Tag: #parliament

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Constant Turbulence Between Article 13 and Article 368
3.	The Parliament’s Comeback
4.	The Conflict Between the Judiciary and Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi: 39th Amendment
5.	The Contextual Constitution
6.	Conclusion

The Preamble, which is incorporated into the basic structure of the Constitution, demonstrates the relevance of Article 368[1] even to the present day. Recent amendments to the Constitution concerning fundamental rights are made by Parliament. The Constitution, including its fundamental rights, was initially drafted in response to the socio-political requirements deemed necessary at the time. These requirements may not be sufficient or appropriate for the rapidly expanding socio-economic, technological, and legal climate of today. As a result, it is always necessary to amend the Constitution. 

For instance, the 86th Amendment to the Constitution in 2002 made the right to education a fundamental right. In a similar vein, Articles 19(f) and 31 of the Constitution were struck down by the 44th Amendment in 1978, rendering the right to property non-essential. The extent of Article 368’s authority to modify fundamental rights has been interpreted by higher  Indian courts. 

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan[2], for instance, the dissenting opinion stated that Article  368 did not grant the Parliament absolute powers and could not be used indiscriminately to usurp citizens’ fundamental rights. Even though there is a lot of literature on how to look at  Article 368 from the point of view of changing the basic structure as a whole, very few recent cases have focused on specifically changing fundamental rights from a legal point of view.  Therefore, I as an author want to fill that knowledge gap. 

From Shankari Prasad v. Union of India[3] in the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951 to Waman Rao v. Union of India[4], I will aim to trace the path. I will sincerely put efforts into determining the reasoning behind the bench’s various decisions challenging or upholding certain Parliamentary amendments to fundamental rights, as well as include their own opinion on the subject in the analysis section. I will be using doctrinal methods for in-depth research, also I will address the principles of the law and the constitution, as well as provide a sociopolitical context for the decisions made. 

Introduction

The basic structure of the Indian Constitution includes the fundamental or essential elements that run throughout the document or serve as its foundation. It joins significant arrangements of our Constitution, without the ground standards is outlandish. 

Because of its goal of achieving equity, for instance, the 2019 Constitution (One Hundred and  Third Amendment) Act, which makes reservations for economically disadvantaged groups,  has implications for Article 14 of the Constitution, which is the first fundamental right.

Additionally, on February 4, 2022, the Rajya Sabha debated K.J. Alphons, a BJP Kerala MP,’s proposal to amend the Preamble of the Constitution with a private member’s bill. This was gone against by the RJD MP Manoj Jha and MDMK MP Vaiko in December 2021, on the grounds of abusing the standard in the Kesavananda judgment which was that law and order are essential for the fundamental construction of the Indian Constitution. 

As a result, Parliament would be unable to alter any aspect of the Constitution’s fundamental structure. Fundamental rights are included in the Constitution’s fundamental structure in Part III. According to A.V. Dicey, a nation is said to adhere to the rule of law only if it upholds citizens’ liberties. Article 368 of the Constitution both grants and restricts Parliament’s powers to amend specific sections of the Constitution. 

Constant Turbulence Between Article 13 and Article 368

First Constitutional  Amendment According to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution[5], the Parliament cannot enact laws that restrict, infringe, or violate the fundamental rights outlined in Part III. In contrast,  Parliament is empowered to amend specific sections of the Constitution by Article 368. There is still no answer to the question of whether the two articles can coexist harmoniously. 

The fundamental rights, Preamble, basic structure, and other elements necessary to regulate the three organs of governance and the Indian people are all encapsulated in the Constitution,  according to many. The amount of power Parliament has under Article 368 to amend the  Indian Constitution is symbolized by the scissors used to cut or change the cloth into something else. 

The Constitution only contained seven fundamental rights when the 1st Constitutional  Amendment Act of 1951 was enacted, including the right to property under Articles 31A and  31B[6], which was later eliminated by the 44th Constitutional Amendment. 

The introduction of this right at the time of independence was motivated by two reasons: first and foremost, to boost agricultural production; secondly, to provide farmers, cultivators, and the rural population, who were oppressed by the pre-independence zamindari system, with opportunities, land, and job security. 

They used socialist-welfarist methods and set limits on how much land a person could own to prevent too much land and power from being concentrated in a few hands; a term that is comparable to constitutionalism. In addition, the State was permitted to legally seize someone’s property instead of providing compensation for rehabilitation following displacement. 

A revolutionary policy of the Indian National Congress later led to the establishment of such an exploitative structure to close the gap between the widespread inequality in land ownership. Further changes were set up by the ideological group through the Agrarian Changes Council with Administrator J.C. Kumarappa, overcoming the need to keep the right to property as a key right in a free India.

The 9th Schedule and reasonable restrictions stipulated in Article 19(1)(g)[7] were also included in the First Amendment Act, making it possible for the government to completely or partially acquire the person of any individual. Many citizens were dissatisfied with this Act because it reduced the scope of the most important aspect of the Constitution—the fundamental rights— and gave the Centre too much power to interfere with their lives. 

They filed a case against this Amendment Act in the Supreme Court of India because the Parliament did not have the authority to change fundamental rights. This case became known as Shankari Prasad v. Union of India[8], which was a landmark decision. 

The Supreme Court held that Article 368 allowed Parliament to amend any of the fundamental rights through Constitutional Amendments and that the changes made by the first Constitutional Amendment stand. This proportion smothered the fight for control between the lawmaking body and the legal executive since they explained that Article 13  simply applied to common privileges and not Protected Revisions. 

Numerous state governments incorporated their respective Land Reforms Acts into the 9th Schedule of the Constitution as a result of this decision. This had a significant impact because, normally, any law that violates fundamental rights would be invalidated; however,  by including it in the 9th Schedule, the laws would not be invalidated regardless of whether they violate fundamental rights. 

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan[9], this provision of the 17th Constitutional Amendment was challenged. With a 3:2 vote, the five-judge bench decided that the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act does not fall under Article 13. Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar looked into the deeper intentions of the people who wrote the Constitution and concluded that they didn’t want to protect fundamental rights completely because they didn’t put in place a clause that said fundamental rights couldn’t be changed. As a result, both Shankari and Sajjan appeared to favour Article 368 over Article 13. 

The disagreeing assessment given by Equity M. Hidayatullah and Equity J. R. Mudholkar set forward the inquiry with regards to whether changing an essential element of the Constitution would be considered as a revision or as a revamping, and thus, whether the ability to roll out this improvement was presented by Article 368. 

This reexamining of the composers’ aim drove the Court to allude the case to a bigger seat,  forming it into the Golaknath v. State of Punjab[10], which tested the Sajjan choice. By the majority’s decision in Sajjan, the 11-judge bench ruled that the parliamentary powers granted by Article 368 were not absolute and that the Parliament cannot curtail fundamental rights because they are included in Part III, giving them a transcendental status outside of the  Parliament’s purview. In addition, it stated that any amendment violating a fundamental right granted by Part III is unconstitutional, restricting the Parliament’s authority and requiring a  judicial review. 

Golaknath, in contrast to Shankari and Sajjan, prioritized Article 13 over Article 368 because the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can enact a Constitutional Amendment. This decision by a larger bench of the Supreme Court effectively overturned its previous two decisions and sided with those who opposed amending fundamental rights. 

The Parliament’s Comeback

The 24th Constitutional Amendment, which removed the right to property as a fundamental right that had been included in the 1st Constitutional  Amendment, was challenged in the courts shortly after Golaknath by a large number of cases brought by the general public. The Supreme Court had to clarify that Golaknath would apply retroactively to previous amendments to prevent all of this chaos. 

The Golaknath case narrowed the scope of Parliament’s powers, while the first constitutional amendment restricted the scope of fundamental rights. The decision to enact the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which effectively added a fourth sub-clause to both Articles 13 and 368, was made by Parliament to expand its power to amend. 

The 24th Amendment stated in Article 368(4) that if Parliament enacts another Constitutional  Amendment, it will not apply to Article 13, whereas Article 13(4) stated the opposite to reverse the Golaknath decision. As a result, following the passage of the 24th Amendment  Act, the position was that Parliament could alter any section of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. 

Following the 24th amendment, additional constitutional amendments were enacted to repeal previous amendments that restricted citizens’ rights. The 29th Amendment introduced land reforms, while the 25th Amendment restricted property rights. In 1947, the Privy Purse, a  payment made to ruling families to give up their powers and merge their princely states, was made obsolete by the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[11] and Golaknath’s position as well, the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were challenged. 

The Supreme Court made it clear that Parliament has the full power to change fundamental rights even before the 24th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution. The 24th Constitutional Amendment, which clarified parliamentary powers, was also upheld by the  Court. In this instance, the issue of how much power the Parliament has over the applicability of fundamental rights came up once more. The Court decided to take a balanced approach in support of a harmonious interpretation, which is referred to as the basic structure doctrine. It did not investigate whether Article 13 or Article 368 is more powerful. 

The Conflict Between the Judiciary and Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi: 39th Amendment

On the twelfth of June 1975, Allahabad High Court set out a verifiable choice wherein they suppressed the discretionary triumph of Indira Gandhi’s administration, referring to proof of constituent misrepresentation. They also decided that no one in her cabinet could hold an election office position for six years as punishment. 

After that, Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court. Just one day before the hearing, she enacted the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act and declared a national emergency on the grounds of internal unrest.

The 39th CAA resulted in the addition of Article 329A and the elimination of Article 71. The dispute over the election was still before the Court at this point. According to Article 329A,  an independent body would handle all electoral disputes involving the Speaker of the Lok  Sabha, the Prime Minister (at the time, Indira Gandhi), the President, or the Vice President. 

Because of the death of this CAA, the forthcoming legal dispute against her could as of now not be active. As a result, the 39th CAA’s goal was clear: to allow Indira Gandhi to continue serving as India’s Prime Minister without interference. The constituent outcomes incidentally showed that Janata Dal Party won the political decision overwhelmingly, making Morarji  Desai the new State head. 

As a result, Indira Gandhi was forced to resign from her position reluctantly. The ruling party then decided to remove Article 329A, which was found to be unconstitutional in the case of  Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain[12], applying the principles of the Kesavananda case, to undo everything the previous government had done wrong, including the 39th CAA and the unsolicited national emergency. Article 71 was likewise brought back, which offered back the powers to attempt constituent questions to the High Court. 

The Contextual Constitution

After the emergency period under Indira Gandhi’s rule in  1975, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution made a significant number of changes to prevent similar power abuses from occurring again. It underwent two significant modifications: To begin, it added sub-clause 4 to Article 31C, which discusses property rights; Second, it added paragraphs 4 and 5 to Article 368. 

Article 368(4) stated that Parliament can amend, alter, or remove any fundamental rights under Part III and cannot be subjected to judicial review like Article 31C(4). On the other hand, Article 31C(4) stated that any law could be put in Part IV under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), even if it violates fundamental rights under Part III. This made it immune to even someone challenging it before the courts. 

As a result, Parliament can add or change any provision in Parts III and IV. The Parliament was granted absolute amending powers by Article 368 (5). Since the legal powers were diminished and the decent methodology in Keshavananda, the 42nd Established Alteration was tested in Minerva Mills v. Union of India and Ors[13]. 

Conclusion

The petitioners in Minerva owned the Bombay Minerva Mills company, which the government occupied under the guise of nationalization. In this case, the Supreme Court  ruled that the 42nd Amendment and all of its amendments were unconstitutional because of  the following three fundamental characteristics: 

First, judicial review, in which rights granted by courts of law are regarded as fundamental  features and cannot be suppressed through an amendment by Parliament; 

Second, Parliament’s limited amending power, which means that Parliament cannot use its limited amending power to expand its capabilities; Thirdly, the balance between Parts III and IV must be maintained so that DPSPs and fundamental rights do not conflict.

All the Established Alteration Acts after the Kesavananda essential regulation case were tested in Waman Rao v. Union of India[14], where the most relevant issue that emerged under the watchful eye of the court was regardless of whether these alterations sabotaged the fundamental construction. 

The Court provided an odd solution to this question by stating that the Kesavananda-based basic structure test will be applied in future amendments and laws. As a result, the Court made it clear that any amendment to the Constitution made after April 24, 1973, can be challenged if it does not adhere to the basic structure doctrine. 

As a result, this case reaffirmed the significance of the Kesavananda rule by allowing  Parliament to alter a portion of the fabric—representing the Constitution—but not the entire fabric. Even though Parliament had the power to change any part of the Constitution,  including the Fundamental Rights, this did not mean that the Constitution’s fundamental structure could be changed even by a Constitutional Amendment. This shows how strong the  Constitution still is in the social and political context of today. 

---

Endnotes

1. The Indian Constitution, Article 368
2. Sajjan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, 1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933
3. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR. 1951 SC 458
4. Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362
5. The Indian Constitution, Article 13
6. The Indian Constitution, Article 31(A) and Article 31(B)
7. The Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(g)
8. Ibid 3
9. Ibid 2
10. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR. 1967, SC 1643
11. Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR. 1973 SC 1461
12. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 S.C. 2299
13. Minerva Mill Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC, 625
14. Ibid 4

This article is written by Shaurya Sharma, a third-year law student from Fairfield Institute of Technology and Management.

Introduction

In ancient times, a woman’s and a man’s status were equal. However, as time passed, women’s status deteriorated day by day. India has become a predominantly patriarchal society with significant gender disparities. Following the struggle for independence, Mahatma Gandhi encouraged women to join the fight against the British Empire. Mahatma Gandhi’s initiative directed and encouraged more and more women to participate in the country’s decision-making. Over the previous two decades, the rate of involvement of women in the National Parliaments globally has risen from 11.8 percent in 1998 to 23.5 in current times. But we still have a long way to go to ensure equitable and fair representation of women.¹

During the struggle for independence, Mahatma Gandhi made sure that women played an important role. As a result, the concept of women participating in the country’s decision-making process was born. The women in India likewise requested equal voting power in 1917 far before other countries started seeking it. Equal rights were also enshrined in the Constitution by the constituent assembly. Discrimination based on sex is likewise prohibited under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. Women have the same right to vote as men under the Constitution. It is also the state’s responsibility to protect divorced and bereaved women. Nonetheless, despite the constitutional guarantee and women’s participation in the independence war, women in politics continue to be underrepresented in comparison to men.²

The rise and rise of women’s turnout have been one of the most gratifying stories of India’s political democracy in recent years. Women made up a pitiful 46.7 percent of the electorate in the 1962 Lok Sabha elections, in which the Election Commission presented distinct data for male and female voter turnout for the first time. However, by 2019, the percentage has increased by about 20% to 67.18 percent. During the same period, men’s turnout climbed by only 5 percent —from 62.1 percent in 1962 to 67.08 percent in 2019. In 2019, a watershed moment in India’s electoral history occurred when women’s turnout in Lok Sabha elections was marginally greater than men’s due to the disparity in voter turnout growth rates.

The number of women voters per 1,000 male voters, known as the SRV, is an essential indicator for measuring gender bias in voting roles. It’s similar to the population sex ratio (PSR). According to Mudit Kapoor and Shamik Ravi’s work Women Voters in Indian Democracy: A Silent Revolution, India’s SRV has risen dramatically from 715 in the 1960s to 883 in the 2000s. It had climbed to 928 by 2019. A CSDS survey from 2014 disproved a myth regarding Indian women voters. Seventy percent of women polled stated they never consult their spouses when deciding whom to vote for. Given how men and women vote differently and independently, there are differences in voting intentions between the two. For a party, this difference can be as high as 15 to 20%.³

Womens’ Political Participation in India

Following the announcement of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 Presidential election in the United States of America, attention turned to Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris has been elected as the United States’ first female Vice President. Kamala Haris’ historic victory is a watershed moment in American history that will serve as a role model for women all over the world. Six women from various ethnicities and origins have also declared their candidacy for President before the election began. It was a significant success for the United States, which has a low rate of female participation in politics and hence can benefit from this.

The world’s youngest Prime Minister, Sanna Mirella Marin was selected as the Prime Minister of Finland in December 2019. Sanna Marin questioned sexism in decision-making power for the country which has been ruled by men for years. Following the coronavirus pandemic, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Kate Laurel Ardern, was praised around the world for making remarkable progress in the country by managing the coronavirus pandemic. Strong female leaders have been seen all around the world. Even in India, women have held positions of power. However, the representation ratio is still quite low.

In terms of the percentage of women in the lower house of a world parliament, India ranks 153rd out of 190 countries. The turnout for the 17th Lok Sabha elections in 2019 was 67 percent, which has been improving for many years. In this election, the number of women voting has also increased. We saw 78 women Parliamentarians in the 17th Lok Sabha election. Women’s representation, on the other hand, is only 14 percent in a country where women make up 48 percent of the population. Seven of the 29 states did not have any female representatives. Female representation is higher in Pakistan and Bangladesh than in India.

There were over 8,000 candidates in the 2019 Lok Sabha election, with around 700 of them being women. Seventy-eight of these women were elected to the Parliament, a slight increase from the previous election in 2014 when 62 women were elected. According to a news channel’s analysis, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have elected the most women MPs, each with 11 candidates. Mayawati, the chief of the Bahujan Samaj Party, and Mamata Banerjee, the chief minister of West Bengal, are among the prominent women leaders in these states. Following UP and Bengal, Maharashtra has eight female MPs, Odisha has seven, and Gujarat has six. Women MPs were elected in 22 of the 29 states, leaving seven states with no female representation in the legislature. Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Sikkim are the seven states.

During the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, 556 (7 percent) female candidates out of the absolute 8,070 challenged. The number of women challenging saw a slight expansion to 668 (8 percent) out of 8,251 all-out candidates in the 2014 elections. The sixteenth Lok Sabha had 62 (11 percent) female MPs out of 543 MPs. To place it in context, just about nine out of the 10 parliamentarians were men. This number has expanded to 66 now after four female candidates won during the by-surveys that occurred between 2014 and April 2019. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, TMC had the most noteworthy level of women candidates. It handled 13 female candidates, trailed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), which handled 5. The Congress handled 60 female candidates among the 464 seats it battled, establishing a simple 12.9 percent of its complete candidates. The BJP, then again, handled 38 female candidates among the 428 seats it battled on, making it 8.9 percent.”⁴

While the 2019 Lok Sabha elections saw the largest number of women candidates getting seats in the lower place of the Parliament, the equivalent portrayal of women in Parliament actually has far to go. A recent report by the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research assesses that “women legislators in India raise glow development in their voting demographics by around 15 rate focuses per annum more than male legislators. This review, named ‘Women legislators and monetary execution’, looks at information for 4,265 state gathering supporters somewhere in the range of 1992 and 2012. During this period the nation saw a solid financial development. Likewise, the portion of state Assembly situates won by women expanded from around 4.5 percent to almost eight percent, the review states.

Overall figures on the portrayal of women in the initiative and their political cooperation in the Parliament is horrifyingly low. As of November 2018, 24 percent of all women public parliamentarians across the world were women, a 13 percent increment from 1995 (11.3 percent). As of January 2019, 11 women were filling in as Heads of State and 10 as Head of Government, as per the United Nations. Among nations in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), India has 12.6 percent of chosen women agents in their public parliaments, just in front of Sri Lanka (5.3%) and Maldives (4.7%), as per January 2019 information incorporated by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), a multilateral organization.

Elements influencing the participation of women in Indian politics

Women’s political participation has traditionally been low-key. They continue to be devoted voters, supporters, or political wives. Their active engagement in the decision-making process, on the other hand, is still in the background, and they rarely hold positions of authority. Only a few women from wealthy families or with strong political ties came forward to participate in politics. Due to a variety of factors, the women have been unable to come forward. Here are a few reasons:

Stereotypical minds
Unfortunately, politics has always been regarded as ‘dirty’ and full of unfair competition. It was once thought to be a domain for men only. The field is thought to necessitate hardship and strength. Politics has been depicted as a competition of greed, and this is how most people perceive it. Furthermore, society’s stereotyped view is that males determine rules, and women are obligated to follow them. One of the key causes for women’s lower engagement is the gender role linked with men and women. Women have traditionally been tasked with managing household activities. Women should be encouraged to break free from stereotypical roles and participate in the country’s decision-making process.

Lack of political participation
Women are also absent from political debates and dialogues. It has been observed that women are uninterested in politics and do not want to participate in the “dirty game.”

Economic conditions
People’s political participation is also influenced by their family’s economic situation. For political motivation to occur, there must be a suitable knowledge and sociological context. Political participation is heavily influenced by a person’s cultural, financial, and sociological background. Women are limited to their houses, and their father, brother, or spouse make the key decisions in their lives.

Household chores
Because of their household responsibilities, women are hesitant to vote during elections. Being a member of a political party entails commitment; however, a woman must return home after work to continue with household responsibilities. Women find it difficult to work for such long periods of time as a result of this.

Lack of financial control
Women also lack financial assistance and autonomy over their finances, making it harder for women to participate in elections. Even if she works and brings money home, the money is still in the hands of the family’s male members. As a result, she has no control over her finances.

Lack of political knowledge
Some women are unaware of the significance of political participation. Many people are uninterested in having a voter identification card. They lack sufficient understanding of how politics and political institutions work.

Increase in violence in politics
In politics, there has been an escalation of violence. Women have been forced out of politics due to a major increase in crime, corruption, and insecurity. The dominating men in political parties frequently fail to recognize women’s efforts. Women’s hard work has been hampered by the assumption that the leader should be masculine.

Lack of safety
Lack of exposure to politics outside of their immediate family has been a big reason for their avoidance of politics. To make her presence felt in Indian politics, a woman must overcome numerous obstacles.

Women Leaders in India

India is a long way behind these nations like Bangladesh and Rwanda in the absolute level of women legislators. Notwithstanding these nations being less evolved and having had a new history of savagery, as in Rwanda, these nations have more women legislators when contrasted with created and emerging nations like India and China. India has had a heavenly history of women pioneers in public development, yet it performs fundamentally less fortunate than these nations. It isn’t so much that women are inadequate or uncertain to act in politics. It’s simply that they aren’t offered an adequate number of chances to address themselves as pioneers. Whenever women are given open doors, they perform diversely and even roll out a few conspicuous improvements in the framework as well as in the public eye.

Fundamentally the political work of women has added to the development of women’s freedoms in nations all over the planet throughout the long term. With regards to Indian women’s political job, the development against endowment passings, abusive behavior at home, custodial assault actually fill in as significant achievements for the country. Various women political laborers and activists have driven lobbies for better wellbeing, sterilization, and schooling in the country. The milestone 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts that accommodate 33% of reservation of seats for women in the neighborhood government establishments have opened up huge opportunities for women to partake in the political cycles in the country.

North of 1,000,000 women had the option to join formal political cycles out of the blue. The cooperation of women in the cycles has been joined by a refreshingly unique way to deal with the work and it is additionally seen that they have set various plans that ended up being more applicable to the existences of the residents. The consideration of women in these foundations has detailed convenient and proficient working, better duty assortment, more noteworthy regard for advancement work, etc. Yet, this likewise announced an issue. While the men will more often than not get their spouses chosen as the agents, they worked instead of them and women stayed as simple ostensible figures. However, this multitude of occasions demonstrates that women can do something amazing whenever given satisfactory open doors.

History has stood the splendor of women in politics, on numerous occasions. Indeed, even our nation has had a long history of women pioneers during public development. Women like Rani of Jhansi, Begum Hazrat Mahal, Kasturba Gandhi, Rani of Ramgarh, Savitri bai Phule, and different women had a flawless effect on our general public, and, surprisingly, our current times are loaded with instances of women pioneers in our politics.

Sucheta Kriplani was the main head of the Women’s branch of the Congress Party. She likewise led the Quit India Movement with Aruna Asaf Ali and different women. Gandhi was exceptionally dazzled with her political commitment and aided in her arrangement as the Organizing Secretary of the Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust in 1946. This year ended up being extraordinary for her as she was chosen as an individual from the Constituent Assembly with the undertaking of setting out the Charter of the Indian Constitution. In 1949, she was picked as an agent to the United Nations General Assembly. Afterward, she battled her direction into turning into the very first woman to possess a situation in the Indian political circle, by turning into the principal woman Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

Indira Gandhi was a government official and a focal figure of the Indian National Congress. She was the first and to date just female PM of India. She filled in as the Prime Minister of the country from 1966 to 1977 and again from January 1980 till her death in October 1984, making her the second-longest-serving PM of India after her dad, Jawaharlal Nehru. While she was the PM of the country, she sent off a few revolutionary projects for poor people and she additionally nationalized 17 of the banks. She was likewise known for her political tenacity and exceptional centralization of force. She went on battle with Pakistan on the side of the freedom development for East Bengal which prompted the arrangement of present-day Bangladesh. This progression expanded the local impact of India to the place where it turned into the main force of South Asia. She likewise organized a highly sensitive situation from 1975 to 1977, where common freedoms were suspended and the press was edited. It is said that it was a cruel time of barbarities. Yet, in 1984, she was killed by her own guardian after she sent off Operation Bluestar. The southernmost Indira point is named after her and the global air terminal at New Delhi is named after her. The biggest college on the planet, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), is in her honor.

Pratibha Patil filled in as the twelfth President of India from 2007 to 2012. An individual from the Indian National Congress, she is the main woman to hold this office. She has additionally filled in as the Chief Minister of Rajasthan from 2004 to 2007. She has been congratulated with Mexico’s most elevated Civilian honor Order of the Aztec Eagle in 2019.

Sushma Swaraj was a legislator and government official who served in different authoritative and managerial posts at the public and State level, Haryana. She even filled in as the head of BJP in Lok Sabha. She was multiple times a Member of Parliament and multiple times a Member of the Legislative Assembly. She was likewise the Union Minister Of External Affairs of India and turned into the second woman to do as such after Indira Gandhi. With her enormous work, she has really helped numerous Indians and other outside nationals to return to their nation of origin.

Nirmala Sitharaman is an Indian legislator filling the position of the current Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs of India. She has been an individual from the Rajya Sabha starting around 2014. She previously filled in as the Defense Minister of India, in this manner turning into India’s second female safeguard serve and furthermore the subsequent female money serve after Indira Gandhi, and first full-time serving Finance Minister. Before that, she has filled in as Minister of Commerce and Industry under Independent charge and has additionally been a representative of BJP. Forbes magazine positioned her 34th among the 100 most compelling women all over the planet in 2019.

Sheila Dixit was a lawmaker and stateswoman. She was the longest-serving boss pastor of Delhi as well as the longest-serving female boss priest of any Indian state. She served for a time of 15 years starting in 1998. She drove the Congress party to three sequential appointive triumphs in Delhi. She likewise got an honor from the Indo-Iran culture for her extraordinary exhibition.

Mamata Banerjee has been the Chief Minister of West Bengal beginning around 2011 being the main woman to hold the workplace. She established the All-India Trinamool Congress in 1998. She has recently served two times as Minister of Railways, the main woman to do as such. She was additionally the primary female Minister of Coal, and Minister of State for HRD, Youth Affairs, sports, Women and Child Development in the bureau of the Indian government. She has likewise been named as one of the most persuasive women on the planet. She is a self-educated painter and an artist. She likewise got the Skoch Chief Minister of the Year grant.

Vasundhara Raje Scindia is likewise perhaps the most compelling political head of Indium. She is presently filling in as the National Vice-President of the Bharatiya Janata Party. She additionally held the post of thirteenth Chief Minister of Rajasthan from 2013 to 2018 and beforehand from 2003 to 2008, turning into the principal woman to hold this post. She is additionally at the top of the imperial Dholpur family. In 2007, she got the Women Together Award by the UNO for administrations delivered towards the self-strengthening of women.

Agatha Sangma is a Member of the Parliament of India. She addressed the Tura supporters of Meghalaya. She was the most youthful Minister of State in the UPA 2 Manmohan Singh’s Ministry.⁵

Need of Women Leaders

When the question is asked “what should be the standing or role of women in politics?” a lot of misogynistic rants are received accusing women of being inept or indecisive. Women’s contributions to keeping the polis together were overlooked even in ancient times. When women were given opportunities in politics, however, they excelled. Women’s contributions to these Panchayati raj institutions and local self-government were overlooked when they began working there. Even when women rose to positions of power in politics, their political aptitude and skills were questioned at every turn. Women were discouraged from even participating as a result of this. In the political arena, there is an obvious demand for more female leaders.

The first benefit of electing more women leaders is the dismantling of long-held assumptions and prejudices. For such jobs, women are stereotyped as indecisive, illogical, and inept. However, when more female leaders are elected, all of these prejudices will be shattered, and more women will be encouraged to join. In addition, due to a lack of role models, women do not participate in politics. There are only a few female leaders who can serve as role models for other women. As a result, if there are more female leaders in the industry, other women will become more aware of these opportunities and be inspired to pursue them.

Having more women in political entities is important for a variety of reasons, including providing role models for other women. Women who are elected to political bodies tend to focus more on what is referred described as “women’s problems.” When men are in authority, these issues are generally ignored. Women are often thought to produce more fruitful and inclusive outcomes when they are engaged and represented in important leadership roles in meaningful ways.

The comprehensive and fair portrayal of women in the public sphere is a quintessential component to building and supporting energetic and solid majority rules systems. More political interest of women likewise helps advance orientation balance and furthermore positively affect the scope of strategic issues and the arrangements progressed. There is likewise solid proof that as more women are chosen for political bodies, there is an equal expansion in policymaking accentuating personal satisfaction and furthermore focusing on family, racial, ethnic, and women-related issues. Women, more than men, will generally be exceptionally receptive to constituent worries and they additionally assist with getting enduring harmony among the individuals. Dynamic investment of women in the political circle will in general create higher resident trust in a vote-based system, via their own interest. Women are likewise seen to work more across partisan divisions and they additionally focus on wellbeing, disinfection, instruction, and other significant variables. Women’s political cooperation is additionally considered a definitive component for the improvement of a comprehensive, receptive, and straightforward majority rule government. Women should be urged and enabled to turn into a solid and conclusive local area and political innovators to satisfy the overall improvement objectives and furthermore to fabricate solid and reasonable political frameworks.⁶

Women reservation bill

Women lawmakers have far more obstacles and impediments to admission due to a variety of social, cultural, economic, institutional, and structural concerns. Quotas or reservations are one technique to circumvent these obstacles.

India adopted the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in 1994, providing women a 13 percent or 33% seat reservation in rural and urban local self-governments. This provision allowed women to participate in the political process in a variety of ways. Over a million women were allowed to participate in the political process, and their perspectives on development were refreshingly different. These local governments also claimed improved time efficiency, a greater focus on developmental goals, improved tax collections, and greater equity. However, this was insufficient because it had its own issues. The main issue was that there were no seats reserved for women in state and federal legislatures.

Following these revisions, in 1996, the Women’s Reservation Bill was adopted, which provided for the rotating reservation of 33% of seats in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, and the State Legislative Assemblies. The United Front government of HD Deve Gowda first submitted this bill in the Lok Sabha on September 12, 1996. The main goal of this measure was to set aside 33% of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for women. According to the bill, seats will be reserved on a rotational basis. The seats would be determined by a random drawing of lots, with each seat being reserved only once every three general elections. It aimed to set aside 13 percent of all seats for women from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The law was pushed through by the Vajpayee government in the Lok Sabha, however, it has yet to pass.⁷

The 1996 bill was reviewed by a Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by Geeta Mukherjee, who made several suggestions. The 2008 Bill included five of these recommendations. Reservation for 15 years, quota-within-quota for Anglo-Indians, reservation in circumstances when the state has less than three Lok Sabha seats, reservation for the Delhi Assembly, and revising “not less than one-third” to “almost one-third” were among the recommendations. Two of the suggestions were left out, including the reserving of seats in the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Councils, as well as the sub-reservation of OBC women. In May 2008, the Congress-led UPA-I government reintroduced this bill. The measure from 2008 was referred to the Law and Justice Standing Committee. Although the committee was unable to achieve an agreement, it did make three suggestions. According to the proposals, every political party must provide 20% of its tickets to women, the reservation must not exceed 20% of total seats, and quotas for OBC women must be implemented. They also looked at two other ways to boost representation. The first was that political parties were required to propose women for a certain number of seats, and the second was that dual-member constituencies be established, with women competing for one of the seats.

The 108th Constitutional Amendment bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 9, 2010, after it was reintroduced, however, it is still waiting in the Lok Sabha. Lalu Prasad Yadav, Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, and Chirag Paswan have all been vocal opponents of the Women’s Reservation Bill. The bill is still pending in the Lok Sabha. It will only be passed if the ruling government, which has a majority, presses for it. Even after 24 years after its inception, it continues to languish. The Women’s Reservation Bill appears to be promising, and its endeavor to address internal nuances within the category of women by acknowledging their deprivation points is sure to bear fruit. A bill like this will ensure that their stories be heard, which would otherwise go untold.⁸

Need for the bill

Since the bill’s introduction, there has been no meaningful effort to increase women’s political participation. According to data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union and UN Women, India ranks 148th out of 193 nations in terms of female political representation. Since then, the administration has made no genuine steps to increase women’s participation. Furthermore, the Committee for the Empowerment of Women is governed by a limited law that allows it to only advise small changes to exist social programs.

The percentage of women in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha is 11.6 percent and 11%, respectively, which is lower than practically every other country. This bill is urgently needed in order to increase women’s political participation. Many countries have implemented legislative and constitutional reforms to ensure increased female involvement, and they have been successful. As a result, the passage of this bill would undoubtedly assist women in entering the political sphere and having a good impact.

Women’s financial independence and education, which may have helped them break free from familial or societal bonds, are hampered by the absence of political representation of women in key positions in the National or State Legislatures. This bill ensures that women’s unheard deprivation or narration is called out and brought to the forefront. Furthermore, increased participation of women in politics would contribute to the progressive dismantling of a patriarchal mode of production, in which men profit materially from women’s subjugation in both the private and public spheres. The Women’s Reservation Bill is critical for a more egalitarian and gender-just society, yet we recognize that we still have a long way to go.

Conclusion

Democracy requires people from all walks of life to be adequately represented. There have been many atrocities against women in India, and there are ‘women issues’ that can only be understood from the perspective of a woman. The sexist mindset must be eradicated by not confining women inside the confines of gender-specific roles preconceptions. We have seen women in Indian politics who have demonstrated exceptional leadership skills and led the country to victory. Efforts to educate and enlighten young females about politics should be made. Reservation would be a significant step toward reaching the desired result. There have been various efforts to increase the presence of women in political leadership, but there is still a long road ahead for their representation unless men are sensitized and societal and institutional barriers are broken.

References:

1. https://www.ipu.org/our-impact/gender-equality/women-in-parliament
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/women-politics-required-change/
3. https://theleaflet.in/the-crisis-of-under-representation-of-women-in-parliament-and-assemblies/
4. https://www.news18.com/news/india/17th-lok-sabha-will-have-a-record-78-women-parliamentarians-but-equal-representation-is-still-far-from-reality-2159337.html
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-for-women-leadership-in-indian-politics/
6. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/women-politicians-261252-2015-09-04
7. https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/publication_electronic/reserv_women_pers2008.pdf
8. https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/update-women%E2%80%99s-reservation-bill

This article is written by Arryan Mohanty, a student of Symbiosis Law School.

Equivalent Citation

[1992 SCR (1) 686, 1992 SCC Supl. (2) 651]

Bench

By Hon’ble Justice Sharma, L.M.,
By Hon’ble Justice Venkatachalliah, M.N.,
By Hon’ble Justice Verma, Jagdish Saran,
By Hon’ble Justice Reddy, K. Jayachandra and
By Hon’ble Justice Agrawal, S.C

Date of Judgment

February 18, 1992

Provisions Involved

Articles 102(2), Article 122(1), Article212(1), Article 368 of Constitution of India

Introduction

A constitution is a written document that contains rules, laws, and regulations for the government of a country. The Indian Constitution is regarded as the country’s supreme or “grundnorm” law. Its preamble speaks of people’s sovereignty, democratic polity, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood, all of which ensure the individual’s dignity as well as the nation’s unity and integrity. The Preamble is based on Nehru’s beliefs, which constituted the foundation for the constitution’s construction After the constitution was created, it didn’t take long for political insiders to convince Indian framers. Following Nehru’s death, India experienced a decline in political morals and an unpleasant increase in political corruption. The disorderly floor-crossing was a blow to the electoral system and weakened the government’s three organs. Parliament passed the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act in early 1985, making defections illegal.

Factual Observations

The constitutional legitimacy of the Tenth Schedule established by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, was challenged in the case of Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors. Writ Petitions, Transfer Petitions, Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions, and other proceedings presenting common questions were all heard jointly, bringing the petitioners together. The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act substituted the tenth schedule for four articles of the Constitution, namely 101(3)(a), 102(2), 190(3)(a), and 191(2). In a 3:2 judgment in the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional legitimacy of the Anti-Defection Law. Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah, K.J. Reddy, and S.C. Agrawal made up the majority, while Justices L.M. Sharma and J.S. Verma made up the minority. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court ruled that the speaker’s directives under the law barring an MLA from serving because of defection are subject to judicial review.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the changes made by the 52nd amendment are legally acceptable?
2. Whether the additions made by the 52nd amendment have constitutional validity?

Applicability of Doctrine of Severability

As stated in the definition itself, the doctrine of severability can be applied to a composite amendment that contains amendments that do not require ratification by States as well as amendments that do require such ratification, and the amendment can be upheld in respect of the amendments that do not require ratification and are within the competence of Parliament alone by applying the doctrine of severability. Only the revisions to the proviso’s provisions that require approval must be struck down or declared illegal. The severability test asks the Court to determine whether the legislature would have adopted the legislation at all if the severed element was not a part of it, and if what remains after severance can stand alone and is functional.

The doctrine of severability applies when a piece of otherwise lawful legislation contains a provision that is invalid due to a lack of legislative competence, and the invalid section is severable, leaving the remaining valid provisions intact. This theory does not apply where legislation is invalidly enacted because of non-compliance with a mandatory legislative procedure, such as the mandatory special procedure for exercising constituent power. The theory does not apply to legislation that has not yet been enacted. Even if it may be feasible to keep a stillborn alive by surgical skillfully removing a congenitally faulty portion, it is not possible to infuse life into a stillborn referred in The Bribery Commissioner v. Pedrick Ranasinghe¹.

Laws/Provisions Involved

Schedule 10
The first paragraph begins with definitions, the second with disqualifications, the third with divisions within the party (now deleted by the 2003 amendment to the constitution), the fourth with a few disqualifications that do not apply just in mergers, and the fifth with some exemptions. The sixth and seventh paragraphs state who will resolve disputes and restrict courts from hearing concerns about a member’s disqualification, and finally, the last paragraph allows a speaker to make rules for a House to give effect to the provisions of the Schedule.

Most of these provisions are subject to adjudication and interpretation by the courts of the land. Paragraph 2, which outlines a member’s disqualifications, is perhaps the one provision that has been scrutinized by the courts.

Ratio Decidendi

People’s lifestyles shape the law’s profile, not the other way around. A finality clause is not a magical legislative incantation that prevents Judicial Review from proceeding. A decision’s statutory finality assumes and is dependent on its adherence to the law. The scope of judicial review under Articles 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution in relation to an order made by the Speaker/Chairman under would be limited to jurisdictional errors, such as infirmities based on constitutional mandate violations, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice rules, and perversity. The courts follow the notion that, notwithstanding a finality provision, it is open to the court to determine whether the action of the challenged authority is ultra vires the powers conferred on it. An action can be ultra vires if it is carried out in violation of a mandatory provision of the law granting the authority the ability to do so. If the authority’s powers are vitiated by mala fides or a colorable use of power based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations, it will be supra vires.

Case Law Referred

Eight sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 were found illegal by the court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara² on the grounds that they were in violation of certain constitutional provisions and essential freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled that the sections of the law that were declared unconstitutional were valid because they were not inextricably linked with the remainder of the Act, they were severable from the rest of it. It was one thing to say that the Legislature would not have enacted the Act, but it was another to say that the Legislature would not have enacted it. It would be impossible to pass the Act without adding the elements that were judged to be illegal.

Likewise, the Supreme Court stated in A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras³ that if a law is unconstitutional, just the part that is unconstitutional will be declared void, not the entire law, and every effort should be made to save as much of it as possible. If the invalid part’s omission has no effect on the character or structure of the document, it will be considered a severable legislative object.

Judgment

The minority judges held that the Constitution was violated because the Constitutional scheme for deciding on questions of disqualification of members after being duly elected contemplates adjudication of such disputes by an independent authority outside the House, namely the President or Governor, in accordance with the opinion of the committee, all of whom are high Constitutional functionaries.

The Election Commission came to the same conclusion as the minority judges in this instance. It issued suggestions in 1977, recommending that disqualification for defection be referred to the Election Commission for an opinion to be given to the President or Governor, because the matter might potentially be, and as with other disqualifications alluded to in Articles 102 and 191 of the constitution, the President or the Governor will act on the Election Commission’s recommendation.

As a result, it was determined that paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule did not create a non-justiciable territory. The Speaker/power Chairman’s to resolve disagreements could be considered judicial. The ‘finality clause,’ which prepared the way for the majority to prevail in the verdict, is an important construction.

Own Analysis/Opinion

The Anti-Defection Law was enacted to counteract the “evil of political defections.” However, the phrase “voluntarily giving up membership in a political party” must be defined more clearly. The President/Governor should make agreements under the Tenth Schedule based on the Election Commission’s binding advice. Disqualification should be limited to situations in which a member voluntarily resigns from his political party, abstains from voting, or votes against the party whip in a confidence/non-confidence vote.

The law that has prevented individual defections must now be used to prevent mass defections. It’s also necessary to challenge the speaker’s function. For his tenure, the speaker is reliant on the support of the legislature’s majority. As a result, he does not meet the criteria for an ‘individual adjudicatory body.’ It is not practical to repeal the Anti-defection law completely, but the long-term solution is to keep a check on political culture, and legislators who act in contempt or with mala fide intent should be voted out in subsequent elections, as the ultimate agency in the world’s largest democracy rests with the Indian people. That’s why the doctrine of severability has made it easy to combat with kind of issues and help in avoiding any kind of misuse of arbitrary powers.

The president of the parliament, and the governor of the state legislature, may report the subject to the Election Commission under Articles 102 and 192, respectively. This appears to be the only way to avoid the speakers’ political biases in their judgments. If the government wishes to keep the current arrangement, the Supreme Court will have to exercise far more judicial review power over the Speaker’s decision under the Anti-defection law than the Supreme Court is willing to do now under the Kihota Hollohon case.

Concluding Observations

After analyzing the situation in the instant case, it can be concluded that the concerns of construction and severability are distinct because, where more than one reasonable interpretation is available, one upholding the legitimacy of the legislation and the other invalidating it, the former would be accepted, and in the situation that both are possible, the former would be accepted.

If this isn’t practicable, the court has no choice but to decide whether the entire statute should be repealed, stricken down, or the excellent and bad elements can be separated. Also, the Separation of valid and invalid provisions of a statute is not determined by whether the law is enacted in the same section or in distinct parts; what matters is the substance of the matter, which must be determined through a thorough examination of the Act as a whole, as well as the enactment of the applicable provisions. Despite its relative obscurity, the philosophy has far-reaching implications. On the one hand, rejecting entire legislation for one erroneous provision is the most invasive remedy; on the other hand, the Supreme Court is hesitant about amending statutes by removing portions of them. Prior to the passage of the Tenth Schedule, there was no such thing as a “political party” under the Constitution, but their existence is now acknowledged under the Anti-defection Act.

Citations:

1. [1965] AC 172
2. AIR 1951 SC 318.
3. AIR 1950 SC 27.

Analysis by Hemant Bohra student at School of Law, Lovely Professional University, Punjab.

ABSTRACT

The article makes a sincere effort to capture the journey and improvements made under the Motor Vehicles Act which was first enacted on 1st July 1988 and thereupon amended in 2019 by the act of parliament.

INTRODUCTION

Transportation acts as a vital pillar of the social infrastructural development of any country. In a developing country like India, cheap and efficient means of transportation boosts connectivity. Connectivity aids uniform and cost-effective distribution of goods and services thereby spurring economical development. In such a state of affairs, the development of a robust grid of transportation networks assumes a center space. In the Indian sub context, road transportation is the most sort after category for commercial and personal transportation.

Hence, the need for the development of road transportation was felt hard, keeping in mind the benefits of connectivity. The compelling push for the development of road transport infrastructure combined with the increasing gross income of average middle-class Indian due to economic prosperity led to drastic demand for motor vehicles ranging from commercial ones such as trucks, lorry, etc. to personal ones such as cars, bikes, etc. The effect of this fundamental shift led to the dotting of the national roads with an increased number of motor vehicles culminating in congestion of roads, increased no of road accidents, vehicular crimes, noise pollution, instances of careless and rash driving, etc. all indicating acute need for due and systematic regulation of road traffic.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS

A. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ¹ is comprehensive legislation that caters to the needs of providing an effective framework for management and regulation of the vehicular road traffic, minimization of road accidents, and enhancement of road safety. The act was enacted by the parliament and came into force on 1 st July 1989. It replaced Motor Vehicles Act,1939, which earlier replaced the first such enactment Motor Vehicles Act,1914. The Act laid down the detailed provisions relating to the motor vehicles laws and chalked out efficiently even the minutest details such as eligibility, requirements, suspension and disqualification of driving license and learners license, registration of vehicles, permits, insurance, claim tribunals, traffic rules, appeals, compensation, etc. Furthermore, the act provides a vast array of penalties for the violation of traffic rules.

Key Features
1. Object

• The main object of the act was to take care of the increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles in the country.
• It sought to encourage the adoption of high-end technology in the automotive sector so as to provide for greater connectivity at affordable prices.
• To lay down road safety standards, pollution control measures, and standards for the transportation of hazardous and explosive materials.
• To lay down procedure and policy so as to liberalize the entry and operation of the private sector in the road transport field which was earlier dominated by the presence and participation of the government sector.
• To lay down parameters and standards for the manufacture and use of motor vehicles parts so as to curb vehicular emissions and protect the environment.
• To provide a mechanism for registration and licensing of newer types of personal and commercial vehicles.
• To chalk out an effective mechanism for tracking down traffic offenders.
• To entail greater flow of passengers and freight with the least impediments so as to address the concerns of transportation dysconnectivity and isolation which led to the creation of regional or local imbalances, thereby leading to economic dysfunction.
• To protect consumers’ interest in the Transport Sector and provide a speedy remedy for adjudication of consumer disputes who had to previously go for the long-drawn procedures of the civil suits as is required under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
• To provide for the establishment of claims tribunals for adjudication of compensation to be given to the victims of accidents involving motor vehicles and insurance of the vehicles.

2. The centerpiece of this act was the formation of a comprehensive adjudication mechanism for grant of compensation to the victims of road accidents, as earlier, due to the lacunae of previous legislations, the drivers could escape their negligence and were not held accountable for their actions. The MV Act 1988 provided a vent for the speedy redressal of the above disputes and added to the cause of innocent victims.

3. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act made it mandatory for a driver of the motor vehicle to have a valid driver’s license i.e. DL for driving at any public place which shall be issued to him by the authorizing officer. A DL or learner’s license is valid and effective throughout India.
Furthermore, no vehicle can be driven without obtaining a valid registration certificate under the motor vehicles act. The registration certificate so issued shall be valid from the date of issuing to the next fifteen years which can be further renewed for five more years.

4. Section 4 of the MV Act prescribes the age criteria for driving motor vehicles as per which people under the age of eighteen years and people under the age of twenty years shall not drive a motor vehicle and transport vehicle respectively in any public place. However, a person aged 16 years or more may drive a motor vehicle in a public place with an engine capacity of less than 50cc.

5. Section 6 prescribes restrictions for holding of more than 2 DLs except in the case of learners license or holding of central government vehicle license or others if any, as prescribed by law.

6. Section 8 enumerates the conditions for granting learners licenses. Learners so granted shall be effective for a period of six months from the date of its issuance.

7. Section 9 deals with the grant of a driving license. A DL granted under Section 9 shall be valid for a period of 20 years or until the age of 40 years of the applicant; whichever is earlier and in case of transport vehicle, the DL shall be effective for a period of 3 years. Section 15 is regarding the renewal of driving licenses.

8. Section 19 enumerates about disqualification or revocation of DL by licensing authority after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the holder of DL.

9. Section 26 provides for maintenance of a State Register of Driving Licenses, in respect of driving licenses issued and renewed by the licensing authorities of the State Government.

10. Section 146 of the Act makes it mandatory to insure motor vehicles.

11. The Motor Vehicle Act 1988 covers various offenses for the contravention of the rules mentioned therein and lays down penalties for the violation of the same such as Section 39 provides a penalty for not having a valid registration certificate of the vehicle, Section 129 for riding without a helmet, Section 184 for over-speeding and doing rash driving, Section 138(3) for driving the vehicle without fastening seat belt and many more.

B. The Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019-
With ever-growing modernization and globalization, a significant pattern of change in the behavioral use of vehicles became evident in 21 st century especially after the year 2010. Instances of reckless and rash driving, violation of traffic rules such as nonuse of helmets, seat belts, use of unregistered vehicles and permits, etc. became rampant and common. The paltry and meager amount of penalties prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for the violation of rules mentioned therein fell acutely short to deter those violations and further perpetuated the careless and reckless attitude of the people. It was in this background that the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act² was enacted and passed by the parliament on 31 st July August 2019. The Act has been in force since 1 st September 2019 and seeks to amend some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. It aims to make the roads safer and bolster the regulations in order to deter violations of the traffic norms. The act provides for a manifold increase of penalties for the violation of traffic rules, recall of defective vehicles, provisions for the protection of good Samaritans, the constitution of National Road Safety Boards, and a host of other reforms.

Key Features:
1. Compensation for victims of road accidents:
In the context of hit and run cases, the act has significantly increased the fixed minimum amount of compensation to be given in cases of deaths from Rs 25,000 to Rs 2 Lakh, and in cases of grievous injury, from Rs 12,500 to Rs 50,000.

2. Recall of vehicles:
The Act provides for recalling of those defected motor vehicles by the central government which may cause harm to the environment, or to the common people in general.

3. Creation of Road Safety Boards:
The amended Act prescribes the establishment of National Road Safety Boards which will be created by the central government in order to advise the central and state governments on all aspects of road safety and traffic management.

4. Increment in the quantum of fines ³
i. The amended Act has increased the fine for drinking and driving 5 times the penalty prescribed under the older Act from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000 along with imprisonment of 6 months. Consequent repetition of drinking and driving would lead to a fine of Rs. 15,000.
ii. Fine for rash driving is now increased from Rs 1000 to Rs. 5000 under the amended act.
iii. There has been a colossal increase of 10 times in the fine for driving without DL which now stands fixed at Rs 5000 in contrast to the earlier chargeable amount of Rs.500.
iv. The amended act introduced a new category of offenses by the Juveniles as per which the Guardian of the Juvenile, who would be the owner of the vehicle will now be fined Rs. 25,000 and up to Rs 3 years of imprisonment for contravention of traffic rules by the Juvenile and the Juvenile shall be tried accordingly under the Juveniles Justice Act. Furthermore, in such cases of contravention and conviction of the juveniles, registration of Motor Vehicles shall be canceled.
v. The amended Motor Vehicles Act lays down standards for the manufacture of motor vehicles parts, the contravention of which would result in a fine of up to Rs 100 crore, or imprisonment of up to one year, or both to the manufacturers of such motor parts.
vi. Section 196 of the amended Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 prescribes a fine of Rs 2000 for driving the vehicle without Insurance.
vii. Section 194 D of the amended Act prescribes a fine of Rs 1000 for riding without helmets and disqualification of license for up to 3 months.
vii. Driving without a seat belt will now be fined at Rs. 1000 under section 194B of the amended Act.
ix. Fine for speeding/racing has now been increased from Rs 500 to Rs 500.
x. Fine for driving vehicles without a permit has been increased from Rs.5000 to Rs. 10000 and fine for over-speeding have been increased from Rs 400 to Rs 2000.
xi. Under section 194 E of the Act; not providing a way for emergency vehicles e.g. ambulances will now cost up to Rs 10,000.

CONCLUSION

The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was enacted with the objective of improving road traffic management and safety; enhancing the regulatory mechanism of licensing and registration, and minimizing road accidents. However, the compelling forces of modernization of 21 st century made many provisions of this act inconsistent and obsolete with the pace of development of current times, thereby leading to a lack of deterrence and perpetuation of irrational and reckless behavior as regards traffic etiquettes. This led to the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 that sought to take care of the lacunae created due to the inconsistency of the previous Act by systematic consolidation and amendment of the previous Act, thereby prescribing a host of rigorous punitive and improvising measures.

References:

1. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1988-59.pdf
2. https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210413.pdf
3. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-motor-vehicles-amendment-bill-2019

Written by Riya Ganguly student at Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.

Introduction

The concept of parliamentary privileges was taken from the British Constitution. Article 105 and 194 talk about privileges or advantages to the Member of The Parliament. Such provisions are crucial for the democratic functioning of the country. The main motive of these provisions in the constitution is to uphold the supremacy of The Parliament’s office and its members. But the President, who is an integral part of The Parliament, does not have parliamentary privileges. Initially, the constitution of India provides only two parliamentary privileges. In other privileges, they were to be the same as those of the House of Commons on its commencement date ( 26 January 1950 ) until The Parliament defines. The 44^th amendment act, 1978 states that the other privileges of each House of Parliament, its members, and its committees are those which we had on the date of commencement ( 20 June 1979) until The Parliament defines.

The main motive of this amendment was to make verbal changes by dropping a direct reference to the British House of Commons. The Parliament has not made any specific law to codify all the privileges till now.    

History of Parliamentary Privileges in India

The Government of India Act of 1919 takes the first step to regulate parliamentary privileges in the country. The act provided limited Privileges to legislators in India. Freedom of speech for the members of the central legislature under the act. Freedom with so many limitations. Neither were any punitive powers conferred on the legislators nor was Freedom from Arrest provided. The act of 1935 also did not change anything materially. Legislators loudly protested against having no parliamentary privileges. But no attention was paid by the British Government of India. From 1919 to 1947, there was a lot of struggle between Indian legislators and the British Government for parliamentary privileges. But the battle was worth waging. 

 Privileges That Is Provides To Member of House Individually

• They cannot arrest in civil matters only during the session,40 days before the beginning, and 40 days after the end of the session.
• They have Freedom of Speech.
• During the parliament
• ary session, they can refuse to appear as a witness. And give pieces of evidence in a case that is pending in courts. 
• House of Parliament

 Provides Privileges Collectively

• It has the right to publish its debates, reports, and proceedings. Along with it, it also has the right to prohibit others. The 44^th amendment allows the press to publish the Report of parliamentary proceedings without prior permission. But in the case of Secret sitting, this amendment is not applicable.
• It has the right to hold secret sittings to discuss some important matters and can exclude strangers from its proceedings.
• It can make rules to regulate the conduct of its business and its procedure.
• It can punish its member for the breach of privileges or its contempt by imprisonment, suspension, expulsion, or reprimand.
• The court has no right to inquire into the proceedings of a house or its committees.
• No person can be arrested and no legal process can serve within the boundaries of The Parliament without the permission of the presiding officer.

Breach of Privilege

 When Rights of the House or the members individually are

Ignored or attacked any of the privileges, immunities, is called the Breach of Privilege. Likewise, disobedience to its authority, members, or officers is also punishable as Contempt of the House. Any act or omission that either hinders or obstructs the  House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or hinders any member or officer of such a house in the execution of his duty or which tends to produce such result which is directly or indirectly considered as a Contempt of Parliament.

Landmark Judgments

• P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State

 In this case, some Members of Parliament take bribes to vote against Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao against a no-confidence motion. Afterward, he was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The question raised in this case was that under Article 105(2) does any parliament member have any immunity to protect himself in criminal proceedings against him? Thus the court interpreted the “anything” term in the broader sense and did not prosecute P.V. Narsimha Rao and hence dismissed the case.

• Keshava Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly

In this case, Keshava Singh, a non-legislative member of the assembly, printed and published a pamphlet.  He was criticized for contempt and breach of Privileges by the speaker of the U.P legislative assembly speaker. The same day in the House, Mr. Keshava committed a Breach of Privileges by his conduct. The court held that it does not amount to contempt.

• Sir John Eliot Case

In this case, the court of King’s Bench convicted Eliot for seditious speeches made in the House of Commons. The House of Lords reversed the decision. Afterward, Bills of Right laid down that the courts or any place outside The Parliament have no right to decide on speeches and debates or proceedings in The Parliament.

• Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjeeva Reddy and others

In this case, plaintiffs were disciples of Jagadguru Shankaracharya. But at the World Hindu Religious Conference, Jagadguru made certain remarks on untouchability. After a discussion takes place in Lok Sabha in which derogatory words are delivered against Jagadguru. His disciples filed a suit against six members. The Supreme Court dismissed the plea by giving reasons. Under Article 105(1), whatever happens in Parliament during sitting or in the course of business was immunized.

Conclusion

As under Article 105(3), The Parliament has powers to codify the privileges. But no laws have been enacted by the Parliament so far. The Judiciary and Legislature must work in cooperation for any democratic constitution. These institutions have an ultimate motive for the smooth functioning of democracy. But the constitutional provisions of the Privileges of Parliament are vague. The easiest way to solve this conflict between Judiciary and Parliament lies in harmonizing the relationship between the two organs by properly codifying the privileges to remove unclear interpretations. 

The article has been written by Megha Patel, a 2^nd -year law student at The Mody University of Science and Technology, Laxmangarh, Rajasthan.

Latest Posts

• Job opportunity at EXO Edge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Vishwas Advisors, Kalyan, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Kulfi Collective, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!
• Job opportunity at The Neotia University, Diamond Harbour, West Bengal, India: Apply Now !!
• Job opportunity at Morgan Stanley, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at VISA INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANCY LLP, New Delhi, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!  
• Job opportunity at Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gurugram, Haryana, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Stelcore Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Zscaler, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Irish Expert, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at UnitedLex · Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Apply Now!
• Internship opportunity at Vineforce · Nabha, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!

---

• CLAT-Peeps! (10)
  • Current Affairs (2)
• competitions (132)
• Conferences and Seminars (201)
  • Webinar (1)
• Course and Workshops (107)
• Debates (46)
• Eassy Competitions (69)
• Fellowships & Scholarships (56)
• Guest Blogs (6)
• important (29)
• Internships and Jobs (2,317)
• interviews (8)
• moot court (180)
• Opportuintes (2,731)
  • Job Opportunity (1,191)
• opportunity (2,559)
  • Call for papers (475)
  • Quizes,fests and others (298)
  • Work Opportunity (836)
• Our Blog (1,049)
  • Administrative Law (17)
  • ADR (13)
  • Arms Act (2)
  • Case Analysis (205)
  • Company law (36)
  • Constitutional Law (143)
  • Consumer Protection Act (17)
  • Contract Law (62)
  • CPC (10)
  • Criminal Law (140)
  • Cyber Law (13)
  • Environmental Laws (30)
  • Evidence Act (20)
  • Family Law (12)
  • General (205)
  • International Humanitarian Law (8)
  • International law (23)
  • IPR (10)
  • Jurisprudence (13)
  • labor laws (7)
  • Maritime Laws (1)
  • Partnership Act (2)
  • personal law (33)
  • Taxation (10)
  • Tort (64)
  • Transfer of Property (2)
• Our Services (11)
  • career advice (2)
  • others (6)
• Top Stories (524)
• Uncategorized (720)

Archives

• November 2023 (26)
• October 2023 (1)
• September 2023 (5)
• August 2023 (2)
• July 2023 (25)
• June 2023 (23)
• May 2023 (40)
• April 2023 (136)
• March 2023 (124)
• February 2023 (138)
• January 2023 (61)
• December 2022 (39)
• November 2022 (103)
• October 2022 (178)
• September 2022 (342)
• August 2022 (240)
• July 2022 (273)
• June 2022 (196)
• May 2022 (27)
• April 2022 (99)
• March 2022 (190)
• February 2022 (196)
• January 2022 (193)
• December 2021 (152)
• November 2021 (203)
• October 2021 (189)
• September 2021 (177)
• August 2021 (192)
• July 2021 (393)
• June 2021 (293)
• May 2021 (179)
• April 2021 (61)
• March 2021 (46)
• February 2021 (56)
• January 2021 (63)
• December 2020 (86)
• November 2020 (94)
• October 2020 (146)
• September 2020 (220)
• August 2020 (173)
• July 2020 (165)
• June 2020 (119)
• May 2020 (136)
• April 2020 (7)
• February 2020 (37)
• January 2020 (3)
• November 2019 (1)

After huge success of numerous Quiz Competitions and Interactive Webinars, we hereby glad to inform you all that “Vakalat Works” is organizing their First E- Youth Parliament on the agenda “Review of RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 with special emphasis on PM cares fund.”

Apply latest by: 27th July, 2020

What Vakalat Works is?

“Vakalat Works” is an initiative by law students from different law colleges to bring to you all the information related to law and conducts competitions for you all to test your skills and knowledge. Since it is a community of students we expect to flourish with each passing day.

Eligibility

The competition is open to one & all. So brace yourselves & get ready!!

Important Information

• Date of the Competition – 29^th & 30^th July, 2020 (Sunday)
• Last Date of registration – 27^th July, 2020
• Registration fee- Rs. 200/- 

Cash Prize worth Rs 2000/-

Agenda

“Review of RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 with special emphasis on PM cares fund.”

Note:  Digital Certificates will be issued to all the participants of the competition.

Payment related information 

Steps to follow:

1. Pay your Competition fees on Paytm/Google Pay/Phone pe at the given details

2. Take a screenshot of that transaction.

3. Click on the registration link given below in this page

4. Upload the screenshot of the payment transaction there along with other necessary details of yours that are asked for.

5. “Submit” the Form and Prepare.

Payment mode and Details:

• Google Pay/ Paytm/ Phone Pe :  7080468523 (Animesh Shukla)

Registration link

https://forms.gle/42yfxDnAEdgwLf2v7

For any query, Contact us on:

Email id – vakalatworks@gmail.com

Animesh Shukla – 7080468523 (Only Whatsapp)

Hardik Mishra – 8448527844 (Only Whatsapp)

Social Accounts

Facebook : vakalatworks

Instagram: vakalatworks