Latest news with #HouseofthePeople
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Census, followed by delimitation or freeze? The road ahead, likely legal challenges
The current freeze on delimitation — which for the past 50 years has based the allocation of seats to states in the Lok Sabha on the census figures of 1971 — will expire in 2026, unless Parliament passes another Constitutional Amendment Bill by then to extend it. The reason: the Constitution under Article 82 mandates delimitation after each census to readjust the seats as per changes in population. It says, 'Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine.' Article 81 of the Constitution provides for the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle. Article 81 (2) (a) says, 'There shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States.' Article 81 (2) (b) says, 'Each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State.' With the collection of data for the next census ending by March 1, 2027, the release of census data could coincide with the expiry of the freeze on delimitation. This freeze was put in place first for 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 1976, and again by 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 2002. The reason for the freeze was the concern of the southern states that because their population had stabilised by then, and the population of some northern states had begun to grow at a brisk pace, their representation in the Lok Sabha would go down. To freeze or not to freeze With the Constitution ensuring equality of representation to citizens and not states of the Union, and mandating delimitation every 10 years to adjust the allocation of the seats to population, the only way in which the southern states will not lose representation would have to be another Constitutional amendment. However, with government sources saying that the idea is to have delimitation and then women's reservation in the Lok Sabha elections of 2029, the census is likely to be followed by delimitation. The website of the Election Commission of India says, 'Under Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament by law enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. After the commencement of the Act, the Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission. This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. Notwithstanding the above, the Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.' In other words, the release of census data will be followed by the passage of the Delimitation Bill in Parliament, unless Parliament suspends the constitutionally mandated process by amending the Constitution to freeze delimitation by, say, another 25 years. Potential legal issues Once the Delimitation Commission is constituted by the Centre, it will use the latest census data to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies. However, it will be bound by Article 81 of the Constitution to redraw these on the basis of the latest population data, unless Article 81 is itself amended. Article 81 may anyway require amendments. For instance, since it limits the strength of the Lok Sabha to 550 under clauses (a) and (b), the strength will have to revised through a constitutional amendment so as to ensure that one MP does not represent too large a population, and to pave way for the reservation of women without cutting down the seats available to men. Article 81 as of now makes one exception to the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle, by giving small states and Union Territories at least one seat even if their population is very low. Since the Constitution is clear about the centrality of this principle in all other cases, the only way the south does not lose relative strength in the Lok Sabha will be by amending Article 81 (2) (a). However, any move to amend Article 81 (2) (a) would be liable to challenge in the Supreme Court as violative of the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The fear in south India is that if delimitation is based purely on population, northern states will get much more seats and thus a very large voice in Parliament. But if the law is amended and they get more seats than they would through the population criterion, then voters in the north and the south are not being treated equally. Even if the principle of reasonable classification — likes be treated alike — is evoked, it will be based on the argument that better social and economic indicators require special protection for southern states. This logic is exactly opposite to the one that permits reservation on the grounds that the state can make special provisions for the backward classes. The delimitation question, thus, has no easy answers, and is likely to lead to much litigation. Vikas Pathak is deputy associate editor with The Indian Express and writes on national politics. He has over 17 years of experience, and has worked earlier with The Hindustan Times and The Hindu, among other publications. He has covered the national BJP, some key central ministries and Parliament for years, and has covered the 2009 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls and many state assembly polls. He has interviewed many Union ministers and Chief Ministers. Vikas has taught as a full-time faculty member at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; Symbiosis International University, Pune; Jio Institute, Navi Mumbai; and as a guest professor at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi. Vikas has authored a book, Contesting Nationalisms: Hinduism, Secularism and Untouchability in Colonial Punjab (Primus, 2018), which has been widely reviewed by top academic journals and leading newspapers. He did his PhD, M Phil and MA from JNU, New Delhi, was Student of the Year (2005-06) at ACJ and gold medalist from University Rajasthan College in Jaipur in graduation. He has been invited to top academic institutions like JNU, St Stephen's College, Delhi, and IIT Delhi as a guest speaker/panellist. ... Read More
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Initiate process of electing Lok Sabha deputy Speaker: Mallikarjun Kharge to PM Modi
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to initiate the process of electing a deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Keeping the position vacant "does not augur well for India's democratic polity and is also in violation of well laid out provisions of the Constitution," the Congress chief said. "Dear Prime Minister, I am writing to bring to your kind attention the highly concerning matter in regard to the prevailing vis-í -vis the vacancy of the deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha. "Article 93 of the Constitution of India mandates the election of both the speaker and the deputy speaker of the House of the People. Constitutionally, the deputy speaker is the second-highest presiding officer of the House after the speaker," he said. Mr. Kharge said traditionally, the deputy Speaker has been elected in the second or third session of a newly constituted Lok Sabha. The procedure for this election mirrors that of the speaker, with the only distinction being that the date for the deputy speaker's election is fixed by the speaker, as per Rule 8(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, he noted. In his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Kharge noted that from the first to the sixteenth Lok Sabha, every House has had a deputy speaker. By and large, it has been a well-established convention to appoint the deputy speaker from among the members of the principal opposition party, he said. "However, for the first time in independent India's history, this position has remained vacant for two consecutive Lok Sabha terms. No deputy speaker was elected during the seventeenth Lok Sabha, and this concerning precedent continues in the ongoing eighteenth Lok Sabha," Mr. Kharge said. "This does not augur well for India's democratic polity and is also in violation of well laid out provisions of the Constitution," the Congress chief said. "In view of the foregoing and in keeping with the esteemed traditions of the House and the democratic ethos of our Parliament, I request your good self to initiate the process of electing a deputy speaker of Lok Sabha without any further delay," he asserted Kharge's demand comes ahead of Parliament's Monsoon session of Parliament starting from July 21.
Boston Globe
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Imagining a fourth government branch, a House of the People
The key word is 'facts.' A juror in the selection process is instructed that they should consider only the facts presented in a trial. Facts in this House of the People similarly would not be permitted to be chosen based simply on one's predilection. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Today figuring out what is factual, let alone even real, requires an active search for reliable sources. Too often citizens vote based on their instincts rather than giving time to a variety of viewpoints. (I confess to having done just that with my vote for Ronald Reagan for his first term as president.) Advertisement Elizabeth Bjorkman Lexington What we need is term limits and to get out from under two-party system After reading Josh Lerner and Marjan Ehsassi's 'It's time for a fourth branch of government,' I found myself wishing for them to take two constructive steps: Look closely at The Federalist Papers and study the historical record of overreaching legislative, executive, and judicial branch actions (for example, the administration of Andrew Jackson or the Warren court). Advertisement The Framers intended a complex, time-consuming process as a safeguard against emotional, parochial government processes. What we might derisively call gridlock can be frustrating, but it is as they intended. Many examples of overreach are a reasonable reaction to this circumstance. The Framers also understood human beings. They were fully aware that achieving a perfect balance of power among three branches of government was an ideal that would be tested often and, occasionally, not meet their standard. In their day public service was something one did for a time before returning to the farm, shop, or office. What our Framers did not anticipate was the advent of two distinct barriers to rational discourse in the performance of that service: the establishment of essentially permanent, nationally controlled political parties and career politicians. Since eliminating established national political parties has no realistic path, perhaps proposing an amendment to establish term limits would do more to encourage wider participation in government and, hopefully, open the door to a more truly representative Republic without resorting to creating an entirely new branch. Peter Vangsness Medway
Boston Globe
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
It's time for a fourth branch of government
Whether you call it a constitutional crisis or simply chaos, President Trump's second term makes clear that the US system of democracy is falling apart. Republicans control Congress and the executive branch, have a majority on the Supreme Court, and are so far ignoring lower federal courts. Trump is exploiting this situation to impose policies that violate laws and go against public opinion, such as closing congressionally funded agencies and deporting legal residents without due process. Our institutions have struggled to respond to this spiraling crisis. Advertisement It's time for a new approach: a House of the People — a permanent citizens' assembly. This fourth branch of government would be composed of ordinary Americans, selected by lottery. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up And yes, this is a realistic proposal, even now. Citizens' assemblies (sometimes called civic assemblies or policy juries) These assemblies have been used in at least 34 countries since 1979 to develop policy recommendations on everything from the environment to urban planning, at all levels of government. Advertisement Typically, 40 to 100 people participate in a given assembly, and they are compensated for their time. The assembly meets several times over a few weeks or months, learning from experts, deliberating, and developing policy proposals. These proposals are then often put to a legislative body or public vote. In 2016, for example, Ireland's Parliament convened the country's first Some places are adopting more enduring versions of citizens' assemblies. In 2019, the Belgian region of Ostbelgien established a Here in the United States, imagine a House of the People composed of Americans across the political spectrum, issuing proposals on key issues from immigration to government efficiency to climate change. Each year, a representative sample of Americans would learn about the issue at hand, deliberate, and propose policies that reflected their rough consensus. Congress would then have to respond to their proposals — including by submitting them for a congressional or public vote. A House of the People could go a long way toward rebuilding the public trust in government that our democracy needs. Advertisement This might seem far-fetched in our current environment, in which Trump and Elon Musk are dismantling existing institutions. Why would they or the Republican-controlled legislature even consider creating a new branch of government? When Trump was first inaugurated as president, he promised to 'drain the swamp' and restore power to the American people. 'What truly matters,' But if the Trump administration did not want to follow through on this rhetoric, we could create a House of the People anyway. Private philanthropy could fund it to start, for a sliver of the amount spent on voter outreach. Nonpartisan nonprofit organizations, including our own — the A House of the People might also create a popular check on other branches of government. While Trump may denigrate politicians and bureaucrats, it's harder to dismiss a body of ordinary Americans. A House of the People is not just a short-term strategy — it's a way to fix the deeper flaws of our democracy. Even before the current crisis, most Americans, across nearly all demographic groups and ideologies, Advertisement Trump has exposed the Achilles heel of our current model of democracy: that most people have no meaningful say over government decision-making. Yes, we can elect our rulers. But then they rule, and we often have little power over what they do. This leads to pervasive ' Trump has tapped into this insecurity. While Democrats defend electoral democracy, Trump highlights its flaws and offers a simple solution: If the rigged system doesn't give you a voice, he will. Regardless of whether he follows through, his promise of systemic change has been enough to win broad public support. Our institutions of democracy are indeed outdated and inadequate. We need to do more than defend them; we must renew and expand them. It's time for an upgrade. It's time to build a new pillar of power, a House of the People.
The Guardian
20-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Lords out, people in': protesters interrupt proceedings in House of Lords
Protesters have disrupted a House of Lords session commemorating the 80th anniversary of VE Day with calls for the abolition of the upper chamber. About six people in the Lords public gallery interrupted the culture minister, Lady Twycross, shouting 'Lords out, people in'. They threw leaflets into the chamber reading: 'Never mind the Lords, here's the House of People' as they continued to chant, prompting officials to pause the session for about five minutes as they were escorted out. Other leaflets thrown read: 'Aristocrats & oligarchs: out. Posties, mums, nurses and neighbours: in. Replace the House of Lords to save the UK.' The organisers of the protest, Time to Assemble, had hoped to coincide it with a debate on the 75th anniversary of the European convention on human rights, because they believe democracy has deteriorated across the world. The group wants to replace the unelected upper chamber with a 'House of the People' that it believes should be more representative of the population. Their assembly would be selected by sortition, a process by which members of the public would be picked randomly through a lottery. Bertie Coyle, a spokesperson from the group, said: 'What's the big idea? For a House of the People to replace the House of Lords. Anyone in the UK can take part. It's free and open to the public. It's owned by everyone. 'It's funded by our donations. It will fairly represent all groups in our society – but whisper that part, because the corporations who influence parliament won't like it one bit.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion One peer expressed their disappointment that the protest had coincided with the debate on VE Day, but said the chamber would 'keep calm and carry on, just as they [veterans] would have done'.
