ClearMains
Draft report backs objective of preventing ‘governance from custody’ but recommends replacing ‘removal’ with ‘suspension’ and reworking arrest-based trigger; most Opposition parties had declined to join the panel arguing that the Bill was driven by ‘malicious intent’
Quick Revision
Prelims-testable facts
Trap alerts
Mains Practice Question
Critically examine the implications of replacing 'removal' with 'suspension' in the context of governance and accountability.
250 words
Practice this in the exam hall →Prelims Practice MCQs
Which aspect of governance does a Parliament panel seek to prevent through changes to a Bill?
The panel seeks to prevent 'governance from custody', a situation where an individual is removed from governance due to incarceration.
Which Opposition parties declined to join the Parliament panel on the Bill?
Most Opposition parties, including Trinamool Congress, DMK, and YSRCP, declined to join the panel citing 'malicious intent' behind the Bill.
How many days in jail would trigger removal under the original Bill?
The original Bill would have removed an individual from governance after 30 days in jail, prompting the panel's recommendations for change.
Consider the following two statements: Statement-I: Most Opposition parties declined to join the panel arguing that the Bill was driven by 'malicious intent'. Statement-II: The draft report recommends replacing 'removal' with 'suspension' because it wants to prevent 'governance from custody'. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
Statement 1 is correct as per the source. Statement 2 is also correct, but it does not explain why most Opposition parties declined to join the panel.