POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE : CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Political Question Doctrine The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out. — John E. Finn The political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. A ruling of non justiciability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law. A court can only decide issues based on law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes. DEFINITIONS A doctrine which prevents a court of law from determining issues which are essentially political; within the purview of the executive branch of government.- Duhaime's Law Dictionary In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote, in Marbury v Madison "The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court." In El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. US, Justice Thomas Griffiths of the United States Court of Appeals has before him this set of facts: "In 1998, the President of the United States ordered a missile strike against a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that he believed was connected to the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden. The owners of the plant sued the United States, challenging several allegedly defamatory statements made by senior executive branch officials justifying the strike as well as the government's failure to compensate them for the destruction of the plant." The Court confirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it presents a nonjusticiable political question: "(The political question) doctrine prohibits the judiciary from reviewing policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch." A further example of the doctrine was exhibited in Omar v Harvey. In that case, Justice Tatel of wrote: "The political question doctrine puts beyond judicial cognizance political decisions that are by their nature committed to the political branches. For example ... the doctrine bars courts from considering claims whose adjudication would require judicial wading into foreign policy or military waters. Thus, we invoked the political question doctrine to dismiss a claim that would have required us to second-guess U.S. policy towards Chile. Similarly, we dismissed a complaint that would have required us to review the manner in which the United States established a military base in the Indian Ocean." In 2008, the opinion of Justice Pogue of the United States Court of International Trade in Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. US included this: "The political question doctrine, recognizing our constitutional separation of powers principle, does exclude some disputes from judicial determination. Under this doctrine, a subject matter is not appropriate for judicial resolution where it is exclusively assigned to the political branches or where such branches are better-suited than the judicial branch to determine the matter. The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch. The Judiciary is particularly ill suited to to make such decisions, as courts are fundamentally under equipped to formulate national policies or develop standards for matters not legal in nature." ORIGIN: The doctrine has its roots in the historic Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall drew a distinction between two different functions of the U.S. Secretary of State. Marshall stated that when the Secretary of State was performing a purely discretionary matter, such as advising the President on matters of policy, he was not held to any legally identifiable standards. Therefore, some of the Secretary's actions are unable to be reviewed by a court of law. The doctrine is grounded in the federal judiciary's desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision. The leading Supreme Court case in the area of political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962). In the opinion written for Baker, the Court outlined six characteristics of a political question. These include: A "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or" A "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or" The "impossibility for a court's independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect for a coordinate branch of the government; or" The "impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy decision, which is beyond the discretion of the court; or" An "unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or" The "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." OTHER APPLICATIONS: Impeachment: The president, judges including chief justice of supreme court and high courts can be impeached by the parliament before the expiry of the term for violation of the Constitution. Other than impeachment, no other penalty can be given to a president in position for the violation of the Constitution under Article 361 of the constitution. Since the Constitution placed the sole power of impeachment in two political bodies, it is qualified as a political question. As a result, the decision of the Houses to impeach or a vote to remove a President or any other official can be appealed to any court. Foreign policy and war A court will not usually decide if a treaty has been terminated, because on that issue, "governmental action ... must be regarded as of controlling importance". Given the sensitive problems of holding a war to be illegal, most issues relating to the constitutionality of a war may well be nonjusticiable. Gerrymandering Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. It is also a political question, hence nonjusticiable. Challenges to partisan gerrymandering may also pose a nonjusticiable political question. In Vieth v. Jubelirer, the plaintiffs brought a challenge to the electoral map drawn by a state assembly, alleging that the map “constitutes a political gerrymander.” A plurality of the Court ruled that claims alleging political gerrymandering were nonjusticiable political questions because there were no “judicially discernable and manageable standards” to adjudicate them. In doing so, the Court overruled its decision 18 years earlier in Davis v. Bandemer, in which the Court had ruled that such claims were justiciable. Some lower courts have determined that discretionary military decisions are textually committed to the political branches and the judiciary lacks manageable standards to review them. The court explained that, at least in cases concerning national security and foreign relations, “the presence of a political question ... turns not on the nature of the government conduct under review but more precisely on the question the plaintiff raises about the challenged action.”Lower courts have also dismissed claims as nonjusticiable political questions because adjudication would show a lack of respect for a coordinate branch of government—Baker’s fourth factor IMPLICATION ON THE SEPERATION OF POWERS: Where courts may decline to adjudicate a case on political question grounds may have important implications for the separation of powers, at least as between Congress and the executive branch. Finding a political question in a case where no disagreement exists between the political branches can be understood as an exercise of judicial minimalism without important consequences for the relationship between Congress and the executive branch. In contrast, finding a political question in a case where a core issue presented is whether the executive branch is bound by a statute obviously can impact the separation of powers. Such judicial reluctance to enforce a statute, one might argue, leaves resolution of such questions to the political branches, and allows some constitutional questions to be resolved via a struggle between the political branches, rather than by the courts. Others have argued, however, that the practice actually favors the executive branch at the expense of Congress. Instead of determining a statute’s constitutionality, the argument goes, courts effectively decline to force the executive branch to comply with congressional will—essentially expanding executive branch power. WHY THE DOCTRINE IS BOTH JURISDICTIONAL AND PRUDENTIAL An analysis of the six Baker factors indicates that the best answer to the question of whether the political question doctrine is jurisdictional or prudential is that the first factor is jurisdictional and the other five factors are prudential. Such an answer is not unusual. Other justiciability doctrines also contain mixed jurisdictional and prudential elements. For example, standing has jurisdictional elements (injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability) as well as prudential elements (zone-of-interest and third-party standing). Ripeness is “drawn both from limitations on judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction.” Therefore, making a similar division within the political question doctrine would not be at all novel or contrary to how the Court has treated other justiciability doctrines. SITUATION IN AMERICA: A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the court is usually so specific that the Constitution gives all power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague that the United States Constitution does not even consider it. A court can only decide issues based on law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes. A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address. Origin in America The doctrine has its roots in the historic Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall drew a distinction between two different functions of the U.S. Secretary of State. Marshall stated that when the Secretary of State was performing a purely discretionary matter, such as advising the President on matters of policy, he was not held to any legally identifiable standards. Therefore, some of the Secretary's actions are unable to be reviewed by a court of law. Chief Justice Marshall, in addressing whether the judiciary could issue a writ of mandamus against an executive branch official, distinguished between individual rights dependent on executive branch legal duties on the one hand, and political matters left to presidential discretion on the other. While the former are justiciable, the latter might not be. The doctrine is grounded in the federal judiciary's desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision. But its modern application stems from Baker v. Carr, which provides six independent factors that can present political questions. These factors encompass both constitutional and prudential considerations, but the Court has not clearly explained how they are to be applied. Supreme Court case law after Baker fails to resolve the matter. The Court has historically applied the doctrine in a small but disparate number of cases, without applying clear rules for lower courts to follow. Possibly as a result of the murky nature of the doctrine, it has regularly been invoked in lower federal courts in cases concerning foreign policy. However, a recent Supreme Court case, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, appears to have narrowed the scope of the political question doctrine. In a suit seeking the vindication of a statutory right in the foreign affairs context, the Court reversed a lower court’s finding that the case posed a political question. The Court explained that the proper analysis in such a situation begins not by asking whether adjudicating the case would require review of the foreign policy decisions of the political branches, but instead examining whether the plaintiff correctly interpreted the statute, followed by determining whether the statute was constitutional. The Court’s opinion appears to restrict the types of claims that can pose political questions, and seems to encourage courts to decide more statutory claims on the merits. In turn, the decision could lead to increased judicial resolution of controversies concerning the separation of powers, rather than resolutions between the political branches themselves. Because the doctrine implicates the separation of powers, application of the political question doctrine has sparked controversy. For example, the doctrine has regularly been invoked in federal courts in cases concerning foreign policy As a preliminary matter, it is important to distinguish the political question doctrine from cases presenting political issues. Courts adjudicate controversies with political ramifications on a regular basis. For example, the Supreme Court has held that certain electoral processes deny citizens the right to vote based on their skin color, and has upheld a subpoena directed against the President of the United States. Both decisions necessarily had political consequences. Instead, the political question doctrine applies to issues that courts determine are best resolved within the politically accountable branches of government—Congress or the executive branch. Understanding exactly when the doctrine applies, however, can be difficult. The “precise contours of the doctrine are murky and unsettled,” without a clear consensus among the members of the Supreme Court or academia.The Supreme Court itself has noted that the political question doctrine has caused “much confusion”; and determining if it applies to a given case requires “a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation.” Court cases Important cases discussing the political question doctrine: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the origin of the phrase. Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) – Guarantee of a republican form of government is a political question to be resolved by the President and the Congress; Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) – Mode of amending federal Constitution is a political question; Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) – Apportionment of Congressional districts is a political question [Overruled by Baker v. Carr]; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) – Apportionment of state legislatures in which the court ruled that this was not a political question; Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) – Congressional authority to exclude members who have met qualifications to serve is not a political question; Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) – Presidential authority to terminate treaties is a political question; INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) – Constitutionality of one house legislative veto is not a political question; Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) – Senate authority to try impeachments and impeachment are political questions. POSITION OF THIS DOCTRINE IN INDIA: A generation of Indian law scholars has roundly, and rightly, criticized the Supreme Court’s invocation of the political question doctrine to deprive tribes of meaningful judicial review when Congress has acted to the detriment of tribes. Similarly, many Indian law scholars view the plenary power doctrine — that Congress has expansive, virtually unlimited authority to regulate tribes — as a tool that fosters and formalizes the legal oppression of Indian people by an unchecked Federal government. The way courts have applied these doctrines in tandem has frequently left tribes without meaningful judicial recourse against breaches of the federal trust responsibility or intrusions upon tribal interests and sovereignty. Furthermore, there is a troubling inconsistency in the courts’ application of these doctrines to questions of inherent tribal sovereignty. For example, courts consider congressional abrogation of a treaty a kind of political question beyond the reach of the judiciary. At the same time, challenges to the inherent, or aboriginal, authority of tribes are deemed justiciable. The Court’s approach represents a kind of “heads I win; tails you lose” application of the political question and plenary power doctrines in Indian affairs. The position of this doctrine in India can be understand properly with the help of case laws in which the Indian court had recognised this principle: Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 March, 2001 In this case, as both Houses of the State Legislature are not in session and the Governor of Maharashtra is satisfied that the circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action further to amend the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Mah. XXIV of 1961), for the purpose of aforesaid, this Ordinance is promulgated. On an analysis of the statement as noticed in the preceding paragraph Mr. Bobde contended that the whole purpose of promulgation of the Ordinance has been purposive and to scruttle a free and fair election. It has been contended that legislation cannot be a tool to satisfy a political end and the conclusion is irresistible in the contextual facts on this count only if English words are given ordinary common English parlance. The factum of having a confusion while preparing the voters list as stated in the statement of objects and reasons, negates the basis of the High Court judgment to wit: the voter list stands prepared and concluded by 30th June, 2000. Mr. Bobde contended that by reason of so-called confusion (as noticed above), the Ordinance stands promulgated as the legislature was not in session by way of a clarificatory order. The submissions apparently, apart from being attractive seems to be of some consequence rendering it an obligation for the Court to delve into the issue in slightly more greater detail. We need to recapitulate the law as regards the jurisdiction of the court to assess the question of justiciability of the legislation by one of the wings of the Constitution. Doctrine of separation of powers have been the basic tenet of our constitutional framework since in terms therewith each of the three organs of the State viz., the judiciary, executive and the legislature would be operating on its own spheres and fields. It is to be noted that there has been a catena of cases wherein this judicial reluctance have been noticed and it is now well-settled both in this country and United States of America as well as in United Kingdom that certainty and finality about the status of a statute, contribute to judicial reluctance to inquire whether it complied with all requisite formalities, but the decisions are not very uncommon which have laid down in no uncertain terms that there is no blanket rule of such a judicial reluctance neither the judiciary would stand impotent before an obvious instance of exercise of a manifestly unauthorised power: The concept of political question doctrine, being basically of American origin, cannot possibly be confidently reached until the matter is considered with special care, upon bestowing proper attention and in the event of a conclusion which lends credence to the question raised viz., as to whether the question is a political question or not, Judicial inclination to interfere cannot be faulted though however not otherwise. This however, needs to be emphasised that the same stands subject to the facts of each case and it is almost a well-neigh impossibility to even adumbrate as to what will and what will not constitute judicial reluctance to interfere, except however, the field which can be described to be as ad hominem nor even any attempt to draw the line since each case is to be decided on the given facts. In this context the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Liyanage and others v. Reginam (1966 1 All ER 650) ought also to be noticed wherein, Their Lordships of the Privy Council introduced the concept of legislation ad hominem and struck down a legislation by reason therefor. Lord Pearce in his inimitable style observed as below: “Wherein this Court in no uncertain terms observed that since the primary law making authority under the Constitution is the Legislature and not the Executive and it is possible that circumstances may arise which render it necessary to take immediate action when the Legislature is not in session, in such a case and in order that public interest may not suffer by reason of the failure of the legislature to deal with the emergent situation, the Governor is vested with the power to promulgate the Ordinance” This Court further observed that the power to promulgate Ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extra- ordinary situation though it cannot be allowed to be perverse to serve political ends. It is on this count of judicial ad-negation Mr. Bobde found fault with the judgment under appeal since the instant Ordinance, as appears from the Statement of objects and reasons, cannot but be so declared. The law thus remains clarified that judicial reluctance cannot be faulted in any way unless of course an element of constitutionality of the legislation comes up for consideration. The issue of political question as argued before this Court in the matter and noticed above, pertains however to the judicial review of legislation. The political question doctrine has however, to be treated to be a tool for maintenance of governmental order but as noticed above, there is no blanket rule of judicial reluctance since the question arises as to whether the case presents the political question and for this purpose, facts of each case shall have to be considered in its proper perspective so as to assess the situation. This however, opens up a wider debate on to the different issue of Article 123 and 213 and the action is legislative in character. It is not an administrative or executive action but being legislative in nature, it is subject only to constitutional limitations applicable to an ordinary statute. The Ordinance, if, does not infringe the constitutional safeguards, cannot be examined nor the motive for such a promulgation can be in question. Mr. Desai appearing for Respondent very strongly urged that the Court cannot examine the satisfaction of the Governor in promulgating an ordinance and the law is well settled on this count by this Court in the Nagarajs case (K. Nagaraj and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another : 1985 (1) SCC 523) wherein this court held that it is impossible to accept the submission that the ordinance can be invalidated on the ground of non-application of mind. It is a power of the Executive to legislate and this power is plenary within its field like the power of the State Legislature to pass the laws. The Constitution Benchs judgment in T. Venkata Reddys case (T. Venkata Reddy and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh : 1985 (3) SCC 198) wherein the earlier judgment of the Federal Court in Laxmi Narain Das v. Province of Bihar (1949 FLR 693) have been followed, re- affirmed the observations in Nagarajas case, the Constitution Bench observed that the motive of Legislature in passing a statute is beyond the scrutiny of the courts. It is not only the propriety to follow the Constitutional Bench judgment but we are definitely of the opinion and view that by no stretch, the courts can interfere a legislative malice in passing a statute. Interference is restrictive in nature and that too on the constitutionality aspect and not beyond the same. R.C. Poudyal And Anr. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. on 10 February, 1993 In this case two important question arises before the court: Whether the questions raised in the petitions pertaining as they do to the terms and conditions of accession of new territory are governed by rules of public international law and are non-justiciable on the "political questions doctrine"? (b)Whether clause (f) of Article 371 F of the Constitution of India, introduced by the Constitution (36th Amendment) Act, 1975 is violative of the basic features of democracy? The learned Attorney-General for the Union of India and Sri Parasaran sought to contend that the terms and conditions of admission of a new territory into the Union of India are eminently political questions which the Court should decline to decide as these questions lack adjudicative disposition. This political thickets doctrine as a restraint on judicial power has been the subject of forensic debate, at once intense and interesting, and has evoked considerable judicial responses. Prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 the cases challenging the distribution of political power through apportionment and districting, weighed-voting, and restrictions on political action were held to present non- justiciable political questions. The basis of this doctrine was the "seeming conviction of the courts that the issues raised were well beyond the judicial responsibility". In Baker v. Carr, the Court undertook a major rationalisation and formulation of the 'political question doctrine' which led to considerable narrowing of its application. The effect Baker v. Carr., and the later decision in Poweel v. McCormack, 395 US 486 is that in the United States of America certain controversies previously immune from adjudication were held justiciable and decided on the merits. The rejection of the political thickets arguments in these cases marks a narrowing of the operation of the doctrine in other areas as well. In Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society, 478 [1986] US 221 the American Supreme Court said "We address first the Japanese petitioners' contention that the present actions are unsuitable for judicial review because they involve foreign relations and that a federal court, therefore, lacks the judicial power to command the Secretary of Commerce, an Executive Branch official, to dishonor and repudiate an international agreement. Relying on the political question doctrine, and quoting Baker v. Carr.,the Japanese Petitioners argue that the danger of "embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question" bars any judicial resolution of the instant controversy." "We disagree. Baker carefully pointed out that not every matter touching on politics is a political question specifically, that it is "error to suppose that every case of controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance." The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch. The Judiciary is particularly ill-suited to make such decisions, as "courts are fundamentally under equipped to formulate national policies or develop standards for matters not legal in nature." "As Bakerplainly held, however, the courts have the authority to construe treaties and executive agreements, and it goes without saying that interpreting congressional legislation is a recurring and accepted task for the federal courts. It is also evident that the challenge to the Secretary's decision not to certify Japan for harvesting whales in excess of IWC quotas presents a purely legal question of statutory interpretation. The Court must first determine the nature and scope of the duty imposed upon the secretary by the Amendments, a decision which calls for applying no more than the traditional rules of statutory construction, and then applying this analysis to the particular set of facts presented below. We are cognizant of the interplay between these Amendments and the conduct of this Nation's foreign relations, and we recognize the premier role which both Congress and the Executive play in this field. But under the Constitution, one of the Judiciary's characteristic roles is to interpret Statutes, and we cannot shirk this responsibility merely because our decision may have significant political overtones." Our Court has received and viewed this doctrine with a cautious reservation. In A.K Roy v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 272 at 296-7, Chief Justice Chandrachud recognised that the doctrine, which was essentially a function of the separation of powers in America, was to be adopted cautiously and said "It must also be mentioned that in the United States itself, the doctrine of the political question has come under a cloud and has been the subject matter of adverse criticism. It is said that all that the doctrine really means is that in the exercise of the power of judicial review, the courts must adopt a 'prudential' attitude, which requires that they should be wary of deciding upon the merit of any issue in which claims of principle as to the issue and claims of expediency as to the power and prestige of courts are in sharp conflict. The result, more or less, is that in America the phrase "political question' has become 'a little more than a play of words". Dhronamrajti Satyanarayana vs N.T. Rama Rao And Ors. on 2 January, 1988 Locus standi doctrine is called in the United States Public Law as standing of the petitioner to maintain an action in Court. Political questions, it is true, are not adjudicated by Court. What are political questions,? The dominant consideration in determining whether a question falls within the category of political question as laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller. (1938) 307 US 433 are : "the appropriateness under our system of Government of attributing finality to the action of political department" and (2) "the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination". 'this was followed in Baker v. Carr, (1962) 369 US 186 "The non- justiciability of a political question" observed Justice Brennam delivering the majority opinion in the Baker case as "primarily a function of the separation of powers .... Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of Government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a. delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and as a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution". The learned Judge held : "The political question doctrine, a tool for maintenance of governmental order, will not be so applied as to only disorder." The various formulations for ascertaining the political questions as enumerated by the learned judge are :"Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a co-ordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discover-able and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due to co- ordinate branches of Government or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." It will, therefore, be seen that merely because a question has a political colour, the Court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare "Judicial hands off". So long as a question arises whether an authority under the Constitution has acted within the limits of its power or exceeded it, it can certainly be decided by the Court. Indeed it would be its constitutional obligation to do so. It is necessary to assert in the clearest terms, particularly in the context of recent history, that the Constitution is Supreme the paramount law of the land, and there is no department or branch of Government above or beyond it. Every organ of Government, be it the executive or the legislature or the judiciary, derives its authority from the Constitution and it has to act within the links of its authority. No one howsoever highly placed and no authority howsoever lofty can claim that it be the sole judge of the extent of its power under the Constitution or whether its action is within the confines of such power laid down by the Constitution. This Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and to this court is assigned the deficatet ask of determining what is the power conferred on each branch of Government, whether it is limited, and if so, what the limits are and whether any action of that branch transgresses such limits. It is for this court to uphold the constitutional values and to enforce the constitutional limitations. The test regarding the determination of what constitutes political question as laid down in Baker v. Carr ((1962) 369 CS 186) was approvingly referred to by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was), in the aforesaid case. The American doctrine regarding the adjudication of political questions was accepted by Venkatramiah J., in. his separate judgment. In V.W. Sreerwna Rao v. Telugu Desam, A Political Party, , the technicalities of locus did not stand in the way of this Court from inquiring into the plea raised by the President of a political party called "Sarvodaya Congress' opposing the, grant of election symbol to Telugu Desam party on the ground that it "preached chauvinism, propagates cessionist tendencies." P.A. Choudary, J., very realistically observed: 'Considering the fact that the issues raised by the writ petitioner are of paramount public importance to the democratic functioning of our society and taking into account the recent trends of. law funnelled by several court decisions freely upholding the right to sue as inhering even in those whose proprietary rights or personal interests are not directly affected, I reject the preliminary objection of Sri N.T. Rama Rao to the maintainability of this writ petition. The writ petitioner claims to be the President of a political party called "Sarvoyada Congress" and it undoubtedly appears to me that he is interested in a clean public life. He is not a mere interloper.' In our constitutional setup there are no two classes of people - one privileged and the other not so privileged. The principle of non-discrimination adumbrated in Art. 14 of the Constitution should not be allowed to be breached. The political executive - either the head of the Government or any member of the cabinet does not enjoy any immunity in respect of breaches of law of the land committed : they have no claim to be treated on a separate footing higher than ordinary citizens (State of Karnataka v. Union of India Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006 It is further said that the political question doctrine, in particular, remits entire areas of public life to Congress and the President, on the grounds that the Constitution assigns responsibility for these areas to the other branches, or that their resolution will involve discretionary, polycentric decisions that lack discrete criteria for adjudication and thus are better handled by the more democratic branches. In fact, the scope of judicial review as enunciated in Bommai's case is in tune with the principles sought to be relied upon. R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994 We may in this connection, refer to the principles of federalism and democracy which are embedded in our Constitution. Article 1 of the Constitution states that India shall be a Union of States. Thus the States are constitutionally recognised units and not mere convenient administrative divisions. Both the Union and the States have sprung from the provisions of the Constitution. The learned author, H.M. Seervai, in his commentary "Constitutional Law of India" has summed up the federal nature of our Constitution by observing that the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and the principle of federalism has not been watered down for the following reasons : "(a) It is no objection to our Constitution being federal that the States were not independent States before they became parts of a Federation. A Federal situation existed, first, when the British Parliament adopted a federal solution in the Govt. of India. Act, 1935, and secondly, when the Constituent Assembly adopted a federal solution in our Constitution; Parliament's power to alter the boundaries of States without their consent is a breach of the federal principle, but in fact it is not Parliament which has, on its own, altered the boundaries of States. By extra constitutional agitation, the States have forced Parliament to alter the boundaries of States. In practice, therefore, the federal principle has not been violated; The allocation of the residuary power of legislation to Parliament (i.e. the Federation) is irrelevant for determining the federal nature of a Constitution. The U.S. and the Australian Constitutions do not confer the residuary power on the Federation but on the States, yet those Constitutions are indisputably federal; External sovereignty is not relevant to the federal nature of a Constitution, for such sovereignty must belong to the country as a whole. But the division of internal sovereignty by a distribution of legislative powers is an essential feature of federalism, and our Constitution possesses that feature. With limited exceptions, the Australian Constitution confers overlapping legislative powers on the States and the Commonwealth, whereas List II, Schedule VII of our Constitution confers exclusive powers of legislation on the States, thus emphasising the federal nature of our Constitution; The enactment in Article 352 of the emergency power arising from war or external aggression which threatens the security of India merely recognises de jure what happens de facto in great federal countries like the U.S., Canada and Australia in times of war, or imminent threat of war, because in war, these federal countries act as though they were unitary. The presence in our Constitution of exclusive legislative powers conferred on the States makes it reasonable to provide that during the emergency created by war or external aggression, the Union should have power to legislate on topics exclusively assigned to the States and to take corresponding executive action. The Emergency Provisions, therefore, do not dilute the principle of Federalism, although the abuse of those provisions by continuing the emergency when the occasion which caused it had ceased to exist, does detract from the principle of federal government. The amendments introduced in Article 352 by the 44th Amendment have, to a considerable extent, reduced the chances of such abuse. And by deleting clauses which made the declaration and the continuance of emergency by the President conclusive, the 44th Amendment has provided opportunity for judicial review which, it is submitted, the Courts should not lightly decline when as a matter of common knowledge, the emergency has ceased to exist. This deletion of the conclusive satisfaction of the President has been prompted not only by the abuse of the Proclamation of emergency arising out of war or external aggression, but, even more, by the wholly unjustified Proclamation of emergency issued in 1975 to protect the personal position of the Prime Minister; The power to proclaim an emergency originally on the ground of internal disturbance, but now only on the ground of armed rebellion, does not detract from the principle of federalism because such a power exists in indisputably federal constitutions. Deb Sadhan Roy v. The State of West Bengal has established that internal violence would ordinarily interfere with the powers of the Federal Government to enforce its own laws and to take necessary executive action. Consequently, such interference can be put down with the total force of the United States. And the same position obtains in Australia; The provisions of Article 355 imposing a duty on the Union to protect a State against external aggression and internal disorder are not inconsistent with the federal principle. The War Power belongs to the Union in all federal governments and therefore the defence of a State against external aggression is essential in any federal government. As to internal disturbance, the position reached in Deb's case shows that the absence of an application by the State does not materially affect the federal principle. Such application has lost its importance in the United States and in Australia; Since it is of the essence of the Federal principle that both Federal and State laws operate on the same individual, it must follow that in case of conflict of a valid Federal law and a valid State law, the Federal law must prevail and our Constitution so provides in Article 254, with an exception noted earlier which does not affect the present discussion; It follows from what is stated in (g) above, that Federal laws must be implemented in the States and that the Federal executive must have power to take appropriate executive action under Federal laws in the State, including the enforcement of those laws. Whether this is done by setting up in each State a parallel Federal machinery of law enforcement, or by using the existing State machinery, is a matter governed by practical expediency which does not affect the Federal principle. In the United States, a defiance of Federal law can be, and has been put down by the use of Armed Forces of the U.S. and the National Militia of the States. This is not inconsistent with the Federal principle in the United States. Our Constitution has adopted the method of empowering the Union Government to give directions to the States to give effect to the Union law and to prevent obstruction in the working of the Union law. Such a power, though different in form, is in substance the same as the power of the Federal government in the U.S. to enforce its laws, if necessary by force. Therefore, the power to give directions to the State governments does not violate the Federal principle; Article 356 read with Article 355 which provides for the failure of constitutional machinery was based of Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution and Article 356, like Article 4, Section 4, is not inconsistent with the Federal principle. As stated earlier, these provisions were meant to be the last resort, but have been gravely abused and can therefore be said to affect the working of the Constitution as a Federal Government. But the recent amendment of Article 356 by the 44th Amendment, and the submission to be made hereafter that the doctrine of the Political Question does not apply in India, show that the Courts can now take a more active part in preventing a malafide or improper exercise of the power to impose a President's Rule, unfettered by the American doctrine of the political question; (k) The view that unimportant matters were assigned to the Stales cannot be sustained in face of the very important subjects assigned to the States in List II, and the same applies to taxing powers of the States, which are made mutually exclusive of the taxing powers of the Union so that ordinarily the States have independent source of revenue of their own. The legislative entries relating to taxes in List II show that the sources of revenue available to the States are substantial and would increasingly become more substantial. In addition to the exclusive taxing powers of the Stales, the States become entitled either to appropriate taxes collected by the Union or to a share in the taxes collected by the Union." Rajasthan Cricket Association ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2004 "Judicial Review of the President's satisfaction regarding the necessity to issue an Ordinance is not totally excluded. As to whether the precondition to the exercise of power under Article 123 have been satisfied or not cannot be regarded as a purely political question and kept beyond the judicial review. The doctrine of the political question was evolved in the United States based on rigid. Separation of powers and does not strictly apply in India. The position and power of the Indian President are different. C. Chandy vs R. Balakrishna Pillai on 19 August, 1985 The Division Bench placed reliance on the doctrine of political question enunciated in Baker v. Carr. We notice that even in the country of its birth, this doctrine has only little application, as observed in Powell v. Mccormack, (1969) 395 U.S. 486. In the view we have taken, it is not, however, necessary to go into the details of this aspect of the matter. To compel the Court to decide a political question may be 'to charge the judiciary with duties beyond its equipment's," as stated by Frankfurter J., in (1950) 341 US 494 at 551. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain & Anr on 7 November, 1975 The Judiciary cannot exercise powers which are to be found in the other two departments of Government which are normally legislative or powers which are generally executive in their nature. All matters relating to or affecting elections are political question and, as such, are not questions for the Judiciary. All matters relating to or affecting elections are, in the absence of controlling constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary, political questions and, as such, are not questions for the Judiciary. So, subject to express constitutional restrictions, all matters relating to the holding of elections and determining their results, including contests are political question A contested election case is a proceeding in which the public is interested, since it is for the public good. An election contest is not me In America disputed elections are decided by the Legislature. In Taylor v. Beckham the American Supreme Court held that a determination of an election contest for the office of the Governor is a political question and is not justifiable. In Truman H. Newberry v. United States of America, the American Supreme Court held that the manner of elections can be controlled. In David S. Barry v. United States of America Ex. Rel. Thomas W. Cunninggham the decision of the American Supreme Court in Charles W. Baker v. Joe C. Carr was referred to in order to find out as to what aspects of elections would be justiciable and not a political question. In Baker v. Carr the delimitation of constituencies was held to be a justiciable issue. In Julian Bond v. James 'Sloppy' Floyd the exclusion of an elected representative because of his statement attacking the Vietnam policy was held to be justiciable on the ground that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Legislature to find out whether a member was sincere in. The rigid separation of powers as under the American Constitution or under the Australian Constitution does not apply to our country. Many powers which are strictly judicial have been excluded from the purview of the courts. The whole subject of election has been left to courts traditionally under the Common Law and election disputes and matters are governed by the Legislature. The question of the determination of election disputes has particularly been regarded as a special privilege of Parliament in England. It is political question in the United States. Under our Constitution Parliament has inherited all the privileges, powers and immunities of the British House of Commons. In the case of election disputes Parliament has defined the procedure by law. It can at any time change that procedure and take over itself the whole question. There is, therefore, no question of any separation of powers being involved in matters concerning elections and election petitions. CONCLUSION The political question doctrine seeks to preserve an important foundational principle of our system of government: the separation of powers. To more clearly define the scope of the doctrine, the Supreme Court laid out six factors for consideration when deciding any political question issue. However, the Court failed to specify whether this doctrine is jurisdictional or prudential. Although cases have been decided without explicitly answering that question, the consequences of an answer are significant and both courts and litigators deserve clarity on the issue. An analysis of the six Baker factors shows that only the first factor poses a jurisdictional question, and the remaining five consist of only prudential considerations. Courts should conduct their analyses in accordance with these distinctions, and any prior decisions finding political questions should be evaluated in light of which factors motivated the courts’ conclusions in those cases. In this way, the political question doctrine will be better applied when it is invoked by litigants and courts, and the six Baker factors will be applied with proper consideration of how each one relates to the goal of preserving the separation of powers in our federal government. In India, the doctrine has been recognized by many case law and we have adopted a similar position as that in America. The doctrine is still used by our judiciary and in a recent judgement it refuses to interfere in the matter related to qualification of MP’s and MLA’s. The petition behind the S.C is to prohibit the MP’s or MLA’s those who have been convicted or charged of any serious crime such as murder but the S.C out-rightly rejected the petition on the ground that it is a political issue and it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and requested the appropriate authority I.e, parliament or state legislature to make law for the same. This is how courts even today use the doctrine to determine political questions and then not to entertain the same, if it proves to be not a legal questions. This doctrine has wide acceptance through out the federal democracies.

Gender Inequality Global and Indian Aspects

GENDER INEQUALITY

“Why exclude them? Of the two sexes of which the species is composed, how comes all the natural right to political benefits to be confined to one?” - Jeremy Bentham

ABSTRACT Gender equality is a human right, but our world faces a persistent gap in access to opportunities and decision-making power for women and men. Despite a high growth rate and plentiful Government measures to encourage gender equality, the gender gap still exists in India. Lack of gender equality not only limits women’s access to resources and opportunities, but also imperils the life prospects of the future generation. Gender inequalities are reflected in the daily realities of women and girls lives including: the disproportionate number of women among those living in poverty. In India women are worshiped as ‘devi’ but still deprived of basic human rights. In spite of constituting half of the population, they are considered as marginalized group and second-class citizen. The United Nations ranks India as a middle-income country. Findings from the World Economic Forum indicate that India is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of gender inequality. In order to uplift her status and to give her an egalitarian atmosphere we must consider her a human first and then we should provide all the rights given to human being.The paper will investigate various aspects of gender inequality prevail in India and also suggest some remedies for the upliftment of status of women in society.

INTRODUCTION The social expectations of male and female and the difference between woman and men within the same household and within and between cultures that are socially and culturally constructed are changed over time. These differences are reflected in roles, responsibilities, access to resources, constraints, opportunities, needs, perceptions, views, etc, held by both woman and men and their interdependent relationship.Gender inequality in India refers to health, education, economic and political inequalities between men and women in India Various international gender inequality indices rank India differently on each of these factors, as well as on a composite basis, and these indices are controversial. Gender inequalities, and its social causes, impact India's sex ratio, women's health over their lifetimes, their educational attainment, and economic conditions. Gender inequality in India is a multifaceted issue that concerns men and women alike.

Definition and Concept of Gender Inequality

“Gender” is a socio-cultural term referring socially defined roles and behaviors assigned to “males” and “females” in a given society; whereas, the term “sex” is a biological and physiological phenomenon which defines man and woman. In its social, historical and cultural aspects, gender is a function of power relationship between men and women where men are considered superior to women. Therefore, gender may be understood as a man-made concept, while “sex” is natural or biological characteristics of human beings. Gender Inequality, in simple words, may be defined as discrimination against women based on their sex. Women are traditionally considered by the society as weaker sex. She has been accorded a subordinate position to men. She is exploited, degraded, violated and discriminated both in our homes and in outside world. This peculiar type of discrimination against women is prevalent everywhere in the world and more so in Indian society. Gender inequality is not perpetuated exclusively through differential access to and control over material resources. Gender norms and stereotypes reinforce gendered identities and constrain the behaviour of women and men in ways that lead to inequality. Gender inequality acknowledges that men and women are not equal and that gender affects an individual's lived experience. These differences arise from distinctions in biology, psychology, and cultural norms. Some of these distinctions are empirically grounded while others appear to be socially constructed. Studies show the different lived experience of genders across many domains including education, life expectancy, personality, interests, family life, careers, and political affiliations. Gender inequality is experienced differently across different cultures.

HISTORICAL ASPECTS:

Global Perspective: The transformation of gender relations since the beginning of the 20th century is one of the most rapid, profound social changes in human history. For the more than 7,000 years of human history since settled agriculture and early states emerged, male domination has characterized the gender relations of these societies and their successors. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, men and women were generally viewed as occupying sharply different roles in society: a woman’s place was in the home as wife and mother; the man’s place was in the public sphere. Women from time immemorial were treated as an object and property in the hands of a man, who can do whatsoever he want to do with her. The position of women through out the world were similar. They were given a secondary position than man and have no human/natural rights of her own. They were subject to torture, exploitation, inequalities, discrimination,etc and have no freedom or liberty of her own. Even the law were made in favour of men and religious practices prevailing then, were against the concept of equality and rationality. To be sure, articulate critics of patriarchy – rule by men over women and children – had emerged by the end of the 18th century, and the movement for the right of women to vote was well under way by the end of the 19th century, but nevertheless, at the beginning of the 20th century the legitimacy of patriarchy was taken for granted by most people and backed by religious doctrines that saw these relations as ordained by God. By the 21st century only a small minority of people still holds to the view that women should be subordinated to men. While all sorts of gender inequalities continue to exist, and some of these seem resistant to change, they exist in a completely different context of cultural norms, political and social rights, and institutionalized rules. Male domination has not disappeared, but it is on the defensive and its foundations are crumbling. However, with the passage of time and development of law the position of women were improved and several domestic and international law were made to empower the women and gave them a respectful and equal position to that of man, which they always deserved. Several treaties were signed by the states to abolish inequalities prevailing in the societies and bring a reformative change in the social structure of the society.

Indian Perspective: The root cause of gender inequality in Indian society lies in its patriarchy system. According to the famous sociologists Sylvia Walby, patriarchy is “a system of social structure and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women”. Women’s exploitation is an age old cultural phenomenon of Indian society. The system of patriarchy finds its validity and sanction in our religious beliefs, whether it is Hindu, Muslim or any other religion. For instance, as per ancient Hindu law giver Manu: “Women are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, they must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son in old age or as widows. In no circumstances she should be allowed to assert herself independently”. The above described position of women as per Manu is still the case in present modern day social structure. Barring few exceptions here and there, women have no power to take independent decisions either inside their homes or in outside world. In Muslims also the situation is same and there too sanction for discrimination or subordination is provided by religious texts and Islamic traditions. Similarly in other religious beliefs also women are being discriminated against in one way or other. The unfortunate part of gender inequality in our society is that the women too, through, continued socio-cultural conditioning, have accepted their subordinate position to men. And they are also part and parcel of same patriarchal system. The status of women in India has been subject to many changes over the span of recorded Indian history.Their position in society deteriorated early in India's ancient period, especially in the Indo-Aryan speaking regions, and their subordination continued to be reified well into India's early modern period. Practise such as female infanticide, dowry, child marriage and the taboo on widow remarriage, have had a long duration in India, and have proved difficult to root out, especially in caste Hindu society in northern India. During the British East India Company rule (1757–1857), and the British Raj (1858–1947), measures aiming at amelioration were enacted, including Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829, Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, and Age of Consent Act, 1891. Women rights under the Constitution of India mainly include equality, dignity, and freedom from discrimination; additionally, India has various statutes governing the rights of women. As of 2019, some women have served in various senior official positions in the Indian government, including that of the President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. However, many women in India continue to face significant difficulties. The rates of malnutrition are exceptionally high among adolescent girls and pregnant and lactating women in India, with repercussions for children's health. Violence against women, especially sexual violence, has been on the rise in India

GENDER INEQUALITY IN INDIA:

We proud Indians of 21st century rejoice in celebrations when a boy is born, and if it is a girl, a muted or no celebrations is the norm. Love for a male child is so much so that from the times immemorial we are killing our daughters at birth or before birth, and if, fortunately, she is not killed we find various ways to discriminate against her throughout her life. Though our religious beliefs make women a goddess but we fail to recognize her as a human being first; we worship goddesses but we exploit girls. We are a society of people with double-standards as far as our attitude towards women is concerned; our thoughts and preaching are different than our actions. We practised discrimination against women from the time immemorial and subject them to inequality, segregation, restrictions based upon there gender only. They were given no adequate opportunity for education, jobs and for her overall development.

Global Index and India’s Position:

India ranks 130 out of 187 countries on the gender inequality index – according to the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report 2019. The report said all countries in South Asia, with the exception of Afghanistan, were a better place for women than India, with Sri Lanka (76) topping them all. Nepal ranked 149nd and Bangladesh 136th. Gender inequality is especially tragic not only because it excludes women from basic social opportunities, but also because it gravely imperils the life prospects of future generations. Indian families often prefer boys to girls, and female feticide is tragically common. Only 29% of Indian women above the age of 15 in 2011 were a part of the country‟s labor force, compared to 80.7% men. In Parliament, only 10.9% of lawmakers are women, while in Pakistan 21.1% are women. In United States which ranks 42nd on the list, 57.5% women and 70.1% men are a part of the labor force. China fared even better, landing 35th. Only 26.6% women above 25 years received a secondary education in 2010, compared to 50.4% of men. Pakistan scored even lower, with 18.3% of women having received secondary education compared to 43.1% of men. In the U.S., 94.7% women have received a secondary education – a figure slightly higher than for men (94.3%). In China, this figure was 54.8% for women and 70.4% for men. In India, 200 women died for every 100,000 childbirths, says the report. In China, the number was considerably lower (37 deaths) and in the U.S. even lower than that (21.)

Major Causes of Gender Inequality in India

Patriarchal society The root cause of gender inequality in Indian society lies in its patriarchy system. According to the famous sociologists Sylvia Walby, patriarchy is “a system of social structure and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women”. Women‟s exploitation is an age old cultural phenomenon of Indian society. The system of patriarchy finds its validity and sanction in our religious beliefs, whether it is Hindu, Muslim or any other religion.For instance, as per ancient Hindu law giver Manu: “Women are supposed to be in the custody of their father when they are children, they must be under the custody of their husband when married and under the custody of her son in old age or as widows. In no circumstances she should be allowed to assert herself independently”.

Son preference A key factor driving gender inequality is the preference for sons, as they are deemed more useful than girls. Boys are given the exclusive rights to inherit the family name and properties and they are viewed as additional status for their family. In a survey-based study of 1990s data, scholars found that son are believed to have a higher economic utility. Another factor is that of religious practices, which can only be performed by males for their parents' afterlife. All these factors make sons more desirable. Moreover, the prospect of parents „losing‟ daughters to the husband‟s family and expensive dowry of daughters further discourages parents from having daughters. Additionally, sons are often the only person entitled to performing funeral rights for their parents. Thus, a combination of factors has shaped the imbalanced view of sexes in India.

Discrimination against girls While women express a strong preference for having at least one son, the evidence of discrimination against girls after they are born is mixed. A study of 1990s survey data by scholars.Found less evidence of systematic discrimination in feeding practices between young boys and girls, or gender based nutritional discrimination in India. In impoverished families, these scholars found that daughters face discrimination in the medical treatment of illnesses and in the administration of vaccinations against serious childhood diseases. These practices were a cause of health and survival inequality for girls. Poverty and lack of education derives countless women to work in low paying domestic service, organized prostitution or as migrant laborers. Women are not only getting unequal pay for equal or more work but also they are being offered only low skill jobs for which lower wages are paid. This has become a major form of inequality on the basis of gender. Educating girl child is still seen as a bad investment because she is bound to get married and leave her paternal home one day. Thus, without having good education women are found lacking in present day‟s demanding job skills; whereas, each year‟s High School and 10+2 standard results show that girls are always doing better than boys. This shows that parents are not spending much after 10+2 standard on girl child and that‟s why they lack in job market.

Dowry In India, dowry is the payment in cash or some kind of gifts given to bridegroom's family along with the bride. The practice is widespread across geographic region, class and religions. The dowry system in India contributes to gender inequalities by influencing the perception that girls are a burden on families. Such beliefs limit the resources invested by parents in their girls and limit her bargaining power within the family. The payment of a dowry has been prohibited under The 1961 Dowry Prohibition Act in Indian civil law and subsequently by Sections 304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Several studies show that while attitudes of people are changing about dowry, the institution has changed very little, and even continues to prevail.

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST GENDER INEQUALITES.

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution provides for prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex also apart from other grounds such as religion, race, caste or place of birth. Article 15(3) authorizes the Sate to make any special provision for women and children. Further, they enjoys complete liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. Moreover, the Directive Principles of State Policy also provides various provisions which are for the benefit of women and provides safeguards against discrimination. Various protective Legislation have also been passed by the Parliament to eliminate exploitation of women and to give them equal status in society. For instance, the Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 was enacted to abolish and make punishable the inhuman custom of Sati; the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to eliminate the practice of dowry; the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to give rightful status to married couples who marry inter-caste or inter-religion; Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Bill (introduced in Parliament in 1991, passed in 1994 to stop female infanticide and many more such Acts. Furthermore, the Parliament time to time brings out amendments to existing laws in order to give protection to women according to the changing needs of the society, for instance, Section 304-B was added to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to make dowrydeath or bride-burning a specific offence punishable with maximum punishment of life imprisonment. India is also signatory to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW. However, the government maintains some reservations about interfering in the personal affairs of any community without the community‟s initiative and consent. A listing of specific reforms is presented below.

1.Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 2. Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Ban 3. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 4. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Amended in 2005; Gives equal inheritance rights to daughters and sons - applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, (The inheritance rights are governed by Sharia and the share of females are less than males as mandated by Quran) etc.

Several other legislative efforts were made to uplift the women and give them a respectful and dignified position. Considering, the modern concept of gender inequality a debate has been started about the balance to be maintained between the men and women while empowering women. No legislation can be made blindly in favor of women with an object to empower them at the cost of men rights. This is an important debate as no reverse inequality is done with the men.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN:

Some men's advocacy groups have complained that the government discriminates against men through the use of overly aggressive laws designed to protect women. Although socially women have been at a disadvantage, Indian laws highly favor women. There is no recognition of sexual molestation of men and rarely the police stations lodge a First Information Report (FIR); men are considered the culprit by default even if it was the woman that committed sexual abuse against men. Women can jail husband's family for dowry related cases by just filing an FIR. The law IPC 498A demands that the husband's family be considered guilty by default, unless proven otherwise, in other words it implements the doctrine of 'guilty unless proven innocent' defying the universally practiced doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty'. According to one source, this provision is much abused as only four percent of the cases go to the court and the final conviction rate is as low as two percent. Supreme Court of India has found that women are filing false cases under the law IPC 498A and it is ruining the marriages. Some parents state, "discrimination against girls is no longer rampant and education of their child is really important for them be it a girl or a boy." The Men's rights movement in India call for gender neutral laws, especially in regards to child custody, divorce, sexual harassment, and adultery laws. Men's rights activists state that husbands don't report being attacked by their wives with household utensils because of their ego. These activist petition that there is no evidence to prove that the domestic violence faced by men is less than that faced by women. STATE INITIATIVES TO REDUCE GENDER INEQUALITIES: Different states and union territories of India, in cooperation with the central government, have initiated a number of region-specific programs targeted at women to help reduce gender inequality over the 1989-2019 period. Some of these programs include Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana, Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana, Balika Samriddhi Yojana, National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (to encourage rural girls to attend primary school daily), National Programme for Education of Girls at Elementary Level, Sarva Shiksha Abyhiyan, Ladli Laxmi Yojana, Delhi Ladli Scheme and others.

GENDER INEQUALITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS:

Gender equality is at the very heart of human rights and United Nations values. A fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter adopted by world leaders in 1945 is "equal rights of men and women", and protecting and promoting women's human rights is the responsibility of all States. Yet millions of women around the world continue to experience discrimination: Laws and policies prohibit women from equal access to land, property, and housing Economic and social discrimination results in fewer and poorer life choices for women, rendering them vulnerable to trafficking Gender-based violence affects at least 30% of women globally Women are denied their sexual and reproductive health rights Women human rights defenders are ostracized by their communities and seen as a threat to religion, honour or culture Women’s crucial role in peace and security is often overlooked, as are the particular risks they face in conflict situations Moreover, some groups of women face compounded forms of discrimination - due to factors such as their age, ethnicity, disability, or socio-economic status - in addition to gender discrimination. Effectively ensuring women’s human rights requires, firstly, a comprehensive understanding of the social structures and power relations that frame not only laws and politics but also the economy, social dynamics and family and community life. Harmful gender stereotypes must be dismantled, so that women are no longer viewed in the light of what women "should" do and are instead seen for who they are: unique individuals, with their own needs and desires. Discrimination based on sex is prohibited under almost every human rights treaty - including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which under their common article 3 provide for the rights to equality between men and women in the enjoyment of all rights. In addition, there are treaties and expert bodies specifically dedicated to the realization of women's human rights:

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Considered the international bill of rights for women, the Convention defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets an agenda for national action to end such discrimination. It was adopted by the United Nations in 1979 and came into force on 3 September 1981.

The CEDAW Committee Oversight of the Convention is the task of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, a group of 23 independent experts on women's rights from different States that have ratified the Convention. Countries that are parties to the Convention must submit reports detailing their compliance with its provisions every four years. The Committee (the treaty body) reviews those reports and may also hear claims of violations and inquire into situations of grave or systemic contraventions of women’s rights.

The Special Rapporteur on violence against women In 1994 the United Nations resolved to appoint a Special Rapporteur - an independent expert -- on the causes and consequences of violence against women. The Special Rapporteur investigates and monitors violence against women, and recommends and promotes solutions for its elimination.

The Working Group In 2010 the Human Rights Council established a Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice to promote the elimination of laws that discriminate against women and/or have a discriminatory impact on them.

Beside this, UN Charter in its preamble and Article 1 provides for equality among the all. Similarly, UDHR mandates for equality in its preamble and Article 7. Similar provision is found in the preamble and article 26-27 of ICCPR, which is binding over the states. Any derogation from the basic principles of equality on the basis of gender clearly violates the rights provided in them and its make state bound to follow and be liable to take appropriate actions against the person who violates it. REMEDIES The list of legislations as well as types of discriminations or inequalities may go on but the real change will only come when the mentality of men will change; when the male species of human beings would start treating women as equal and not subordinate or weaker to them. In fact not only men but women also need to change their mindset as through cultural conditioning they have also become part of the same exploitative system of patriarchy and are playing a supportive role in furthering men‟s agenda of dominating women. 2. The movement for Women empowerment where women can become economically independent and self-reliant is needed, where they can fight their own fears and go out in the world fearless. Strategies for advancement of women should be higher literacy, more formal education, and greater employment opportunity. In education it needs to be reducing primary and secondary dropout of female child. 3. In job opportunities there shall be reservation or expenditure or provision of services or special provisions. In governance all rights and all legal measures should be available for women protection and support. 4. Human rights education , know how to take control of their circumstance , help to achieve their own goals, helping themselves, enhancing their quality of life and motivating for lobbying or advocacy are also enablers for their advancement. 5. Collaborators such as NGO, policy makers, local leaders, information disseminators, health care providers, teachers and family members should help in the social advancement of women.

CONCLUSION: The efforts of both women and men would be able to found solutions to the problem of gender inequality and would take us all towards our cherished dream of a truly modern society in both thought and action and political inequalities between men and women in India. Various international gender inequality indices rank India differently on each of these factors, as well as on a composite basis, and these indices are controversial. India needs to deactivate the gender Inequality. The needs of the day are trends where girls are able not only to break out of the culturally determined patterns of employment but also to offer advice about career possibilities that look beyond the traditional list of jobs. It is surprising that in spite of so many laws, women still continue to live under stress and strain. To ensure equality of status for our women we still have miles to go. There is a need for an affirmative action to protect girls, young and elderly women from discrimination and violence, at the same time to establish their human rights. It must address the following areas of intervention. 1. Improve Women's Economic Capacities: Improve women's access to and control of income and assets, recognize her shared right to the family home, and incorporate the principle of division of community property in divorce laws. Productive assets and property are critical to strengthening the economic and social status of women, providing income opportunities and improved respect for women outside marriage and family. 2. Strengthen and expand Training and sensitization Programs: Programme designed to train, sensitize and inter-link those working at critical entry points to identify and treat abused women should be a priority, with one aim being increased accountability across institutions. Such programmes should be tailored for medical personnel, the judiciary, counseling and other support service providers. 3. Effective use of the Media to build Public Awareness: Mobilisation of communities around campaigns such as that for "Zero Tolerance of Violence" requires improved skills and capacity among NGOs to enter new forms of dialogue with journalists and media personnel to heighten awareness of human rights and their significance for addressing domestic violence. 4. Addressing violence against women through Education: Prevention of domestic violence ultimately depends upon changing the norms of society regarding violence as means of conflict resolution and traditional attitudes about gender. To achieve this, there must be introduction of gender and human rights in the curricula of schools, universities, professional colleges, and other training colleges. Along with this, there must be recognition and commitment to the principle of free compulsory primary and secondary education for girls.

GENDER STATISTICS:

The following table compares the population wide data for the two genders on various inequality statistical measures,and according to The World Bank's Gender Statistics database for 2012.

Gender Statistic Measure

Females

(India)

Males

(India)

Females

(World)

Males

(World)

Infant mortality rate, (per 1,000 live births)

44.3

43.5 2.6

37

Life expectancy at birth, (years)

68

64.5

72.9

68.7

Expected years of schooling

11.3

11.8

11.7

12.0

Primary school completion rate, (%)

96.6

96.3

Lower secondary school completion rate, (%)

76.0

77.9

70.2

70.5

Secondary school education, pupils (%)

46

54

47.6

52.4

Ratio to males in primary and secondary education (%)

0.98

1.0

0.97

1.0

Secondary school education, gender of teachers (% )

41.1

58.9

51.9

48.1

Account at a formal financial institution, (% of each gender, age 15+)

26.5

43.7

46.6

54.5

Deposits in a typical month, (% with an account, age 15+)

11.2

13.4

13.0

12.8

Withdrawals in a typical month, (% with an account, age 15+)

18.6

12.7

15.5

12.8

Loan from a financial institution in the past year, (% age 15+)

6.7

8.6

8.1

10.0

Outstanding loan from banks for health or emergencies, (% age 15+)

12.6

15.7

10.3

11.6

Outstanding loan from banks to purchase a home, (% age 15+)

2.26

2.35

6.6

7.4

Unemployment, (% of labour force, ILO method)

4

3.1

Unemployment, youth (% of labour force ages 15–24, ILO method)

10.6

9.4

15.1

13.0

Ratio to male youth unemployment rate (% ages 15–24, ILO method)

1.13

1.0

1.14

1.0

Employees in agriculture, (% of total labour)

59.8

43

Employees in industry, (% of total labour)

20.7

26

Self-employed, (% employed)

85.5

80.6

Cause of death, by non-communicable diseases, ages 15–34, (%)

32.3

33.0

29.5

27.5

Life expectancy at age 60, (years)

18.0

15.9

Free Trade

Free trade policy refers to a trade policy without any tariffs, quantitative restriction and other devices obstructing the movement of goods between the countries. Free trade, also called laissez-faire, a policy by which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports by applying tariffs (to imports) or subsidies (to exports). A free-trade policy does not necessarily imply, however, that a country abandons all control and taxation of imports and exports. Free trade is a policy followed by some international markets in which countries' governments do not restrict imports from, or exports to, other countries. Prof. Bhagwati defines free trade policy as “absence of tariffs, quotas, exchange restrictions, taxes and subsidies on production, factor use and consumption.” The policy of free trade means simply complete freedom of international trade without any restriction on the movements of goods between the countries. However, there is an exception. Import duties can be levied for revenue and not for protection even under free trade. Thus a country following the free trade policy levies duties which are lower than the cost advantage enjoyed by the lowest cost foreign good. The theoretical case for free trade is based on Adam Smith’s argument that the division of labour among countries leads to specialization, greater efficiency, and higher aggregate production. From the point of view of a single country there may be practical advantages in trade restriction, particularly if the country is the main buyer or seller of a commodity. In practice, however, the protection of local industries may prove advantageous only to a small minority of the population, and it could be disadvantageous to the rest. Since the mid-20th century, nations have increasingly reduced tariff barriers and currency restrictions on international trade. Other barriers, however, that may be equally effective in hindering trade include import quotas, taxes, and diverse means of subsidizing domestic industries. Most nations are today members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade agreements. However, most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade include import quotas, taxes, and non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation. There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers to trade has a positive effect on economic growth. However, liberalization of trade can cause significant and unequally distributed losses, and the economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors. Features of free trade Free trade policies generally promote the following features. Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers) 2. Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers 3. The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others 4. Unregulated access to markets 5. Unregulated access to market information 6. Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power 7. Trade agreements which encourage free trade.

ECONOMICS OF FREE TRADE: Economic models Two simple ways to understand the proposed benefits of free trade are through David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage and by analyzing the impact of a tariff or import quota. An economic analysis using the law of supply and demand and the economic effects of a tax can be used to show the theoretical benefits and disadvantages of free trade.

Most economists would recommend that even developing nations should set their tariff rates quite low, but the economist Ha-Joon Chang, a proponent of industrial policy, believes higher levels may be justified in developing nations because the productivity gap between them and developed nations today is much higher than what developed nations faced when they were at a similar level of technological development. Underdeveloped nations today, Chang believes, are weak players in a much more competitive system. Counterarguments to Chang's point of view are that the developing countries are able to adopt technologies from abroad, whereas developed nations had to create new technologies themselves, and that developing countries can sell to export markets far richer than any that existed in the 19th century.

If the chief justification for a tariff is to stimulate infant industries, it must be high enough to allow domestic manufactured goods to compete with imported goods in order to be successful. This theory, known as import substitution industrialization, is largely considered ineffective for currently developing nations.

The Economics of tariffs The pink regions are the net loss to society caused by the existence of the tariff. The chart at the right analyzes the effect of the imposition of an import tariff on some imaginary good. Prior to the tariff, the price of the good in the world market (and hence in the domestic market) is Pworld. The tariff increases the domestic price to Ptariff. The higher price causes domestic production to increase from QS1 to QS2 and causes domestic consumption to decline from QC1 to QC2. This has three main effects on societal welfare. Consumers are made worse off because the consumer surplus (green region) becomes smaller. Producers are better off because the producer surplus (yellow region) is made larger. The government also has additional tax revenue (blue region). However, the loss to consumers is greater than the gains by producers and the government. The magnitude of this societal loss is shown by the two pink triangles. Removing the tariff and having free trade would be a net gain for society. An almost identical analysis of this tariff from the perspective of a net producing country yields parallel results. From that country's perspective, the tariff leaves producers worse off and consumers better off, but the net loss to producers is larger than the benefit to consumers (there is no tax revenue in this case because the country being analyzed is not collecting the tariff). Under similar analysis, export tariffs, import quotas, and export quotas all yield nearly identical results. Sometimes consumers are better off and producers worse off, and sometimes consumers are worse off and producers are better off, but the imposition of trade restrictions causes a net loss to society because the losses from trade restrictions are larger than the gains from trade restrictions. Free trade creates winners and losers, but theory and empirical evidence show that the sizes of the winnings from free trade are larger than the losses.

Trade diversion According to mainstream economic theory, the selective application of free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can lead to economic inefficiency through the process of trade diversion. It is economically efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is the lowest cost producer, but this does not always take place if a high cost producer has a free trade agreement while the low cost producer faces a high tariff. Applying free trade to the high cost producer (and not the low cost producer as well) can lead to trade diversion and a net economic loss. This is why many economists place such high importance on negotiations for global tariff reductions, such as the Doha Round.

Opinion of economists

The literature analyzing the economics of free trade is extremely rich with extensive work having been done on the theoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society. In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries." ….{DATA SOURCE WIKIPEDIA} Quoting Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."In a survey of leading economists, none disagreed with the notion that "freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment." Most economists would agree that although increasing returns to scale might mean that certain industry could settle in a geographical area without any strong economic reason derived from comparative advantage, this is not a reason to argue against free trade because the absolute level of output enjoyed by both "winner" and "loser" will increase with the "winner" gaining more than the "loser" but both gaining more than before in an absolute level. Post-World War II:

Since the end of World War II, in part due to industrial size and the onset of the Cold War, the United States has often been a proponent of reduced tariff-barriers and free trade. The U.S. helped establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organization (WTO); although it had rejected an earlier version in the 1950s (International Trade Organization or ITO). Since the 1970s, U.S. governments have negotiated managed-trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006, and a number of bilateral agreements (such as with Jordan).

In Europe, six countries formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 which became the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958. Two core objectives of the EEC were the development of a common market, subsequently renamed the single market, and establishing a customs union between its member states. After expanding its membership, the EEC became the European Union (EU) in 1993. The European Union, now the world's largest single market, has concluded free trade agreements with many countries around the world.

CURRENT STATUS:

Most countries in the world are members of the World Trade Organization,[which limits in certain ways but does not eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. Most countries are also members of regional free trade areas that lower trade barriers among participating countries. The EU and the US are negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Initially led by the U.S., twelve countries that have borders on the Pacific Ocean are currently in private negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is being touted by the negotiating countries as a free trade policy. In January 2017, the United States pulled out of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. THE CASE FOR FREE TRADE There are many benefits of free trade, such as:

Giving corporations comparative advantage Generating currency Opening up markets

Adam Smith wrote in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations that free trade was beneficial to trading partners. Smith noted that when the countries in a free trade agreement made products and provided that product for the other country at a cheaper rate than the receiving country could produce it, both countries benefited. We, as consumers, often apply that concept to our daily lives. We purchase goods or services that we cannot cost-effectively produce ourselves, benefiting both parties.

David Ricardo expanded on Smith's ideas, arguing that countries should do what they do better and cheaper than other countries. This is called comparative advantage. Ricardo further noted that concentrating on core competencies gave nations a comparative advantage.

Free trade also helps countries generate foreign currency that they can use to purchase the things that they need. Japan, for instance, exports cars and computers to China and the United States, generating foreign currency. Japan takes the revenue it earned from exporting and uses it to import needed products, such as food or mineral fuels.

Free trade opens foreign markets and lowers barriers for corporations that otherwise might not be able to compete against local competitors. As previously mentioned, without free trade agreements, foreign corporations must pay tariffs that increase their cost and decrease competitiveness. The classical economists were in favour of the free trade policy. Of the modern economist, Haberler advanced the following argument in favour of free trade

Maximization of output : The case for free trade arises from the theory of comparative advantages which states that a country specializes in the production of those commodities in which it possesses greater comparative advantage are least comparative disadvantage. Therefore, trade a country specializes in the production of those commodities which it is relatively best suited to produce and export them in exchange for those imports which it can obtain more cheaply. This maximizes the output of all the participating countries because all gains from trade which, in turn, increases the real national income of the world economy. Thus free trade leads to the maximization of output.

Optimum utilization of resources: Free trade leads to international specialization and division of labour. As a result, the existing resources in which trading country unemployed more productively and a resource allocation become more efficient. There is more efficient utilization of factors within a firm or industry. Thus international trade and division of labour lead to optimum utilization of resources.

Optimization of consumption: Free trade secures the optimization of consumption. In other words, it benefits the consumer when they are able to buy a variety of commodities from abroad at the minimum possible prices. This, in turn, has the effect of raising their standard of living.

Educative value: according to Haberler: Free trade has an educative value. International competition encourages home producer to sacrifice leisure in order to increase productivity. For this, innovate and bring improvement in organization and method of production.

Wide Markets: free trade leads to wide extent of markets for goods:

As the demand for goods is not confined to one country but to a number of countries, the entire world becomes the market for all type of goods. This leads to the production of quality goods at low prices because of the world competition.

Prevent Monopolies: Free trade prevents the establishment of monopolies. Under free trade each country specializes in the production of free commodities and the firms or industries are of the optimum size so that the cost of production of each commodity is the minimum. Thus free trade ensures a lower price for export as well as imports and the price mechanism under perfect competition prevent the formation of monopolies. Best policy for economic development: Haberler points out that "substantial free trade with marginal, insubstantial correction and deviation is the best policy from the point of view of economic development". Besides, the direct gains of a free trade noted above, free trade leads to the importation of capital goods, raw materials, and foreign capital, instills new ideas, and brings technical know-how, skills, managerial talents and entrepreneurship to the developing countries.

Lastly, it fosters healthy competition and checks inefficient and exploitative monopolies.

THE CASE AGAINST FREE TRADE

The policy of free trade, with all its advantages noted above, was abandoned after The Great Depression by the countries of the world. There are certain theoretical and practical difficulties in the following the free trade policy.

1. Free trade presupposes the existence of laissez-faire and the working of price mechanism under perfect competition. But these conditions do not exist in present world. Monopoly, monopsony, cartels, imperfect labour markets and tariffs led to the abandonment of free trade. 2. Under the policy of free trade, some industries expand in which the country possesses comparative advantage but other industries are not developed. An agricultural country may develop only agriculture and neglect the industrial sector. Or, one type of industries may be developed while others may remain undeveloped. This naturally led to one side and development of the economy. Hence free trade had to be abandoned. 3. There be no restriction on the movement of goods under free trade, substandard and harmful commodities are likely to be produced and traded. This leads to diminution of social welfare. Trade restrictions on the import of such commodities become necessary. This was another cause of abandonment of free trade. 4. Countries with better factor endowments are able to produce certain commodities cheaper than others. This led to cut-throat competition in the world markets under free trade. So certain countries like Japan restarted to the policy of dumping whereby they would sell huge quantity of their products at Rock bottom prices in the foreign markets. Naturally, this policy led to imposition of trade restrictions. 5. Free trade may lead to the emergence of International monopolies and local monopolies, according to Haberler. Such monopolies developed under free trade which proved harmful to the other countries and the domestic interests. This factor also lead to the adoption of the policy of protection. 6. Economist does not agree with the Haberler that free trade policy helps in the development of underdeveloped countries. Rather, this policy leads to the exploitation and colonization of the countries during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is now recognize that underdeveloped countries can develop under a policy of protection and not of free trade.

Alternatives The following alternatives for free trade have been proposed: Balanced trade Fair trade Protectionism Industrial Policies

In literature:

The value of free trade was first observed and documented by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, in 1776. He wrote, “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.... If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage” This statement uses the concept of absolute advantage to present an argument in opposition to mercantilism, the dominant view surrounding trade at the time, which held that a country should aim to export more than it imports, and thus a mass wealth. Instead, Smith argues, countries could gain from each producing exclusively the good(s) in which they are most suited to, trading between each other as required for the purposes of consumption. In this vein, it is not the value of exports relative to that of imports that is important, but the value of the goods produced by a nation. The concept of absolute advantage however does not address a situation where a country has no advantage in the production of a particular good or type of good.

This theoretical shortcoming was addressed by the theory of comparative advantage. Generally attributed to David Ricardo who expanded on it in his 1817 book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, it makes a case for free trade based not on absolute advantage in production of a good, but on the relative opportunity costs of production. A country should specialize in whatever good it can produce at the lowest cost, trading this good to buy other goods it requires for consumption. This allows for countries to benefit from trade even when they do not have an absolute advantage in any area of production. While their gains from trade might not be equal to those of a country more productive in all goods, they will still be better off economically from trade than they would be under a state of autarky. Degree of free trade policies The Enabling Trade Index measures the factors, policies and services that facilitate the trade in goods across borders and to destination. It is made up of four sub-indexes: market access; border administration; transport and communications infrastructure; and business environment. The top 30 countries and areas in 2016 are: [EMPERICAL DATA]

Singapore 6.0 Netherlands 5.7 Hong Kong 5.7 Luxembourg 5.6 Sweden 5.6 Finland 5.6 Austria 5.5 United Kingdom 5.5 Germany 5.5 Belgium 5.5 Switzerland 5.4 Denmark 5.4 France 5.4 Estonia 5.3 Spain 5.3 Japan 5.3 Norway 5.3 New Zealand 5.3 Iceland 5.3 Ireland 5.3 Chile 5.3 United States 5.2 United Arab Emirates 5.2 Canada 5.2 Australia 5.1 South Korea 5.0 Czech Republic 5.1 Portugal 5.0 Lithuania 5.0 Israel 5.0 Note: Singapore is the top country in the Enabling Trade Index. CONCLUSION:

It can be concluded that free trade has been a reality to developing countries since it contributed greatly to development of current developed countries such as china, South Korea, and other European countries such as Germany and Britain. For example, China is one of the developed countries that have achieved its developments through taking advantage of free trade to attract investors to its country and it investing in small countries such as those in Latin America thus boosting its developments. Although free trade has been attributed by negative impacts on small developing countries, positive impact surpasses the negative one and thus contributing to most of developments in the small countries. Therefore, based on my opinion, I think that free trade has positively impacted to developing countries as it has stimulated their economic development goals such as millennium development goals. Hence free trade has been a realistic aspect to developing countries.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Since the opportunities are there and favorable for the growing business to enter a foreign market, I recommend that a growing business such as manufacturing business should explore these opportunities and learn from larger manufacturers especially technologically. This will help to increase efficiency, profitability and manufacturing better goods to its customers and succeed in the industry competition as well as gaining a competitive advantage which will help the growing business becoming a larger business worldwide.