Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, effectively opened the doors for disqualification proceedings against Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde for defection from the Shiv Sena, and held that the then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari “erred” in calling for a trust vote, which triggered the fall of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government in mid-2022.
The court also said that Governor Koshyari was right in inviting Mr. Shinde to form the new government as Mr. Thackeray had resigned before the floor test. This means that the Shinde government will continue in power for now.
The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. Floor test cannot be used as a means to settle differences within a political party.
The Governor erred in concluding that Mr. Thackeray had lost support. The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion,” a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed.
The court said that it could not quash the voluntary resignation of Mr. Thackeray as CM, and thus reinstate his MVA government. Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him.
Delhi govt. has control over officers, says Supreme Court (Page no. 1)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
In a blow to the Centre, the Supreme Court gave the Delhi government power to make laws and wield control over bureaucrats deputed to its departments while declaring that civil service officers are “politically neutral professionals” who serve the people and not parties.
A constitutionally entrenched and democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration. The administration comprises several public officers, who are posted in the services of a particular government, irrespective of whether or not that government was involved in their recruitment,” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud debunked the Centre’s argument that it retained “administrative control” over officers deputed to Delhi.
A Constitution Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, however, reiterated that the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) would not have the power to legislate on public order, police and land.
The legislative and executive power of NCTD over Entry 41 shall not extend over to services related to public order, police, and land.
However, legislative and executive power over services such as Indian Administrative Services or Joint Cadre services, which are relevant for the implementation of policies and vision of NCTD in terms of the day-to-day administration of the region, shall lie with NCTD.
Editorial
The problem with India’s multi-alignment stand (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
China’s recent mediation efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis have once again spotlighted India’s approach to conflict resolution.
By holding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastward expansion responsible for instigating the war; by painting America as the biggest obstacle to ceasefire; by exploiting the differences among western countries regarding the extent of support to Ukraine; by further cementing the Beijing-Moscow relationship, and ensuring the survival of the Vladimir Putin regime, China has effectively positioned itself in opposition to the American approach. This is not how India views its role in resolving the conflict.
India has increasingly used varied symbolic instruments of power to enhance its soft power appeal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi now projects India as the “mother of democracies” and as a “moral force” to enforce global peace.
In sharp contrast to the Chinese President Xi Jinping’s first outreach last month to the Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, since the Russian invasion, Mr. Modi has spoken to Mr. Zelenskyy many times.
In October and December last year, Mr. Modi, in his telephonic conversation with Mr. Zelenskyy, had expressed India’s solidarity with Ukraine while extending support for peace efforts.
And in September, Mr. Modi had publicly told Mr. Putin that “today’s era is not of war” — a remark that seemed to be a reprimand to Moscow.
Even the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, felt compelled to describe this widely-reported remark as “significant”. Washington understands the importance of India’s continuous engagement with Ukraine because that is an important way of bringing New Delhi’s response to the Ukraine war into alignment with its own. The geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific and the Ukraine conflict are in many ways inter-connected.
The regular Modi-Zelenskyy interactions may be seen as underscoring India’s rising stature and recognition of its unique position in the emerging global order, despite western criticism of India’s continued energy imports from Russia and export of excess refined Russian fuel to the European market.
During Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Emine Dzhaparova’s recent visit to New Delhi, she remarked (in a widely reported tweet) that “India wants to be the Vishwaguru, the global teacher and arbiter.
In our case, we’ve got a very clear picture: aggressor against innocent victim. Supporting Ukraine is the only right choice for true Vishwaguru.”
The hint here is that the ‘Vishwa Guru’ image that the government seeks for the country will remain imperfect if India refuses to take a strong moral position on Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Explainer
The SC ruling on Sena vs. Sena (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court held that then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s call for a trust vote, which led to the resignation of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government last June, was illegal.
It said that Mr. Koshiyari was “not justified” in calling Chief Minister Uddhav Thackerary to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
But the Court also said that it could not reinstate Mr. Thackeray as Chief Minister because he had resigned instead of facing the trust vote.
Last year, the Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government was toppled and replaced by another government, comprising a faction of the Shiv Sena, which claimed to be the “real” Sena, the Bharatiya Janata Party and several Independent MLAs. The leader of the breakaway Sena faction, Eknath Shinde, became Chief Minister.
The first petition was filed by Mr. Shinde last June after notices were issued by then Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly, Narhari Zirwal, against 40 rebel MLAs under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution which deals with disqualification on the grounds of defection.
Thereafter, petitions were filed by the Thackeray group challenging the then Maharashtra Governor’s decision to call for a trust vote and the swearing-in of Mr. Shinde as Chief Minister.
The election of the new Speaker, Rahul Narwekar, was also challenged. A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, P.S. Narasimha and Hima Kohli had reserved its judgment on March 16.
On May 11, based on the five petitions and arguments made by both parties, the Court gave its ruling on questions of law that arose in this case in a 141-page judgment.
What is the stalemate over the U.S. debt ceiling? (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
The U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen notified Congress last week that the country could default on its debt as early as June 1, if the Republican-dominated House of Representatives and President Joe Biden’s White House did not reach a consensus to raise or suspend the debt ceiling.
When the federal government spends more than it brings in, it runs up a budget deficit. It then has to borrow money to meet its financial obligations, accruing debt.
The government borrows by creating and selling debt securities like bonds to U.S. investors and companies, banks, pension funds, foreign investors and countries.
The largest part of these are owned by the U.S. federal government itself, which keeps the money for social security schemes, medicare, federal pensions and so on.
While the administration and Congress decide on taxation and spending, the collection of taxes and the borrowing of funds is done by the U.S. Treasury Department.
In 1917, Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act, to allow then-President Woodrow Wilson to take out funds for the First World War without waiting for the approval of absent Congress lawmakers.
However, the Congress created a limit on borrowing ($11.5 billion at the time), thus creating a debt ceiling that could only be raised by the approval of the Congress (House and Senate).
The U.S. government has hit or come close to hitting the debt ceiling multiple times. According to Treasury Department figures, Congress has acted 78 separate times since 1960 either to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit.
While the government continues to receive taxation revenue after hitting the debt ceiling, it cannot borrow any more to pay its existing bills. The U.S. would then be unable to pay its debt-holders, resulting in a default.
Business
GST e-invoicing to include smaller firms from August 1 (Page no. 16)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
In a move that would add to the compliance requirements for small and medium businesses under the GST regime while expanding the tax net, the Centre has made it mandatory for all businesses with an annual turnover of ₹5 crore to use e-invoices from August 1.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which notified the reduction from the current ₹10-crore level, also rolled out an ‘Automated Return Scrutiny Module’ for GST returns. The module’s implementation has already commenced with the scrutiny of GST returns for the financial year 2019-20.
This module will enable the officers to carry out scrutiny of GST returns of Centre-administered taxpayers selected on the basis of data analytics and risks identified by the system.
In case customers accept invoices from such vendors without e-invoice compliance, their input tax credit would be denied, resulting in GST loss for them to the extent of 18% generally, which could severely impact their bottom lines.