Pages

Showing posts with label Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Laws. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

SC quashes Section 66A of IT Act: Key points of court verdict

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which provides the government power to arrest a person for posting allegedly "offensive" content on websites. Here are key points of the SC judgment.
1.
Cops 'misuse' Section 66A
This section had been widely misused by police in various states to arrest innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political issues and political leaders on social networking sites.
2.
What is Section 66A
Section 66A reads: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."
3.
Section 66A violates Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution
The SC said Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression.
4.
Terming liberty of thought and expression as "cardinal", a bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman said, "The public's right to know is directly affected by section 66A of the Information Technology Act."
5.
Govt can still block websites
The court, however, allowed the government to block websites if their contents had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India's relationship with other countries.
6.
What may be offensive to a person may not be offensive to the other
"How is it possible for law enforcement agency and others to decide as to what is offensive and what is grossly offensive? What may be offensive to a person may not be offensive to the other," the SC bench said.
7.
Terms used in 66A are quite vague
The court said terms like "annoying", "inconvenient" and "grossly offensive", used in the provision are vague as it is difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to know the ingredients of the offence.
8.
The bench also referred to two judgments of separate UK courts which reached different conclusions as to whether the material in question was offensive or grossly offensive.
9.
Govt can't give an undertaking about its successor
The SC bench rejected the assurance given by NDA government during the hearing that certain procedures may be laid down to ensure that the law in question is not abused. The government had also said that it will not misuse the provision. "Governments come and go but section 66A will remain forever," the bench said, adding the present government cannot give an undertaking about its successor that they will not abuse the same.
10.
Shreya Singhal moved court for repeal of Section 66A
The court was moved by one Shreya Singhal in 2012 following the arrest of two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan, for posting comments critical of the Mumbai shutdown following the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray.


Source :  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/listshow/46673677.cms
Posted by on No comments:
Labels:

Monday, February 16, 2015

PROFITABILITY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

With the Indian government acting in favour of the nuclear industry, contrary to the interests of potential victims of a disaster, the question of liability deserves greater attention

In its efforts to promote nuclear commerce with the United States, the Narendra Modi government has run into a dichotomy that lies at the heart of this industry. While multinational nuclear suppliers, such as G.E. and Westinghouse publicly insist that their products are extraordinarily safe, they are adamant that they will not accept any liability should an accident occur at one of their reactors. The joint announcement by Mr. Modi and U.S. President Barack Obama last month raised concerns that the government would move to effectively indemnify suppliers, contrary to the interests of potential victims. The list of “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) on nuclear liability released by the Ministry of External Affairs on February 8 confirms the suspicion that the Modi government is trying to reinterpret India’s liability law by executive fiat in order to protect nuclear vendors.

The government has disingenuously suggested that it achieved the recent “breakthrough” by establishing an insurance pool to support suppliers. However, to focus on this arrangement is to miss the wood for the trees as even a cursory analysis of the economics of nuclear plants shows.

A section in the Indian law called the “right of recourse” allows the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) to claim compensation from suppliers up to a maximum of Rs.1,500 crore ($240 million). This pales in comparison with the total cost of the six planned Westinghouse reactors at Mithi Virdi in Gujarat; estimates from similar plants under construction in the U.S. suggest that this may be as high as Rs.2.5 lakh crore. In the U.S., all nuclear plant operators must have third-party insurance for at least $375 million, and suppliers could easily set aside a small portion of their profits to do the same for reactors sold in India.

Problematic principle

What suppliers are worried about is not the amount, but the principle. More concretely, if the law places some responsibility on suppliers, then a future Indian government could use this to gain leverage by forcing them to pay substantially more for a serious disaster. Moreover, their executives could be held accountable under other civil and criminal statutes in India. The FAQs released by the government are meant to reassure nuclear vendors on these counts.

The FAQs claim that the provision allowing the NPCIL a right of recourse “is to be read … in the context of … the contract between the operator and supplier.” This goes beyond the law, where the right of recourse exists independently of a contract.

In 2010, when a parliamentary standing committee suggested such a linkage, its recommendation was rejected by the Cabinet after a public outcry. Although the FAQs later state that “a provision that was expressly excluded from the statute cannot be read into the statute by interpretation,” this is precisely what the government is doing here.

The FAQs suggest that the government is also committed to the interests of the public sector NPCIL which “would insist that ... contracts contain provisions that provide for a right of recourse consistent with Rule 24 of CLND Rules of 2011.” However, this is a cunning sleight of hand. A central element of these rules is that “the provision for right of recourse … shall be for the duration of initial license,” which is usually granted only for five years. In contrast, the promised lifetime of modern reactors is 60 years, and failure rates tend to increase in later years. Therefore, linking the right of recourse to a contract is an attempt to water down supplier liability to a meaningless level.

“Just because the Manmohan Singh government accepted the Faustian Indo-U.S. nuclear pact does not mean that India needs to bend its laws and spend billions of dollars on U.S. reactors”

The FAQs also declare that suppliers cannot be “asked to pay more compensation in the future … than currently provided under the law.” However, this ignores the fact that the law itself has a provision for revising liability, which states that “the Central Government may … from time to time … specify, by notification, a higher amount.”

A revision of the cap with time is only natural. Several decades from now, Rs. 1,500 crore may be worth much less than it is currently. Therefore, the government’s move to perpetually limit supplier liability to this nominal amount defies basic economic principles, and implies that victims will receive a lower compensation, in real terms, for future accidents.

Finally, the FAQs assert that the liability act, ipso facto, takes away the rights of victims to sue suppliers even under other laws. If this interpretation of the law is correct, then it implies that suppliers cannot be prosecuted even for criminal negligence.

Double standards
This provides a striking example of double standards. Under U.S. law, suppliers can be held legally responsible for accidents. Consequently, for decades, the U.S. refused to join any international convention that would require it to legally indemnify suppliers. When it engineered the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, it inserted a “grandfather clause” to ensure that it would not have to alter its own law. In contrast, the Indian government seems willing to meekly surrender the rights of its citizens.

It is sometimes argued that India must make these concessions to “repay” the U.S. for its help in facilitating India’s access to international nuclear commerce. U.S. policymakers pushed for such access in a calculated attempt to induce India to support its geostrategic objectives and to ensure that U.S. companies would have access to the emerging Indian nuclear market. However, just because the Manmohan Singh government accepted this Faustian pact — and even cast an unconscionable vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency — does not mean that the country needs to repay this self-serving “favour” endlessly by bending its laws and spending billions of dollars on U.S. reactors.

Although the question of liability is somewhat abstruse, it deserves greater public attention because it serves as a clear lens to understand the central conflict involved in India’s nuclear expansion: the desire of nuclear vendors to have profitability without accountability and the interests of ordinary people who could be potential victims. The government’s attempt to resolve this conflict in favour of the industry is a revealing indicator of its priorities.


(M.V. Ramana and Suvrat Raju are physicists with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. Ramana is the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India, 2012.)

Analysis: From Team work for CSE-2015

What portion it will fill
________________________
GS -3
1/ infrastructure- energy
2/ science and technology development and their impacts on everyday life.
3/ Disaster and disaster management.
4/ Environmental pollution and degradation
5/ role of external state and non state actors and creating challenges to internal security.
GS --1
------
6/Distribution of major resources.
Essence of the editorial
________________________
Provision of " Right to recourse ".
__________________________
It compels the suppliers to pay to NPCIL in case of failure or accident.
Why the suppliers protest against it
________________________
A/ Under Indian law ; this " right of recourse " is signed between suppliers and NPCIL under a contract but in Western countries it is independent of any contract.
B/ Under Indian law there is a chance to make suppliers and executives to be more liable and punishable in future.
What is the ground of criticism from Indian side
___________________________
1/ The " right of recourse " is only for initial 5 years.
What is the problem here ?
_________________________
A/ The life of a nuclear plant is 60 years. The failure of nuclear plant might come towards the last part. In that case compelling suppliers only for 5 years is meaningless.
B/ It is dangerous both to NPCIL and victims. The latter will be hugely affected by this provision.
2/ Indian law prevents victims filing cases against suppliers while US government strictly observe this rule where under strict provision victims can file suit against suppliers.
Why this is leverage to suppliers ?
_______________________________
As believed ; US has greater role in making india a nuclear enriched country. So ; this kind of flexibility is to suppliers.
How it will help us ?
_________________
1/ It gives us light about energy related issues fulfilling topic 1.
2/ it says impact of any accident by nuclear plant and development of indigenous nuclear technology and fulfills topic 2+3
3/ you can extract about possible environment pollution related with nuclear plant thus fulfilling topic 4.
4/ It gives us light to consider security issue of nuclear plant and possible threat of non state actors to nuclear sector fulfilling topic 5.
5/ we can search for major nuclear deposits in world along with india thus fulfilling topic 5.
Subjectives
------------
Q/ The southern coast of India is said to be deposit golden sand-- why?
Q/ Recently NGT banned mining of sand ore in southern coast-- why ?
Q/ What is rare earth materials ? Narrate the environmental pollution caused by rare earth material with reference to major countries dealing with it.
Q/ There is a need to regulate NGO run by foreign aid through strict law. Consider the statement under the controversy of Kalpakkam.
Q/ Write a short note on the nuclear resources of india.
GS--4
--------
You are president of a NGO working for protection of environment. You are a nuclear scientist. A nuclear power plant is going to establish in your region. A public outcry is already in out.
What you will do in such cases as a nuclear scientist as well as a president of NGO for protection of environment ?
Objectives
___________
1/Correct
A/ Domiasiat is the largest sandstone type uranium deposit in khasi hills in arunachal.
B/ A peculiar type of bacteria exist here.
1/ both
2/ none
3/ a
4/ b
2/ correct decreasing order regarding the position of their utilisation in india--
A/ Electricity energy; thermal; hydro and renewable energy; nuclear energy.
B/ electricity energy; hydro n renewable energy; thermal; nuclear energy..
C/ Electricity energy; thermal; nuclear; hydro and renewable energy.
3/ arrange the following in decreasing order of their deposit of uranium.
A/ Tummalapalle; chitrial; peddagattu; rohil
B/ rohil; chitrial; tummalalpalle; peddagattu.
4/ correct
A/ Rare earth materials are very rare in earth.
B/ They are 17 materials found in periodic table like scandium and yttrium and difficult to extract.
C/ Extracting rare earth materials causes huge scale environment pollution and china and Malaysia are the example of it.
1/ all
2/ ab
3/ bc
4/ ac
5/ correct
A/ monazite is a rare earth material found in southern coast sand of india.
B/ it is mixed up with thorium.
C/ India has rare earth material treaty with japan
D/ Rare earth materil is used from mobile to laptop.
E/ singhbhum in bihar has
1/ all
2/ abc
3/ bce
4/ abde
Major nuclear power plants in India
_________________________
Kaiga--karnataka
Kalpakkam-- Tamilnadu
Kakrapara -- gujrat
Raeathbhata -- Rajasthan
Tarapur-- Maharashtra
Narora-- uttar pradesh.
I have furnished an article on nuclear law.
After the Nuclear Cooperation treaty with US india has to create a domestic law to find consonance with the Convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage ( CSG) as india has not ratified the CSG treaty. To enter into the global arena of nuclear power india legislates the Nuclear Liability Law of india but it is vehemently criticized on various grounds. This article tries to throw light on some grounds of criticism of the bill.
Liability cap
------------
The nuclear liability law caps the compensation to be paid by operator to the victims at a very minimum level. It breaches indian and international law on various grounds---
1/ Article 21 of indian constitution
_____________________
Protection of environment comes under the ambit of article 21 as it is related with right to life. A healthy environment is necessary for healthy life. The supreme court in Oleum gas leak case clearly mentions that an enterprise with hazardous process of producing any chemical or any hazardous substances that viable the integrity of environment is solely responsible to the compensation. From this point of view capping of the compensation amount of the nuclear operator and rest to be paid by the government violates the rule of Supreme court.
2/Indian law of full compensation
_______________________________
The Indian law provides for full compensation to any victim. This capping system violates this principle also.
3/Polluter pay principle
_____________________
Both indian law and international law says that it is the polluter who have to pay the ultimate price. Both law even says that an enterprise has to pay not only the compensation to victim but also to the price for environmental regeneration. In Indian council for enviro legal action Supreme court applies this principle that only the polluter will pay. From this point of view also; capping of compensation amount by the enterprise violates indian and international law.
4/ Propensity of the nuclear damage
_________________________
The damaged caused by a nuclear accident is enormous and it cant be fulfilled by a minimum capping amount as provided in India's Nuclear Liability Law.
5/ Government enterprise
_________________________
One section of society accuse that pushing the enterprise only to liability without nuclear supplier is to attract the foreign investment in nuclear field. In india; the enterprise is government controlled. So; ultimate responsibility remains with the government.
6/Burden on tax payer
____________________
Besides these; to fulfill the rest compensated amount by the government; government might have to increase the the tax on its citizens.
7/No mention of cap
__________________
The convention of supplementary compensation for nuclear damage act (CSG) doesn't mention about any cap as a condition to entry into the nuclear suppliers group and no other country who are part of this convention has provided such cap.
Other grounds of criticism
---------------------------
1/ The bill provides a ground to sue the nuclear supplier if it is proved that any incident has been occured due to the negligency of nuclear supplier group. It prevents the foreign nuclear companies to invest in indian nuclear field.
2/ The bill relieves the nuclear operator from liability if accident is due to cause of natural disaster; terrorism and armed conflict. It invites utter threats to the life of millions of people.
Some legal grounds of criticism regarding conflicting clause of the Nuclear Liability law
------------------------------
Clause 6 and emanating controversy
________________________
According to this clause the operator can claim any liability from manufacturer and supplier in case of nuclear accident if it is written in the contract. But here the operator is Nuclear Power Corporation of India which itself is a government owned enterprise. So; in that case; to cope up with current situation government can put up a new bill or mayvamend the existing bill that might go against the victims.
Controversy regarding clause 18
______________________________
The clause 18 of the nuclear liability bill maximizes the time of 10 years under which a victim has to file a complaint while it is well known to all that it is a very short duration of time because DNA of human bodies expresses nuclear related syndromes upto a long time along with several mismatches caused by nuclear disaster.
Controversy regarding clause 35
_______________________________
Thr clause 35 of the nuclear liability law provides that only nuclear damage claim commissioner can run the trial of operator or responsible person liable to the accident without any provision of civil court. It is contrary to the counterpart of US where accused are tried under civil court. It also conflicts with indian law.
Controversy regarding clause 17 and other deprivation of victim's rights
____________________________
The nuclear liability bill provides utmost responsibility to determine the claim of victims to the Nuclear damage commissioner.Not only this; the clause 17 of the bill prohibits the victims from filing any case against liable persons which can be done only by the operator that is NPCIL. It also prohibits the victims from filing any cases against the order of nuclear damage commissioner. It violates the civil rights of citizens.
Solution
--------
From international front
____________________
As said by foreign nuclear companies and the US government the section 17 (b) and 46 of the Nuclear Liability Law that provides strict legal action against the nuclear suppliers in case of default of any mechanism or equipment is neither mentioned in CSG treaty nor mentioned in law of the countries who are party to the convention.
To resolve the problem; without diluting the provision but a much rationalised provision can be added diplomatically.
In case of insurance stalemate; a perfect risk management system combining insurance pool of indian insurance companies and US insurance companies can solve the matter.
From domestic front
____________________
After the Bhopal gas incident the domestic problems that might atise by such hazardous industry should be concerned effectively. A proper compensation system considering the propensity of such huge loss caused by nuclear accident and with inclusion of a longer time period to file suit can mitigate the problem. The inclusion of civil court in the trial process will add transparency and also will be in resonance with indian law.
India needs clean energy to appear on equal foot with other developed countries. Nuclear energy can pave this way for india. But a highly effective protection system with utterly responsible government machinery along with adequate law is necessary for a balancing nuclear power in india.
Questions to try
----------------
1/ The nuclear liability law of india conflicts with the indian as well as international law-- exemplify.
2/ The nuclear liability law of india deprives the indians from entertaining fundamental rights-- put forward valid reasons.


Posted by on No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, January 2, 2015

Laws Enacted and Amended in 2014: A Snapshot

                       http://www.livelaw.in/laws-enacted-amended-2014-snapshot/


The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill received the President’s assent on the 1st January, 2014. It provides for the establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The law was enacted for effective implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which was ratified by India in May, 2011. It was enacted so that “the Government’s commitment to clean and responsive governance” could be reflected in effective bodies in order to contain and punish acts of corruption.
The Act has however been in cold storage all this while, with the Apex Court chiding the Government over the same in August. Last month, Union Law Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda confirmed the government’s decision to amend the provisions of the Lokpal Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to do away with the requirement of quorum in the high-profile committees to select the anti-corruption ombudsman and the CBI Director, respectively.
The inclusion of a clause in the statutory provisions dealing with the selection panels would provide a legal safeguard against any challenges on the validity of an appointment.
For further information, you may read:
Lokpal Finally- By Rituparna Dutta
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013 is Act No. 1 of 2014: Will new section- 8B (2) of CVC Act dilute the powers of CBI? – By M.A. Rashid
Access further coverage by LiveLaw, here.
The Act received President’s assent on 1st January, 2014 to authorize payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2013-14
The Act received President’s assent on 1st January, 2014 and authorizes payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2013-14 for the purposes of Railways.
The Act received President’s assent on 24th February, 2014 and provides for the withdrawal of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of a part of the financial year 2014-15 for the purposes of Railways.
The Act received President’s assent on 24th February, 2014 and authorizes payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2013-14 for the purposes of Railways.
Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Bill, 2014 received the assent of the President on the 1st March, 2014. The Act carves out a separate state called Telangana comprising 10 districts of the existing state of Andhra Pradesh. The ”appointed day” for the new States’ formation was 02 June 2014.
After the bifurcation, Andhra Pradesh has 11 seats in Rajya Sabha, and Telangana has 7. In Lok Sabha, Andhra Pradesh has 25 seats and Telangana has 17 seats.
Nine petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India requesting a stay of the tabling of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Bill in the parliament. The apex Court however, refused to stay tabling of the bill in Parliament, saying that it is not going to interfere at this stage.
In line with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, the Ministry of Law and Justice gave a green signal to formation of a separate High Court for Andhra Pradesh last month.
According to section 30 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 (Central Act 6 of 2014) the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution of India etc. and other provisions of the Act
For further information, you may read:
Telangana: Intolerance to hostile media- By Prof. (Dr.) Madabhushi Sridhar
Access further coverage by LiveLaw, here
The Act received President’s assent on 4th March, 2014 to authorize payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2013-14.
The Act received the President’s assent on 4th March, 2014 to provide for the withdrawal of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of a part of the financial year 2014-15.
The Act received President’s assent on 4th March, 2014 to authorize payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for the services in respect of the financial year 2013-14.
The Act received the President’s assent on 4th March, 2014. The main objective of this enactment was to protect the livelihood rights of street vendors as well as regulate street vending through demarcation of vending zones, conditions for and restrictions on street vending.
The National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI) has set a goal of ensuring that the Act is implemented in at least 100 Indian cities by May 2015.
The Standing Committee that looked into the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2012, had recommended that only easily accessible documents like voter ID cards or ration cards be required to apply for a street vending permit. Asking for documents that many street vendors may not have will make the process more cumbersome. The recommendation has not been incorporated explicitly in the Act and has been left to the discretion of the respective State Governments.
Additionally, the Committee had recommended that the vending fee should be decided on the basis of the vending occurring – whether it is stationary, mobile or of any other kind – and on the location of vending. The Act however leaves the estimation of the vending fee to the state government.
A provision for renewal of vending certificates once in three years has also been omitted by the Act, leaving it to the whims and caprices of the local authorities. Further, no tenure for Town Vending Committee has been provided for.
A friendly registration process, evenhanded vending fee and fine regime, judicious renewal of vending permits, and transparency in the workings of the Town Vending Committee are also needed. If these measures are accommodated by State Governments during the Act’s implementation, it will contribute to a better balance between the promotion of street vending as a livelihood option and the regulation of this business.
Access further coverage by LiveLaw, here
The Act received president’s assent on 4th March, 2014 and amends the Governors (Emoluments, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1982 by inserting Section 12A according to which an ex-Governor shall, for the remainder of his life, be entitled to secretarial assistance of one Personal Assistant on reimbursement basis. However, he would not be entitled for such secretarial assistance for the period during which he is re-appointed to the office of the Governor or elected to Parliament or the State Legislature or appointed to any office of profit under the Union or a State Government.
The Act received President’s assent on 4th March, 2014, and seeks to amend the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007, repealing The Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur Act, 2004. It amends the Act to include a Third Schedule to incorporate the Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur, West Bengal under it. It also changes the name of the university to the Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur.
The Act received the President’s assent on 4th March, 2014 and provides for the establishment and incorporation of a University in the Bundelkhand region for the development of agriculture and for the furtherance of the advancement of learning and pursuit of research in agriculture and allied sciences and declare it to be an institution of national importance.
The key objectives of the university shall be to impart education in different branches of agriculture and allied sciences, undertake research in agriculture, undertake programmes of extension education in Bundelkhand region and promote linkages with national and international educational institutes.
The Act received President’s assent on 4th March, 2014. It was enacted to continue the existing rates of income-tax for the financial year 2014-2015.
Chapter 4 of Part 1 has detailed provisions on tax reliefs including those pension savings, employee share schemes, the seed enterprise investment scheme, venture capital trusts, investment in social enterprises and capital allowances for renovation of business premises. It also contains detailed provisions to tackle the “disguising of employment relationships” through limited liability partnerships.
The Act received President’s assent on 4th March, 2014. It provides for the withdrawal of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for the services for a period of six months of the financial year 2014-15.
The Act received President’s asset on 7th March and seeks to amend the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It adds a new definition of “Central Government factories” and “essential narcotic drug”.
It broadens the definition of “illegally acquired property” to include not just property derived from income out of an illegal act under this law but also the equivalent value of such property. It also includes any property acquired out of earnings whose source cannot be proved. The Act amends the penalty, stating that any person who consumes drugs in contravention of this Act shall be penalized with imprisonment for up to six months or a fine up to Rs 10,000 or both.
The Act received the assent of the President on the 9th May, 2014 and seeks to establish “a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation of corruption or willful misuse of power or willful misuse of discretion against any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimization of the person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.”
Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental organization may make such a disclosure to the Central or State Vigilance Commission. Every complaint has to include the identity of the complainant. The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it necessary.
It aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimizing a complainant.
The Act differs on many issues with the proposed Bill of the Law Commission and the 2nd Administrative Reform Commission’s report. These include non-admission of anonymous complaints and lack of penalties for officials who victimize whistleblowers.
For further information, you may read:
Access further coverage by LiveLaw, here
The Act received President’s assent on 17th July, 2014 to amend the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. It repeals the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.
The Act received President’s assent on 17th July, 2014 to declare the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad (NID) an institution of national importance. NID was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as an autonomous institution under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Act has now made it a body corporate with the legal status of an Institute. NID can establish Institute campuses at any place within or outside India.
Key powers of NID include providing instruction and training in areas and disciplines related to design; granting degrees in disciplines relating to design; framing, altering, modifying and rescinding Statutes and Ordinances; and acting as a nucleus for interaction between academia and industry. An Arbitral Tribunal shall be established to settle disputes between NID and its employees.
The Act received President’s assent on 17th July, 2014 and seeks to amend the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It places a bar for a period of two years on the Chairman and the whole time members from accepting any employment either under the Central Government or under any State Government or any appointment in any company in the business of telecommunication services, without the previous approval of the Central Government. It also repeals the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014.
The Act received the President’s assent on 28th July, 2014 and provides for the authorization of appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India to meet the amounts spent on certain services for the purposes of Railways during the financial year ended on the 31st day of March, 2012 in excess of the amounts granted for those services and for that year.
The Act received President’s assent on 28th July, 2014. It authorizes payment and appropriation of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2014-15 for the purposes of Railways.
The Act received President’s assent on 28th July, 2014. It authorizes payment and appropriation of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2014-2015.
The Act received President’s assent on 6th August, 2014 to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2014-2015.
The Act received President’s assent on 7th August, 2014 to authorize payment and appropriation of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for the services in respect of the financial year 2014-15.
The Act received the President’s assent on 22nd August, 2014, seeking to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the Depositories Act, 1996. It provides for establishment of special courts for speedy trial of offences under the Act, and provides for an appeal to the High Court from the Special Court which will be deemed to be a Court of Sessions.
The Act received President’s assent on 29th November, 2014 to amend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The principal Act provides for a three member committee to make recommendations to the Central Government for appointment of the Director. The committee comprises the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The amendment Act amends this provision in relation to the Leader of Opposition. It states that where there is no Leader of Opposition, the Leader of the single largest Opposition Party in that House would be part of the committee. The Act also introduces a provision that states that the appointment of a Director would not be invalid on the grounds of any vacancy or absence of a member of the Committee.
The Act received President’s assent on 5th December, 2014 and amends the Apprentices Act, 1961. The Act amends the definition of appropriate government to include an establishment operating in four or more states to be regulated by the central government. It also amends the definitions of: (i) designated trade, (ii) graduate or technician apprentice, (iii) trade apprentice, (iv) industry and (v) worker. The Act adds two definitions: (i) optional trade, and (ii) portal-site.
The Principal Act sets the minimum age for being engaged as an apprentice at 14 years. The amendment Act adds that the minimum age for apprenticeship in designated trades related to hazardous industries shall be 18 years. The hours of work and leave will be as per the discretion or policy of the employer.
The Act received President’s assent on 8th December, 2014.  According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act provides four existing IIITs, independent statutory status.  It declares them as institutes of national importance, to enable them to grant degrees to their students.
The four IIITs are situated in, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and two in Madhya Pradesh.  They will aim to: (i) provide instruction in areas concerning information technology and allied fields of knowledge, (ii) conduct research and innovation in information technology, (iii) hold examinations and grant degrees, diplomas and other titles, (iv) create and make appointments to various posts, (v) establish and maintain such infrastructure as may be necessary, etc.
The Act received President’s assent on 9th December, 2014. The Act adds new provisions to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to comply with the International Convention for the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, 2001. The Convention is aimed at protecting the marine environment and human health from adverse effects of anti-fouling paints used to coat the ships’ surfaces.
The amendments shall apply to: (i) all Indian ships, wherever they are, (ii) ships operating under the authority of India and (iii) ships entering places where India has exclusive jurisdiction, including ports, shipyards, offshore terminals, territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf. The amendments shall be applicable to shall not apply to any warship, naval auxiliary or other non-commercial ship owned by or operated under the authority of India.
The Act received the President’s assent on 9th December, 2014. It further amends the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to bring it in conformity with the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. The Convention lays down the standards for the living and working conditions of seafarers, including their food, accommodation, medical care, social security, and recruitment.
The amendments regarding the maritime labour standards specified in the Convention shall apply to all seafarers and ships engaged in commercial activities except: (i) ships which navigate exclusively in inland waters, (ii) fishing vessels, (iii) traditionally built ships like dhows and junks and (iv) warships or naval auxiliary ships. The government may extend applicability of these provisions to non- commercial ships on the recommendations of the Directorate General of Shipping.
The Act received President’s assent on 9th December, 2014. It seeks to mend the Labour Laws (Exemption from Furnishing Returns and Maintaining Registers by certain Establishments) Act, 1988. It widens e ambit of the Act to more establishments and adds more laws from which these establishments are to be exempted.
According to the amendment Act, the employer may maintain the returns filed and the registers on a computer, computer disk or other electronic media. Printouts of these records shall have to be made available to the Inspector on demand. The information may also be furnished to the Inspector by electronic mail.
The Act received the President’s assent on 17th December, 2014 and seeks to amend the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Castes Order, 1978.  It includes certain communities in the list of Scheduled Castes in Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, and Tripura. Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify castes which will be deemed as Scheduled Castes through a notification.  It also empowers Parliament to include or exclude castes from the list of Scheduled Castes in the notification.
The Act received President’s assent on 17th December, 2014 and seeks to amend the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 and the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 2995, in order to continue with the lease-hold rights vested in the National Textile Corporation on completion of the lease-hold tenure.
The Act received the President’s assent on 17th December, 2014 and seeks to amend the Central Universities Act, 2009. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act states that it seeks to set up a Central University in Bihar, in addition to the existing one. It states that the large-scale requirement of access to, and quality in, higher education was not being met by just one university in the state. It also changes the name of the existing central university.
It will rename the existing Central University of Bihar, to Central University of South Bihar, as it is located south of the river Ganges. The new Central University will be called Mahatma Gandhi Central University.
The Act received the President’s assent on 18th December, 2014. According to its Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act seeks to provide three existing SPAs in New Delhi, Bhopal and Vijayawada the status of institutes of national importance. It enables them to grant degrees to their students. The SPA, New Delhi was established in 1959 and conferred with the status of a Deemed University (a high-performing institution declared so by the Centre, under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956) in 1979. SPAs in Bhopal and Vijayawada were established in 2008.
The Act received the President’s assent on 25th December, 2014. It was enacted to authorize payment and appropriation of certain further sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2014-15.
Posted by on 1 comment:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)