Supreme Court declared ultra vires Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act

"The only question is about the vires of section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) and we hold that it is ultra vires and that the disqualification takes place from the date of conviction," The bench of justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya said.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down as ultra vires a provision of the Representation of the People Act, which protects convicted lawmakers against disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal against their conviction in the higher courts.

The court, however, said that its decision will not apply to MPs, MLAs or other lawmakers who have been convicted and have filed their appeals in the higher courts before the pronouncement of this verdict.

The provision of RPA says that a lawmaker cannot be disqualified in the event of his conviction in a criminal case if he or she files an appeal in the higher court.

The apex court's verdict came on the petitions filed by Lily Thomas and NGO Lok Prahari through its secretary S N Shukla who had sought striking down of various provisions of RPA on the ground that they violate certain constitutional provisions which, among other things, expressly put a bar on criminals getting registered as voters or becoming MPs or MLAs.

Supreme Court On Acid Attack

the Apex Court of Iindia has given state authorities three months to implement new rules to control over-the-counter sales of acids, which have been used to maim, disfigure and even kill people, particularly women, for decades.

 Court has directed India’s 28 states and seven union territories to issue licenses to retailers selling acid after the government earlier this week said it will categorize acid as poison.Court said anyone under the age of 18 will not be able to purchase acids like hydrochloric, sulfuric and nitric. Shops will have to keep details like the quantity sold and the addresses of buyers, who will need to present photo identification to purchase acids, the court said Thursday.

“Over the counter sale of acid is completely prohibited unless the seller maintains a log/register recording the sale of acid,” the Supreme Court said. Retailers will have to declare the amount of acid being stocked to the police, the court said. Failure to do so would lead to undeclared stock being confiscated and a fine of up to Rs. 50,000 

The court  heard a plea by a woman named Laxmi who is seeking changes to the law on acid attacks and sales. Laxmi, who only goes by one name, was left badly scarred on her face, arms and chest after she was attacked with acid in 2005 in New Delhi.

Supreme verdict on Neet

The Court held that it was beyond the powers of MCI to make an arrangement of common entrance test both for government and private institutions.                                                   

                                                                                             -Superme Court of India

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) unconstitutional. The Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Dental Council of India (DCI) had introduced the test for admission to graduate and postgraduate courses. Allowing a batch of petitions, a Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices Anil R. Dave and Vikramajit Sen said in a majority 2-1 verdict that the test had the effect of depriving the States, state-run universities and all medical colleges and institutions, including those enjoying the constitutional protection, of their right to admit students to MBBS, BDS and postgraduate courses as per their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations, “which has been found by this court in the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case to be an integral facet of the right to administer.”

Writing the main judgment, the Chief Justice said: “In our view, the role attributed to, and the powers conferred on, the MCI and the DCI under … the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Dentists Act, 1948, do not contemplate anything different, and are restricted to laying down standards which are uniformly applicable to all medical colleges and institutions … to ensure the excellence of medical education …”

The Bench said: “The role assigned to the MCI under Sections 10A and 19A (1) of the 1956 Act vindicates such a conclusion. As an offshoot …, we … have no hesitation in holding that the Medical Council of India is not empowered … to actually conduct the NEET.”

The Christian Medical College, Vellore; the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu; several associations of private medical colleges; DD Medical College and DD Hospital, Tamil Nadu; and various individual colleges had filed petitions in High Courts and obtained an interim stay on the applicability of the NEET to them. On the MCI’s petitions, these cases were transferred to the Supreme Court.

The Bench said admissions were part of the right of an educational institution to administer, and these could not be regulated except for laying down standards for maintaining excellence in education. In the case of aided institutions, the State and other authorities might direct that a certain percentage of students be admitted by methods other than the one adopted by the institution concerned. However, in unaided institutions, the right to admit students could not be interfered with except for laying down standards to maintain excellence.

“In the case of aided minority institutions, it has been held that the authority giving aid has the right to insist upon admission of a certain percentage of students not belonging to the minority community so as to maintain the balance of Article 19(2) and Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Even with regard to unaided minority institutions, the view is that while the majority of students to be admitted should be from the minority community concerned, a certain percentage from other communities should also be admitted to maintain the secular character of education in the country in what has been described as a ‘sprinkling effect’,” the Bench said.

Apart from the legal aspects, the Bench said, “there can be no controversy that the standard of education all over the country is not the same. Each State has its own system and pattern of education, including the medium of instruction. It cannot also be disputed that children in the metropolitan areas enjoy greater privileges than their counterparts in most of the rural areas as far as education is concerned, and the decision of the Central government to support a single entrance examination would perpetuate such divide in the name of … merit. In a single-window competition, the disparity in educational standards in different parts of the country cannot ensure a level-playing field.”

I welcome the Supreme Court verdict, eventhough many of the others have disliked the verdict. We should take a broader perspective. In a state like Tamil Nadu, Orissa or CG, where entrance exam concept has been done away with, you cannot impose this national level entrance exam. I am sure such national exams will be based on the CBSE syllabus. How will rural Tamil Nadu, Orissa or CG students studying state board syllabus compete with a Delhi-based CBSE student? First let us raise the standards of all state boards to the level of CBSE/ICSE and then implement a single national entrance exam.

Present Chief Justice Of India- Justice P. Sathasivam

Mr P. Sathasivam( Palanisamy Sathasivam) is the Chief Justice of India. He has succeeded Altamas Kabir as Chief Justice of India on July 19, 2013. He is the 40th Chief Justice of India and the first from Tamil Nadu. .

His Brief Profile:

P. Sathasivam, B.A., B.L., - born on April 27, 1949.

Enrolled as an Advocate on July 25, 1973 at Madras.

Practiced in all types of Writ, Civil and Criminal matters, Company Petition, Insolvency Petitions, Habeas ---Corpus Petitions both on Original and Appellate sides of the Madras High Court.

Worked as Government Advocate, Additional Government Pleader, Special Government Pleader in the Madras High Court.

Also worked as Legal Adviser for several State owned Transport Corporations, Municipalities, Nationalized Banks etc.

Appointed as a permanent Judge of the Madras High Court on January 8, 1996.

Transferred to the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 20.04.2007.

Appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 21.08.2007.

Due to retire on 27.04.2014 

Landmark Judgements

Justice Sathasivam authored several path-breaking judgments including the Reliance Gas Judgment (May 2010) wherein he emphasised the use of natural resources through public sector undertakings. He observed that “in a national democracy like ours, the national assets belong to the people” and “the government owns such assets for the purposes of developing them in the interests of the people".

Justice Sathasivam delivered the verdict in the controversial triple murder case of Stains and upheld the conviction of Dara Singh.On 19 April 2010, he delivered the judgement in the Jessica Lal Murder Case of April 29, 1999.

Along with Justice B.S.Chauhan, Sathasivam delivered the judgment in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case sentencing Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt to five years’ imprisonment under the Arms Act. Dutt was asked to serve out the remaining sentence. In a number of judgments, he cautioned the courts against leniency in sentencing in crimes against women and children and shortening of sentence period to the extent of elapsed time.

Justice Sathasivam has not delivered the Samacheer kalvi Judgment against the Jayalalithaa Government as wrongly reported in Certain Media (the Judgment was delivered by a bench headed by Justice Chauhan). Justice Sathasivam had only dismissed the earlier appeal filed against the Government during the previous regime.

Appointment of Chief Justice

Article 124 of the Constitution of India provides for the manner of appointing judges to the Supreme Court. However, no specific provision is made as to the appointment of the Chief Justice; as a result, the Chief Justice is appointed in the same manner as for the other judges to the Supreme Court.

Generally, the most senior (i.e. earliest appointed) judge in the Supreme Court is appointed by the President. However, this convention has been breached on a number of occasions, most notably during the premiership of Indira Gandhi, who appointed A.N. Ray despite three judges being more senior than him. It has been alleged that Ray was appointed because he was considered to be a supporter of Gandhi's government, during a time when her government was becoming increasingly mired in a political and constitutional crisis.

In the aftermath of The Emergency, the Supreme Court in a series of landmark decisions asserted its position and independence. In one such case in the constitutional bench, the case of S.P. Gupta — II, the Court declared that the Government of India would be bound to nominate only the most senior judge of the Supreme Court for the position of Chief Justice, thereby removing a potential source for Government influence over the judiciary. Since then, the convention has been followed without exception.

Removal

Article 124(4) of Constitution of India lays down the procedure for removal of a Judge of Supreme Court which is applicable to Chief Justice as well. Once appointed, the Chief Justice remains in office until his retirement age of 65 years or death. He can be removed only through a process of impeachment by Parliament as follows:

A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Requirement of All India Judicial Service (AIJS)

Delayed justice, poor appreciation of evidence, and incapacity to apply constitutional and legal principles to real life situations play havoc with people's lives.  Failure of justice extracts a heavy toll from the society and economy. If we examine the pendency of cases in courts, we come across two factors. First, certain judges handle a much larger case load and yet dispose of cases swiftly and fairly. Others take interminably tang, and yet fail to render justice. The quality of justice administered depends on the quality of those who administer it. The judiciary is completely independent and invulnerable to the vagaries of politics and partisan pulls. The High Court has complete control over the conduct and functioning of subordinate courts. And there are established procedures for elevation to High Court and Supreme Court. Therefore, once recruitment practices are sound, there are incentives for better performance and effective monitoring at least until a judge is elevated to the High Court.

The current procedures to enforce accountability in higher judiciary are not so effective, but that problem needs to be dealt with separately. If judicial officers are accorded the prestige and respect that All India Services enjoy, then the best talent can be tapped for the judiciary. Then the control exercised by the High Court, and the prospects of elevation to High Court ensure high quality performance in district and other subordinate courts. At the very least, formation of an All India Service for judiciary would ensure a high level of competence and skills in our justice administration.

Article 312 of the Indian Constitution provides for the creation of an all-India Judicial Service common to the Union and the States. The first Law Commission headed by M C Setalwad, had made a strong recommendation for the Constitution of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS), like the IAS and IPS. Three Chief Justices' conferences in 1961, 63 and 65 favored this recommendation. In 1972, the Chief Justice of India suggested the creation of AJJS. Later, the 8th Law Commission, in its 77th Report, recommended creation of such a service. In 1986, Law Commission again examined the issue in detail, and recommended formation of an All India Judicial Service. The Supreme Court considered this issue in the All India Judges case in 1992, and endorsed the creation of AIJS.

Undoubtedly our judge-population ratio is too low, and we need many more trial courts. But as many jurists have pointed out, mere increase in the number of judges, without improvement in their quality, is of no avail. The quality of justice administered critically depends on the quality of the judges recruited. Clearly, there is a compelling case to create a highly competent, meritocratic All India Judicial Service. Creation of AJJS is a low-cost, high-impact reform long overdue. There are many other steps required to make our justice system work for the people. But improving the quality of judges, enhancing the prestige and dignity of judicial service, and promoting competition for recruitment is a relatively simple measure around which there is impressive consensus. The creation of AIJS will surely benefit the judiciary system and it is the need of hour.

Should Capital Punishment abolished??

Ever since the enactment of the Indian Constitution in 1950, public awareness of problems with death penalty and prevailing legal standards have evolved significantly. India is said to be one of the most liberal and open countries in the world and our constitution is a testimony to this very fact.

In dozens of countries, democratic governments in the course of conducting a major review of their national constitutions have decided to curtail, if not abolish, the death penalty. In national systems and as a matter of international law, it is increasingly recognised that the death penalty has no place in a democratic and civilised society. India is sovereign, secular, and democratic. And yet, it is astonishing that India is one of the few, to be exact, 54 countries in the world, which still embraces the concept of capital punishment or the death penalty.

Through this paper, I shall try to study and summarize the debate on death penalty in India and try to come up with arguments as to why it is inhuman and unconstitutional.

The practice of capital punishment has always been a part of the Indian Judicial system. It was incorporated onto the IPC (Indian Penal Code) right from the beginning in 1860. Similarly, it was also present in the Criminal Procedure Code (1898). According to Section 367 of the CrPC, a person convicted of murder was to be sentenced to death. And this was to be the general rule, not an exception. The interesting point to be noted is that right from the days of the British rule, there has been a strict opposition to the enforcement of capital punishment. For example, in 1931, Gaya Prasad Singh, a member of the Legislative Assembly introduced a Bill in the Assembly which proposed to abolish the death penalty in the country. However, it was overturned. Even after Independence, there have been several attempts, both inside and outside the Parliament, to force the abolition of the death penalty. During the drafting of the Indian Constitution between 1947 and 1949, several members of the Constituent Assembly expressed the ideal of abolishing the death penalty, but no such provision was incorporated in the Constitution. Of these efforts, those by Prithviraj Kapoor, a member of the Rajya Sabha, in 1958 and by Raghunath Singh in the Lok Sabha in 1962 are noteworthy. Even in the contemporary times, there have been strict oppositions against death penalty. Unfortunately, such voices are heard only when the sentence is about to be executed.

In 1974, there came into force a new CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code). One of the major features of the new code was the overturning of the old ruling regarding the death penalty. According to the new code, for all offences involving murder, life imprisonment was to be the norm. The death penalty was to be awarded only in exceptional circumstances. Between 1975 and 1991, about 40 people were executed. On April 27, 1995 Auto Shankar was hanged in Salem, India. Since 1995 only one execution, that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in August 2004, has taken place.

The Article 20 of the constitution, which deals with the Fundamental Rights of life and liberty, states "No person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law." Thus, it can be seen that the death penalty is verily upheld by the Indian Constitution. However, the same article, rather the same sentence, upholding two views at opposite ends doesn't stand too well with the spirit of the constitution. That is, even though it is logically consistent, it is against the spirit of the Constitution.

Another important provision regarding the capital punishment is the Presidential power of pardon. This appears in Article 72 and states that "The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence….. (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death." The objective of this article is to ensure that there be an authority beyond the Supreme Court to help the innocent if in case the Supreme Court, being a human institution has committed an error.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for capital punishment for the following offences, or for criminal conspiracy to commit any of the following offences (Section 120-B):

1. Murder (s.302) and murder committed by a life convict (s. 303). (Though the latter was struck down by the Supreme Court, it still remains in the IPC)

2. Abetment of a suicide by a minor, insane person or intoxicated person (s.305)

3. Threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence resulting in the conviction and death of an innocent person (s.195A)

4. Perjury resulting in the conviction and death of an innocent person (s.194)

5. Treason, for waging war against the Government of India (s.121)

6. Abetment of mutiny actually committed (s.132)

7. Attempted murder by a serving life convict (s.307 (2))

8. Kidnapping for ransom (s.364A)

9. Dacoity [armed robbery or banditry] with murder (s.396)

This situation has been prevailing without being properly questioned ever since the nation gained independence in 1947. As the world moves away from the use of death penalty, I think it is high time that India too should review this and abolish the system of Capital Punishment, as Gandhi righteously said "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

The Indian State argues that the presence of such a punishment will instill a sense of fear and will act as a system to deter future criminals, and will safeguard the society against rising criminal and terrorist acts. Public opinion, also often supports retention of the death penalty based on the erroneous view that it deters violent crime. It is upto a limit right from the point of view of the general public- criminals like Auto Shankar (a serial killer from our very own Chennai) should be given Capital Punishment, though it is from a narrow viewpoint. However, it has been comprehensively proved by studies that this is not so; that the death penalty is as effective in the deterrence of crime as an ordinary life imprisonment.

In refusing over the years to declare the death penalty unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has relied on the fact that those framing the Constitution did not see fit to abolish capital punishment, and that the legislature has subsequently not done so. In turn, the failure of the Supreme Court to strike down capital punishment has become the rationale for the State to deny any need to re-examine the relevance of death penalty provisions in Indian law or to abolish the punishment.

The arguments for abolishing the death penalty are numerous and they remain forceful and persuasive. State killing condones violence and brutalizes society. The ever present risk of the execution of the innocent is enhanced by an unsafe judicial system. Disadvantaged sections of society - usually the poor and minorities - are disproportionately at risk of execution. The death penalty asks public servants - prosecutors, judges, prison guards, etc. - to betray their humanity and be involved in the brutal act of taking the life of a prisoner rendered defenseless, and no longer a threat to society, via their incarceration. The trauma and loss suffered by the family of the victim (in murder cases) is inflicted in turn upon the family of the person being executed, thereby continuing the cycle of violence. Thus, I would like to conclude that judicial state killing has no place in the modern world and that India should abolish the death penalty as soon as is practically possible.

Right To Recall

Should we have the right to 'recall' MPs? It can be done in America, why not here? Few of us had heard of recall until 2003 when California Governor Gray Davis lost the recall ballot to the 'governator', Arnold Swarzenegger. The idea is simple, as a Civitas online briefing proposed yesterday. Sometimes voters regret the choice they made at the last general election and do not want to wait until the next time. If a proportion of the electorate (say 20%) can be persuaded to sign a petition to recall the elected office holder, then an immediate by-election must be held.

There is cross-party support. Back in February 2008 a group of 27 Tory MPs wrote to The Daily Telegraph calling for local voters to be allowed to 'recall' their MP and at the weekend Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg came out in favour.

How common is it? In America 18 states allow elected officials to be recalled from their posts by a petition of between 12 and 40 per cent of voters. In 1903 the city of Los Angeles was the first large area to introduce recall, followed in 1908 by Oregon and in 1911 by California. Then Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Washington all adopted recall in 1912. In addition eleven more states, while not permitting recall of state-level officials, do allow the recall of local officials.

Recall ballots are useful in precisely the sort of situation that has now arisen in the UK. We are told that MPs have acted within the rules, but few voters think they have behaved ethically. Some may have to face criminal charges but it is likely to be difficult to reach the high standard of proof required in a criminal trial, as disgraced MP Derek Conway found. Some will face the wrath of their local constituency party, but as Luton MP Margaret Moran discovered, that may not mean very much. If a significant number of voters think their MP is not fit to hold public office, then it should be possible to require them to stand for re-election immediately.

The process should not be too easy to prevent constant harassment by disgruntled rivals but, if a significant proportion of the electorate wants a ballot, it should be held. How many signatures should be required? In ten of the 18 American states 25 per cent of the electorate is needed, while Louisiana requires 33.3 per cent and Kansas 40 per cent. At 12 per cent, California has the lowest requirement. A recall ballot is a costly procedure and has been used sparingly. Only two state governors have ever been recalled: North Dakota Governor Lynn Frazier in 1921 and California's Gray Davis in 2003.

However, it was not for lack of trying: one study estimated that there had been around 40 failed attempts to recall state officials in California.

If the policy were introduced in the UK, how many signatures should be required? There should be a significant hurdle, perhaps about 20 per cent of registered voters in a constituency. The average constituency size in England is about 75,000 voters and so a petition of 15,000 would be needed. The number is achievable without being too easy. In practice the procedure would probably not be used very often, but the fact that it was available would have a salutary effect on MPs and the 'gravy train' mentality that can only flourish amidst secrecy would be no more.

If MPs would like to prove themselves deserving of respect, voting for recall ballots would go a long way to restoring public confidence. Electorate has no Role in the Selection of Candidates. The Common Wealth Parliament Association debated the matter and considered the right to recall as a strategy for enforcing greater accountability of Parliament to the people. People are disillusioned with the conduct of Parliamentary business.

The very process of legislative functioning is subverted, leading to incalculable harm to the representation of democratic institutions.The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution has pointed out in its report how a Parliamentary system, unlike the Presidential system, lays emphasis on accountability.

Half a century’s experience of the working of the Constitution has brought to the fore several inadequacies, failures and distortions. The National Commission referred in particular to the emergence of the unhealthy role of money and mafia power and to criminalisation, corruption, communalism and casteism.

The Electorate has no role in the selection of candidates for election and the majority of the candidates are elected by minority of votes under the first-past-the-post system.

Referendum and Recall

Democracies can be of several types : Parliamentary, Presidential and Direct. In a direct democracy, sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate.

Such an assembly may pass executive motions (decrease), make law, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials. In a representative democracy, sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, elected periodically, but otherwise free to advance their own agendas. Direct democracy deals with how citizens are “directly” involved with voting for various laws, instead of voting for representatives to decide for them. Referendum and recall are pillars of direct democracy.

People at large are conferred the power in a referendum to decide whether a given law should be scrapped. They have a veto on government legislation.

Recall is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected representative from office. It was one of the major electoral reforms advocated by leaders of the Progressive moment in the US during

the twentieth century.

This movement was less than successful because in the US recall elections are prohibited in the federal system. Recall is a political device designed to enable voters dissatisfied with an elected official to replace him before the expiry of his term of office. The concept originated in Switzerland but became operative in several American States since 1903.

American Experience

Eighteen States in the American Federation permit recall elections to remove their State Officers. In 1921, North Dakota’s Governor Lin Frazier was recalled over a dispute about state-owned industries. In 2003, the Californian Governor, Gray Davis, was recalled over mismanagement of the Stage budget. In many of these States, the petition for recall must identify some form of malfeasance or misconduct while in office. The minimum number of signatures of voters and time limit to qualify a recall varies between States.

Quite often, a recall triggers a simultaneous special election, where the vote on the recall and the replacement — recall succeed — are on the same ballet. In 1988, there was a successful petition-drive to recall the Arizona Governor. But before the completion of the process, he was impeached and removed from the Office by the Senate.

Recall in Canada

Canadian provinces have been effective using the device of recall to infuse discipline in the representatives. The Canadian province of British Columbia enacted representative recall in 1995. The voters in that province can petition the Government to have a sitting representative removed from office.

Even a Premier presently leading a Government can be removed from office if enough registered voters signed the petition.

A by-election will follow. In January 2003, a record 22 recall efforts were launched.

Venezuelan Constitution

The 1999 Constitution of Venezuela enables a recall of any elected representative including the President. Article 72 of the Constitution declares that all offices filled by popular vote are subject to revocation. When half the term of the office has elapsed, voters representing at least 20 per cent of the registered voters in the constituency may petition for the calling of a referendum to revoke the mandate of the official.

When the number of voters equals to or is greater than the number of those who elected the representative vote in favour of the recall, the representative’s mandate shall be deemed to have been revoked. Action will be taken to fill the permanent vacancy as per the Constitution. The provision for recall was successfully utilised in 2004.

Switzerland model

Switzerland is often cited as the strongest example of modern direct democracy. It has put to use the initiative and the referendum at both local and federal levels. Initiatives are proposals, drafted by a citizen or group of citizens that by virtue of attaining a requisite member of signatures on a petition, are put to the electorate for acceptance or rejection. However, the populace showed its conservative nature, approving

only about 10 per cent of the initiatives put before them. Recall is not much in use in Switzerland.

Flawed system

The National Commission correctly identified the main cause and source of political decay in India as the ineptness of the electoral process, which has not been able to keep out criminal, anti-social and undesirable elements from participating in and even dominating the political scene and polluting the electoral and parliamentary processes. A Constitution, however lofty its exhortations and sentiments, is not a self-executing document. The present system by which the voters are allowed to assert their sovereignty only once in five years is woefully flawed

Census of India -2011

Indian Census is the single largest source of a variety of statistical information on different characteristics of the people of India. It is the most credible source of information on demography, economic activity, literacy and education, housing & household amenities, urbanization, fertility and mortality, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, language, religion, migration, disability and many other socio-cultural and demographic data.

With a history of more than 130 years, this reliable, time tested exercise has been bringing out a veritable wealth of statistics every 10 years, beginning from 1872 when the first census was conducted in India non-synchronously in different parts.

The recently concluded Census 2011 is the 15th National Census of the Country in the unbroken series since 1872 and the seventh after Independence. It is remarkable that the great historical tradition of conducting a Census has been maintained in spite of several adversities like wars, epidemics, natural calamities, political unrest etc. Very few countries in the world can boast of such a glorious tradition.

The responsibility of conducting the decennial Census rests with the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India (ORGI) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which includes conceptualization, planning and implementation of the Census operation in the country. The organization has field offices in all the States and Union Territories (except the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and the Union Territory of Daman and Diu, which are attached to the office at Gujarat). The field officers are headed by the Directors of Census Operations, who are responsible for the conduct of Census in their respective jurisdictions.

Methodology:

The Census of India is conducted once in a decade, following an extended de facto canvasser method. Under this approach, data is collected on every individual by visiting the household and canvassing a single questionnaire over a period of three weeks. The count is then updated to the reference date and time by conducting a Revision Round. In the Revision Round, any changes in the entries that arise on account of births, deaths and migration between the time of the enumerators visit and the reference date/time are noted down and the record updated.

Census 2011 has been conducted in two phases. In the first phase, known as Houselisting and Housing Census, each building, house and other structures were systematically listed and numbered. Besides, useful information on use of the house, amenities available to the households, if residential, and assets owned by them was collected. This exercise, held between April to September, 2010 in different States/Union territories was used to draw up a frame for the second phase of Census 2011, known as

Population Enumeration held in February 2011.

In the second phase, the Population Enumeration exercise was held throughout the country from 9th to 28th February 2011. During this period, about 2.7 million Enumerators visited about 240 million households collecting information on every person living in these households. On the night of 28th February, 2011 the Houseless population was enumerated. Thereafter, a Revision Round was conducted to update the population with reference to the Census Moment, i.e., 00:00 hours of 1st March, 2011 by updating information on births and deaths occurring in the households.

Innovations Adopted:

India had witnessed unparalleled change in terms of growth in population, economic development and adoption of new technology, particularly in the filed of Information Technology in comparison to the previous decades. This offered an opportunity to reassess each stage of census taking and modify the procedures taking into account the availability of resources and their optimum utilization. From planning to execution of the Census Operation, innovation was the key word. The objective was to ensure full coverage of the area and the population without omission or overlapping, collection of quality data without any prejudice and bias and to quickly process the data to make it available in the public domain for use before it becomes obsolete.

Following are some of the steps taken in this direction:

Complete and Unduplicated Coverage of Population-While undertaking census operation, a key aspect is to ensure complete coverage of the geographic area of the country without any omission or duplication. This requires the updating of jurisdictional boundaries of all the administrative units from States to the Villages/Towns. Towards this end for use in Census 2011, information on changes in the jurisdiction of the administrative boundaries of 35 States/Union Territories, 640 districts, 5,924 sub-districts, 7,935 towns and 6,40,867 villages were meticulously collected along with official notifications and maps. Each of these changes was recorded in the digitized maps using latest GIS software. In addition, the Census Organization has completed preparation of detailed digital maps of 33 capital cities of the country based on satellite imagery. These maps show detailed layout of buildings, houses, other structures, road network and important landmarks and were used in Census 2011.

Census in School Programme-

 To sensitize school students about the Census 2011, an innovative programme was introduced throughout the country, where specially prepared and attractively designed School Kits were sent to about 60 to 80 schools in each of the 593 districts in the country. Each School Kit contained a letter from the Census Commissioner, India to the Principals of these schools requesting them to sensitize the students about the ensuing Census 2011 and also about the importance and utility of Census. Special attention was paid to the students of Class VI, VII and VIII for whom special lessons were sent on different subjects. The Census Commissioner, India also requested the Principals to designate one week in January 2011 as Census Week to develop awareness about Census 2011.

Gender Sensitization-

Even though gender had been a prominent cross-cutting priority in 2001 Census, data related to female count, marital status, female headed households, female disability and female work-participation has continued to suffer from undercount or under-reporting. The 2001 census enumerated several villages/ districts that had reported very few women, very low female literacy and no female worker. To ensure collection of accurate information, an attempt was made to integrate gender issues into various stages of census taking by identifying gender critical districts, which had low sex ratio (less than 900); low female literacy (less than 30%) or low female work participation rate (less than 20%) on the basis of 2001 Census. In this way 262 Critical Districts were identified for focused attention and training. Special steps were taken to appoint additional Master Trainer Facilitators to sensitize the Enumerators on gender issues and train them in collecting authentic information. Special Data Sheets and Posters were prepared and displayed at each training class to sensitize the Enumerators on the poor status of women with reference to these three critical indicators. Extra effort was also made during the publicity campaign to sensitize the people to provide correct information about women and the girl child at the time of enumeration.

Using Social Networking Websites-

With the overwhelming popularity of the social networking sites among the youth today, for the first time, in Census 2011, a conscious effort was made to reach them directly. Census 2011 Group was created on Facebook and Twitter in the first week of February 2011 and regular posts were made initially informing the visitors about different facets of Census in general and Census 2011 in particular inviting their support in spreading the message on Census. Within a short time, a large number of persons, mostly from the younger sections of the population, became members and actively posted views on the wall. The experience was quite satisfactory as most of the posts complimented the efforts while a few pointing out about not being covered in Census 2011. Immediate action was taken to redress their grievances. The site was also used for disseminating information on Census 2011 extensively. At present, there are more than 20,000 members on this Group. Similarly on Twitter as well, the members welcomed the new initiative. The Census Commissioner, India was awarded Exceptional Achievement for innovative use of social media in the country’s biggest governance exercise.

Community Volunteers-

This was a unique initiative in some North Eastern States where Civil Society Organisations joined hands with the Directorates to not only spread awareness but actually take part in the conduct of the Census. This has had a significant impact in these States and has greatly enhanced the participation of the general people in the Census.

Time bound completion of field operations and timely release of data.

Using State of the Art data recognition technology in data capture and data processing- The Census Office has always been in the forefront in the adoption of the latest data processing technology in the processing of census data. At 2001 Census, for the first time, a major technology change in the vital activity of data extraction recorded on the Census Schedule and creating associated computer data files was introduced, so as to fully computerize the subsequent data processing activities in generating output tables for use. India was the only large country in the world to have used this technology in 2001 Census. In the new technology used, the Census Schedules were scanned using high speed duplex scanners and information read using ICR technology. When the Census Office adopted this technology in India, it was considered a risk by many as the technology had been used only by a few small countries and not tested for a large country. This innovation by the Indian Census not only saved time and money but allowed accurate capture of data as well. Another major benefit in adopting this technology was that it allowed the Census to tabulate the entire data on a 100% basis rather than on a sample basis as was the case till 1991 Census. Using the ICR technology not only saved time for data capture and data tabulation thus ultimately making it available to the users early, but also was very cost effective saving public money.

Despatch and delivery of Census material-

In Census 2011, approximately 340 million Census Schedules, 6 million Instruction Manuals, and other printed materials in 18 languages were used. The despatch and delivery of these Census materials weighing about 2000 metric tons, printed in the right language(s) from about twenty printing presses located in different parts of the country and delivering them to about 17,000 locations in each tehsil in the country was a logistic nightmare. After the operations, the filled-in Schedules were to be collected and delivered to the 17 Data Scanning Centres and the 33 Census Offices. This job of collection, delivery and return collection was given to Indian Posts which used their Logistic Post Service to deliver the material in each tehsil in the country, safely and securely and in time. With their expert services, the India Posts were able to complete the work in time satisfactorily.

Public Grievances and Monitoring-

A Call Centre was set up to receive complaints from the public on various issues relating to Population Enumeration. Located in Pune, the facility was extended in 14 languages throughout the country. The complaints on non-coverage and other issues were quickly resolved with support from the local Census Offices. The Call Centers facility was also used to monitor the progress of enumeration work by directly contacting the Supervisions. At the conclusion of the Population Enumeration exercise, they have been assigned the job of Post Enumeration Survey (PES) in four metro cities.

Outsourcing of non-critical activities-

Undertaking the Census Operation requires planning and execution of a wide array of activities, some demanding serious application of mind and some simply involving logistics and infrastructure. The scale of operations in all cases, however, was gigantic, due to the geographic spread and absence of adequate infrastructure in the country. It was decided at the planning stage itself to outsource non-critical activities in Census 2011 to allow Census Officials to focus more on Census related activities than managing logistics.

Adoption of Green Technology.

Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India supervised and monitored the progress of the Census Operations through video conferences with all the 640 District Collectors every week. The video conferencing technology saved huge amount of money which otherwise would have been necessary if the supervision team practically travelled to all the places or issued instructions through letters or correspondences.

Availing Call Centre facility to address public grievances during census helped in spreading green technology.

Cost:

The cost of Census taking in such a large country as India is enormous. In Census 2011, about Rs 2200 crore was spent from the Central Budget during the two phases of Census, i.e., Houselisting and Housing Census held from April to September 2010 and the Population Enumeration held in February 2011. The amount spent was quite low as compared to the world average. According to the 25th Population Conference organized by the UN Statistical Division held in Seoul this year, the average cost of Census taking in the world is estimated as $ 4.6 per person. In India, the cost was less than $ 0.5 per person in Census 2011.