AUTONOMY OF ELECTION COMMISSION
Introduction:
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) has recently become a focal point of contention between the government and the judiciary, particularly in regards to the process of appointment.
- This dispute centers around a recent Supreme Court judgment and a subsequent government bill that aims to modify the appointment procedure for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
Supreme Court’s Directive:
- On March 2, the Supreme Court of India issued a unanimous judgment that mandated the appointment of the CEC and ECs by the President of India based on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest Opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
- This marked a significant move to broaden the base of the ECI and enhance its constitutional standing.
Government’s Response:
- The government introduced a bill in the Rajya Sabha on August 10 to counter this Supreme Court directive.
- If passed, this bill would alter the composition of the selection committee, excluding the Chief Justice of India and including a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
- The government’s objective is to gain greater influence over the appointment process of top election officials, reflecting its desire for increased control over the institution.
Historical Context of Appointments:
- The process of appointing the CEC and ECs has been debated extensively since the Constituent Assembly discussions.
- Various committees and figures, including the M. Tarkunde Committee, the Dinesh Goswami Committee, and L.K. Advani, have proposed different approaches.
- Suggestions have centered on the need for a more representative and collegial selection committee to reduce biases and partisan influence.
Government’s Reversal:
- Interestingly, opposition parties, including the BJP, had previously advocated for reforms in the appointment process during the Congress regime.
- The goal was to reduce the incumbent party’s hold over the ECI by forming a more inclusive selection committee.
- However, the current BJP-led government, through the introduced bill, contradicts its prior stance and seeks to increase its control over the ECI’s appointments.
Importance of ECI Autonomy:
- The Election Commission of India has been widely respected as a trustworthy institution responsible for managing elections involving a massive number of voters and personnel.
- However, concerns have arisen about the commission’s perceived leniency towards the ruling party or its ideology in various aspects of elections.
- This has led to erosion of the ECI’s autonomy and people’s trust.
- The government seeks to exert more control over the ECI through statutory means, a move that contrasts with its autonomy and public perception.
Conclusion:
The clash between the government and the judiciary over the appointment process for the Election Commission of India reflects the broader struggle for institutional autonomy and democratic integrity.
The Supreme Court’s directive aimed to enhance the ECI’s independence, while the government’s bill seeks to consolidate its control over the commission. This dynamic highlights the complex interplay between political interests and the preservation of democratic institutions.
CHALLENGES AND COMPLEXITIES OF CLIMATE FINANCE AND INDIA'S ROLE IN G20 PRESIDENCY
Introduction:
- India has assumed the G20 presidency during a period marked by significant consensus challenges, particularly on the issue of climate change.
- Amidst this context, the concept of climate finance has emerged as a focal point, with disparities between developed and developing nations becoming increasingly evident.
Insufficient Climate Finance Commitments:
- The $100 billion commitment made by developed nations for climate-related projects in developing countries, established around 13-14 years ago, lacks a logical basis and is considered inadequate.
- This amount has been criticized for being too small even at its inception and has been the subject of prolonged debate.
Discrepancies in Financial Allocations:
- Comparisons highlight the stark contrast between the insubstantial climate finance commitment and the considerably higher fossil fuel subsidies provided by developed countries.
- Fossil fuel subsidies exceeded the total climate finance spending in 51 countries between 2011 and 2020, emphasising the misallocation of resources.
Debates on Actual Funding Amounts:
- Debates about the actual funds transferred for climate finance reveal a discrepancy between the claims of developed nations and skeptics.
- While developed nations assert providing close to $80 billion annually, skeptics estimate the true transfer to be in the range of $19-22 billion.
- The discrepancy arises from the inclusion of commercial debt and non-concessional finance in the calculations.
Deficiencies in Financial Composition:
- The requirement for climate finance is estimated at $4.35 trillion to meet Paris Agreement goals.
- The current investment falls far short, with a notable focus on mitigation projects (93%).
- Adaptation projects, essential for addressing climate impacts, are neglected due to their higher upfront costs, longer timelines, and lack of predictable revenue streams.
Global Climate Finance Landscape:
- The unresolved debate over the $100 billion pledge suggests that this amount is unlikely to materialize.
- The establishment of a loss and damage fund during the latest Conference of Parties (CoP) meeting, while a step forward, is also expected to face challenges in terms of implementation.
India’s Role and the Need for Self-Reliance:
- Countries, including India, must consider internal resource mobilization for climate finance.
- Collaborative efforts between different institutions are necessary to fund mature technologies like wind and solar energy, and government support is essential for nascent technologies like green hydrogen.
Incentivizing Adaptation and Private Sector Participation:
- Adaptation measures require private sector involvement, necessitating government intervention.
- Most adaptation finance is provided by multilateral development banks as loans.
- Private sector engagement is limited due to perceived risks, information gaps, and lack of incentives.
- Government co-funding and innovative financial instruments like carbon taxes and green bonds could encourage private sector participation.
Conclusion:
- In addressing the challenges of climate finance, countries, particularly India, need to shift focus from the contentious $100 billion debate and instead concentrate on internal resource mobilization.
A comprehensive approach involving collaboration between public and private sectors, innovative financing mechanisms, and strategic technology investments is essential to bridge the significant climate finance gap.
