ParliamentPresident’s Address 2014-2018: A Status ReportZarka Shabir- January 31, 2019The budget session of Parliament every year starts with the President’s Address to both Houses.  In this speech, the President highlights the government’s achievements and legislative activities in the last year, and announces its agenda for the upcoming year.   The address is followed by a motion of thanks that is moved in each House by ruling party MPs.  This is followed by a discussion on the address and concludes with the Prime Minister replying to the points raised during the discussion.Today, the Budget Session 2019 commenced with the President, Mr. Ram Nath Kovind addressing a joint sitting of Parliament.  In his speech, he highlighted some of the objectives that the government has realised in the past year.  The President also highlighted the progress made by the government under various development schemes such as the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, and the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana.Given that today’s address comes at the end of this government’s term, we examine the status of some key policy initiatives announced by the current government, that have been highlighted in speeches made in the past five years.Policy priority stated in President’s Addresses 2014-2018Current StatusEconomy and FinanceDespite a global economic downturn, the Indian economy has remained on a high growth trajectory.Growth Rate:The GDP is estimated to grow at 7.2% in 2018-19.[i]In the last five years, GDP growth rate stayed within 7% and 8% per year, with a dip to 6.7% in 2017-18, the year of demonetisation.[ii],[iii]Inflation:A target of 4% for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation was notified by the Ministry of Finance for the period 2016-2021.[iv]CPI stayed within this band for most of the period between 2014 and 2018.Foreign Exchange Reservesstood at USD 397 billion on January 2019, as compared to USD 313 billion in May, 2014.[v],[vi]Measures to deal with corruption, black money and counterfeit currency will be introducedDemonetisation:On November 8, 2016, the Government announced the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes.[vii]During the period from November 2016 to October 2017, undisclosed income of over Rs 24,800 crore was detected.[viii]The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018was passed in July, 2018.  The Bill seeks to confiscate properties of economic offenders who have left the country to avoid facing criminal prosecution.[ix]ThePrevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013amends the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  Under the 1988 Act, taking of a bribe by a public official was an offence.  The Bill also makes the giving of a bribe an offence.[x]To promote the concept of cooperative federalism through One Nation-One Tax and One Nation-One Market, the government introduced the Goods and Services TaxGoods and Services Tax was introduced across the country from July 1, 2017.[xi]AgricultureAgriculture is the main source of livelihood for a majority of people.  For holistic development of the agricultural sector, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana was launched in 2016Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY):PMFBY was launched with the aim of providing insurance coverage and financial support to farmers in the event of crop failure.  The number of farmers enrolled under the scheme declined from 5.7 crore in 2016-17 to 5.2 crore in 2017-18.[xii]Employment and EntrepreneurshipThe government has continuously worked for reforms of labour laws.  Minimum wages have increased by more than 40%Over the last three years, the Ministry of Labour and Employment has introduced three draft Codes to simplify labour laws.  These are: (i) the draftLabour Code on Industrial Relations, (ii) the draftCode on Social Securityand (iii) the draftCode on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions.60Additionally, in 2017, theCode on Wages Bill,2017was introduced in the Lok Sabha.In 2017, the central governmentincreased minimum wagesby 40% through a gazette notification.  Minimum wages (per day) for non-agricultural workers increased from Rs 250 to Rs 350 for unskilled workers and Rs 523 for skilled workers.[xiii],[xiv],[xv]InfrastructureCities are the engines of economic growth.  The Smart City programme was initiated to build modern amenities and infrastructure.Smart Citiesand theAtal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT)have an outlay of Rs 48,000 crore and Rs 50,000 crore for the period 2015-2020, respectively.[xvi]As of January 19, 2018, 100 smart cities have been selected.  As of 2018, the total proposed investment in these cities is Rs 2,05,018 crore.[xvii],[xviii]All rural habitations will be connected with all-weather roads. So far, 73,000 kilometres of roads have been laid in rural areas.ThePradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)aims to connect all eligible unconnected habitations in rural areas with all-weather roads by March 2019.[xix],[xx]As of January 29, 2019, of the target of 1.52 lakh habitations to be covered since the inception of the scheme, 1.46 lakh (96%) habitations have been connected.[xxi]Housing is a fundamental right.  All households shall have a dwelling unit under the Mission Housing for All by 2022.Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) was launched in 2015.The Yojana has two components: rural and urban.Under PMAY-Urban, 5,33,000 have been completed in 2018-19.  Under PMAY-Rural, 14,21,850 have been built in 2018-19.[xxii],[xxiii]Health and SanitationPoor sanitation weakens the economic wherewithal of a poor household.  The Swachh Bharat Abhiyan aims to ensure health and sanitation.Swachh Bharat Mission: Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) was launched on October 2, 2014 to achieve a clean and open defecation free India.  It has two components: SBM Urban and SBM Rural.[xxiv],[xxv]Under SBM Urban, as of January 29, 2019, 24,130 individual household toilets have been constructed.[xxvi]Under SBM Gramin, as of January 30, 2019, 919 lakh individual household toilets have been constructed (98.81% of target).[xxvii],[xxviii]The government is committed to providing affordable and accessible healthcare to all its citizens, particularly the vulnerable groups.Ayushmaan Bharat: In the General Budget 2018-19, the Government announced two major initiatives in health sector as a part of the Ayushman Bharat program.  These were: Health and Wellness Centres and the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY).[xxix]Ayushmaan Bharat aims to create 1,50,000 health and wellness centres providing comprehensive primary healthcare. Rs 1200 crore has been allocated for this purpose.[xxx]PMJAY will cover over ten crore poor and vulnerable families.[xxxi]It will provide coverage of up to five lakh rupees per family per year for secondary and tertiary care hospitalisation.  For the year 2018-19, Rs 3,125 crore has been allocated for this scheme.[xxxii]Source: President’s Addresses 2014-2018; PRS.For important highlights from the President’s address in 2019, please seehere.  For a deeper analysis of the status of implementation of the announcements made in the President’s addresses from 2014 to 2018, please seehere.[i]“Press Note on First Advance Estimates of National Income: 2018-19”, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Press Information Bureau,http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_release/Presss%20note%20for%20first%20advance%20estimates%202018-19.pdf.[ii]“Second Advance Estimates of National Income, 2017-18”, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Press Information Bureau,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176847[iii]“Second Advance Estimates of National Income, 2016-17”, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Press Information Bureau,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=158734[iv]Overview-Monetary Policy, Reserve Bank of India,https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Overview.aspx?fn=2752.[v]“Foreign Exchange Reserves,”  Reserve Bank of India, January 25, 2019,https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/WSSView.aspx?Id=22729.[vi]RBI Database,https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=home.[vii]Table No.  160, Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy, Reserve Bank of India, https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head =Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20on%20Indian%20Economy[viii]Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.  1319, Ministry of Finance, December 22, 2017,http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=59329&lsno=16.[ix]“The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018”, PRS Legislative Research, March 16, 2018,http://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Fugitive%20Economic%20Offenders%20Bill%20-%20Bill%20Summary.pdf.[x]“The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill”, PRS Legislative Research, February 12, 2014,http://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Bill_Summary-_Prevention_of_Corruption_1.pdf.[xi]“GST roll-out – Complete transformation of the Indirect Taxation Landscape; Some minute details of how it happened, Ministry of Finance”, Press Information Bureau, June 30, 2017,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=167023.[xii]Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 17, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, December 11, 2018,http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/16/AS17.pdf.[xiii]“Year End Review, Ministry of Labour and Employment”, December 18, 2017,http://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1512998.[xiv]Rate of Minimum Wages, Ministry of Labour and Employment, March 1 2017,https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/MX-M452N_20170518_132440.pdf.[xv]Gazette Number 173, Ministry of Labour and Employment, January 19, 2017, Gazette of India,http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/173724.pdf.[xvi]“Union Cabinet approves Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation and Smart Cities Mission to drive economic growth and foster inclusive urban development”, Press Information Bureau, April 29, 2015,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=119925.[xvii]“Shillong (Meghalaya) gets selected as the 100th Smart City”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Press Information Bureau, June 20, 2018,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=180063[xviii]“Year Ender- Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs-2018”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Press Information Bureau, December 31, 2018,http://pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1557895.[xix]PMGSY Guidelines, Ministry of Rural Development, last accessed on October 23, 2018.http://pmgsy.nic.in/.[xx]“Implementation of PMGSY”, Ministry of Rural Development, Press Information Bureau, December 27, 2018,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=186837.[xxi]Online Management, Monitoring and Accounting System (OMMAS), Pradhan Mantri, Gram Sadak Yojana, last accessed on October 23, 2018,http://omms.nic.in/Home/CitizenPage/#.[xxii]High Level Physical Progress Report, PMAYG, Ministry of Rural Development, last accessed on January 25, 2019,https://rhreporting.nic.in/netiay/PhysicalProgressReport/physicalprogressreport.aspx[xxiii]“Year Ender-6-PMAY-Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2018”, Press Information Bureau, December 27, 2018,http://pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1557462.[xxiv]“Swachh Bharat Mission needs to become a Jan Andolan with participation from every stakeholder: Hardeep Puri, 1,789 Cities have been declared ODF conference on PPP model for waste to energy projects”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Press Information Bureau, November 30, 2017,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=173995.[xxv]“PM launches Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan”, Prime Minister’s Office, Press Information Bureau, October 2, 2014,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=110247.[xxvi]“Individual Household Latrine Application”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, last accessed on January 30, 2019,http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/ihhl/RPTApplicationSummary.aspx.[xxvii]“Individual Household Latrine Application”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, last accessed on January 30, 2019,http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/ihhl/RPTApplicationSummary.aspx.[xxviii]Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, last accessed on January 30, 2019,https://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/Default.aspx.[xxix]“Ayushman Bharat for a new India -2022, announced”, Ministry of Finance, Press Information Bureau, February 1, 2018,shttp://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176049[xxx]About NHA, Ayushmaan Bharat, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,https://www.pmjay.gov.in/about-nha.[xxxi]“Ayushman Bharat –Pradhan Mantri Jan AarogyaYojana (AB-PMJAY) to be launched by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi in Ranchi, Jharkahnd on September 23, 2018”, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Press Information Bureau, September 22, 2018,http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=183624.[xxxii]National Health Accounts, estimates for 2014-15 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,https://mohfw.gov.in/newshighlights/national-health-accounts-estimates-india-2014-15.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


LegislationThe Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: How it differs from the draft BillAnurag Vaishnav- December 27, 2019ThePersonal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was recently introduced in Parliament.  The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination, and the Committee is expected to submit its report by the last week of Budget Session, 2020.  The Bill seeks to provide for the protection of personal data of individuals (known as data principals), and creates a framework for processing such personal data by other entities (known as data fiduciaries).  It provides the data principal with certain rights with respect to their data, such as seeking correction, completion or transfer of their data to other fiduciaries.   Similarly, it sets out certain obligations, and other transparency and accountability measures to be undertaken by the data fiduciary, such as instituting grievance redressal mechanisms to address complaints of individuals.  Processing of personal data is exempted from the provisions of the Bill in certain cases, such as security of state, public order, or for prevention, investigation, or prosecution of any offence.  The Bill also establishes a Data Protection Authority to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Bill and provide for further regulations.As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2019 Bill, the provisions of the Bill are based on the recommendations of thereport of the Expert Committee(Chair: Justice B. N. Srikrishna) which examined issues related to protection of personal data and proposed aDraft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018.In a previousblog, we provided a brief background to the 2019 Bill, explained why a Bill was brought for personal data protection and what are some of the key provisions of the Bill.  In this blog, we look at how the 2019 Bill differs from the 2018 Draft Bill.Table 1:Comparison of the provisions of the 2018 Draft Bill with the 2019 BillProvisionDraft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019Definition of personal dataPersonal data pertains to characteristics, traits or attributes of identity, which can be used to identify an individual.The Bill retains the definition and adds that such characteristics or traits will also include any inference drawn from such data for the purpose of profiling.Sensitive personal dataSensitive personal data includes personal data related to health, sex life, sexual orientation, financial data, passwords, among others.The Data Protection Authority can categorise any other personal data as sensitive personal data.The Bill removes passwords from the category of sensitive personal data.The power to further categorise personal data as sensitive personal data will lie with the central government (in consultation with Data Protection Authority and the sector regulator concerned).Rights of individual (data principal)The data principal has certain rights with respect to their data such as obtaining confirmation on whether their data has been processed, seeking correction, transfer, or restriction on continuing disclosure of their data.The Bill provides the right to erasure of personal data which is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was processed, as an additional right for the data principal.Non-consensual processing of personal dataPersonal data may be processed without obtaining the consent of the individual on certain grounds.  These include: (i) any function of Parliament or state legislature, (ii) if required by the State for providing benefits to the individual, and (iii) for reasonable purposes specified by the Authority, such as fraud detection, debt recovery, and whistle blowing.The Bill removes the provision on any function of Parliament or state legislature as a ground for non-consensual processing of personal data.The Bill adds ‘operation of search engines’ as a reasonable purpose for which non-consensual processing of personal data may be allowed by the Authority.Social media intermediariesThe draft Bill did not contain this term.The Bill defines a social media intermediary as an intermediary which enables online interaction between users and allows for sharing of information.All social media intermediaries which are classified as significant data fiduciaries (fiduciaries with users above a notified threshold whose actions can impact electoral democracy or public order) must provide a voluntary user verification mechanism for all users in India.Exemptions for the government for processing of personal dataThe State is exempted from the provisions of the Bill while processing personal data in the interest of national security.     However, such processing must be permitted by a law and must be proportionate to the interests being achieved.  Further, such processing must be done in a fair and reasonable manner.The government can exempt any of its agencies from any or all provisions of the Act, for processing of personal data in certain cases.     These include: (i) in interest of security of state, public order, sovereignty and integrity of India and friendly relations with foreign states, and (ii) for preventing incitement to commission of any cognisable offence relating to the above matters.Exemptions for manual processing by small entitiesTransparency and accountability measures and certain other obligations will not apply to small entities.  These are fiduciaries which: (i) have annual turnover below Rs 20 lakh (or such lower amount as prescribed), and (ii) did not process data of more than 100 individuals in any one day in the last year.The Bill retains the exemption for small entities.     However, it does away with the prescribed limits and allows the Authority to classify fiduciaries as small entities based on the annual turnover of fiduciary and the volume of data processed by such fiduciary.Transfer of personal data outside countryOne serving copy of all personal data should be stored in India.The Bill removes the provision for mandatory storage of all personal data in the country.  It provides that sensitive personal data must continue to be stored in India.  Such data can be transferred outside India if explicitly consented by the individual, and subject to certain additional conditions.Composition of Data Protection Authority of IndiaThe chairperson and members of the Authority will be appointed by the central government on the recommendations of a selection committee.  The selection committee will be comprised of: (i) Chief Justice of India or a Judge of Supreme Court as the chairperson, (ii) Cabinet Secretary, and (iii) an expert in field of data protection, information technology and related subjects.The Bill provides that the selection committee will be comprised of: (i) Cabinet Secretary as the chairperson, (ii) Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, and (iii) Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.Offences and penaltiesUnder the Bill, offences such as: (i) obtaining, disclosing, transferring, or selling personal data in contravention of the Act, and (ii) re-identification and processing of de-identified personal data (data from which identifiers have been removed) without consent, are punishable with imprisonment.Under the Bill, re-identification and processing of de-identified personal without consent is the only offence punishable with imprisonment.Non-personal and anonymised personal dataNo provision of the Bill would apply to non-personal data used by government for formulation of policies for digital economy, growth or security.The Bill retains the provision and further provides that the government can direct data fiduciaries to provide it any: (i) non-personal data and (ii) anonymised personal data (where it is not possible to identify data principal) for better targeting of services and formulation of evidence-based policy.Sources: The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018; The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019; PRS.Read MoreParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


ConstitutionExplainer: Mechanisms to investigate charges against a Supreme Court judgeRoshni Sinha- April 25, 2019This week, an in-house inquiry committee wasconstitutedto consider a complaint against the current Chief Justice of India.  Over the years, three mechanisms have evolved to investigate cases of misconduct, including cases of sexual harassment, misbehaviour or incapacity against judges.  In this blog, we summarise the procedure for investigating such charges against judges of the Supreme Court.In-house procedure(1999): The Supreme Court has an in-house process to deal with allegations against a judge relating to the discharge of his judicial function, or with regard to his conduct or behaviour outside court.Sexual harassment guidelines: In 2013, Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.  Subsequently, the Supreme Courtframedregulations for protection of women against sexual harassment in the Supreme Court. Under the regulations, the CJI is required to constitute a Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC).  The GSICC will include 7-13 members including: (i) one or two judges of the Supreme Court, and (ii) up to two outside members (having experience in social justice, women empowerment, gender justice, among others) to be nominated by the CJI.  The Regulations require the majority of the members of GSICC to be women.  As of 2018, the GSICC hasreceived13 complaints, out of which 10 have been disposed of.Removal for proven misbehaviour or incapacity: Charges of misconduct may also be investigated in the context of proceedings for removal of a judge.  Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India provides that a judge can be removed only by Parliament on the basis of a motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.  The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.  Till date, no judge of the higher judiciary has been impeached under this process.Table 1: Process for investigation of charges against a Supreme Court judgeIn-house Procedure of Supreme Court2013 SC Sexual Harassment RegulationRemoval ProceedingsWho may file a complaintComplaint of misconduct may be filed by any person.Written complaint of sexual harassment by a woman.Signed notice by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha on charges of misbehaviour or incapacity by a judge.Persons to whom complaint must be filedCJI or President of IndiaGSICCPresiding Officer of the relevant House of ParliamentPreliminary InquiryThe CJI is required to determine whether the complaint is either frivolous or serious. If the complaint is frivolous or relates to a pending case, no further action will be taken.If the CJI finds that the complaint involves serious misconduct or impropriety, he will seek the response of the concerned Judge.Based on the response and supporting materials, if the CJI finds that the complaint needs a deeper probe, he will constitute an inquiry committee.If the GSICC is satisfied that the complaint is genuine, it will constitute a three-member Internal Sub-Committee to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.If the notice is in order, the Presiding Officer will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the complaint.Composition of Inquiry CommitteeThe Committee will comprise three judges including a Judge of the Supreme Court and two Chief Justices of other High Courts.The Committee will comprise members of the GSICC or persons nominated by the GSICC, with majority members being a woman and an outside member.The committee will comprise a Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.Time limit for submission of inquiry reportNo specific time limit provided.To be completed within 90 days of the constitution of the Internal Sub-Committee, and forwarded to the GSICC within 10 days of completion.To be submitted to the presiding officer within 90 days.Findings of the CommitteeThe Committee may report to the CJI that:1.  there is no substance in the allegation made, or,2.  there is substance in the allegations but the misconduct is not of such serious nature as to warrant removal, or,3.  the misconduct is serious enough to initiate removal proceedings against the judge.If the committee concludes that the allegation has been proved, it will submit its report to the GSICC to pass appropriate orders within 45 days.If more than two thirds of the GSICC members differ from the conclusion of the Committee, it will, after hearing the complainant and the accused, record its reasons for differing and pass orders.After concluding its investigation, the Committee will submit its report to the presiding officer, who will lay the report before the relevant House.Action taken upon submission of reportIf the finding is under category (2) above, the CJI may call and advise the Judge accordingly and direct that the report be placed on record.If the finding is under category (3) above, the CJI may ask the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement.  If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI may decide to not allocate any judicial work to the judge concerned.Further, the CJI may inform the President of India and the Prime Minister of his reasons for the action taken and forward a copy of the inquiry report to them.The GSICC has the power to: (i) to pass an order of admonition (reprimand), which may also be published in the court precinct, or (ii) pass an order to prohibit the accused from harassing or communicating with the complainant, or (iii) pass any other order to end the sexual harassment faced by the complainant.GSICC may also recommend to the CJI to pass orders against the accused, including: (i) prohibiting entry of the accused into the Supreme Court for up to a year, or (ii) filing a criminal complaint before the concerned disciplinary authority governing the accused.If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated.The motion is required to be adopted by each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.Once the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent to the President, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.Process for AppealsNo specific provision.Any aggrieved person may make a representation to the CJI to set aside/modify the orders passed by the GSICC.  The CJI also has the power to issue any other orders in order to secure justice to the victim.No specific provision.Sources: Report of the Committee on In-House Procedure, December 1999, Supreme Court of India; Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013; Article 124(4), Constitution of India; Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 read with the Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969; PRS.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


LegislationThe Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019: All you need to knowAnurag Vaishnav- December 23, 2019Recently, thePersonal Data Protection Bill, 2019was introduced in Parliament.  The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination, and the report is expected bythe Budget Session, 2020.The Bill seeks to provide for protection of personal data of individuals, create a framework for processing such personal data, and establishes a Data Protection Authority for the purpose.  In this blog, we provide a background to the 2019 Bill, and explain some of its key provisions.What is personal data and data protection?Data can be broadly classified into two types: personal and non-personal data.  Personal data pertains to characteristics, traits or attributes of identity, which can be used to identify an individual.   Non-personal data includes aggregated data through which individuals cannot be identified.  For example, while an individual’s own location would constitute personal data; information derived from multiple drivers’ location, which is often used to analyse traffic flow, is non-personal data.  Data protection refers to policies and procedures seeking to minimise intrusion into the privacy of an individual caused by collection and usage of their personal data.Why was a Bill brought for personal data protection?In August 2017, the Supreme Courtheldthat privacy is a fundamental right, flowing from the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.  The Court also observed that privacy of personal data and facts is an essential aspect of the right to privacy.  In July 2017, a Committee of Experts, chaired by Justice B. N. Srikrishna, was set up to examine various issues related to data protection in India.  The Committee submitted itsreport, along with a Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in July 2018.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 states that the Bill is based on the recommendations of the report of the Expert Committee and the suggestions received from various stakeholders.How is personal data regulated currently?Currently, the usage and transfer of personal data of citizens is regulated by theInformation Technology (IT) Rules, 2011, under the IT Act, 2000.  The rules hold the companies using the data liable for compensating the individual, in case of any negligence in maintaining security standards while dealing with the data.  The Expert Committee in its report, held that while the IT rules were a novel attempt at data protection at the time they were introduced, the pace of development of digital economy has shown its shortcomings.3For instance, (i) the definition of sensitive personal data under the rules is narrow, and (ii) some of the provisions can be overridden by a contract.  Further, the IT Act applies only to companies, not to the government.What does the Personal Data Protection Bill provide?The Bill regulates personal data related to individuals, and the processing, collection and storage of such data.  Under the Bill, a data principal is an individual whose personal data is being processed.  The entity or individual who decides the means and purposes of data processing is known as data fiduciary.  The Bill governs the processing of personal data by both government and companies incorporated in India.  It also governs foreign companies, if they deal with personal data of individuals in India.Will individuals have rights over their data?The Bill provides the data principal with certain rights with respect to their personal data.   These include seeking confirmation on whether their personal data has been processed, seeking correction, completion or erasure of their data, seeking transfer of data to other fiduciaries, and restricting continuing disclosure of their personal data, if it is no longer necessary or if consent is withdrawn.  Any processing of personal data can be done only on the basis of consent given by data principal.Are there any restrictions on processing of an individual’s data?The Bill also provides for certain obligations of data fiduciaries with respect to processing of personal data.  Such processing should be subject to certain purpose, collection and storage limitations.   For instance, personal data can be processed only for specific, clear and lawful purpose.  Additionally, all data fiduciaries must undertake certain transparency and accountability measures such as implementing security safeguards and instituting grievance redressal mechanisms to address complaints of individuals.  Certain fiduciaries would be notified as significant data fiduciaries (based on certain criteria such as volume of data processed and turnover of fiduciary).  These fiduciaries must undertake additional accountability measures such as conducting a data protection impact assessment before conducting any processing of large scale sensitive personal data (includes financial data, biometric data, caste, religious or political beliefs).What is the grievance redressal mechanism if the above restrictions are not followed?To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Bill, and provide for further regulations with respect to processing of personal data of individuals, the Bill sets up a Data Protection Authority.  The Authority will be comprised of members with expertise in fields such as data protection and information technology.  Any individual, who is not satisfied with the grievance redressal by the data fiduciary can file a complaint to the Authority.  Orders of the Authority can be appealed to an Appellate Tribunal. Appeals from the Tribunal will go to the Supreme Court.Are there any exemptions to these safeguards for processing of personal data?Processing of personal data is exempt from the provisions of the Bill in some cases.  For example, the central government can exempt any of its agencies in the interest of security of state, public order, sovereignty and integrity of India, and friendly relations with foreign states.  Processing of personal data is also exempted from provisions of the Bill for certain other purposes such as prevention, investigation, or prosecution of any offence, or research and journalistic purposes.  Further, personal data of individuals can be processed without their consent in certain circumstances such as: (i) if required by the State for providing benefits to the individual, (ii) legal proceedings, (iii) to respond to a medical emergency.Is the Bill different from the draft Bill suggested by the Expert Committee?The Bill has made several changes from the draft Bill.  For instance, the Bill has added a new class of significant data fiduciaries, as social media intermediaries.  These will include intermediaries (with users above a notified threshold) which enable online interaction between users.  Further, the Bill has expanded the scope of exemptions for the government, and additionally provided that the government may direct data fiduciaries to provide it with any non-personal or anonymised data for better targeting of services.In a follow-up blog, we will provide a detailed comparison of the key provisions of this Bill with the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill 2018, released by the Justice B. N. Srikrishna Committee.Read MoreParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


LegislationExplainer: The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019Roshni Sinha- December 9, 2019The Minister of Home Affairs introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 today in Lok Sabha.   It is scheduled to be taken up for discussion and passing by the House later today.  The Bill amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, and seeks to make foreign illegal migrants of certain religious communities coming from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan eligible for Indian citizenship.  In this blog, we look at the criteria for determining citizenship in India, discuss how the Bill proposes to change the criteria, and highlight other key changes proposed by the Bill.How is citizenship acquired in India?In India, citizenship is regulated by the Citizenship Act, 1955.  The Act specifies that citizenship may be acquired in India through five methods – by birth in India, by descent, through registration, by naturalisation (extended residence in India), and by incorporation of territory into India.[1]Can illegal migrants acquire citizenship?An illegal migrant is prohibited from acquiring Indian citizenship.  An illegal immigrant is a foreigner who either enters India illegally, i.e., without valid travel documents, like a visa and passport, or enters India legally, but stays beyond the time period permitted in their travel documents.  An illegal migrant can be prosecuted in India, and deported or imprisoned.In September 2015 and July 2016, the central government exempted certain groups of illegal migrants from being imprisoned or deported.[2]These are illegal migrants who came into India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan on or before December 31, 2014, and belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian religious communities.How does the Bill seek to change the criteria for determining citizenship?The Bill proposes that the specified class of illegal migrants from the three countries will not be treated as illegal migrants, making them eligible for citizenship.  On acquiring citizenship, such migrants shall be deemed to be Indian citizens from the date of their entry into India and all legal proceedings regarding their status as illegal migrants or their citizenship will be closed.The Act allows a person to apply for citizenship by naturalisation, if the person meets certain qualifications.  One of the qualifications is that the person must have resided in India or been in central government service for the last 12 months and at least 11 years of the preceding 14 years.  For the specified class of illegal migrants, the number of years of residency has been relaxed from 11 years to five years.Are the provisions of the Bill applicable across the country?The Bill clarifies that the proposed amendments on citizenship to the specified class of illegal migrants will not apply to certain areas.  These are: (i) the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, and (ii) the states regulated by the “Inner Line” permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations 1873.  These Sixth Schedule tribal areas include Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma District (in Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District.   Further, the Inner Line Permit regulates visit of all persons, including Indian citizens, to Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.Is the differentiation among the specified class of illegal migrants and all other illegal migrants reasonable?The Bill makes only certain illegal migrants eligible for citizenship.  These are persons belonging to the six specified religious communities, from the three specified countries, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, and do not reside in the Sixth Schedule areas or in the states regulated by the Inner Line Permit states.  This implies that all other illegal migrants will not be able to claim the benefit of citizenship conferred by the Bill, and may continue to be prosecuted as illegal migrants.  Any provision which distinguishes between two groups may violate the standard of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, unless one can show a reasonable rationale for doing so.[3]The Bill provides differential treatment to illegal migrants on the basis of (a) their country of origin, (b) religion, (c) date of entry into India, and (d) place of residence in India.   The question is whether these factors serve a reasonable purpose to justify the differential treatment.  We examine this below.The Bill classifies migrants based on their country of origin to include only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.  While the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SoR) in the Bill reasons that millions of citizens of undivided India were living in Pakistan and Bangladesh, no reason has been provided to explain the inclusion of Afghanistan.  The SoR also states that these countries have a state religion, which has resulted in religious persecution of minority groups.  However, there are other countries which may fit this qualification.   For instance, two of India’s neighboring countries, Sri Lanka (Buddhist state religion)[4]and Myanmar (primacy to Buddhism)[5], have had a history of persecution of Tamil Eelams (a linguistic minority in Sri Lanka), and the Rohingya Muslims, respectively.[6],[7],[8]Further, there are other religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan (considered non-Muslims in that country)[9], and atheists in Bangladesh[10]who have faced religious persecution and may have illegally migrated to India.  Given that the objective of the Bill is to provide citizenship to migrants escaping from religious persecution, it is not clear why illegal migrants belonging to other neighbouring countries, or belonging to religious minorities from these three specified countries, have been excluded from the Bill.The Bill also creates further differentiation between the specified class of illegal migrants based on when they entered India (before or after December 31, 2014), and where they live in India (provisions not applicable to Sixth Schedule and Inner Line Permit areas).  However, the reasons provided to explain the distinction is unclear.  Note that certain restrictions apply to persons (both citizens and foreigners) in the Sixth Schedule areas and in the states regulated by the Inner Line Permit.  Once an illegal migrant residing in these areas acquires citizenship, he would be subject to the same restrictions in these areas, as are applicable to other Indian citizens.  Therefore, it is unclear why the Bill excludes illegal migrants residing in these areas.How does the Bill change the regulations for Overseas Citizens of India?The Bill also amends the provisions on registration of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI). OCI cardholders are foreigners who are persons of Indian origin. For example, they may have been former Indian citizens, or children of current Indian citizens. An OCI enjoys benefits such as the right to travel to India without a visa, or to work and study here.  At present, the government may cancel a person’s OCI registration on various grounds specified in the Act.  In case of a cancellation, an OCI residing in India may be required to leave the country. The Bill adds another ground for cancelling OCI registration — violation of any law notified by the central government.However, the Bill does not provide any guidance on the nature of laws which the central government may notify.  The Supreme Court has noted that this guidance is necessary to set limits on the authority’s powers and to avoid any arbitrariness in exercise of powers.[11]Therefore, the powers given to the government under the Bill may go beyond the permissible limits of valid delegation.Note:The blog has been updated to remove the following issue: “Second, the Bill delegates the power to notify laws and not offences.  This may result in the cancellation of OCI for minor violations.  For instance, the government may want to cancel the registration of an OCI who is found guilty of sedition, under the Indian Penal Code, 1861.  However, since the government cannot notify one offence, it will need to notify the entire Indian Penal Code, which would include minor offences such as rash and negligent driving.”[1].  Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.[2].  State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.[3].  State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.[4].  Article 9 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka states: “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).”[5].  Articles 361 and 362 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar state the following.  “361. The Union recognizes special position of Buddhism as the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens of the Union. 362. The Union also recognizes Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Animism as the religions existing in the Union at the day of the coming into operation of this Constitution.”[6]. It is estimated that there are over a lakh Sri Lankan refugees in India, two-thirds of them in government camps.  Seehttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/why-lankan-refugees-are-reluctant-to-go-back-home/articleshow/65591130.cms[7]. “Myanmar Rohingya: What you need to know about the crisis”, BBC News, April 24, 2018,https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561.[8]. “Why India is refusing refuge to Rohingyas”, Times of India, September 6, 2017,https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-india-is-refusing-refuge-to-rohingyas/articleshow/60386974.cms.[9].  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan passed in 1974 effectively declared Ahmaddiyas as non-Muslims.[10].  For example, seehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/11/bangladesh-murders-bloggers-foreigners-religion.[11].  Hamdard Dawakhana and Anr., v. The Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR1960SC554; Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2016(4) PLJR369.Read MoreParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


LegislationUnderstanding recent amendments to the Arms Act, 1959Rohin Garg- December 5, 2019TheArms (Amendment) Bill, 2019was introduced in Lok Sabha recently and is scheduled to be passed in this Winter Session.  The Bill amends the Arms Act, 1959 which deals with the regulation of arms in India.  The Act defines arms to include firearms, swords, and anti-aircraft missiles.  The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill noted that law enforcement agencies have indicated a growing connection between the possession of illegal firearms and criminal activities.  In this context, the Bill seeks to reduce the number of firearms allowed per person, and increases punishments for certain offences under the Act.   The Bill also introduces new categories of offences.  In this post, we explain key provisions of the Bill.How many firearms are allowed per person?The Arms Act, 1959 allows a person to have three licenced firearms.  The Bill proposes to reduce this to one firearm per person.  This would also include any firearms that may have been given as inheritance or as an heirloom.  Excess firearms must be deposited at the nearest police station or licensed arms dealer within one year of the passing of the Bill.The Bill also extends the duration of a licence from three years to five years.Note that in 2017, 63,219 firearms were seized from across India under the Arms Act, 1959.  Out of these, only 3,525 (5.5%) were licenced firearms.  Further, 36,292 cases involving firearms were registered under the Act in 2017, of which only 419 (1.1%) cases involved licenced firearms.[1]This trend persisted even at the level of specific crimes, where only 8.5% of the murders committed using firearms involved licenced firearms.[2]What changes are being made to existing offences?Presently, the Act bans manufacture, sale, use, transfer, conversion, testing or proofing of firearms without license.  The Bill additionally prohibits obtaining or procuring un-licensed firearms, and the conversion of one category of firearms to another without a license.  The latter includes any modifications done to enhance the performance of a firearm.The Bill also proposes increased punishments for several existing offences.   For example, the Act specifies the punishment for: (i) dealing in un-licensed firearms, including their manufacture, procurement, sale, transfer, conversion, (ii) the shortening or conversion of a firearm without a licence, and (iii) import or export of banned firearms.   The punishment for these offences currently is between three years and seven years, along with a fine.  The Bill increases the minimum punishment to seven years and the maximum to life imprisonment.The Act also punishes dealing in prohibited firearms (such as automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles) without a license, with imprisonment between seven years and life imprisonment, along with fine.  The Bill increases the minimum punishment from seven years to 10 years.  Additionally, the punishment for cases in which the usage of prohibited arms results in the death of a person has been revised.  The punishment has been updated from the existing punishment of death penalty to allow for death penalty or life imprisonment, along with a fine.Are there any new offences being introduced?The Bill adds certain news offences.  For example, forcefully taking a firearm from police or armed forces has been made a crime under the Bill.  The punishment for doing so is imprisonment between 10 years and life imprisonment, along with a fine.  Additionally, the Bill punishes the negligent use of firearms, such as celebratory gunfire during weddings or religious ceremonies which endanger human life or personal safety of others.  The proposed punishment in this case is imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both.The Bill also adds a definition of ‘illicit trafficking’.  It is defined to include the trade, acquisition, sale of firearms or ammunitions into or out of India where the firearms are either not marked as per the Act or violate the provisions of the Act.  The Bill makes illicit trafficking punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine.Does the Bill address issues of organised crime?The Bill also introduces a definition of ‘organised crime’.  ‘Organised crime’ has been defined as continued unlawful activity by a person, either as a member of a syndicate or on its behalf, by using unlawful means, such as violence or coercion, to gain economic or other benefits.  An organised crime syndicate refers to two or more persons committing organised crime.The Bill introduces harsher punishments for members of an organised crime syndicate.  For example, for the possession of an unlicensed firearm, the minimum term for an individual would be seven years, extendable to life imprisonment and liable to a fine.  However, the possession of unlicensed firearms by a member of a syndicate will be punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine.  This increased punishment also applies to non-members contravening provisions of the Act on behalf of a syndicate.[1]Crime in India 2017, National Crime Records Bureau, October 21, 2019,http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2017/pdfs/CII2017-Full.pdf.[2]Crime in India 2016, National Crime Records Bureau, October 10, 2017,http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf.Read MoreParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


PolicyTenure and salaries of CIC and ICs under the Right to Information Rules, 2019Anya Bharat Ram- October 29, 2019The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 amended the Right to Information Act, 2005.  The RTI Act, 2005 specified the tenure, terms of service and salariesof the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at the central and state levels, in the parent law.  The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 removedthese provisions and stated that the central government will notify the term and quantum of salary through rules.[1],[2]The Right to Information Rules, 2019 were notified on October 24, 2019.[3]These rules set out the tenure, terms of service and salaries of the CIC and ICs at the state and central levels.  Table 1 compares the provisions related to the tenure and salary of the CIC and ICs under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information Rules, 2019Table 1:  Comparison of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Right to Information Rules, 2019ProvisionRTI Act, 2005RTI Rules, 2019TermThe CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term offive years.The CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term ofthree years.SalaryThe salary of the CIC and ICs (at the central level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners (Rs 2,50,000 per month)Similarly, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the state level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Election Commissioners (Rs 2,50,000 per month) and the Chief Secretary to the state government (Rs 2,25,000 per month), respectively.The CIC and ICs (at the central level) shall receive a pay ofRs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 2,25,000 per month, respectively.CICs and ICs (at the state level) shall receive a pay ofRs. 2,25,000 per month.Source: The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019; The High Court and the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Act, 2017; Indian Administrative Services (Pay) Rules, 2016; PRS.[1]Right to Information Act, 2005,https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf.[2]Right to Information (Amendment Act), 2019, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/The%20Right%20to%20Information%20(Amendment)%20Bill,%202019%20Text.pdf.[3]The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019,http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/213438.pdf.Read MoreParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»