On Friday Supreme Court directed her to surrender before the CBI court in Ghaziabad.

A special bench of justice AK Patnaik and justice KS Khehar asked Nupur, accused of dodging several summons — to appear before the trial court on 30^th April.

Nupur is expected to surrender after 10:00am. Her lawyers will be filing for regular bail. But if the magistrate rejects her bail plea, she could be sent to judicial custody.

A few days ago, the CBI raided Nupur’s residence in the Hauz Khas area to execute the warrant to ensure her presence in the court.

The warrant was issued even as she moved the SC for reviewing its judgment, upholding the CBI magistrate’s summons. But the apex court did not stay the summons.

“We will take this matter (the review petition) with ease. Meanwhile, you must surrender,” justice Patnaik told Nupur’s counsel, Mukul Rohatgi.

On 16^th May 2008, Aarushi, a 14-year-old Class 9 student, was found dead with her throat slit in her parents’ home in Noida.

Suspicion initially fell on the family’s live-in domestic help Hemraj, who had been missing. But the following day, his body was found on the terrace of the same house.

The police first arrested Aarushi’s father, Rajesh, for allegedly committing the double murder.

But Nupur accused the Noida police of framing her husband and requested then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati to transfer the case to the CBI, which took over the case on 1^stJune 2008.

Additional Sessions Judge Kanwaljeet Arora, who also slapped him with a Rs.1 lakh fine, handed down the sentences on the BJP leader after holding him guilty Friday and sending him to judicial custody.

Pronouncing the sentence, Arora, who is also special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge, said: “Balancing the twin interest of the society and that of the convict, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offence under section 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act.”

“The accomplice of the crime of corruption is generally our own indifference. ‘Sab chalta hai (Anything goes)’ syndrome has led us to present situation… where we are, where nothing moves without an illegal gratification,” remarked the court.

The court said that people are forced to pay for getting even the “right things done at right time”, and urged people to shun an attitude.

Showing no leniency to Laxman, the court said that being the president of a political party, Laxman was supposed to show exemplary character and lead by example, but he had not done this.

Laxman’s counsel told reporters that they will move the Delhi High Court against the verdict.

The case dates back to 2001, when newsportal tehelka.com carried out a sting operation that caught Laxman on camera receiving Rs.1 lakh in cash from a journalist posing as an arms dealer. He later resigned as the BJP chief.

Tehelka had released CDs showing Laxman accepting money for promise of assistance to a fictitious Britain-based company M/s West End International in securing a contract for the supply of hand-held thermal imagers (HHTIs) to the Indian Army.

“No doubt the company i.e. M/s Westend International and the product ie HHTIs which they were promoting were both fictitious, but this fact was only known to the representatives of the company, who had approached the convict for favour,” the court said.

The court observed that Bangaru Laxman had agreed to exert his personal influence in favour of the fictitious company for his personal gains by way of getting “illegal gratification” with the intention and belief that the product for which a supply order is required, is genuine.

The court said that the essence of sentencing is the balancing of interests of community on one hand and that of accused and his family on the other, within the framework of law.

“The problem of large-scale rampant corruption, more particularly, the political corruption is weakening the political body and damaging the supreme importance of law governing the society,” said the court.

The Delhi court May 2011 framed corruption charges against Laxman. The CBI, in its charge sheet, said that Laxman accepted Rs.1 lakh from the representatives of the purported firm in 2001 at his party office for pursuing their proposal to supply certain products to the army.

Recent amendments carried out include those under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Apprentices Act, 1961, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Plantation Labour Act, 1951, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In addition, the Government introduced in the Parliament Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining of Registers by Certain Establishments) (Amendment) Bill, 2011, the Mines (Amendment) Bill, 2011 and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Bill, 2011.

The Minister was replying to a written question whether the Government has any proposal to amend the existing labour laws so as to accelerate industrial growth in the country; and the steps taken/proposed to be taken in this regard

The inter alia provides for:

(i) incorporation, regulation and winding up of cooperative societies based on the principles of voluntary formation, democratic member control, member economic participation and autonomous functioning;

(ii) specifying the maximum number of directors of a co-operative society to be not exceeding twenty-one members;

(iii) a fixed term of five years from the date of election in respect of the elected members of the board and its office bearers; and an authority or body for the conduct of elections to a cooperative society;

(iv) a maximum time limit of six months during which board of directors of a co-operative society could be kept under supersession or suspension;

(v) independent professional audit;

(vi) right of information to the members of the co-operative societies;

(vii) empowering the State Governments to obtain periodic reports of activities and accounts of co-operative societies;

(viii) reservation of one seat for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and two seats for women on the board of every cooperative society, which have individuals as members from such categories; and

(ix) penalties in respect of offences relating to co-operative societies.

This information was given by Shri Dr. Charan Das Mahant, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food Processing Industries in written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha

This information was given by the Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment, Shri D. Napoleon in a written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha

Out of the aforesaid 6 cases, 1 is a special Crime case, 3 are disproportionate assets cases and 2 cases pertain to abuse of official position by public servants.

The rate of conviction in CBI cases during last 3 years is as follows:

Year                Rate of conviction (%)

2009                64.4%

2010                70.8%

2011                67%

This was stated by Shri V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and PMO in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha

Police authorities in the States/Union Territories and other law enforcement agencies are aware of the issues of illegal immigration and they maintain a strict vigil on the activities of such foreign nationals, Central Government is vested with powers to deport a foreign national under section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. These powers to identify and deport illegally staying foreign nationals have also been delegated to the State Governments/ UT Administrations. Detection and deportation of such illegal immigrants is a continuous process. A revised procedure for detection and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants was communicated to the State Governments/ Union Territory Administrations in November, 2009, which was partially modified in February, 2011. The procedure includes sending back then and there, the illegal immigrants who are intercepted at the border while entering India unauthorisedly.

Central Government is also implementing a Mission Mode Project on Immigration, Visa and Foreigners Registration & Tracking (IVFRT) which also facilitates improved tracking of foreigners by integrating and sharing information captured during visa issuance at Missions, during immigration check at the Immigration Check Posts (ICPs) and during registration at the Foreigners Regional Registration Offices (FRROs)/Foreigners Registration Offices (FROs).

This was stated by Shri Mullappally Ramachandran, Minister of State of Home Affairs in written reply in the Rajya Sabha

FOR FURTHER READING:

A Norwegian court ruled that the two children would stay in two different foster homes until the age of 18 and their natural parents would be allowed to meet them only for an hour once a year.

Shockingly, the court adds that only if the couple separated, could the custody of the children be given to the natural father, who has been employed as a geoscientist in Norway. After an international media outcry and a personal meeting of grandparents Monotosh and Shikha Chakravarty with President Pratibha Patil to seek her intervention in getting their two grandchildren back from foster care in Norway, a headway is reported. Now Norway has agreed to hand over the children to their uncle in India.

Earlier letters sent to the Norwegian government by the Ministry of External Affairs on December 28, 2011, and January 5, 2012, did not elicit any response. With the visas of Bhattacharyas expiring in March, they dread leaving the country without their loved ones. The happening, sorrowfully true, is appalling.

FOR MORE READING. . .

Click here for a .pdf of the Supreme Court order

Holding that spectrum was a natural resource, the court said natural resources “are vested with the government as a matter of trust in the name of the people of India, and it is the solemn duty of the state to protect the national interest, and natural resources must always be used in the interests of the country and not private interests.”

FOR MORE READING

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas bill was first introduced in the fourth Lok Sabha May 9, 1968, and passed the following year.

However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, and so the bill died.

A Lokpal bill was again introduced in the fifth Lok Sabha Aug 11, 1971, but was not passed by either house and died upon the dissolution of the Fifth Lok Sabha.

According to parliament’s records, Lokpal bills were brought in 1977, 1985, 1989, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2001 but were never passed.

In December 2011, the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in a special extension of parliament’s winter session but failed to make headway in the Rajya Sabha despite a spirited debate.

The United Progressive Alliance government has now said the bill is still alive and it will be passed in the budget session of parliament next year.

Sexual Harassment at the workplace is a violation of women’s right to equality, life and liberty. It vitiates the work environment and serves to discourage women from participating in work, gravely affecting women’s social and economic empowerment.

In 1997, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that sexual harassment at the workplace is a form of discrimination against women and that it violates the constitutional right to equality. Despite its direction to the government to enact a suitable legislation for prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace, it took more than 13 years for the government of India to introduce the Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill in the Lok Sabha on 7 December 2010. This, despite the repeated demands for such a legislation by trade unions, women’s organisations and other sections, since the incidents of sexual harassment at the workplace have increased at a rapid pace, often with tragic consequences.

The Bill introduced in the Parliament has several shortcomings which tend to defeat its very purpose. Several changes need to be incorporated to make it effective in achieving its objectives.

The workplace should include all premises where women are employed, including houses and homes where women domestic workers work. But, the draft bill specifically excludes domestic workers, thereby leaving out a huge number of working women who comprise around 30% of the female workforce in the service sector. These women are especially vulnerable for abuse since they work in a private, restricted space as has been evidenced by many recent cases highlighted by the media, in India and abroad. Their economic compulsions often force them to work in difficult conditions, at odd hours, in the solitary company of males, and there are many reported cases of sexual abuse and harassment of domestic workers in this sector. Domestic workers should be included in the ambit of this legislation.

The first part of section 14 (1) woman will prevent women from lodging a complaint, since the situation is often one in which a subordinate has to muster up the courage to complain against her superior in the workplace, and also has to face social stigma from the others in her workplace. Hence it should be deleted. The section also goes against the Supreme Court judgement which had stated clearly that no action should be taken against a woman for making a complaint. If any complaint by a woman is found to be false or malicious, then it can be dealt with as per the service rules prevailing in that workplace. This need not be incorporated in the Bill.

The Bill should specify the nature and range of punishment for different forms of sexual harassment– from minimum to maximum, commensurate with the degree of gravity of the offence.

Further, the Bill should specifically incorporate a provision that if the moral character of the complainant is challenged there should be strong punishment for the respondent.

The process of conciliation, if requested by the aggrieved woman, should be a part of the enquiry proceedings of the Internal Complaints Committee/Local Complaints Committee, with a record maintained by it of all such proceedings. In case of violation of the settlement, the complainant should have the right to reopen the complaint.

The compensation should be determined not only on the basis of compensating the victim on the counts mentioned, but should be a heavy fine which can act as a deterrent.

Since the Bill states that every employer shall provide a safe working environment at the workplace which shall include safety from the persons coming into contact at the workplace, punishment should be prescribed for employers/administrative heads that do not form the redressal mechanism at the workplace. Punitive measures and penalty should also be imposed on those employers/administrative heads/district officers who try to shield or defend perpetrators of sexual harassment and those who take vindictive action against complainants.

The aggrieved woman should be allowed the option to have someone to assist her in the conduct of the enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee/Local Complaints Committee, in case she is in need of such help and requests it.

Time limits should be set for imposition of the punitive measures on the perpetrator/s and delivery of the compensation to the victim. The mechanism for recovery of the compensation should be specified.

Trade unions, as representatives of workers and committed to the protection of workers’ rights, have an important role to play on the entire issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. Trade unions should be involved at every stage in the effort to prevent sexual harassment at workplace and provide a safe and democratic work environment to working women – in the formulation of policies, in their implementation and in monitoring their implementation. However, where no trade unions exist, NGOs that have experience/expertise in dealing with cases of sexual harassment may be associated with complaints committees. Sensitisation on the issue and creating awareness among the workers/employees and employers, both men and women, is of crucial importance in preventing sexual harassment.

The New Pension Scheme notified in December 2003 envisaged a contribution of 10% of wages by the employees with a matching contribution from the central government as employer which together will form the pension account for the concerned employee. The Fund will be managed and handled by fund managers appointed by the PFRDA and the employees will get pension by the end of their service life and the pension amount will be determined by the return on investment of their pension fund made by the appointed fund manager. Originally government employees used to get pension at 50% of their last drawn pay and the pension amount used to get revised with the changes in price indices. It was an assured amount. To get this system of assured pension system in place, the government employees had to forego their right to contributory provident fund, i.e., employer’s matching contribution to PF. In lieu of that surrender of right, assured pension was granted to them to be paid from the consolidated fund of India. This system of assured pensionary benefit is called “defined benefit” pension system.

The New Pension Scheme brought about a paradigm shift in the entire concept of pension as a social security measure. Now the pension will be based on “defined contribution” meaning thereby that the pension amount will be governed by what the employee’s “pension fund account” can earn from investment in the market. The NPS does not ensure any assured amount of pension to the employee despite his life-long contribution to his own pension fund. Both the Pension Scheme notified by the government and the PFRDA Bill (both 2005 and 2011) mentioned in clear terms that “ There shall be no implicit or explicit assurance of benefits except market based guaranteed mechanism to be purchased by the subscriber”. (Sec 20(2)(g) of the PFRDA Bill)

Can market ever guarantee any assured return on investments ? In the present day market situation with extreme volatility in both the money market and the share market, the return on investment of public funds like pension-funds is destined to be uncertain and low. Moreover, the Fund managers appointed by the PFRDA will handle the fund not for charity but for their own profit. Hence whatever return on pension fund investment that will reach the pensioner will be the net amount after ensuring profit of the fund managers as well. In the context of natural uncertainty of the market, fund managers are naturally expected to neutralize their risk first and then take care of the risk of the pensioners who actually supply capital to the fund managers through their life time savings in pension fund. Therefore the PFRDA Bill has paved the new regime of replacing assured pension by a pension system governed by the market forces playing with the employees’ life time savings. Thus PFRDA Bill and the pension system it enforces is an onslaught on the social security right of the government employees, a loot on their pension fund.

But the situation under which the PFRDA Bill 2011 has been put in place has opened another dangerous dimension. It is no more limited to the pension earnings of the central government employees alone or the state government employees in the states where state governments have also adopted the new pension scheme. The bill empowers the government to extend the ambit to all the existing pension schemes. But most alarmingly, through PFRDA Bill the government now plans to attract the savings of the 46 crore unorganized sector workers for investment in the stock market on the same scheme of market based uncertain returns.

The government has introduced New Pension Scheme, now named as “National Pension System” for unorganized sector workers. As per the scheme, which is now known as “Swabalamban” and being advertised a lot, the workers will have to contribute to pension fund minimum Rs. 1000/- per year and maximum Rs 12000/-. After making contribution for 30 years or so, at the age of 60 years the worker will be eligible to get 60 per cent of his contribution as lump sum and a pension of not less than Rs 1000 per month provided rest of his fund can ensure such return from the market. If his fund earns less, then the portion of lump sum receipt after retirement will go down and if his/her entire fund(100% of his/her contribution) fails to earn the minimum stipulated amount of pension (Rs 1000/-) he/she has to make more contribution to be eligible for getting the minimum pension. To allure people towards this scheme, the government has announced that it will contribute Rs 1000/- per year for five years till 2015-16, for those who joined the scheme in 2011-12.

Already, government started making aggressive effort to enrol workers in the Swabalamban Scheme. Anganwadi employees who have been struggling since long for pensionary benefit are now being pressurised in many states to accept “Swabalamban” by the respective state governments.

How far the unorganized sector workers are going to be benefited by this scheme ? As they do not have any pension benefit at present, it is but natural that a good section of them will be attracted towards the scheme. Will they get any assured pensionary benefit after making contribution for the scheme ? No.

The Scheme is silent if there is a break in continuity of contribution which is but natural for the unorganized sector workers, frequently losing jobs and changing employment. What will happen if he contributes for five years thereafter for one year he fails to make contribution or after making contribution for say ten years became incapacitated to earn say at forty years of age and could not continue contribution. Will he have to wait up to sixty years either to claim pension or lump sum payment. All these possibilities are not exceptional cases but a natural phenomenon in the life of the unorganized sector workers.

As per calculation,a worker after making contribution for 30 years at the rate of Rs 100 per month(Rs 1200 per year) will accumulate Rs 1,49,035/- which, if fully invested at 8 per cent return can ensure a monthly return of Rs 993/- to him. Now as per the scheme, if he is to get the minimum stipulated pension amount of Rs 1000, he will not get any thing as lump sum. And there is no guarantee whether the investment of his fund will continue to fetch him 8 per cent return at all points of time. If it does not earn 8 per cent in any year, what will happen to his pension earning, the scheme is not clear about such happenings.

The whole game-plan is altogether different. The share market needs a continuous flow of liquidity to keep up its temperature for the speculators and brokers earnings. Pension fund can be one such source for such liquidity as it belongs to none but the poor workers which can be risked for speculative purposes. In the name of providing pension to unorganized sector workers who do not have any social security benefits, the present scheme of Swabalamban has got a prospect of attracting crores of hapless workers to contribute for their old age security cutting their stomach at present. It has a propensity to garner lakhs of crore of rupees from a market in which 46 crore unorganized sector workers will be the customers. Obligation for paying pension will come after twenty or thirty years. The PFRDA Bill has already provided for the exit route for the fund managers and aggregators by section 20(2)(g) as quoted in the foregoing paragraph and also giving wide arbitrary power to PFRDA to decide and also denying the trade unions to have their say on the investment and delivery of the benefit to the workers as is the practice in case of Employees Provident Fund.

The Union Cabinet has given the final nod to this retrograde PFRDA Bill 2011 in its meeting held on 16th November 2011 after taking into consideration the 40th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on the same. The Union Cabinet practically brushed aside all the pro-employee positive recimmendations of the Standing Committee in the framing of which, the members of the ruling UPA combine were also a party.

The Standing Committee recommended ensuring assured return on the pension fund of the employees in the form of pension. The Standing Committee also recommended greater flexibility for the subscribers to the pension fund for premature withdrawal from pension fund in case of exigencies. The Manmohan Singh Cabinet rejected both the recommendations. It rather decided to further tighten the facilities for premature withdrawal which tantamount to further cut on the rights of the subscribers to access their own savings at the time of exigencies. And the most dangerous is that the PFRDA Bill 2011 did not mention anything about the ceiling of FDI in the pension fund management business. The intention of the Govt to allow unhindered access of the foreign companies to the pension fund generated by the country’s workers to be done through executive order. The Union Cabinet decided for the time being to allow FDI up to 26% in pension sector but consciously kept such decision out of the domain of the Bill so that they can raise the ceiling of FDI further whenever they feel through executive order avoiding the parliament.

Pension will no more remain a secure social security, it will become a funding source for unscrupulous investors, both domestic and foreign, which will be used through speculative share market. The Government in order to please the foreign pension fund operators, in USA, has kept the avenue fully open for FDI investment. With this bill, if passed, the hard earned money of crores of unorganized sector will be utilized for speculation. Can the working class and the country as a whole tolerate such open and shameless fraud in the name of social security of millions ?

The Lokpal bill needed the president’s assent before coming to Rajya Sabha as several amendments had been moved in the Lok Sabha Tuesday night.

According to clause three of Article 117 of Constitution, the president’s assent is mandatory for tabling any bill that constitutes a body which will draw funds from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Article 117 (3) says: “A bill which, if enacted and brought into operation, would involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India shall not be passed by either house of parliament unless the president has recommended to that house the consideration of the bill procedure generally.”

The president has given her assent and the bill is to be moved in the Rajya Sabha Thursday.

Tony Nicklinson is paralysed below the neck. He is unable to speak and needs help with every aspect of his life. He can only move his eyes and head and communicates using eye blinks, the Daily Express reported.

Nicklinson wants a ruling from the family division of the London High Court that allows a doctor to end his ‘indignities’.

However, solicitors said the case raises ‘difficult legal and moral questions’ about euthanasia or mercy killing.

Nicklinson, who is married and has two daughters, suffered a stroke in 2005.

In a statement issued by his lawyers, he said: ‘I want to be able to die at home with a drug which a doctor could give me so I can go to sleep peacefully with my family around to say goodbye to me.’

‘That would be a good death. But what I have to look forward to is a wretched ending with uncertainty, pain, and suffering while my family watch on helplessly. Why must I suffer these indignities? Why is life so cruel?’

During the regime of YS Rajasekhar Reddy, she was IT secretary. Then she granted 68.5 hectares of mines to OMC, rejecting the ones who applied earlier. She is charged of granting the mines to Gali Janardhan Reddy out of law. The notefiles proved her illegal grant.

IAS officer Y. Srilakshmi, accused number 4 in the illegal mining case involving the former Karnataka Minister Mr Gali Janardhan reddy, was arrested by the CBI .

CBI officials questioned her three times earlier for her role in granting mining leases to Gali Janardhan reddy-owned Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC).

She was facing the allegations that she favoured Gali brothers over other applicants in granting mining leases to them by violating lease rules. CBI had also charged her with manipulating note files with regard to granting iron ore leases to the OMC.

CBI Arrested IAS Officer Srilakshmi, who was listed as one of the accused in the illegal mining case involving former Karnataka minister Gali Janardhan Reddy. Srilakshmi was the secretary of Andhra Pradesh Industries Department and Rajagopal was the then Mines Director and vice-chairman and managing director (in-charge) of AP Mineral Development Corporation during the period 2004-10 when alleged irregularities in grant of lease and permits to OMC surfaced.

Many heads might roll before the investigation into the scam relating to the Gali Janardhan Reddy-owned Obulapuram Mining Company comes to its logical end.  This was indicated by highly placed sources after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested IAS officer Y. Sri Lakshmi.

Ms. Lakshmi is the fourth accused in OMC case after former Karnataka Minister G. Janardhan Reddy, managing director of the company B.V. Srinivas Reddy and Mr. Rajagopal. She is presently the Commissioner of Family Welfare but her responsibilities have been entrusted to J. Shyamala Rao, Managing Director, AP State Health and Medical Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, in her absence.

The main charge against the IAS officer is that she dropped the words “captive mining” from the government order sanctioning grant of mining lease over 68.5 hectares to OMC in Obulapuram village of Anantapur district. She issued the order as secretary of industries in-charge of the subject of mines.

She was also charged with sanctioning the lease to OMC post-haste overlooking the bids of 26 other competitors. Only OMC and Vinayaka Mining Company in which Mr. Janardhan Reddy’s father-in-law is a partner were shortlisted for selection.

In 2009, about 11,500 people, over the age of 60, were granted divorce, up four percent in two years.

This contrasts with a fall in the divorce rate for all age groups of more than 11 percent, Daily Mail reported Friday.

‘We are really witnessing a major social revolution, with older generations no longer behaving in the traditional manner,’ the Mail quoted Ros Altmann, director general of the over-50s group Saga, as saying.

The figures, released following a parliamentary question, revealed that in 2007, 11,040 people over 60 divorced. By 2009, this had risen to 11,507.

With more older men and women returning to the dating scene, many fail to follow the recommendation to use condoms because the risk of an unwanted pregnancy is gone.

This has led to increases in sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea, chlamydia, genital warts, genital herpes and syphilis, the Mail said.

The judge took the girl, a student of Sardar Patel Vidyalaya, aside in her chamber and spoke to her before passing the order. The mother, who runs a number of a real estate businesses, had appealed against a trial court order, which had ruled in favour of the father.

‘The child is mature and fairly intelligent; her thoughts are coherent and consistent,’ said Justice Indermeet Kaur in an order delivered last week and made available to IANS Monday.

‘The custody of the child aged 12 years has been transferred from the mother to the father, the mother has been granted visitation rights,’ the court said.

The parents of the girl are neighbours in New Friends Colony.

The couple got married in 1997, but due to some personal problem the woman left her matrimonial home in 2004 along with her daughter.

‘In 2005, the man filed a divorce petition, which is pending before the court till date. However, he sought custody of his child, which was allowed by the trial court,’ said Raj Shekhar Rao, counsel for the girl`s father.

‘The girl’s mother came in appeal against the trial court’s September order, giving custody to the father,’ said Rao. The father runs a software business.

Thereafter, the mother approached the high court filing an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking her daughter’s custody, he said. The girl was staying with her mother since 2004, but got to meet her father.

‘The girl expressed her desire to remain in permanent custody with her father with permission to visit her mother as and when she desires,’ the court observed, to which the parents agreed, keeping in view the desire of the child.

‘For a period of the first three weeks of the month, the child shall remain in the custody of the father, thereafter, in the last week of every month the child will shift to the residence of the mother. This arrangement shall be adhered to and will continue till further orders,’ said the court.

Justice Kaur said that both parties were open to this arrangement and there was no dispute to the fact that the child was free and open to interact with either of the parents as and when she desired, ‘but the custody arrangement, as noted herein, shall continue till either of the parties wants the order to be varied because of change of circumstances’.

The child told the court she wants to share her vacations equally with her parents. In accordance, the high court ruled: ‘The next vacation which is to fall due is scheduled in the month of January 2012. It will probably be a 10-day break, the next ensuing vacation would be a session break in March, then again the summer break probably for about two months. As per the desire of the child, as on date, she desires to share her vacation half and half between both the parents.’

‘Most consumers have told an inquiring server that their cold meal is fine, a hairdresser that they like their unexpected new look, or a friend that his/her too-snug jeans look great,’ write study authors Jennifer J. Argo of University of Alberta and Baba Shiv of Stanford University.

But according to the researchers, white lies have negative repercussions for the people who tell them, the Journal of Consumer Research said.

In one study, the authors observed consumers who had been made to wait for an unpleasant amount of time. The participants then lied about how they were doing by saying they were fine, according to a University of Alberta statement.

These consumers evaluated their wait experiences more favourably than people who didn’t lie and were more likely to help the people who delayed them – when they were reminded that they should be honest.

In two additional studies, the authors demonstrated that this favourable reaction toward the ‘wrongdoer’ occurred because people who are reminded that they should be honest and yet tell a lie experience a ‘negative effect’ (emotion).

For consumers, it is important to know that the negative feelings that arise after telling a white lie can have financial consequences. The authors found that people who told white lies were willing to spend more money for services or tips.

‘Thus, Mark Twain’s statement that ‘honesty is the best policy-when there is money in it’, is very true and consumers should think twice before telling a white lie.’

‘Transgenders are in a most disadvantageous position, not of their own making. Some of them are rejected not just by society, but even by their parents,’ said Kabir at a day-long seminar here on ‘Transgenders and the Law’, organised by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee.

Regretting discrimination against transgenders’, Kabir said a transgender who became a doctor was not allowed to practice in hospital and had to give up the job as patients refused to be treated by her.

‘We have public toilets for men and women but not transgenders and they are not allowed to use either. Where should they go? Do you want them to eke-out their livelihood by begging, dancing or by sex work,’ Kabir asked, saying it was high time for providing a public toilet for the third sex.

Similarly, for admission to schools/colleges or employment, application forms have only two columns for male and female but not for transgenders.

‘It’s not only male and female, but we have to provide one more category – ‘Others’ to include transgenders,’ he said.

Describing transgenders as men wrapped up in women’s body and vice-versa, the executive chairman of the National Legal Services Authority said it was both a physical and psychological problem.

‘If society is not accepting transgenders, we have to change its mindset, at least now,’ Kabir noted.

Karnataka High Court Acting Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen said that the social stigma attached to transgenders should be eradicated.

‘They should also be recognised and respected. They should be provided a means for their livelihood and should be treated on par with others,’ he said.

The transgenders’ population is about 1.2 million in the country.

The seminar threw light on social, medical, emotional and legal issues relating to the community. About 250 transgenders from 11 districts across the state attended the seminar.

The proposed amendments would enable banks to improve their operational efficiency, deploy more funds for credit disbursement to retail investors, home loan borrowers, etc. without fearing for recovery, thus bringing about equity. Further, mandatory registration of subsisting security interest (equitable mortgages) would promote innovation in credit information.

The suggested amendments would strengthen the ability of banks to recover debts due from the borrowers, enhance the ability of the banks to extend credit to both corporate and retail borrowers, reduce the cost of funds for banks and their customers and reduce the level of non-performing assets,

The Bill seeks to amend the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions (RDBF) Act so as to strengthen the regulatory and institutional framework related to recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions through the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011. Background:

The banks and financial institutions (FIs) were facing numerous problems in recovery of defaulted loans on account of delays in disposal of recovery proceedings. The Government, therefore, enacted the RDBF Act in 1993 and SARFAESI Act in 2002 for the purpose of expeditious recovery of non-performing assets (NPAs) of the banks and FIs. Although these two acts have helped in reducing the NPAs, banks have sent certain suggestions for further strengthening of the secured creditor rights. 

A total of 1,094,113 cases of human rights violations, either through suo moto complaints or intimation by the prison and police authorities, were registered, said the NHRC official, as the commission celebrated its 19th anniversary Wednesday.

Out of the total registered cases, 1,077,622 were disposed of, the official said.

According to the commission, during the last 18 years, a total of Rs.510,942,500 relief had been recommended in 2,604 cases for the victims of human rights violation.

The highest number of complaints registered by the NHRC were from Uttar Pradesh, followed by Delhi, Bihar, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand.

The NHRC registered 20,604 cases of death in judicial custody and 4,303 cases of death in police custody in different states. Uttar Pradesh topped the list with the maximum number of complaints regarding death in police and judicial custody, the official said.

A national agenda for ICTE and  draft  National Telecom Policy  to drive that agenda which the Minister for Communications and IT, Shri Kapil Sibal released on 10th October, 2011 for public consultation and feedback in 4 weeks.

Department of Telecommunications welcomes you to the POLICY PORTAL. This online feedback portal has been designed and developed to generate wider public participation and to enrich the national policy formulation. Your suggestions/comments are important and will help us in formulating a forward looking policy, which will shape the Telecom landscape of the country for years to come.

We request you to keep your suggestions/ comments brief and precise.

Press brief on National Telecom Policy-2011 Download

Draft National Telecom Policy-2011 Download

Shri Sibal highlighted that the draft National Policy on IT 2011 envisages to increase revenues of IT and ITES Industry from 88 Billion USD at present to 300 Billion USD by 2020. In this context, he underlined the significant contribution of the IT Sector to the growth of Indian economy over last decade which registered a growth rate of 8 per cent. Since, of a USD 88 Billion IT industry in 2010-11, 80 per cent of the revenues comes from exports, the  Policy proposes to encourage growth of indigenous demands and market. The proposed Policy also aims at formulating fiscal and other incentives to attract investment in this sector in Tier II and Tier III cities.

The Indian IT and ITES sector currently employs over 2.5 million skilled people and has been one of the major employment generators in the last two decades.

The focus of the IT Policy is on deployment of ICT in all sectors of the economy and providing IT solutions to the world.  The National Policy on IT aims to strengthen and enhance India’s position as the Global IT hub and to use IT as an engine for rapid, inclusive and sustainable growth in the national economy.

The Policy aims to maximally leverage the power of ICT to help address the monumental economic and developmental challenges the country faces.

The thrust areas of the policy include to:

1. Increase revenues of IT and ITES Industry from 88 Billion USD at present to 300 Billion USD by 2020.
2. Formulate fiscal and other policies to attract investment in IT Industry in Tier II & Tier III cities.
3. Promote innovation and R&D in cutting edge technologies and development of applications and solutions in areas like localization, location based services, mobile value added services, Cloud Computing, Social Media and Utility models.
4. Provide fiscal benefits to SMEs and startups in the key industrial sectors for adoption of IT in value creation
5. Leverage Internet, Web and mobile technologies for developing new products, technologies and businesses.
6. Integrate Internet based and mobile based delivery of services onto a common platform to enable seamless, ubiquitous, secure and personalized delivery of government and non-government services throughout the country
7. Integrate Aadhaar, financial and location-based services into this integrated platform to foster an ecosystem for innovation in services
8. Create a pool of 10 million additional skilled manpower in ICT.
9. Make at least one individual in every household e-literate.
10. Extend the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) and mandate provision of all Government services through Electronic mode within a fixed time frame by enactment of the  Electronic Delivery of Services (EDS) Bill
11. Enhance transparency, accountability, efficiency, reliability and decentralization in Government and in particular, in delivery of public services.
12. Leverage ICT for key social sector initiatives like Education, Health, Rural Development and Financial Services to promote equity and quality.
13. Make India global hub for development of language technologies to encourage and facilitate development of content accessible in all Indian languages and thereby help bridge the digital divide.
14. Enable access of content and ICT applications by differentlyabled people to foster inclusive development.
15. Facilitate adoption of  ICTs in key economic and strategic sectors to improve their competitiveness and productivity.
16. Strengthen the Regulatory and Security Framework for ensuring a Secure Cyberspace ecosystem.

                                The draft Policy is available on the website of Department of Information Technology (www.mit.gov.in). Comments and feedback on the draft Policy are invited by Department of Information Technology.

Instead of 100 per cent royalty contribution, mining companies may be required to make a one-time upfront payment of 26 per cent of the market value of land at the time of grant of mining lease, said The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM).

Alternatively, an amount less than 10 per cent of the royalty by a mining lease holder and a matching contribution by the state government may be considered. When these funds are utilised, the percentage of royalty required to be paid may be increased, it said.

The royalty proposal will lead to an annual revenue loss of Rs 6,000 crore to the government on account of various taxes like income tax, dividend distribution tax, dividend and disinvestment collections, said Mr D.S. Rawat, secretary general of The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM).

Besides, the valuation loss of public sector companies like CIL, MOIL, SAIL, MNDC, NALCO and others could be Rs 75,000 crore. Similarly, the valuation loss of private companies like HINDALCO, BALCO, SESA GOA, JSW and others is estimated at Rs 25,000 crore.

The current effective taxation in Australia is 39 per cent, Congo 36 per cent, Russia 35 per cent, China 32 per cent and Chile 28 per cent.

In India, it will be more than 60 per cent in case of coal and 55 per cent in case of iron ore. “To make dividend payout of 10 per cent to the government and shareholders, and further paying out 26 per cent of profit or 100 per cent royalty will be disastrous. It will seriously impact employable funds and consequently the growth of mining companies,” said Mr Rawat.

As the industry passes on additional burden to consumers, the prices of power, steel and other commodities will increase and fuel inflation further. An annual payment of Rs 15,000 crore (outgo on account of the MMDR Act) is proposed to be used exclusively for a small number of affected persons.

This will create pockets of super rich in mining areas, leading to a huge disparity and dis-satisfaction among the rest. People will start migrating to these areas and in a similar fashion land owners of other industrial projects can demand an identical structure for parting with land, said ASSOCHAM.

The draft amendment has not defined the mechanism for compensating ‘impacted communities’ and this issue is likely to be contentious. A bulk of funds could be unutilised while the industry starves for investments and the government loses tax revenues.

Called the Legal Practitioner (Regulation and maintenance of Standards in Professions, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010, it was drafted during the tenure of Khurshid’s predecessor M. Veerappa Moily and envisages a parallel watchdog, alongside the Bar Council of India (BCI).

In effect, the bill seeks to hand over controls of the entire judicial delivery system to a body, unrepresented by its stakeholders. What purpose will be served by creating such a parallel machinery, instead of strengthening the bar councils themselves, is writ large on the bill.

For one, the regulator will discharge the same functions and objectives for which the bar councils were set up — to deal with complaints of misconduct, formulate code of conduct of lawyers and provide legal aid to the poor.

The objectives and scope of bar councils are similar: Protect and promote the interest of the clients, encourage ethical obligations of lawyers with a strong sense of duty toward courts and tribunals where they appear and create legal awareness among the public and clients of their legal rights and duties.

Thus, the new watchdog will arrogate for itself these functions, core to the functioning of these councils. But Khurshid also seeks to do what is otherwise not allowed or explicitly banned under the Advocates Act — that is, allow the practice of the profession of law outside the defined scope.

The act says that there shall be only one class of persons entitled to practice law, directly or indirectly, namely, advocates. The term “advocate” as defined, means those entered in any role under the provisions of the Advocates Act.

The bill, however, also lists nine classes of legal professionals who do not purportedly constitute practicing of law under the act. These are: Qualified lawyers who are not practicing advocates, those doing legal services in their chambers, qualified lawyers engaged in drafting and conveyancing, income-tax practitioners, sales-tax practitioners, practitioners in revenue courts, customs clearance agents, customs and immigration law practitioners, trademark attorneys and patent attorneys. The bill seeks to empower a legal services board to act as a regulator for these professional, and grant them licence to practice law.

The bill also doubles the procedure for dealing with complaints against advocates by requiring an aggrieved client to go through the entire proceedings of completion of pleading, discovery of document, evidence and arguments, twice over — once under the proposed legislation and again under the Advocates Act.

The bill singles out lawyers enrolled under Advocates Act by making the directions of the board mandatory on the bar council, but non-mandatory on “other law professionals”. It also seeks to empower the board to determine and administer the terms and conditions of the practice of law, without even having a representative character, or being answerable to the advocates’ enrolment, that is granted under the Advocates Act.

A “consumer panel” of handpicked people chosen by the board to assist it will have “fair degree” of representation of existing and potential clients of practicing lawyers across India without the so called “clients” — yet unorganized and non-existent, neither as a body, nor as a class of professionals — having any say to elect or nominate members to the said panel.

Are we to see more or is it the complete picture: Of a complainant, then a government-appointed Ombudsman, a state-appointed consumer panel, a board to arm twist the bar, and a regulator to open up the practice of law to persons not registered under the Advocates Act.

This will also clearly be a move for back-door entry for various classes of foreign law firms into the country — a move which the Bar Council of India has resisted vigorously. It also indirectly defeats the legislative mandate that only an advocate can practice law in India — directly or indirectly.

(18-08-2011 – Manoj Kumar is joint general secretary of the Society of Indian Law Firms and managing partner of Hammurabi and Solomon, a law firm and corporate advisory. He can be reached at manoj.kumar@hammurabisolomon.com)

The approval will strengthen the coastal security in the coastline of the Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands in an effective manner by having a streamlined system of registration of all fishing vessels under a single law namely the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.

The Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands has proposed for promulgation of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Marine Fishing (Amendment) Regulation, 2011, with a view to amend the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Marine Fishing Regulation, 2003 (principal Regulation) to prohibit the use of fishing vessels for fishing purpose unless such fishing vessels are registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The aforesaid proposal has been initiated by the Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands keeping in view of the decision taken by the Government of India to have a streamlined system of registration of all fishing vessels under a single law, namely, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 for strengthening the Coastal Security.

Background :

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Marine Fishing Regulation, 2003 regulates the fishing by fishing vessels in the sea along with the coastline of the Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Keeping in view of the decision taken by the Government of India to have a streamlined system of registration of all fishing vessels under a single law namely the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 for strengthening the Coastal Security, the Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands has proposed for promulgation of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Marine Fishing (Amendment) Regulation, 2011, to prohibit the use of fishing vessels for fishing purpose unless such fishing vessels are registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.

The Commission submitted its Sixteenth Annual Report for the year 2008-09 on 23rd November, 2010. The recommendations contained in this Annual Report were examined in consultation with various Ministries / Departments, before finalizing Action Taken Memoranda on the recommendations.

In accordance with Section 12 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, the National Commission for Minorities, prepares and submits its Annual Report to the Central Government. Further, in accordance with section 13 of the NCM Act, 1992, the Annual Report of the Commission, together with a memorandum of Action Taken on the recommendations contained therein, in so far as they relate to the Central Government, and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any of such recommendations, and the Audit Report, are to be laid, as soon as may be after the reports are received, before each House of Parliament.

The Annual Report of the National Commission for Minorities for the year 2008-09 alongwith the Action Taken Memorandum on the recommendations contained therein will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament in its next Session.

This will meet the statutory requirement of Section 13 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.

The salient features of the proposed amendments are as follows:

(a) No change in Clause 4 (Incorporation of Institute) of the Bill is proposed in view of legal advice obtained from the Department of Legal Affairs.

(b) As regards Clause 5 (Composition of the Institute), it is proposed that:

(i) The President of the Institute shall be nominated by the Central Government from among the members other than the Director of the Institute.

(ii) The Institute shall consist of the Chief Secretary or his nominee, not below the rank of Secretary, to the Government of Karnataka, ex-officio.

(iii) The Institute shall consist of the following members namely:

(i) Seven persons of whom one shall be non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association and one each from biological, behavioural and physical sciences of repute from any university to be nominated by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed;

(ii) Four representatives of medical faculty of Indian universities of whom one shall be from NIMHANS to be nominated by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed;

(c) Under sub-clause 7(1) (Powers and Functions of President), the following may be substituted:

“There shall be a President of the Institute who shall be nominated by the Central Government from among the members other than the Director of the Institute”.

Background :

In October 2010 the Cabinet approved (i) declaring NIMHANS as an institution of national importance on the lines of AIIMS/ PGIMLR. and (ii) introduction of NIMHANS. Bangalore Bill. 2010 in Parliament with such modifications of drafting nature as may be considered necessary. In pursuance thereof, the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences. Bangalore Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 7lh December, 2010 for declaring NIMHANS as an institution of national importance. The Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred the aforesaid Bill to the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare for examination and report within three months. The fifty-third report on NIMHANS, Bangalore Bill. 2010 of the Committee was presented to the Rajya Sabha on 4th March, 2011 and a copy of the report was also laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 4th March 2011.

Qtr. ending on31.03.09 : 39,55,224

Qtr. ending on 31.12.10 : 42,49,344

As per latest available information, the number of cases disposed of in the High Courts from 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 is 12,41,393; and from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010, is 16,77,863.

There are three major acts of omission/commission on which the ministry of civil aviation and the minister in charge in particular has been severely indicted, viz hasty acquisition of aircraft, merger of AI and IA and bilateral agreement on international operations. However, acquisition of aircraft holds the key to the present crisis of survival of the national public carrier.

ACQUISITION

OF AIRCRAFT

The script starts from AI’s decision to change its acquisition plan from 28 aircrafts to 68 aircrafts from Boeing USA totaling Rs 38,149 crore (Para 3.1.1 of CAG Report)  comprising Rs 33,197 crore for 50 aircrafts for AI and Rs 4952 crore for 18 short range aircrafts for AI Charters Ltd. The following sequence of events speak for itself:

Date/  Brief details  of event.

30 October/3 Nov 2003:  Letters from 43 member delegation of US regarding AI’s proposed air craft acquisition forwarded to MoCA by PMO.

January 2004: AI submitted project report for acquisition of 28 aircrafts to  MoCA

27 January 2004: PMO forwarded two letters from Boeing to MoCA wherein Boeing indicated that economics of the acquisition project were dependent on number of aircrafts chosen.

29 June 2004: Director (S), MoCA recorded on file that there had been some “important developments” as submitted by Secretary, MoCA to the Principal Secretary to PMO that many international carriers were planning direct operations to USA/Canada and the A340-300 aircraft was going out of production in near future.  Therefore, AIL needed to review its proposal and consider suitable long range aircraft for its fleet. Further, it was understood that “Minister, Civil Aviation (CA) also impressed upon AIL in a meeting at

Mumbai to examine the feasibility of direct India-US/Canada flights”.

August 2004 : In a meeting on 2 August 2004 taken by the then Minister, Civil Aviation with Secretary, MoCA and CMD, AI it was decided that: Air India should revisit the proposal for purchase of Aircraft and submit a fresh project proposal to the government at the earliest which could include the revised requirements. MoCA communicated the above mentioned decisions on 5 August 2004 to AI and directed them to revisit the acquisition proposal and submit a fresh proposal, which would include revised requirements.

24 November 2004: AI Board considered and approved a revised long term fleet plan for 50 aircraft (two thirds on firm basis and one-third on option basis), apart from 18 aircraft for its subsidiary, AICL.  This process of revision took only four months.

         (Reference table 3.1 and 3.2 of CAG Report)

CAG rightly concluded:

“The above sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the erstwhile Air India was advised to revisit  its proposal by MoCA into expanding its requirement of aircraft. Whilst their earlier proposal for 28 aircraft had taken two years (from January 2002 to January 2004) to prepare and submit, the revised long-term fleet for 50 aircraft plan was completed in four months (from August to November 2004).”

GAME

CHANGER

Obviously the game changer in the acquisition process of enhancing the numbers, as desired by US Congressmen and Boeing, was the meeting on 29 June 2004 and 2 August 2004 after UPA-I government came to power and Praful Patel became the minister of civil aviation. Who was the beneficiary in the hasty change in acquisition plan without ensuring debt servicing capacity of AI? Obviously Boeing. Wikileaks reveals that in order  to hasten the enhanced deal, the US embassy put in a special request to ministry of external affairs that GoI conclude the deal prior to PM Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington in mid July 2005. This did not materialise. But the deal definitely went on at supersonic speed when Manmohan Singh took over the foreign ministry from Natwar Singh on November 6, 2005.  Look at the events:

15 December 2005 : CCEA (Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs) approved constitution of EGoM (Empowered Group of Minister) for final round of negotiation with lowest bidder.

20 December 2005 : Cabinet Secretariat communicated constitution of EGoM.

24 December 2005: EGoM held discussions with the representatives of Boeing and GE.

30 December 2005: PMO forwarded a copy of the note of the Chairman, EGoM to the PM on the action taken by the EGoM, where it approved acquisition of 50 aircraft by AI on firm basis, in addition to acquisition of 18 aircraft by AICL;

30 December 2005: PMO returned the note indicating that the “prime minister has seen the note and directed that the ministry of civil aviation may inform CCEA about the finalised transaction”.

30 December 2005: MoCA conveyed Gol’s approval to AI.

30 December 2005: On the same day, AI also signed purchase agreements.

                            (Reference Table 3.1 of CAG Report)

December 30, 2005 can be a red letter day in the history of independent India when purchase agreement of Rs 33,000 crore was signed after approval of EGoM, PM on the same day! Why this haste? A deadline was to be met. US President Bush was to visit India on March 01, 2006. A friendly gift from the strategic partner at the cost of national exchequer!

In the case of Indian Airlines too, the ministry of civil aviation had pushed for the acquisition of  43 aircrafts from French company Airbus for Rs 8339 crore in February 2006 with undue haste, ignoring the concern of several officials about the financial viability of such a largescale acquisition. The CAG report notes that “the large acquisition was clearly driven under the influence of MoCA”.

COPU HITS

THE NAIL

The CoPU in its report in March 2010 summed up the issue categorically when it said “The Committee feel that the lack of continuity of polices as is manifest in the failure of the concerned entities to adhere to plans (made by positions in authority) regarding the revenue sources for financing the acquisition projects reveal an underlying lack of sense of ownership and public responsibility”.

Who will be accountable for “lack of sense of ownership and public responsibility” for more than Rs 40,000 crore worth acquisition which CAG calls “supply driven” i.e. an acquisition to protect the interest of supplier of aircrafts? CAG, constitutionally the supreme auditing authority of the country and CoPU, a joint parliamentary committee, had diagnosed and held MoCA and the minister in charge directly responsible.

In the present case PAC is not necessary to examine CAG report as CoPU, headed by veteran Congress parliamentarian Kishore Chandra Deo, had already examined the issue and submitted an unanimous report one and half years’ back, on which the government has not acted so far. Why? Manmohan Singh and Congressmen, when cornered, cited parliamentary Standing Committee as “supreme authority”, a `mini parliament’ and so on and so forth for Lokpal Bill. Now, why this contemptuous disregard for CoPU’s recommendations?

As a matter of fact on issue of merger, CoPU is more emphatic when it says in recommendation No.3.

 “The Committee also recommends that all the loss attributable to merger of IA and AI should be recouped by the government as the decision of merger was a policy decision spearheaded by the ministry in-charge”

What more indictment do you expect? Read this along with what CAG says “In our view, the potential benefit for the merger would have been far higher, had this been undertaken before finalisation of massive and separate fleet acquisition exercises undertaken by AI and IA.”  This makes the acquisition deal much more murkier leading to stupendous loss to AI and IA, which has to be now recouped by government through tax payers’ money.  Who is accountable for this huge loss?  Praful Patel, like A Raja, says in the decision for hasty acquisition of fleet both PM and the then FM were in loop.  What will PM say? “Coalition compulsion” or “Compulsion of Strategic Partnership?” US embassy communication in April 2005 as reported by Wikileaks says “The large procurement such as this one require multi pronged strategies.  While it is important to nurture the technical interlocutors on technical aspect of the bid (eg. price, delivery schedules, counter trade offset) it is equally, if not more, important for company leadership to touch the right political bases at the right levels”.

IS THERE ANY

ACCOUNTABILITY?

Right levels were obviously touched.  The modalities of touching is also not unknown to the country – remember Rs 64 crore spent by the US company Enron for political education. Sections of media and civil society can seek blood selectively for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. But they are silent when the “strategic partner” and its company are involved. They are silent when Patel, an industrialist, articulate, media savvy, and above all the darling of private civil aviation lobby is involved. The walk the talkers, the Padmashree TV anchors, the corporate media are only keen on privatising  Air India but they are eloquently dumb on the scam, leading to the disaster thrust on public carriers. When CAG and CoPU are ignored and the major opposition party and media are silent, public opinion has to be created for immediate resignation of Praful Patel who has been identified and indicted by both CAG & CoPU without any ambiguity.  An independent probe should be conducted, to find out the other culprits for the well scripted disaster plan of Air India. There has to be some accountability if a parliamentary system is to be sustained.

FOREWORD

Infrastructure across the country must expand rapidly. Industrialisation,  especially based on manufacturing has also to accelerate. Urbanisation is  inevitable. Land is an essential requirement for all these processes.  Government also needs to acquire land for a variety of public purposes.  In every case, land acquisition must take place in a manner that fully  protects the interests of land-owners and also of those whose livelihoods  depend on the land being acquired. 

Under our Constitution, land is a State subject but land acquisition is a  Concurrent subject. So far, the basic law governing the land acquisition  process has been the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Although it has been  amended from time to time, it is painfully evident that the basic law has  become archaic.

Land markets in India are imperfect. There is asymmetry of power (and  information) between those wanting to acquire the land and those whose  lands are being acquired. That is why there has to be a role for the  government to put in place a transparent and flexible set of rules and  regulations and to ensure its enforcement.

Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) need to be  seen necessarily as two sides of the same coin. R&R must always, in each  instance, necessarily follow upon acquisition of land. Not combining the  two – R&R and land acquisition – within one law, risks neglect of R&R.  This has, indeed, been the experience thus far.

This draft Bill seeks to balance the need for facilitating land acquisition  for various public purposes including infrastructure development,  industrialisation and urbanisation, while at the same time meaningfully  addressing the concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are  dependent on the land being acquired.

The issue of who acquires land is less important than the process of land  acquisition, compensation for land acquired and the R&R process,  package and conditions. This draft Bill specifies these irrespective of the  ratios of private and government acquisition. The objective is to make  the process of land acquisition easy, transparent and fair for both sides  in each instance. This draft Bill covers all cases (0-100%, 50-50%, 70- 30%, 90-10%, 100-0% and all other possible combinations in between),

II.
THE DRAFT LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT BILL (LARR), 2011 –
AN OVERVIEW
Ministry of Rural Development Government of India July 29 th , 2011
Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

 Why a New Law?l1
 Why a Combined Law?l
 Scope of the Draft Billl
 Salient Features of the Draft Billl
– Definition of ‘Public Purpose’
– Urgency
– Definition of ‘Affected Family’
– Minimum Compensation for Land
– Minimum R&R Entitlements
– Infrastructural Amenities
– Compliance with Other Laws
– Process Flow
– Institutional Structure 
– Safeguards 
– Transparency
– Penalties
– Awards
Agenda

Draft for Discussion purposes  Only
Heightened public concern on Land Acquisition issuesl2
Absence of a national law to provide for the resettlement, rehabilitation and compensation for loss of livelihoodsl
Why a New Law Public  Concern

While multiple amendments have been made to the Original Act, the principal law continues to be the same i.e. the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 Outdated  Lawl

Addressing concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquiredl
While facilitating land acquisition for industrialisation, infrastructure and urbanisation Need  for  Balance Draft for Discussion purposes  Onlyl

3Why a Combined Law

1. Land Acquisition and Resettlement &  Rehabilitation need to be seen necessarily  as two sides of the same coin
2. Resettlement & Rehabilitation must always, in each instance, necessarily follow upon  acquisition of land
3. Not combining the two – R&R and land  acquisition – within one law, risks neglect  of R&R. This has, indeed, been the  experience thus far

4. This is the first National/ Central Law on the  subject of Resettlement and Rehabilitation  of families affected and displaced as a  result of land acquisition Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

Both LA and R&R Provisions will apply when:
1. Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control
2. Government acquires land with the ultimate purpose to transfer it for the use of private companies for stated public purpose (including PPP projects but other than national highway projects)

3. Government acquires land for immediate and declared use by  private companies for public purpose Note I: Public purpose for 2. & 3. above, once stated, cannot  be changed

Note II: Land Acquisition under 2. & 3. above can take place  provided 80% of the project affected families give consent  to the proposed acquisition.

Scope of LARR, 2011
Note: Government does not envisage acquiring:
1. Land for private companies for private purposes. Or
2. Any multi-crop irrigated land for public purposes Only R&R provisions will apply when:

1. Private companies buy land, equal to or more than 100  acres, on their own;
2. Private company approaches Government for partial  acquisition for public purpose.
Draft for Discussion purposes  Only 5The following categories are considered as public  purpose:
1. Strategic purposes: e.g., armed forces,  national security;
2. Infrastructure and Industry: where benefits  largely accrue to the general public;
3. Land acquired for R&R purposes;
4. Village or urban sites: planned development - residential purpose for the poor and educational  and health schemes;
5. Land for private companies for public  purpose;
6. Needs arising from natural calamities. Salient Features of the Draft Bill Definition of Public Purpose Draft for Discussion purposes  Only
6 Salient Features of the Draft Bill Urgency Clause
The Urgency Clause can only be invoked in  mthe following cases:
1. National defense and security purposes
2. R&R needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities
3. To be exercised in ‘rarest of rare’ cases Draft for Discussion purposes  Only
7• Land Owners:
1. Family whose land/other immovable  properties have been acquired;
2. Those who are assigned land by the  Governments under various schemes;
3. Right holders under the Forest Rights Act,  2006
• Livelihood Losers:
1. A family whose livelihood is primarily  dependent on the land being acquired
2. May or may not own property
Salient Features of the Draft Bill Affected Families Draft for Discussion purposes  Only
8A Comprehensive Compensation Package (Schedule I)
1. Market value of the land:
a) the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian  Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds in the  area, where the land is situated; or
b) the average of the sale price for similar type of land  situated in the village or vicinity, ascertained from fifty per  cent of the sale deeds registered during the preceding  three years, where higher price has been paid; or whichever is higher:
PROVIDED THAT THE MARKET VALUE SO CALCULATED
SHALL BE MULTIPLIED BY THREE IN RURAL AREAS.
2. Value of the assets attached to land:  Building/Trees/Wells/Crop etc as valued by relevant govt.  authority; Total compensation = 1+2

3. Solatium: 100% of total compensation Salient Features of the Draft Bill Minimum Compensation for Land Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

This implies that in case of urban areas, the award  amount would be not less than twice that of the market  value determined, whereas in rural areas it would be not  less than six times the original market valueSalient Features of the Draft Bill Minimum R&R Entitlements

A Comprehensive R&R Package (Schedule II and Draft Bill) For Land Owners:

1. Subsistence allowance at Rs. 3000 per month per family for  12 months;
2. Rs 2000 per month per family as annuity for 20 years, with  appropriate index for inflation;
3. If house is lost, a constructed house of plinth area of 150  sq mts of house site in rural areas or 50 sq mts plinth area  in urban area;
4. One acre of land to each family in the command area, if land is acquired for an irrigation project;
5. Rs 50,000 for transportation;
6. Where land is acquired for urbanization, 20% of the  developed land will be reserved and offered to land owners,  in proportion to their land acquired;
7. Upon every transfer of land within 10 years of the date of acquisition, 20% of the appreciated value shall be shared with the original owner whose land has been acquired;
8. Mandatory employment for one member per affected family
or 2 lakh rupees if employment is not offered;
9. Offer of shares up to 25% of the Compensation amount Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

10Salient Features of the Draft Bill Minimum R&R Entitlements
A Comprehensive R&R Package (Schedule II) For Livelihood losers (including landless):
1.Subsistence allowance at Rs. 3000 per month per family for 12 months;
2.Rs 2000 per month per family as annuity for 20 years, with appropriate index for inflation;
3.If home-less, a constructed house (plinth area) on
150 sqmts of house site in rural areas or 50 sqmts in urban area, provided free of cost;
4.A one-time ‘Resettlement Allowance’ of Rs 50,000;
5.Rs 50,000 for transportation;
6.Mandatory employment for one member per affected  family or 2 lakh rupees.Draft for Discussion purposes Only

A Comprehensive R&R Package (Schedule II) Special Provisions for ST’s

1. One acre of land to each ST family in every project;
2. One time financial assistance of Rs 50,000 for ST  families;
3. ST families settled outside the district shall be entitled  to an additional 25% R&R benefits (and a one time  payment of Rs 50,000) to which they are entitled in  monetary terms;
4. Payment of one third of the compensation amount at  very outset to ST families;
5. Preference in relocation and resettlement in area in  same compact block;
6. Free land for community and social gatherings;
7. In case of displacement of 100 or more ST families, a  Tribal Displacement Plan is to be prepared:
-Detailing process to be followed for settling land  rights and restoring titles on alienated land;
-Details of programme for development of alternate  fuel, fodder and non-timber forest produce. Salient Features of the Draft Bill
Minimum R&R Entitlements Continuation of reservation and other benefits from  displaced area to resettlement area for both SCs and STs
Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

Salient Features of the Draft Bill Infrastructural Amenities to be provided (Schedule III)

25 infrastructural amenities to be provided in the  Resettlement area, including:
• Schools and playgrounds;
• Health Centres;
• Roads and electric connections;
• Assured sources of safe drinking water for each family;
• Panchayat Ghars;
• Anganwadi’s providing child and mother supplemental  nutritional services;
• Places of worship and burial and/or cremation ground;
• Village level Post Offices, as appropriate, with facilities  for opening saving accounts;
• Fair price shops and seed-cum-fertilizer storage  facilities Draft for Discussion purposes  OnlyThe Provisions of the New Law shall be fully  compliant with other laws such as:
• The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled  Areas) Act, 1996;
• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest  Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006;
• Land Transfer Regulations in Schedule V Areas. Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

Salient Features of the Draft Bill Compliance with other Laws Salient Features of the Draft Bill Process Flow Proposal is  Received by the  Appropriate  Government Legitimacy of ‘Public  Purpose’ and SIA is  approved by CS  Committee Social Impact  Assessment (SIA)  Conducted by  Appropriate Government Finalization of R&R  Scheme (within 6  months of PN) Publication of  Preliminary  Notification to acquire Public Hearing PreNotification Notification

• Collector submits  report on status  of alternative sites Awards

Draft for Discussion purposes  Only Draft Declaration& R&R Scheme  published

• SIA to be  examined by  independent  Expert Group
• Consent of 80% of  Affected soughtSalient Features of the Draft Bill
Institutional Structure National LA&RR Dispute Settlement
Authority State LA&RR Dispute  Settlement Authority State Commissioner,  RR Administrator, RR District Collector RR Committee Centre State Projectlevel
• Dispute Resolution  for Central Projects
• Dispute Resolution  for State Projects
• Overall Admin for  LA&RR in State
• Admin Project-level  RR
• Overall coordination  and implementation
• Oversight (Elected  reps, civil society, line  agencies)  Chief Secy Committee
• Determine whether  projects are for public  purpose National Monitoring  Committee

• Oversight at Central
Level

Draft for Discussion purposes
OnlySalient Features of the Draft Bill
Safeguards against indiscriminate acquisition
• Social Impact Assessment made mandatory where
area to be acquired is equal to or greater than 100
acres;
• Chief Secretary Committee to approve ‘public
purpose’ and approve the SIA report;
• Draft Notification to include:
– Summary of SIA
– Particulars of Administrator for R&R who
prepares R&R scheme
• Draft Declaration to include:
– Summary of R&R package
• Return of Land: Land returned to original owner if
not used in 5 years for the purpose for which it is
acquired, one-fourth of the award amount for the land
acquired
– Provided government can use land acquired for a
department to some other department
Draft for Discussion purposes
Only

Salient Features of the Draft Bill
Transparency Provisions
• Social Impact Assessment
– Gram Sabha to be consulted
– Summary of SIA notified along with Draft
Notification
– SIA document made available for public scrutiny
• R&R Scheme
– Summary notified along with Draft declaration
– Made available for public scrutiny
• Individual Awards passed
• Public Disclosure
– All documents mandatorily to be made available  in the public domain and on the website Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

Salient Features of the Draft Bill
Penalties Punishment for false information, Mala Fide  action, etc
• If False or Misleading Documents: Will result in the levy of a fine of up to one lakh rupees and/ or with imprisonment up to a month.

• If R&R benefits obtained on false information: Shall be recovered by the Appropriate Authority.

• Disciplinary Proceedings against Govt. Officers: A Government servant who is guilty of a mala fide action in respect of any provision of this Act and he shall be liable to such punishment (and fine) as the disciplinary authority may decide.
Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

Salient Features of the Draft Bill
Awards Collector passes 2 types of Awards:

1. Award for Land Acquisition – Award made in respect of every affected family
whose land is being acquired and containing details of LA compensation as listed in

Schedule I;

2. Award for R&R – Award made in respect of every affected family, regardless of whether they may be losing land or not, containing details of R&R entitlements as
listed in Schedule II. Provided that Land will not be transferred until
R&R is completed Draft for Discussion purposes  Only

III.

The Draft Land Acquisition and
Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bill, 2011Draft for Discussion
1
THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT BILL 2011
PREAMBLE

A Draft Bill to balance the need for facilitating land acquisition for industrialisation,  development of essential infrastructure facilities and urbanisation, while at the same time to  meaningfully address the concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on  the land being acquired;

And to prevent the human and social suffering caused by involuntary displacement, by  minimizing the displacement of affected persons and mitigating the adverse impacts on  people and their habitats; And comprehensively defining and identifying project affected persons/families to ensure  that they are provided with a just compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement package,  sensitive to the aspirations, culture, community, natural resource base and skill base of the  affected people;  And ensuring a humane, participatory, informed, consultative and transparent process; and  above all ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that  affected persons become partners in development.

 It is hereby enacted as follows:

1. Short title, Extent and Commencement:
(1) This Bill may be called the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the date notified by the Government in the Official  Gazette which shall not be more than three months from the passage of the Bill by both  houses of Parliament;

1A. Applicability of the Law:
(1)The provisions of this Act, shall apply in their entirety when:-
(a) the Appropriate Government acquires land for its own use, to hold and to control;
(b) Government acquires land with the ultimate intent to transfer it for the use of  private companies for stated public purpose (including Public Private Partnership projects but not including national or state highway projects);
(c) the Appropriate Government acquires land for immediate and declared use by
private companies for public purpose; PROVIDED that the Public purpose for sub sections (b) and (c) above, once stated, cannot be
changed.
PROVIDED FURTHER that Land Acquisition under sub sections (b) and (c) above can take place  where at least 80 per cent of the affected families give their consent to the proposed  acquisition.
(2) Only the provisions relating to rehabilitation and resettlement shall apply when:-
(a) Private companies purchase or acquire land, equal to or more than one hundred  acres, on their own;
(b) a private company approaches the Appropriate Government for partial acquisition  of an area so identified for a public purpose.
PROVIDED that where a private company seeks Government intervention for partial  acquisition then the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements shall be applicable for Draft for Discussionthe entire area identified for acquisition by the private company and not just the area  for which the intervention is sought.
(3) All entitlements set forth in this Act shall be the absolute minimum to be guaranteed to  those so entitled and no States shall in any manner limit or restrict the entitlements so  enumerated.
PROVIDED nothing in this section shall prevent the States from enacting legislations or similar  instruments having the force of law, to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated in this  Act.
2. Definitions
In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context;-
(a) the expression “Administrator” means an officer appointed for the purpose of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement of affected families under section 8;
(b) the expression “Affected Area” means an area of village or locality notified by the
Appropriate Government for the purposes of land acquisition;
(c) the expression “Affected Family” means-
(i) a family whose land or other immovable property has been acquired or  which is involuntarily and permanently displaced from their land or immovable property;
(ii) a landless family, which includes agriculture labourer or artisans, which has been  working in the affected area and whose primary source of livelihood has been  affected by land acquisition in such area;
(iii) tribals and other traditional forest dwellers, who have lost any traditional rights
recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers  (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006;
(iv) Any individuals who have been assigned land by the State or Central Government  under various schemes.
PROVIDED that where as a result of the acquisition there is a loss of their primary
source of livelihood, families which are dependent on forests or waterbodies for their
livelihoods, including forest gatherers, hunters, fisher folk and boatmen shall be
included.
(d) the expression “Agricultural Land” means lands being used for the purpose of-
(i) agriculture or horticulture;
(ii) dairy farming, poultry farming, pisciculture, sericulture, breeding of livestock or
nursery growing medicinal herbs;
(iii) raising of crops, grass or garden produce; andDraft for Discussion

(iv) land use for the grazing of cattle.
(e) the expression “Appropriate Government” means,-
(i) in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union, the Central
Government;
(ii) in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of any infrastructure project in
more than one State, the Central Government; and
(iii) in relation to acquisition of land for any other purpose, the State Government;
(iv) in relation to Rehabilitation and Resettlement, the State Government;
(f) the expression “Authority” means the State Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Disputes Settlement Authority in respect of a State and the Central Land  Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Disputes Settlement Authority in respect of the  Centre;
(g) the expression “Collector” means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy  Commissioner and any officer specially designated by the Appropriate Government to  perform the functions of a Collector under this Act;
(h) the expression “Cost of Acquisition” includes-
(i) compensation award amount which includes Solatium, any enhanced compensation  ordered by Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Dispute Settlement  Authority or the relevant High Court and any other amount and interest payable  thereupon;
(ii) demurrage to be paid for damages caused to the land and standing crops in the  process of acquisition;
(iii) cost of acquisition of sites which are out of project land for settlement of
displaced or adversely affected families;
(iv) cost of development of infrastructure and amenities at resettlement areas;
(v) cost of Rehabilitation and Resettlement as per the Act;
(vi) administrative cost of acquisition of land including both in project site and out of  project area lands;
(vii) administrative cost involved in planning and implementation of Rehabilitation
and Resettlement packages for providing physical rehabilitation and resettlement to
the entitled and interested families, displaced or adversely affected on account of inproject acquisition of land; and
(viii) Cost of undertaking ‘Social Impact Assessment;’;Draft for Discussion

(i) the expression “Court” means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction;
(j) the expression “Company” means –
(i) a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), other
than a Government company;
(ii) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or
under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, other than a
society referred to in clause;
(k) the expression “Displaced family” means any family, who on account of acquisition of  land has to be relocated and resettled from the affected area to the resettlement area;
(l) the expression “Family” includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor  brothers, minor sisters dependent on him;
Explanation –An adult of either gender with or without spouse or children or dependents may  be considered as a separate family for the purposes of this Act.
(m) the expression “Holding” means the total land held by a person as an owner, occupant or  tenant or as both;
(n) the expression “Infrastructure Project” shall include,-
(i) any project relating to generation, transmission or supply of electricity;
(ii) construction of roads, highways, defence, bridges, airports, ports, rail systems or
mining activities, educational, sports, health care, tourism, transportation, space
programme and housing for such income groups, as may be specified from time to
time by the appropriate Government;
(iii) water supply project, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system; or
(iv) any other public facility as may be notified in this regard by the Central
Government in the Official Gazette;’;
(o) the expression “Land” includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the
earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth;
(p) the expression “Landless” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in relevant state  laws;
(q) the expression “Land Owner” includes any person who is reflected as the owner of the
land in the land records or any person who is granted Patta rights or is entitled to be granted
Patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands;
(r) the expression “Local Authority” includes a town planning authority (by whatever name
called) set up under any law for the time being in force; Draft for Discussion
5
(s) the expression “Marginal Farmer” means a cultivator with an un-irrigated land holding
up to one hectare or irrigated land holding up to half hectare;
(t) the expression “Notification” means a notification published in the Gazette of India or, as
the case may be, the Gazette of a State;
(u) the expression “Patta” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the relevant state
laws;
(v) the expression “Person Interested” means-
(i) all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the
acquisition of land under this Act;
(ii) tribals and other traditional forest dwellers, who have lost any traditional rights
recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006;
(iii) a person interested in an easement affecting the land; and
(iv) persons having tenancy rights under the relevant State laws
(w) the expression “Prescribed” means prescribed by Rules made under this Act;
(x) the expression “Project” means a project for which land is being acquired, irrespective of
the number of persons affected;
(y) the expression “Public Purpose” includes-
(i) the provision of land for strategic purposes relating to naval, military, air force and
armed forces of the Union or any work vital to national security or defence of India or
State police, safety of the people;
(ii) the provision of land for infrastructure, industrialization and urbanization projects
of the appropriate Government, where the benefits largely accrue to the general
public;
(iii) the provision of village or urban sites, acquisition of land for the project affected
people, planned development or improvement of village sites, provision of land for
residential purpose to the poor, government administered educational and health
schemes,
(iv) the provision of land for any other purpose useful to the general public, including
land for companies, for which at least 80 per cent of the project affected people have
given their consent through a prior informed process;
PROVIDED that where a private company after having purchased part of the land
needed for a project, for public purpose, seeks the intervention of the Appropriate
Government to acquire the balance of the land it shall be bound by Rehabilitation and Draft for Discussion
Resettlement provisions of this Act for the land already acquired through private
negotiations and it shall be bound by all provisions of this Act for the balance area
sought to be acquired.
(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons  residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by  reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local
authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State;’;
Explanation-The word “person” shall include any company or
association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;’;
(z) the expression “Requiring Body” means a company, a body corporate, an institution, or  any other organisation for whom land is to be acquired by the appropriate Government, and
includes the Appropriate Government, if the acquisition of land is for such Government  either for its own use or for subsequent transfer of such land in public interest to a company; body corporate, an institution, or any other organisation, as the case may be, under lease,  licence or through any other mode of transfer of land;
(aa) the expression “Resettlement Area” means an area where the affected families who  have been displaced as a result of land acquisition are resettled by the Appropriate
Government;
(bb) the expression “Small Farmer” means a cultivator with an un-irrigated land holding up  to two hectares or with an irrigated land holding up to one hectare, but more than the  holding of a marginal farmer.
(cc) the following persons shall be deemed person “entitled to act” as and to the extent  hereinafter provided (that is to say)- trustees for other persons beneficially interested shall be deemed to be the person entitled to  act with reference to any such case, and that to the same extent as the person beneficially  interested could have acted if free from disability;  the guardians of minors and the committees or managers of lunatics shall be deemed  respectively the persons so entitled to act, to the same extent as the minors, lunatics or other  persons of unsound mind themselves, if free from disability, could have acted:
PROVIDED that the provisions of [Order XXXII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in the case of persons interested  appearing before a Collector or Authority by a next friend, or by a guardian for the case, in  proceedings under this Act; and  (dd) the expression “Website” shall mean an online portal created by the Appropriate  Government to provide a single repository of information presented online and to be accessed  by the public at large and to track the steps in the land acquisition process from Social Impact  Assessment to Rehabilitation and Resettlement.Draft for Discussion

PART II
DETERMINATION OF SOCIAL IMPACT AND PUBLIC PURPOSE
Preliminary Investigation
3. Preparation of Social Impact Assessment
(1) Whenever the Appropriate Government intends to acquire land equal to or more than one  hundred acres for a public purpose, a Social Impact Assessment study shall be carried out in  the affected area in consultation with the Gram Sabha at habitation level or equivalent body  in urban areas, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. The Social Impact Assessment study shall include assessment of;
(a) nature of public interest involved;
(b) estimation of affected families and among them how many are likely to be
displaced;
(c) socio-economic impact the families left behind suffer;
(d) extent of lands, public and private, houses, settlements and other common
properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition;
(e) whether extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-minimum
extent needed for the project;
(f) financial, social and environmental costs and benefits;
(g) whether less or non-displacing alternatives not technically or geographically available;
(h) social and environmental impacts from the project, and the nature and cost of  addressing them and their impact on the project’s overall costs and benefits vis-à-vis  the social and environmental costs(2) While undertaking a Social Impact Assessment  under sub-section (1), the Appropriate Government shall, inter alia, take into  consideration the impact that the project will have on public and community  properties, assets and infrastructure particularly roads, public transport, drainage,  sanitation, sources of drinking water, sources of water for cattle, community ponds,  grazing land, plantations, public utilities, such as post offices, fair price shops, food  storage godowns, electricity supply, health care facilities, schools and educational or  training facilities, anganwadis, children parks, places of worship, land for traditional  tribal institutions, burial and cremation grounds.
(3) The Appropriate Government may specify that the ameliorative measures, which will  need to be undertaken for addressing the said impact for a specific component, may not be  less than what is provided under a scheme or programme, in operation in that area, of the  Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government.Draft for Discussion

4. Public Hearing for Social Impact Assessment (1) The Appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected  area, , after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing at  the affected area, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included  in the Social Impact Assessment Report; Furthermore the Appropriate Government shall ensure that the Social Impact assessment  study report is published in the affected area, in the manner prescribed, and uploaded  mandatorily on a website created especially for this purpose.
(2) Wherever Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is taken up, a copy of the Social Impact  Assessment report shall be made available to the Impact Assessment Agency authorised in  respect of environmental impact assessment by the Central Government in the Ministry of  Environment and Forests
5. Appraisal of Social Impact Assessment Report by an Expert Group
(1) The Appropriate Government shall ensure the Social Impact Assessment report is  subjected to an examination by an independent multi-disciplinary expert group, as may be constituted;
PROVIDED that any expert group so constituted shall necessarily include the following
persons, namely: –
(a) two non-official social scientist;
(b) two experts on rehabilitation; and
(c) a technical expert in the area relating to the project.
(2) The expert committee shall make specific recommendations on public purpose, whether
the extent of land proposed to be acquired is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for
the project and whether there are no other less displacing options available
6. Exemption from Social Impact Assessment
Where land is proposed to be acquired invoking the urgency provisions under section  of  the Act, the appropriate Government may exempt undertaking of the Social Impact  Assessment study.
7. Constitution of Committee to examine proposals for Land Acquisition and the Social  Impact Assessment Report
(1) Where the acquisition involves any extent of land, the Appropriate Government shall  constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary or officer of  equivalent rank, consisting of the Secretaries of the Departments of Finance, Revenue, Rural  Development, Social Justice, Tribal Welfare, Panchayati Raj and the concerned Departments  and not more than three experts from the relevant fields, to examine proposals for land  acquisition.
(2) The Committee shall ensure that-
(a) there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose behind the proposed acquisition
which necessitates the acquisition of the land identified;Draft for Discussion
9
(b) this public purpose shall, on a balance of convenience and in the long term, be in
the larger public interest so as to justify the impact as determined by the Social Impact  Assessment where carried out;
(c) only the absolute minimum area of land required for the project is proposed to be  acquired;
(d) the Collector of the district, where the acquisition of land is proposed,  has explored the possibilities of utilising waste, degraded, barren lands and that  the agricultural land, especially land under assured irrigation is being acquired only as a last resort
PROVIDED that that no irrigated multi-crop land will be proposed for acquisition under  any circumstances
(3) The Committee shall examine the report of the Collector and the report given by the  Expert Committee on the Social Impact Assessment and after considering all the reports,  recommend such area for acquisition which may follow the principle of minimum
displacement of people, minimum disturbance to the infrastructure, ecology and minimum  adverse impact on the individuals affected.
(4) The Appropriate Government shall make available the decision of the Committee in the  public domain and also upload the same on the website created for this purpose.
PROVIDED that where land is sought to be acquired in the manner as specified in sub-section
(1)(b) and (1)(c) of Section 1A, the Committee shall also ascertain as to whether the consent  of 80 per cent of the affected families has been obtained in a manner that may be prescribed. Draft for Discussion
PART III
NOTIFICATION AND ACQUISITION
8. Appointment of Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement Whenever, it  appears to the Appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be  required for any public purpose, it shall appoint an Administrator for Rehabilitation and  Resettlement as per the provisions of section 31 and on such terms and of such qualifications  as may be prescribed by the Appropriate Government;
9. Publication of Preliminary Notification and Power of Officers thereupon
(1) Whenever, it appears to the Appropriate Government that land in any area is required or  likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification to that effect along with details of  the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the following manner,  namely:-
(i) in the Official Gazette;
(ii) in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which one shall be in
regional language;
(iii) on the website of the appropriate Government in public domain;
(iv) by making available for inspection by persons affected, at the tehsil or gram  panchayat or urban local body office;
(v) the Collector shall also cause public notice of the substance of such notification to  be put up at convenient places in the said locality: and PROVIDED that no notification shall be issued under this section unless the concerned
Gram Sabha at the village level and equivalent forum in Urban Local Bodies, as the  case may be, or Autonomous Councils in the Sixth Schedule Areas have been  consulted in all cases of land acquisition in such areas as per the provisions of all  relevant laws for the time being in force:  PROVIDED FURTHER that where no declaration is made consequent upon the issue of a  notification under sub-section (1) within the time limit of twelve months from the date  of the notification shall be deemed to have lapsed: PROVIDED ALSO that if that if a Notification under this section is not issued within six
months from the date of appraisal of the Social Impact Assessment report by the  Expert Committee then the same shall be deemed to have lapsed and a fresh Social  Impact Assessment will have to be undertaken prior to acquisition proceedings under  this section.
(2) The Notification shall also contain a Statement on the nature of public purpose involved,  why less displacing alternatives are not feasible and summary of the Social Impact Draft for Discussion

Assessment Report and particulars of the Administrator appointed for the purposes of  Rehabilitation and Resettlement under this Act
(3) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the  preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of  publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Part are  completed:
PROVIDED that the Collector may, on the application made by the land owner  in respect of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded
in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub-section:  PROVIDED FURTHER that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful violation  of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector.
(4) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1), the Collector shall,  before the issue of a declaration under section 18, undertake and complete the exercise of  updating of land records as prescribed.
(5) The damages caused while carrying out works on land such as survey, digging or boring  sub-soil, marking boundaries or cutting trenches or clearing away any standing crop, fence or  forest or doing such other acts or things which may cause damages while acting under this  Act and particularly in relation to land which is excluded from acquisition proceeding, shall  be evaluated and compensation shall be paid to the persons having interest in that land, within  six months from the completion of the said works
10. Payment for damage
The officer so authorized under the provisions of this Act shall at the time of such entry pay  or tender payment for any damage caused, and, in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the  amount so paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector  or other chief revenue officer of the district, and such decision shall be final.

11. Hearing of objections
(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section
9, as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the  date of the publication of the notification, object to the extent and choice of land proposed to  be acquired, justification offered for public purpose, the findings of the Social Impact  Assessment report;
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the  Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person  authorized by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and  after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in  respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 9, or make  different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the Appropriate Government,  containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the  proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving approximate cost of land Draft for Discussion acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the  decision of that Government;
(3) The decision of the Appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.
12. Preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme by the Administrator
(1) Upon the publication of the Preliminary Notification under section 9 by the Collector, the  Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall conduct a baseline survey and  undertake a census of the affected families, in a manner as may be prescribed but which shall include;
(a) affected family wise particulars of lands and immovable properties being acquired,
livelihoods lost in respect of land losers and landless whose livelihoods are primarily
dependent on the lands being acquired;
(b) where resettlement of affected families is involved;-
(i) list of public utilities and Government buildings which are affected or
likely to be affected;
(ii) details of the amenities and infrastructural facilities which are affected or
likely to be affected.
(2) The Administrator Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall, based on the baseline survey  and census as detailed above, prepare Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, as prescribed  which shall include;
(a) affected family wise particulars of Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements in  respect of land losers and landless whose livelihoods are primarily dependent on the  lands being acquired and where resettlement of affected families is involved:-
(i) list of Government buildings to be provided in the Resettlement area;
(ii) details of the public amenities and infrastructural facilities which are to be
provided in the resettlement area;
(3) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme shall include time frame for  implementing Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme;
(4) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme shall be made known locally by wide  publicity in the affected area and discussed in the concerned gram sabhas or equivalent body  in the urban area;
(5) A Public hearing shall be conducted as prescribed, after giving adequate publicity about  the date, time and venue for the public hearing at the affected area. Where affected area  involves more than one Gram Panchayat, public hearings shall be conducted in every Gram  Sabha and equivalent forum in urban areas;Draft for Discussion

PROVIDED that the consultation with the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas under the Fifth  Schedule shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Provisions of the Panchayats  (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996
(6) The Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall, on completion of public  hearing submit the Scheme for Rehabilitation and Resettlement along with a specific report  on the claims and objections raised in the public hearing to the Collector.
(7) The Administrator shall cause the approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme to be  published in the Official Gazette, and make available in the affected areas with a copy of the  same being published on the website
13. Review of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme
(1) The Collector shall review the Scheme submitted by the Administrator with the  Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee at the Project level constituted under section 33;
(2) The Collector shall submit the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme with his remarks  to the Commissioner Rehabilitation and Resettlement for approval of the Scheme.
14. Declaration that Land is required for a public purpose and publication of R&R

Summary
(1) When the Appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made  under sub-section (2) of section 11, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a  declaration shall be made to that effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the  ‘resettlement area’ for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families,  under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to  certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of  different parcels of any land covered by the same notification irrespective of whether one  report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required);
(2) The Collector shall publish a summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme  along with Draft Declaration. PROVIDED that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the summary of the  Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is published along with such declaration.
PROVIDED FURTHER that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the  requiring body deposits an amount, in full or part, as may be prescribed by the Appropriate  Government toward the cost of acquisition.
(3) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers  circulating in the locality in which the land is situated of which at least one shall be in the  regional language, and the Collector shall publish the public notice on the website and cause  public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said  locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being  hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration  shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for Draft for Discussion

which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land,  the place where such plan may be inspected.
(5) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public  purpose and, after making such declaration, the Appropriate Government may acquire the  land in manner hereinafter appearing.
15. Land to be marked out, measured and planned-
(1) The Collector shall thereupon cause the land (unless it has been already marked our under
section 9) to be marked out. He shall also cause it to be measured, and (if no plan has been
made thereof), a plan to be made of the same;
16. Notice to persons interested
(1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on the website and cause public notice to be
given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government
intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation
and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him.
Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons
interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or pleader before the Collector at a
time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date
of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land
and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, their claims
to rehabilitation and resettlement along with their objections (if any) to the measurements
made under section 15.
The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the
party or his agent.
The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land
and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to entitled to act for
persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf,
within the revenue district in which the land is situate.
In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be
sent to him by post in letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place or
business and registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of
1898).
17. Power to require and enforce the making of statements as to names and interests
(1) The Collector may also require any such person to make or deliver to him, at a time and
place mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the
requisition), a statement containing, so far as may be practicable, the name of every other
person possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof as co-proprietor, sub-proprietor,
mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and of the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits Draft for Discussion

(if any), received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of
the statement.
Every person required to make or deliver a statement under this section shall be deemed to be
legally bound to do so within the meaning of sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860)
18. Enquiry and Land Acquisition Award by Collector
(1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the
Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has
stated pursuant to a notice given under section 16, to the measurements made under section
15, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification, and into
the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and rehabilitation and
resettlement, shall make an award under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation along with rehabilitation and resettlement scheme as determined
under section 12 and which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or
believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has
information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in a case where the notification under the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued before the commencement of this Act but the award
under sub-section (1) has not been made before such commencement, the Collector shall
make an award in accordance with the provisions of this Act, within one year from the
commencement of the Act.
19. Period within which an Award shall be made
The Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of the
publication of the declaration under section 9 and if no award is made within
that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.
20. Determination of market value of land by Collector
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market
value of the land;-
(a) the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the
registration of sale deeds in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average of the sale price for similar type of land situated in the village or
vicinity, ascertained from fifty per cent of the sale deeds registered during the
preceding three years, where higher price has been paid; orDraft for Discussion

whichever is higher:
PROVIDED that the market value so calculated shall be multiplied by three in rural areas.
(2) Where the provisions of sub-section (1) are not applicable for the reason that—
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or
under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds for similar land as mentioned in clause (i) of sub-section
(1) are not available for the preceding three years; or
(c) the minimum land value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
by the appropriate authority,
the concerned State Government shall specify the floor price per unit area of the said land
based on the average higher prices paid for similar type of land situated in the adjoining areas
or vicinity, ascertained from fifty per cent of the sale deeds registered during the preceding
three years where higher price has been paid, and the Collector shall calculate the value of the
land accordingly.
PROVIDED that the requiring authority, wherever possible, may offer 25 per cent of the
compensation value in shares belonging to the requiring authority or one of its sister
companies
21. Elements of Land Acquisition Award by Collector
(1) The Collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall
calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner by including all
assets attached to the land. To this end, the Collector may;
(a) in determining the market value of the building and other immovable property or
assets attached to the land or building which are to be acquired, use the services of a
competent engineer or any other specialist in the relevant field, as may be considered
necessary by the Collector.
(b) for the purpose of determining the value of trees and plants, use the services of
experienced persons in the field of agriculture, forestry, horticulture, sericulture, or
any other field, as may be considered necessary by the Collector.
(c) for the purpose of assessing the value of the standing crops damaged during the
process of land acquisition proceedings, may utilise the services of experienced
persons in the field of agriculture as he considers necessary.
(2) The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the
final award, impose a ‘Solatium’ amount equivalent to 100 per cent of the compensation
amount;Draft for Discussion

(3) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation
payable and the details of payment of the compensation as prescribed in Schedule I to this
Act;
22. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award by Collector
The Collector shall pass Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards in terms of the mandatory
entitlements provided in the Schedule II of the Act. Every family covered under the  Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award of the Collector shall be given family wise  proceedings indicating;
(a) Rehabilitation and Resettlement amount payable to the family and the bank
account number of the person to which the Rehabilitation and Resettlement award amount is to be transferred;
(b) Particulars of house site and house to be allotted, in case of displaced families;
(c) Particulars of Land allotted to the displaced families;
(d) Particulars of one time subsistence allowance, transportation allowance in case of
displaced families;
(e) Particulars of payment for Cattle Shed/ petty shops;
(f) Particulars of one-time amount to artisans and small traders;
(g) Details of mandatory employment to be provided to the members of the affected
families;
(h) Particulars of any Fishing rights that may be involved;
(i) Particulars of Annuity and other entitlements to be provided.
(j) Particulars of special provisions for SC’s and ST’s to be provided;
23. Provision of Infrastructural Amenities in the Resettlement Area
Where there are more than one hundred families displaced, then the Collector shall ensure the
provision of all infrastructural and basic amenities as listed in Schedule III of the Act.
24. Corrections to the Awards by the Collector
(1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or
where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the
Authority, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical
mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the
application of any person interested or local authorityDraft for Discussion

PROVIDED that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be
made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation in
the matter
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any corrections made in the award so
corrected to all the persons interested
(3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the
correction made under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to refunded
and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, the same may be recovered, as prescribed by
the Appropriate Government.
25. Awards of Collector when to be final
(1) The Awards shall be filed in the Collector’s office and shall, except as hereinafter
provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons
interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true
area and market value of the land and the assets attached thereto, and the apportionment of
the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his awards to such of the persons interested
as are not present personally or by their representatives when the awards are made.
(3) The Collector shall keep open to the public and display a summary of the entire
proceedings undertaken in a case of acquisition of land including the amount of
compensation awarded to each individual along with details of the land finally acquired under
this Act on the website created for this purpose.
26. Adjournment of enquiry
The Collector may, for any cause he thinks fit, from time to time adjourn the enquiry to a day
to be fixed by him.
27. Power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses and production of documents
For the purpose of enquiries under this Act the Collector shall have powers to summon and
enforce the attendance of witnesses, including the parties interested of any of them, and to
compel the production of documents by the same means, and (so far as may be) in the same
manner as is provided in the case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5
of 1908).
28. Power to call for records, etc.
The Appropriate Government may at any time before the award is made by the Collector
under section 18 call for any record of any proceedings (whether by way of inquiry or
otherwise) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any findings or
order passed or as to the regularity of such proceedings and may pass such order or issue such
direction in relation thereto as it may think fit: Draft for Discussion
PROVIDED that the Appropriate Government shall not pass or issue any order or direction
prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
29. Power to take Possession
(1) The Collector shall ensure that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and
resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three
months for the compensation and a period of six months for the rehabilitation and
resettlement entitlements commencing from the date of the award under section 18;
(2) The Collector shall be responsible for ensuring that the rehabilitation and resettlement
process is completed in all its aspects;
(3) On the fulfillment of the condition provided in sub-section(1) and (2) above, the Collector
shall take possession of the land acquired, which shall, thereupon, vest absolutely in the
Government, free from all encumbrances.
30. Special powers in case of urgency
(1) In cases of urgency, whenever the Appropriate Government so directs, the Collector,
though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the
publication of the notice mentioned in section 9 take possession of any land needed for a
public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all
encumbrances.
(2) The powers of the Appropriate Government under sub-section (1) shall be restricted to the
minimum area required for the defence of India or national security or for any emergencies
arising out of natural calamities;
PROVIDED that the powers listed under this section shall be used in the rarest of rare cases.
PROVIDED FURTHER that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a
building under this sub-section without giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight
hours notice of his intention to do so, or such longer notice as may be reasonably sufficient to
enable such occupier to remove his movable property from such building without  unnecessary inconvenience.
(3) Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the
Collector shall tender payment of eighty per cent of the compensation for such land as
estimated by him to the person interested entitled thereto;
(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the Appropriate Government, the
provisions of sub-section (1), sub-section(2) or sub-section (3) are applicable, the
Appropriate Government may direct that any or all of the provisions of Part II shall not apply,
and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 18 in respect of the land at
any time after the date of the publication of the notification under section 9, sub-section (1).Draft for Discussion
(5) An additional compensation of seventy-five per cent of the market value as determined
under the provisions of this Act, shall be paid by the Collector in respect of land and
property for acquisition of which proceedings have been initiated under sub-section (1) of
this section.Draft for Discussion

PART IV
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
Institutional Arrangements
31. Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(1) Where the Appropriate Government is satisfied that there is likely to be involuntary
displacement of persons due to acquisition of land, then, the State Government shall, by
notification, appoint in respect of that project, an officer not below the rank of Joint Collector
or Additional Collector or Deputy Collector or equivalent official of Revenue Dept to be the
Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(2) The Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement shall, with a view to enable him to
function efficiently and to meet the special time-frame, be provided with such powers, duties
and responsibilities as may be prescribed by the Appropriate Government and provided with
office infrastructure and be assisted by such officers and employees who shall be subordinate
to him as the Appropriate Government may decide.
(3) Subject to the superintendence, directions and control of the Appropriate Government and
the Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement, the formulation, execution and
monitoring of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme shall vest in the Administrator for
Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
32. Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(1) The State Government shall appoint an officer of the rank of Commissioner or Secretary
of that Government for rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families under this Act, to
be called the Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
(2) The Commissioner shall be responsible for supervising the formulation of rehabilitation
and resettlement schemes or plans and proper implementation of such schemes or plans.
(3) The Commissioner shall be responsible for the post-implementation social audit in
consultation with the village panchayat in rural areas and municipality in urban areas.
33. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee at Project Level
(1) Where land proposed to be acquired is equal to or more than one hundred acres, the
Appropriate Government shall constitute a Committee under the chairmanship of the
Collector to be called the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee, to monitor and review
the progress of implementation of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme and to carry
out post-implementation social audits in consultation with the village panchayat in rural areas
and municipality in urban areas.
(2) The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee shall include, apart from officers of the
Appropriate Government, the following members, namely.-Draft for Discussion
22
(i) a representative of women residing in the affected area;
(ii) a representative each of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes residing in
the affected area;
(iii) a representative of a voluntary organisation working in the area;
(iv) a representative of a nationalised bank;
(v) the Land Acquisition Officer of the project;
(vi) the Chairpersons of the panchayats or municipalities located in the affected area,
or their nominees;
(vii) the Member of Parliament and Member of the Legislative Assembly of the
concerned area;
(viii) a representative of the requiring body; and
(ix) Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement as the Member-Convenor.
(3) The procedure regulating the discharge of the process given in this section and other
matters connected thereto of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee shall be such as
may be prescribed by the State Government.Draft for Discussion
PART V
NATIONAL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
34. Establishment of National Monitoring Committee for Rehabilitation and
Resettlement:
(1) The Central Government shall constitute a National Monitoring Committee for reviewing
and monitoring the implementation of rehabilitation and resettlement schemes or plans under
this Act.
(2) The Committee may, besides having representation of the concerned Ministries and
Departments of the Central and State Governments, associate with it eminent experts from
the relevant fields.
(3) The procedures to be followed by the Committee and the allowances payable to the
experts shall be such as may be prescribed.
(4) The Central Government shall provide officers and other employees to the Committee
necessary for its efficient functioning.
35. Reporting requirements
The States and Union territories shall provide all the relevant information on the matters
covered under this Act, to the National Monitoring Committee in a regular and timely
manner, and also as and when required.Draft for Discussion

PART VI
ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY FOR STATE AND CENTRE
36. Establishment of State Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Dispute
Settlement Authority
The State Government shall, for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of disputes relating
to land acquisition, compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement establish, by notification
in the Official Gazette, an Authority for the State to be known as the (name of the State)
Land Acquisition Dispute Settlement Authority to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and
authority conferred on it by or under this Act with regard to acquisition of land by the State
Government:
Provided that a State Government may constitute more than one Authority or the benches
thereof, for the purposes of this Act, if considers necessary.
(2) The head office of the Authority shall be at such place as the State Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify.
(3) The Authority shall consist of at least three Members, including the Chairperson to be
appointed by the State Government
(4) The Members of the Authority shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have
adequate knowledge of, and have shown capacity in, dealing with the problems relating to
land acquisition matters, public administration, finance, economics and law.
(5) A person shall not be qualified to be a Member of the Authority unless he is or has been
(i) A judge of the High Court of the State;
(ii) An officer of the State Government not below the rank of district collector;
(iii) An officer of the State Government in the Law Department not below the rank of
Director.
(6) The terms and conditions of service shall be those as prescribed from time to time in
Rules framed under this Act by the State Government.
37. Establishment of National Land Acquisition Dispute Settlement Authority
The Central Government shall, for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of disputes
relating to land acquisition, compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement establish, by
notification in the Official Gazette, an Authority for the Centre to be known as the National
Land Acquisition Dispute Settlement Authority to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and
authority conferred on it by or under this Act with regard to acquisition of land by the Central
Government:
Provided that the Central Government may constitute more than one Authority or the benches
thereof, for the purposes of this Act, if considers necessary. Draft for Discussion

(2) The head office of the Authority shall be at such place as the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify.
(3) The Authority shall consist of at least three Members, including the Chairperson to be
appointed by the Central Government
(4) The Members of the Authority shall be persons of ability, integrity and standing who have
adequate knowledge of, and have shown capacity in, dealing with the problems relating to
land acquisition matters, public administration, finance, economics and law.
(5) A person shall not be qualified to be a Member of the Authority unless he is or has been
(i) A Chief Justice of a High Court/judge of the Supreme Court;
(ii) An officer of the Indian Administrative Service having sufficient knowledge of
land acquisition and has held the post of Collector of a District
(iii) An officer equivalent to that of a Joint Secretary in the Government of India.
(6) The terms and conditions of service shall be those as prescribed from time to time in
Rules framed under this Act by the Central Government.
38. Reference to Authority
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the
State or Central Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement
of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Part III and IV of this Act or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
PROVIDED that the Collector shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of
application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority
PROVIDED FURTHER that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so
specified, the applicant may apply to the State or Central Authority, as the case may be,
requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
PROVIDED that every such application shall be made
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when
he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under
section 16, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period
shall first expire.
PROVIDED FURTHER that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said
period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for
not filing it within the period specified in the first provisoDraft for Discussion
39. Collector’s statement to the Authority
(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the Authority, in
writing under his hand;
(a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing
crops thereon;
(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land;
(c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under sections 10, and the amount
of compensation awarded under the provisions of this Act;
(d) the amount paid or deposited under any other provisions of this Act; and
(e) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount
of compensation was determined.
(2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices
served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested
respectively.
40. Service of notice
The State or Central Authority, as the case may be, shall thereupon cause a notice specifying
the day on which the Authority will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their
appearance before the Authority on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:
-
(a) the applicant;
(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have
consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and
(c) If the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the
compensation, the Collector.
41. Restriction on scope of proceedings
The scope of the enquiry in every such proceeding shall be restricted to a consideration of the
interest of the persons affected by the objection
42. Proceedings to be in open Court
Every such proceeding shall take place in open Court, and all persons entitled to practice in
any Civil Court in the State shall be entitled to appear, plea and act (as the case may be) in
such proceeding.Draft for Discussion

43. Determination of Award by the Authority
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this
Act, the Authority shall take into considerationfirstly, the market value and the Award amount in accordance with Schedule I and ScheduleII of the Act;

secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any
standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession
thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s
taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s
taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other
property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is
compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any)
incidental to such change, and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land
between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 9 and the time of the
Collector’s taking possession of the land.
(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Authority shall in every
case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market
value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification
under section 9 in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of
taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. – In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods
during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any
stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Authority shall in every
case award a solatium of 100% over the total compensation amount.

44. Forms of awards
(1) Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Chairman of the Authority
concerned, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of
section 43, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses
of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.Draft for Discussion

(2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of
every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2 clause (2), and section 2, clause
(9), respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908).
45. Costs
(1) Every such award shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the proceeding under
this Part, and by what persons and in what proportions they are to be paid.
(2) When the award of the Collector is not upheld, the cost shall ordinarily be paid by the
Collector, unless the Authority concerned is of the opinion that the claim of the applicant was
so extravagant or that he was so negligent in putting his case before the Collector that some
deduction from his costs should be made or that he should pay a part of the Collector’s costs.
46. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation
If the sum, which in the opinion of the Authority concerned, the Collector ought to have
awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as
compensation, the award of the Authority concerned may direct that the Collector shall pay
interest on such excess at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date on which he took
possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Authority
PROVIDED that the award of the Authority concerned may also direct that where such excess
or any part thereof is paid to the Authority after the date or expiry of a period of one year
from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum
shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such
excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Authority before the date of such expiry
47. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the
Authority
(1) where in an award under this part, the Authority concerned allows to the applicant any
amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 18,
the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 9,
and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had
not made an application to the Collector, by written application to the Collector within three
months from the date of the award of the Authority concerned require that the amount of
compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded by the Authority:
PROVIDED that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the
Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced
and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry
after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of
being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the
applicants.Draft for Discussion

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written
application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Authority concerned.Draft for Discussion

PART VII
APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION
48. Particulars of apportionment to be specified
When there are several persons interested, if such persons agree in the apportionment of the
compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as
between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the
apportionment
49. Dispute as to apportionment
When the amount of compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the
apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any
part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the State or Central
Authority, as the case may be.Draft for Discussion
PART VIII
PAYMENT
50. Payment of Compensation or deposit of same in Court
(1) On making an award under section 18, the Collector shall tender payment of the
compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the
award and shall pay it to them by depositing the amount in their bank accounts unless
prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the
land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the
apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the
Authority to which a reference under section 38 would be submitted:
PROVIDED that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest
as to the sufficiency of the amount:
PROVIDED FURTHER that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest
shall be entitled to make any application under section 38:
PROVIDED ALSO that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who
may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the
same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
51. Investment of money deposited in respect of lands belonging to person incompetent
to alienate
(1) If any money shall be deposited in the Authority concerned under sub-section (2) of the
last preceding section and it appears that the land in respect whereof the same was awarded
belonged to any person who had no power to alienate the same, the Authority concerned
shall-
(a) order the money to be invested in the purchase of other lands to be held under the
like title and conditions of ownership as the land in respect of which such money shall
have been deposited was held, or
(b) if such purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such Government of other
approved securities as the Authority concerned shall think fit;
and shall direct the payment of the interest or other proceeds arising from such investment to
the person or persons who would for the time being have been entitled to the possession of
the said land, and such moneys shall remain so deposited and invested until the same be
applied-
(i) in the purchase of such other lands as aforesaid; or
(ii) in payment to any person or persons becoming absolutely entitled thereto.Draft for Discussion
(2) In all cases of money deposited to which this section applies the Authority concerned
shall order the costs of the following matters, including therein all reasonable charge and
expenses incident thereon, to be paid by the Collector, namely: -
(a) the costs of such investments as aforesaid;
(b) the costs of the orders for the payment of the interest or other proceeds of the
securities upon which such moneys are for the time being invested, and for the
payment out of the Authority concerned of the principal of such moneys, and of all
proceedings relating thereto, except such as may be occasioned by litigation between
adverse claimants.
52. Investment of money deposited in other cases
When any money shall have been deposited in the Authority concerned under this Act for any
cause other than mentioned in the last preceeding section, the Authority may, on the
application of any party interested or claiming an interest in such money, order the same to be
invested in such Government or other approved securities as it may think proper, and paid in
such manner as it may consider will give the parties interested therein the same benefit the
reform as they might have had from the land in respect whereof such money shall have been
deposited or as near thereto as may be.
53. Payment of interest
When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the
rate of nine per cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been
so paid or deposited:
PROVIDED that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a
period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen
per cent per annum shall be payable from the date or expiry of the said period of one year on
the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the
date of such expiry.Draft for Discussion
PART IX
TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF LAND
54. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land, procedure when difference as to
compensation exists
(1) Whenever it appears to the Appropriate Government that the temporary occupation and
use of any waste or arable land are needed for any public purpose, or for a Company, the
Appropriate Government may direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the
same for such terms as it shall think fit, not exceeding three years from the commencement of
such occupation.
(2) The Collector shall thereupon give notice in writing to the person interested in such land
of the purpose for which the same is needed, and shall, for the occupation and use thereof for
such term as aforesaid, and for the materials (if any) to be taken there from, pay to them such
compensation, either in a gross sum of money, or by monthly or other periodical payments, as
shall be agreed upon in writing between him and such persons respectively.
(3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the sufficiency of the
compensation or apportionment thereof, the State or Central Authority, as the case may be,
shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court.
55. Power to enter and take possession and compensation on restoration
(1) On payment of such compensation, or on executing such agreement, or on making a
reference under section 54, the Collector may enter upon and take possession of the land, and
use or permit the use thereof in accordance with the terms of the said notice.
(2) On the expiration of the term, the Collector shall make or tender to the persons interested
compensation for the damage (if any) done to the land and not provided for by the agreement,
and shall restore the land to the persons interested therein:
PROVIDED that, if the land has become permanently unfit to be used for the purpose for which
it was used immediately before the commencement of such term, and if the persons interested
shall so require, the appropriate Government shall proceed under this Act to acquire the land
as if it was needed permanently for a public purpose or for a Company.
56. Difference as to condition of land
In case the Collector and persons interested differ as to the condition of the land at the
expiration of the term, or as to any matter connected with the said agreement, the Collector
shall refer such difference to the decision of the Authority concerned.Draft for Discussion
PART X
MISCELLANEOUS
57. Service of Notices
(1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy
thereof signed, in the case of a notice, by the officer therein mentioned, and, in the case of
any other notice, by order of the Collector or the Judge.
(2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person
therein named.
(3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult member of his
family residing with him; and, if no such adult member can be found, the notice may be
served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named
ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous
place in the office of the officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the court-house, and also in
some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired :
PROVIDED that, if the Collector or Judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by post, in a
letter addressed to the person named therein at his last known residence, address or place of
business and 6[registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of
1898), and service of it may be proved by the production of the addressee’s receipt.
58. Punishment for false information, mala fide action, etc
(1) If a person, in connection with a requirement or direction under this Act, provides any
information or produces any document that the person knows is false or misleading, he shall
be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to one month, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
(2) Any rehabilitation and resettlement benefit availed of by making a false claim or through
fraudulent means shall be liable to be recovered by the appropriate authority.
(3) Disciplinary proceedings may be drawn up by the disciplinary authority against a
Government servant, who if proved to be guilty of a mala fide action in respect of any
provision of this Act, shall be liable to such punishment including a fine as the disciplinary
authority may decide.
59. Penalty for obstructing acquisition of land
Whoever willfully obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorized by section 9 or
section 15, or willfully fills up, destroys, damages or displaces any trench or mark made
under section 15, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be liable to imprisonment for any
term not exceeding one month, or to fine not exceeding five hundred rupees, or to both.Draft for Discussion
60. Magistrate to enforce surrender
If the Collector is opposed or impeded in taking possession under this Act of any land, he
shall, if a Magistrate, enforce the surrender of the land to himself, and if not a Magistrate, he
shall apply to a Magistrate or (within the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay) to the
Commissioner of Police, and such Magistrate or Commissioner (as the case may be) shall
enforce the surrender of the land to the Collector.
61. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when
not completed
(1) The Appropriate Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any
land of which possession has not been taken.
(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall
determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in
consequence of the notice or of any proceedings there under, and shall pay such amount to
the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of
the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.
62. Acquisition of part of house or building
(1) The provisions of this Act shall not be put in force for the purpose of acquiring a part only
of any house, manufactory or other building, if the owner desires that the whole of such
house, manufactory or building shall be so acquired:
Provided also that, if any question shall arise as to whether any land proposed to be taken
under this Act does or does not form part of a house, manufactory or building within the
meaning of this section, the Collector shall refer the determination of such question to the
Authority concerned and shall not be take possession of such land until after the question has
been determined.
In deciding on such a reference the Authority concerned shall have regard to the question
whether the land proposed to be taken, is reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use
of the house, manufactory or building.
(2) If, in the case of any claim under this Act, by a person interested, on account of the
severing of the land to be acquired from his other land, the Appropriate Government is of
opinion that the claim is unreasonable or excessive, it may, at any time before the Collector
has made his award, order the acquisition of the whole of the land of which the land first
sought to be acquired forms a part.
(3) In the case last hereinbefore provided for, no fresh declaration or other proceedings under
sections 9 to 18, both inclusive, shall be necessary; but the Collector shall without delay
furnish a copy of the order of the Appropriate Government to the person interested, and shall
thereafter proceed to make his award under section 18.Draft for Discussion
63. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority of Company
(1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the
cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges
of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or company.
(2) In any proceeding held before a Collector or Authority concerned in such cases the local
authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.
Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference to
the Authority concerned under section 38.
64. Exemption from stamp duty and fees
No award or agreement made under this Act shall be chargeable with stamp duty, and no
person claiming under any such award or agreement shall be liable to pay any fee for a copy
of the same.
65. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence
In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the
Regulation Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under section 57 of that Act, may
be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document.
66. Notice in case of suits for anything done in pursuance of Act
No suit or other proceeding shall be commenced or prosecuted against any person for
anything done in pursuance of this Act, without giving to such person a month’s previous
notice in writing of the intended proceeding, and of the cause thereof, nor after tender of
sufficient amendments.
67. Code of Civil Procedure to apply to proceedings before Authority
Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall apply to all proceedings before the
Authority under this Act.
68. Appeals in proceedings before Court
Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to
appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment
for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the
High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Authority and from any
decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the
Supreme Court and from any order or award of the Central Authority an appeal shall lie to
the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV thereof.Draft for Discussion
69. Return of Unutilised Land
(1) The land acquired under this Act shall not be transferred to any other purpose except for a
public purpose, and after obtaining the prior approval of the Appropriate Government, and
any change in purpose made in violation of this provision shall be void and shall render such
land and structures attached to it liable to be reverted to the land owner.
(2) When any land or part thereof, acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of
five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall return to the land owner
by reversion;
(3) The Appropriate Government shall return the unutilized land or part thereof, as the case
may be, to the original owner of the land from whom it was acquired subject to the refund of
one fourth of the amount of compensation paid to him along with the interest on such amount
at such rate, as may be specified by the Appropriate Government, from the date of payment
of compensation to him till the refund of such amount; and
(4) The person to whom the land is returned being the owner of the land shall be entitled to  all such title and rights in relation to such land from which he has been divested on the  acquisition of such land.
70. Difference in price of land when transferred for higher consideration to be shared  Whenever the ownership of any land acquired under this Act is transferred to any person for a  consideration, twenty per cent of the difference in the acquisition cost and the consideration  received, which in no case shall be less than the acquisition cost, duly adjusting for  development cost shall be shared amongst the persons from whom the lands were acquired or  their heirs, in proportion to the value at which the lands were acquired, and for the purpose, a  separate fund may be maintained which shall be administered by the Collector in such  manner as may be prescribed.
PROVIDED that this section shall be applicable on each transaction where ownership of the  land or part thereof is transferred within a period of ten years from the date of award.
71. Provisions to be in addition to existing laws
The provisions of this law are in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the  time being in force.
72. Power to make rules
(1) The Appropriate Government shall have power to make rules consistent with this Act for  the guidance of officers in all matters connected with its enforcement, and may from time to  time alter and add to the rules so made: PROVIDED that every such rule made by the Central Government shall be laid as soon as may  be after it is made, before each House of parliament while it is in session for a total period of  thirty days which may be comprised in one session or two or more successive sessions, and if  before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions Draft for Discussionaforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree  that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified  form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however that any such modification or  annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that  rule.
PROVIDED FURTHER that every such rule made by the State Government shall be laid, as soon  as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature.
(2) The power to make, alter and add to rules under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the
conditions of the rules, being made, altered or added to after previous publication.
(3) All such rules, alterations and additions shall be published in the Official Gazette, and  shall thereupon have the force of law.
73. Act to have overriding effect
The provisions of this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained  in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of  any law other than this law.
74. Savings and Repeal Clause
(1) The Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended from time to time is hereby repealed
(2)Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or action taken under the said Act shall be  deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Acti
SCHEDULE I
Compensation for Land owners The Following elements shall constitute the minimum Compensation Package to be given  to those whose land is acquired under the provisions of this Act:
1. Market value of the land: As determined under Section 20 of the Act to be multiplied  by three in rural areas;
2. Value of the assets attached to land: All assets attached to the land including
buildings/trees/wells/crops etc valued by Collector, as determined under section 21 of the  Act.
PROVIDED that the combined value of items (1) and (2) above shall be taken to be the  compensation amount;’
3. Solatium: A solatium amount of 100% on total compensation. The total of all the items listed above shall be taken to be the Final Award towards  compensation for land acquisitionii
SCHEDULE II
List of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Entitlements for all the affected families
(both land owners and the families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on land  acquired) in addition to those provided in Schedule I
1. Provision of Housing Units in case of displacement
(1) Any affected family owning house and whose house has been acquired shall be  provided with a house, without requiring him to pay the price for such house, in an extent  of a minimum of 150 square metre of plinth area in rural areas or, as the case may be, 50  square metre of plinth area in urban areas.
(2) Any affected family which is without homestead land and which has been residing in  the area continuously for a period of not less than three years preceding the date of  notification of the affected area and which has been involuntarily displaced from such  area, shall be provided with a house with a house, without requiring him to pay the price  for such house, in an extent of a minimum of 150 square metre of plinth area in rural  areas or, as the case may be, 50 square metre of plinth area in urban areas. PROVIDED that any such family which opts not to take the house offered, shall get a onetime financial assistance for house construction, which shall not be less than Rs 1.50  lakhs  Explanation.-The houses in urban areas may, if necessary, be provided in multi-storied  building complexes.  PROVIDED FURTHER that no family affected by acquisition shall be given more than one  house under the provisions of this Act
2. Land for Land
In the case of Irrigation project, each affected family owning agricultural land in the  affected area and whose land has been acquired or lost, or who has, as a consequence of  the acquisition or loss of land, been reduced to the status of a marginal farmer or landless,  shall be allotted, in the name of each person included in the records of rights with regard  to the affected family, a minimum of one acre of land in the command area of the project  for which the land is acquired. PROVIDED that those losing land and belonging to the Scheduled Tribes shall be given  land in every project.
PROVIDED FURTHER that where the land is acquired for urbanization purposes, 20 per cent  of the developed land will be reserved and offered to land owners, in proportion to their  land acquired.iii
3. Annuity Policies
The Appropriate Government shall, at their cost, arrange for annuity policies that will pay  an annuity of two thousand rupees per month, indexed to Consumer Price Index;
4. Subsistence Grant for displaced families for a period of one year Each affected family which is displaced shall be given a monthly subsistence allowance  equivalent to three thousand rupees per month for a period of one year from the date of  award.  In addition to this amount, Scheduled Tribes displaced from Scheduled areas shall  receive an amount equivalent to fifty thousand rupees.
5. Transportation Cost for displaced families  Each affected family which is displaced shall get a one-time financial assistance of fifty  thousand rupees as transportation cost for shifting of the family, building materials,  belongings and cattle.
6. Cattle Shed/ Petty Shops Cost Each affected family having cattle or having a petty shop shall get one-time financial  assistance of such amount as the Appropriate Government may prescribe subject to a  minimum of twenty five thousand rupees for construction of cattle shed or petty shop as  the case may be.
7. One time grant to Artisan’s etc.
Each affected family of an artisan, small trader or self-employed person or an affected  family which owned non-agricultural land or commercial, industrial or institutional  structure in the affected area, and which has been involuntarily displaced from the  affected area due to land acquisition, shall get one-time financial assistance of such  amount as the appropriate Government may prescribe subject to a minimum of twentyfive thousand rupees.
8. Provision of Mandatory Employment  In case of a project involving land acquisition on behalf of a requiring body-
(1) The requiring body shall give mandatory employment to at least one member per  affected family in the project or arrange for a job in such other project as may be  required; iv
(2) Wherever necessary, the requiring body shall arrange for training of the affected  persons, so as to enable such persons to take on suitable jobs;
(3) the requiring body shall offer scholarships and other skill development
opportunities to eligible persons from the affected families, as per such criteria as  may be fixed by the appropriate Government.
PROVIDED that where the Employer fails to provide regular employment for one member  of the affected family, Appropriate Government shall pay to the affected family a sum of  rupees two lakhs in lieu of such employment.
9. Fishing Rights  In cases of irrigation or hydel projects, the affected families may be allowed  fishing rights in the reservoirs, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Appropriate  Government
10. One Time Resettlement Allowance
Each affected family shall be given a one-time ‘Resettlement Allowance’ of fifty
thousand rupees only.
11. Miscellaneous
(1) The stamp duty and other fees payable for registration of the land or house
allotted to the affected families shall be borne by the requiring body.
(2) The land for house allotted to the affected families shall be free from all
encumbrances.
(3) The land or house allotted may be in the joint names of wife and husband of the  affected family.
12. Registration fee and the Titles
(1) The stamp duty and other fees payable for registration of the land or house
allotted to the affected families shall be borne by the requiring body.
(2) The land for house allotted to the affected families shall be free from all
encumbrances.
13. Special Provisions for Schedule Tribes:
(1) In case of a project involving land acquisition on behalf of a requiring body which  involves involuntary displacement of one hundred or more Scheduled Tribes families, v
a Tribal Development Plan shall be prepared, in such form as may be prescribed,  laying down the details of procedure for settling land rights due but not settled and  restoring titles of tribals on alienated land by undertaking a special drive together  with land acquisition.
(2) The Tribal Development Plan shall also contain a programme for development of  alternate fuel, fodder and non-timber forest produce resources on non-forest lands  within a period of five years sufficient to meet the requirements of tribal  communities.
(3) The concerned Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level in the
Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule or, as the case may be, Councils in the
Sixth Schedule Areas shall be consulted in all cases of land acquisition in such areas,  including acquisition under the urgency clause, before issue of a notification under  the Act, or any other Act of the Union or a State for the time being in force as per the  Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and other  relevant laws.
(4) In case of land being acquired from members of the Scheduled Tribes, at least  one-third of the compensation amount due shall be paid to the affected families at the  outset as first instalment and the rest shall precede the taking over of the possession  of the land.
(5) The Scheduled Tribes affected families shall be resettled preferably in the same  Schedule Area in a compact block, so that they can retain their ethnic, linguistic and  cultural identity.
(6) The resettlement areas predominantly inhabited by the Scheduled Tribes shall get  land, to such extent as may be decided by the appropriate Government, free of cost  for community and social gatherings.
(7) In case of a project involving land acquisition on behalf of a requiring body, the
Scheduled Tribes affected families resettled out of the district will get twenty five per  cent higher monetary benefits under Rehabilitation And Resettlement scheme.
(8) Any alienation of tribal lands in disregard of the laws and regulations for the time  being in force shall be treated as null and void; and in the case of acquisition of such  lands, the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits shall be available to the original  tribal land-owners.
(9) The affected Scheduled Tribes, other traditional forest dwellers and the Scheduled  Castes families having fishing rights in a river or pond or dam in the affected area  shall be given fishing rights in the reservoir area of the irrigation or hydel projects.vi
(10) That where the affected Scheduled Tribes are relocated outside of the district  then they shall be paid an additional 25 per cent R&R benefits to which they are  entitled in monetary terms along with a one time entitlement of fifty thousand rupees.
14. Reservation Benefits
All benefits, including the reservation benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes and  the Scheduled Castes, available to the affected families in the affected areas, shall  continue in the resettlement area.vii
SCHEDULE III
Provision of Infrastructural Amenities
For resettlement of populations, the following infrastructural facilities and basic
minimum amenities are to be provided at the cost of Requisitioning Authority to ensure  that the resettled population in the new village or colony can secure for themselves a  reasonable standard of community life and can attempt to minimise the trauma involved  in displacement.
A reasonably habitable and planned settlement would have, as a minimum, the following facilities and resources, as appropriate:

1. Roads within the resettled villages and an all-weather road link to the nearest pucca  road, passages and easement rights for all the resettled families be adequately  arranged.
2. Proper drainage as well as sanitation plans executed before physical resettlement.
3. One or more assured sources of safe drinking water for each family as per the norms
prescribed by the Government of India;
4. Provision of Drinking water for cattle;
5. Grazing land as per proportion acceptable in the state
6. A reasonable number of Fair Price shops;
7. Panchayat Ghars, as appropriate;
8. Village level Post Offices, as appropriate, with facilities for opening saving accounts;
9. Appropriate seed-cum-fertilizer storage facility if needed;
10. Efforts must be made to provide basic irrigation facilities to the agricultural land  allocated to the resettled families if not from the irrigation project, then by developing  a cooperative or under some government scheme or special assistance;
11. All new villages established for resettlement of the displaced persons shall be  provided with suitable transport facility which must include public transport facilities  through local bus services with the nearby growth centres/urban localities;
12. Burial and/or cremation ground, depending on the caste- communities at the site and  their practices;
13. Facilities for sanitation, including individual toilet points; viii
14. Individual single electric connections (or connection through non conventional  sources of energy like solar energy), for each household and for public lighting;
15. Anganwadi’s providing child and mother supplemental nutritional services;
16. School as per the provisions of Right to Education Act;
17. Sub health centre within two kilometre range;
18. Primary Health Centre as prescribed by the Government of India;
19. Playground for children;
20. One community centre for every 100 families;
21. Places of worship and chowpal/ tree platform for every 50 families for community  assembly, of numbers and dimensions consonant with the affected area;
22. Separate land must be earmarked for traditional tribal institutions;
23. The forest dweller families must be provided, where possible, with their traditional  rights on non-timber forest produce and common property resources, if available close  to the new place of settlement and, in case any such family can continue their access  or entry to such forest or common property in the area close to the place of eviction,  they must continue to enjoy their earlier rights to the aforesaid sources of livelihood;
24. Appropriate security arrangements must be provided for the settlement, if needed;
25. Veterinary service centre as per norms.

FOR THE SOURCE PLEASE CLICK HERE. . .

On pursuance by the RBI, 14 States and 1 Union Territory have enacted legislation on the lines of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, which contains stiff penal provisions for promoters of financial establishments defaulting in repayment of deposits and interest. The close co-ordination through institutionalized framework of State Level Co-ordination Committee (SLCC) with the State Government and other Regulatory bodies have resulted in greater/ improved monitoring and restriction of unauthorized acceptance of deposits by NBFCs and UIBs.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Finance Shri Namo Narain Meena in a written reply to a question raised in Lok Sabha

This has been borne out in a study by psychologist Gunilla Fredin at Lund University in Sweden, on children aged between eight and nine, between 11 and 12 and adults.

‘Older children and adults have had more experiences and can therefore find it difficult to differentiate between reality and fiction,’ says Fredin, according to a Lund statement.

‘Adults, however, are conscious that they may get things mixed up, while children in the 11-12 age group are often very certain, even when they are wrong.’

In Sweden, there has not been any previous research on children and identity parades, but the general perception has been that young children are not particularly reliable, explains Fredin.

Another finding in Fredin’s thesis is that we pay more attention to people of the same age as us.

Adults are generally better at recognising adult faces than children are, but one of Fredin’s studies showed that they did no better than children when asked to identify children’s faces.

Fredin will defend her thesis on Sep 16 at Lund University.

Shri Khurshid further informed the House that Under clause (a) of section 2 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, a “child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty- one years of age and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age and under clause (b) thereof, “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child. As per section clause (iii) of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty- one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of marriage. Thus, there is no conflict in both Acts on the age of marriage, Shri Khurshid said

The Cabinet’s approval of the draft Land Acquisition Bill, with some modifications, comes at a time when the issue is hotting up across the country. Mr Rahul Gandhi is banking on troubles around land acquisition in poll-bound Uttar Pradesh. Anna Hazare has listed it in his future agenda. The Left Front had to pay a heavy price in West Bengal because of mishandling the land issue. Innumerable projects are in limbo as the States grapple with agitations. So the Bill has been on the centre-stage. Mr Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Rural Development, has made it clear in the introduction to the draft Bill that the Government’s effort would be to balance industrialisation with livelihood concerns of those whose land is being acquired. He is also looking as pleased as punch that 90 per cent of what he had proposed has been retained.

FOR MORE READING. . .

It gives farmers the right to ask for compensation which is four times the market value of land in rural areas and two times in urban areas, but fails to create any balance between the owner and the one who wants to acquire it, said The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM).

“The Bill is heavily in favour of landlords and does not have a win-win formula for both parties. Hence it needs to be reviewed,” said secretary general D.S. Rawat.

The interests of farmers are protected but the affordable housing requirements of middle class have been completely ignored, he said adding the land cost will go up by 60 to 80 per cent because of higher compensation offered to farmers.

At the same time, the 90 billion dollar Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project – which is aimed at developing high speed freight line, ports and airports connecting the country’s political and financial capital – will need huge land. “If the land acquisition process is stuck in negotiation without government intervention, the project can hit a roadblock.”

More worryingly, there is no clarity as yet on the cost of rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) issues. “Land acquisition is an unavoidable necessity for rapid industrialisation, employment generation and poverty alleviation,” said Mr Rawat.

The land acquisition framework should encourage free market forces with direct negotiations between buyers and sellers. The government should intervene only when it is acquiring land for its own purposes, he said.

Land acquisition should be facilitated in open market with government’s role being restricted only to providing information on which parcels of land are available for industries, housing and special economic zones.

“Rapid urbanisation and industrialisation create more jobs than agriculture does. With per capita agri production falling, a stagnant index of crop production and heavy dependence on monsoons, a large number of farmers want to move to other sectors,” said Mr Rawat.

On 8th June, 2011, the media had reported that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has sought amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These observations were reportedly made by the Supreme Court while dismissing an appeal filed by an Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, against his conviction. However, the formal order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8.6.2011 in the case, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 945 of 2006 (Sat Paul vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.) does not contain any such observations.

A Committee headed by the Chairman, CBDT has been constituted to examine ways to strengthen laws to curb generation of black money in India, its illegal transfer abroad and its recovery. The Committee shall examine the existing legal and administrative framework to deal with the menace of generation of black money through illegal means including inter-alia (i) declaring wealth generated illegally as national asset; (ii) enacting/amending laws to confiscate and recover such assets; and (iii) providing for exemplary punishment against its perpetrators. The Committee is required to consult all stakeholders and submit its report within a period of six months.

As per information provided by the CBI, it has not unearthed any case wherein benami properties of more than Rs.100 Crore have been unearthed against any officer in any case.

This information was given by Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Prime Minister’s Office, Shri V. Naraynasamy in written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha

Cyber crime is an important issue and such issues are discussed in every international fora organized by Governments or any other non-governmental organizations. The country reports are presented in such international fora together with the cooperation for preventing cyber crime. India has been discussing issue of cyber crime at such international fora. These issues are also discussed in bi-lateral meetings with other countries. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with such agencies in other countries for seeking cooperation and exchange of information for cyber crime.

This information was given by Shri Sachin Pilot, the Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha

‘We will launch state-wide protest from Sep 9 and stage demonstration at the offices of district collectors and superintendents of police if those involved in firing are not arrested,’ he said, addressing an all community meet in Kumher Baigor village in Bharatpur district, some 170 kilometres from Jaipur.

Seven of his supporters were injured in a shootout at a hotel in Bharatpur Thursday while he and his wife Divya Singh escaped unhurt.

The meet was attended by Member of Parliament Kirori Lal Meena and some prominent leaders of other communities.

Vishwendra Singh and his supporters also demanded a permanent ban on the book titled ‘Bharatpur Rajvansh – Achhooti Smritiyan,’ authored by his uncle Raghuraj Singh.

The controversy over the book had led to a violent protest by his supporters at Hotel Laxmi Vilas owned by Raghuraj Singh. Witnesses told the police that while the supporters were damaging the reception area of the hotel and set ablaze some furniture, unidentified persons fired at them.

In an order issued Monday, the district administrative authorities have banned the circulation of the book till Sep 15.

The Rajasthan government had Sunday issued notice to Raghuraj Singh seeking his reply over the ban proposed on his book.

District Collector Krishna Kunal Sunday issued a notice to Raghuraj Singh and the publisher seeking an explanation as to why a ban should not be imposed on his book, which allegedly contains objectionable material.

‘A local politician Rajveer Singh had submitted a complaint in writing seeking ban on the book,’ a senior administrative official told IANS.

Among the many controversial parts, the book claims that Bharatpur estate borrowed a huge sum of money to buy uniforms for the army during the reign of Maharaja Sawai Kishan Singh and did not return this. This was strongly protested by Vishwendra Singh, who claimed that the money was meant for flood relief work and was returned.

Vishwendra Singh also raised objection over some personal letters being published in the book, claiming that it amounted to breach of privacy.

Naqvi said: ‘According to the disclosure, at the behest of the chief minister, a chartered plane flew to Mumbai from Lucknow just to get a pair of preferred sandals for her (Mayawati).

‘Around Rs.10 lakh was spent for bringing the sandals that cost about Rs.1,000,’ he said.

‘The cable has again exposed the corrupt face of Mayawati and her government. It’s shocking and surprising… It shows the way public funds are misused,’ Naqvi said at a press conference here.

Naqvi also accused Mayawati of political opprtunism after another Wikileaks documents said that her opposition to the 2008 India-US nuclear deal was just rhetoric.

‘That cable reflects dishonest behaviour…,’ he added.

?The state government will bring the Bihar Lokayukta Bill in the winter session of the state assembly this year and would bring the chief minister under the Lokayukta,’ he said at a function here.

Nitish Kumar also hinted that the former Karnataka Lokayukta, Justice (retd) Santosh Hegde will prepare the new Bihar Lokayukta Bill.

He reiterated that the Bihar government led by him had already initiated several measures to fight against corruption. ‘The Right to Service Act was enforced last month to check corruption and to provide relief to people in the state,’ he said.

He claimed that Bihar has emerged as a model state in the country after his government’s bid for transparency was being emulated by other states and the country and cited the example of mandatory annual declaration of assets by ministers and government employees.

‘With all respect to the sanctity and authority of Akal Takht Sahib, the prime minister cannot be summoned there,’ the state Congress president told reporters in Hoshiarpur, 150 km from here.

At a meeting in Amritsar Friday, the Sikh clergy indicated that they could summon the prime minister to the Akal Takht over the purported withdrawal of a 2003 notification on the voting rights of Sehajdhari Sikhs in the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) election.

Sehajdhari Sikhs are those who follow the religion but trim or cut their beard and hair in violation of its tenets.

Home Minister P. Chidambaram had told parliament later that the central government had not withdrawn the notification that barred Sehajdhari Sikhs from voting in SGPC polls.

‘I have no idea as to who had demanded or suggested summoning the prime minister to Akal Takht Sahib,’ Amarinder Singh said. ‘But I do not agree with the idea.

‘When in office, a prime minister does not belong to any religion as he represents all the people. If there is any such idea, there should be rethinking,’ he added.

Sikh priests had warned the prime minister against government interference in the religious affairs of the Sikh community and threatened to summon him to the Akal Takht if the interference continued.

‘The move by the centre has hurt Sikh sentiments worldwide,’ Akal Takht jathedar Gurbachan Singh told reporters.

‘We (ask Manmohan Singh) to stay alert and be aware that the Sikh’s basic tenets, maryada (code of conduct) and traditions cannot be interfered with.?

The SGPC – an elected body of Sikhs for the control and management of gurdwaras in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh — has an annual budget of Rs.580 crore.

Election for 170 executive council members are to be held Sep 18.

Both houses witnessed noisy scenes immediately after they met for the day, with the Lok Sabha being adjourned thrice till 4 p.m. and later for the day. The Rajya Sabha witnessed two disruptions before being adjourned for the day.

The trouble in the Lok Sabha began soon after it met for the day with vociferous demands from BJP MPs that Beniwal be recalled for appointing retired judge R.S. Mehta as the Gujarat Lokayukta. The BJP benches did not allow the smooth conduct of proceedings and the MPs rushed towards the speaker’s podium, forcing Meira Kumar to first adjourn the house till noon without taking up the question hour.

With similar scenes being repeated when the house met again, Deputy Speaker Karia Munda too followed suit and adjourned the house till 2 p.m.

The house met after the lunch recess to drop the impeachment motion against former Calcutta High Court judge Justice Soumitra Sen in the wake of his resignation Saturday.

Soon after, the house had to be adjourned as BJP MPs trooped towards the speaker’s podium and continued to raise slogans.

At 4 p.m. too, the house could not settle down and had to be adjourned for the day by the presiding officer, Congress MP Girija Vyas.

In between, the government introduced the National Academic Depository Bill and passed the Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research Bill without a debate.

In the Rajya Sabha, agitated BJP members repeatedly raised the issue of the Lokayukta’s appointment and the house witnessed two disruptions before being adjourned for the day.

The issue was raised by BJP members soon after the house met for the day. Some party members gathered the near the chairman’s podium and Hamid Ansari adjourned the house till 12 noon. The BJP members continued their protests after the house reassembled and the chair then adjourned the house till 2 p.m.

After the house reassembled, Deputy Chairman K. Rahman Khan said that the Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, 2010, should be taken up. However, BJP members came near his podium raising slogans against the Lokayukta’s appointment.

Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajiv Shukla said the matter was sub-judice as the Gujarat High Court was looking into the matter. However, BJP members continued to raise slogans. The chair then adjourned the house till Tuesday.

‘Whoever is involved, whichever the party or status he belongs to and whichever authority he occupies, law will take its course,’ Union Corporate Affairs Minister M. Veerappa Moily told reporters outside parliament.

‘This is a lesson for everyone who occupies office as a minister or an officer that they should not misuse the office,’ he said.

Janardhana Reddy and his brother-in-law B. Srinivasa Reddy were early Monday arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an illegal mining case.

Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajeev Shukla said: ‘Law is taking its own course… the government does not interfere in the functioning of the CBI. CBI is investigating the matter. I think we should have faith in the law.’

Law Minister Salman Khurshid moved the motion to drop impeachment proceedings against Sen as soon as the house met after lunch recess. Speaker Meira Kumar put it to vote before the house, which adopted the motion.

No reasons were cited for dropping the motion against Sen, who was held guilty by the Rajya Sabha last month of misappropriating Rs.33.23 lakh in a 1983 case when he was appointed a receiver by the high court.

The Rajya Sabha had on Aug 18 adopted an impeachment motion for removal of Sen with 189 members voting in favour and 16 against.

Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar was holding consultations with ministers and leaders of various political parties ahead of her final decision on Sen’s impeachment.

‘I have to consult because there have been new developments. I will be talking,’ Meira Kumar told reporters outside parliament.

By new developments, she meant the resignation of Sen Saturday which had led to the uncertainty over the issue amid speculation that the motion may be dropped.

But there was no official confirmation until Monday afternoon.

The resignation has led to a dominant view within the government and political parties that having the judge impeached by the Lok Sabha was now infructuous.

But there are some voices, particularly in some political parties, that the house should go ahead with the proceedings.

The impeachment motion has already been passed by the Rajya Sabha.

Here is a list of the assets of some of the prominent ministers :

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee:

Total assets – Rs.3.06 crore.

Two houses in Delhi – one in Munrika and the other in Greater Kailash-II (in his wife Suvra Mukherjee’s name) (costing around Rs.1.15 crore), owns eight properties in West Bengal, including three flats in Kolkata (costing over Rs.62 lakh) and ancestral house (around Rs.2 lakh).

Has a Ford Ikon car.

Has over Rs.1 lakh cash in hand, around Rs.64 lakh fixed deposits and over Rs.31 lakh jewellery and over Rs.26 lakh in saving accounts.

Defence Minister A.K. Antony:

Total assets – Rs. 35.1 lakh ($77,000).

Total fixed deposits of over Rs.20,000, over Rs.3.5 lakh in savings, owns two properties of over Rs.30 lakh.

Owns a second-hand WagonR car.

Home Minister P.Chidambaram:

Total assets – Rs.24.7 crore.

Owns two coffee estates in Kodagu (in Karnataka) worth Rs.1.4 crore, three houses in Tamil Nadu costing around Rs.1.1 crore and a piece of agricultural land over Rs.11 lakh.

Has jewellery over Rs.15 lakh, total cash in hand and in saving accounts over Rs.62 lakh, and around Rs.6.1 crore in fixed deposits.

Has a cycle, four cars, including Skoda, Ford Fiesta, Volkswagen and a Kinetic Honda. Among his other assets are treadmill and two computers worth over Rs.8 lakh.

He and his wife Nalini own jewellery over Rs.9 lakh.

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna:

Total assets – Rs.3.9 crore.

Owns a house in Bangalore around Rs.2 lakh, has six agricultural lands in Karnataka, costing around Rs.29 lakh.

Owns two cars, including a Lancer.

He and his wife Prema Krishna own jewellery worth Rs.8 lakh.

Invested Rs.18 lakh in share market; around Rs.3 crore in savings and has over Rs.1.5 lakh cash in hand.

Human Resource Development and Communications and IT Minister Kapil Sibal:

Total assets – Rs.37.45 crore.

Two agricultural land – one in Delhi and one in Bangalore – around Rs.1.38 crore, owns three plots in Faridabad, Gurgaon and Chandigarh worth over Rs.3.92 crores, owns six flats, including in Maharani Bagh, worth over Rs.20 crore. He mentions that he has made an advance payment for a property for which he has shelled out Rs.4.2 crore.

Owns one-third share in a shopping mall in Ludhiana in Punjab worth Rs.29 lakh.

He has also invested Rs.1.2 crore in share market.

Has three cars, including Toyota Corolla, Hyundai Sonata, Reva electric car and a Suzuki jeep. He also has an Enfield Bullet motorcycle.

He and his wife Promila have jewellery worth Rs.64 lakh.

Law Minister and Minority Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid:

Total assets – Rs.6.4 crore.

He and his wife Louise have four agricultural lands worth Rs.2.2 crore, has three flats, one in Jamia Nagar (worth Rs.50 lakh) and two in Goa (over Rs.8 lakh).

He, his wife and their two sons Zafar and Samar own seven cars, including an old imported one, Mahindra Jeep, Innova, Maruti Gypsy, Scorpio, Hyundai Verna and Maruti Swift.

Invested around Rs.1 crore in share market.

His wife has jewellery worth Rs.4 lakh.

He has bank deposits of over Rs.1.5 crore.

‘The notice was sent through speed-post at his residence in Ghazhiabad. He has not gone through the letter yet,? said the activist, on the condition of anonymity.

Kejriwal could not be reached for comment.

The list, published on the website www.pa.kerala.gov.in, shows Industries Minister P.K. Kunhalikutty is the richest member of the cabinet, with an asset base of Rs.1.40 crore, which includes cash held in fixed deposit and property.

The first ever minister from the Scheduled Tribes community, P.K. Jayalekshmi, is the poorest, with assets of 1.27 acres of land, which she owns jointly with her father, 30 sovereigns of gold (one sovereign is 7.31 grams of pure gold) and Rs.2 lakh in cash.

Chandy and his family have an asset base of Rs.21 lakh, but the chief minister does not own any property and has mere Rs.25,403 in cash.

His wife Mariamma Oommen, a retired bank officer, owns the home where they reside now here.

Labour Minister Shibhu Baby John has the highest liability among the 19 cabinet ministers, with an outstanding loan of Rs.1.16 crore.

This is the first time that assets of the state’s ministers have been made public.

‘I have received the notice and will respond to it. I stand by my statement and don’t think it amounts to breach of privilege,’ Bhushan told a TV channel.

He was served notice for alleging that members of parliament take bribes to pass laws. He has been asked to file a reply by Sep 14.

Former top cop Kiran Bedi, another aide of activist Anna Hazare, also faces a privilege motion for her remarks against parliamentarians. Addressing the Ramlila Maidan gathering, she accused politicians of wearing ‘several masks’ at the same time, drawing the ire of MPs in both houses of parliament.

Affirming that she stood by whatever she had said, Bedi said Friday: ‘If I get a notice, I would say I am sorry I will not be able to say sorry. If I get an opportunity, I will go before the Committee and will show a bigger mirror to Parliament.’

‘The truth has to be said, which was needed, and I stand by it. You should see what is happening in parliament. Slippers were exchanged in the Rajasthan assembly,’ she added.

Achuthanandan’s petition contended that only the CBI can come out with the real truth based on several new revelations made by Kunhalikutty’s relative K.A. Rauf on how Kunhalikutty managed to escape the law by allegedly influencing even the judiciary.

The case of sexual abuse of a minor girl, which allegedly involved Kunhalikutty, the now state industry minister, was closed by the courts in 2006.

The alleged sex racket in early 1990s involved an icecream parlour in Kozhikode as its base and was named the ‘ice cream parlour sex case’ by the media.

In January, Rauf (whose wife is the sister of Kunhalikutty’s wife) made the allegation at a press conference and Achuthanandan, the then chief minister, ordered Additional Director General of Police Vinson M. Paul to begin a new inquiry in the case.

The Achuthanandan-headed Left Democratic Front government was defeated in the April assembly polls by the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) and Oommen Chandy became the chief minister.

‘The signature in the faxed letter has been found not original. We are waiting for the hard copy of the letter to arrive and check the signature,’ Archana Datta, spokesperson of the president, told IANS here Friday.

‘Let the letter come. Any decision by the president will be only after that,’ she added.

Meanwhile, the president’s office has handed over the faxed letter to the Department of Law and Justice, the spokesperson said.

Sen, against whom an impeachment motion was passed in the Rajya Sabha for financial irregularities, announced his resignation in Kolkata Thursday through his lawyer.

The Lok Sabha was due to take up the impeachment proceedings Sep 5. Sen sent a copy of the letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar too.

‘I am very glad that the CBI is performing its duties. I will cooperate with them fully to the extent that my recollection of the events and competence permit me,’ Singh told reporters outside Parliament. ‘But as far as letting me know or writing to me that they intend to question me goes, neither the government nor the CBI has (yet).’

When asked whether he was being targeted by the government, Singh said: ‘I don?t wish to comment on the government?s nefarious or devious ways; let them do whatever they wish to do.?

The CBI told the Supreme Court Thursday that it ‘may examine’ Singh over alleged wrongdoings in the communications ministry in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government. Singh headed the empowered group of ministers (EGOM) when Arun Shourie was the communications minister between 2003 and 2004.

The BJP reaction came after the income tax department slammed dues of more than Rs.9 Lakh on Kejriwal, a confidant of Anna Hazare, whose fast for a strong anti-corruption law sparked nationwide protests.

BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said: ?It is very amusing that all these people who have raised their voice against the government have ended up with government notice.?

Kejriwal has been served a notice by the income tax department for a due of over Rs.9 Lakh, stating he violated bond conditions and his resignation from the government will be accepted only when the dues are cleared.

Kejriwal quit the Indian Revenue Service in February 2006. But in official records, he continues to be a government servant.

The government wants Kejriwal to return two years’ salary amounting to Rs.3.50 lakh and interest accumulated so far — Rs.4.16 lakh.

Kejriwal had also taken a computer loan, of which Rs 50,000 is due. The interest accumulated on the loan totals Rs.1 lakh.

Party president Nitin Gadkari, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj were also present in the meeting.

?The notification was issued without taking any suggestions from the chief minister or state cabinet… so we came to the president and asked her to intervene and correct what was being done against the constitution,? Advani told reporters.

?What happened in Gujarat is a violation of the constitution. The constitution does not allow the governor to appoint a Lokayukta without consulting the chief minister and state cabinet,? Advani said.

The president, he added, asked if the matter was subjudice. The party replied in the affirmative and asked her to intervene so the issue could be sorted out without going to court.

?Arunji said we have come to you so that the issue can be sorted out without the intervention of the court. If the central government intervenes and the notification is cancelled, the issue will be sorted out,? Advani said.

The BJP, which is the ruling party in Gujarat, has been upset over the controversial appointment of the Lokayukta in the state by the governor, bypassing the state government.

Both houses of parliament were disrupted on the issue Friday.

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi also wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Thursday.

Beniwal last week appointed retired judge Justice R.A. Mehta as the state Lokayukta. The Gujarat government has challenged the decision in the high court. The post was lying vacant for the past seven years.

In 2008, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) rejected an application filed by a candidate under the Right to Information Act for the inspection and re-evaluation of his Secondary School Examination answer books. The reason cited was that the CBSE shared a fiduciary relationship with its evaluators and maintained confidentiality of the manner and method of evaluation.

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts a public authority from disclosing information if it is held in a fiduciary relationship unless the authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants such disclosure. Further, the CBSE claimed that its examination bye-laws barred re-evaluation, disclosure or inspection of answer books, and what was permissible was only a verification of marks.

The CBSE submitted that the procedure evolved and adopted by it in the evaluation of answer books ensured fairness and accuracy and made the entire process as foolproof as possible. Further, it claimed that if candidates were to be permitted to seek the re-evaluation of answer books, it would create confusion and chaos, subjecting its elaborate system of examinations to delay and disarray apart from necessitating huge additional staff and infrastructure.

The Calcutta High Court, which first heard the candidate’s challenge against the CBSE’s rejection of his application, directed the CBSE to permit the candidate to inspect his answer books even while denying the candidate any right to seek its re-evaluation under the RTI Act. The CBSE appealed against this direction in the Supreme Court. In its detailed judgment delivered on August 9, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik held that the definition of “information” under the Act referred, among other things, to documents, and that the answer book, submitted by a candidate to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, was a document or record. The evaluated answer book becomes a record containing the “opinion” of the examiner and, therefore, it was “information” under the Act, the Bench observed.

FOR MORE READING. . . 

Clarifies that outsourcing service providers located in India will be governed by specific contracts signed with global and Indian customers

NASSCOM and Data Security Council of India (DSCI)  welcomed the clarification issued by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (MCIT), on the notified Rules u/s 43A of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008. These rules related to implementation of reasonable security practices by body corporate for sensitive personal information.

Mr. Som Mittal, President, NASSCOM said, “Data security and privacy is a key enabler for the growth of the global sourcing sector and Government of India under Cert-in has been proactive in creating the necessary legislative framework, rules and guidelines. However, the rules issued recently had created possible interpretation issues for outsourcing companies and we thank the government for their support in issuing the necessary clarifications”.

As per the clarificatory note, the following issues have been explained:

1. Rules u/s 43A is applicable to ‘body corporate’ within India. Body corporate (Customers for IT-BPO industry) located outside India will continue to be governed by the data protection legislations in their respective countries and the service providers in India, in turn, are governed by the contracts signed between them and the outsourcing organizations. However, the service providers in India must follow ‘reasonable security practices’ for protecting sensitive personal information processed by them.
2. Service Providers are exempted from Rules 5 & 6, i.e., Requirements on Consent, Choice,   Access & Correction, Retention, Discrepancies & Grievances, and Disclosure as these are the legal obligations of the body corporate which have direct relationship with the end consumer, unlike service providers who are acting on behalf of such organizations.
3. ‘Providers of information’ are natural persons (individuals) who provide their sensitive personal information to body corporate (customer) and not the outsourcing organizations in the context of outsourcing as was being interpreted by some of the law firms and attorneys.
4. Consent under Rule 5(1) includes consent given by any mode of electronic communication and is not restricted to consent provided through letter or fax or email

Summarizing the changes, Mr. Som Mittal said, “The IT-BPO industry in India has been rapidly transforming itself and is working closely with its customers and regulators to evolve robust security practices. DSCI has built a framework for data security and privacy practices for the industry. We look forward to working closely with the government in building India’s leadership in the global sourcing sector enabled by a robust data security and privacy regime.”

2008-09: 8; 2009-10: 1; 2010-11: 21

The Bar Council of India has informed that every effort is being made to ensure that each college follows the Bar Council of India Rules, 2008 which deal with minimum standards of legal education to be adopted by all institutions in the country, Shri Khurshid said.

Below are excerpts of the speech made by Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) leader in Rajya Sabha while moving two motions for removal from office of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court in Rajya Sabha on August 17 2011

I RISE to move these motions in response to the call of duty to my country and my Constitution. Particularly, I rise at a time when waves of protests are taking place all across the  country on the issue of corruption at high places. But, I think, though  by accident and not by design, these motions are coming up for  debate before us in this august House very fortuitously and it is happening at a time when the parliament can also exercise its will and  resolve of fighting corruption in high places. And it is in that context I rise to move these motions, as you have mentioned, fully conscious of the solemnity of the occasion. I also rise with a deep sense of anguish to move these motions.

I shall return to these aspects a little later. Let me first move these motions.  I beg to move the following motion:

This House resolves that an address be presented to the  President for removal from office of Justice Soumitra Sen  of the Calcutta High Court on the following two grounds of  misconduct:-

(iii) Misappropriation of large sums of money, which he  received in his capacity as receiver appointed by the  High Court of Calcutta; and

(iv) Misrepresented  facts  with  regard  to  the  misappropriation of money before the High Court of Calcutta.

I also move the following motion:

This House do consider the Report of the Inquiry Committee in regard to investigation and proof of the misbehaviour  alleged against Soumitra Sen, judge, High Court of  Calcutta which was laid on the Table of the House on the  10th November, 2010.

As I have said earlier, I moved these motions fully conscious of the  solemnity of the occasion. This arises from the fact that it is for the first time that this august House is considering the invocation of our Constitutional provisions for the adoption of such motions. This has not happened in our history so far.  I also wish to categorically state that by moving this motion we are not moving against the judiciary as a whole which we hold in the highest of esteem.

This is not a motion questioning the integrity of the judiciary. This is a motion against one judge who has been found to have indulged in conduct that constitutes the definition of misbehaviour within the meaning of our Constitution. It thus makes this judge unsuitable to occupy the exalted office of a judge of a High  Court.

Individual acts of misbehaviour cannot find refuge behind the integrity of the judiciary as a whole. The issue is one of infallibility and, therefore, the integrity of one individual judge and not the integrity of the judiciary as a whole. This motion is, therefore, moved, as I have said, not to question the integrity but to  strengthen that very integrity of our judiciary from being besmirched by  one act of a single judge.

Our Constitution very rightly provides the judiciary with a very important position and role. People’s faith in the independence and integrity of our judiciary is a very crucial element in the functioning and maturing of our democracy. It would be a very sad day if this faith of the people is undermined due to the acts of  conduct of an individual member. The judiciary is held in high esteem by both the people and the system as it dispenses with justice and is one of the important organs of our State. The judges are correctly assumed to be people of character, honesty and integrity who discharge their duties and functions without fear or favour in the spirit of upholding justice. It is, therefore, a call of duty to the nation to correct any aberration that may lead to the undermining of this faith. I have moved this motion in response to this call of duty.

As I have said, I moved these motions also with a deep sense of anguish. There is no sense of frivolity or elation, neither is there any sense of vindictiveness or retribution. These motions are, therefore, moved with full sanction of our Constitution and in accordance with these provisions.  My grandfather retired as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court when I was eight years old and I learnt at that time that a judge is not a judge only in the court, but a judge is a judge everywhere else in the society and that his acts, inside or outside the court, are a reflection on the judiciary as a whole.

PROVED

MISBEHAVIOUR

I think this spirit has been contained in the Inquiry Report.  I quote from the Inquiry  Committee Report. It says, “A judge of the High Court is placed on a high pedestal in our Constitution simply because judges of High  Courts like judges of the Supreme Court have functions and wield  powers of life and death over citizens and inhabitants  of  this country, such as are not wielded by any other public body or  authority. It is a power coupled with a duty, on the part of the judge to act honourably at all times whether in court or out of court. Citation of case law is superfluous because the categories of ‘misbehaviour’  are never closed.

“In interpreting Articles 124 (4) and (5) and the  provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and when considering  any question relating to the removal of a judge of the higher Judiciary  from his office, it must not be forgotten that it was to secure to the  people of India a fearless and independent judiciary that the judges of  Superior Courts were granted a special position in the Constitution with complete immunity from premature removal from the office except by the cumbersome process prescribed in Articles 124 (4) and (5) read with the law enacted by parliament, the Judges Inquiry  Act, 1968. The very vastness of the powers vested in the Higher Judiciary and the extraordinary immunity granted to judges of the  High Courts and of the Supreme Court require that judges should be  fearless and independent and that they should adopt a high standard  of rectitude so as to inspire confidence in members of the public who seek redress before them. While it is necessary to protect the judges from motivated and malicious attacks, it is also necessary to protect  the fair image of the institution of the Judiciary from such of those judges who choose to conduct themselves in a manner that would  tarnish this image. The word ‘misbehaviour’ after all is the antithesis of ‘good behaviour’. It is a breach of the condition subsequent upon which the guarantee of a fixed judicial tenure rests. High judicial office is essentially a public trust and it is the right of the people through its  representatives in the parliament to revoke this trust but only when there is ‘proved misbehaviour’.”

This is what I think the Inquiry Committee has proven in its report that it submitted to the chairman of this House and which has been laid on the Table of the  House.  The Constitution also provides specific provisions which are not only essential for the independence of the judiciary, but also for safeguards in the process of the removal of a judge.  These  provisions,  in  my  opinion,  are  aimed  at strengthening  independence of the judiciary rather than undermining it.

The  provisions for removal, however, are the most stringent and come into  effect only in the case of ‘proved misbehaviour’.  I think, this House must refresh  itself with strict safeguards that have been provided by the Constitution in order to  ensure that no particular member of the judiciary is moved against in  a spirit of vendetta or vindictiveness.  These are: (1) At least 50  Members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 Members of the Lok Sabha must  bring a motion in either House; (2) The chairman or the speaker will apply his or her mind before admitting the motion; (3)  Once admitted, the chairman or the speaker will constitute a high level inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act; the concerned  judge will have full opportunity for defence before this Committee; (4)  If the Committee does not find the judge guilty, then the matter ends there with no scope of any parliamentary or judicial review. It is only  when the Committee finds the concerned judge guilty, will the matter  come up before the parliament; (5) The parliament cannot decide the matter by a simple majority; a two-thirds majority is required. The  concerned judge will have the opportunity to make his defence once again before the parliament, in that House where it is moved.

Sixthly, both the Houses of parliament will have to decide, by two-thirds of majority, separately  and within the same session of parliament. Finally, even after his removal by the president of India, following the decision, when we  adopt these Motions today, taken up by both the Houses, the judge in question, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directives, can  seek redress from the Supreme Court by way of a judicial review.  Thus, there is very little ground to apprehend that  justice will not be done to these safeguards. Therefore, as far as the  present case is concerned, we have reached the fifth stage.

The  Report of the Inquiry Committee has been laid before parliament, on  the 10th of September, as I have said, and the Report, unambiguously upholds these charges. I quote:  “Whether the grounds of  misconduct, which Justice Soumitra Sen has been charged with, if proved, amount to misbehaviour under article 124 (4) read with article  217 (1) of proviso (b). In the opinion of the Committee, the grounds  of misconduct, when proved, would amount  to misbehaviour under the relevant articles.” Then, it proceeds to  establish this unambiguously. It enlightens us how this entire concept of  misbehaviour had come in the Act of 1935, in the Constituent Assembly Debates, and how, under the present constitutional  provisions, both the charges against Justice Soumitra Sen have been  held to be valid and unambiguously correct. I quote: “In  view of the findings on Charge I and Charge II above, the Inquiry  Committee is of the opinion that Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court is guilty of misbehaviour under article 124 read with proviso (b)  to article 127 (1) of the Constitution of India.” So, after this, I think,  the matter needs to be treated as closed. I would  like to refer to one of the aspects that Justice Soumitra Sen has referred to in his  defence. He invokes, from French history, the Dreyfus Affair. Then, he proceeds  to say, “The march of time has witnessed thousands, all over the  world, wrongly persecuted in the name of justice and for upholding the  rule of law.”

He then proceeds to cast aspersions on the then chief  justice of India, whose letter to the prime minister, seeking removal of  Justice Soumitra Sen, was appended to our Motion, and other  members of the highest judiciary who have either pronounced or  opined against him, to try and establish that “the verdict was already  reserved even before the trials commenced.” Now, the invocation of Dreyfus Affair, I think, is thoroughly inappropriate. The Dreyfus Affair,  all of us will know, was brought into public domain by the famous  French intellectual and writer, Emile Zola. It was brought about at a  time when the entire battle was taking place in Europeover the  formation of the nation States. It was brought about at a time when  secularism and separation of the Church from the State was a big affair in the history of Europe. And, at that point of time,  somebody caught in the crossfire cannot be treated as an example of  somebody being wronged, and abstracted from this history. I think, it  will be completely out of context to have brought this in here. But it is  from this process of evolution of human civilization, you have the  French philosopher, Charles Montesquieu, who laid down the  benchmark, in a modern democracy, for checks and balances  between these three important organs, namely, the executive, the  legislature and the judiciary.

And, it is on that basis that our Constitution has also been drawn up. And, while working out the  mechanics of the three wings to play a joint participatory role in our  Constitution, we define the centrality of the will of the people. The  Preamble begins by saying, “We, the people”. This centrality of the  will of the people, is expressed through its elected representatives in parliament, and this centrality is supreme in our constitutional  scheme of things. And it is with this supremacy today that we are  taking up this matter. And I wish, instead of quoting the Dreyfus  Affair, we would have rather recollected what we stand for today, on  the basis of what law, and whether these laws are being violated.

But if at all you want to go back into history, I think it is more appropriate to recollect the  debate in the British parliament on the Censure Motion against Robert  Clive when he was charged with amassing huge amounts of money  after the Battle of Plassey and the loot of Kolkata. Thomas Babington Macaulay, the same Macaulay who is known for his  infamous minute on education in colonial India, noted, Clive at that  time was trying to justify what he did to the rapacious loot of Kolkata by saying that this was a city waiting to be taken. Justifying his loot Clive had stated “People welcomed  me with both extended hands, one laden with gold, the other laden with gems and jewellery. By God, Mr Chairman, at this moment, I stand astonished at my own  moderation”. Now, according to the law of the land, at that point of time you have violated that law and you have committed acts of misbehaviour.

Another historic case is the impeachment of Warren Hastings. For seven long years the House of Lords heard the case of Warren Hastings after the House of Commons had impeached him. Edmond Burke in one of his most memorable orations, when he introduced this case to the House of Lords stated “Law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity”. And, then, he proceeds to define judges thus: “Judges are guided and governed by the eternal laws of  justice to which we are all subject. We may bite our chains if we will, but  we shall be made to know ourselves and be taught that man is born to be  governed by law and that he who substitutes will in the place of law is an enemy of God.” This was more than two centuries ago. Where we affirm faith in our Constitution, the faith was affirmed in God then. So, do not misunderstand when this quotation is quoted here.

FACTS OF

THE CASE

The  labour of argument of Justice Sen’s reply has been that the motion  moved by me and 57 other colleagues does not contain any specific amounts of money that have been misappropriated.  Yes, the motion does not  contain; the motion was appended with the letter of the then chief justice of India to the prime minister where the entire case was  argued. We appended that letter not as a recommendation that you should accept our motion. We appended that letter because it contains all the facts which need not be repeated. If the contention is that these facts are not there, I think, that is wrong. I can read out from the letter of  the then CJI which details all these charges.

The letter says, “On 10th September, 2007, I had asked Justice Soumitra Sen to  furnish his fresh and final response to the judicial observations made  against him. After seeking more time for this purpose, he furnished his response on 28th Septebmer, 2007 requesting that he may be allowed  to resume duties in view of the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Since I felt that a proper probe was required to be made into the allegations to bring the matter to a logical  conclusion, I constituted a three-member committee consisting of  Justice A P Shah, the then chief justice of the Madras High Court,  Justice A K Patnaik, the then chief justice of the High Court of  Madhya Pradesh and Justice R N Lodha, judge of the Rajasthan  High Court. The in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court and various High Courts is as envisaged in this procedure to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. The committee submitted its report on such and  such date, etc.” Then, it concluded by saying, I will read out the  main charges: “(1) Shri Soumitra Sen did not have honest intentions  right from the year 1993. Since he mixed the money received as a receiver and his personal money and converted receiver’s money to  his own use, there has been a misappropriation at least temporarily of  the sale proceeds. (a) He received Rs 24,57,000 between 25th  February, 1993 to 10th January, 1995. But, the balance in his account number so and so and dated so and so was only Rs 8,83,963.05. (b)  Further, a sum of Rs 22,83,000 was then transferred by him into so and so account number, name so and so, and the entire amount was withdrawn in a couple of months reducing the balance to a bare  minimum of Rs 811, diverting the sale proceeds for his own use with  dishonest intentions. (c) He gave false explanation to the court that  an amount of Rs 25 lakhs was invested from the account where the sale proceeds were kept whereas in fact the amount of Rs.25 lakhs was withdrawn from Special Officer’s account number so and so and  not from the account number so and so in which the sale proceeds were deposited. (d) Mere monetary deposit under the compulsion of judicial orders does not obliterate breach of trust and misappropriation  of receiver’s funds for personal gain. (e) The conduct of Shri Soumitra  Sen has brought disrepute to the high judicial office and dishonour for   the institution of judiciary undermining the faith and confidence  reposed by the public in the administration of justice.” Then, he goes on to say, “A detailed representation was made by Justice Soumitra  Sen on 25th February, 2008 and a collegium consisting of himself, that is, chief justice of India, Justice B N  Aggarwal and Justice Ashok  Bahl, senior most judges of the Supreme Court, gave a hearing to Shri  Soumitra Sen and reiterated the advice given to him to submit his  resignation or seek voluntary retirement on or before 2nd April, 2008.  However, vide his letter dated 26th March, 2008, Justice Soumitra Sen expressed his inability to tender resignation or seek voluntary  retirement.”

INVIOLABLE

JUSTICE

So, the charges are very specific and an in-house Inquiry Committee consisting of two chief justices and a justice of a High Court has gone into it and established it. A collegium of senior most judges of the Supreme Court has re-established them.  Now, the Inquiry Committee constituted by chairman of Rajya Sabha has, once again, unambiguously established it. So, I do not think there is any degree of ambiguity on the veracity of these charges. Since they stand established by three separate, independent and duly constituted  authorities, I think, this is a matter that should be accepted by us as the final issue that these charges have been now proved.

Therefore, in view of this, I feel that there is no other option but for us to proceed with these motions. We have to move against a judge in order to strengthen the integrity and safeguard the  institution of our judiciary. I would like to appeal and go back to the speech of Edmund Burke in the House of Lords when he finally makes the appeal to the Lordships, and I quote, “My Lords, if you must fall, you may so fall. But if you stand, and stand, I trust you will, may you stand as unimpeached in honour as in power. May you stand not as a substitute for virtue, but as an ornament of virtue, as a security for virtue. May you stand as a sacred temple for the perpetual residence of inviolable justice.” And this is the inviolable justice that this  House today represents when it converts itself into a Bar, when it takes up these Constitutional provisions, it is the temple of inviolable justice.

And, therefore, a sacred temple for the perpetual residence of inviolable justice, that is what this House must be. Justice and temple are used in the terms that Pandit Nehru used after Independence when he talked of our important public sector constructions as the temples of modern India. These are the temples of modern India that our Republic created. I say this with all honour at my command and all  the commitment at my command that the Republic that was founded  in India, I was born after that, was a far-reaching  vision in modern civilisation and society. Way back, more than six decades ago, we had given universal adult franchise in our country, which was then considered absolutely abnormal and unusual. We  must recollect, when the president of USA comes and signs  in our Golden Book in our Central Hall, all of us are very happy, when  he says, “Greetings from the oldest democracy to the largest democracy”. But, remember, the African Americans in the USA  had the universal right to vote granted to them one year after president  Obama was born. One year after he was born, they were given the universal right to vote. We gave it way back in 1950. That is the faith that we had in our people, we have in our people. And that is the faith that has to be exercised in our constitutional scheme of things through the elected representatives, and it is that faith that today unfortunately is being questioned by some quarters that this august parliament is not competent or not capable enough to deal with corruption in high places, and, therefore, it cannot and will not  move against corruption in high places. Therefore, we must set the precedent. We must give that confidence to the people ofIndia. We owe it to the people of India that we will take action on these motions  precisely in order to strengthen our Republic and it is for strengthening  of our Republic, I would now commend these motions for  adoption by this House, and commend them to make sure that we  convey not only to the people of India but also to the people of the  world and modern human civilisation that the Indian parliament is a sacred temple, it is the perpetual residence of an inviolable justice.  And this has to be established. With this appeal, I commend these motions for your consideration and adoption by this House.

The CBI action came even as the former Congress leader and son of late Chief Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy moved the Supreme Court challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order directing CBI to have a thorough inquiry against him for his alleged disproportionate assets.

The High Court, in its order, had directed CBI to take their probe into the case to its logical end and ordered a thorough inquiry by CBI into the alleged disproportionate assets of Jagan after registering a criminal case.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nissar Ahmad Kakru and Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar had also asked the investigating agency to inquire into the alleged irregularities of land allotment to Emaar by the then Rajasekhara Reddy government and dilution of the stake of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation (APIIC) in joint venture with Emaar for the development of township on the city outskirts.

State Handlooms and Textile Minister P Shankar Rao, three members of main opposition TDP, and a Kadapa-based lawyer had filed a petition in the court seeing a CBI inquiry into the companies that had invested in Jagan’s businesses to allegedly win favours in the form of land allotments and mining leases from the then government led by Jagan’s father YS Rajasekhara Reddy.

Full Text of CBI  FIR Against YS Jagan  Mohan Reddy :FIR ON JAGAN

The apex court bench of Justice Balveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma, after a long hearing, declined to interfere with the high court order.

Appearing for Jaganmohan Reddy, senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi said the high court ordered the registration of first information report (FIR) and consequent investigation without giving his client the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report on its preliminary investigation.

“There is no need to interfere with the oder of the high court,” a bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari said. Reddy, son of late chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, had earlier moved the apex court challenging the August 10 order of the high court saying it was not a “reasoned decision”.

The high court, in its order, had directed CBI to take their probe into the case to its logical end.

The high court’s order came on a petition filed by state Handlooms and Textile Minister P Shankar Rao who had alleged that Jagan’s income rose from Rs11 lakh in 2004 to Rs43,000 crore by the time of his father’s death in 2009.

In his petition, Rao had sought a CBI inquiry into the companies that had invested in Jagan’s businesses to allegedly win favours in the form of land allotments and mining leases from the then YSR government.

The high court had set aside the arguments of Jagan’s counsel that the petitioner has political vendetta against him and said the contention of the petitioner needs to be appreciated.

On July 22, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the high court’s order for a preliminary CBI inquiry to ascertainif Jagan owns assets disproportionate to his income.

A bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma had dismissed Jagan’s plea refusing to interfere with the high court’s order.

 Without a system in place to fight corruption, there is no point in talking about constitutional values, governance, stability and respect for the PM etc. After dark days of emergency, Bofors scandal, bribes to MPs to win confidence vote and defection based power mongering, India’s respect for its Prime Minister diminished. The PMs only could be held responsible for this decline. As the image of Mr. Clean was tarnished with Bofors, the respect for Manmohan Singh too suffered a serious dent with purchase of confidence vote and silent facilitation of 2g Spectrum scandal involving his own cabinet colleague. Since the emergency Prime Ministers were accused either before the court of law or people’s court. While courts failed to punish them, people did not.

 Probing a PM

For more than four decades we were proposing Lokpal but never seriously debated or acted for it. The result is increase in number of scandals. The corrupt in high places are emboldened as none could question them. Prime Minister VP Singh proposed in 1989 a Lokpal Bill providing to probe into the corruption charges against Prime Minister. The Bills 1999, 1997, 2001 and latest draft in 2010 also contained this provision. But later it was dropped and the present bill of the Union Government says PM would come under probe only after he/she demits office.

 The Constitution did not provide for any immunity to PM, whereas President enjoys it during the term of office. Article 361(2) provided that no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or the Governor of a State in any court during his term of office. There is a provision that the conduct of President may be brought under review by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for investigation of a charge under Article 61 (which provided for impeachment of President). Thus if Parliament wanted, it can designate a tribunal to question the actions of the President during his tenure. When the Constitution gave the authority to question the action of President by any designated tribunal, why not the actions of Prime Minister are brought under probe by Lokpal?

Collective Responsibility

As per the Article 75(3) says the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of People. Supreme Court explained the object of collective responsibility is to make the whole body of persons holding ministerial office collectively, or, if one may so put it, “vicariously responsible for such acts of the others as referable to their collective violation so that, even if an individual may not be personally responsible for it, yet, he will be deemed to share the responsibility with those who may have actually committed some wrong”. (State of Karnakata v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68)

This exactly makes the PM, the first among equals in the council, responsible for the acts of his ministers. Former Telecom Minister D Raja, accused in 2G Spectrum scandal, said that PMO knows each of his implicating decisions. Thus, there is a need to probe the role of entire cabinet in this kind of policy framing which led to a scandal. YS Jaganmohan Reddy’s lawyers contended before AP High Court, that decisions of CM Rajasekhar Reddy were not individual but of cabinet. As Krishna Iyer, veteran Judge of SC said that the Prime Minister being custodian of the considerable state power, he has to be under public scrutiny. He referred to Lord Acton, the great British jurist, who rightly said: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (in his article in the Hindu, July 1, 2011) He said in a judgment in 1979 “Fearless investigation is a ‘sine qua non’ of exposure of delinquent ‘greats’ and if the investigative agencies tremble to probe or make public the felonies of high office, white-collar offenders in the peaks may be unruffled by the law. An independent investigative agency to be set in motion by any responsible citizen is a desideratum.” Mrs. Indira Gandhi failed to amend the Constitution to give life-time immunity from criminal proceedings for acts done during and even prior to assuming office, of the President, the Governor and additionally the Prime Minister to save herself from Rajnarayan’s charges.

Offering immunity is thus not only against what is prescribed under Constitution, but also against its tenets and values. Excluding PM from Lokpal means, a member of counsel of ministers could be probed but not its leader. It will also hit at the basis of Lokpal, which is aimed at providing for sanction for prosecution of allegations proved prima facie, against the constitutional office holders.

****Author of This Article is the Professor, In NALSAR University of Law

We give below some extracts from the Supreme Court judgment dated 12.07.2011 on the issue of scavengers working under the Delhi Jal Board (Civil appeal No 5322 of 2011), which are self explanatory

This appeal filed by Delhi Jal Board for setting aside an interlocutory order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby it has been directed to deposit Rs.79,000/- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in addition to Rs.1.71 lacs already paid to the families of the deceased worker, namely, Rajan is one of the several thousand cases filed by the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities to challenge the orders passed by the High Courts for ensuring that the goal of justice set out in the preamble to the Constitution of India is fulfilled, at least in some measure, for the disadvantaged sections of the society who have been deprived of fundamental rights to equality, life and liberty for last more than 6 decades.

The appeal is also illustrative of how the State apparatus is insensitive to the safety and well being of those who are, on account of sheer poverty, compelled to work under most unfavourable conditions and regularly face the threat of being deprived of their life’.

The laws enacted by Parliament and State legislatures provide for payment of compensation to the legal representatives of those killed in air, rail or motor accident. The legal representatives of a workman, who dies while on duty in a factory/industry/establishment, get a certain amount of compensation. Even those who are killed in police action get compensation in the form of ex-gratia announced by the political apparatus of the State.

However, neither the law makers nor those who have been entrusted with the duty of implementing the laws enacted for welfare of the unorganised workers have put in place appropriate mechanism for protection of persons employed by or through the contractors to whom services meant to benefit the public at large are outsourced by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities like the appellant for doing works, which are inherently hazardous and dangerous to life nor made provision for payment of reasonable compensation in the event of death’ ….

In the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel, the following three questions arise for our consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 by way of public interest litigation for compelling the respondents to take effective measures for safety of sewage workers and ordering payment of compensation to the families of the victims of accidents taking place during sewage operations.

2. Whether the directions given by the High Court amount to usurpation of the legislative power of the State, and

3. Whether the High Court was entitled to issue interim direction for payment of compensation to the families of deceased workers.

Re: Question No.1:

‘At the threshold, we deem it necessary to erase the impression and misgivings of some people that by entertaining petitions filed by social action groups /activists/workers and NGOs for espousing the cause of those who, on account of poverty, illiteracy and/or ignorance and similar other handicaps, cannot seek protection and vindication of their constitutional and/or legal rights and silently suffer due to actions and/or omissions of the State apparatus and/or agencies /instrumentalities of the State or even private individuals, the superior Courts exceed the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdictions. When the Constitution of India was adopted, the people of this country resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic. They also resolved to secure to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.

‘For achieving the goals set out in the preamble, the framers of the Constitution identified and recognised certain basic rights of the citizens and individuals and pooled them in Part III, which has the title `Fundamental Rights’ and simultaneously incorporated Directive Principles of State Policy which, though not enforceable by any Court are fundamental in governance of the country and the State is under obligation to comply with the principles embodied in Part-IV in making laws. Article 38, which was renumbered as Clause (1) thereof by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 declares that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Clause (2) of this Article, which was inserted by the same Amending Act, declares that State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals, but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Article 39(e) mandates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 39A which was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 lays down that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Article 42 enjoins the State to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief’

‘In last 63 years, Parliament and State Legislatures have enacted several laws for achieving the goals set out in the preamble but their implementation has been extremely inadequate and tardy and benefit of welfare measures enshrined in those legislations has not reached millions of poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the society and the efforts to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots have not yield the desired result. The most unfortunate part of the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of the State i.e., judiciary, has issued directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life and liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance and directions are given for implementation of the laws enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the have-nots, a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or judicial overreach and the orders issued for benefit of the weaker sections of the society are invariably subjected to challenge in the higher Courts. In large number of cases, the sole object of this litigative exercise is to tire out those who genuinely espouse the cause of the weak and poor. …

Re: Question No.2:

In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we do not have any slightest hesitation to reject the argument that by issuing the directions, the High Court has assumed the legislative power of the State. What the High Court has done is nothing except to ensure that those employed/engaged for doing work which is inherently hazardous and dangerous to life are provided with life saving equipments and the employer takes care of their safety and health. The State and its agencies/instrumentalities cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility to put in place effective mechanism for ensuring safety of the workers employed for maintaining and cleaning the sewage system. The human beings who are employed for doing the work in the sewers cannot be treated as mechanical robots, who may not be affected by poisonous gases in the manholes. The State and its agencies /instrumentalities or the contractors engaged by them are under a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of the persons who are asked to undertake hazardous jobs. The argument of choice and contractual freedom is not available to the appellant and the like for contesting the issues raised by respondent No.1.

….. Re: Question No.3:

‘In view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned judgments, the appellant’s challenge to the interim directions given by the High Court for payment of compensation to the families of the workers deserves to be rejected. However, that is not the end of the matter. We feel that the High Court should have taken cue from the judgment in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (supra) and awarded compensation which could be treated as reasonable. Though, it is not possible to draw any parallel between the trauma suffered by a victim of rape and the family of a person who dies due to the negligence of others, but the High Court could have taken note of the fact that this Court had approved the award of compensation of Rs.10 lacs in 1998 to the victim of rape as also increase in the cost of living and done well to award compensation of atleast Rs.5 lacs to the families of those who died due to negligence of the public authority like the appellant who did not take effective measures for ensuring safety of the sewage workers. We may have remitted the case to the High Court for passing appropriate order for payment of enhanced compensation but keeping in view the fact that further delay would add to the miseries of the family of the victim, we deem it proper to exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3.29 lakhs to the family of the victim through Delhi High Court State Legal Services Committee. This would be in addition to Rs.1.71 lakhs already paid by the contractor’

‘In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid direction regarding the amount of compensation to be paid by the appellant. It is needless to say that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the additional amount from the contractor. Respondent No.1 shall also be entitled to file appropriate application before the High Court for payment of enhanced compensation to the families of other victims and we have no doubt that the High Court will entertain such request.

The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010 have been framed keeping in view the interest of the customers and telemarketers while ensuring effective implementation. These regulations, inter-alia, provide for the following punitive action:-

• Deduction from Security Deposit of telemarketers ranging from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 2.5 Lakhs
• Disconnection of Telecom resources of defaulting telemarketers
• Provision of blacklisting of telemarketers
• Provision of disconnection of resources of unregistered telemarketers
• Financial disincentive on Access Service Providers ranging from Rupees onlakh to Ten lakhs

Judges no longer live in ivory towers. Today, they live in glasshouses where the bar, litigants, public and the media watch them from close proximity. But then we have all to exercise utmost restraint. Judges cannot defend themselves against unfounded allegations. They must neither be summarily tried nor be thrown to the wolves. A Judge, under inquiry, must be candid. He cannot plead only technical defences. He cannot be too clever by half. He cannot invoke a right to silence like an ordinary accused, and shy away from speaking the truth.

FOR MORE READING. . .

Once admitted, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is required to set up an inquiry committee to look into (and establish) the charges before Parliament can continue with the impeachment motion. The motion must be carried by two-thirds of those present and voting who must, in addition, constitute a majority of the total strength of the concerned House. After this, the motion has to be passed in a similar fashion by the other House. When both Houses recommend that the judge be removed from office can the President act to remove him.

FOR MORE READING. . .

The official Lok Pal Bill presented in parliament is weak and inadequate. A strong popular movement has to be built up to ensure that an effective legislation is adopted by parliament. However the menace of corruption should be fought at its roots.

  Every day, the  aam admi has to pay bribes to get their work done.   Whether  for  a  ration  card,  an  SC  or  ST  certificate  or  even  to  file  a  police  complaint or anything else, nothing gets done without the greasing of  palms.  If you do not have the money to bribe, you have to suffer even  though you have the right for the particular benefit you are being asked  to pay for. This experience is not new.  But in today’s India, if corruption  has spread like an epidemic affecting every sphere of life, it is because  corruption has become institutionalized, an intrinsic part of governance  starting from the very top.  As the saying goes, when the source of the  Ganga is polluted, every stream will be affected.  When the top levels of  government are involved in corruption, it will affect all spheres.  The UPA-2 government has been hit by successive cases of high level  corruption.  Corrupt ministers have been allowed to remain in the  government for months and the investigations manipulated, in order to  obstruct the course of justice.  It is only after a Supreme Court  intervention  that  the  Government  was  forced  to  act.

The  loot  of  public  resources is happening at a time when millions of people suffer from  acute poverty, hunger and lack of  opportunities.  Besides affecting  economic development, accumulation of wealth by illegal means is  widening inequalities and ruining the moral fabric of our society.  There  is legitimate widespread national outrage at the corruption.   For a strong and independent Lok Pal

For 45 years from when the first Lok Pal Bill was presented to Parliament  in 1966, successive Governments have avoided the establishment of a  strong and independent Lok Pal. There is a need for a strong Lokpal  Bill which would include the Prime  Minister in its ambit. After the  experience of the Bofors corruption scandal, the V.P.Singh Government  in 1989, included the post of Prime  Minister in the ambit of the Lok Pal proposed. Since then every draft Bill  including the Bill recommended by a Standing Committee headed by  Pranab Mukherjee in 2001 included the Prime Minister. Why is the  Government afraid of it now?

MPs and MLAs

The Constitution should be amended to ensure a proper  enquiry into the activities of Members of Parliament where there are  corruption charges such as the cash for vote scam in 2008. Crores of  rupees which were being offered to opposition MPs by the ruling alliance  to save the government were displayed in the House but till date no  action has been taken against even a single person.

At  the Centre as well as the States elected representatives of the people  should be brought under the ambit of anti-corruption scrutiny through  proper legislation.

The Judiciary

Along with  a strong Lokpal, it is essential to  take other steps such as a separate law to ensure accountability of  judges including those in the Supreme Court through the setting up of a  National  Judicial Commission.  There are so many examples where judges are  suspected to have taken money to give a particular judgement favouring  one side but no action can be taken under the present system.  There is a need for electoral reforms because we know that the money generated  through the huge corruption deals and the unpaid tax and black money  is also used in elections to buy votes. Thus corruption also directly  corrodes and weakens the parliamentary democratic system.   The State  should finance elections.  At the same time, to deal with the every day  problems of corruption that the ordinary people face, it is essential to  have a law which will ensure quick  punishment through a special  mechanism against bribe takers at the lower levels of governance to  bring relief to the people directly.

Toxic Nexus

But this is not enough—we have to understand, expose and fight back  the fountainhead of corruption. There is Trimurti in  operation in India today—the trimurti representing the nexus of big  corporates, politicians and bureaucrats. The mega-scams that are  unfolding today – the 2G spectrum allocation scam, CWG scam, KG basin  gas scam etc, the growth of black money, the continuing tax evasion –  show how thousands of crores worth of public resources have been  illicitly cornered by this nexus.  At the State level too, scams have  proliferated related to the grabbing of mineral resources and land by big   corporates and real estate developers aided by the permissions given by  the central Government.

This exponential growth of corruption and the process of neoliberal  reforms are not merely coincidental; the former has been a direct  outcome of the enmeshing of big money, vested interests and politics,  brought about by the latter. The hallmark of the present corruption is the  loot of scarce resources like spectrum, gas, valuable minerals and even land and water resources.

2G Scam: Look at the 2G scam–biggest scam unearthed in recent times costing the exchequer over 1.76 lakh crore rupees. Every day some new  dimension of the scandal is revealed.

As per the CAG report, the beneficiaries of the under priced spectrum  allocated in 2008 includes all the major corporates in the telecom sector,  from Tata Teleservices and Reliance Telecom to Bharti, Vodafone, Idea  etc. Besides, two real estate players, Unitech and DB Realty (Swan) also  received underpriced spectrum and made huge windfall gains by selling  their equity to foreign companies, Telenor and Etisalat, respectively. The  top bureaucrat, the Secretary in the Ministry was also involved.  Several  more corporate executives from all the major telecom companies have  been questioned by the CBI and it is possible that more arrests will be  made in the coming days.

While the role of A. Raja the former Telecom Minister is well known, he  could follow these tainted policies because of the failure of the Prime  Minister and others such as the then Finance Minister Chidambaram  refused  to intervene. The question  rises: when it was known that    wrong policies of allocation of spectrum to benefit some corporates were  being followed why did the Prime Minister and the cabinet not act? It was  not a secret.

There were Objections  to the tainted process of 2G  spectrum allocation in 2008 itself, yet not only was Raja permitted to  remain in the cabinet but the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues  defended him. Even now, the new Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal from the  Congress is refusing to act and recover the lost revenues from the  corporate beneficiaries of the scam.  the 2G licenses and spectrum that were disbursed through the tainted  process in 2008 should be cancelled and re-auctioned to recoup the  losses to the national exchequer.

Another Telecom Scam: Another Minister of the UPA government from  the DMK, Dayanidhi Maran, has recently been forced to resign from the  cabinet. It was during his period that the FDI cap in telecom was raised  to 74 per cent. It is now exposed that the Minister himself had  manipulated the policy in such a way to force a domestic telecom  company to sell out to a  foreign company. The foreign company  immediately got licenses to operate in different parts of the company. It  then invested over 800 crores rupees in a television company owned by  Maran’s brother. This is a classic example of how crony capitalism works.  The Nation demands thorough investigation of the allegations against  Dayanidhi Maran and Sun TV and strong action if the charges are  proven.

CWG Scam:  A  huge  amount  of  public  resources  were  looted  and  squandered in the run up to the Common Wealth Games held in October  2010 in New Delhi. Despite many reports appearing in the media  regarding the messy preparations for the games and absurdly overpriced  contracts awarded to favoured companies by the CWG Organising  Committee headed by Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi, the government  failed to prevent the misdeeds. After the games were over, the Central  Government appointed a committee under former CAG V.K. Shunglu,  which came out with revelations of corruption against several persons.  Subsequently, Kalmadi has been arrested and charge sheeted by the CBI  alongwith his cronies in a case involving a scam of around Rs. 95 crore  loss to the exchequer. But why is the Government not acting on the  other exposures of the Shunglu report which involve much larger sums  of money? It has indicted the  Delhi Government, named the Chief  Minister and the Lieutenant Governor as well as indicted the Central  Urban development Ministry. Shamefully contractors, builders like MGF  were only paid huge amounts amounting to a loss of thousands of crores  of rupees on different counts. In the  name of beautification of the city  huge amounts were paid out which have not been properly accounted  for.

strong action Should be taken against all the officials and corporate  beneficiaries of the CWG scam. The role of all the agencies involved in  the CWG, including the Delhi State government, which has been indicted  by the Shunglu Committee must be scrutinized by the CAG and action  taken against the guilty. Cover-up attempts cannot be tolerated.

KG Gas Scam: The other big scam which is presently unfolding relates  to the production sharing contract between the central government and  the Reliance Industries on natural gas extracted from the KrishnaGodavari (KG) basin in the Bay of Bengal. A draft Performance Audit  report of the CAG has already questioned the way the RIL was allowed to  artificially inflate its development cost from $2.4 billion in the initial  contract to $8.5 billion. When this was done in 2006, Now the CAG has indicted  the Director General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) and the Petroleum Ministry  of conniving with the RIL, indulging in “irregularities and bending rules”  to “oblige” RIL in the KG basin gas fields, leading to a massive and as yet  “unquantifiable” loss to the national exchequer. Independent estimates 5 suggest that total loss to the government would be to the tune of $10  billion or around Rs. 45000 crore.

Action should be taken  against the former DGH VK Sibal for  colluding with the RIL and causing loss to the exchequer. He is being  interrogated by the CBI in a 2005 case where he had awarded a contract  to a US based company GX International at an inflated cost, causing a  loss of Rs. 400 crore to the exchequer. The faulty pricing formula in the Production Sharing Contract with  the RIL should be amended forthwith so that the loss to the exchequer can be  recovered.  There is a need for delinking of the domestic gas  price from international crude oil price and fixing of gas price based on a  cost-plus formula. The hesitation of the government in taking these steps  expose the strong influence of Reliance on the Congress led government.

Other Scams: Several other scams have occurred in the recent period  such as the IPL scam, the Antrix deal etc., which follows the similar  pattern of ministries bending the rules to favour corporate entities  against kickbacks. Allegations of wrongdoings have been made in the  import and export of items like wheat, rice, sugar and onions in the past  few years helping certain companies make windfall profits.

At the level of states, the BJP government in Karnataka is under the  stranglehold of the Reddy brothers of Bellary, who have siphoned off  crores of rupees in illegal mining of iron ore. There are serious  allegations of a multi-crore land scam against the Chief Minister  Yeddyurappa too, who denotified land meant for public projects and  allocated it to his sons and other BJP leaders.

These are the double standards of the BJP.

The Adarsh Housing society scam was exposed in Maharashtra, involving  four former Chief Ministers of Maharashtra  – Ashok Chavan, Vilasrao  Deshmukh (Union Rural Development Minister), Sushil Shinde (Union  Power Minister) and Narayan Rane . Yet except for Chavan the others  still hold office.

All this shows how the state governments led by the Congress and the  BJP are not only mired in corruption but also how the corrupt ministers  are protected by their parties.

Black Money

According to a recent study, the present value of illicit financial flows out  of India was calculated to be at least $462 billion (over Rs. 20 lakh  crore). Total capital flight represented approximately 16.6% of India’s  GDP in 2008. Significantly, the study noted that deregulation and  liberalization in the post-reform period of 1991-2008, accelerated the 6 outflow of illicit money from the Indian economy. It is believed that out  of the $5 trillion worth of assets of foreign clients presently being  managed by the Swiss banks, a substantial share is that of Indians (the  largest share as per some sources).

These illicit funds stashed in the Swiss and other foreign banks by  Indians should be confiscated and repatriated to India. However, the UPA  government’s attitude towards this has clearly been lackadaisical. The  government had received a list of 26 Indians from the German  government in 2010 who have secret deposits in the LGT Bank in  Liechtenstein. This list has been submitted to the Supreme Court in an  ongoing case on black money but the government has refused to make  the list public citing compulsions under tax avoidance treaties. The  Government wants to protect these tax evaders who have stashed away  black money abroad.

Scrap Mauritius Route 

A major conduit for tax evasion and money laundering is through the  Mauritius route. India’s Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)  with Mauritius allows companies with  an office address in that island  country to escape paying capital gains tax in India. The fact that this  treaty is being thoroughly misused can be seen from the fact that out of  the $132 billion (Rs. 5.9 lakh crore) of total FDI inflows into India  between April 2000 and April 2011, $55 billion (Rs.2.4 lakh crore) or  41.5% came from Mauritius alone. During this period the FDI inflows  from Singapore was $13 billion, $9.5 billion from the US and $6.6 billion  from the UK. Why is it that a small island country like Mauritius accounts  for over 8 times the amount of FDI inflows into India from the US, the  largest economy of the world. This happens because MNCs and FIIs  across the world set up offices in the Mauritius to invest into India and  enjoys profits without having to pay taxes.

It is widely believed that much of  the FDI routed through Mauritius is  actually Indian money being round tripped and laundered. It is  noteworthy that some of the recent scams in India, like the 2G scam or  the IPL scam, involved channeling of funds through shell companies set  up in Mauritius.

Under pressure from the Left parties during the UPA-I  government’s tenure, negotiations were initiated with the Mauritian  government to plug the loopholes in the DTAA. However, there has been  little progress on this so far. The main reason is the tremendous  pressure built by the Indian corporates, MNCs and FIIs to maintain  status  quo.  It  is  important  to  build  counter-pressure  on  the  government  in this regard.

Tax Defaulters: A huge amount of arrears of central taxes have  accumulated over the years. The total outstanding arrear demand  reached Rs. 2.5 lakh crore in 2010. Out of this around Rs. 1 lakh crore  was held up because the tax assesses are untraceable or there are no  assets to attach from them. These huge tax arrears have accumulated  because of the chronic tax defaulters, who are getting away without  paying their due taxes. The neoliberal medicine of cutting tax rates to  enhance tax compliance has not worked. The IT department has  reportedly prepared a list of 551 high net worth individuals and entities  who have willfully defaulted or have unpaid taxes worth Rs. 25 crore and  above. This list should be made public forthwith and the due taxes  collected from them, by attaching their assets wherever necessary.

Root Cause of Corruption

It was claimed that economic reforms will not only lead to greater economic prosperity but  also enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance. The logic was simple: government’s regulation and licensing  policies are the source of all corruption and therefore privatization and  liberalization, by lessening the role of the government, will get rid of  corruption. Twenty years after the reforms were initiated, this  colossal falsehood stands thoroughly exposed.

Corruption has grown to  unprecedented levels. Deregulation and privatization in all sectors has  unleashed relentless greed for making more and more profits, which  prevails under capitalism. The massive corruption, loot of public  resources and generation of black money that we are witnessing in India  today is also a fall out of these policies. There is no longer an arm’s length that the state is supposed to  maintain vis-à-vis private interests, especially the interests of big  corporates. Having been enmeshed with big business interests, the state  has also become a party to the lawlessness of the rich and the elite. The  nexus of politicians-corporates and  bureaucrats is the symbol of this corruption. This is inimical to the interests of ordinary people and if not reversed, would completely subvert the functioning of our democracy.

Conclusion

While many voices are being raised  against corruption in India today,  most anti-corruption platforms are sidestepping the link between  corruption and economic policies. any  anti-corruption movement that only targets politicians in general and  refuses to see the nexus of big corporates, politicians and bureaucrats as 8 the fountainhead of corruption, would be ineffective. In order to combat  corruption, we have to build a powerful mass movement to smash this  nexus and initiate institutional reforms to insulate the state from vested  interests and make it more transparent and accountable to the people.

]]> http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/arrest-corruption-not-anna-hazare/feed/ 0 http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/the-bombay-high-court-celebrating-150-years-of-legal-heritage/ http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/the-bombay-high-court-celebrating-150-years-of-legal-heritage/#comments Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:56:41 +0000 India Current Affairs http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/the-bombay-high-court-celebrating-150-years-of-legal-heritage/

 Facing the lush green Oval Maidan in South Mumbai, is the Gothic Style heritage building that has witnessed many legal battles including the trials of Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, which changed the course of our history.  This is the premise of the Bombay High Court, which turned 150, a day before the Independence Day.

            It is in fact the second oldest High Court in India, established on August 14, 1862, just about a month after the Calcutta High Court was established, under the High Courts Act of 1861.  The Madras High Court (15.08.1862) and the Allahabad High Court (11.06.1866) were the other High Courts established under the same act.

 Early Days of Legal System

 The legal history of Bombay (now Mumbai) precedes the establishment of the High Court at least by two centuries.  This was when a group of seven swampy islands of Koli fishermen became British possessions as part of dowry of the Portugese Princess Catherine of Braganza at her marriage to the British monarch King Charles –II.

            In the early years, the administration of Justice was in the hands of Judges who held their sittings in the Custom Houses of Bombay and Mahim. The main architect of the Judicial system during this period was Gerald Aungier, the Governor of Surat Factory.  But the system of 1670 was very elementary and suffered from several drawbacks. The judicial system was too much identified with the executive government of the Island.

 Admiralty Court and the Mayor’s Court

 The setting up of an Admiralty Court in 1684 under the Charter of 1683 opened the second phase in development of the Bombay Judiciary. In 1726, the issue of the charter by King George I to the Company turned over a new leaf in the evolution of the judicial institutions. The Charter of 1726 introduced a uniformity of approach and established similar judicial institutions. Thus in 1726.”The Mayor’s Court” was established under direct authority of the King.

             The Mayor’s Court was to be a Court of record and thus had power to punish persons who might be guilty of its contempt. Like the previous Court, even the Mayor’s Court was not completely free of the executive influence as the aldermen were either the Company’s servants or other English traders who depended upon the Company’s permission to stay in India.

             In 1798,  the Mayor’s Court was abolished and in its place was established the Recorder’s Court, as per the Charter of 1798. Judicial administration in Bombay was completely changed for the better by the establishment of this Court. It consisted of a Mayor, three Aldermen and a Recorder appointed by the Crown, who was to be a Barrister of not less then 5 years standing.  With the Recorders’ Courts a great step was taken towards the elimination of the Executive from the Judicial sphere.

 The official association of Indians in the administration of law started with the establishment of this Court. A Hindu Pandit learned in the Law of the Shastras and a Muslim Malvi, learned in the Law of Shariat were appointed to assist the Recorder in determination of cases involving points of Hindu & Mahommedan Law.

 The Supreme Court

In 1823, an Act of Parliament authorised the Crown to establish a Supreme Court in place of the Recorder’s Court at Bombay by Royal Charter. The Supreme Court functioned from 1824 to 1862. English barristers began to practice in Bombay and some of them achieved distinction in the High Court later. Several notable judgments were given in the Supreme Court, which made an important contributions to the development of Law in India.

             In 1852, it was urged upon the Parliamentary Committee for East India Affairs that it was desirable to consolidate the Supreme Court and the Sadar Adalats in each Presidency towns. After the Indian War of Independence of 1857, the East India Company was dissolved and the Government of India was taken over by the Crown in 1858. This created a sense of responsibility in the British Government for administration in India and a complete over hauling of the judicial system took place. This led to the passing of the High Courts Act of 1861 by the British Parliament leading to the creation of High Courts in the three Presidencies of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.

            In the first century of British Justice in Bombay , there is no record of any Indian judge or lawyer. It was only after the establishment of the High Court that Indian Barristers began to make their appearances in the High Court.

             The Bombay High Court has jurisdiction over the states of Maharashtra & Goa, and, the Union Territories of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The High Court has regional benchesat Nagpur and Aurangabad in Maharashtra and Panaji, Goa.  Initially, it also had a bench in Rajkot to look after the cases emanating from Saurashtra. However, with the establishment of Maharashtra and Gujarat as separate states in 1960, the Rajkot bench ceased to be part of the Bombay High Court.  Presently, the court has a sanctioned strength of 75 judges.  The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa has enrolled approximately 90,000 advocates on its roll.

The High Court Building

The High Court was first housed in a building in Apollo Street called the Admiralty House where the Recorder’s Court and the Supreme Court held their sittings. The work on the present building of the High Court was commenced in April 1871 and completed in November 1878.  The building which is early English-Gothic was designed by Colonel J.A.Fuller, and was completed at a cost of Rs. 16,44,528 which was about Rs. 3000, less then the sanctioned estimate.

            Some unobserved architectural features of the present building consist of certain sculptures in odd nooks and corners of the walls and ceiling on the western corridor, which display sundry heads of wolves and foxes with counsel’s bands around their necks. There is also a sculpture of a monkey judge, presumably inspired by the Aesop’s fable of ‘The Monkey and the Cats’.  Interestingly, one eye of the monkey is blindfolded and the scale of justice in its hand is unevenly balanced.

            The true symbol of Justice, the stone statue of the Goddess of Justice, is on the  western front of the High Court building. She is represented with both eyes blindfolded and holding the Sword of Justice in one hand and the Scales meticulously even in the other.

            Bombay high court has produced legal luminaries like Soli Sorabji, Fali Nariman, Justice MC Chagla and the present Chief Justice of India, Sarosh Kapadia, who practiced in the high court for a long time before being appointed as a judge. Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati, the country’s top law officer, has been associated with the Bombay High court since August 1972. 

            The High Court has also pronounced several landmark judgments covering various political, economic and social issues over its 150 years of functioning.  It has played its part in upholding India’s legal system, which the Law and Justice Minister and the Chief Guest at the Sesquicentennial celebrations Mr.Salman Khurshid said,  would give India an edge over China in the long run.  Indeed, the old institution of Oval Maidan has been symbol of judicial independence for 150 years. (PIB Features) 

 *Director  (Media), Press Information Bureau, Mumbai

It is not the majority that decides Yedyurappa’s fate but morality to continue after his official actions are proved to be driven by corrupt motives especially when the Justice Santosh Hegde’s heavy report established that almost entire administration with 787 bureaucrats involved in the mining scandal along with their political bosses and others including the opposition politician Kumaraswamy, former Chief Minister. It is brutal to use brutal majority to clinging on to power after a strong investigative report by Lokayukta proving the guilt.

The Act stated that such a declaration of ‘guilt’ would lead to a mandate that indicted Chief Minister or Minister shall resign his office. Not only the Chief Minister Yedyurappa, his cabinet colleagues against whom the allegations were found to be strong with enough documentary proof, the Gali brothers and the babus who were shareholders in this mining scam, should either vacate office or get suspended. Section 13(1) says that after investigation into a complaint the Lokayukta is satisfied that the complaint involving an allegation against the public servant is substantiated and that the public servant concerned should not continue to hold the post held by him, the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta shall make a declaration to that effect in his report under sub-section (3) of section 12. Where the competent authority is the Governor, State Government or the Chief Minister, it may either accept or reject the declaration.  In other cases, the competent authority shall send a copy of such report to the State Government, which may either accept or reject the declaration.  If it is not rejected within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report, or the copy of the report, as the case may be, it shall be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the said period of three months.

Subsection 2 of Section 13 says: “…..the public servant concerned shall, with effect from the date of intimation of such acceptance or of the deemed acceptance of the declaration,  (i)     if the Chief Minister or a Minister, resign his office of the Chief Minister, or Minister, as the case may be. (ii)  if a public servant ….be deemed to have vacated his office: and (iii)    if a public servant falling under different categories shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority.  Provided that if the public servant is a member of an All India Service as defined in section 2 of the All India Services Act, 1951 (Central Act 61 to 1951) the State Government shall take action to keep him under suspension in accordance with the rules or regulations applicable to his service.

Thus the Act specifically provided that the indicted public servant shall vacate the office if the declaration (that CM is guilty) of Lokayukta in its report is accepted by the Governor. If Governor sits over the file for three months, it is deemed that he accepted the report and that leads to mandatory vacation of the office of indicted Chief Minister. If Governor finds report and declaration of Lokayukta acceptable, then also the CM would lose the job. It applies to other office holders like Ministers and other officers also. If the public servants are MLAs or Ministers, their seats get vacated and if they are officers, they are deemed to have got suspended.

Prosecution

Mere vacation or suspension is not the end of the story. Lokayukta has enough power to initiate prosecution also. The Preamble says:  If after investigation, the Lokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence, he may initiate prosecution without reference to any other authority. Any prior sanction required under any law for such prosecution shall be deemed to have been granted. Lokayukta recommended prosecution of Chief Minister and others under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1984.

Section 12 of the Act empowered Lokayukta to probe and give a report against the actions of public servants. If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report, the section said.

The Governor, (in case of Chief Minister, the Governor is Competent Authority as per the Act) has power to take action and a duty to report to Lokayukta as to what action is taken, within a month of expiry of period mentioned in the report [Section 12(2)] It is the statutory obligation of Governor (the Competent Authority) to examine the report and intimate action taken. (Section 12(4). Governor has power to initiate prosecution of these corrupt public servants or independent of Governor’s action, the Lokayukta also can initiate prosecution as per Section 14 of Lokayukta Act.

The Chief Minister Yedyurappa voluntarily increased to scope of probe by Lokayukta to cover the mining activity during beyond 2006 up to 2010. Justice Hegde intensifiedhis crusade against corruption. His team has caught several babus as well as corrupt netas redhanded. Both (individuals and the act) contribute substantially for strengthening the Lokayukta institution in Karnataka. Again the power of Lokayukta comes from the Government’s decision to direct the probe. Earlier, Justice Hegde did not fear naming former chief minister N Dharam Singh as one of the accused, responsible for crores of loss to the state exchequer, when asked to probe illegal mining in the state. Along with Singh, several powerful bureaucrats were also named.

This Lokayukta derived power from the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, which was enacted to appoint an authority to inquire into administrative actions for the purpose of improving the standards of public administration. The chief minister and other ministers as well as members of the state legislature are subject to the Act.  This institution is feared as real opposition in Karnataka because of its independence and high power to investigate into the actions of the public servants. Its power increased by earlier personalities of high integrity who acted boldly. Though the statute is made by Janata Party CM Ramakrishna Hegde in 1984, the Lokayukta came into its own in 2000 when Justice N Venkatachala took over the institution. He started going public with the raids and displayed assets seized from the corrupt babus instilling fear among public servants. The following salient points of this Act. 1., Every public servant should submit to the Lokayukta in the prescribed form a statement of his assets and liabilities and those of members of his family. 2. The Lokayukta may investigate matters related to chief minister, ministers, or a member of an authority, board, or a committee. 3. After investigating the complaint, if the Lokayukta considers the allegation against a public servant is prima facie true, the public servant concerned, including CM, should vacate office if such declaration is accepted by the competent authority. 4. If after investigation, the Lokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence, he may initiate prosecution without reference to any other authority. Any prior sanction required under any law for such prosecution shall be deemed to have been granted.

Illegal mining of iron ore is proved because of Lokayukta like institution in Karnataka but its counter part of corruption in Andhra Pradesh is not even probed, because the Lokayukta of AP has no teeth at all.

Bold and independent inquiry by Justice Santosh Hegde into this illegal mining scandal proved how institutions like Lokpal in center and Lokayukta in states would help fighting the corruption by political Netas hand in glove with Babus. It justifies the agitation by civil society under leadership of Anna Hazare for a strong Lokpal. If Lokpal proposes to exempt PM and Lokayukta exempt CM, who will probe their corruption? It is unfortunate that Center’s Bill proposes a weak Lokpal excluding PM from its purview. If a cabinet minister takes an irregular decision based on corruption like allocation of 2G spectrum or mining, cabinet as a whole is responsible. Collective responsibility brings CM and PM also into the net, and it is unreasonable to exclude the top political boss who is all powerful while giving power to probe against corrupt acts of individual minister.

Coordinator: Center for Media Law and Public Policy, NALSAR University Hyderabad.

Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes the body corporates to implement reasonable security practices and procedures. The section provides for compensation to be paid by body corporate, commensurate to the damages suffered by the affected person in case of leakage of sensitive personal information. Business Process Outsourcing firms are body corporates and thus are also covered under section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The provisions are adequate for data protection and data privacy in digital form.

This statement was given by Shri Sachin Pilot, the Minister of State Communication and Information Technology in response to a question in Rajya Sabha

The filtering of pornographic sites poses a technical challenge. These websites keep on changing the names, domain addresses and hosting platforms from time to time making it difficult to filter or block such websites using technical tools available in the market. In addition, the tools provide filtering to a limited extent only. The tools, in the process, also filter genuine content and degrade the performance of systems.

The Information Technology Act 2000 amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 with effect from 27.10.2009 together with the Indian Penal Code 1860, provides legal framework for countering pornographic sites including child pornography. Sections 67, 67A and 67B of the Information Technology Act provides stringent punishment and fine for publishing or transmission of pornography in electronic form as well as hosting on website any information which is lascivious, or contains sexually explicit act or conduct, or depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act. Section 67 provides imprisonment upto three years and fine upto five lakh rupees for first conviction and imprisonment upto five years and fine upto ten lakh rupees for subsequent convictions. Section 67A and section 67B provides punishment upto five years and fine upto ten lakh rupees for first conviction and imprisonment upto seven years and fine upto ten lakh rupees for subsequent convictions.

This statement was given by Shri Sachin Pilot, the Minister of State Communication and Information Technology in response to a question in Rajya Sabha

Information about applications received and disposed of by public authorities of State Governments is not centrally maintained.

A sum of Rs. 2,21,56,363/- was collected as fees from RTI applicants by Central Public Authorities over the period from 2007-08 to 2010-11.

Central Information Commission may impose a penalty if a Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, refuses to accept an application or does not furnish information within specified time or malafidely denies information or gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.

A sum of Rs.44,23,221/- was recovered as penalty from Central Public Information Officers over the period 2007-08 to 2010-11.

This was stated by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri V.Narayanasamy in written reply to question in the Rajya Sabha today.

The courts, from the lowest to the highest, between them had an estimated 32.12 million cases pending as on September 30, 2010. The number of pending cases was 31.54 million on June 30, 2010. These figures speak for themselves to show the wrongs, injustices and conflicts our people have to live with. For many victims of injustice, critics say, the courts are the last resort for seeking justice, given the competence and accountability issues surrounding the bar and the bench; moreover, the process is often expensive and dilatory with inconsistent outcomes.

Theoretically, all institutions of governance are responsible to the people of India. But in reality they are the masters of the people as nothing can be done to any institution or the Government if it does not perform its duty as mandated by the law or the Constitution. The Government had sometime back announced that it would introduce a law guaranteeing Right to Justice to every citizen. The problem is that we have the most number of laws and, at the same time, most poorly governed.

FOR MORE READING. . .

English Release 8-August 2011

Ministry of Law & Justice 08-August, 2011 19:13 IST

As on 30.06.2011, 10 cases are pending for further action due to non-availability of sanction from Government/concerned prosecution sanctioning authority.

This  was stated by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri V.Narayanasamy in written reply  to question in the Rajya Sabha

As per latest available information, 57,179 cases were pending in the Supreme Court of India as on 30.6.11. The number of cases pending in the High Courts were 42,17,903 as on 30.9.2010. Giving his information in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha, Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law & Justice informed the House that in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases in courts, Government has taken a number of measures as mentioned below:

I. The Government has approved setting up of ‘National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms’. The major goals are:

· Increasing access by reducing delays and arrears in the system;

· Enhancing accountability through structural changes and by setting performance standards and capacities.

A Mission Mode approach to infrastructure development of subordinate judiciary is among the major initiatives under the National Mission for Justice Delivery which is approved by the Government. Inadequacy of infrastructure in subordinate courts has been one of the bottlenecks in the speedy delivery of justice. Keeping this in mind in the financial year 2011-12, the allocation for the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for infrastructure development has been increased fivefold from Rs. 100 Cr to Rs. 500 Cr. Funding pattern has also been increased from 50:50 to 75:25 for the states and to continue 90:10 for the NE states.

II. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Thirteenth Finance Commission to provide a grant of Rs. 5000 crore to the States for improving the justice delivery system in the country over a five year period 2010-15. A grant of Rs. 1,000 crore has already been released to the States during the year 2010-11. With the help of these grants, the States can, inter-alia, set up morning / evening / shift / special magistrates’ courts, appoint court managers, establish ADR centres and provide training to mediators / conciliators, organise more Lok Adalats to reduce pendency. The grants also provide for training of judicial officers, strengthening of State Judicial Academies, training of public prosecutors and maintenance of heritage court buildings.

III. In order to computerise the justice delivery system Government is implementing e-Courts Project for the District and Subordinate Courts in the country and up gradation of ICT infrastructure in superior courts at an estimated cost of Rs. 935 crore. The target is to computerize 12,000 courts by 31st March, 2012 and 14,249 courts by 31st March, 2014. Court Management and case management can be done through National Arrears Grid created under the project.

IV. The Thirteenth Finance Commission while recommending a grant of Rs. 5000 crore made a condition for release of 2nd year instalment only after formulating State Litigation policy. State Litigation policy is to be formulated with the aim to transform government into an efficient and responsible litigant. If the cases involving government are reduced then the courts will have time to dispose of a large number of cases to achieve the target of reducing the pendency.

V. Enactment of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 which provides for establishment of Gram Nyayalayas to improve access to justice to marginalised. The current year allocation has been increased from Rs. 40 crore to Rs. 150 crore. So far 151 Gram Nyayalayas have been notified by the states.

VI. All the Chief Justices of High Courts have been requested to launch a campaign to reduce pendency of cases in court from July-December, 2011 and also for filling up vacancies of judges in the High Courts and Subordinate Courts during the same period. Vacancies and delays are inevitably correlated, hence a campaign mode approach for filling vacancies need to be launched. At least 50% of the vacancies could be filled up in respect of subordinate courts by December 2011.

The Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bill, 2011

click here to see details :  : Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement Bill, 2011

The Bill contains elaborate provisions dealing with the definition of benami transaction and benami property, prohibited benami transactions, consequences of entering into a prohibited benami transaction and the procedure for implementing the benami law.

Properties held by a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and property held by a person in fiduciary capacity are excluded from the definition of benami transaction. Further, properties acquired by an individual in the name of spouse, brother or sister or any lineal ascendant or descendant are benami transactions which are not prohibited. Consequently, they are not subject to penal provisions.

Where any person enters into a benami transaction in order to defeat the provisions of any law or to avoid payment of statutory dues or to avoid payment to creditors, the beneficial owner, benamidar and any other person who abets or induces any person to enter into such benami transaction, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine.

A benami property shall also be liable for confiscation by the Adjudicating Authority after the person concerned has been given due opportunity of being heard.

Background:

The major infirmities of the existing Act were:

1. Powers of a civil court have to be conferred on the authorities under the Act.

2. Specific provisions have to be introduced for vesting of confiscated property with the Central Government.

3. An appropriate appellate structure has to be defined, while barring jurisdiction of a civil court against an action taken by the authorities under the Act.

4. Matters of procedure relating to its administration, notice of hearing to parties concerned, service of notice and orders, powers of the competent authority relating to gathering of evidence etc are to be provided.

5. The word ‘wife’ needs to be replaced with the word ‘spouse’ and property purchased in the name of certain other family members is to be allowed under the Act.

‘International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978′ (MARPOL 73/78) deals with the pollution from ships. Annex-Vl to the convention deals with air pollution, which was adopted at a Conference in September 1997.

MARPOL Annex VI ‘Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships’ entered into force in May 2005 and has so far, been ratified by 53 countries, representing approximately 81.88 % of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping fleet. India proposes to ratify the convention now.

These Regulations set limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. The annex includes a global cap of 4.5% m/m on the sulphur content of fuel oil and calls on IMO to monitor the worldwide average sulphur content of fuel. It also prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, sets limits on emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel engines and prohibits the incineration onboard ship of certain products, such as contaminated packaging materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The Annex-Vl was revised in July, 2005 and it entered into force on 1 July 2010. India is a party to MARPOL 73/78 and has ratified Annexes I to V.

Enhancement of reservation for women in Panchayats will facilitate more women to enter the public sphere and this will lead to further empowerment of women and also make Panchayats more inclusive institutions, thereby improving governance and public service delivery. The addition of word ‘rural’ before word ‘population1 occurring in the 1st Proviso of Clause (2)(iii) of the Rill will reflect appropriate demographic representation of categories of population for whom reservation is made.

At present, out of the total elected representatives of Panchayats numbering approximately 28.18 lakh, 36.87% are women. With the proposed Constitutional Amendment, the number of elected women representatives is expected to rise to more than 14 lakh. Having more elected women representatives would benefit the entire population of the States and UTs where Panchayati Raj is in existence.

Ministry of Panchayati Raj had moved a Bill for amendment to Article 243D of the Constitution on 26.11.2009 after approval of the Cabinet for enhancing reservation for women in (i) the total number of seats to be filled by direct election, (ii) offices of chairpersons and (iii) in seats and offices of chairpersons reserved for SCs and STs, to 50% in all tiers of Panchayats. The proposed official amendment, as indicated above, in the original Amendment Bill will be moved in the Lok Sabha at the earliest.

All States / UTs are parts thereof to which Part IX of the Constitution applies would be covered (Part IX does not apply to Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram, tribal areas of Assam and Tripura and hill areas of Manipur).

Background

The Constitutional Amendment Bill for enhancing reservation for women in Panchayats at all tiers from one third to one half was introduced in Lok Sabha on 26.11.2009 with the approval of Cabinet in its meeting on 27.08.2009. The Bill was referred to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development by Hon’ble Speaker on 21.12.2009. The Committee has recommended that word ‘rural’ be added before word ‘population’ occurring in Clause 2 (iii) of the original Amendment Bill in order to maintain better demographic representation to SCs and STs class. In view of this, it has been decided to make official amendment accordingly in the Bill already under consideration of Lok Sabha.

***

Thus, grotesquely draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act continue to operate, which explicitly grant impunity from prosecution to army personnel who kill someone before asking questions—on the mere suspicion that s/he may commit a violent act. This violates elementary principles of justice.

The courts have also maintained a hands-off attitude towards the security forces’ excesses against Left-wing insurgents (Maoists or Naxalites) who control parts of the tribal belt in the heart of India. The unstated presumption is that excesses and “collateral damage” are bound to happen when the state fights the “greatest internal security threat” to India, as so many high functionaries, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, describe the Maoist movement. The Maoists are waging war against the state. There are no rules in war. So long as the security forces act in good faith to defend the nation, their excesses must be condoned.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Salwa Judum case makes a decisive break with such putridly conservative thinking. It directs the Chhattisgarh government to stop using Special Police Officers recruited through the state-sponsored counter-insurgency militia Salwa Judum (Rallying for Peace) created by Congress politician Mahendra Karma, admittedly at the behest of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The verdict says the state must disarm them and stop supporting vigilante movements. It also orders the Centre to cease financially supporting SPOs, and to get the CBI to inquire into Salwa Judum’s recent criminal activities.

Who are the nearly 5,000 SPOs? The verdict, delivered by Justices B Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, observes that the Chhattisgarh government appointed thousands of “barely literate tribal youth as SPOs and asked them to undertake tasks that only members of the official and formal police ought to be undertaking”. Such operations included armed raids, military interceptions, and combat with firearms. Under state encouragement, the SPOs looted and burnt over 600 villages which were suspected to have Maoist sympathisers. They also raped women, and killed randomly.

The strategy was to brutally divide Chhattisgarh’s once-cohesive, virtually classless and egalitarian Gond tribal society, especially in Bastar, which boasts of a unique Adivasi civilisation. The SPOs’ Chengiz Khan-style violence was meant to “teach the Naxalites a lesson” by demonstrating that the state could be more violent than them and to strike fear in the hearts of innocent civilians.

The SPOs’ violence resulted in mind-boggling displacement. More than one lakh Adivasis were forced into temporary “relief” camps or banished to Andhra Pradesh. Even the camps were periodically attacked, plundered and set on fire. All this happened with the full complicity and concurrence of the Indian state. Salwa Judum was manifestly illegal. No private militia can be lawful.

Instead of asking the Chhattisgarh government to disband Salwa Judum and desist from patently illegal methods, including coercion by a private grouping, the Centre sustained Salwa Judum by paying 80 percent of its guerrillas’ honorarium. It thus violated the maxim that “the power of the people vested in any organ of the State, and its agents, can only be used for promotion of constitutional values”.

The judges say the Chhattisgarh situation reminded them of late 19th century Africa, described by novelist Joseph Conrad in his Heart of Darkness, where colonialists promoted the ivory trade and indulged “the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience”. The worst darkness is that “represented by inhumanity and evil, to which individual human beings are capable of descending, when supreme and unaccounted force is vested…”

Salwa Judum was created because the state of Chhattisgarh failed to meet the challenge posed by the Naxalites despite assuming extraordinary police powers and deploying 40,000 armed police. The state’s failure in addressing the root-causes of the growth of Maoism is even more gross. These lie in the dispossession of millions of Adivasis by the government and predatory private interests in logging, mining and large dams.

Between 1951 and 1990, extractive “development” activities uprooted 8.5 million tribals in India. Three-fourths were not even rehabilitated in a token fashion. Displacement has since accelerated in Chhattisgarh under its policy of attracting capital by promising it the cheapest deals on minerals.

Discontent bred by displacement, fracturing of Adivasi communities, and the state’s failure to provide minimum services led to the growth of Naxalism.
The advocates of neoliberalism have been criticised for arguing that without rapid growth which destroys nature, India won’t be able to “compete globally and accumulate the wealth necessary to tackle the seemingly intractable problems of poverty, illiteracy, hunger and squalor”. Growth, they hold, must be just and sustainable. But in practice, it isn’t: “Tax breaks for the rich, and guns for the youngsters amongst poor, so that they keep fighting amongst themselves, seems to be the new mantra ….”

The judgment comes down heavily on the Chhattisgarh government for creating an environment based on the “dehumanisation of youngsters of the deprived sections of the population, in which guns are given to them rather than books, to stand as guards, for the rapine, plunder and loot in our forests”. The government exposed the untrained SPOs to high risk leading to disproportionately high casualties among them. This violates “the promise of equality before the law” (Article 14 of the Constitution) since it treats unequals as equals, and “the dignity of life” (Article 21).

The judges say they were “aghast at the blindness” of the Chhattisgarh government to its Constitutional obligations “in claiming that anyone who questions the inhumanity … rampant in many parts of that state ought … to be treated as Maoists, or their sympathisers”. It indicts the government for perpetuating “a regime of gross violations of human rights” and pursuing “policies of ruthless violence”. The judges deplore the Centre’s description of the SPG as a “force multiplier” (a term from strategic discourse, which should be abjured in discussion within a civilian framework) without “explaining what is involved in such a concept, nor how ‘force’ is multiplied”.

They also dismantle the argument that SPOs are “effective” in the fight against Naxalism. They hold that legality must prevail over “effectiveness” and quote an analyst: “If we act lawlessly, we throw away the gains of effective action” against extremism.

The judgment is emphatic that “the fight against Maoist/Naxalite violence cannot be conducted purely as a mere law and order problem to be confronted by whatever means the state can muster. The primordial problem lies deep within the socio-economic policies pursued by the state on a society that was already endemically, and horrifically, suffering from gross inequalities. Consequently, the fight against Maoists/Naxalites is no less a fight for moral, constitutional and legal authority over the minds and hearts of our people.

“Our Constitution provides the guidlines within which the state is to act …. To transgress those gridlines is to act unlawfully, imperiling the moral and legal authority of the state and the Constitution.”

The state must meet the challenge of extremism in two ways. It must pursue the “necessary socially, economically and politically remedial policies that lessen social disaffection”. And it should develop well-trained professional law-enforcement forces “that function within the limits of constitutional action”. The creation of SPOs is incompatible with this sensible approach.
Instead of following that approach, the Central and state governments insist that “the only option … was to rule with an iron fist, establish a social order in which every person is to be treated as suspect, and anyone speaking for the rights of human beings are deemed as suspect, and a Maoist.”

The judgment establishes that the Central and Chhattisgarh governments wilfully violated the principle that the state must act with the utmost regard for legality and Constitutional values. This indictment of the government should occasion some humble and honest soul-searching within it.

Regrettably, the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister has chosen to describe Salwa Judum’s methods as “Gandhian” and decided to file a review petition against the verdict. In off-the-record conversations, Chhattisgarh officials viciously attack the judgment and say it ties their hands down in the fight against extremism.

They are trying to subvert the verdict’s implementation and find ways of keeping Salwa Judum going in some way. Nothing could be more misguided and sordid. And nothing could better ensure the spread of Naxalism than the state’s mollycoddling of Salwa Judum.n

Justice Santosh Hegde, said “I have no hope that the report will be implemented by the government. But I hope the Supreme Court takes cognizance as they are already monitoring illegal mining.”

The Lokayukta has already confirmed that his report names Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa and four state ministers, among others.

The Legislative Amendment Bill to amend Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 will be introduced in the ensuing Monsoon Session of Parliament.

The proposed amendment of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) would safeguard Government revenue involved in Show Cause Notices issued by specified Customs officers viz. officers of Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) and Central Excise Commissionerates. Officers of DRI alone have issued such notices involving Customs duty to the tune of over Rs. 7,500 Crores. Also, tax evaders will not get benefited at the expense of the exchequer on a mere technical ground of jurisdiction. Finally, this would provide certainty in revenue matters by settling pending proceedings before various judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.

Background:

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.02.2011 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sayed Ali & Anr. [C.A. Nos. 4294-4295 of 2002 along with C.A. Nos. 4603-4604 of 2005] has held that only a Customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and re-assessment of Customs duty in the jurisdictional area where the import has been effected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the said Act. As a result, it is held that the Commissioners of Preventive Wing would not have jurisdiction to issue Show Cause Notice in the instant case since specific function of assessment and re-assessment was not assigned to him. This decision invalidates a large number of Show Cause Notices involving significant revenue thereby warranting remedial measures.

SPOs have been appointed to perform the functions of regular police by protecting themselves and fellow citizens in areas where the environment has been threatened by insurgency. In Jammu and Kashmir, SPOs are the ones who constitute village protection committees that protect village communities from insurgents.

FOR MORE READING. . .

Professor NALSAR University of Law

Political will and Parliament Bill are enough for formation of Telangana State as per the Constitutional procedures and requirements. Neither the consent of Andhra Pradesh Assembly, nor the Amendment to the Constitution is required for carving out a new territory from the boundaries of present Andhra Pradesh state.

As per Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, admitting new states into India is different from reorganizing existing states. If a new state (for example Portuguese and French territories were taken over by India as Goa, Daman Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Pondicherry) has to be included into Union of India, an amendment to the Constitution is essential, whereas for carving out a new state from out of existing state or states, approval for a Bill by both the houses of Parliament with simple majority is enough.

When the writers of Constitution were drafting Article 3, our nation was not fully integrated or well organized as some Princely States were not included and States Reorganization Commission was working on forming linguistic states. Keeping in view the need for formation of new states, an enabling provision giving power to the Parliament was incorporated in Article 3. For this purpose the Constitution provided a simple and easy process for ‘reorganizing’ a new state. Article 3 says that Parliament can enact a law to reorganize the existing states by separating new state out of territories of the existing states, or by uniting two or more states or parts of states, or by uniting any territory to a part of any state, or by altering their boundaries, or by separating territory from, or increasing or diminishing the area of, or by changing the name of, a state.  If the Parliament acts as per these provisions of the Constitution, it will automatically effect a change in the Schedules, without necessitating a separate Constitutional Amendment. The Bill approved by the Parliament would change those schedules to suit the new state. Hence Constitutional Amendment is also not required.

Reference to State Assembly

However, there are certain procedures to be followed before the Parliament makes such a law. The Union Cabinet has to take a political decision and advice President to recommend to the Parliament to pass such a legislation carving out Telangana from existing boundaries of Andhra Pradesh. While political initiative is expected to happen from the people prevailing over the ruling party at the Center, the Constitutional process should begin from the Union Cabinet. Our Constitution says that if process of carving out a state affects the boundaries of existing state, (in case of Telangana, it will definitely affect the boundaries of Andhra Pradesh as ten districts have to be removed), the President is bound to refer the Bill to be introduced in Parliament, to the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. While such reference is mandatory, the President need not decide as per the opinion expressed by such state legislative Assembly. This means, even if there is an opposition to the ‘referred bill’ or such reference is not responded within prescribed time, or when such a bill is approved, the President can go ahead with formation of a new state. However, it is a political requirement for building a strong opinion in favour of a new state to prevail over the Union to fulfill the aspirations of the people.

When Union Home Minister P Chidambaram stated that the formal procedure to carve out Telangana would be initiated, it should mean that Union cabinet was prepared to advice President to refer the Bill to Andhra Pradesh Assembly. Thus instead of talking about the resolution to be passed for Telangana, by the AP Assembly, what is needed is official reference of Bill by the President. Considering the present mood of the legislators from Andhra Pradesh belonging to regions other than Telangana, the  reference would be certainly defeated, because they have exhibited to the Union Government (and Congress Legislators to their High command) that they were ready to lose their membership but not to accept the separation. If the Union Government of UPA under the leadership of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had steel resolve to give Telangana, nothing in Constitution could prevent them.  Though the provision for ascertaining views of affected state is a democratic value, giving full authority to Union not to be bound by such opinion is to ensure the fulfillment of desires of minorities within the state, like Telangana people. Going by number of legislators in the State Assembly now, the members from Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema would certainly outnumber the Telangana legislators.

All that contemplated by the Constitution is that Parliament should have before it the views of State Legislature affected by the proposals contained in the Bill, but the Parliament is free to deal with the matter (of giving separate state) in any manner it thinks fit and may accept or reject what State Legislature says. Parliament is certainly not bound to accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature.

The new divide

More striking phenomenon in sudden and en-mass resignation of legislators on 10^th December is that the people’s representatives are divided on sub-regional lines cutting across the political parties. It is a paradox that even if the people of a particular sub-region wanted a separate state, which was in principle accepted by almost all political parties since 2004 (though demand for Telangana gained legitimacy over a period of half-century), their fate would be decided by the majority outside the region, despite Constitutional provisions. The purpose of giving such power to union is to safeguard a set of people from dominant exploitation of remaining majority. In the absence of such a power to Union, formation of Visaalandhra itself in 1956 would have remained a dream of Potti Sriramulu, as composite state of Madras was opposed the separation of Telugu units from its territory.

The legal point here is that there is a constitutional requirement for ascertaining the view of state legislature, where the resigning MLAs could get an opportunity to ventilate. Very announcement of Chidambaram that the process would begin was not going to carve out Telangana instantly. There are other adversities of legislators resigning en-mass. As per article 189 of the Constitution the legislative assembly can run through its business if there is a quorum in the house. Quorum is just ten percent of the total number of seats. The requirement for passage of Bills and Resolutions is simple majority among the members present and voting. Thus the Assembly might be in a position to vote for Telangana with the simple majority out of members present and voting. If the speaker decided to accept resignations after personal verification, he could still conduct the truncated assembly till by-elections were held. If the resignations are not accepted and legislators are not attending, the assembly could still pass the resolution or reference which would amount to acceptance for Telangana State. Unified decision of legislators for mass resignations stirred the happenings and forced every party to change their declared stand making them mere ‘opportunists’. It might have effectively pushed back the proposed start of initialization of Telangana, but adverse effects are not ruled out.

The contention of these sections from all the parties that core committee in Delhi’s midnight decision was arbitrary and came as bolt from blue did not hold water any more, because that decision was not instantly creating Telangana at all. Careful reading of the statement suggests that it was announcement of a decision to start the process of initializing legal requirements for formation of Telangana. Another criticism that even Chief Minister did not know the contents of the statement of Union Home Minister is absolutely correct, but that was how CLP meeting was convened and he was declared as leader at a later point of time in Delhi but not in Hyderabad. Not only the Chief Minister, but also the legislators did not know as to what they were going to raise their hands in approval. One significant thing to consider here is, what was the meaning of alliance between TRS and Congress plus left parties in 2004, Common Minimum Program of UPA, alliance between TRS and Telugudesam plus left parties, letters written to Pranab Mukherjee Committee, Manifestos of political parties, statements made by the representatives in all-party meetings and CLP on 8^h December, if not the starting the process of formation of Telangana? Is it possible to believe that they did not know that supporting resolution for Telangana means splitting of the state?

It is also necessary to understand and properly interpret the real purport of pre-poll-alliances and their victories. When two or more parties seek votes together with a declared manifesto approving state-hood to Telangana, the votes polled in favour of all of those parties need to be taken as approval for splitting of state. When Congress party or any other party like BJP and Prajarajyam, campaigned that they were not opposed to formation of Telangana, and that they was capable of doing it, how do people read their votes and elected seats? These political parties, without any exception, their leaders, their candidates and those who voted them knew that all were in favour of separation.

Every party and its leader have constitutionally guaranteed freedom to go back from their stand or to go by the current winds of the people moods, but they do not have guarantee for their credibility. Telangana State might not be a reality in near future, but it leaves a bitter feeling among the people in general as to whom they have to trust? Whether AP was split are not its peoples representatives were vertically split into Telangana and Non-Telangana legislators. If not real it is a virtual separation of state. Where does this lead to?

Some of these allegations of corruption on a large scale are of particular significance because they point to changes in the profile and the qualitative implications of corruption. Associated with such instances of the possible misuse of powers held by state functionaries for substantial private gain is huge profit for some of the richest individuals and for leading domestic and foreign business groups. This leads to substantial surplus accumulation among two groups. The first is among those serving the state apparatus in high positions. The belief that this could be occurring is strengthened by the growing nexus between politics and business with big business having strong links (direct or indirect) with politicians and individual politicians elected to parliament and the legislatures reporting huge increases in asset holding over time. The second set of potential beneficiaries of surpluses accumulated in this fashion consists of the business groups, which derive gains from the purchase of pecuniary benefits for a small price. Thus, if we go by the Comptroller and Auditor General’s estimate, the loss of revenues to the state from the mispricing of 2G spectrum alone is Rs. 1.76 lakh crore or close to 10 per cent of Gross Fixed Capital Formation in the economy in 2008-09. If a large share of that loss is being transferred to those acquiring spectrum, it points to huge benefits for business groups.

It needs to be noted that transfers of this kind to private capital are not always seen as the result of corrupt practice. There have been many instances where sections of the private sector have made huge gains through means that are ”unfair”, even if not illegitimate, though they have not been associated with credible allegations of corruption. One such within the cellular industry that is the focus of current attention, was the implicit bail out of investors who made erroneous and even irrational bids for spectrum during the first round of auctions. A few players chose to make huge bids for licences to operate in multiple circles and won the right in many more than one. If they had been required to make payments for all circles they had won, these bidders would have been in financial trouble. The government, therefore, allowed them to retain a few of these licences and give up the rest. But, despite this, when these bidders turned operators, they discovered that they could not operate profitably if they were actually required to pay the amounts they had bid to obtain their licences. The government, therefore, allowed them to migrate to a revenue sharing regime rather than a specific licence fee system, allowing them to make huge profits subsequently.

The point to note is that the irrational bids made by these operators had kept out a number of rational bidders who may have been more efficient suppliers. When it became clear that those offering the highest bids were unable to meet their commitments for one reason or the other, they should have been penalised and their more rational competitors brought in. By allowing the irrational bidders to limit the commitments they had to honour and then dilute those commitments by permitting migration to a revenue-sharing scheme, the government rewarded the irrational bidders. This was, to say the least, unfair, even if not illegitimate because no clear evidence of corruption emerged. This was one more instance where unfair business practices and patronage from the state at the expense of the exchequer permitted sections of the private sector to garner huge profits. Thus, patently wrong policies that transfer surpluses to the private sector are visible not only in instances where allegations of corruption are involved.

It is to be expected that such instances would increase under liberalisation since the state increasingly dilutes or gives up its role as an agent influencing and regulating the nature and scale of private activity to take on that of being a facilitator of private investment. In fact, the very process of transition to a more ”liberal” regime is fraught with potential instances of corruption, as the allegations of under-pricing of public assets in the process of disinvestment of public enterprises illustrates. The process of decontrol and deregulation is also accompanied by efforts at promotion of private investment, involving help to the private sector to acquire land, grow in new areas, and expand its activities. As a result, besides the old type of corruption where state functionaries demand a price for favouring individual firms with purchase orders or permissions and exemptions, there is a new form in which those benefiting from state support could be called upon to share the transfers they receive with the decision makers involved.

Advocates of liberalisation have always argued that by reducing state intervention and increasing transparency economic reform would reduce corruption. The allegations of, and evidence on large scale corruption, show that this is not true. In fact, they make clear that liberalisation does not mean that the state withdraws from intervention but merely that there is a change in the form of state intervention, which also enables the state to deliver illegitimate gains to individuals and private players.

The flip side of this process is that there are new avenues through which the private sector can garner windfall gains that raise private profits, increase internal resources and allow for an acceleration of private capital accumulation. There is ample evidence of a substantial increase in private profitability, corporate savings and private wealth since the launch of liberalisation and especially during this decade. But this has been attributed to the entrepreneurial energy released by liberalisation, with no role given for to the benefits from transfers engineered by the state. In fact, when discussions of corruption occur, the possibility that it serves as a mechanism for private aggrandisement receives little attention. The tenor of the discourse is that the virus of corruption afflicts only the government officials and politicians who control and misuse state power. This may have been a partly reasonable position to take if corruption is merely reflective of the price to be paid to state functionaries for private individuals or entities to realise what would have been legitimately due to them. But increasingly corruption appears to reflect payments made by the private sector to realise illegitimate gains that are not merely violative of fair practices and/or the law, but damaging from the development, environmental or fiscal points of view. Given the large amounts that can be garnered in this fashion, the state seems to be turning into an important site for primitive accumulation for the private sector during the phase of liberalisation and economic reform. If true, this makes the private sector not just complicit but a participant in the acts of corruption, if any, involved.

An aspect possibly associated with such corruption is the flight of capital from the country. Those making illegitimate or excessively large windfall gains may need to evade the tax and/or other laws of the country. The illicit transfer of wealth facilitates such evasion. Thus liberalisation by making such transfers easier encourages capital flight. According to a recent estimate by the Global Financial Integrity programme of the Centre for International Policy, the money that had illicitly flown out of India to accounts abroad over its post-Independence history stretching from 1948 through 2008 was around $213 billion. The adjusted present value of those historical flows has been placed at $462 billion or around 36 per cent of India’s GDP in 2008. Interestingly, there are signs that the outflow has increased substantially in recent years and that more of the money is now moving to offshore financial centres. According to the report that includes, Global Financial Integrity’s estimate, titled The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008, ”68 percent of India’s aggregate illicit capital loss occurred after India’s economic reforms in 1991, indicating that deregulation and trade liberalization actually contributed to/accelerated the transfer of illicit money abroad.” It is in this background that the source of transfers needs to be discussed. Their timing, size and direction in recent years suggest that corporate players are likely to be involved.

Thus, a feature of the new liberalised economic environment seems to be that private players begin to look for ways in which state influence can be exploited for quick and substantial economic gain, sometimes at the expense of the state exchequer. A concomitant is an increase in the instances of alleged corruption. While sectors like real estate and mining are obvious examples of how this can occur, the number of such instances is larger and more varied. But this feature of the new environment tends to be missed. A sudden increase in the wealth of an individual can be as much an indicator of business acumen as of the misuse of power or the violation of law for profit. But in a world where profit making and the accumulation of wealth is celebrated and rewarded, where it is the ”bottom line” that finally matters, unless circumstances lead to the detection of fraud or a violation of the law, there is no needle of suspicion when wealth is accumulated rapidly and in large measure. An increase in the wealth of a private sector player is normally seen as a virtue and a reflection of ”entrepreneurship” and ”innovation”.

This does limit the degree to which the problem of corruption can be addressed. If corruption tends to be embedded in the process of accumulation, it is expected that it would be far more present than would otherwise be the case. Whenever allegations of corruption emerge because of ”leaks” possibly triggered by corporate or political rivalry, controversy ensues and investigations begin, but little of significance results. The nature and functioning of the law in the country is such that the investigations drag on for such a long time that public attention wanes and is in any case diverted to new instances of corruption. This makes the demand for better ways of investigating and awarding punishment in proven cases of corruption eminently sensible. But this alone would not do. What is required is a change in the policy regime that legitimises the conversion of the state into a site for the primitive accumulation of capital. Also required is caution when celebrating evidence of quick and substantial enrichment of sections of the private sector. (NetworkIdeas)

A Bill to this effect will be introduced in the ensuing session of the Parliament.

The proposed amendment shall broad base and professionalise DVC by bringing outside professional independent experts to discharge its responsibilities more effectively and efficiently, allocate resources optimally and augment and generate large resources in order to take up new projects and to become a major power producer in the country besides doing its mandatory functions such as flood control, irrigation, water supply etc.

Background:

The Damodar Valley Corporation(DVC) was constituted under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948(Act). The Corporation is vested with the authority and autonomy for the integrated development of the Damodar River Valley.

Over the last more than sixty years, the role and expectations from DVC have changed significantly due to industrial development in the valley area. The demand for power by industry, especially coal, steel, railways and other consumers has gone up considerably, DVC has built power plants and stepped up its generation capacity over the years.

Ministry of Power appointed the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI) to examine various alternative models for restructuring DVC and suggest the most viable one which would enable DVC to discharge its responsibilities more effectively and efficiently. The ASCI recommended the need of making the Corporation more broad based and professional.

Ministry of Power discussed the recommendations of the ASCI with the representatives of Governments of West Bengal, Jharkhand and the then Chairman, DVC. It was decided to amend the sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act relating to constitution of DVC Board. The Damodar Valley Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2007 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 4th May, 2007 and the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Energy for detailed examination. The Standing Committee on Energy in its report suggested certain modifications in the Bill. The Ministry examined the recommendations contained in the Report and prepared a fresh proposal.

MICRO FINANCE INSTITUTION BILL 2011 FULL TEXT (pdf)

micro_finance_institution_bill_2011

The Act provides for regulating the employment of inter-state migrant workmen and their conditions of service.

The Act will become gender neutral by amending its title and replacing the word ‘workman and workmen’ by the words ‘worker and workers’ respectively.

Background:

The system of employment of inter-state migrant labour is an exploitative one. To safeguard the interests of migrant workers, the Government enacted the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. The Task Force constituted for amendment of labour laws concerning women and children, recommended that the title of the Act may be changed in order to make it gender neutral. This recommendation of the Task Force has been accepted and amendment in the title of the Act changing it as ‘the Inter-State Migrant Worker (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 has been proposed.

FOR MORE READING. . .

In good measure, the Supreme Court has also pulled up the Union Government in no uncertain terms for not “showing seriousness” in bringing back black money stashed away abroad. It has condemned the “inertia” of the “soft state” due to which the unholy nexus between law makers, law keepers and law breakers is not being broken. These are extremely harsh words and will come in handy to the critics of the government in slamming it.

FOR MORE READING. .

Corruption has become a major public concern in the wake of successive scams unfolding over the past few years. In a country like India, where millions of people still suffer from acute poverty, hunger and lack of socio-economic opportunities, the pillage of public resources through corruption amounts to a crime of a very serious nature. Besides impeding economic development, accumulation of ill gotten wealth through corruption is widening the inequalities and ruining the moral fabric of our society.

The recent exposures in the 2G spectrum allocation case, CWG scam etc. have shown how thousands of crores worth of public resources have been illicitly cornered by a section of corporates, bureaucrats and ministers. What is worse, tainted ministers have been allowed to remain in office for months and the investigations manipulated, in order to obstruct the course of justice. While corruption in high places has been a feature of our political system for many decades, what has emerged as a dominant trend in the post-liberalization period is a thorough distortion of the policy-making process at the highest levels of the government. A nexus of big corporates, politicians and bureaucrats have matured under the neoliberal regime and is threatening to subvert our democracy. It is clear that the current economic regime has made our system more vulnerable to cronyism and criminality.

The battle against corruption, in order to be effective today,  can be achieved only through a comprehensive reform of our political, legal, administrative and judicial systems and not through one-off or piece-meal measures. The establishment of an effective Lokpal institution is one such measure. This needs to be complemented by other measures. There has to be a grievance redressal set-up for citizens, based on a legislation. There has to be a National Judicial Commission to oversee the higher judiciary; there has to be electoral reforms to check the use of money power in elections which is another source of corruption. Urgent steps also need to be undertaken to reform our tax system to plug loopholes and unearth black money, much of which is stashed in offshore bank accounts and tax havens. Firm steps need to be taken to break the big business-politician-bureaucrat nexus. Only a comprehensive systemic reform can effectively curb corruption.

Lokpal Bill

The institution of Ombudsman, which exists in many countries across the world, has provided avenues to redress public grievances on corruption and abuse of public office. However, the fact that the Lokpal Bill could not be passed in the Indian parliament in four decades exposes the lack of political will to fight corruption. Several governments in the past have taken it up only to shelve it later under various pretexts. The present government has also been compelled to initiate discussion on this bill because of public outcry over successive corruption scandals. It is imperative that a Lokpal Bill which deals with corruption in high places is tabled in the forthcoming session of parliament.

1. Definition of Corruption

Corruption involves a whole range of activities from bribery, influence peddling, patronage or favour, nepotism, cronyism, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks to officials and involvement in organized crime.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has defined the offences that constitute a corrupt act. This definition requires to be widened. The linkage between misuse of public power for private gain or enrichment is a highly restrictive understanding of corruption. In many cases, power is misused to benefit an entity like a private company which is not a “person” as required under the PCA 1988. Often, there may be no traceable kickbacks or embezzlement but there may be a huge loss to the public exchequer and breach of public trust for example through sale of PSUs due to a willful misuse of power.

The definition of corruption has to be widened to include “willfully giving any undue benefit to any person or entity or obtaining any undue benefit from any public servant in violation of laws or rules”.

2. Clarity on Functions

The Lokpal should essentially be a fact-finding body that receives complaints, enquires, investigates and forward cases to Special Courts where prima facie there is a case of corruption for prosecution and punishment in a time bound manner. It should have powers to recommend an enquiry and investigation suo moto. It should oversee the entire machinery related to corruption cases at the Central level. Finally, it should have the powers to recommend executive action and to approach Courts when these are not accepted.

The Lokpal should be entrusted with quasi-judicial powers and autonomy to fulfill these functions in an independent, accountable, transparent and time-bound manner.

The separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The institution of Lokpal should conform to this basic structure.

An issue to be considered regarding the functions of a Lokpal is whether it will deal with corruption or will it also perform functions of grievance redressal. We shoul favour separation of these functions. There must be a separate mechanism for grievance redressal. This should be set up by a separate legislation. The grievances of citizens about the citizens charter etc should be brought under this set up.

3. Selection & Composition of Lokpal

The Lokpal Act should lay down an objective and transparent criteria such as competence, experience, qualification etc for the selection of candidates for appointment to the Lokpal. The selection committee should be broad-based consisting of members of the executive, leaders of parliament, members of the higher judiciary, jurists and academicians. The search committee constituted by the selection committee should also be broad-based.

Composition: Apart from the chairperson, there should be 10 members in the Lokpal. Out of these four shall be judicial members, three can be persons with administrative and civil service backgrounds and the other three should be drawn from fields such as law, academics and social service. There should be no member drawn from commerce and industries just as there can be no politician.

4. Jurisdiction

While corruption in high places has to be tackled on a priority basis, for the ordinary citizen, it is the corruption faced by them in daily life and in dealings with public authorities that also needs to be urgently taken up. Much of this sphere of corruption falls in dealings with authorities at the states-level. The Lok Ayuktas set up on the lines of the Lokpal should bring all state government employees, local bodies and the state corporations under their purview. Further, a citizen’s grievances redressal machinery that we have proposed be set up separately, should address all grievances regarding delivery of basic services and entitlements for citizens.

a) Prime Minister: The Prime Minister should be brought under the purview of the Lokpal with adequate safeguards. The office of Prime Minister along with all public servants was brought under the purview of Lokpal by the V.P. Singh Government in 1989 and in all subsequent draft legislations, the Prime Minister has been placed under the Lokpal. In fact a Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by Shri Pranab Mukherjee had made precisely this point while examining the 2001 Lokpal Bill. For the first time since 1989, this government presiding over a large number of scams, is unwilling to ensure accountability of the highest executive office. Clearly, all public servants of the Union Government within the definition in the Prevention of Corruption Act, which includes the Prime Minister, must fall within the purview of the Lokpal.

b) Judiciary: The judiciary too needs to be brought under scrutiny and made more accountable, and the stringent requirement of prior permission and sanction from the Chief Justice to file FIRs and investigate corruption charges has resulted in a de facto immunity to them. But the proposals to bring them under Lokpal encroach upon the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the Supreme Court. If a mere allegation ofmala fide is enough for the Lokpal to start an inquiry into the actions of judges, it may not allow judges to act without fear.

Complaints about corruption against the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts should be handled by a separate body, the National Judicial Commission. This Commission should take care of the appointments in the higher judiciary and oversee their conduct and enquire into the complaints of corruption. For this, necessary legislation will have to be passed. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 is woefully inadequate for this purpose.

c)     Members of Parliament: At present, the scrutiny of the conduct of Members of Parliament with regard to any corrupt practice is weak and unsatisfactory. For Members of Parliament, Article 105 of the Constitution provides protection with regard to freedom of speech and voting. The real issue is how to ensure that this freedom and protection does not extend to acts of corruption by Members of Parliament.

This can be done through an amendment to Article 105, on the lines recommended by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution”.

Alternatively, if feasible, there can be legislation that if any Member of Parliament indulges in any act of corruption that motivates his or her action in Parliament (voting, speaking etc.), then this act falls within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC.

5. Lok Ayuktas

In the states, Lok Ayuktas should be set up on the model of the Central Lokpal.

6. Protection of Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers must be protected in order to combat corruption. Monitoring and ensuring protection of whistleblowers can be a part of the mandate of Lokpal, but this needs a comprehensive statutory backing. The provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Information) Bill, 2010 needs to be strengthened and the bill enacted expeditiously.

7. Big Business-Public Servant Nexus

It is necessary to recognise that an important source of corruption since liberalisation stems from the corrupt nexus between big business and public servants. It is necessary for the Lokpal to have investigations in cases which involve business entities to recommend cancellation of licences, contracts, lease or agreements if it was obtained by corrupt means. The Lokpal should also have the power to recommend blacklisting companies from getting government contracts and licences. Similarly, if the beneficiary of an offence is a business entity, the Lokpal should have the power to recommend concrete steps to recover the loss caused to the public exchequer. The government should normally accept these recommendations and act upon it.

Conclusion

Along with a law for setting up an independent Lokpal, simultaneous measures to strengthen the legal and administrative framework against corruption are required. These include:

(1)            Setting up of a National Judicial Commission to bring the conduct of judiciary under its purview

(2)            Law to protect citizens charter for redressal of public grievances

(3)            Amendment of Article  105 of the Constitution to bring MPs under anti-corruption scrutiny

(4)            Electoral reforms to check money power in elections

(5)            Setting up of Lok Ayuktas in the states to cover all public servants at the state-level

(6)            Steps to unearth black money and confiscate the funds illegally stashed away in tax havens.

It is this essence which is in danger and is sought to be breached by the Jan LokpalBill proposed by Shri Anna Hazare and his nominees.  The Lokpal, according to the proposed Bill is an unelected executive body with independent investigation and prosecution agencies, answerable to none. It is not answerable to the Government, being outside it, since it will have the sole power to investigate all public servants. It is not answerable to the Legislature. Outside Government, we will have no access to its functioning, a prerequisite in informing Parliament. Besides, it will have the power to investigate all Members of Parliament. It is not answerable to the Judiciary except when it initiates the judicial process by taking recourse to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides, it will have the unique power to investigate members of the Judiciary.  Such an entity not accountable to any constitutional authority cannot be constitutionally justified.

One argument opposing the above proposition is that the same logic applies to the Judiciary because it too is not answerable to either the Executive or the Legislature.  This logic is erroneous for two reasons: (1) All judicial proceedings are open to the public and judicial decisions are subject to revision, appeal and review. Judicial errors are liable to be corrected by superior courts.  The Lokpal on the other hand is essentially an investigating agency.  (2) The independence of the Judiciary cannot be equated to the independence of an executive authority being the Lokpal, the prime function of which is to investigate and prosecute. The Judiciary seeks to protect citizens. The Lokpal seeks to prosecute them. Autonomy of the Judiciary must be protected since the Judiciary resolves disputes. It is not mandated to prosecute people.  The second argument is that the Lokpal is just like the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), also independent constitutional authorities. Again the comparison is odious. The Election Commission’s functions are regulatory and periodic and the CAG’s function is to analyze expenditure of Government Departments and agencies funded by the Government to ensure that moneys allocated are not wastefully employed.

It is, therefore, clear that in the scheme of things, an unelected Lokpal who is not accountable, is anathema to our concept of Parliamentary Democracy.

Another broad feature which is worrisome is the general premise underlying the Jan Lokpal Bill. It proceeds on the assumption that corruption has been institutionalized and is all pervasive; that there is confluence of interests in Government Departments when a subordinate public servant charged with corruption is protected by his superior since the fruits of corruption are shared by all.  Consequently, corrupt acts are not dealt with and if dealt with, are delayed.  The same applies to the political process since the political class is corrupt and seeks to protect itself by not enacting laws which make them accountable.  These assumptions are not entirely accurate. The premise is that if a Lokpal is set up outside the Government, there would be no confluence of interests and the Lokpal will be able to cleanse the system.  I find this premise inherently faulty.

Let us assume for a moment that we have put in place a Lokpal which has within its ambit, all Central Government employees (about 4 million) and a Lokayukta in every State which has in its ambit all State Government employees (about 7-8 million).  If the Lokpal orLokayuktas are to deal with corrupt acts of about 10-12 million people, what is required is a mammoth machinery both in terms of manpower and otherwise to deal with individual acts of corruption by Government employees.  Where would that machinery come from?  Part of the human resource that is required will have to be transferred to the Lokpal from existing investigating agencies.  The human resource in the CBI that deals with corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will have to be, to some extent, transferred along with personnel from other investigating agencies of Government. Besides, over the years, theLokpal will have to separately recruit investigating and prosecuting officers for disparate needs.  It is not understood as to how the existing officers transferred to the Lokpal and the new recruits of the Lokpal will suddenly become chaste and incorruptible merely because they happen to function under the Lokpal.  The danger of setting up such a structure is that it may end up as a Frankenstein Monster without accountability and act as an oppressive institution outside the State.  This consequence is far more dangerous.  The cure, in that case, would be worse than the disease. You cannot have an Executive outside the constitutional framework, answerable to nobody, because the chances of such an organization corrupted by the sheer lust for power are much greater than the Executive functioning within a constitutional framework, where checks and balances ensure accountability.

PART II:

The jurisdiction of the Jan Lokpal Bill is all pervasive. It covers all public servants including members of the higher Judiciary. This Legislation seeks to break new ground. It is an attempt to reign in and discipline members of the higher Judiciary. This has far reaching consequences. First, some eminent Jurists believe it might fall foul of the basic structure of the Constitution. The autonomy and independence of the Judiciary is protected under the Constitution, which allows a member of the higher Judiciary to be removed only through the cumbersome impeachment process. The intent was to ensure that justice is administered without fear or favour. Instead, we need a robust Judicial Accountability Bill.

The Jan Lokpal Bill provides an alternative machinery wherein 11 unelected wise men will have the sole authority to prosecute a member of the higher Judiciary. The consequences are even worse, when you consider that under it the Jan Lokpal Bill will have independent investigating and prosecuting agencies. No judge will ever dare differ with the views of a prosecutor of the Jan Lokpal since he might face prosecution himself if his orders are misunderstood.

One of the litigants to a dispute is always unhappy with the outcome of a Court proceeding. Presently, unhappy litigants are willing to face the wrath of the Court by hurling unsubstantiated scandalous allegations against Judges. With the Jan Lokpal in place, these allegations will be made on a daily basis, threatening the autonomy of the judicial process, vitiating the course of justice. We cannot allow this to happen.

The second matter of concern is that the Jan Lokpal seeks to arrogate to itself the power to discipline Government servants. This would require a Constitutional amendment. At present, the tenure of a Government servant is protected by the procedural requirements embedded in Article 311 of the Constitution. Besides, the quantum of punishment is required to be determined by the Union Public Service Commission on a reference made to it under Article 320 (3)(c) of the Constitution. In the event of such an amendment, the Jan Lokpal will have the authority to discipline all employees of the Central Government. This is a directional shift from the existing Constitutional structure and interferes directly in matters of mal-administration.

This will paralyze Government functioning. Government servants will be fearful of possible disciplinary proceedings and loath to obey the hierarchy of officers above them. No Government can and should allow this to happen. Everyday complaints will be lodged by Government servants against each other to settle personal grievances. Decision-making will be a casualty for fear of a complaint by a colleague. Those far removed from administration are providing solutions, which are both utopian and impractical.

The Jan Lokpal also wishes to bring the office of the Prime Minister under its jurisdiction. In a democracy, all public servants are accountable. None can object in principle to such a proposition. The issue is whether the Jan Lokpal consisting of 11 wise-men should be given that authority? One Jurist has recently opined that past experience does not show that all our Prime Ministers have been angels. I humbly submit that this also holds true of our judges. That all are not angels. Our future experience is also likely to prove that members of the Jan Lokpal are also not angels. Independence does not make functionaries angelic.

None of us is being more loyal than the King when we seek to protect, not the individual, but the office of the Prime Minister. Given the nature of our polity, quick-fire unsubstantiated allegations made for political mileage are likely to paralyze Institutions. The office of the Prime Minister is the lynchpin of our Parliamentary democracy. An independent non-angelic Jan Lokpal could well destabilize the entire system and investigate a Prime Minister only to find out that the allegations were not true. That is a distinct possibility. Such an eventuality will diminish Parliamentary democracy.

Under the present system, the Prime Minister is not immune from prosecution. In a given case, when facts are in the public domain, the system will not allow a corrupt Prime Minister continue in office. The reference to Jacques Chirac by an eminent jurist is inapt because his prosecution started several years after demitting office, since the French President has immunity from prosecution while in office. Besides, the prosecution relates to a time when he was the Mayor of Paris (1977 – 1995). Reference to Silvio Berlusconi is equally inappropriate.

Given an unstable neighbourhood and terrorism being a real threat, weakening the Institution of the Prime Minister would be a monumental folly.

Yet another concern is the attempt by the Jan Lokpal to prosecute Members of Parliament, who are protected under Article 105(2) of the Constitution only for speeches made, and the right to vote exercised, in the House. These are two precious rights. To allow them to be the subject of investigation would encourage members of an intensely polarized polity to question every speech made and every vote cast. This is hardly a recipe for a mature solution. Such a power vested in the Lokpal would again require an amendment to the Constitution. The remedy lies with the Ethics Committees of Parliament to be far more vigilant and unrelenting in dealing with Members against whom there is prima facie proof of corrupt practices and for the Speaker to sanction persecution.

Other controversial provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill include transferring the CVC and the anti-corruption wing of the CBI to the Jan Lokpal; the Lokpal under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act becoming an authority, authorized to interfere and monitor messages, voice and data transmitted through telephone, internet or any other media without reference to existing legal procedures; having the authority to bind the Finance Minister to its budgetary demands; issuing directions in public interest during the course of an investigation for taking action as recommended by the Jan Lokpal; impose on business entities who may be beneficiaries of corrupt acts, fine up to 5 times the loss caused to the public and having it recovered from the assets of the business entity as well as personal assets of its Managing Director and others. (PIB Features)

Especially when the Union is engaging in legal battle by appealing over a strong directive from Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Judge of AP High court to put the ‘secret’ in public, the exposure of entire secret text made that exercise futile and redundant. In fact, the single judge Bench of High Court brought out the essence of secret recommendations of Justice Srikrishna, saying that no greater security concerns were involved to justify keeping it secret. The half page in Page Number 423 of open report of Srikrishna talks about a secret note given in sealed cover based on one-to-one talk between Mr V K Duggal, Member Secretary of the Committee on Consultations on situation in Andhra Pradesh and senior officers of 17 districts. This is what provoked a great controversy which ultimately led to litigation and demolishing credibility, if any, of the Srikrishna Committee.

The Committee has mentioned in its secret note that if state of Telangana is formed, as suggested in the 5^th option, it would become an epicenter for Maoist violence and communal violence. The first para says:

This detailed note covers the likely immediate backlash/ law and order situations that get created in the State on the submission of the Report at the end of the month as a reaction to the perceived course of action by the Government of India on whatever option may finally get exercised. The note also discusses some major long term internal security related issues. The note suggests that Maoists will extend their activities to various districts of Telangana”.

The Supplementary Note has three parts and it reads: a) Political Management. (b) Media Management. (c) Full Preparedness. After discussing possible consequences of each option, the Committee concluded in this secret note, as follows:

In view of the background of the complex situation, it would be seen that under each of the scenarios listed above, there is a high possibility of immediate agitational backlash in different regions of the State.

The following mechanism is suggested to control the law and order situations that may emerge soon after the report is submitted and becomes public. The mechanism essentially should cover three areas i.e.

i)                     political management and sensitization of political parties

ii)                   media management and

iii)                  high level of preparedness by the State Government (Administration, Police, Intelligence, etc.) with needed and adequate support from the Centre.

Thus the Committee traveled beyond the terms of reference in its endeavor to persuade the Union of India, not to accede to the demand for Telangana, is demonstrated in a three- page Supplementary Note, appended to the note, representing Chapter- VIII, in which it explained the details of these three management techniques. The note suggested the following political management:

(i) There is a need for ensuring unity among the leaders of the ruling party in the State. There is also a need for providing strong and firm political leadership and placement of representatives of Telangana in key positions (may be CM / Dy. CM) (At the foot it was noted in November 2010 as ‘Since done’ though it was done only on June 10, 2011).

Once a violated term of Gentlemen Agreement, giving Deputy Chief Minister post to Telangana leader was done on June 10. However there was no reason for Rajanarasimha to be happy because the TRS has already called upon people to force Telangana Congress persons to relinquish their positions if Center delays the decision.

Inputs indicate that this agitation can be tackled if Telangana Congress leaders do not give an impression indicating any covert/ over support to it. Hence the Telangana Congress MPs / MLAs need to be taken into confidence and asked not to lend any form of support to the agitation.

The Congress High Command must sensitize its own MPS and MLAs and educate them about the wisdom for arriving at an acceptable and workable solution. With the ruling party and also the main opposition party (the TDP run by Chandra Babu) must be brought on the same page, the support mechanisms have a higher probability of becoming successful. The TDP must be advised not to participate in any further meetings that would be called by the Centre.

This could be an effective stumbling block for any meaningful dialogue on resolving the Telangana demand. The Andhra Congress MPs belonging to Kamma caste must be encouraged to work in tandem with TDP leadership which is now caught in a bad shape.

It is a shame that a body which is supposed to be judicious, draws out a strategy on caste lines as mentioned above. The cheapest suggestion of unifying MPs and leaders belonging to caste of Kamma in both Congress and Telugudesham to oppose Telangana is also believed to be effectively implemented. Telugu Desham has already decided not to attend the all party meeting convened by Union Home Minister which will help in delaying the process on Telangana.Then the Committee suggested to ‘drag on’ as long as possible giving an impression that government is trying to discuss with all stake holders. In a way it advised the Government to cheat Telangana people. That paragraph has to be quoted here:

(ii) Further, on receipt of the Committee’s Report by the Government, a general message should be conveyed amongst the people of the State that Centre will be open for detailed discussions on the recommendations / options of the Report with the concerned leaders / stakeholders either directly or through a Group of Ministers or through important interlocutors and that this process will start at the earliest. But every method must be adopted to avoid giving finality to any discussions to drag on the matter until the agitation is totally brought under control.

It is a paradox that Srikrishna tried to teach political manipulations to the 125 plus old Congress party. It did not even hesitate to hit ‘below the belt’. The fresh revelation of text of Eighth Chapter of Srikrishna Committee in Telangana media on June 10 has a strange synchronization with the appointment of Damodar Rajanarasimha, a Telangana legislator as the Deputy Chief Minister of AP. This indicates that the center is complying with every cheap and unreasonable suggestion of Srikrishna without any hesitation.

Second secret recommendation of the Committee is manipulating the opposition and Telangana Rasthra Samithi. As it is, the line between Congress and main opposition Telugudesham is blurred. The YSR Congress party blamed TDP as the handmaid of ruling party which was revealed when both of those parties tried to fight ‘same target’ (YS Jaganmohan Reddy) in Kadapa by-election and worked in unison in bailing out the ruling party from the threat of ‘numbers’ through election of speaker by open voting with a whip so that the purpose of proposed ‘no confidence motion’ is defeated much before it is put to vote. The TDP continues to oppose Telangana through its non-Telangana leaders while its Telangana forum concentrates targeting TRS in the name of agitating for Telangana. Though it is not known how the rulers are ‘softening’ the TRS leaders as suggested by Srikrishna, but long drawn silence of K Chandrasekhar Reddy and absence of serious agitation preparedness strengthening the doubts about implementation of Srikrishna’s suggestion to remove the rigour from TRS agitation.

Media Management

The secret supplementary note also suggested managing the media, saying:

The main editors/ resident and subeditors, the Film world etc. are dominated by Seemandhra people. A coordinated action on their part has the potential of shaping the perception of the common man. However, the beat journalists in the respective regions are locals and are likely to capture only those events/ news which reflect the regional sentiments. This can be tackled by the owners of the media houses by systematically replacing the local journalists by those from Seemandhra wherever it is possible.

The print media is hugely dependent on the Government for advertisement revenue and if carefully handled can be an effective tool to achieve this goal. However, the RTI Act may prove to be an impediment for the Government to deny due share of ads to publications supporting the Telangana demand.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh is already doling out the advertisements to media. Any one can find plenty of Government Advertisements in almost all newspapers and TV channels. It is to be watched whether Seemandhra Managing Directors and editors will replace the local Telangana reporters by Seemandhra Reporters. However the Seemandhra Media has already exhibiting its total opposition to Telangana by not presenting the news of agitation and repeatedly casting anti-Telangana statements. The TRS launched its daily ‘Namasthe Telangana’ with 7.5 lakh paid subscription from ten districts of Telangana on the first day. This is described as indication of growing dissent at anti-telangana bias of media in Andhra Pradesh. To comply with suggestion of ‘full preparedness’ the center has already sent para military forces equipped with the arms and ammunition to suppress the agitation.

(c) Full Preparedness (i) As under each of the options there is a high possibility of agitational backlash, notwithstanding the actions taken in advance as suggested in (a) and (b) above, an appropriate plan of deployment grid of police force (both Central and State) with full technical support needs to be immediately drawn up. Advance preparedness in this regard would go a long way in containing the law and order situation and minimize destruction of lives and property.

Thus the secret commentary on the Eighth Chapter discussed each and every option of its open ninth chapter only to say that every option is not workable peacefully. Since every step would invite some or the other agitation, the Committee wanted to treat entire situation as just law and order and suppress it ruthlessly, most undemocratic and unreasonable suggestion indeed. Thus this truthless committee wanted ruthless suppression of the people conceding some loss of life and property.

The open report has indirectly provoked the people of Telangana to agitate intensely since Center has expressly revealed through this committee that it is not inclined to give Telangana state without pressurizing agitation. The secret part of the report on the other hand asked the Union Government to suppress the agitation, corrupt politicians and bribe the media with advertisements.

Now nothing is left secret, as the report has been almost totally out in public domain, unless some thing else is written and supplied to the Home Ministry beyond this 21 pages of the commentary and three pages of supplementary note. It is not known whether secret is confined to these twenty four pages only, but the dishonesty of the state and crookedness of political parties remained no more secret. The chairman of Committee Justice Srikrishna might have secured another high power post-retirement alluring position and members continue to enjoy the state patronage, but the people considered the whole committee as discredited and proved to be corrupt by suggesting corrupt means and moves to suppress a people’s agitation.

Today a common man like taxi driver doubts the integrity asking how the chairman of this committee could have occupied the most honourable seat of judge of Supreme Court of India and lead other intellectual members. It is most unfortunate that Center has not yet decided that it would not fight appeal but reveal the entire secret chapter to respect the principles of transparency.