Insights Static Quiz -74, 2018 –Polity and Rights issues

Answer – c

• 2^nd ARC recommended that Official Secrets Act, 1923 should be repealed, and substituted by a chapter in the National Security Act, containing provisions relating to official secrets.
• The recommendation has not been accepted. OSA is the only law to deal with the cases of espionage, wrongful possession and communication of sensitive information detrimental to the security of the State.
• National Security Act (NSA) provides for preventive powers to deal with likely threats to maintenance of public order and security of the country, maintenance of essential services etc. It provides for preventive detention but does not define any substantive offence. On the other hand, the OSA is a substantive law.

Source – Government response to 2^nd ARC reports available on DARP website

Answer – c

• 2^nd ARC recommendation – As an affirmation of the importance of transparency in public affairs, Ministers on assumption of office may take an oath of transparency alongwith the oath of office and the requirement of administering the oath of secrecy should be dispensed with. Articles 75(4) and 164 (3), and the Third Schedule should be suitably amended.
• Government response – The recommendations were not accepted because in spite of the RTI Act, a Union Minister will be required to maintain official secrets

Answer – c

• Manual of Office Procedure has provision about treating the notes portion of a file as confidential. 2^nd ARC recommends its deletion
• The recommendation has not been accepted.
• Sections of the RTI Act to which Classification information pertains
  8(1)(a) Top Secret
  8(1)(b) Confidential
  8(1)(c) Confidential
  8(1)(d) Secret
  8(1)(e) Confidential
  8(1)(f) Secret
  8(1)(g) Top Secret/Secret
  8(1)(h) Secret/Confidential
  8(1)(i) Confidential
  8(1)(j) Confidential/restricted
  9 Confidential/restricted

Source – Government response to 2^nd ARC reports available on DARP website

Answer – a

• Open ballots are used in the Rajya Sabha elections. These elections follow a proportional representation system based on the single transferable vote, unlike the general elections to the Lok Sabha, which are conducted with secret ballots (or votes) and based on the first-past-the-post principle.
• Supreme Court refused to stay the process to allow NOTA, saying that the provision has been in place since April 2014 after a direction by the EC. In principle, the presence of the NOTA option for the legislator allows the possibility of a protest vote against the party high command for choosing candidates who are not agreeable to her, without having to choose candidates from opposing parties.
• Supreme Court has in the past held that open ballot votes in Rajya Sabha elections against the whip will not lead to disqualification as the Tenth Schedule, pertaining to anti-defection provisions, has a different purpose. The party high command can issue a whip for a Rajya Sabha candidate, but anti-defection law provisions do not apply

Source – General

These provisions have been in news, but have not been adequately covered in Laxmikanth

Answer – a

• A member of a House belonging to any political party becomes disqualified for being a member of the House, (a) if he voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party; or (b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by his political party without obtaining prior permission of such party and such act has not been condoned by the party within 15 days.
• An independent member of a House (elected without being set up as a candidate by any political party) becomes disqualified to remain a member of the House if he joins
  any political party after such election.
• Any question regarding disqualification arising out of defection is to be decided by the presiding officer of the House. Originally, the act provided that the decision of the presiding officer is final and cannot be questioned in any court. However, in Kihoto Hollohan case2 (1993), the Supreme Court declared this provision as unconstitutional on the ground that it seeks to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts. It held that the presiding officer, while deciding a question under the Tenth Schedule, function as a tribunal. Hence, his decision like that of any other tribunal, is subject to judicial review on the grounds of mala fides, perversity, etc

Source – Chapter 67, Laxmikanth