1
Q
Free Speech
A
- Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, empowers the state to issue blocking orders in cases of emergency on the grounds such as “sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above”
- This provision’s constitutionality was challenged in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, where the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules after observing that sufficient procedural safeguards were embedded, such as provision of recording a reasoned order, and providing notice to the intermediary and the originator whose content was sought to be blocked.
- Reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech can only be instituted on the basis of eight specifically enumerated grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had clarified in Shreya Singhal that blocking under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules must conform to those grounds only.
- Misinformation and fake news are not grounds under which free speech can be restricted under Article 19(2) and Section 69A. Disproportionate Internet shutdown orders, such as the ones currently operating in Manipur
- In Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi, the Supreme Court held that pre-censorship on freedom of speech is unconstitutional.
2
Q
NCCSA
A
- The Centre issued an Ordinance that seeks to amend the Government of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi Act, 1991 and effectively negate the Supreme Court judgment that gave the Delhi government the power to wield control over bureaucrats
- The Ordinance formed a “permanent” NCCSA with the Chief Minister as chairperson, and the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Home) as member and member secretary
- The Delhi Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) on Sunday said that the National Capital Civil Service Authority (NCCSA), formed by the Union government’s May 19 Ordinance, has been reduced to a “complete farce” with bureaucrats “dictating” their own will and overturning the Chief Minister’s decisions.
- The issuance of the Ordinance empowers the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi with control over services, thereby challenging the elected government’s authority in matters of officials’ transfer and posting. This development raises significant constitutional apprehensions regarding the delicate balance of power between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor.
3
Q
Issues with NCCSA
A
Issues -
1. Undermines Triple Chain of accountability formulated by the Supreme Court. The triple chain of accountability is integral to representative democracy and proceeds as follows:
* Civil servants are accountable to the cabinet.
* The cabinet is accountable to the legislature, or the Legislative Assembly.
* The Legislative Assembly is (periodically) accountable to the electorate.
1. The ordinance has led to a power struggle between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor.
2. Constitutional Issues: The elected government claims that the ordinance violates the Constitution.
3. Governance Issue: The ordinance has created confusion and uncertainty among the civil service officers working in Delhi government departments.
4. The ordinance has also affected the delivery of public services and welfare schemes in Delhi.
4
Q
Argument in Favour of the Delhi Services Ordinance:
A
- Balancing of Interests: The ordinance is necessary to balance the local and national interests of the people
- The ordinance ensures that the Centre has a say in the administration of services in the national capital, which is vital for maintaining public order, security and development.
- ordinance also respects the role of the elected Delhi government by giving it representation in the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA)
- Constitutional Validity: The ordinance is in line with Article 239AA of the Constitution, which gives special status to Delhi as a Union Territory with a legislative assembly and allows Parliament to make laws on matters that are normally within the exclusive domain of the States, such as services.
5
Q
Argument Against the Delhi Services Ordinance:
A
- Undermining of Democracy: The ordinance undermines the principles of representative democracy and responsible governance, which are the pillars of India’s constitutional order.
- The ordinance also violates the principle of federalism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution,
- The ordinance also reduces the role of the Chief Minister and the council of ministers to a rubber stamp, as they can be overruled by two bureaucrats in the NCCSA
- The ordinance violates and nullifies the Supreme Court’s judgment, which held that the Delhi government has legislative and executive powers over services
- Contradiction of Cooperative Federalism:
The Act not only opposes cooperative federalism
6
Q
Argument Against the Delhi Services Ordinance:
A
- Undermining of Democracy: The ordinance undermines the principles of representative democracy and responsible governance, which are the pillars of India’s constitutional order.
- The ordinance also violates the principle of federalism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution,
- The ordinance also reduces the role of the Chief Minister and the council of ministers to a rubber stamp, as they can be overruled by two bureaucrats in the NCCSA
- The ordinance violates and nullifies the Supreme Court’s judgment, which held that the Delhi government has legislative and executive powers over services
7
Q
Conclusion - NCCSA
A
- Engaging in meaningful dialogue and negotiation between the central government and the Delhi government is crucial for resolving the issue.
- It is vital for all stakeholders to demonstrate a commitment for upholding constitutional principles, including democratic governance, separation of powers, and the rights of elected representatives.
