Question 1 · 536 words written
Opening
NITI Aayog - the National Institution for Transforming India replaced the Planning Commission (PC) in 2015.
One of the central aims of replacing PC was to promote Cooperative Federalism
Body · points and prose
(1) Bottom-up planning as opposed to Top-Down or indicative plan (2) "Team India" Approach: All chief ministers are members of its governing council (3) Radical restructuring of centrally sponsored schemes (4) Greater autonomy to states in fund utilisation (5) Special vehicles provide think tank support to state govt-s (6) Competitive federalism: Ranking and competing — also fosters innovation in policy making Eg Aspirational Districts, PM Gati Shakti
Innovative Policy Making
(1) Emphasis on evidence based policy making Eg NDAP (2) National Development Agenda Document : "India @ 75", "India @ 2047" (3) Programs like Atal Innovation Mission, Smart City, AMRUT (4) Integrates strategic concerns Eg Vibrant villages, e-Amrit (EV), AI (5) Recognising and promoting best practices of states (competitive) (6) Specialist members - Expertise
Challenges
(1) Lack of funding powers: PC is replaced, Finance Commission is temporary. States interim needs (2) Nationalising approach of "One nation one 'x'". One size fits all approach is pushed (3) Politicisation: Combative federalism meetings are skipped by CMs of opposition states
NITI Aayog is a radical reform in the federal polity of India, but like all systems, its effectiveness depends on those running it. States need to cooperate and grow.
There are over 1.4 Lakhs cases pending against government departments in India. It is often also in controversy for limiting free speech.
Structure
| Indian Courts | USA Courts |
|---|---|
| (1) Integrated Judiciary | (1) Federal Structure |
|
| | (2) Jury system abolished since KM Nanavati case and CrPC, 1973 | (2) Jury system is used | | (3) Retirement Age for Judges (SC-65 yrs.) | (3) Judges for life in SC | | (4) Benches - Single, Division, 3, 5... 13. | (4) whole SC sits together (9 judges) | | (5) President appoints on Collegium recommendation | (5) President appoints senate confirms |
Jurisdiction
| Indian | USA |
|---|---|
| (1) Integrated | (1) Separate |
| (2) Constitutional, civil, criminal in SC | (2) Only constitutional cases in SC |
| (3) Can be modified by Parliament | (3) Fixed in Rigid constitution |
| (4) Procedure established by law (in some case Due Process) | (4) Due Process of Law |
Both have certain common aspects
- Common law system
- known for independence
- Power of Judicial Review
Contempt of court
| India | USA |
|---|---|
| 1) Explicit power in Articles 129, 142 and contempt of court Act, 1971 | 1) Inherent and evolved power, (not in constitution) |
| 2) Limitation on free speech Article 19(2) | 2) Free speech is secured until it is expressly disrupting court procedure |
| 3) criticism outside court ("scandalising") is included | 3) Not included |
(4) Both countries use civil contempt similarly as a tool of enforcing orders.
Close
Supreme court has itself noted the need for Judicial restraint and Natural Justice in criminal contempt case in India. The court should not suppress dissent, as "democracy without dissent is a contradiction" (Justice Surya Kant in SC)