Answer:  Good Economics and Effective Budgetary Process are complementary to each other. In essence, they are synonymous with vast array of common components.

Essentially Common Components of Effective Budgetary Process are:

1. Proper Resource Allocation
2. In-depth Data Analysis covering important sectors comprehensively
3. Strong emphasis on macroeconomic objectives like reducing unemployment & poverty, to achieve sustainable economic growth, efficient management of BOPs and controlling deficits.

Good Economics is a prolonged process which works better with long term sustainable goals. It needs proper strategy with continuous evaluation.

Different countries have different economies owing to a primary reason i.e. difference in political exigencies. Bad Politics is often about short term goals which are often in contradiction with Good Economics. Political Parties often acquiesce to pressure groups, societal demands owing to vote bank politics. Hence, it affects the budgetary process adversely. For example- Good Economics says that fuel subsidies should be removed because they are harmful for market equilibrium but due to bad politics (vote bank), they continue to exist. The Govt. continues to meddle in the economy even when simple economics demands an opposite action.

However, the situation is not bleak. There a strong possibility that politics with its short term goals and good Economics with its long term goals can exist together by adopting following measures:

1. Top Down Budgeting Approach with prudent economic assumptions and calculations
2. Relaxing Central Input Controls with strong focus on outcome budgeting

Finally, Performance Budgeting and Zero Budgeting can help in reducing the contradiction between Good Economics and Bad Politics by creating a common workable platform.

Answer:  Sanchi Stupa at Bhopal and Amravati Stupa in Andhra Pradesh are believed to have been constructed in 3^rd Century BCE by Ashoka. However, their contemporary fate is quite different; Sanchi Stupa is well preserved while Amravati is just a mound. Following reasons could be attributed for their wavering fate:

1. The attitude of the British towards Indian Heritage & the Timeline of Discovery – Amravati Stupa was officially discovered in 1797 by Mackenzie while Sanchi Stupa was discovered in 1818 by Sir Taylor. These two decades saw a major shift in the British perspective towards Indian Heritage.

• In 18^th Century, the British deliberately followed the policy of exploitation towards Indian Heritage to keep Indians devoid of their past (might have been a threat to the British Colonialism). However, due to sincere efforts of some British Officials like H. H. Cole, Walter Elliot etc., the British eventually abandoned this policy.
• Post 1797, The Authorities left Amravati stranded for local as well as foreign exploitation. Amravati was dismantled piece by piece and majority of its artifacts were whisked off to Britain.

2. The Outlook of Local People– The ignorance of local people was equally responsible for non- survival of Amravati. For Ex- Raja of Chintapalli savaged the site in hope to find a treasure underneath.

3. Important Role of Local Rulers in Preservation of Sanchi – Active role was played by the begum rulers of Bhopal (Sultan Jehan and Shah Jehan Begum)in terms of offering money and protection for the site.
4. Brilliant Restoration of Sanchi Stupa between 1912 to 1919 undertaken by John Marshall. No such timely action was taken for Amravati.

The principle of ‘Separation of Power’propounded by a French philosopher, Montesquieu, refers to a government system where the executive, legislative and judicial powers are keptseparate.

The Principle of ‘check and balance’ denotes that realistic restrictions are placed on authorities to prevent the misuse of power.

Indian constitutional stand is a careful blend of ‘Separation of Power’ and ‘Check and Balance’. Prima facie, it appearsto have clear separation of power evident by the following:

1. Article 50- independent judiciary
2. Article 122- Parliament proceedings exempted from court review
3. Article 121- Judicial conduct of a Judge cannot be discussed

However, Indian system is strongly tilted towards ‘Check & Balance’ principle, evident by the following:

1. Article 75 – The executive is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha
2. Article 13 & Article 32 set the ground for judicial review (Judiciary can strike any legislation which violates the Constitution)
3. Article 75(3)- No confidence motion can be introduced by the legislative branch against the council of ministers (part of executive)
4. [Article-124(4)]- Impeachment of Judges by parliament.

CAT, consisting of Administrative and Judicial Members, was established under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in pursuance of article 323-A. It is an independent judicial body headed by sitting or retired Judge of a High Court.

Main Function– Handling disputes related to recruitment and conditions of service of individuals appointed to the Public Services by Union or State Govt.CAT exercises jurisdiction over more than 200 PSUs.

Originally, tribunal system was introduced to unburden the courts; however, recently few tiffs were seen between the judiciary and CAT. Delhi HC had issued directions related to few pending cases in CAT. However, CAT considered it contempt because it is headed by HC judge & High Courts in India should not give directions to CAT (no objection from the directives of Supreme Court).

At times, CAT has its own laws and often interferes with the decisions of Ministry & Departments particularly in cases related to superannuation transfers, regularization of services etc., which prima facie gives an impression of an independent judicial authority.

Way Forward

A uniform code of procedure in Tribunal judgment should be worked upon for better justice delivery. The traditional structureof CAT needs reformation &appropriate judicial control over CAT.

As per Census 2011, total cultivator’s population of India is 118.7 million (2011). It is an overwhelmingly large group and has the capacity to act as a pressure group enunciating farmers’ interests. All India KisanSabha, BharatiyaKisan Union etc. are few examples.

Their main demands are related to procurement of agricultural products, fertilizer subsidy, MSP, tenancy rights, electricity charges etc.

Methods often used by Farmers’ Organization

1. Petitions –written requests are sent to Ministers, followed by personal meetings, highlighting various issues & demands.
2. Staging protests
3. Long March: raising voice at national level
4. Escalation of issues through media &social media

The efficiency of these methods depends on how systematic and pragmatic, the organizations are. They offer support to the political parties, hence can create substantial pressure.

These organizations have been effective in increasing the wages for agricultural workers, in improving the socio-economic conditions, higher MSPs and favorable agricultural export policies etc.

The efficiency of these organizations is highly compromised due to following factors:

1. LocalNature (territorial)
2. A tool of vote bank politics
3. Factors like language & caste weaken the organizations.

Despite certain limitations, these organizations are essential to India’s democratic process.

Indian federalism has gone through a transformation in last few decades. Centre- State disputes over legislative subjects have been common often requiring the judiciary to intervene. As a result of these resolutions, principles of Federal Supremacy and Harmonious Construction have evolved.

According to Constitutional experts, Indian constitution is federal in nature with unitary bias which means that Federal Govt. is superior in majority of cases. For Ex- Concurrent List & State List are subordinate to Union List. If need be, and under the right circumstances, the Parliament can even legislate on any state subject. This inherent supremacy is Federal Supremacy.

Harmonious Construction is based on a simple idea that every decree has a purpose and intent and it should be read as a whole. The widest interpretation of the provisions of the decree should be allowed. The Court should help in removing the inconsistencies to settle the dispute.

In the era of cooperative and competitive federalism, conflicts can be minimized using harmonious construction and coming up with a win-win for both parties. In case, the dispute is not resolvable through HC, the suitable option left is Federal Supremacy.