, it unfroze state boundaries and they were redrawn. So, for example, Haryana continued to have 10 seats but the boundaries were redrawn and a new constituency called Gurugram was created. It also allowed the number and the exact nature of reservations for constituencies to be changed. So, it was a partial unfreeze. On dealing with concerns and challenges around delimitation We have three options. One is to do what was done in 1976, which is to completely freeze all three elements, and continue for another 25 years or forever. At the moment, no one is quite advocating that. The second option is to re-do a partial freeze, which was done in 2001. To allow everything else to take place but not allow the number of seats for each state, or at least in percentage terms, the quota of each state, to change. The third option is to unfreeze fully and to go back to the original constitutional position. That could have drastic effects. My suggestion is let's permanently freeze this (present ratio of Parliament and Assembly constituencies), and go for option number two, which is partial freeze. We already have three fault lines in the country. First is a cultural fault line, the linguistic one, broadly Hindi versus non-Hindi. It's a distinction, not a division yet. Second is the economic fault line, which has intensified over the last three decades. I am not saying that the South and West have become rich but compared to them, the rest of the country is starkly poor. The third fault line is an electoral political fault line between areas where BJP dominates, and areas where the BJP's dominance is being challenged. BJP is not absent in the remaining part but it's being challenged. These three fault lines do not coincide perfectly and we are lucky that they don't perfectly coincide. But if you do reallocation as would indeed be required by the Constitution, then what you are doing is creating a fourth fault line which happens to coincide with the first, second and third fault lines broadly. That's why we need to make a deal. North Indians should stop demanding more political representation because they have a greater population. South and West Indians should stop demanding a greater share in federal revenue because they have a better GDP. Once you do so, that, to my mind, consolidates the foundations of Indian federalism and the Indian Union. On less highlighted concerns over delimitation In our country, the process by which delimitation should be done is not provided for in the Constitution. Every time delimitation takes place, a new law is enacted by Parliament. So far, delimitation has been done in a judicial manner. Usually, there is a delimitation commission. The head is a former judge of the Supreme Court, helped by the Election Commission. At a moment when institutions are under serious stress, my first concern is, will the non-partisan character of the delimitation exercise be maintained in India? Related is the concern about gerrymandering. In America, the boundaries of constituencies are decided by the outgoing representatives. So, they actually tweak and tailor the boundaries to suit their own interests. You have all kinds of weird shapes to ensure that you get people who are likely to vote for you inside your constituency and shove those who are unlikely to do so to the next constituency. This is called gerrymandering. India has generally been free of this challenge but unfortunately, in the last two instances, which took place in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam, delimitation was not done under judicial supervision. The manner in which the Election Commission carried out the delimitation in Assam was straightforward gerrymandering. It is communal gerrymandering intended to suit one party, namely the BJP. My third concern is that our constituencies are just too large. Can we find a way of increasing the numbers without shifting the federal balance? Fourth is which constituency should be reserved. It has been done by a certain lottery principle. It has not been so unfair, although you would find many Muslims complaining that wherever we have a population, things are reserved. So far, that has actually not been the case. But we don't have written rules about it. I would like this to be inscribed in the law itself. And finally, the concern is that in India, we have two election systems. The election system for Lok Sabha is done by the Election Commission of India. But the local bodies' elections — such as that of panchayat and municipality — are done by a separate body. The constituency boundaries are not done by the central Election Commission and most interestingly, the voter list is different from that of the Election Commission. So you could be a voter in one list, and not a voter in the other. The one thing that is desperately needed before we get into one nation, one election, is to have one nation, one voters' list.
