What is the Waqf Bill recently passed by the parliament? What would be its implications on the Indian Society?

 Why is it in the news?

1. The Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment Bill) on April 4th 2025. The bill was supported by 128 votes against 95 votes of the opposition parties. The Lok Sabha had earlier passed the bill with 288 votes against 232 votes. Once the President gives assent to the bill, it will become an Act. 

2. The bill was introduced last year but on account of vociferous protests  by opposition parties,  it was referred to a joint parliamentary committee chaired by BJP MP Jagdambika Pal. The report was laid before both Houses on February 13th 2025.

3. Infuriated with the passage of Waqf Bill from both Houses of the Parliament, Congress MP Mohammad Javed, AIMIM MP Assaduddin Owaise, MLA Amanatullah Khan and NGO Association for protection of civil rights have filed separate petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the proposed legislation infringes upon constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom and property. 

What is Waqf?

1. In Islamic law, Waqf refers to movable as well as movable property dedicated in the name of Allah for religious or charitable purposes. Proceeds from such properties are to be used for the upkeep of Mosques, Dargah, Khanquah, Madrasas, Maktabs and other educational institutions. The funds from Waqf property are to be utilised for supporting the poor, needy and destitute. These are also meant to provide scholarships to meritorious students to get higher education. 

2. Once designated as Waqf, the property becomes inalienable. It means that the waqf property cannot be sold, inherited or gifted. The Waqf Act 1995 and amendments in 2013 created the legal framework for managing Waqf properties and established state Waqf boards. 

Why did the Government bring the Waqf bill?

1. The Government of India introduced the Waqf (Amendment Bill) in Parliament to address long standing issues in the management and regulation of Waqf properties. The new bill is named the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act. The Government contended that the Waqf Act of 1995 had become outdated and riddled with inefficiencies. For example, the Sachar Committee Report, 2006 highlighted the mismanagement of Waqf property, alleging that the Waqf properties worth 6000 crore generated a mere 163 crore annually due to encroachments, illegal sales and poor oversight by Waqf Boards. 

2. It aimed to enhance transparency, efficiency and inclusivity. The primary reason for bringing the waqf bill was to remove inefficiencies, corruption and legal ambiguities in the existing Waqf Act of 1995. The Government wanted reforms in the administration of the Waqf properties so that there should be better dispute resolution mechanisms, use of technology for property management and improved governance of Waqf Boards.  

3. Government also aimed at ensuring better representation in the Waqf Boards by including diverse Muslim sects and women and introducing provisions like mandatory registration of Waqf properties on a centralised portal and auditing these properties and profits accrued from them. Thus, the government wanted to include marginalised Muslim communities in the administration of Waqf boards. The government also aimed at uplifting Muslim communities economically and socially, particularly widows and divorced women through better management of Waqf assets. Thus, the new Waqf bill aims at eliminating inefficiencies and enhancing accountability. 

Judgements of the Supreme Court to push for reform in the Waqf Act 1995

The various judgments of the Supreme Court pushed the government to bring an amendment in the Waqf Act 1995. 

• In the case of Rajasthan Waqf Board vs Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court questioned the unchecked authority of Waqf tribunals under Waqf Act 1995, whereby the decisions of Waqf tribunals were deemed to be final with no appeal to Civil Courts/High Courts. Thus, it suggested that there is a need for higher judicial oversight on the decision of Waqf tribunals because the finality clause infringes upon constitutional rights under article 14 (Right to equality) and article 21 (Due process of law). 

• In the case of Karnataka Waqf Board vs Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court expressed dismay at the scale of encroachments on Waqf properties and failure of Waqf Boards to protect them. It also highlighted the mismanagement of the Waqf Board.  The Court also held that because of the mismanagement of Waqf properties, benefits from these properties do not reach to intended beneficiaries. 

• In case of Waqf Board vs State of Maharashtra (2011), the Bombay High Court invalidated a Waqf Board claim over private land based on Waqf by user, ruling that long term use alone does not confer ownership without a valid deed. Thus, the court held that Waqf Boards must operate within the legal framework of property law, not religious custom alone. 

• In the case of Karnataka Waqf Board vs State of Karnataka (2016), The Karnataka High Court lambasted the Board for colluding with encroachers and failing to maintain records. It recommended systematic reforms of Waqf Boards, citing lack of transparency and mired in corruption. It supported centralised management. 

• In the case of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board vs State (2020), Allahabad High Court ruled that Waqf tribunals lacked jurisdiction over disputes involving non-waqf parties unless explicitly agreed, thereby advocating broader judicial access. Thus, the High Court pushed for integrating Waqf disputes into the mainstream judicial system to ensure fairness. 

• In the case of Tamil Nadu Waqf Board vs State (2022), Madras High Court rejected the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s claim over an entire village (including 1500 year old Hindu Temple) based on flimsy ground, calling it an abuse of power. 

• In the case of Delhi Waqf Board vs Union of India (2022), The court held that Delhi Waqf Board has failed to evict encroachers from 123 properties, including historical monuments. It ordered a detailed audit of the functioning of the Waqf Board and urged for its strict regulation.  

Thus, the different judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts criticised Waqf Boards for mismanagement, encroachments, corruption and opec functioning. Courts often have urgent legislative and administrative intervention in the functioning of Waqf Boards. Secondly, courts have curtailed boards autonomy where it conflicted with constitutional norms or public interests. They rejected unchecked powers of Waqf tribunals. The judgements stressed upon reforms in Waqf boards entailing audits, proper documentation and judicial oversight. However, courts cautioned against excessive state control over the functioning of Waqf Boards, thereby infringing upon the constitutional rights under article 26 of our constitution.  

What are the important ingredients of Waqf bill?

1. The bill proposes sweeping reforms that significantly expands the government’s role in regulating Waqf properties and adjudicating disputes relating to them. It aims to modernise the governance of over 872000 properties, spanning 940000 acres of land valued at ₹1.2 trillion.  

2. Under the new amendment, only those who have practised Islam for at least 5 years can dedicate properties as Waqf. Thus, it alters the original law whereby any person regardless of religion could dedicate property as Waqf.  Critics point out that this provision is constitutionally suspect because once a person embraces Islam, he is entitled to all associated rights including the rights to religious dedication. This provision also violates the right to equality in article 14 of our constitution because it discriminates against  recent converts by selectively barring them from endowing property for religious purposes.  

3. The new Waqf bill also stipulates that all existing Waqf by user properties registered on or before the enactment of this law will retain their status unless they are disputed as Government land. It should be noted that Waqf by user is a doctrine in Islamic legal tradition that recognises properties as religious or charitable endowments based on uninterrupted communal use even in the absence of formal documentation. 

4. The Waqf Bill provides for the survey of properties by an officer above the rank of collector where the Government ownership is disputed. 

5. The bill provides for provision for the inclusion of non-Muslim in key Waqf institutions. It mandates that both the Central Waqf Council (22 members) and State Waqf Boards (11 members)  must have at least two non-Muslim members. It also removes the requirement that the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board should be a Muslim. It also mandates that at least two Muslim women and representatives from Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Aghakhanis and other backward Muslim classes like Pasmanda in both bodies to ensure inclusivity. 

6. It also stipulates that there must be a State Government representative of the rank of Joint Secretary level to oversee the functioning of the Waqf Board. Critics argue that this provision is a direct infringement upon the fundamental rights of religious groups to administer their religious affairs under article 26, 29 and 30 our constitution. 

7. The bill provides for a centralised registration system for Waqf properties in order to enhance financial oversight. Muttawalis (custodians of Waqfs) will be required to upload property details within six months from the enactment of the law and all future registration must be routed exclusively through this portal to the respective Waqf Boards. 

8. The bill also seeks to repeal section 107 of the 1995 Act which had exempted Waqf properties from the applicability of the Limitation Act 1963. Critics argue that the removal of the Limitation Act would permit encroachers to claim ownership through adverse possession legitimising illegal occupation of Waqf land. 

9.  It ensures that a property can only be dedicated as Waqf after the owner settles inheritance claims, particularly safeguarding women’s rights under Islamic law. This prevents unilateral dedication that disenfranchises family members. 

10. It imposes strict penalties for mismanagement or failure to register properties.

11. State Government’s must appoint survey commissioners to identify and notify Waqf properties. Waqf Boards are required to publish details online, thereby enhancing the public access to information. 

12. District collectors or officers above their rank will survey and settle disputes over Waqf properties, thereby shifting power from tribunals to state administration. 

13. It removes the finality of Waqf tribunal decisions, allowing appeals to High Courts within 90 days. 

14. It empowers the Central Government to set detailed rules for Waqf management, registration, auditing and centralising oversight.

15. Waqf properties must undergo mutation, that is, ownership transfer under state revenue laws with proper records, ensuring legal clarity and reducing encroachments. 

16. Disputes involving government owned land claimed as Waqf will be adjudicated by senior officers above the rank of district collector and not by Waqf tribunals to resolve Waqf conflicts. 

Thus, the Waqf (Amendment Bill,2025) entails diverse representation, digital registration, audits and judicial oversight to enhance transparency, empowerment to marginalised Muslim Groups and Women and promote efficiency. 

Impacts of Waqf Amendment Bill,2025

1. It would lead to better transparency and accountability to Waqf Boards.

2. It would enhance public trust in Waqf institutions.

3. The bill would be able to curb corruption and misuse of official position in the Waqf.

4. It will increase powers of Waqf Boards, thereby resolving disputes swiftly. 

5. The bill would reduce  the power of Waqf Board authority and would enhance government oversight. 

6. The Bill would be seen as interference in religious autonomy by Muslim Community leaders. 

7. Because of encroachments of Waqf properties especially in urban areas, the surveying and digitalisation may reignite dispute over land ownership and so there would arise ampteen numbers of legal battles between individuals or institutions occupying Waqf lands and Waqf Boards. 

8. The Bill would bring more efficient management of Waqf properties , thereby enhancing their annual income. These incomes can be better utilised for the social, education and healthcare upliftment of Muslim communities.

9. The inclusion of non-Muslims and Government control in Waqf Board is seen by All India Muslim Personal Law Board as an erosion of religious autonomy guaranteed under article 26 our constitution, thereby fueling distrust and protest.  

Conclusion

1. The Waqf Amendment Bill aims at bringing transparency in the administration of the Waqf Boards. By auditing Waqf properties several encroached lands would be freed, which may be used for development of infrastructure like schools, hospitals. It is imperative to discourage fringe groups from using the law to target mosques or Dargah. It is also necessary to promote interfaith dialogue to address grievances over specific properties.

Is the Indian Constitution a federal structure ?

 Why is it in the news?

Hon’ble Shri DY Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, while delivering inaugural Lok Satta lecture in Mumbai on 26th October, said “States and union are both creatures of the constitution. They must act in deference to their legislative boundaries in finding meaningful solutions to modern day problems. Our ability to address these challenges is the litmus test for our imperfect federalism and the framers’ faith in it. If federalism in the years gone by was about adjusting to political realities in terms of legislative powers, in the years to come should be evaluated based on its ability to foster democracy and constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, dignity and fraternity. “

Introduction

The Indian Constitution does not use the word federation. Instead, it uses the term union. Article 1 says that India, that is , Bharat shall be a union of states. It means that unlike federation, the central government is not the outcome of agreement among federating units. Secondly,  the federating units have no right to secede from the central government. However, the Indian constitution postulates a federation with a centralising tendency. In the Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court laid down that the constitution of India is federal and federalism is its basic feature. The court held that the states have independent constitutional existence. They are not subordinates or agents of the centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, states are supreme. 

TO WATCH FULL VIDEO, CLICK ON THIS LINK

What is Federalism ?

1.Federalism pre-supposes a dual government where both central and the state governments derive their power from the constitution. The power is divided between the national and state governments with clear boundaries. Secondly, it has a written constitution where both central and state governments have defined jurisdictions.  An independent judiciary which acts as the guardian of the constitution. Bicameral legislature is established whereby the second chamber represents the interests of the states. Federalism pre-supposes a rigid constitution so that no constitutional amendment can be made by ordinary legislation. In a federal structure, supremacy of the constitution is of paramount importance and thus, whenever Parliament or State legislature exceeds its power or does not conform to the provisions of the constitution, the laws passed by the Parliament or state assemblies are struck down. 

2.On the contrary, in a unitary government, all powers are vested in the central government. Moreover, the central government creates regional governments like in the UK. 

Federal features of the Indian Constitution

1.The constitution of India establishes a dual polity consisting of the union and state governments. At present, there are 28 states. They have been assigned powers separately. They are not subordinate to the Union Government. While, the Union Government deals with foreign, defence, currency, communication and so on the state governments have been bestowed with to work for regional interests like public order, agriculture, health, local self government, police etc. 

2. The Seventh Schedule of the constitution of India consists of three lists - The Union List comprising 100 subjects, the State List comprising 59 subjects and the Concurrent List comprising 52 subjects. Both the central and state governments can make laws on the subjects included in the concurrent list. But in case of any conflict, the laws made by the Parliament would supersede the laws made by state assemblies under concurrent lists. However, unlike the US constitution, the residuary subjects are vested in the central government. 

3.Our constitution clearly gives its supremacy. Thus, in case the Parliament or State Legislature exceeds its powers or its limitations, the laws passed by the legislature or parliament are declared null and void by the Supreme Court under judicial review. 

4. Ours is a written constitution. The constitution was drafted and prepared by the constituent assembly represented by 299 members from the nook and corner of the country. It contains 470 articles and 12 schedules. The constitution has clearly discussed and demarcated  the structures and functions of the central, state and local governments. 

5.Our constitution is a mixture of flexibility and rigidity. While some of the provisions of the constitution can be amended by both Houses of the Parliament with special majority, the federal structure like the central state relations, judiciary, inter-state commerce can only be amended by both Houses of Parliament and  the concurrence of half of the state legislature by the simple majority. 

6. Our constitution has made provisions for an independent judiciary by securing the tenures of judges, fixed conditions of service and independence from the executive. It has also been assigned the task to settle the disputes between the union and the state governments or between state governments. 

7. Our constitution lays down a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and a Lower House (Lok Sabha). While the Lower House is elected on the basis of universal suffrage, the Upper House is represented by states to protect their interests.  

8.The judicial intervention by the Supreme Court further strengthened the federal features of our constitution. For example, the Supreme Court held that a bill passed by the state legislature and presented before the Governor for his assent, cannot withhold the bill indefinitely. Rather a Governor can withhold with the assent of the bill only to send it for reconsideration, thereby circumscribing the discretionary power of the Governor.   Similarly, in the Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court held that the test of the majority can only be held at the floor of the House, thereby, limiting the misuse of article 356 by the Governor for the imposition of  the President’s Rule in the state. 

9. Assertion of autonomy by states, demand for more financial grants by the states from the divisible pool of the central proceeds, disputes between states over the sharing of river water, territorial disputes between different states, creation of new states and finally emergence of regional parties to reduce regional disparities and for balanced regional development are some of the important federal trends that are being reflected in the working of the constitution of India for the last 75 years. 

Centralising features of the constitution of India  

There are certain centralising features which contrast the Indian constitution from the US constitution in so far as  the federal features are concerned. These are 

• Emergency Provisions under articles 352, 356 and 360

• Integrated judiciary 

• All India Services 

• Integrated audit system

• Integrated election commission

• Appointment/ Powers and Functions of Governor

• Parliament's authority even in the matters relating to the state list

• Single citizenship 

• Single constitution

• No equality of state representation in the Rajya Sabha

• More powers to the union government than state governments 

• The President enjoys absolute veto over state bills 

Conclusion

1. The Indian constitution postulates cooperative federalism where the union and state governments work together to iron out the differences that arise in governance to achieve the common goal of development. 

2. The states are in no way dependent upon the centre for the legislative or the executive authority. Both the centre and the state derive their power from the constitution itself. 

3.However, to strengthen the unity and integrity of India, certain exceptional provisions were made to face the challenges in abnormal/ exceptional situations so that in case of emergencies , India acts as a single powerful body. That’s why provisions of emergency, flexibility in the amendment of the constitution and a strong central government have been made. 

Reorganisation of States and Union Territories after Independence

 Why is it in the news ?
1. The J & K cabinet led by Chief Minister Umar Abdullah passed a resolution calling for the restoration of the statehood to the Union territory. However, the opposition party criticised the move as the resolution did not take into account the restoration of article 370, giving special status to J & K. 
2. It should be noted that on 5th August 2019, the Union Government abrogated article 370 and thus, snatched away the special status accorded to it by the constitution of India. In addition, the province of J & K was split into two union territories of J & K with legislative assembly and Ladakh with no legislative assembly. 
3. J & K lieutenant Governor Shri Manoj Sinha has cleared the resolution passed by the Umar Abdullah cabinet urging the centre to restore the statehood to the Union Territory. 
4. The official statement said that the restoration of statehood will be the beginning of a healing process, reclaiming the constitutional rights and protecting the identity of the J & K. 
5. The cabinet has authorised the chief minister to take up the matter with the Prime Minister and Government of India for the status of statehood. It has been learnt that the newly elected Chief Minister Umar Abdullah would be proceeding to New Delhi in the coming days to meet the Prime Minister and Union Ministers in this regard. 
6. The downgrading of a state into a Union Territory was the first example in independent India. There are many examples when union territories were upgraded to statehood like Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Arunachal Pradesh. The contention of the Union Government was that the special status of J & K and downgrading of the state to union territory was done to control separatist forces in the valley. It was necessary to check Pakistani sponsored terrorist activities into the valley. 

TO WATCH FULL VIDEO, CLICK ON THIS LINK

History of reorganisation of states and Union Territories in India
1. India is a vast country. It cannot be run from one centre. So to run the administration smoothly, the country has been divided administratively into different provinces.
2. In the Mauryan Period, there were four provincial centres headed by the scions of the royal family. These centres were Takshila near Peshawar Pakistan, Ujjayini (Malwa), Tosili (Odisha), Suvarngiri (Karnataka).
3. The Sultans of Delhi introduced the Iqta system headed by Mukti or Wali. Later on, these Iqtas became provinces. During the period of Allauddin Khilji, provinces of Bengal, Bihar, Punjab, Badaun (UP), Gujarat, Malwa and Deccan came into existence. 
4. During the Mughal Period, there were 15 provinces during the regime of Emperor Akbar, which increased to 21 during the period of Aurangzeb when he annexed Bijapur, Golkonda, Assam. During the Mughal Period prominent provinces were : Delhi, Agra, Lahore, Bengal, Gujarat Deccan, Bihar, Multan, Malwa, Awadh and Kabul. 
5. During the British Period, India was divided into British India directly controlled by the British Government and Princely states indirectly controlled by it. In British India, there were 12 provinces called Bengal Presidency, Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar, Odisha, Central Provinces and Berar, Assam, North West Frontier Province, Sindh, Balochistan, Ajmer-Merwara. Important Princely states were Hyderabad, Kashmir, Mysore, Baroda, Travancore, Bhopal. 
6. After independence there was sharp demand from the Southern States to reorganise states on the basis of language. The union government appointed S K Dhar and later on the J V P (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya) committee. Both committees rejected the reorganisation of states on linguistic basis. 
After the annexation of Princely States into India, the territory of India was reorganised into four categories in 1950.
Part A : Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Odisha, Punjab, United Province, West Bengal.
Part B : Hyderabad, J & K, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala and East Punjab, Rajasthan, Saurashtra, Travancore and Cochin, Vindhya Pradesh. 
Part C : Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Cooch Behar, Coorg, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur, Tripura.
Part D : Andaman & Nicobar island.
7. In 1953, the Union Government was forced to reorganise Andhra Pradesh by carving out the Madras Presidency for Telugu speaking people on account of the death of P Sriramulu of 56 days long hunger strike. 
8. The union Government appointed the Fasal Ali commission consisting of Justice Fazal Ali as chairman , K M Panikar and H N Kunzru as its members. On the basis of the recommendation of the commission, 14 states and 6 UTs were reorganised on 1st November 1956. These states were Andhra Pradesh,  Assam, Bihar, J & K, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal. Six Union Territories were Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep , Manipur, Tripura. Thus, the distinction between Part A and Part B states was removed. Part C states were abolished. Some of them were merged with adjoining states while others were made Union Territories. For example, Ajmer was merged with Rajasthan, Bhopal with Madhya Pradesh, Bilaspur with Himachal Pradesh, Cooch Behar with West Bengal, Coorg with Karnataka, Kutch with Gujarat. While Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura were made Union Territories because of their strategic locations. Similarly, Part B state of Hyderabad was merged with Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Bharat with Madhya Pradesh, Mysore with Karnataka, Patiala and East Punjab with the Punjab Province, Saurashtra with Gujarat, Travancore Cochin was merged with a new state Kerala, Malabar District of Madras and Kasargod district of South Canara were merged with Kerala. 
9.In 1960, the Bombay province was divided into Marathi speaking Maharashtra and Gujarati speaking Gujarat State. 
10. Dadra & Nagar Haveli were liberated in 1954 from Portuguese control. It was made an Union Territory in 1961. In 2020, this Union Territory was merged with Daman & Diu. 
11. The Portuguese enclave of Goa, Daman & Diu were liberated in 1961. It was made a Union Territory in 1962. In 1987, Goa got statehood. 
12. The French Government handed over its enclave of Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam in 1954. In 1962, it was made a union territory. In 1963, Nagaland was carved out from Assam to make it a separate state. In 1966, Punjab Province was divided into Punjabi Speaking Punjab and Hindi Speaking Haryana. Chandigarh was made the joint capital of both the states. 
13. In 1972, Union Territories of Manipur, Tripura and Sub State of Meghalaya got statehood while Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh accorded the status of Union Territories. These two union territories became full states in 1987. 
14. Sikkim became the 22nd state of India in 1975. In 2000, three states came into existence. Uttarakhand was carved out from Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand from Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh. 
15. In 2014, Telangana was carved out from Andhra Pradesh. In 2019, J & K lost its statehood and was downgraded to UT. A separate Union Territory of Ladakh was carved out from J & K.
16.Thus, as of now there are 28 states and 8 Union territories in India.
Causes for the demands of new States in India after Independence
1.Linguistic and Cultural identity - States like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Haryana were carved out to meet the linguistic and cultural identity of the people. 
2. Ethnic affinity - States like Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura were made to meet the aspirations of different ethnic communities. The Bodo people of Assam are agitating for separate Bodo land to preserve their ethnic identity. 
3. Economic disparities - States like Uttrakhand, Chhattisgarh, Telangana were created to undo the economic disparities in those regions. People of Vidarbha (Maharashtra), Eastern UP, Mithalanchal in Bihar are agitating for separate statehood because of the economic regional disparities. 
4. Tribal identity - States like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh were created to meet the aspirations of tribals of those regions where they constitute a large number. The people of Gorkhaland have been agitating for separate statehood to preserve their cultural identity. 
5. Administrative Efficiency -  When a state is very big, it becomes difficult to administer efficiently. That’s why, there is a demand to bifurcate UP in four parts and Rajasthan in two parts. 
Difference between States and Union Territories 
1. Under our constitution, states have got a separate division of power under schedule VII of our constitution. While state assemblies can make laws on subjects listed in State and concurrent list, the Union Parliament can make laws on the subjects included in the Union List. 
Union Territories are directly governed by the Central Government through an Administrator or lieutenant Governor. Delhi, Puducherry and J & K have legislative assemblies but their legislative power is limited when compared to states. For example, the central Government has exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to land, public order and police in the Union Territory of Delhi. Similarly, In J & K, the central Government has exclusive jurisdiction over security , police and public order. 
2. Except Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Puducherry, other Union Territories have no right to send MPs to Rajya Sabha like States. 
3. States have authority to collect certain taxes and receive a share of central taxes based on the recommendation of the finance commission. On the other hand Union Territories are generally more financially dependent upon the central Government.
4. Heads of the states are Governor while head of UTs is the President of India who governs UTs through Lieutenant Governors or Administrators. 

Constitutional Provision

1.According to Article 1 of our constitution, India, that is, Bharat, shall be a union of states. The term union implies that no state has the right to secede from the Union. Nor Union has been made by the agreements among different units (states). The term federation was deliberately not applied in our constitution. Thus, the Union Government is indestructible made of destructible states. Unlike the US, the Parliament is authorised under article 3 to form a new state by separation of territories from any state by uniting two or more states or parts of states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state. The Parliament has power to increase the area of any state, diminish the area of any state and alter the boundaries of any state or alter the name of any state. The changes in the composition of the state can be made by a simple legislation process, It has not to go through constitutional amendment process under article 368. 

Article 3 lays down two conditions in this regard. 

• A bill contemplating any above changes can be introduced in Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President.

• The President has to refer the same to the state legislature for expressing its views for the specified period. According to the 18th constitutional amendment Act,1966, the Parliament has been empowered to form a new state or Union Territory by uniting a part of any state. The President is not bound by the views of the state legislature or may either accept or reject them. Thus, Parliament is authorised to redraw the political map according to its will. The union Government can destroy the state or UT while states or union territory cannot destroy the Union. In the USA, the territorial integrity of States is guaranteed by the constitution and so no alteration or changes in the composition of states can take place without the consent of the concerned states. 

• However, Parliament cannot cede any territory of India to any foreign country after the constitutional amendment under article 368. 

• 
  

Way Out 

1. The Government has launched several measures to address regional disparities in India. It has started a special area development programme, providing incentives to promote investment in backward areas. Major financial institutions are providing concessional finance to backward areas. The Central Government is giving income tax concession, transport subsidy and investment subsidy to the entrepreneurs, and employment opportunities to people below poverty line, especially  SCs/STs in backward regions. Government has instituted backward regions grant funds to meet rural infrastructure needs. Similarly, the North Eastern region is being given top priority to accelerate development there. However, in spite of the efforts of the Government since the First five year plan, the regional disparities could not be reduced. There is a huge disparity between Northern and Southern Regions. Similarly, there is a big disparity between the different parts of a state. This causes resentment and clamour for separate statehood. Similarly, tribal councils under Fifth and Sixth schedule should be strengthened so that tribals are connected with the mainstream of the administration. However, the one state-one language formula must be discouraged. The future states must be carved out taking into account administrative efficiency, cultural homogeneity and emotional bonding of the people of a particular region.  

Powers and Functions of the Speaker of Lok Sabha.

 

Why is it in the news ?

1.After the general election, there is a provision to elect a member of Lok Sabha as the Speaker from amongst its members. The election of the Speaker is scheduled on 26th June 2024. Before the election of the Speaker, Bhartruhari Mehtab was appointed as pro-tem speaker by the President of India.  His function would be to administer oath/ affirmation to the newly elected members of the 18th Lok Sabha and to conduct the election of new Speaker. 

2.Although there is no provision of the pro-tem Speaker in the constitution, the handbook on the working on Parliamentary affairs mentions appointment and swearing-in of pro-tem Speaker. By convention, it is the senior most MP who has served maximum terms in the Lok Sabha should be appointed as the pro-tem Speaker. Congress objected to the appointment of Mr. Mehtab who is the seven time member of Lok Sabha. While K. Suresh from the Congress is the eighth time member of Lok Sabha.  Congress alleges that the convention of appointing MP with maximum terms in Lok Sabha has been thus broken. 

Election of the Speaker - 

1.According to article 93, Lok Sabha chooses Speaker and Deputy Speaker from among its members. All the Speakers in the independent India have been elected unopposed. 

2.The Speaker is elected by the members of the Lok Sabha by simple majority. He can be removed by the effective majority of members of the Lok Sabha, present and voting. This means that according to article 92 of the constitution, the Speaker can be removed by an effective majority +1. Effective majority means total strength minus vacancies. For example, if the Lok Sabha has a total strength of 550 members and if there are 7 vacancies, the effective strength would be 543 members. In order to remove the Speaker 271+1 = 272 members must vote against him. But prior to moving the resolution for the removal of the Speaker, a 14 days advance notice must be issued to him to this effect. Normally, a ruling party member is elected as Speaker. But during the period of coalition government, a member from other parties can also be elected as the Speaker. 

3.The Speaker can also be removed on being disqualified from being a Lok Sabha member under section 7 and 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. 

4.He can also tender his resignation on his own to the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. 

Watch Full Video in Hindi on Youtube by clicking on the icon🔻

Power and Functions of the Speaker-

1.He enforces discipline and decorum in the House. 

2.He decides the agenda for Parliamentary meetings.

3.He permits motions such as adjournments, no confidence and censure. 

4.He ensures quorum (the presence of 1/10th members of the House) of the House. If quorum is not available, he adjourns the House.

5.He has the power to punish members who indulge in unruly behaviours. 

6.He constitutes several committees like business advisory committee, rules committee and general purpose committee and these committees work under his supervision. 

7.He is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, its committees and members. It is his sole privilege to refer a question of the breach of privilege to the Committee of Privilege for proper inquiry and report. 

8.The Speaker is the head of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. He manages the administrative and security arrangements of the Parliament complex. 

9. He is the sole authority to decide whether a bill is a money bill or not. 

10.In case of deadlock between two Houses in respect of ordinary bills, he is empowered to preside over the joint sitting of Parliament under article 108 of our constitution. 

11.In the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu, 1993, the Supreme Court of India held that the decision of the presiding officer is not final and is subject to judicial review on the basis of malafide and perversity. 

12.In Nabam Rabia vs Deputy Speaker case,2016, the Supreme Court of India held that the Speaker will be disabled from deciding disqualification petition under anti defection law, if notice for his removal is pending. 

13. Similarly, in 2023, the Supreme Court in Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra case, 2023, directed the Maharashtra assembly Speaker to set a timeline for the disqualification of the MLAs. 

14. Similarly, in 1994, the Supreme Court of India held that a majority can be tested only on the floor of assembly and not otherwise. 

Speakers of Lok Sabha 1.G V Mavlankar - 15 May 1952 to 27th February 1956. 2.M A Ayyangar - 8th March 1956 to 10th May 1957, 11th May 1957 to 16th April 1962. 3.Sardar Hukam Singh - 17th April 1962 to 16th March 1967 4.Neelam Sanjiv Reddy - 17th March 1967 to 19th  July 1969 5.Gurdayal Singh Dhillon - 8th August 1969 to 19th March 1971, 22nd March 1971 to 1st December 1975. 6.Baliram Bhagat - 15th January 1976 to 25th March 1977. 7.Neelam Sanjiva Reddy - 26th March 1977 to 13th July 1977. 8. K S Hegde - 21st July 1977 to 21st January 1980. 9.Balram Jakhar - 22nd January 1980 to 15th January 1985, 16th January 1985 to 18th December 1989. 10.Ravi Rai - 19th December 1989 to 9th July 1991. 11.Shivraj Patil - 10th July 1991 to 22nd May 1996. 12.P A Sangma - 23rd May 1996 to 23rd March 1998. 13.GMC Balayogi - 18th March 1998 to 19th October 1999, 22nd October 1999 to 3rd March 2002. 14.Manohar Joshi - 10th May 2002 to 2nd June 2004. 15.Somnath Chatterji - 4th June 2004 to 30th May 2009.  16. Mira Kumar - 30th May 2009 to 4th June 2014. 17. Sumitra Mahajan - 6th June 2014 to 16th June 2019. 18.Om Birla - 18th June 2019 to till date.

Important issues associated with the office of the Speaker  -

1.It is alleged that the Speaker favours his party men in Lok Sabha. 

2.He misuses discretionary powers while deciding money bills and political defections.

3.He is also criticised for restricting debates and discussions to favour the ruling party. 

4.He is also charged with putting party interest above national interest. 

5.He is also accused of adopting the tactics of gerrymandering to favour  the ruling party by putting bills on vote without discussion in the Parliament. 

6.He is also accused of putting a bill on vote without sending it to the select committee for proper discussion and deliberation by the opposition parties. For example, three farm laws were passed by the Lok Sabha in hurry and when the farmers agitated for one year long, the Government had to withdraw the bill. 

The Independence and impartiality of the Speaker -

1.Our constitution has secured the independence and impartiality of the Speaker by giving him a security of tenure. This means that the resolution for his removal can be moved in the Lok Sabha only after the support of 50 members and a 14 days advance notice to this effect. 

2.Secondly, his salaries and allowances are charged upon the consolidated fund of India and are therefore, non votable in the Parliament. 

3.His powers to regulate the procedure of conducting business in the Lok Sabha cannot be subject to judicial review. 

4.He cannot vote in the Lok Sabha but in case of tie, he has the right to cast his vote. 

5.In the order of precedence, he is placed at the sixth rank along with the chief justice of India and is thus above cabinet ministers except the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.

Way Forward

1.The Speaker is a bridge between the government and the opposition. He is duty bound to uphold democratic process by ensuring adequate space both to the ruling party and the opposition parties. Once elected as the Speaker, he should resign his parent party and should work as neutral referee in the House like the Speaker of the House of the commons in Britain. In matters relating to disqualification of a member from the House under the anti-defection law (under tenth schedule) and in deciding a particular bill as a money bill, he should show non- partisanship. 

2.It is his primary duty that bills introduced by the Government must be adequately discussed in the House so that there should not be any lacunae left. And therefore, the bills should be referred to the select committee for proper deliberation. But this trend has been reversed in the previous Lok Sabha. The numbers of referred bills to select committees have declined from 71% during 2009-14 to 16% during 2019-24. 

3.The Speaker should also refrain from suspending large scale MPs. In the 17th Lok Sabha, the Speaker suspended more than 150 MPs. This is not a good sign of healthy democracy. After all, democracy is a government of deliberations and discussions. 

Conclusion

1.Parliamentary debates and deliberations are guided by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. 

2.He should set the highest standard in public life by working in a non-partisan way. 

3. Since he is one of the pillars of parliamentary democracy in India, he should be above party politics and should strengthen the democratic process in India.