The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)

-
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) , introduced in 2005 by the Ministry of Rural Development , is one of the world's largest work guarantee programs.  It aims to strengthen livelihood security in rural areas by providing 100 days of assured wage employment each year to adult members of rural households willing to engage in unskilled manual labor. This initiative plays a vital role in promoting economic stability, empowering communities, and fostering sustainable development across India's rural landscape. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) stands as a monumental testament to India's commitment to social welfare and rural empowerment. Enacted in 2005, this groundbreaking initiative has evolved into one of the most significant pillars of support for rural populations across the country. Imagine a program that guarantees 100 days of wage employment annually to adult members of rural households—this is not jus...
Post a Comment

Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly case (2020)

-

 The Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly case (2020) is a significant judgment concerning the Anti-Defection Law under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Here are the key points:

Background:

  • Election Context: The case arose after the 2017 Manipur Legislative Assembly elections, which resulted in a hung assembly. The Indian National Congress emerged as the single largest party, but the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) formed the government with the support of other parties and independent MLAs.

Key Issues:

  • Disqualification Petitions: Several petitions were filed seeking the disqualification of MLAs who had defected from the Congress to support the BJP.
  • Speaker’s Delay: The Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly delayed the decision on these disqualification petitions, leading to legal challenges.

Supreme Court Verdict:

  • Timely Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions within a reasonable time frame, ideally within three months.
  • Judicial Review: The Court emphasized that the Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review, ensuring that they are not arbitrary or biased.
  • Independent Tribunal Recommendation: The Court suggested that Parliament consider establishing an independent tribunal, headed by a retired judge, to handle disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule to avoid potential partisan behavior by the Speaker.

Significance:

  • Strengthening Anti-Defection Law: This judgment reinforced the importance of the Anti-Defection Law in maintaining the integrity of the legislative process.
  • Ensuring Accountability: By setting a time frame for the Speaker’s decisions and allowing judicial review, the Court aimed to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the handling of disqualification petitions.

This case has had a significant impact on the functioning of legislative assemblies and the enforcement of the Anti-Defection Law in India.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is the Sanctity of Parliamentary Debate, Which Lies at the Core of Democratic Decision-Making, Being Compromised?

-
From the historical view where the core of parliamentary debates was based on public welfare, the utilitarianism principle where every individual was very much aware of being responsible for his/her words towards the public, their actions and reactions were under the basic rule. The decorum of parliament was maintained and the politicians were public servants thinking of a collective decision where the core value was to take a step in the public welfare way. Thinking of that era when like-minded people were making decisions for a common vision that was devoted to a well-developed nation as a whole. But if we talk about today's debates they sound to be senseless.   Fighting with the elders, breaking public property, unethical slogans, and quotations to put-down the individual's public and private image is not at all the act of the responsible member of parliament. The core value is dying with the baseless debates where logical thinking and analytical norms are missing. There wa...
Read more

‘India had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads’

-
Image
The quote by  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, "India had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads,"  is a powerful testament to the ancient civilization's early advancements in governance and societal structures. It speaks volumes about the historical context of India's political systems, which were far more developed than often recognized in the common Eurocentric narrative of history. This essay will delve into the implications of Ambedkar's statement, exploring its historical accuracy, its significance in the context of Indian pride and identity, and its relevance in contemporary discussions about the origins and evolution of democratic institutions. Firstly, various historical records and scholarly research support the assertion that India had parliamentary institutions in ancient times. The 'sabha' and 'samiti' of the Vedic period, for instance, are indicative of consultative assemblies that played a role in governance. These bodie...
Read more

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986

-
 The Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986 is a cornerstone in the Indian judicial history, highlighting the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government . The case stemmed from a practice that had become routine for the Bihar government: the re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval, a process that Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, an economics professor, found to be a subversion of democratic principles . The Supreme Court's decision in this case was a resounding affirmation of constitutional law and its supremacy over executive convenience. By declaring the practice of re-promulgating ordinances without legislative consent as unconstitutional, the court reinforced the necessity of legislative scrutiny and the impermanence of ordinances, which are meant to be emergency measures, not a backdoor for enacting laws. This landmark judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of checks and balances within ...
Read more