Miscellaneous-1
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2015, seeking to introduce the system of auction of mines to enhance transparency in mineral allocations was passed in Rajya Sabha. The Bill was already passed by the Lok Sabha and seeks to replace an ordinance. The upper house also rejected the motion to send the bill again to Select Committee.
The Bill envisages spending of a fixed percentage of revenue generated from mining on the development of the local area. All parties, barring Congress and Left supported the government with this Bill while JD-U chose to stage a walk-out.
The World Bank said growth in remittances is expected to slow sharply this year due to weak economic growth in Europe , deterioration of the Russian economy and the depreciation of the euro and [Russian] Ruble.
Remittances to the developing world are expected to reach U.S.$440 billion in 2015, an increase of 0.9 per cent over the previous year. Global remittances, including those to high income countries, are projected to grow by 0.4 per cent to U.S.$586 billion.
“Total remittances in 2014 reached U.S.$583 billion. This is more than double the ODA in the world. India received U.S.$70 billion, China U.S.$64 billion, thePhilippines
“Israel and India Tajikistan
In line with the expected global economic recovery next year, the global flows of remittances are expected to accelerate by 4.1 per cent in 2016, to reach an estimated U.S.$610 billion, rising to U.S.$636 billion in 2017. Remittance flows to developing countries are expected to recover in 2016 to reach U.S.$459 billion, rising to U.S.$479 billion in 2017, the World Bank said.
The global average cost of sending U.S.$200 held steady at 8 per cent of the value of the transaction, as of the last quarter of 2014. Despite its potential to lower costs, the use of mobile technology in cross-border transactions remains limited, due to the regulatory burden related to combating money laundering and terrorism financing, the report said.
International remittances sent via mobile technology accounted for less than two per cent of remittance flows in 2013, according to the latest available data. In addition to sending money to their families, international migrants hold significant savings in their destination countries. ‘Diaspora savings’ attributed to migrants from developing countries were estimated at U.S.$497 billion in 2013, the latest data available.
“The moderation in the growth of remittances will be hard on many poor people. The affected countries may have to consider creative ways of smoothing the shock. Fortunately, migration and remittances can be leveraged for innovative financing,” said Dilip Ratha, lead economist, migration and remittances, at the World Bank’s Development Prospects Group. “As to long-term financing needs for the Post-2015 Development Goals, I would love to see a bullet train system in India, an international airport in Nigeria, another Suez Canal in Egypt, a hydro-project in Pakistan, a community development program in the Philippines, all financed by mobilising the power of remittances and diaspora savings,” he said.
Coming to the rescue of farmers hit by unseasonal rains and hailstorm, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced higher compensation for crop damage and eased criteria for them to avail government support. The Prime Minister said that he has also asked banks to restructure loans of affected farmers and instructed insurance companies to pro-actively settle their claims.
Mr Modi said criteria of 50 per cent crop damage for providing compensation to affected farmers has been reduced to 33 per cent which will help more farmers to get compensation for their crop loss. “Second important decision we have taken is to raise the parameters for helping him (farmers). The amount of compensation has been increased to 1.5 times. If earlier, he was getting 100 as compensation, now he will get 150, if it was 1 lakh, he will get 1.5 lakh... A 50 per cent increase,” he said.
Farmers, the Prime Minister said, have suffered a lot on account of natural calamities. “Last year, it was due to less rainfall and this year due to unseasonal rainfall and hailstorm,” Mr Modi said, adding that he took a review of the crop damage with Ministers sent to undertake on the spot assessment.
Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh had said that unseasonal rains and hailstorms have damaged rabi (winter-sown) crops in about 113 lakh hectares of crop area in the country. On providing higher compensation to the affected farmers, Modi said, “(it) will impose a heavy burden on the exchequer but it is important to help them as they are in distress. We have to worry about the farmer of India
About 30 crore landless people will get employment in the industrial corridors following amendments to the Land Acquisition Bill, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said.
“I want to make a special mention of poor, dalits, tribals, backwards, those who are landless. The Land Acquisition Bill we are bringing, as per that the industrial corridors which would be set up in the country, those backward people, the 300 million landless people would get employment opportunities,” he said. He said it is the priority of the government to provide employment to people and steps are being taken in that direction.
At the launch of the Micro Units Development Refinance Agency (MUDRA) Bank, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said it is aimed at providing financial assistance to the “unfunded” small entrepreneurs who provide employment to a large number of people. Large business groups, which attract a lot of media attention, provide employment to only 1.25 crore people, he said, adding that 5.75 crore small entrepreneurs, with an average loan size of 17,000, employ 12 crore people. Generating employment and promoting self-employment is the priority of the government, the PM said, adding, “providing loans to small entrepreneurs will provide a big push to the GDP”. Small borrowers repay loans promptly, he said, stressing that “saving is a habit in India
Initially, MUDRA Bank will work as a non banking financial company (NBFC), as a subsidiary of Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) for lending to micro finance institutions (MFIs), and later it will become a regulator for MFIs. Seven major manufacturing sectors suffered an estimated loss of 1,05,381 crore during 2013-14 due to illicit trade, according to a FICCI report.
The study on ‘Illicit Markets’ focused on seven major manufacturing sectors — auto components, alcoholic beverages, computer hardware, FMCG personal goods, FMCG packaged foods, mobile phones and tobacco. On account of illicit trade, FICCI-CASCADE report said, the estimated loss to these seven sectors has increased by 44.4 per cent in just two years, from 72,969 crore in 2011-12 to 105,381 crore in 2013-14. Moreover, the government tax (direct and indirect) losses, increased by almost 50 per cent to 39,239 crore in 2014 from 26,190 crore in 2012, the study found.
There are about 5.77 crore micro and small entrepreneurs in the country who do not have access to institutional credit. Mr Jaitley said about 20 per cent of the country’s population is dependent on these micro and small entrepreneurs. This institution has been created within five weeks after Budget announcement, he said, adding that the MUDRA Bank will refinance micro-finance institutions (MFIs). This NBFC will be transformed into another development bank in the future, he added. In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister had proposed the MUDRA with a corpus of 20,000 crore, and credit guarantee corpus of 3,000 crore.
The roles envisaged for MUDRA include laying down policy guidelines for micro enterprise financing business and registration of MFI entities as well as their accreditation and rating. The initial products and schemes under this umbrella have already been created and the interventions have been named ‘Shishu’, ‘Kishor’ and ‘Tarun’ to signify the stages of growth/development and funding needs of the beneficiary micro unit/entrepreneur.
Miscellaneous-2
Kalvari, the first of the Indian Navy’s six Scorpene class stealth submarines, was ‘undocked’, paving the way for sea trials and its eventual commissioning in September 2016. The six Scorpenes are being built by Mazagon Docks Ltd in collaboration with French firm DCNS.
Christened ‘Project 75’, the Scorpenes have already seen a delay of almost 40 months. While the first delivery was scheduled for 2012, the revised date is September of next year. The Indian Navy said that the project has ‘now been brought on track and the delivery schedule for the successive submarines has been reduced’.
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar warned that for future projects, there will be a penalty for delay and reward for early completion. He asked the defence public sector yards – MDL and Goa shipyard – to double their production in the coming three years.
The defence minister also said that as far as P75(I) Project was concerned, private players can also be invited for a joint venture, which would help in the early completion of the project. P75(I) is the next project of the Navy under which six submarines will be built in India
The first Scorpene submarine has been named after its predecessor, an erstwhile Russian ‘Foxtrot’ class submarine, Kalvari. It was the first submarine operated byIndia
As for ‘Project 75’, the remaining five boats would be delivered by the yard by 2020 and would form the core of the navy’s submarine arm for the next two decades. The Scorpene submarines pack a potent punch and would come equipped with anti-ship missiles and long-range guided torpedoes along with modern sensor suite. The submarine is designed to operate in ‘all theatres, including the tropics’. It will now go on trial both in harbour and at sea and on surface and while being ‘dived’.
He also claimed that recent accidents involving submarines were the result of not following Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). “Majority of accidents are the result of relaxed attitude towards following SOPs. There would have been no accident had they acted as per SOP. Now, we have asked the staff to follow SOP strictly,” he said.
On the Scorpene submarines, Mr Parrikar said, India
Acknowledging the efforts of MDL in construction of this partially indigenous submarine, the Defence Minister said the government had an ambitious plan to fulfil the requirements of the armed forces as per which all Public Sector Undertakings would double their production in the next two years. “We want to build a ‘Blue Water Navy’ which can survive despite operating across the deep ocean waters without any problems. We will ensure that we become one such navy,” he said.
The state-of-the-art features of the Scorpene include superior stealth and ability to launch a crippling attack on the enemy using precision guided weapons. The attack can be launched with torpedoes, as well as tube launched anti-ship missiles, whilst underwater or on surface. It is designed to operate in all theatres including the tropics. All means and communications are provided to ensure interoperability with other components of a naval task force. It can undertake multifarious warfare, anti-submarine warfare, intelligence gathering, mine laying, area surveillance, etc.
Built from special steel capable of withstanding high yield stress and having high tensile strength, it can withstand high hydrostatic force and enabling it to dive deeper. The Scorpene is equipped with Weapons Launching tubes (WLT) and can carry weapons on board which can be easily reloaded at sea.
SC strikes down Section 66A of IT Act
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court struck down a controversial provision in the cyber law providing for arrest for posting allegedly ‘offensive’ content on websites saying, it is “unconstitutional” and has a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech and expression.
The apex court also held that the expressions used in Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, which had been used by various administrations against inconvenient posts in the cyber space, are “completely open-ended and undefined”.
However, the bench turned down the plea to strike down Section 69A and Section 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking sites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases respectively.
It is clear that the impugned provision of Section 66A “arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately” invades the right of free speech and upsets balance between such right and reasonable restrictions that may be imposed, the court held.
The provision, which had come under the scanner of the court after two Mumbai girls were arrested for posting and liking a comment on Facebook relating to shutdown in the city following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death, was also invoked recently against a youth in Uttar Pradesh for his post on the state minister Azam Khan.
The court examined the validity of the provision by referring to various aspects relating to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution which deals with reasonable restrictions and its impact on Article 14 and 21 which relate to the right to equality and personal liberty respectively.
While quashing Section 66A, which was brought through an amendment by previous UPA government and defended by present NDA regime, a bench of justices J. Chelameswar and R. F. Nariman said, “Incidentally, none of the expressions used in Section 66A are defined. Even ‘criminal intimidation’ is not defined – and the definition clause of the Information Technology Act, Section 2 does not say that words and expressions that are defined in the Penal Code will apply to this Act”.
Regarding the other two sections, the court said, “Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid. Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material.
“Similarly, the Information Technology ‘Intermediary Guidelines’ Rules, 2011, are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the judgement,” said the bench in its 123-page judgement. The bench assailed the provision, which in the recent past has resulted in indiscriminate arrests, on the ground of its “chilling effect and over breadth”. “We, therefore, hold that the section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of over breadth,” the court said.
The apex court, which held that the expressions used in Section 66A are “open-minded and undefined”, also analysed the meaning of terms like “causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will”, used in the provision.
Referring to various judgements, it said, “[It] was further held that a penal law is void for vagueness if it fails to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. “Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place.”
The apex court also rejected the plea of the Centre that the fact that Section 66A is capable of being “abused” was not a ground to test its validity and its contention that the government is committed to free speech and undertakes that it will be used only when excesses are perpetrated by persons on the rights of others. “In this case, it is the converse proposition which would really apply if the Additional Solicitor General’s argument is to be accepted. If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner.
“Governments may come and Governments may go but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present Government even if carried out faithfully would not bind any successor Government. It must, therefore, be held that Section 66A must be judged on its own merits without any reference to how well it may be administered,” Justice Nariman, who wrote the verdict, said.
Dealing with the plea of the Centre that some part of the provisions can be saved by applying the doctrine of severability, the bench said, “The submission is vague. The Additional Solicitor General does not indicate which part or parts of Section 66A can possibly be saved.” It dealt with the subject matters of Article 19(2) and said that “... no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be declared unconstitutional”.
The court, however, did not allow the plea of petitioners that the provision is unconstitutional also on the ground that it violates Article 14 (equality before law) as the freedom of speech and expression be made applicable equally to internet and other traditional medium. “We make it clear that there is an intelligible differentia between speech on the internet and other mediums of communication for which separate offences can certainly be created by legislation. We find, therefore, that the challenge on the ground of Article 14 must fail,” it said.
The bench also dealt with Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, which was invoked to arrest a person for causing “annoyance” to others in an “indecent manner” by communicating through various modes and held it as “unconstitutional”. “However, what has been said about Section 66A would apply directly to Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, as causing annoyance in an indecent manner suffers from the same type of vagueness and over breadth, that led to the invalidity of Section 66A, and for the reasons given for striking down Section 66A, Section 118(d) also violates Article 19(1)(a) and not being a reasonable restriction on the said right and not being saved under any of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) is hereby declared to be unconstitutional,” it said.
The bench, in its verdict, referred to the Preamble of the Constitution and said, “It cannot be over emphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme”. It further said there are three concepts to understand the expression “freedom of speech and expression” and they are “discussion”, “advocacy” and “incitement”. “Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in,” it said. These three concepts have to be kept in mind while dealing with the issue relating to “public order”, it said.
The bench referred to the definition of “information” provided in the Act and allowed the plea that Section 66A “casts the net very wide”. “Two things will be noticed. The first is that the definition is an inclusive one. Second, the definition does not refer to what the content of information can be. In fact, it refers only to the medium through which such information is disseminated. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners are correct in saying that the public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66A,” it said. “It is clear that the right of the people to know – the market place of ideas – which the internet provides to persons of all kinds, is what attracts Section 66A,” it said, adding that the provision “very clearly affects the freedom of speech and expression” of citizens.
The Centre had said that the section can be supported under the heads of “public order, defamation, incitement to an offence and decency or morality”.
“Under our constitutional scheme, as stated earlier, it is not open to the state to curtail freedom of speech to promote the general public interest,” the bench said. The bench rejected the contention that the court should relax the scrutiny of the provision as it dealt with contents on internet which is different from other medium.
“While it may be possible to narrowly draw a Section creating a new offence, such as Section 69A for instance, relatable only to speech over the internet, yet the validity of such a law will have to be tested on the touchstone of the tests (applicable on other medium) already indicated.” It also said that the provision has no “proximate relationship” with public order as claimed by the Centre.
Referring to various judgements, it said, “We have to ask ourselves the question: does a particular act lead to disturbance of the current life of the community or does it merely affect an individual leaving the tranquillity of society undisturbed? Going by this test, it is clear that Section 66A is intended to punish any person who uses the internet to disseminate any information that falls within the sub-clauses of Section 66A... It is clear, therefore, that the information that is disseminated may be to one individual or several individuals.
“The nexus between the message and action that may be taken based on the message is conspicuously absent – there is no ingredient in this offence of inciting anybody to do anything which a reasonable man would then say would have the tendency of being an immediate threat to public safety or tranquillity. On all these counts, it is clear that the Section has no proximate relationship to public order whatsoever.”
It said the provision does not clear the “the present danger test” or “the tendency to create public disorder” as it has no element of any tendency to create public disorder “which ought to be an essential ingredient of the offence which it creates”.
Drawing a parallel with the defamation law, it said, “For something to be defamatory, injury to reputation is a basic ingredient. Section 66A does not concern itself with injury to reputation. Something may be grossly offensive and may annoy or be inconvenient to somebody without at all affecting his reputation. It is clear therefore that the Section is not aimed at defamatory statements at all”.
Similarly, the provision also has “no proximate connection with incitement to commit an offence”, it said, adding that the information, disseminated over internet, need not be information which “incites” anybody at all. “Further, mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the Penal Code at all. They may be ingredients of certain offences under the Penal Code but are not offences in themselves,” the bench said.
Dealing with the terms of “decency” and “morality”, the bench said the provision does not “create an offence which falls within the expression ‘decency’ or ‘morality’ in that what maybe grossly offensive or annoying under the section need not be obscene at all – in fact the word ‘obscene’ is conspicuous by its absence in Section 66A”.
The bench also compared various IPC provisions with 66A of the IT Act. “If one looks at Section 294, the annoyance that is spoken of is clearly defined - that is, it has to be caused by obscene utterances or acts. Equally, under Section 510, the annoyance that is caused to a person must only be by another person who is in a state of intoxication and who annoys such person only in a public place or in a place for which it is a trespass for him to enter.
“Such narrowly and closely defined contours of offences made out under the Penal Code are conspicuous by their absence in Section 66A which in stark contrast uses completely open ended, undefined and vague language,” it said.
Stringent penalty for stashing black money under new law
In a bid to unearth black money and illicit assets stashed abroad, the Union Cabinet approved a Bill with stringent provisions for prosecution of such offences with rigorous imprisonment of up to 10 years.
The Cabinet has approved Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of New Tax) Bill, 2015. Under the provisions of the new Bill, which was announced in the Budget, the offence will be non-compoundable, offenders will not be permitted to approach the Settlement Commission and penalty at the rate of 300 per cent of taxes will be levied on the concealed income and assets.
The Bill also will make non-filing of income tax returns or filing or returns with inadequate disclosure of foreign assets liable for prosecution with punishment of rigorous imprisonment of up to seven years. Concealment of income and assets and evasion in relation to foreign assets will be prosecutable with punishment of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Since it is a money Bill, it will be introduced in the Lok Sabha after obtaining the President’s assent. The Bill is likely to be introduced before the Lok Sabha adjourns for a month long recess.
The Union Government has been under pressure to act on the issue of black money stashed abroad as the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi had mounted a huge campaign during the Lok Sabha election last year with promise to quickly repatriate such illegal wealth.
Individuals, entities, banks and financial institutions would be liable for prosecution and penalty if found abetting such offences. Concealment of income or tax evasion in relation to a foreign asset will be made ‘predicate offence’ under the PMLA, enabling enforcement agencies to attach and confiscate such assets.
The new legislation will provide that income in relation to any undisclosed foreign asset or undisclosed income from any foreign asset will be taxable at the maximum marginal rate. Exemptions or deductions, which may otherwise be applicable in such cases, shall not be allowed.
Beneficial owner or beneficiary of foreign assets will be mandatorily required to file return, even if there is no taxable income. The date of opening of foreign account would be mandatorily required to be specified by the assessee in the return of income.
In the Budget speech, the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had also announced that concealment of income or evasion of tax in relation to a foreign asset will be made a predicate offence under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This provision would enable the enforcement agencies to attach and confiscate unaccounted assets held abroad and launch prosecution against persons indulging in laundering of black money.
Besides, the the government is also likely to amend Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) for seizure and confiscation domestic assets equivalent to the value illegal overseas assets.
G–33 opposes new U.S.
In trying to address the food security issue vis-a-vis the proposal, one of the outcomes could be a decision on public stockholding whereas the mandate is the other way round, India
The G–33 countries—led by India and including China and the Philippines
The G–33 debated the U.S.
The proposal comprises three main elements: reviewing efficacy and trade effects of existing food security programmes and the extent to which they meet their goals; evaluating the real and potential problems encountered in implementing food security programmes because of constraints in the existing WTO rules; and drawing from the best practices and recommendations on food stockholding.
Best practices in food stockholding would include programmes in states that are most economical, targeted and effective and the ones that are not trade distorting and have enhanced transparency.
The informal meeting also saw the playing out of the old hardened battle lines between the proponents of another proposal to the issue, called the G–33 proposal, and the opponents of it.
The G–33 proposal suggests to amend the Agriculture Agreement to provide new flexibilities for programmes when governments buy food from low-income farmers at supported prices to build up stocks, to be shifted from the ‘Amber Box’ all domestic support measures considered to distort production and trade to the Green Box.
The EU along with Australia
One of the suggestions to the logjam was a solution on the basis of the calculation of Aggregate Measurement Support (AMS) – the base period for which is still the 1986-88 prices. India
An interim peace clause was brokered last year in November, when India
Chairperson Ambassador John Adank, New Zealand
There are two broad areas of concern – the impact on the architecture of the existing Agriculture Agreement, particularly shifting the market price support programmes into the Green Box, and secondly, the ‘unintended consequences’ of the G–33 proposal on export markets, Mr Adank stated.
Comments
Post a Comment