Daily Current Affairs : 22-July-2024

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to have a look at Article 361 of the Constitution, which offers immunity to the President and governors from criminal prosecution for their official actions. This issue has sparked significant debate over the balance between accountability and the need for protection of constitutional office-bearers.

What is Article 361?

Article 361 grants special protection to the President of India and state governors by providing them immunity from legal proceedings while carrying out their official duties. According to this article:

  • The President or governor cannot be prosecuted or sued for anything they do while performing their official duties.
  • They are also immune from being questioned in court for their actions during their term in office.

This immunity extends to any criminal or civil suits, making them above the law during their tenure in office.

Why is the Plea Important?

A plea has been filed, requesting the judicial review of this immunity. The petitioner argues that such a provision is problematic because it violates the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees that all citizens, including public officials, are treated equally before the law. By granting immunity to the President and governors, the petitioners contend that Article 361 creates an unequal system.

Key Concerns and Arguments

  • Accountability of Public Office-Holders: The primary concern is whether public officials, including the President and governors, should be above the law. Critics argue that no one, regardless of their position, should be allowed to escape accountability for their actions.
  • Impact on Democracy: Allowing such immunity could potentially lead to misuse of power by office-bearers, without any fear of legal repercussions.
  • Need for a Balance: On the other hand, supporters of Article 361 argue that these protections are necessary for the smooth functioning of the executive branch. They point out that without such immunity, governors may be vulnerable to politically motivated lawsuits, which could undermine their authority and hinder governance.

Important Points:

  • Article 361 grants immunity to the President and governors from criminal prosecution for their official actions during their tenure.
  • The immunity protects them from criminal and civil lawsuits and prevents them from being questioned in court for their official acts.
  • A judicial review has been requested, arguing that Article 361 violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • The petitioners believe the immunity creates an unequal system by providing certain office-bearers special protection under the law.
Key Concerns and Arguments:
  • Accountability: Should high office-bearers, like governors, be above the law or held accountable for their actions?
  • Impact on Democracy: Immunity could lead to misuse of power by governors, as they would have no legal repercussions for their actions.
  • Need for Balance: Supporters of Article 361 argue the immunity is necessary to protect governors from politically motivated lawsuits that could hinder governance.

Why In News

The Supreme Court agreed to examine Article 361 of the Constitution, which grants immunity to governors from criminal prosecution, raising important questions about the balance between constitutional protections and accountability in public office.

MCQs about Examining Immunity for Governors

  1. What does Article 361 of the Indian Constitution grant to the President and governors?
    A. Immunity from civil cases only
    B. Immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions
    C. Immunity from impeachment
    D. Immunity from any form of legal scrutiny
    Correct Answer: B. Immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions
    Explanation: Article 361 provides immunity to the President and governors from being prosecuted or sued for actions they take in their official capacity, protecting them from criminal or civil suits during their tenure.
  2. Why has a plea been filed requesting judicial review of Article 361?
    A. To extend immunity to all public officials
    B. To challenge its violation of the right to equality under Article 14
    C. To remove immunity for the President only
    D. To ensure immunity for all elected officials
    Correct Answer: B. To challenge its violation of the right to equality under Article 14
    Explanation: The plea argues that Article 361 violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, by granting special immunity to the President and governors, potentially creating an unequal system.
  3. What is one of the main concerns raised by critics of the immunity granted by Article 361?
    A. Governors will not be able to carry out their duties effectively
    B. Public officials, including governors, may be above the law
    C. The immunity will only apply to criminal cases, not civil ones
    D. The immunity is only temporary and expires after a certain period
    Correct Answer: B. Public officials, including governors, may be above the law
    Explanation: Critics argue that the immunity granted under Article 361 could allow public officials to escape accountability for their actions, which undermines the principle of equality before the law.
  4. What do supporters of Article 361 argue regarding the immunity it provides?
    A. It is necessary to protect governors from politically motivated lawsuits
    B. It should apply to all citizens
    C. It creates an unequal legal system
    D. It encourages misuse of power
    Correct Answer: A. It is necessary to protect governors from politically motivated lawsuits
    Explanation: Supporters argue that the immunity is essential to ensure that governors are not subjected to politically motivated legal challenges, which could undermine their authority and disrupt governance.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions

Loading