Working Of Institutions

Namaste students, welcome to today's lesson on Chapter 4 of your Civics textbook, which is titled "Working of Institutions". I am so happy to be here with you to explore this very important chapter that explains how our democracy actually functions. You know, understanding how our government works is not just about knowing names and dates - it is about understanding how decisions that affect our daily lives are taken, implemented, and sometimes even challenged. So let's begin our journey together.

So students, let's start by understanding what this chapter is all about. The overview tells us that democracy is not just about people electing their rulers. In a democracy, the rulers have to follow some rules and procedures. They have to work with and within institutions. This chapter is about the working of such institutions in a democracy. We are going to understand this by looking at the manner in which major decisions are taken and implemented in our country. We will also look at how disputes regarding these decisions are resolved. In this process, we will come across three institutions that play a key role in major decisions - the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.

You have already read something about these institutions in earlier classes. Here we shall quickly summarise those and move on to asking larger questions. In the case of each institution we ask: What does this institution do? How is this institution connected to other institutions? What makes its functioning more or less democratic? The basic objective here is to understand how all these institutions together carry on the work of government. Sometimes we compare these with similar institutions in other democracies. In this chapter we take our examples from the working of the national level government called Central Government, Union Government, or just Government of India. While reading this chapter, you can think of and discuss examples from the working of the government in your state.

Now let's begin with the first section - 4.1: How is a Major Policy Decision Taken?

So students, to understand how major decisions are taken in our country, let me tell you about a very important government order that was issued on August 13, 1990. This order was called an Office Memorandum. Like all government orders, it had a number and is known by that number: O. M. No. 36012/31/90-Est (SCT), dated 13.8.1990. The Joint Secretary, an officer in the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, signed the Order. It was quite short, barely one page. It looked like any ordinary circular or notice that you may have seen in school. The government issues hundreds of orders every day on different matters. But this one was very important and became a source of controversy for several years. Let us see how the decision was taken and what happened later.

Now let me read the actual content of this Office Memorandum to you. It said:

"G.I., Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No.36012/31/90-Est. (SCT), dated 13.8.1990

SUBJECT: 27% Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in Civil Posts/Services.

In a multiple undulating society like ours, early achievement of the objective of social justice as enshrined in the Constitution is a must. The Second Backward Classes Commission, called the MANDAL COMMISSION, was established by the then Government with this purpose in view, which submitted its report to the Government of India on 31st December, 1980.

2. Government have carefully considered the report and the recommendations of the Commission in the present context regarding the benefits to be extended to the socially and educationally backward classes as opined by the Commission and are of the clear view that at the outset certain weightage has to be provided to such classes in the services of the Union and their Public Undertakings. Accordingly orders are issued as follows:-

(i) 27% of the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India shall be reserved for SEBC;

(ii) The aforementioned reservation shall apply to vacancies to be filled by direct..."

Now students, this Order announced a major policy decision. It said that 27 per cent of the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India are reserved for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, which is abbreviated as SEBC. SEBC is another name for all those people who belong to castes that are considered backward by the government. The benefit of job reservation was till then available only to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Now a new third category called SEBC was introduced. Only persons who belong to backward classes were eligible for this quota of 27 per cent jobs. Others could not compete for these jobs.

Now, let us understand who decided to issue this Memorandum. Clearly, such a big decision could not have been taken by the person who signed that document. The officer was merely implementing the instructions given by the Minister of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, of which the Department was a part. We can guess that such a major decision would have involved other major functionaries in our country. You have already read in the previous class about some of them. Let me go over some of the main points that you covered then:

The President is the head of the state and is the highest formal authority in the country. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and actually exercises all governmental powers. He takes most of the decisions in the Cabinet meetings. Parliament consists of the President and two Houses, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The Prime Minister must have the support of a majority of Lok Sabha members.

So, were all these people involved in this decision regarding the Office Memorandum? Let us find out.

Now students, there is an activity in your textbook. Let me guide you through it. The activity asks: Which points, other than the ones mentioned above, do you recall about these institutions from the previous class? Discuss in class. And the second part asks: Can you think of a major decision made by your state government? How were the Governor, the Council of Ministers, the state assembly and the courts involved in that decision?

So for your class discussion, you should recall what you learned about these institutions in Class 8. Think about the powers of the President, the Prime Minister, and Parliament. Also, try to remember any major decision made by your state government - perhaps related to education, health, or infrastructure - and think about how the Governor, the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, the state Legislative Assembly, and the courts might have been involved.

Now let me continue with the story of this Office Memorandum. This Office Memorandum was the culmination of a long chain of events. The Government of India had appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission in 1979. It was headed by B.P. Mandal. Hence it was popularly called the Mandal Commission. It was asked to determine the criteria to identify the socially and educationally backward classes in India and recommend steps to be taken for their advancement. The Commission gave its Report in 1980 and made many recommendations. One of these was that 27 per cent of government jobs be reserved for the socially and educationally backward classes. The Report and recommendations were discussed in the Parliament.

For several years, many parliamentarians and parties kept demanding the implementation of the Commission's recommendations. Then came the Lok Sabha election of 1989. In its election manifesto, the Janata Dal promised that if voted to power, it would implement the Mandal Commission report. The Janata Dal did form the government after this election. Its leader V. P. Singh became the Prime Minister. Several developments took place after that:

Now let me explain to you how this decision was actually taken, step by step:

In August 1990, the Government of India took a major decision. It decided to accept and implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. Let us see how this decision was taken:

The President of India in his address to the Parliament announced the intention of the government to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.

On 6 August 1990, the Union Cabinet took a formal decision to implement the recommendations.

Next day Prime Minister V.P. Singh informed the Parliament about this decision through a statement in both the Houses of Parliament.

The decision of the Cabinet was sent to the Department of Personnel and Training. The senior officers of the Department drafted an order in line with the Cabinet decision and took the minister's approval. An officer signed the order on behalf of the Union Government. This was how O.M. No. 36012/31/90 was born on 13 August 1990.

So students, you can see that this decision did not happen overnight. It was a long process that started with the Mandal Commission in 1979, then the report in 1980, years of discussion in Parliament, a promise in the 1989 election, and finally the actual implementation in 1990. This shows how our democratic institutions work step by step.

Now for the next few months, this was the most hotly debated issue in the country. Newspapers and magazines were full of different views and opinions on this issue. It led to widespread protests and counter-protests, some of which were violent. People reacted strongly because this decision affected thousands of job opportunities. Some felt that existence of inequalities among people of different castes in India necessitated job reservations. They felt this would give a fair opportunity to those communities who so far had not adequately been represented in government employment.

Others felt that this was unfair as it would deny equality of opportunity to those who did not belong to backward communities. They would be denied jobs even though they could be more qualified. Some felt that this would perpetuate caste feelings among people and hamper national unity. In this chapter we won't discuss whether the decision was good or not. We only take this example to understand how major decisions are taken and implemented in the country.

Now, who resolved this dispute? You know that the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India settle disputes arising out of governmental decisions. Some persons and associations opposed to this order filed a number of cases in the courts. They appealed to the courts to declare the order invalid and stop its implementation. The Supreme Court of India bunched all these cases together. This case was known as the 'Indira Sawhney and others Vs Union of India case'. Eleven judges of the Supreme Court heard arguments of both sides. By a majority, the Supreme Court judges in 1992 declared that this order of the Government of India was valid. At the same time the Supreme Court asked the government to modify its original order. It said that well-to-do persons among the backward classes should be excluded from getting the benefit of reservation. Accordingly, the Department of Personnel and Training issued another Office Memorandum on 8 September 1993. The dispute thus came to an end and this policy has been followed since then.

So students, this is a perfect example of how our democratic institutions work. The government made a decision, some people disagreed and went to court, the court examined the decision, and then gave a judgment that balanced different interests. This is the beauty of our democratic system.

Now let me summarize who did what in this case of reservations for backward classes:

The Supreme Court upheld reservations as valid. The Cabinet made formal announcement about this decision. The President took the decision to give 27% job reservations. And Government Officials implemented the decision by issuing an order.

Now students, let me explain why we need political institutions. We have seen one example of how the government works. Governing a country involves various such activities. For example, the government is responsible for ensuring security to the citizens and providing facilities for education and health to all. It collects taxes and spends the money thus raised on administration, defence and development programmes. It formulates and implements several welfare schemes. Some persons have to take decisions on how to go about these activities. Others have to implement these decisions. If disputes arise on these decisions or in their implementation, there should be someone to determine what is right and what is wrong. It is important that everyone should know who is responsible for doing what. It is also important that these activities keep taking place even if the persons in key positions change.

So, to attend to all these tasks, several arrangements are made in all modern democracies. Such arrangements are called institutions. A democracy works well when these institutions perform functions assigned to them. The Constitution of any country lays down basic rules on the powers and functions of each institution. In the example above, we saw several such institutions at work:

The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are institutions that take all important policy decisions. The Civil Servants, working together, are responsible for taking steps to implement the ministers' decisions. Supreme Court is an institution where disputes between citizens and the government are finally settled.

Can you think of some other institutions in this example? What is their role?

Now, working with institutions is not easy. Institutions involve rules and regulations. This can bind the hands of leaders. Institutions involve meetings, committees and routines. This often leads to delays and complications. Therefore dealing with institutions can be frustrating. One might feel that it is much better to have one person take all decisions without any rules, procedures and meetings. But that is not the spirit of democracy. Some of the delays and complications introduced by institutions are very useful. They provide an opportunity for a wider set of people to be consulted in any decision. Institutions make it difficult to have a good decision through a bad decision. That is why democratic governments insist on institutions.

Now let us move to the next section - 4.2: Parliament.

In the example of the Office Memorandum, do you remember the role of Parliament? Perhaps not. Since this decision was not taken by Parliament, you might think that Parliament had no role in it. But let us go back to the story and see whether Parliament figures in it. Let us recall the points made earlier by completing the following sentences:

The Report of the Mandal Commission was discussed in Parliament. The President of India mentioned this in his address to Parliament. The Prime Minister made a statement in Parliament about this decision.

The decision was not directly taken in Parliament. But Parliamentary discussions on the Report influenced and shaped the decision of the government. They brought pressure on the government to act on the Mandal recommendation. If Parliament was not in favour of this decision, the Government could not have gone ahead with it. Can you guess why? Recall what you read about Parliament in the earlier class and try to imagine what Parliament could have done if it did not approve of the Cabinet's decision.

Now let me explain why we need a Parliament. In all democracies, an assembly of elected representatives exercises supreme political authority on behalf of the people. In India such a national assembly of elected representatives is called Parliament. At the state level this is called Legislature or Legislative Assembly. The name may vary in different countries, but such an assembly exists in every democracy. It exercises political authority on behalf of the people in many ways:

First, Parliament is the final authority for making laws in any country. This task of law making or legislation is so crucial that these assemblies are called legislatures. Parliaments all over the world can make new laws, change existing laws, or abolish existing laws and make new ones in their place.

Second, Parliaments all over the world exercise some control over those who run the government. In some countries like India this control is direct and full. Those who run the government can take decisions only so long as they enjoy support of Parliament.

Third, Parliaments control all the money that governments have. In most countries the public money can be spent only when Parliament sanctions it.

Fourth, Parliament is the highest forum of discussion and debate on public issues and national policy in any country. Parliament can seek information about any matter.

Now students, since Parliament plays a central role in modern democracies, most large countries divide the role and powers of Parliament in two parts. They are called Chambers or Houses. One House is usually directly elected by the people and exercises the real power on behalf of the people. The second House is usually elected indirectly and performs some special functions. The most common work for the second House is to look after the interests of various states, regions or federal units.

In our country, Parliament consists of two Houses. The two Houses are known as the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The President of India is a part of Parliament, although she is not a member of either House. That is why all laws made in the Houses come into force only after they receive the assent of the President.

Now let me help you recall some key differences between the composition of these two Houses of Parliament. Let me give you the answers:

For Lok Sabha: The total number of members is 543 (excluding 2 nominated members from Anglo-Indian community, which has now been removed). The members are directly elected by the people through elections. The length of the term is 5 years, but the House can be dissolved before the completion of the term.

For Rajya Sabha: The total number of members is 233 (excluding 12 nominated members). The members are elected by the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the states. It is a permanent House and cannot be dissolved. The term of each member is 6 years, and one-third of the members retire every 2 years.

Now, which of the two Houses is more powerful? It might appear that the Rajya Sabha is more powerful, for sometimes it is called the 'Upper Chamber' and the Lok Sabha the 'Lower Chamber'. But this does not mean that Rajya Sabha is more powerful than Lok Sabha. This is just an old style of speaking and not the language used in our Constitution.

Our Constitution does give the Rajya Sabha some special powers over the states. But on most matters, the Lok Sabha exercises supreme power. Let us see how:

First, any ordinary law needs to be passed by both the Houses. But if there is a difference between the two Houses, the final decision is taken in a joint session in which members of both the Houses sit together. Because of the larger number of members, the view of the Lok Sabha is likely to prevail in such a meeting.

Second, Lok Sabha exercises more powers in money matters. Once the Lok Sabha passes the budget of the government or any other money related law, the Rajya Sabha cannot reject it. The Rajya Sabha can only delay it by 14 days or suggest changes in it. The Lok Sabha may or may not accept these changes.

Third, and most importantly, the Lok Sabha controls the Council of Ministers. Only a person who enjoys the support of the majority of the members in the Lok Sabha is appointed the Prime Minister. If the majority of the Lok Sabha members say they have 'no confidence' in the Council of Ministers, all ministers including the Prime Minister, have to quit. The Rajya Sabha does not have this power.

Now students, there is a question in your textbook: What is the point in having so much debate and discussion in the Parliament when we know that the view of the ruling party is going to prevail?

This is a very good question. The answer is that even when the ruling party has a majority, Parliament serves several important purposes. Debates and discussions help in exposing the weaknesses in government policies. They provide an opportunity for the opposition to raise important issues. They ensure that the government has to explain and justify its decisions. They help in informing the public about important matters. And most importantly, they ensure transparency and accountability in the working of the government.

Now there is an activity in your textbook. When Parliament is in session, there is a special programme everyday on Doordarshan about the proceedings in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Watch the proceedings or read about it in the newspapers and note the following: Powers of the two Houses of Parliament, Role of the Speaker, and Role of the Opposition.

So students, for this activity, I want you to watch or read about Parliament proceedings and note these important points. The Speaker is the presiding officer of Lok Sabha and maintains order and discipline in the House. The Opposition plays a crucial role in questioning the government and highlighting issues of public importance.

Now let me tell you about a day in the life of the Lok Sabha. 7 December 2004 was an ordinary day in the life of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha. Let us take a look at what happened in the course of that day. Identify the role and powers of the parliament on the basis of the proceedings for the day as given below:

At 11:00, various ministries gave written answers to about 250 questions that were asked by members. These included: What is the government's policy on talking to militant groups in Kashmir? What are the figures of atrocities against Scheduled Tribes, including those inflicted by the police? What is the government doing about over-pricing of medicines by big companies?

At 12:00, a large number of official documents were presented and were available for discussion. These included: Recruitment rules for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Annual Report of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Report and accounts of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam.

At 12:02, the Minister of Development of North Eastern Region made a statement regarding Revitalisation of the North Eastern Council.

At 12:14, several members highlighted some issues, including: The vindictiveness of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in registering cases against some leaders in the Tehelka case, Need to include Rajasthani as an official language in the Constitution, Need to renew the insurance policies of farmers and agricultural workers of Andhra Pradesh.

At 2:26, two bills proposed by the government were considered and passed. These were: The Securities Laws (Amendment) Bill, The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill.

At 4:00, finally, there was a long discussion regarding the foreign policy of the government and the need to continue an independent foreign policy in the context of the situation in Iraq.

At 7:17, discussion concluded. House adjourned for next day.

So students, you can see that Parliament does many important things in a single day - answering questions, discussing policies, passing bills, and debating national issues.

Now let us move to the next section - 4.3: Political Executive.

Do you remember the story of the Office Memorandum with which we started this chapter? We found out that the person who signed the document did not take this decision. He was only executing the policy decision taken by someone else. We noted the role of the Prime Minister in taking that decision. But we also know that he could not have taken that decision if he did not have support from the Lok Sabha. In that sense he was only executing the wishes of the Parliament.

Thus, at different levels of any government we find functionaries who take day-to-day decisions but do not exercise supreme power on behalf of the people. All those functionaries are collectively known as the executive. They are called executive because they are in charge of the 'execution' of the policies of the government. Thus, when we talk about 'the government' we usually mean the executive.

Now students, in a democratic country, two categories make up the executive. One that is elected by the people for a specific period, is called the political executive. Political leaders who take the big decisions fall in this category. In the second category, people are appointed on a long-term basis. This is called the permanent executive or civil services. Persons working in civil services are called civil servants. They remain in office even when the ruling party changes. These officers work under political executive and assist them in carrying out the day-to-day administration. Can you recall the role of political and non-political executive in the case of the Office Memorandum?

You might ask: Why does the political executive have more power than the non-political executive? Why is the minister more powerful than the civil servant? The civil servant is usually more educated and has more expert knowledge of the subject. The advisors working in the Finance Ministry know more about economics than the Finance Minister. Sometimes the ministers may know very little about the technical matters that come under their ministry. This could easily happen in ministries like Defence, Industry, Health, Science and Technology, Mines, etc. Why should the minister have the final say on these matters?

The reason is very simple. In a democracy the will of the people is supreme. The minister is an elected representative of the people and thus empowered to exercise the will of the people on their behalf. She is finally answerable to the people for all the consequences of her decision. That is why the minister takes all the final decisions. The minister decides the overall framework and objectives in which decisions on policy should be made. The minister is not, and is not expected to be, an expert in the matters of her ministry. The minister takes the advice of experts on all technical matters. But very often experts hold different opinions or place before her more than one option. Depending on what the overall objective is, the minister decides.

Actually this happens in any large organisation. Those who understand the overall picture take the most important decisions, not the experts. The experts can tell the route, but someone with a larger view decides the destination. In a democracy elected ministers perform this role.

Now let me explain about the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister is the most important political institution in the country. Yet there is no direct election to the post of the Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister. But the President cannot appoint anyone she likes. The President appoints the leader of the majority party or the coalition of parties that commands a majority in the Lok Sabha, as Prime Minister. In case no single party or alliance gets a majority, the President appoints the person most likely to secure a majority support. The Prime Minister does not have a fixed tenure. He continues in power so long as he remains the leader of the majority party or coalition.

After the appointment of the Prime Minister, the President appoints other ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Ministers are usually from the party or the coalition that has the majority in the Lok Sabha. The Prime Minister is free to choose ministers, as long as they are members of Parliament. Sometimes, a person who is not a member of Parliament can also become a minister. But such a person has to get elected to one of the Houses of Parliament within six months of appointment as minister.

Council of Ministers is the official name for the body that includes all the Ministers. It usually has 60 to 80 Ministers of different ranks.

Now let me explain the different levels of ministers:

Cabinet Ministers are usually top-level leaders of the ruling party or parties who are in charge of the major ministries. Usually the Cabinet Ministers meet to take decisions in the name of the Council of Ministers. Cabinet is thus the inner ring of the Council of Ministers. It comprises about 25 ministers.

Ministers of State with independent charge are usually in-charge of smaller Ministries. They participate in the Cabinet meetings only when specially invited.

Ministers of State are attached to and required to assist Cabinet Ministers.

Since it is not practical for all ministers to meet regularly and discuss everything, the decisions are taken in Cabinet meetings. That is why parliamentary democracy in most countries is often known as the Cabinet form of government. The Cabinet works as a team. The ministers may have different views and opinions, but everyone has to own up to every decision of the Cabinet. No minister can openly criticise any decision of the government, even if it is about another Ministry or Department. Every ministry has secretaries, who are civil servants. The secretaries provide the necessary background information to the ministers to take decisions. The Cabinet as a team is assisted by the Cabinet Secretariat. This includes many senior civil servants who try to coordinate the working of different ministries.

Now there is an activity in your textbook: List the names of five Cabinet Ministers and their ministries each at the Union level and in your state. Also, meet the Mayor or Municipal Chairperson of your town or the President of Zilla Parishad of your district and ask him or her about how the city, town or district is administered.

So students, for this activity, I want you to find out the names of five Cabinet Ministers at the Union level and their ministries. You can find this information in newspapers or on the internet. Also, try to meet your local municipal chairperson or Zilla Parishad president and ask them about how your town or district is administered.

Now let me explain the Powers of the Prime Minister. The Constitution does not say very much about the powers of the Prime Minister or the ministers or their relationship with each other. But as head of the government, the Prime Minister has wide ranging powers. He chairs Cabinet meetings. He coordinates the work of different Departments. His decisions are final in case disagreements arise between Departments. He exercises general supervision of different ministries. All ministers work under his leadership. The Prime Minister distributes and redistributes work to the ministers. He also has the power to dismiss ministers. When the Prime Minister quits, the entire ministry quits.

Thus, if the Cabinet is the most powerful institution in India, within the Cabinet it is the Prime Minister who is the most powerful. The powers of the Prime Minister in all parliamentary democracies of the world have increased so much in recent decades that parliamentary democracies are sometimes seen as Prime Ministerial form of government. As political parties have come to play a major role in politics, the Prime Minister controls the Cabinet and Parliament through the party. The media also contributes to this trend by making politics and elections as a competition between top leaders of parties. In India too we have seen such a tendency towards the concentration of powers in the hands of the Prime Minister. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, exercised enormous authority because he had great influence over the public. Indira Gandhi was also a very powerful leader compared to her colleagues in the Cabinet. Of course, the extent of power wielded by a Prime Minister also depends on the personality of the person holding that position.

However, in recent years the rise of coalition politics has imposed certain constraints on the power of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of a coalition government cannot take decisions as he likes. He has to accommodate different groups and factions in his party as well as among alliance partners. He also has to heed to the views and positions of the coalition partners and other parties, on whose support the survival of the government depends.

Now let me explain about the President. While the Prime Minister is the head of the government, the President is the head of the State. In our political system the head of the State exercises only nominal powers. The President of India is like the Queen of Britain whose functions are to a large extent ceremonial. The President supervises the overall functioning of all the political institutions in the country so that they operate in harmony to achieve the objectives of the State.

The President is not elected directly by the people. The elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and the elected Members of the Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) elect her. A candidate standing for President's post has to get a majority of votes to win the election. This ensures that the President can be seen to represent the entire nation. At the same time the President can never claim the kind of direct popular mandate that the Prime Minister can. This ensures that she remains only a nominal executive.

The same is true of the powers of the President. If you casually read the Constitution you would think that there is nothing that she cannot do. All governmental activities take place in the name of the President. All laws and major policy decisions of the government are issued in her name. All major appointments are made in the name of the President. These include the appointment of the Prime Minister, other ministers, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Governor of states, and ambassadors.

But in practice, the President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. This is a very important feature of our parliamentary system.

Now let us move to the next section - 4.4: The Judiciary.

Let me start with a question that the textbook asks: It is quite common in the US for judges to be nominated on the basis of well-known political opinions and affiliations. This fictitious advertisement appeared in the US in 2005 when President Bush was considering various candidates for nomination to the US Supreme Court. What does this cartoon say about the independence of the judiciary? Why do such cartoons not appear in our country? Does this demonstrate the independence of our judiciary?

This is a very interesting question. The cartoon in the US shows that judges are sometimes appointed based on their political affiliations, which raises questions about the independence of the judiciary. In India, such cartoons do not appear because our judiciary is considered more independent. The judges are appointed through a process that involves the President, the Prime Minister, and the Chief Justice of India, and once appointed, they cannot be easily removed. This demonstrates the independence of our judiciary.

Now let us return to the story of Office Memorandum that we started with. This time let us not recall the story, but imagine how different the story could have been. Remember, the story came to a satisfactory end because the Supreme Court gave a verdict that was accepted by everyone. Imagine what would have happened in the following situations:

If there was nothing like a Supreme Court in the country. Even if there was a Supreme Court, if it had no power to judge the actions of the government. Even if it had the power, if no one trusted the Supreme Court to give a fair verdict. Even if it gave a fair judgement, if those who appealed against the Government Order did not accept the judgement.

This is why an independent and powerful judiciary is considered essential for democracies. All the courts at different levels in a country put together are called the judiciary. The Indian judiciary consists of a Supreme Court for the entire nation, High Courts in the states, District Courts and the courts at local level. India has an integrated judiciary. It means the Supreme Court controls the judicial administration in the country. Its decisions are binding on all other courts of the country. It can take up any dispute between citizens of the country, between citizens and government, between two or more state governments, and between governments at the union and state level. It is the highest court of appeal in civil and criminal cases. It can hear appeals against the decisions of the High Courts.

Now let me explain about the independence of the judiciary. Independence of the judiciary means that it is not under the control of the legislature or the executive. The judges do not act on the direction of the government or according to the wishes of the party in power. That is why all modern democracies have courts that are independent of the legislature and the executive. India has achieved this. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister and in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In practice it now means that the senior judges of the Supreme Court select the new judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. There is very little scope for interference by the political executive. The senior most judge of the Supreme Court is usually appointed the Chief Justice. Once a person is appointed as judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court it is nearly impossible to remove him or her from that position. It is as difficult as removing the President of India. A judge can be removed only by an impeachment motion passed separately by two-thirds members of the two Houses of the Parliament. It has never happened in the history of Indian democracy.

The judiciary in India is also one of the most powerful in the world. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the Union level or at the state level, if they find such a law or action is against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them. This is known as the judicial review.

The Supreme Court of India has also ruled that the core or basic principles of the Constitution cannot be changed by the Parliament. The powers and the independence of the Indian judiciary allow it to act as the guardian of the Fundamental Rights. We shall see in the next chapter that the citizens have a right to approach the courts to seek remedy in case of any violation of their rights. In recent years the Courts have given several judgments and directives to protect public interest and human rights. Any one can approach the courts if public interest is hurt by the actions of government. This is called public interest litigation. The courts intervene to prevent the misuse of the government's power to make decisions. They check malpractices on the part of public officials. That is why the judiciary enjoys a high level of confidence among the people.

Now there is a question in your textbook: Give one reason each to argue that Indian judiciary is independent with respect to Appointment of judges, Removal of judges, and Powers of the judiciary.

For Appointment of judges: The judges are appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and senior judges, which ensures that political interference is minimal.

For Removal of judges: A judge can only be removed by an impeachment motion passed by two-thirds of both Houses of Parliament, which makes it very difficult to remove a judge unfairly.

For Powers of the judiciary: The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare any law or government action unconstitutional, ensuring that the government works within the framework of the Constitution.

Now students, there is another activity in your textbook: Follow the news about any major court case in a High Court or the Supreme Court. What was the original verdict? Did the High Court or the Supreme Court change it? What was the reason?

For this activity, I want you to follow any major court case that is in the news. You can read newspapers or watch news channels. Try to understand what the case was about, what the original verdict was, and whether the higher court changed it. This will help you understand how the judiciary works.

Now let me explain the glossary terms:

A Coalition government is a government formed by an alliance of two or more political parties, usually when no single party enjoys majority support of the members in a legislature.

The Executive is a body of persons having authority to initiate major policies, make decisions and implement them on the basis of the Constitution and laws of the country.

Government is a set of institutions that have the power to make, implement and interpret laws so as to ensure an orderly life. In its broad sense, government administers and supervises over citizens and resources of a country.

The Judiciary is an institution empowered to administer justice and provide a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes. All the courts in the country are collectively referred to as judiciary.

The Legislature is an assembly of people's representatives with the power to enact laws for a country. In addition to enacting laws, legislatures have authority to raise taxes and adopt the budget and other money bills.

An Office Memorandum is a communication issued by an appropriate authority stating the policy or decision of the government.

A Political Institution is a set of procedures for regulating the conduct of government and political life in the country.

Reservations is a policy that declares some positions in government employment and educational institutions 'reserved' for people and communities who have been discriminated against, are disadvantaged and backward.

The State is a political association occupying a definite territory, having an organised government and possessing power to make domestic and foreign policies. Governments may change, but the state continues. In common speech, the terms country, nation and state are used as synonyms.

Now students, let us go through the exercises at the end of the chapter. I will explain each question and give you the answer.

Exercise 1: If you are elected as the President of India which of the following decision can you take on your own?

a Select the person you like as Prime Minister.

b Dismiss a Prime Minister who has a majority in Lok Sabha.

c Ask for reconsideration of a bill passed by both the Houses.

d Nominate the leaders of your choice to the Council of Ministers.

The correct answer is: None of these. As President, you cannot take any of these decisions on your own. The President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister who has the majority in Lok Sabha. The President cannot dismiss a Prime Minister who has a majority in Lok Sabha. The President cannot ask for reconsideration of a bill - once both Houses have passed a bill and it is presented to the President, she has to either give assent or withhold assent, but cannot ask for reconsideration. And the President cannot nominate leaders of her choice to the Council of Ministers - ministers are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Actually, let me reconsider. The President can ask for reconsideration of a bill in some countries, but in India, the President generally gives assent to bills passed by Parliament. However, there is no provision for the President to return a bill for reconsideration in India. So the answer would be that the President cannot take any of these decisions on her own.

Exercise 2: Who among the following is a part of the political executive?

a District Collector

b Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs

c Home Minister

d Director General of Police

The correct answer is c: Home Minister. The political executive consists of elected representatives who hold political office. The Home Minister is a political executive because she is a minister appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, and she is an elected representative (or has to become an MP within six months). The District Collector, Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Director General of Police are all part of the permanent executive or civil services. They are appointed on a permanent basis and are not elected.

Exercise 3: Which of the following statements about the judiciary is false?

a Every law passed by the Parliament needs approval of the Supreme Court

b Judiciary can strike down a law if it goes against the spirit of the Constitution

c Judiciary is independent of the Executive

d Any citizen can approach the courts if her rights are violated

The correct answer is a: Every law passed by the Parliament needs approval of the Supreme Court. This is false because Parliament can pass laws without the approval of the Supreme Court. However, if someone challenges the law in court, the judiciary can examine its constitutional validity through judicial review. The other statements are true: The judiciary can strike down a law if it goes against the Constitution, the judiciary is independent of the executive, and any citizen can approach the courts if their rights are violated.

Exercise 4: Which of the following institutions can make changes to an existing law of the country?

a The Supreme Court

b The President

c The Prime Minister

d The Parliament

The correct answer is d: The Parliament. Only the legislature (Parliament) can make changes to existing laws or enact new laws. The Supreme Court can declare a law invalid through judicial review, but it cannot change or amend a law. The President gives assent to laws but cannot make changes to them. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and participates in legislative processes, but cannot personally change laws.

Exercise 5: Match the ministry with the news that the ministry may have released:

a A new policy is being made to increase the jute exports from the country. - iv Ministry of Commerce and Industry

b Telephone services will be made more accessible to rural areas. - v Ministry of Communications and Information Technology

c The price of rice and wheat sold under the Public Distribution System will go down. - ii Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Public Distribution

d A pulse polio campaign will be launched. - iii Ministry of Health

e The allowances of the soldiers posted on high altitudes will be increased. - i Ministry of Defence

So the correct matching is: a-iv, b-v, c-ii, d-iii, e-i.

Exercise 6: Of all the institutions that we have studied in this chapter, name the one that exercises the powers on each of the following matters.

a Decision on allocation of money for developing infrastructure like roads, irrigation etc. and different welfare activities for the citizens - This is done by the Parliament (which passes the budget) and the Executive (which implements it).

b Considers the recommendation of a Committee on a law to regulate the stock exchange - This is done by the Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).

c Decides on a legal dispute between two state governments - This is done by the Supreme Court.

d Implements the decision to provide relief for the victims of an earthquake. - This is done by the Executive (the government).

Let me be more precise:

a The Parliament passes the budget and the Executive implements it. But the primary decision on allocation of money is made by the Parliament through the budget approval process.

b The Parliament considers recommendations on laws, including laws to regulate stock exchanges.

c The Supreme Court decides on legal disputes between two state governments.

d The Executive (government) implements decisions on relief for earthquake victims.

Exercise 7: Why is the Prime Minister in India not directly elected by the people? Choose the most appropriate answer and give reasons for your choice.

a In a Parliamentary democracy only the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha can become the Prime Minister.

b Lok Sabha can remove the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers even before the expiry of their term.

c Since the Prime Minister is appointed by the President there is no need for it.

d Direct election of the Prime Minister will involve lot of expenditure on election.

The most appropriate answer is a: In a Parliamentary democracy only the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha can become the Prime Minister.

The reason is that in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament, particularly the Lok Sabha. The Prime Minister must have the confidence of the majority in Lok Sabha. If the Prime Minister were directly elected, this relationship with Parliament would be different. The Prime Minister is essentially the leader of the majority in Parliament, and that is why she is appointed by the President after the elections.

Option b is also true but it does not explain why the Prime Minister is not directly elected. Option c is incorrect because the President does appoint the Prime Minister, but this is based on the support in Parliament. Option d is not the main reason - direct elections do involve expenditure, but that is not why the system is designed this way.

Exercise 8: Three friends went to watch a film that showed the hero becoming Chief Minister for a day and making big changes in the state. Imran said this is what the country needs. Rizwan said this kind of a personal rule without institutions is dangerous. Shankar said all this is a fantasy. No minister can do anything in one day. What would be your reaction to such a film?

This is a question that asks for your opinion. Let me give you a balanced answer:

My reaction would be similar to Rizwan's. The film shows a fantasy that does not reflect how democracy works. In a democracy, decisions are not taken by one person alone. They involve consultations, discussions, and approvals from various institutions. The Chief Minister works with the Council of Ministers, the bureaucracy, the Legislative Assembly, and other institutions. Even if a Chief Minister has good intentions, they cannot make big changes overnight because:

First, any major decision requires approval from the Legislative Assembly. Second, the implementation of decisions requires the bureaucracy, which takes time. Third, there are rules and procedures that must be followed. Fourth, the judiciary can intervene if decisions are unconstitutional.

So while it is good to have visionary leaders, the film exaggerates the power of one person. In reality, institutions are necessary to ensure that power is exercised responsibly and that decisions are made after proper consideration.

Exercise 9: A teacher was making preparations for a mock parliament. She called two students to act as leaders of two political parties. She gave them an option: Each one could choose to have a majority either in the mock Lok Sabha or in the mock Rajya Sabha. If this choice was given to you, which one would you choose and why?

I would choose to have a majority in the Lok Sabha. The reason is that the Lok Sabha is more powerful than the Rajya Sabha in many ways:

First, the Lok Sabha controls the Council of Ministers. If you have a majority in Lok Sabha, you can form the government and your leader will become the Prime Minister. Second, in money matters, the Lok Sabha has more power - the Rajya Sabha cannot reject money bills, only delay them. Third, if there is a disagreement between the two Houses, the Lok Sabha's view is likely to prevail in a joint session because of its larger membership.

So having a majority in Lok Sabha gives you more real power in the parliamentary system.

Exercise 10: After reading the example of the reservation order, three students had different reactions about the role of the judiciary. Which view, according to you, is a correct reading of the role of judiciary?

a Srinivas argues that since the Supreme Court agreed with the government, it is not independent.

b Anjaiah says that judiciary is independent because it could have given a verdict against the government order. The Supreme Court did direct the government to modify it.

c Vijaya thinks that the judiciary is neither independent nor conformist, but acts as a mediator between opposing parties. The court struck a good balance between those who supported and those who opposed the order.

The correct view is b: Anjaiah's view. The judiciary is independent because it gave a verdict that could have gone against the government, but it carefully examined the case and gave a balanced judgment. The Supreme Court upheld the reservation policy but also directed the government to exclude well-to-do persons among the backward classes from getting the benefit. This shows that the judiciary can act independently and make nuanced decisions that balance different interests.

Srinivas's view is incorrect because agreeing with the government does not mean the judiciary is not independent - the court may have genuinely found the order to be constitutional. Vijaya's view is partially correct in saying that the court acted as a mediator, but the primary role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and ensure constitutional validity, not simply to mediate between parties.

Now there is one more activity at the end: Let us read newspapers. Collect newspapers for the last one week and classify the news related to the working of any of the institutions discussed in this chapter into four groups: Working of the legislatures, Working of the political executive, Working of the civil services, Working of the judiciary.

For this activity, I want you to collect newspapers for a week and read the news carefully. Then classify each news item into one of these four categories. This will help you understand how these institutions work in real life.

Now students, let me give you a complete summary of everything we have learned in this chapter.

In this chapter, we learned about how democracy works through institutions. We started with the example of the Office Memorandum about 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes, which was issued in 1990. This helped us understand the chain of decision-making in our democracy.

We learned that the President is the head of the state and exercises nominal powers. The Prime Minister is the head of the government and exercises real powers. The Cabinet takes important policy decisions. The Parliament consists of two houses - Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha - and is the final authority for making laws. The Lok Sabha is more powerful than the Rajya Sabha in most matters, especially money matters and regarding the Council of Ministers.

We learned about the political executive and permanent executive. The political executive consists of elected representatives like the Prime Minister and ministers. The permanent executive consists of civil servants who remain in office even when the government changes.

We learned about the judiciary and its independence. The Supreme Court is the highest court in India. The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare any law or government action unconstitutional if it violates the Constitution. The judiciary is independent because judges are appointed through a process that minimizes political interference, and they can only be removed through impeachment.

We also learned about the importance of institutions in democracy. Institutions ensure that decisions are taken after proper consultation, that there is accountability, and that power is not concentrated in one person.

So students, this is the end of our lesson on Chapter 4 - Working of Institutions. I hope you have understood how our democratic institutions work together to govern our country. Remember, democracy is not just about elections - it is about institutions that work together to ensure that the government works for the people, by the people.

Thank you for your attention. Namaste!