Polity – Fill in the Blank – GK Questions

SVEEP launched by ECI in 2009: Multi-pronged strategy to educate voters, build awareness about electoral process, encourage participation. Activities: (a) Voter awareness campaigns, (b) School/college programmes, (c) Media outreach, (d) Collaboration with civil society. Contributed to increased voter turnout, especially among women, youth, and marginalized groups.

EVMs first used experimentally in Paravur Assembly constituency (Kerala) in 1982 by-election. Gradually expanded; used nationwide from 2004 general elections. Features: (a) Reduces bogus voting, (b) Faster counting, (c) Cost-effective. VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) added from 2013 for transparency; now used in all constituencies for verification.

PUCL v. Union of India (2013): SC directed ECI to provide NOTA option in EVMs/ballot papers to enable voters to reject all candidates if dissatisfied. NOTA votes don't affect election outcome (candidate with most votes wins regardless), but serves as expression of dissent. Debate continues on making NOTA consequential (e.g., fresh elections if NOTA gets majority).

Article 82 (Parliament) and Article 170 (State Assemblies): Delimitation of constituencies based on latest census figures. However, 42nd Amendment (1976) froze delimitation based on 1971 census till 2001; 84th Amendment (2001) extended freeze till first census after 2026. Aims to encourage population control measures without penalizing States that control population growth.

Future directions for rights-based approach: (a) Digital inclusion: Ensure Aadhaar/DBT don't exclude vulnerable groups, (b) Climate resilience: Adapt NFSA, MGNREGA to climate-induced migration/disasters, (c) Urbanization: Extend rights architecture to urban poor (affordable housing, social security), (d) Demographic change: Address elderly care, intergenerational equity, (e) Globalization: Protect rights in gig economy, cross-border migration. Rights framework must evolve dynamically to remain relevant in changing socio-economic-technological landscape.

RTE Act, Section 7: Financial responsibility shared between Centre and States: (a) For most States: 68:32 (Centre:State), (b) For Northeast States: 90:10, (c) For UTs: 100% Central. Similar sharing patterns in NFSA, MGNREGA. Ensures fiscal federalism: Centre provides resources, States implement based on local needs. Challenges: (a) Timely fund release, (b) State capacity to utilize funds, (c) Monitoring expenditure efficiency. Finance Commission recommendations critical for aligning resources with rights obligations.

PUCL v. Union of India (Right to Food case, ongoing since 2001): SC issued continuing mandamus directing: (a) Universalization of ICDS, (b) Mid-day meals in schools (later codified in RTE Act), (c) PDS reforms, (d) Maternity entitlements. Illustrates judicial role in: (a) Interpreting right to life (Article 21) to include food security, (b) Monitoring executive implementation through continuing mandamus, (c) Catalyzing legislative action (NFSA, 2013). Balances judicial activism with respect for policy domain of elected branches.

Rights-based legislations are interlinked: (a) NFSA (food security) requires Agriculture (production), Rural Development (PDS infrastructure), Health (nutrition monitoring), WCD (ICDS for children), (b) RTE Act requires Education (schools), Rural Development (infrastructure), Finance (funding), (c) MGNREGA requires Rural Development (implementation), Finance (wages), Environment (asset creation). Siloed administration hampers convergence; need for integrated planning, shared databases, joint monitoring to realize rights holistically.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Three-tier redressal: (a) District Commission: up to ₹1 crore, (b) State Commission: ₹1-10 crore, (c) National Commission: above ₹10 crore. New features: (a) E-filing, video conferencing, (b) Product liability, (c) Unfair trade practices coverage, (d) Central Consumer Protection Authority for class actions. Strengthens consumer rights enforcement; reduces litigation time, cost. Awareness and accessibility remain key challenges.

Transgender Persons Act, 2019: Provides for: (a) Right to self-perceived gender identity, (b) Certificate of identity from District Magistrate (based on self-declaration), (c) Prohibition of discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, (d) Welfare measures: education, skill development, healthcare access. Criticisms: (a) Certificate requirement undermines self-declaration principle affirmed in NALSA judgment (2014), (b) Inadequate penalties for offences. Balances recognition with implementation concerns.

MGNREGA, 2005: Guarantees 100 days of unskilled manual wage employment per rural household per year at statutory minimum wages. Features: (a) Legal right to work, (b) Decentralized planning by Gram Sabhas, (c) 60:40 wage-material ratio, (d) Social audit mandatory, (e) Unemployment allowance if work not provided within 15 days. World's largest public works program; reduces distress migration, strengthens rural livelihoods, empowers women (1/3 participation mandate).

NFSA, 2013: Entitlements: (a) Priority households: 5 kg/person/month at ₹3/kg rice, ₹2/kg wheat, ₹1/kg coarse grains, (b) Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) households: 35 kg/household/month at same prices, (c) Pregnant/lactating women, children 6 months-14 years: nutritious meals, maternity benefit. Covers up to 75% rural, 50% urban population. World's largest food security program; implemented through PDS with Aadhaar seeding, portability.

CPGRAMS: Launched by DARPG (Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances) in 2007. Features: (a) Online grievance submission, (b) Tracking via unique registration number, (c) Time-bound redressal, (d) Appeal mechanism, (e) Analytics for systemic improvements. Part of broader public grievance redressal reforms to make administration responsive and accountable. Complements RTI, Citizen's Charter, social audit mechanisms.

India's accountability architecture: (a) CAG: Financial accountability through audit, (b) CVC: Vigilance administration and corruption prevention, (c) Lokpal/Lokayuktas: Independent investigation of corruption against high functionaries, (d) Information Commissions: Transparency through RTI, (e) Parliamentary committees: Legislative oversight. Multi-layered framework ensures checks and balances; effectiveness depends on independence, capacity, and political will for implementation.

RTI Act, Section 20(1): Information Commission can impose penalty of ₹250 per day on PIO for: (a) Unreasonable delay, (b) Malafidely denying request, (c) Knowingly giving incomplete/incorrect/misleading information, (d) Destroying information. Maximum penalty: ₹25,000. Also recommends disciplinary action under service rules. Penalty provision ensures accountability of PIOs and effectiveness of RTI regime.

RTI Act, Section 7(1): PIO must provide information within 30 days of request. Section 7(1) proviso: If information concerns life/liberty, must be provided within 48 hours. Section 7(3): If request transferred to another public authority, 30 days computed from receipt by transferee. Time-bound response ensures prompt access to information; penalties for delay promote accountability of public authorities.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC): Oldest parliamentary committee (1921). Functions: (a) Examine CAG reports on Union/State accounts, (b) Ensure expenditure was within grants, (c) Detect waste, extravagance, corruption, (d) Recommend corrective action. Composition: 22 members (15 LS, 7 RS); Chairperson from Opposition by convention. Critical mechanism for legislative financial oversight of executive.

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014: Enacted to protect persons making public interest disclosures about corruption, misuse of power, etc., by public servants. Provides mechanism for inquiry, protection against victimization. However, not fully notified due to debates on balancing transparency with national security (proposed amendments to exempt certain categories of information). Highlights tension between accountability and security in governance.

Lokpal Act, 2013: PM under Lokpal jurisdiction but with safeguards: (a) No inquiry into allegations relating to international relations, external security, public order, atomic energy, space, (b) Inquiry requires approval of full bench of Lokpal (Chairperson + at least 2 members), (c) Proceedings held in camera, (d) Complaint dismissed if frivolous/vexatious. Balances accountability with practical governance needs in sensitive areas.

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Lokpal consists of Chairperson (former CJI or SC Judge) + up to 8 members (50% judicial: former SC Judges/HC Chief Justices; 50% non-judicial: persons of integrity with 25+ years experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, finance, law, management). Appointed by President on recommendation of selection committee: PM, Speaker, LoP, CJI/nominee, eminent jurist. Ensures expertise and independence in anti-corruption adjudication.