Conquer Mains

Lecture V
 Topics
1. Presidential vs Parliamentary forms of Govt.
2. Right against adverse effects of Climate Change
3. The Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013
 Topic 1. Presidential vs
Parliamentary
• The presidential and parliamentary forms of government are two primary systems
of governance found in democracies around the world. They differ in the relationship
between the executive and legislative branches, the role of the head of state and
government, and the process of law-making. Here’s a comparison:
 Separation of Powers
Presidential System:
i. The executive branch (President) is separate from the legislature (Congress or
Parliament).
ii. The President is both the head of state and the head of government.
iii. There is a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches.
Parliamentary System:
i. The executive branch is derived from the legislative branch.
ii. The Prime Minister (head of government) is a member of the legislature.
iii. The head of state (often a monarch or president) is separate from the head of
government.
iv. There is a fusion of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with
the executive being accountable to the legislature.
 Executive Leadership
Presidential System:
i. The President is elected independently of the legislature, often through a direct
vote by the people or an electoral college.
ii. The President has a fixed term of office (e.g., 4 years in the U.S.).
iii. The President has significant powers but is checked by the legislature and
judiciary.
Parliamentary System:
i. The Prime Minister is chosen by the majority party or coalition in the legislature.
ii. The Prime Minister’s term is not fixed and depends on maintaining the confidence
of the legislature.
iii. The Prime Minister’s power is more collective, shared with other ministers, and
heavily influenced by the legislature.
 Accountability
Presidential System:
i. The President is not directly accountable to the legislature on a day-to-day basis.
ii. Impeachment is the primary method of removing a President from office.
Parliamentary System:
i. The Prime Minister is directly accountable to the legislature and can be removed
by a vote of no confidence.
ii. Frequent checks on the Prime Minister’s power through parliamentary sessions
and votes.
 Law-Making Process
Presidential System:
i. The President cannot introduce bills directly; this is the role of the legislature.
ii. The President has veto power, which can be overridden by the legislature.
iii. The law-making process is typically slower due to the checks and balances
system.
Parliamentary System:
i. The executive can introduce and often control the legislative agenda.
ii. Laws are usually passed more quickly since the executive and legislature are
aligned.
iii. The Prime Minister’s ability to push through legislation depends on their support
within the legislature.
 Stability and Efficiency
Presidential System:
i. Tends to provide a more stable executive due to the fixed term.
ii. Potential for gridlock if the President and the legislature are controlled by
different parties.
Parliamentary System:
i. Can be less stable due to the possibility of frequent votes of no confidence and
changes in government.
ii. Generally more efficient in passing legislation due to alignment between the
executive and legislature.
 Examples
Presidential System:
o United States, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia.
Parliamentary System:
o United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia.
 Conclusion
• Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, and the choice
often depends on a country's historical, social, and political context.
 Topic 2: Right against adverse
effects of Climate Change
The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a “right to be free from the
adverse effects of climate change”, which should be recognised by Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment by a three-judge Bench of the SC in a case relating to the
conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).
There is a need to address climate impacts through the lens of rights.
 What was the case before SC?
• The supreme court’s ruling came in a writ petition filed by retired government official and
conservationist M K Ranjitsinh, seeking protection for the GIB and the Lesser Florican,
which are on the verge of extinction.
• The plea sought the framing and implementation of an emergency response plan for the
protection and recovery of the GIB — including directions for installation of bird diverters,
an embargo on the sanction of new projects and renewal of leases of existing projects,
and dismantling power lines, wind turbines, and solar panels in and around critical
habitats.
• Initially, in 2021 the SC imposed restrictions on the setting up of overhead transmission
lines in a territory of about 99,000 sq km in the GIB habitat in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
• The Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy had filed the application to modify the 2021 order
on grounds that it had adverse implications for India’s power sector, and that
undergrounding power lines was not possible.
• The three ministries also cited India’s commitments on transition to non-fossil fuel energy
sources vis-à-vis the Paris climate treaty as one of the key grounds for seeking a
modification of the 2021 order.
The apex court modified its 2021 order giving directions for
underground high-voltage and low-voltage power lines, and directed
experts to assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines in
specific areas after considering factors such as terrain, population
density, and infrastructure requirements. The ruling acknowledged that
its earlier directions, besides not being feasible to implement, would
also not result in achieving its stated purpose, i.e., the conservation of
the GIB.
• The SC has historically acknowledged Article 21 as the heart of the
fundamental rights in the Constitution. The SC has said that the right to life
is not just mere existence, but that it includes all rights that make it a
meaningful and dignified existence for an individual.
• In the 1980s, the SC read the right to a clean environment as part of Article
21. A bundle of rights — including the right to education, the right to shelter
(in the context of slum dwellers), the right to clean air, the right to livelihood
(in the context of hawkers), and the right to medical care — have all been
included under the umbrella of Article 21.
• However, these “new” rights cannot be immediately materialised or
exercised by a citizen. Despite the plethora of environmental rights cases,
clean air is still a pressing concern. Such rights are actualised only when
policies are framed and legislation enacted.
• However, their express recognition as fundamental rights helps in two key
aspects. First, as a nudge to Parliament to take note of these issues and
second, by making constitutional courts an avenue for citizens to litigate
these issues in future.
• The acknowledgment of the “right against adverse effects of climate change”
by the highest court establishes a significant legal precedent.
• Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife
of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of
every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living
creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution,
they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the
natural world
• Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries
of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. The right to health
(which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors
such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures,
droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms, and flooding.
The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope
with its effects violates the right to life as well as the right to equality. This is
better understood with the help of an example. If climate change and
environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages in a
particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones. The
right to equality would undoubtedly be impacted in each of these instances.
• The right to equality may also be violated in ways that are more difficult to remedy.
• For example, a person living in say, the Lakshadweep Islands, will be in a
disadvantageous position compared to person living in say, Madhya Pradesh when sea
levels rise and oceanic problems ensue. Similarly, forest dwellers or tribal and
indigenous communities are at a high risk of losing not only their homes but also their
culture, which is inextricably intertwined with the places they live in and the resources
of that place. In India, the tribal population in the Nicobar islands continues to lead a
traditional life which is unconnected to and separate from any other part of the country
or world. Indigenous communities often lead traditional lives, whose dependence on
the land is of a different character from the dependence which urban populations have
on the land. Traditional activities such as fishing and hunting may be impacted by
climate change, affecting the source of sustenance for such people. Further, the
relationship that indigenous communities have with nature may be tied to their culture
or religion. The destruction of their lands and forests or their displacement from their
homes may result in a permanent loss of their unique culture. In these ways too,
climate change may impact the constitutional guarantee of the right to equality.
• The right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21 must be
appreciated in the context of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the actions and
commitments of the state on the national and international level, and scientific
consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. From these, it emerges that
there is a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. It is important to
note that while giving effect to this right, courts must be alive to other rights of
affected communities such as the right against displacement and allied rights. Different
constitutional rights must be carefully considered before a decision is reached in a
particular case.
• In 2019, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Protection
of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the Committee on
the Rights of the Child, and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
jointly issued a statement in which they recognised that “…State parties have
obligations, including extra-territorial obligations, to respect, protect and fulfil all
human rights of all peoples. Failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable human
rights harm caused by climate change, or to regulate activities contributing to such
harm, could constitute a violation of States’ human rights obligations.”
• Of late, the intersection between climate change and human rights has been put in
sharp focus, underscoring the imperative for states to address climate impacts through
the lens of rights. For instance, the contribution of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights to the 2015 Climate Conference in Paris emphasized that climate change
directly and indirectly affects a broad spectrum of internationally guaranteed human
rights.
• This acknowledgement of human rights in the context of climate change is underscored
in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, which recognizes the interconnection between
climate change and various human rights, including the right to health, indigenous
rights, gender equality, and the right to development.
 Promoting clean energy
• Unequal energy access disproportionately affects women and girls due to their gender
roles and responsibilities such as through time spent on domestic chores and unpaid
care work. Women in many developing countries spend on average 1.4 hours a day
collecting fuelwood and four hours cooking, in addition to other household tasks that
could be supported by energy access. The importance of prioritizing clean energy
initiatives to ensure environmental sustainability and uphold human rights obligations
cannot be understated.
 Topic 3: The Prevention of Sexual
Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013
The Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, marked a significant
milestone in India's legal framework to address sexual harassment at the
workplace. The Act was introduced following the Vishaka Guidelines issued by
the Supreme Court in 1997, which laid the foundation for a robust legal
mechanism to protect women from sexual harassment at work. However, its
implementation and impact over the past decade have been mixed, with several
challenges and gaps identified through Supreme Court rulings and various
committee recommendations.
 Implementation
• Establishment of Internal Committees (ICs): One of the key provisions of
the POSH Act is the mandatory establishment of Internal Committees (ICs) in
organizations with more than ten employees. However, compliance has been
inconsistent. Many organizations, particularly smaller ones, either lack an IC
or have an inadequately trained one. This undermines the effectiveness of the
Act, as women may not have a trusted avenue to report harassment.
• Awareness and Training: The Act mandates regular training and awareness
programs to educate employees about their rights and the procedures for
reporting sexual harassment. In practice, these programs are often superficial,
poorly conducted, or entirely absent, particularly in smaller organizations and
rural areas.
• Cultural and Social Barriers: Despite legal provisions, social stigmas around
sexual harassment persist. Women often face pressure not to report incidents
due to fear of retaliation, damage to their reputation, or job loss. This has led
to underreporting of cases, limiting the Act’s impact.
 Impact
• Empowerment and Legal Recourse: On a positive note, the
POSH Act has empowered many women to come forward and
seek legal recourse against sexual harassment. It has also led to
greater awareness about workplace harassment and gender
equality.
• Inadequacies in Redressal: Despite these advancements, many
women continue to experience delays and inadequacies in the
redressal process.
 Challenges & Way Forward
• Informal Sector: A significant challenge lies in the informal sector, where a
large proportion of women work. The POSH Act is difficult to enforce in these
settings due to the lack of formal structures and the precarious nature of
employment.
• Lack of Enforcement: While the Act provides a framework, its success
depends on rigorous enforcement by employers and state bodies. Many
organizations view compliance as a mere formality rather than a genuine
commitment to gender equality.
• Need for Reforms: There is a growing consensus that the POSH Act needs
reforms to address gaps in implementation, particularly in terms of
monitoring, penalties for non-compliance, and extending protection to the
informal sector. More proactive measures are needed to ensure that the Act
fulfils its intended purpose.
One of the compliance being, monitoring the timely submission of Annual Report by the
Internal Committee. In accordance with the provision of Section 21 of the POSH Act, it is
mandatory for the Internal Committee to prepare an Annual Report and submit the same
to the Employer and the District Officer.

The POSH Act has been in effect for over a decade now but yet there remains a
significant gap in publicly accessible data that consolidates information across employers
and companies. The existing data remains scattered across individual company reports,
often in formats that are not user friendly, making it challenging to identify industry-wide
trends and patterns in the reporting and resolution of sexual harassment cases.
In 2024, Ashoka University's Centre for Economic Data and Analysis released a
comprehensive report on the basis of data from 300 companies listed on the National
Stock Exchange (NSE) to identify broad trends on the evolving dynamics of workplace
sexual harassment complaints . The data for this analysis was collected from disclosures
made by companies in their annual and business responsibility reports.

The study reveals that over the last 10 years, there has been a noticeable increase in the
number of cases reported under the POSH Act within India. This suggests growing
awareness and willingness to report incidents, but also highlights the persistent issue of
sexual harassment in the workplace.
• While the number of complaints has increased the resolution rate has not kept pace.
This discrepancy indicates potential delays and inefficiencies in redressal mechanisms
to address and deal with complaints of sexual harassment, leading to backlog of
pending cases.
Factors that may contribute to low resolution rates includes:
Withdrawal of complaints: One primary reason for this gap is the withdrawal of
complaints by the complainants. In some instances, individuals may choose to withdraw
their complaints due to personal or professional reasons. This could include fear of
victimization or backlash, lack of evidence to support the claim, external pressures, or
may be due to concerns of social sanction and stigma.
Departure from company: Another significant factor is the departure of either the
complainant or the accused from the company before the case is resolved. When one of
the parties involved leaves the organisation before the investigation concludes, it often
complicates the investigation process and in such cases the case might remain
unresolved adding to the backlog.
Ineffective Redressal Mechanism: Organisations lacking robust Complaints
Committee and with inadequate grievance redressal mechanism often struggle to handle
matters pertaining to sexual harassment efficiently, thereby, leading to higher
discrepancies between reported and resolved cases.
Workplace Culture: Organisations with a toxic work culture or poor leadership may
have a significant gap between reported and resolved cases. That is to say, a culture that
discourages reporting or does not prioritize addressing grievances may contribute to
higher unresolved case rates.
To reduce this gap between reported and resolved cases, it is crucial that organisations
focus on several key areas including enhancing reporting mechanisms, allocating
adequate resources, streamlining processes and fostering a positive culture.
• More and more women are getting into STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering and
Maths — courses in India, resulting in them landing jobs in corporate houses,
especially in the IT sector. Hence, the proportion of women in leading corporate firms
has increased considerably over time. Yet, the attrition rate — the percentage of
employees who leave an organisation — is also, in general, higher among women than
men. Women leave organisations for many reasons, including societal pressure after
marriage, pregnancy, and post-pregnancy work-life balance, reasons that rarely apply
to men.
• Adding to the list, workplace harassment — verbal, sexual or otherwise — may also
play a role in such exits. If the number of cases reported under the PoSH Act is
anything to go by, a look at just the figures from the top four IT firms shows that
instances are rising again after a brief pause during the pandemic.
• The Supreme Court in its 2023 judgment called out the lacunae in the constitution of
ICCs, citing a newspaper report that 16 out of the 30 national sports federations in the
country had not constituted an ICC to date.
• One of the concerns is that the Act does not satisfactorily address accountability, not
specifying who is in charge of ensuring that workplaces comply with the Act, and who
can be held responsible if its provisions are not followed.
• Stakeholders also point out how the law is largely inaccessible to women workers in
the informal sector as more than 80% of India’s women workers are employed in the
informal sector. Additionally, experts have noted that in workplaces sexual harassment
cases are hugely underreported in India for a number of reasons. The framers of the
law had recognised that complaints could be more effectively addressed within civil
institutions (workplaces) so that women did not have to go through the daunting
processes of the criminal justice system related to accessibility and timeliness.
However, the inefficient functioning and the lack of clarity in the law about how to
conduct such inquiries, and lack of awareness in women employees about such
committees and who to approach in case of facing harassment, have ended up
duplicating the access barriers associated with the justice system. Most importantly,
the power dynamics of organisations and fear of professional repercussions also stand
in the way of women for filing complaints.