INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

Optional : Law for CS(M) 2017, discussion, debates, questions and answer writing

Let this be the go to thread.
«13456

Comments

  • Here is my first question

    “Federalism has in recent years, witnessed a change from the dogmatic to dynamic approach”. Discuss the changing approach and point out the main deviations in the working of the Constitution of India.(2004)

    Any idea as to what could this question be asking?

  • Here is my first question

    “Federalism has in recent years, witnessed a change from the dogmatic to dynamic approach”. Discuss the changing approach and point out the main deviations in the working of the Constitution of India.(2004)

    Any idea as to what could this question be asking?

    Not too sure, but this could be in context of Kuldeep Nayyar v UoI.

    Answer structure would be the same about center state relations vis a vis federalism. Starting from state of WB v UoI (coal bearing areas) case to SR bommai.
    dogmatic approach would be as written in constitution and then as seen in us federation, dynamic approach would be as per parliamentary form of governance- center as a trustee of the states- suitable to indian needs and customs.

    But please add/make corrections if can.

  • edited March 2017
    Yea, you are there. Now I wonder what aspects to include and what aspects to not include. The question is regarding approaches to 'federalism' and not 'constitution' alone. As per my reading, it is as follows:

    dogmatic approach
    --------------------------
    - classical federalism as defined by wheare.
    - u.s. constitution as an extension of the dogmatic approach and difficulties experienced, especially during the 1854 civil war.

    dynamic approach
    -------------------------
    - creative interpretation a/o to circumstances. U.S. constitution interpreted widely to make it centralized during world wars.
    - Informed by U.S. experiences, Canada and India have constitutions with a fluid definition of federalism. Indian constitution can be unitary at times. But it is federal also.
    - Despite strong centre, India has decentralized institutions via 73rd and 74th amendments.


    Deviations in the working of the constitution
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    - strong centre, yet difficulty faced by Centre in implementing Hindi as the official language.
    - Unilateral powers u/A. 3, but Centre cannot by itself alter the boundaries without serious hindrances, as evident from the West-Bengal - Odisha land dispute in 1950s.
    - integrated judiciary, a unitary aspect, but district judges are appointed by the Governor, who is informed by the state government.


    Please do feel free to counter or add inputs of your own. Also do comment if the points made are relevant under those headings.
  • Here is my first question

    “Federalism has in recent years, witnessed a change from the dogmatic to dynamic approach”. Discuss the changing approach and point out the main deviations in the working of the Constitution of India.(2004)

    Any idea as to what could this question be asking?

    The dogmatic approach of Indian federalism prescribes a strong centre with independent states whereas the dynamic approach adopted recently reflects a competitive as well as a co-operative federalism.

    - UDAY, AMRUT , 32 to 42% tax devolution reflect the changes in the approach.
    - The executive power of every state has to be exercised so as to ensure compliance with the laws made by parliament as per article 365. Also, all plans were to be made by planning commission and implemented by states. But NITI ayog replaced it and thrusts upon cooperative federalism.
    - U.P start up policy , different from national approach.
    - labour law reforms in Gujrat & Rajasthan.
    - moving away from one size fits all policy.

    Changes in constitutional workings-

    - introduction of GST and the various changes in taxation scheme (provided in financial relations under constitution).
    - Constitutional provisions are such as to avoid Governor being involved in political thicket but the recent Arunachal Pradesh sacking of CM was contrary to this constitutional working.




    Just a framework, not very clear i think. More inputs from people will help in analysing what actually the question is asking.
  • Here is my first question

    “Federalism has in recent years, witnessed a change from the dogmatic to dynamic approach”. Discuss the changing approach and point out the main deviations in the working of the Constitution of India.(2004)

    Any idea as to what could this question be asking?

    The dogmatic approach of Indian federalism prescribes a strong centre with independent states whereas the dynamic approach adopted recently reflects a competitive as well as a co-operative federalism.

    - UDAY, AMRUT , 32 to 42% tax devolution reflect the changes in the approach.
    - The executive power of every state has to be exercised so as to ensure compliance with the laws made by parliament as per article 365. Also, all plans were to be made by planning commission and implemented by states. But NITI ayog replaced it and thrusts upon cooperative federalism.
    - U.P start up policy , different from national approach.
    - labour law reforms in Gujrat & Rajasthan.
    - moving away from one size fits all policy.

    Changes in constitutional workings-

    - introduction of GST and the various changes in taxation scheme (provided in financial relations under constitution).
    - Constitutional provisions are such as to avoid Governor being involved in political thicket but the recent Arunachal Pradesh sacking of CM was contrary to this constitutional working.




    Just a framework, not very clear i think. More inputs from people will help in analysing what actually the question is asking.

    Dynamic approach
    --------------------------
    1. GST kind of takes away state's power of taxation which the state earlier had. But it does not erode federalism as centre has agreed to compensate the states to restore ex-ante status quo. Also GST rollout was preceded by 14th FCC increased devolutions from 32% to 42%.

    So GST's example shows that spirit of federalism is still being retained, but its characteristics are being altered to suit current realities, such as the need to create a single internal market.

    2. AMRUT is a good example because it transferred approval power from the Ministry of Urban Development to states and enables urban local bodies to design and implement city plans.


    But I fail to see how other points are suitable for the question

    1. U.P's start-up policy being different from that of centre is very well within the executive domain of the state. And there is no deviation of any sort. Even in a rigid or dogmatic understanding, a state can do so and be different from the centre. Framing a policy is within executive domain.

    2. NITI Aayog/Planning Commission are extra-constitutional bodies, and I fail to see how they can be included in an answer to a question on workings of the constitution. Be it Planning Commission or NITI Ayog, the decision to have both were taken by the Centre.

    3. UDAY may not be a good example because UDAY is a scheme that incentivizes the states to do what they already should have done. There is no shifting of powers between the centre and the state.
  • Here is my first question

    “Federalism has in recent years, witnessed a change from the dogmatic to dynamic approach”. Discuss the changing approach and point out the main deviations in the working of the Constitution of India.(2004)

    Any idea as to what could this question be asking?

    The dogmatic approach of Indian federalism prescribes a strong centre with independent states whereas the dynamic approach adopted recently reflects a competitive as well as a co-operative federalism.

    - UDAY, AMRUT , 32 to 42% tax devolution reflect the changes in the approach.
    - The executive power of every state has to be exercised so as to ensure compliance with the laws made by parliament as per article 365. Also, all plans were to be made by planning commission and implemented by states. But NITI ayog replaced it and thrusts upon cooperative federalism.
    - U.P start up policy , different from national approach.
    - labour law reforms in Gujrat & Rajasthan.
    - moving away from one size fits all policy.

    Changes in constitutional workings-

    - introduction of GST and the various changes in taxation scheme (provided in financial relations under constitution).
    - Constitutional provisions are such as to avoid Governor being involved in political thicket but the recent Arunachal Pradesh sacking of CM was contrary to this constitutional working.




    Just a framework, not very clear i think. More inputs from people will help in analysing what actually the question is asking.

    Dynamic approach
    --------------------------
    1. GST kind of takes away state's power of taxation which the state earlier had. But it does not erode federalism as centre has agreed to compensate the states to restore ex-ante status quo. Also GST rollout was preceded by 14th FCC increased devolutions from 32% to 42%.

    So GST's example shows that spirit of federalism is still being retained, but its characteristics are being altered to suit current realities, such as the need to create a single internal market.

    2. AMRUT is a good example because it transferred approval power from the Ministry of Urban Development to states and enables urban local bodies to design and implement city plans.


    But I fail to see how other points are suitable for the question

    1. U.P's start-up policy being different from that of centre is very well within the executive domain of the state. And there is no deviation of any sort. Even in a rigid or dogmatic understanding, a state can do so and be different from the centre. Framing a policy is within executive domain.

    2. NITI Aayog/Planning Commission are extra-constitutional bodies, and I fail to see how they can be included in an answer to a question on workings of the constitution. Be it Planning Commission or NITI Ayog, the decision to have both were taken by the Centre.

    3. UDAY may not be a good example because UDAY is a scheme that incentivizes the states to do what they already should have done. There is no shifting of powers between the centre and the state.


    - I didn't mention PC and NITI example in constitutional workings head. PC was not an advisory body in true sense, rather it also allocated the funds (implying a strong centre). Whereas, NITi is purely an advisory body with no function of allocating the funds. PC formulated CSS based on one size fits all formulae( excluding special category states- ) whereas NITi ayog is based on cooperative federalism involving not only states but also village representatives. Note that PC didnt include representatives of state/UTs instead NDC did, local requirements were thus ignored while drafting the pland. Hence, this is a change in dogmatic to dynamic approach.

    - Power outages not only affect local concerns but also adversely affect national priorities like “Make in India” and “Digital India”. Also, default on bank loans by financially stressed DISCOMs has the potential to seriously impact the banking sector and the economy at large. Here, UDAY will act as an instrument of co-operative federalism.

    The performance metrics of several DISCOMs will be there on one platform, which will help to build healthy competition amongst the DISCOMs/States, bringing in an ethos of ‘Competitive Federalism’ among states to achieve the best progress in public schemes. Here again a shift from dogmatic approach where the concern was left solely to a particular state.

    What about the examples under deviations in constitutional workings? what else could be included?

    And thanks for the initiative. Hope it sustains.
  • And, how is any appellate justice to be adjudged as performing a corrupt act under the recent NJAC judgment, which suggests Third Schedule (oath of office) obligation not to recuse

    what happened here? what is meant by that?

    FULL ARTICLE here : http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/judiciary-corruption-law-of-contempt-4556016/
  • @canune , i will get back soon on this thread. Came home for a few days. Give me little time to respond.
  • edited March 2017
    Q. What procedure would you suggest to the Government of India where under an Agreement with the Government of India and a neighbouring foreign country, a small portion of Indian territory comprised in State Y has to be ceded to the above foreign neighbouring country? (2007)

    Answer : Will it be A.253? Which allows parliament to make laws on subject matters in state list for giving effect to international agreements?

    But what is the procedure for it? To me, it seems to be i) enter into international agreement. ii) introduce a bill in either House and make law u/a.253.

    But the question is a 20 marks question and I fail to see how just two steps may be fit into a 20 marks requirement.

    Or is there an alternative way as well? For e.g., 1st Government reduces the area of a state through Article 3 and makes that area a Union Territory and then enter into an agreement with a foreign country for ceding the union territory.

    ^Is this method legally possible?
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google