Datasets:

openlegalai

/

poil-paper-samples

like 0

65c447c01184950038984869

blog

LegislationAre laws covered by copyright?Avinash- June 29, 2010The simple answer is yes. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the government, and the government alone, can print its laws and issue copies of them.  If, for instance, a person, takes a copy of an Act, and puts it up on their website for others to download, it's technically a violation of copyright. The only way any person can do so, without infringing copyright, is to 'value-add' to the text of the Act, by say, adding their own commentary or notes. But simply reproducing the entire text of the Act, without comment, is an infringement of the copyright. Section 52 (1)(q) of the copyright Act, which covers 'fair use' of a copyrighted work says the following:52 (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:(q) the reproduction or publication of-(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;(ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;(iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;(iv) any judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;So the text of an Act is copyrighted, but the rules produced under it, and published in the Gazette are not. This is odd, to put it politely. Why should the text of a law, one of the basic building blocks of  a modern state, not be freely available to anyone, without cost? (Even if you can make an argument that laws should be covered by copyright, shouldnt that copyright rest with Parliament, which 'creates' laws, rather than the government?) The Parliament Standing Committee on Human Resource Development is currently studying the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which has already achieved a certain amount of fame, for the changes it makes to the rights of lyricists and music composers.  But perhaps the Committee should also consider recommending an amendment to 52(1) of the Copyright Act, allowing not just laws, but all works funded by the government, and by extension the taxpayer, to be freely available to all.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4471511849500389847c2

blog

ParliamentCabinet Reshuffles since 2009Chakshu Roy- June 18, 2013Source: www.pib.nic.inYesterday the Prime Ministerreshuffled his Cabinetand inducted four cabinet ministers and four ministers of state.  Since the beginning of the UPA II government, there have been three major Cabinet reshuffles and a number of minor readjustments in the portfolios of ministers. Analysing changes in the portfolios of ministers gives an insight into the churn in the political leadership of the different ministries of the government of India. Until recently there was no central online resource where information could be collated about cabinet reshuffles. The information was scattered between the websites of thePresident, thePrime Ministerand thePress Information Bureau. Since 2012, theCabinet Secretariathas started putting details aboutchanges in the portfolio of the council of ministersin the public domain. However analysing this information becomes difficult as the information is split into different files and details about the Cabinet reshuffle do not go back till 2009. We have tried to collate data about changes in Cabinet portfolios since May 2009, so that it becomes easily accessible and can be analysed by interested individuals.  The rawdata file can be accessed here. This data could be analysed to see which Ministers have shifted across ministries or the average length of tenure of Ministers in different ministries. If you spot interesting trends in the raw data above, please share them with us on twitter@prslegislativeWe have done apreliminary analysis of the datato see which ministries have had the most changes in Cabinet Ministers since May 2009: - Railway Ministry portfolio has been held by six different Cabinet Ministers [Mamata Banerjee, Dinesh Trivedi, Mukul Roy, C P Joshi (twice), Pawan Kumar Bansal and now Mallikarjun Kharge] - Ministry of Law and Justice, Corporate Affairs and Science and Technology: Four Cabinet Ministers. - Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Civil Aviation, Rural Development, Tourism and Youth and Sports:  Three Cabinet Ministers. - Ministries like Finance, Home, External Affairs, Communications and Information Technology, Human Resource Development:  Two Cabinet Ministers. - Ministries like Agriculture and Non Conventional Energy Sources have the same Ministers from May 2009. This data also helped us put together a brief chronology of Cabinet reshuffles since the beginning of the term of the UPA II government:23 & 28- May-09Cabinet sworn in.31-May-09Meria Kumar resigns as Minister of Water Resources to become Speaker of Lok Sabha.19-Apr-10Shashi Tharoor resigns as Minister of State from the Ministry of External Affairs.15-Nov-10A Raja resigns as Minister of Communications and Information Technology. Kapil Sibal gets additional charge of the ministry.19-Jan-11First major cabinet reshuffle. Most ministries affected.12-Jul-11Second major Cabinet reshuffle. Dinesh Trivedi assumes charge of Railway Ministry after Mamata Banerjee, Salman Khursheed becomes Law Minister, Jairam Ramesh moves to Rural Development. New Ministers like Rajeev Shukla (Parliamentary Affairs) and Jayanthi Natarajan (Environment and Forest) get inducted.18-Dec-11RLD joins UPA. Ajit Singh inducted as Minister of Civil Aviation.20-Mar-12Dinesh Trivedi resigns and Mukul Roy becomes Railway Minister.27-Jun-12Pranab Mukherjee resigns as Finance Minister to fight the presidential election.31-Jul-12P Chidambaram moves from Home to Finance Ministry and Sushil Kumar Shinde moves from Power to Home Ministry.22-Sep-12Trinamool withdraws support to UPA. All TMC ministers resign. C P Joshi assumes additional charge of Railway Ministry.28-Oct-12Third major reshuffle. S M Krishna resigns from Ministry of External Affairs and Salman Khursheed takes over. Ashwani Kumar comes in place of Salman Khursheed in Law and Justice. Ambika Soni resigns and Manish Tiwari takes charge of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Ajay Maken moves from Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to Housing and Urban Poverty Alliviation.21-Mar-13DMK withdraws support. All DMK Ministers resign.11-May-13Ashwani Kumar and Pawan Kumar Bansal resign. Kapil Sibal takes charge of Ministry of Law and Justice and C P Joshi takes charge of Railways.16-Jun-13Ajay Maken and C P Joshi resign.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4478e1184950038984840

blog

ParliamentParliament's scrutiny over government financesAnirudh- December 20, 2010The recent 2G-controversy and the related debate over the role of the PAC as opposed to the JPC also raises a broader Issue regarding the general scrutiny of government finances by Parliament.  Oversight of the government’s finances involves the scrutiny of the government’s financial proposals and policies.  The Indian Constitution vests this power with the Parliament by providing that (a) taxes cannot be imposed or collected without the authority of law, and (b) expenditure cannot be incurred without the authorisation of the legislature. The Indian Parliament exercises financial oversight over the government budget in two stages: (1) at the time of presentation of the annual budget, and (2) reviewing the government’s budget implementation efforts through the year. The Parliament scrutinises the annual budget (a) on the floor of the House, and (b) by the departmentally related standing committees.Scrutiny on the floor of the HouseThe main scrutiny of the budget in the Lok Sabha takes place through: (a) General discussion and voting: The general discussion on the Budget is held on a day subsequent to the presentation of the Budget by the Finance Minister.  Discussion at this stage is confined to the general examination of the Budget and policies of taxation expressed during the budget speech. (b) Discussion on Demand for Grants: The general discussion is followed by a discussion on the Demand for Grants of different ministries. A certain number of days or hours are allocated for the discussion of all the demands. However, not all the demands are discussed within the allotted number of days. The remaining undiscussed demands are disposed of by the Speaker after the agreement of the House.  This process is known as the ‘Guillotine’.  Figure 1 shows the number of Demands discussed and guillotined over the last five years.  It shows that nearly 90% of the Demands are not discussed every year.Some Important Budget DocumentsAnnual Financial Statement – Statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the government. Demand for Grants –Expenditure required to be voted by the Lok Sabha.  A separate Demand is required to be presented for each department of the government. Supplementary Demand for Grants – Presented when (a) authorized amounts are insufficient, or (b) need for additional expenditure has arisen. Finance Bill – Details the imposition of taxes, the rates of taxation, and its regulation. Detailed Demand for Grants – Prepared on the basis of the Demand for Grants.  These show further break-up of objects by expenditure, and also actual expenditure in the previous year.For more details see detailed note on Financial Oversight by Parliamenthere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4473911849500389847e5

blog

LegislationAre genetically modified crops safe enough?Sakshi- October 15, 2012A recentnews reportstated that the Planning Commission has advocated putting in place a “proper regulatory mechanism” before permitting the use of genetic modification in Indian crops.  A recent Standing Committee report on genetically modified (GM) crops found shortcomings in the regulatory framework for such crops.  The current framework is regulated primarily by two bodies: the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM).  Given the inadequacy of the regulatory framework, the Standing Committee recommended that all research and development activities on transgenic crops be carried out only in containment (in laboratories) and that ongoing field trials in all states be discontinued.  The blog provides a brief background on GM crops, their regulation in India and the key recommendations of the Standing Committee.What is GM technology?GM crops are usually developed through the insertion or deletion of genes from plant cells.  Bt technology is a type of genetic modification in crops.  It was introduced in India with Bt cotton.  The debate around GM crops has revolved around issues of economic efficacy, human health, consumer choice and farmers’ rights.  Some advantages of Bt technology are that it increases crop yield, decreases the use of pesticides, and improves quality of crops.  However, the technology has also been known to cause crop loss due to resistance developed by pests and destruction of local crop varieties, impacting biodiversity.Approval process for commercial release of GM cropsInitially, the company developing the GM crop undertakes several biosafety assessments including, environmental, food, and feed safety assessments in containment.This is followed by Bio-safety Research Trials which require prior approval of the regulators, the GEAC and the RCGM.Approval for environmental release is accorded by the GEAC after considering the findings of bio-safety studies.Finally, commercial release is permitted only for those GM crops found to be safe for humans and the environment.Committee’s recommendations for strengthening the regulatory processThe Standing Committee report found several shortcomings in the regulatory framework, some of which are as follows:State governments are not mandatorily consulted for conducting open field trials on GM crops.  Several states such as Kerala and Bihar have opposed field trials for GM crops.  The Committee recommended that mandatory consultation with state governments be built into the regulatory process.The key regulators, the GEAC and the RCGM, suffer from poor organisational set-up and infrastructure.  The Committee recommended that the regulatory framework be given statutory backing so that there is no scope for ambiguity or complacency on the part of the authorities responsible for the oversight of GM organisms.  It urged the government to introduce the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill.There is evidence that the GEAC has not complied with international treaties.  These include the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.  It recommended that legislation relating to liability and redress for damage arising from living modified organisms be enacted.Some international scientists have raised doubts about the safety of Bt Brinjal and the way tests were conducted.  To remedy this situation, the Committee recognised the need for an overarching legislation on biosafety to ensure that biotechnology is introduced without compromising the safety of biodiversity, human and livestock health, and environmental protection.Note that over the last few sessions of Parliament, the government has listed the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill for introduction; however the Bill has not been introduced yet.  The Bill sets up an independent authority for the regulation of GM crops. For a PRS summary of the report and access to the full report, seehereandhere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447701184950038984820

blog

MiscellaneousN-power in India. How safe are our plants?Anirudh- July 8, 2011In the aftermath of the nuclear leaks in Japan, there have been concerns regarding the safety of nuclear power plants around the world. There are some proposals to change the regulatory framework in India to ensure the safety of these plants. We examine some of the issues in the current structure.Which body looks at safety issues regarding nuclear power plants in the country?The apex institution tasked to look at issues regarding nuclear safety is the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. The AERB was set up in 1983 to carry out regulatory and safety functions regarding nuclear and radiation facilities. The agency has to give clearances for establishing nuclear power plants and facilities.   It issues clearances for nuclear power projects in stages after safety reviews. The safety of setting up a nuclear plant in any given area is also assessed by the AERB. For example, it would have looked into the safety of setting up a nuclear power project in Jaitapur in Maharashtra.   AERB also reviews the safety mechanisms within existing nuclear plants and facilities. To do this, it requires nuclear facilities to report their compliance with safety regulations, and also makes periodic inspections.   Under the recently passed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 the AERB is also the authority responsible for notifying when a nuclear incident takes place. Mechanisms for assessing and claiming compensation by victims will be initiated only after the nuclear incident is notified.Why is the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board in the news?Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced on March 29, 2011, "We will strengthen the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and make it a truly autonomous and independent regulatory authority."   This announcement came in the backdrop of the continuing crisis and high radiation levels at the Fukusima nuclear plant in Japan.   News reports opined that the lack of proper autonomy of Japan's nuclear regulator curbed its effectiveness. Japan's ministry of economy, trade and industry regulates the nuclear power industry, and also promotes nuclear technology. These two aims work at cross-purposes. India's regulatory structure is similar to Japan in some respects.What measures has the AERB taken post the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan?Following the nuclear incident in Japan, a high-level committee under the chairmanship of a former AERB chairman has been set up to review the safety of Indian nuclear power plants.   The committee shall assess the capability of Indian nuclear power plants to withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, floods, etc. The committee will review the adequacy of provisions for ensuring safety in case of such events.Is there any issue in the current regulatory structure?The AERB is a regulatory body, which derives administrative and financial support from the Department of Atomic Energy. It reports to the secreatry, DAE.   The DAE is also involved in the promotion of nuclear energy, and is also responsible for the functioning of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, which operates most nuclear power plants in the country.     The DAE is thus responsible both for nuclear safety (through the AERB), as well as the operation of nuclear power plants (through NPCIL). This could be seen as a conflict of interest.How does the system of independent regulators differ from this?The telecom sector provides an example of an independent regulator.   The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India does not report to the Department of Telecommunications. The DoT is responsible for policy matters related to telecommunications, promoting private investment in telecom, and also has a stake in BSNL. Had TRAI reported to the DoT, there would have been a conflict of interest within the DoT.What will the proposed legislation change?Recent news reports have stated that a bill to create an independent regulatory body will be introduced in Parliament soon.   Though there is no draft bill available publicly, news reports state that an independent Nuclear Regulatory Authority of India will be created by the bill, and the authority will subsume the AERB within it.   This post first appeared as an article on rediff.com and can be accessedhere.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447881184950038984839

blog

ParliamentCan the Supreme Court ask the government to frame a law?Anirudh- December 23, 2010In a recent case, the Supreme Court directed the appropriate government to enact a law by June 2011.  The case, Gainda Ram & Ors. V. MCD and Ors.[1], concerned the legal framework for regulating hawking in Delhi.  The judgement lays out the background to this case by stating that the regulation of hawking in Delhi had been proceeding under directions issued by the Supreme Court in previous cases, and was being implemented by municipal authorities such as the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). The NDMC and the MCD have also framed schemes to regulate hawkers as per a policy of the government framed in 2004.  However, since these schemes were not laid before Parliament, the Court held that these schemes cannot be called ‘law’ or drafted under the authority of any law.  The Court also stated that there is an urgent need to enact a legislation to regulate hawking, and the rights of street vendors. It referred to a Bill which had been framed by the government, and stated that since the government has already taken the first step in the legislative process by drafting a Bill, the legislative process should be completed.  On the basis of this, and other reasons, it directed the government to enact a law by June 2011.  This judgement raises three issues:The government is not the law making body in India.  Enacting a law is the function of Parliament and state legislatures.Even if the Court were to address the correct authority, Courts in India have no authority to direct the legislature to frame a law, let alone specify a time-period.  This may be said to violate the basic principle of “separation of powers” which states that the executive, legislature and judiciary should function independently of each other.  Under the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to protect fundamental rights and to interpret law.  The Constitution does not give power to Courts to direct the framing of a law.Persons can be held in contempt of court for not following its directions.  In this case, it is not clear who would be held in contempt for not enacting a law by June 2011.  The Supreme Court can either hold the Speaker of the Parliament in contempt for not enacting a law by the specified date (it is uncertain whether the Court has this power since no such past instance has arisen). Or it can hold the concerned government official in contempt for not enacting the law within the time period specified (the government in this case, having no power to enact a law).[1]Decided on October 8, 2010ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4472e11849500389847da

blog

PolicyArguments regarding FDI in retailVishnu- December 4, 2012After months of discussion,  the issue of FDI in retail is being deliberated in the Lok Sabha today.  InSeptember 2012, the Cabinet had approved 51% of FDI in multi-brand retail (stores selling more than one brand).  Under these regulations, foreign retail giants like Walmart and Tesco can set up shop in India.  Discussions on permitting FDI in retail have focused on the effect of FDI on unorganised retailers, farmers and consumers. Earlier, the central government commissioned the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) toexamine the impactof organised retail on unorganised retail. The Standing Committee on Commerce also tabled areporton Foreign and Domestic Investment in the Retail Sector in May, 2009 while the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) released adiscussion paperexamining FDI in multi-brand retail in July, 2010.  Other experts have also made arguments – both in support of, and in opposition to, the move to permit FDI in retail sales. The table below summarises some of these arguments from the perspective of various stakeholders as collated from the above reports examining the issue.StakeholderSupporting arguments (source)Opposing arguments (source)Unorganised retailNo evidence of impact on job losses (ICRIER).The rate of closure of unorganised retail shops (4.2%) is lower than international standards (ICRIER).Evidence from Indonesia and China show that traditional and modern retail can coexist and grow  (Reardon and Gulati).Majority of small retailers keen to remain in operation even after emergence of organised retail (ICRIER).Unorganised retailers in the vicinity of organised retailers saw their volume of business and profit decline but this effect weakens over time (ICRIER).Other studies have estimated that traditional fruit and vegetable retailers experienced a 20-30% decline in incomes with the presence of supermarkets (Singh).There is potential for employment loss in the value chain. A supermarket may create fewer jobs for the volume of produce handled (Singh).Unemployment to increase as a result of retailers practicing product bundling (selling goods in combinations and bargains) and predatory pricing (Standing Committee).FarmersSignificant positive impact on farmers as a result of direct sales to organised retailers.  For instance, cauliflower farmers receive a 25% higher price selling directly to organised retailers instead of government regulated markets (mandis).  Profits for farmers selling to organised retailers are about 60% higher than when selling to mandis (ICRIER).Organised retail could remove supply chain inefficiencies through direct purchase from farmers and investment in better storage, distribution and transport systems.  FDI, in particular, could bring in new technology and ideas (DIPP).Current organised retail procures 60-70% from wholesale markets rather than farmers. There has been no significant impact on backend infrastructure investment (Singh).There are other issues like irrigation, technology and credit in agriculture which FDI may not address (Singh).Increased monopolistic strength could force farmers to sell at lower prices (Standing Committee).ConsumersOrganised retail lowers prices. Consumer spending increases with the entry of organised retail and lower income groups tend to save more (ICRIER).It will lead to better quality and safety standards of products (DIPP).Evidence from some Latin American countries (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), Africa (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, India) reveal that supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables were higher than traditional retail prices (Singh).Even with lower prices at supermarkets, low income households may prefer traditional retailers because they live far from supermarkets, they can bargain with traditional retailers and buy loose items (Singh).Monopolistic power for retailers could result in high prices for consumers.Source: ICRIER [1.  "Impact of Organized Retailing on the Unorganized Sector", ICRIER, September 2008]; Standing Committee [2.  "Foreign and domestic investment in retail sector", Standing Committee on Commerce, May 13, 2009]; Singh (2011) [3. "FDI in Retail: Misplaced Expectations and Half-truths",  Sukhpal Singh, Economic and Political Weekly, December 17, 2011];  Reardon and Gulati (2008)  [4. "Rise of supermarkets and their development implications," IFPRI Discussion Paper, Thomas Reardon and Ashok Gulati, February 2008.]; DIPP [5. "Discussion Paper on FDI in Multi-brand Retail Trading", Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, July 6, 2010]ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447c5118495003898486d

blog

LegislationLegislative vacuum and the Bhopal Gas tragedyRohit- June 10, 2010Our Constitution provides protection against laws imposing criminal liability for actions committedpriorto the enactment of the law. Article 20 (1) under the Part III (Fundamental Rights), reads:20. (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Thus, the maximum penalty that can be imposed on an offender cannot exceed those specified by the laws at the time. In the context of the Bhopal Gas tragedy in 1984, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the only relevant law specifying criminal liability for such incidents. The CBI, acting on behalf of the victims, filed charges against the accused under section 304 of the IPC(See Note 1). Section 304 deals with punishment for culpable homicide and requires intention of causing death. By a judgment dated September 13, 1996, the Supreme Court held that there was no material to show that “any of the accused had a knowledge that by operating the plant on that fateful night whereat such dangerous and highly volatile substance like MIC was stored they had the knowledge that by this very act itself they were likely to cause death of any human being.” The Supreme Court thus directed that the charges be re-framed under section 304A of the IPC(See Note 2). Section 304A deals with causing death by negligence and prescribes a maximum punishment of two years along with a fine. Consequently, the criminal liability of the accused lay outlined by section 304A of the IPC and they were tried accordingly. Civil liability, on the other hand, was adjudged by the Courts and allocated to the victims by way of monetary compensation. Soon after the Bhopal Gas tragedy, the Government proposed and passed a series of laws regulating the environment, prescribing safeguards and specifying penalties. These laws, among other things, filled the legislative lacunae that existed at the time of the incident. Given the current provisions(See Note 3), a Bhopal like incident will be tried in the National Green Tribunal (once operationalized) and most likely, under the provisions of the the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The criminal liability provisions of the Act(See Note 4)prescribe a maximum penalty of five years along with a fine of one lakh rupees. Further, if an offence is committed by a company, every person directly in charge and responsible will be deemed guilty, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such an offence.The civil liability will continue to be adjudged by the Courts and in proportion to the extent of damage unless specified separately by an Act of Parliament.Notes1) IPC, Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murderWhoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.2) IPC, Section 304A. Causing death by negligenceWhoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.3) Major laws passed since 1984: 1986 - The Environment (Protection) Act authorized the central government to take measures to protect and improve environmental quality, set standards and inspect industrial units. It also laid down penalties for contravention of its provisions. 1991 - The Public Liability Insurance Act provided for public liability - insurance for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by an accident while handling hazardous substances. 1997 - The National Environment Appellate Authority Act established to an appellate authority to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes are disallowed, subject to safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 2009 - The National Green Tribunal Act, yet to be notified, provides for the establishment of a tribunal for expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and for giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property. This Act also repeals the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997. 4) Criminal liability provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986Section 15. Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act(1) Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall, in respect of each such failure or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention.(2) If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.Section 16. Offences by Companies(1) Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4473e11849500389847eb

blog

States and State LegislaturesMaharashtra passes Bill to regulate property transactionsadmin_2- August 22, 2012(Authored by Anil Nair)The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly recently passed theMaharashtra Housing (Regulation and Development) Bill.  This is the first such Bill to be passed by any state, which sets up a housing regulator to regulate property transactions.  The Bill seeks to set up a Housing Regulatory Authority to provide for relief to flat purchasers against sundry abuses, malpractices and difficulties related to the construction, sale, management and transfer of flats. According tonews reports, the government felt that existing laws were not effective in protecting the interests of the flat purchasers and allowed the promoters to avoid statutory obligations imposed on them.The Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963did not provide for an effective implementing arm for its various statutory provisions, as the buyers could only approach consumer forum or civil court for acts of omission or commission regarding its provisions. The current Bill passed by the Maharashtra Assembly proposes to repeal the 1963 Act.  As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, the Regulatory Authority will strive to encourage growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate market.  The Bill specifies several conditions to be fulfilled by the developer to further transparency and fairness.  All projects proposing to develop more than four flats or of land area exceeding 250 square meters have to submit and update details of the project on the website of the Housing Regulatory Authority.  Developers would be required to disclose detailed information regarding the project including:building-wise time schedule of completion of each phase of the project,time schedule for connecting the project with the municipal services such as sewerage, water supply, electricity, drainage etc.,nature of fixtures and fittings with regard to the flooring and sanitary fittings including the brand or the price range if the items are unbranded.Failure to give possession of the flat on the agreed date would require repayment of the full amount paid by the buyer with interest.  The Authority would also be empowered to penalise the developer up to an amount of one crore rupees for non-compliance with provisions in the Bill.  Among other initiatives to assist the real estate industry, the Housing Regulatory Authority would promote rating of projects and of promoters, by the association of promoters, to improve the confidence level of investors and consumers through self-regulation. The full text of the Bill is available on theGovernment of Maharashtra website.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c447791184950038984829

blog

MiscellaneousGovt. gives itself the master key to access sensitive personal informationChakshu Roy- May 9, 2011The government has given itself the “master key” to access major consumer databases maintained by companies in different sectors. Undernew regulationsmade underthe Information Technology Act, government can ask companies to share sensitive personal information about their customers. Sensitive personal information would cover medical records and history, information about physical, physiological and mental health, sexual orientation, credit and debit cards, biometric information and passwords. Under the new rules any government agency required under law to obtain information for the purpose of verifying identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences can ask a company to give sensitive personal information held by it about an individual. There are no checks on this power, except that the request for information be made in writing, and stating clearly the reason for seeking the information.  Usually information requests have certain inbuilt checks.  For example,search warrantsin criminal cases are issued by a court.  Tapping of telephones or interception of electronic communication can only be authorised by theUnion or the State Home Secretaryafter following a prescribed process.  The new Bill for Unique Identification Number (UID) permits such use only by the order of a court, or for national security (by an order of an authorised officer of at least Joint Secretary rank in the central government).ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c4475a1184950038984807

blog

ParliamentScenarios for upcoming Rajya Sabha, Presidential and VP electionsRohit- March 7, 2012Several Rajya Sabha seats go to elections this year. The President and the Vice-President are also due to be elected by August. We analyse the impact of the recent State Assembly elections on the composition of the Rajya Sabha and the outcome of the Presidential polls.Rajya Sabha - How will its composition change?Since Rajya Sabha members are elected by the elected members of State Legislative Assemblies, a change in the composition of State Assemblies can affect the composition of Rajya Sabha.  A total of 61 Rajya Sabha seats are up for election in April and July.  This includes 10 seats from Uttar Pradesh and 1 seat from Uttarakhand. In light of the recent Assembly elections, we work out two scenarios to estimate the composition of Rajya Sabha in 2012. Members of Rajya Sabha are elected through the system of proportional representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote (STV). In an STV election, a candidate is required to achieve a certain minimum number of votes (called the 'quota') to be elected.  (For more details on the STV system, clickhere) For instance, in the case of Uttar Pradesh (UP) 10 Rajya Sabha seats go to election this year.  Candidates will be elected to these 10 seats by the 403 elected MLAs of the Uttar Pradesh State Assembly.  Each MLA will rank the candidates based on his/ her preference. After successive rounds of elimination, candidates who are able to secure at least 37  {or 403/(10+1) } votes will be declared elected. In the new UP Assembly, Samajwadi  Party (SP) has a total strength of 224 members. As a result, SP can elect at least 6 (or 224/37) Rajya Sabha MPs of its choice.  BSP's strength of 80 will allow it to elect 2 (or 80/37) MPs to Rajya Sabha. Similarily, the BJP with a strength of 47 MLAs can have one candidate of its choice elected to the Rajya Sabha.  This leaves 1 seat.  The fate of this seat depends on the alliances that may be formed since no other party in UP has 37 or more seats in the Assembly.  If the Congress (28 seats) and RLD (9 seats) join hands, they may be able to elect a candidate of their choice. We build two scenarios which give the likely range of seats for the major coalitions and parties. The actual result will likely fall between these scenarios, depending on alliances for each election. Of the two scenarios, Scenario II is better for the UPA. It is based on the assumption that the UPA is able to put together the necessary support/ alliances to get its candidates elected to seats with indeterminate status.  Scenario I is based on the assumption that the UPA is not able to put together the required support. As a result, the seats in question get allocated to candidates from other parties/ coalitions.(See Notes for the composition of the coalitions)Composition of Rajya SabhaParty/ CoalitionCurrent compositionScenario IScenario IITotal seats245245245UPA939598NDA666765Left191414BSP181515SP599BJD687AIADMK555Nominated71212Others212020Vacant500It appears that there would not be a major change in the composition of the Rajya Sabha.Which party's candidate is likely to become the next President?The next Presidential election will be held in June or July.  The electoral college for the Presidential election consists of the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies. Each MP/ MLA’s vote has a pre-determined value based on the population they represent. For instance, an MP's vote has a value of 708, an MLA from UP has a vote value of 208 and an MLA from Sikkim has a vote value of 7.(Note that all MPs, irrespective of the constituency or State they represent, have equal vote value)As is evident, changes in the composition of Assemblies in larger States such as UP can have a major impact on the outcome of the Presidential election. The elections to the office of the President are held through the system of proportional representation by means of STV (same as in the case of Rajya Sabha).  The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the total value of votes polled.  (For details, refer to thisElection Commission document). By this calculation, a candidate will need at least 5,48,507 votes to be elected as the President. If the UPA were to vote as a consolidated block, its vote tally would reach 4,50,555 votes under Scenario II (the one that is favourable for the UPA).  Therefore, the UPA will have to seek alliances if it wants a candidate of its choice to be elected to the office of the President.Scenarios for Presidential elections(figures represent the value of votes available with each party/ coalition)Party/ CoalitionScenario IScenario IIUPA4,48,4314,50,555NDA3,05,3283,03,912Left51,57451,574BSP43,72343,723SP69,65169,651BJD30,92330,215AIADMK36,21636,216Others1,11,1661,11,166Total10,97,01210,97,012Minimum required to be elected5,48,5075,48,507What about the Vice-President?Elections to the office of the Vice-President (VP) will be held in July or August.  The electoral college will consist of all members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (i.e. both elected and nominated). Unlike the Presidential elections, all votes will have an equal value of one. Like the President, the VP is also elected through the system of proportional representation by means of STV.  The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the total value of votes polled. Presently, two seats are vacant in the Lok Sabha. If we exclude these from our analysis, we find that a candidate will need at least 395 votes to be elected as the VP.  Under our best case scenario, the UPA holds 363 votes in the forthcoming VP elections. As is the case with Presidential elections, the UPA will have to seek alliances to get a candidate of its choice elected to the office of the Vice-President.Scenarios for VP elections(figures represent the value of votes available with each party/ coalition)Party/ CoalitionScenario IScenario IIUPA360363NDA216214Left3838BSP3636SP3131BJD2221AIADMK1414Nominated1414Others5757Total788788Minimum required to be elected395395Notes:[1]UPA:Congress, Trinamool, DMK, NCP,Rashtriya Lok Dal, J&K National Conference, Muslim League Kerala State Committee, Kerala Congress (M), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Sikkim Democratic Front, Praja Rajyam Party, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi [2]NDA:BJP, JD(U), Shiv Sena, Shiromani Akali Dal [3]Left:CPI(M), CPI, Revolutionary Socialist Party,All India Forward BlocParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

65c446ec118495003898479b

blog

MiscellaneousMaternity leave in India and other countriesPrianka Rao- August 11, 2016Earlier today, aBillto raise maternity benefits was introduced and passed in Rajya Sabha.  The Bill amends the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.  The Act regulates the employment of women during the period of child birth, and provides maternity benefits.  The Act applies to factory, mines, plantations, shops and other establishments.Duration of maternity leave: The Act states that every woman will be entitled to maternity benefit of 12 weeks.  The Bill increases this to 26 weeks.  Further, under the Act, this maternity benefit should not be availed before six weeks from the date of expected delivery.  The Bill changes this to eight weeks. In case of a woman who has two or more children, the maternity benefit will continue to be 12 weeks, which cannot be availed before six weeks from the date of the expected delivery.Maternity leave for adoptive and commissioning mothers: Further, the Bill introduces a provision to grant 12 weeks of maternity leave to: (i) a woman who legally adopts a child below three months of age; and (ii) a commissioning mother.  A commissioning mother is defined as a biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo implanted in another woman.  The 12-week period of maternity benefit will be calculated from the date the child is handed over to the adoptive or commissioning mother.Informing women employees of the right to maternity leave:The Bill introduces a provision which requires every establishment to intimate a woman at the time of her appointment of the maternity benefits available to her.  Such communication must be in writing and electronically.Option to work from home: The Bill introduces a provision that states that an employer may permit a woman to work from home.  This would apply if the nature of work assigned to the woman permits her to work from home.  This option can be availed of, after the period of maternity leave, for a duration that is mutually decided by the employer and the woman.Crèche facilities: The Bill introduces a provision which requires every establishment with 50 or more employees to provide crèche facilities within a prescribed distance.  The woman will be allowed four visits to the crèche in a day.  This will include her interval for rest. Various countries provide maternity leave.  However, the duration of leave varies across different countries.[i]We present a comparison of maternity leave available in different countries, as on 2014, below.Sources: International Labour Organisation Report (2014); PRS.[i]. “Maternity and Paternity at work: Legislation across countries”, International Labour Organisation Report (2014),http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_242615.pdf.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»

b10d24af-69e5-56b2-a794-5d75cce90fab

court_cases

Kerala High CourtFlemingo Duty Free Shop Private Ltd vs Airports Authority Of India on 28 June, 2022Author:Sathish NinanBench:Sathish NinanC. R.\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n PRESENT\n THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN\n TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944\n ARB.P. NO. 1 OF 2021\n AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2016 IN AR 41/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF\n KERALA\n -----\nPETITIONER:\n\n FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP PRIVATE LTD\n D-73/1, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA,\n MIDC-TURBHE, NAVI MUMBAI-400075,\n REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.NIXON VARGHESE.\n\n BY ADVS.\n G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)\n AKHIL SURESH\n JAYAPRAKASH P. SEN (SR.)\n\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\n\n AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA\n CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, SAFDARJUNG\n AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110001,\n REPRESENTED BY ITS AIRPORT DIRECTOR, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL\n AIRPORT(P.O), KARIPUR,\n MALAPPURAM-673647.\n\n BY ADVS.\n S.SUJIN\n V.SANTHARAM\n\n\n\n\n THIS ARBITRATION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON\n28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:\n C. R.\n\n\n SATHISH NINAN, J.\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2021\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022\n\n O R D E RThe Arbitration Petition is filed seeking an order\n\nfor extension of period of arbitration on substitution\n\nof Arbitrator.2. The reliefs claimed in the Arbitration Petition\n\nreads thus:-"a) Declare that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal\n presided by the Learned Sole Arbitrator A.K. Singhhal stands\n terminated in the arbitration matter of Flemingo Duty freeShop Private Limited vs. Airports Authority of India.b) Appoint a Sole Arbitrator in place of Learned Sole\n Arbitrator A.K. Singhal for continuation of the arbitration\n matter of Flemingo Duty freeShop Private Limited v.\n Airports Authority of India.c) Extend the time for completion of the arbitration\n proceedings in the arbitration matter of Flemingo Duty freeShop Private Limited vs. Airports Authority of Indiaby a\n period of six months from the date of appointment of the new\n Sole Arbitrator.Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 2 :-d) Grant the cost of the Application to the petitioner;\n ande) grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit, just,\n proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the\n case."3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of\n\noperation of duty free shops at various airports in\n\nKerala. There arose disputes between the parties, which\n\nlead to conduct of arbitration proceedings as provided\n\nfor in the agreement between them. The sole Arbitrator\n\nwas appointed on 25.01.2016. The pleadings were complete\n\non 14.09.2017. The period for completion of arbitration\n\nas provided under Section 29A (1) and (3) of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter\n\nreferred to as "the Act") expired. Even after the expiry\n\nof the term, the proceedings continued but, is not\n\ncompleted. Now the petitioner alleges bias on the part\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 3 :-of the Arbitrator. The petitioner has approached this\n\nCourt seeking substitution of the Arbitrator and for\n\nextension of the period in terms ofSection 29A (6)and\n\n(4) respectively, of the Act. The respondent opposes the\n\nprayer. The allegation of bias are denied. The\n\njurisdiction of this Court to entertain an application\n\nunderSection 29Ais also challenged.4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.J.P.Sen on\n\nbehalf of the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel\n\nSri.N.N.Sugunapalan, on behalf of the respondent.5. The respondent raised a preliminary objection\n\nregarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to\n\nentertain a petition underSection 29 Aof the Act.\n\nUnderSection 29A, power is conferred on the "Court",\n\nandSection 2(e)defines "Court" as, principal Civil\n\nCourt of original jurisdiction. Therefore, only the\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 4 :-District Court has the jurisdiction, is the contention.\n\nSuch contention has already been negatived by a Division\n\nBench of this Court inLots Shipping Company Limited v. Cochin\n\nPort Trust[2020 (2) KLT 907]. The Division Bench held thus:-"11. Taking note of the principle enunciated herein\n above and on the basis of the detailed analysis, we are\n inclined to hold that the term "court" used in Section\n 29(4) has to be given an contextual and purposive\n interpretation, which is to be in variance with the\n meaning conferred to the said term under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. The term "court" contained inSection\n 29(4)has to be interpreted as the 'Supreme Court' in the\n case of international commercial arbitrations and as the\n 'High Court' in the case of domestic arbitrations. Hence\n it is held that, either of the party will be at liberty to file\n an arbitration petition before the High Court underSection 29A(5)of the Act, seeking extension of time for\n continuance of the arbitration proceedings in exercise of\n the power conferred underSection 29A(4)of the Act, in\n the case of any domestic arbitration. The reference is\n answered accordingly."Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 5 :-Therefore, the challenge against jurisdiction is\n\nliable to be rejected and I do so.6. Whether allegation of bias could be a ground for\n\nsubstitution of Arbitrator underSection 29A(6), is the\n\nissue for determination.7. For challenging an Arbitrator on the ground of\n\nbias, there is a specific provision in the Act viz.Section 12.Sections 13,14and15of the Act provide\n\nfor various situations enabling substitution of\n\nArbitrator:- (i) UnderSection 13when the Arbitrator\n\nwithdraws when a challenge is raised on the ground of\n\nbias or lack of required qualifications, being the\n\ngrounds stipulated underSection 12(3); (ii) On the\n\ngrounds of failure or impossibility to act as mentioned\n\ninSection 14 (1)(a)and the Arbitrator withdraws from\n\noffice or parties agree for termination of his mandate;(iii) UnderSection 15where under, for any reason other\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 6 :-than that provided underSections 13and14, the\n\nArbitrator withdraws from office, or the parties agree\n\nfor determination of the Arbitrator.8.Section 29Afixes a time limit for completion of\n\narbitration proceedings and for passing the award.\n\nExcept in the case of international commercial\n\narbitration, the award is to be passed within 12 months\n\nfrom the date of completion of pleadings. The said\n\nperiod could be extended for a further period of six\n\nmonths on agreement between the parties. In terms of\n\nsub-section (4) ofSection 29A, on failure to pass award\n\nwithin the period stipulated as above, the mandate of\n\nthe arbitrator shall terminate, unless extended by the\n\nCourt. The extension could either be prior to or after\n\nthe expiry of the period stipulated. Extension can be\n\ngranted by the Court on the application of any of\n\nparties, for sufficient cause. Sub-section 6ofSection\n\n29Aprovides that, while extending the period, Court can\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 7 :-order substitution of the Arbitrator.9.Section 29Ahas nine sub-sections. A reading of\n\nall the sub-sections ofSection 29Aindicate that, the\n\nSection deals with the time mandate for arbitral\n\nproceedings. In a request for extension of time, the\n\nCourt looks into as to at whose instance the delay has\n\noccurred. Costs could be imposed on the party who was\n\nresponsible for the delay. If delay was on the part of\n\nthe Arbitrator, his fee could be reduced. Therefore, it\n\nis in the said context that the power of substitution of\n\nArbitrator is vested in the Court.10. As noticed supra, the other grounds of\n\nchallenge against the Arbitrator, especially on the\n\nground of bias, and consequential substitution of\n\nArbitrator are dealt with under specific provisions of\n\nthe Act. When specific provisions are incorporated in\n\nthe Act for challenge against an Arbitrator and for\n\nsubstitution, allegation of bias cannot be raised as a\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 8 :-cause to seek substitution of Arbitrator under Section\n\n29-A.11. There is yet another circumstance to endorse\n\nsuch view. Sub-section (6) ofSection 29Aprovides that,\n\nwhen there is a substitution of Arbitrator under the\n\nSection, the Arbitral proceedings shall continue from\n\nthe stage already reached and on the basis of the\n\nevidence and materials already on record. It is further\n\nprovided that the substituted Arbitrator shall be deemed\n\nto have received the said evidence and materials on\n\nrecord. However, when Arbitrator is substituted under\n\nthe other situations noticed supra, in terms ofSection\n\n15(3), the previous hearings held by the Arbitrator may\n\nbe repeated at the discretion of the substituted\n\nArbitrator, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.\n\nThere is a stark difference between the two. This\n\nfortifies the view that the request for substitution of\n\nan Arbitrator alleging bias will not come within the\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 9 :-scope of substitution underSection 29A(6)of the Act.12. A similar view has been taken by the Delhi High\n\nCourt inNCC Ltd. v. Union of India[2018 SCC online Delhi 12699]\n\nwherein it was held thus:-"Section 29Aof the Act is intended to sensitize the parties as\n also the Arbitral Tribunal to aim for culmination of the\n arbitration proceedings expeditiously. It is with this\n legislative intent,Section 29Awas introduced in the Act by\n way of theArbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,\n 2015. This provision is not intended for a party to seek\n substitution of an Arbitrator only because the party has\n apprehension about the conduct of the arbitration\n proceedings by the said Arbitrator. The only ground for\n removal of the Arbitrator underSection 29Aof the Act can be\n the failure of the Arbitrator to proceed expeditiously in the\n adjudication process."13. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for\n\nextension of period on substitution of the Arbitrator,\n\nis not liable to be considered.Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 10 :-14. During the course of the arguments, a query was\n\nput to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as\n\nto whether, if the Court is not inclined to accept the\n\nprayer for substitution, whether the petitioner is\n\npursuing the prayer for extension of time. After\n\nobtaining instructions, the learned Senior Counsel\n\nsubmitted before the Court that, the petitioner is not\n\nseeking for extension of time without grant of the\n\nprayer for substitution of Arbitrator.15. Having found that the petitioner is not\n\nentitled to seek for substitution alleging bias against\n\nthe Arbitrator in this proceedings, and in the light of\n\nthe stand adopted by the petitioner as noticed above,\n\nthe question of consideration of extension of time for\n\ncompletion of the arbitral proceedings underSection 29Adoes not arise.16. As noticed first above, the pleadings were\n\ncompleted on 14.09.2017. The one year period and the\n Arbitration Petition No.1/2021-: 11 :-extendable period of six months are over as early as on\n\n14.03.2019. There is no dispute between the parties\n\nthat, if time is not extended in terms ofSection\n\n29A(4), the mandate of the Arbitrator has terminated. It\n\nis declared accordingly.The Arbitration Petition is ordered as above.Sd/-SATHISH NINAN\n JUDGE\n\nkns/-//True Copy//\n P.S. to JudgeAPPENDIX OF ARB.P. 1/2021PETITIONER EXHIBITS\n\nExhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2016 IN AR\n NO.41 OF 2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT\n\nExhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.01.2016 ISSUED BY\n THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE\n\nExhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF TRANSCRIPTION OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION DATED 10TH JUNE 2021\n\nExhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF TRANSCRIPTION OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION DATED 11TH JUNE, 2021\n\nExhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAILS CORRESPONDENCE DATED\n 24TH FEBRUARY,2021 EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE ARBITRAL\n TRIBUNAL AND THE RESPONDENT TO THE EXCLUSION OF\n THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH TRAIL MAIL\n\nExhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6TH AUGUST,2020 SENT\n BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO THE\n EXCLUSION OF THE PETITIONER\n\nExhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION\n AMENDMENT ACT,2015\n\nExhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION\n AMENDMENT AT 2019\n\nExhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6TH JANUARY 2017 OF\n THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL\n\nExhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2NE NOVEMBER 2017 OF\n THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL\n\nExhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18TH DECEMBER 2019. OF\n THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL\n\nExhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12TH FEBRUARY 2020. OF\n THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALAPPENDIX-ARB.P. 1/2021-2-Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4TH MARCH 2021 OF THE\n ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL\n\nExhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4TH MARCH 2021.OF THE\n ABRITRAL TRIBUNAL-----

4113e5ee-9039-56d9-a2ab-923f5dc5c12a

court_cases

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nPunjab-Haryana High Court\nTaslima And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 June, 2020108.\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n AT CHANDIGARH\n\n CRWP-3324-2020 (O&M)\n Date of decision: 02.06.2020\n\nTASLIMA AND ANR ... Petitioners\n\n versus\n\n\nSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .... Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA\n ----\n\nPresent: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate,\n for the petitioners.\n ----\n\nHARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)\n\n The matter has been taken up for hearing through video\n\nconferencing due to outbreak of COVID-19.\n\n Prayer in this criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of\n\nthe Constitution of India is for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and\n\n3 to provide adequate police protection/security to the petitioners and further\n\nrespondent No.3 be directed not to harass and threaten the petitioners at the\n\nbehest of respondents No.4 to 10.\n\n Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the\n\npetitioners are Muslim by religion. Petitioner No.1-Taslima has attained the\n\nage of majority so as to perform nikah, whereas petitioner No.2-Shehbaz\n\nKhan is of about 20 years and 8 months. Since they have performed nikah\n\nagainst the wishes of respondents No.4 to 10, they are apprehending threat\n\nto their life and liberty. The private respondents are not accepting their nikah\n\nand are adamant to separate them from each other by resorting to illegal\n\n\n\n 1 of 2\n ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2020 22:55:14 :::\n CRWP-3324-2020 (O&M) -2-\n\nmeans. Learned counsel further submits that in view of imminent danger to\n\nthe life and liberty of the petitioners, they have moved a representation dated\n\n28.05.2020 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police,\n\nFaridabad.\n\n Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only at this stage.\n\n At the asking of the Court, Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana,\n\naccepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.\n\n Without going into the validity of the marriage of the\n\npetitioners, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the\n\nrespondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Faridabad to take appropriate\n\nremedial measures on the representation dated 28.05.2020 (Annexure P-5)\n\nsubmitted by the petitioners as warranted by law.\n\n In the meantime, necessary order be passed to ensure that no\n\nharm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners.\n\n\n\n (HARI PAL VERMA)\n JUDGE\n02.06.2020\nsanjeev\n Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No\n Whether reportable? Yes/No\n\n\n\n\n 2 of 2\n ::: Downloaded on - 02-06-2020 22:55:14 :::

16087151-4e95-5a0e-9ab0-7051f917394c

court_cases

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Rajib Chakraborty And Ors vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 14 January, 2022Author:I. P. MukerjiBench:I. P. Mukerji14.01.2022\nSl.1 (Via Video Conference)\nCt.No. 03\n Amalranjan\n IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n APPELLATE SIDE\n W\n W.P.A.(P) 162 of 2021\n Rajib Chakraborty and Ors.\n -versus-\n The State of West Bengal and Ors.\n With\n CAN 1 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 746 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 151 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 178 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 401 of 2021\n with\n CPAN 402 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 403 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 410 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 411 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 412 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 413 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 414 of 2021\n with\n CPAN 469 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 473 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 562 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 563 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 569 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 574 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 599 of 2020\n 2\n\n\n\n\n With\n CPAN 642 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 645 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 685 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 692 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 723 of 2020\n 1999With\n CAN 1 of 2021\n With\n CAN 2 of 2021\n With\n CAN 3 of 2021\n With\n CPAN 755 of 2020\n With\n WPA 5378 of 2020\n Pratyush Patwari\n -versus-\n State of West Bengal and Anr.\n With\nCAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN No. 3697 of 2020)\n With\nCAN 3 of 2020 (Old CAN No. 3698 of 2020)\n With\n WPA 5400 of 2020\n Raja Satyajit Banerjee\n -versus-\n State of West Bengal and Ors.\n With\n WPA 5530 of 2020\n Biplab Kr. Chowdhury\n VS\n Union of India & Ors.\n With\nCAN 1 of 2020(Old No:CAN 3252 of 2020)\n With\n WPA 5872 of 2020\n Santosh Kumar Yadav\n VS\n Union Of India & Ors\n With\nCAN 1 of 2020(Old No:CAN 3956 of 2020)\n With\n CPAN 131 of 2021\n With\n CAN 1 of 2021\n With\n WPA 5890 of 2020\n Vineet Ruia\n 3\n\n\n\n\n VS\n Principal secretary,\n Department of School,\n Bikash Bhavan & Ors.\n With\n CAN 17 of 2020\n With\n CAN 32 of 2020\n With\n CAN 33 of 2021\n\n\n (Via Video Conference)\n\n Mr. J. Sai Deepak,\n Ms. Priyanka Agarwal,\n Mr. Rishab Kumar Singh,\n Mr. Anurag Mitra,\n Mr. Tanvi Luhariwala...................For the petitioners in\n W.P.A.5890 of 2020 and\n CPAN 723 of 2020.\n\n Mr. Pratyush Patwari................ Petitioner (in person)\nin\n W.P.A. 5378 of 2020.\n Mr. Y.J. Dastoor,\n Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri.................For Union of India.\n\n Mr. Sayan Sinha........................For the State.\n Mr. U.S. Menon,\n Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty...........For C.B.S.E. Board.\n Mr. Durgadas Banerjee,\n Mr. S.P. Tewary,\n Mr. Partha Banerjee,\n Mr. Abhijit Tewari,\n Ms. Paramita Banerjee...........For Disari Public School.\n\n Mr. Abhrajit Mitra,\n Mr. Kunal Chatterjee\n Mr. Nikunj Berlia,\n Mr. Shoumendu Mukherjee,\n Ms. Anshu Jain..................For the Association of ICSE\n Schools, West Bengal Chapter.\n\n Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya...........For the West Bengal\n Board of Secondary Education.\n\n Mr. Samapriya Chowdhury,\n Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar,\n Mr. Dinabandhu Dan,\n Mr. Santanu chatterjee,\n Mr. Dipayan Dan.................For Delhi Public School,\n Ruby Park.\n Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury,\n Mr. Rajarshi Dutta,\n Mr. V.V.V. Sastry,\n Mr. Nischay Mall,\n Ms. Shivika Tiwari,\n Mr. Debajyoti Saha...............For Ashok Hall Group of\n Schools and Ballygunge\n 4\n\n\n\n\n Siksha Sadan.\nMr. Nabankur Pal,\nMd. Apzal Ansari,\nMs. Surabhi Gularia.............For Delhi Public School,\n Siliguri.\nMs. Surabhi Gularia,\nMr. Arkadipta Sengupta,\nMr. Subhajit Das............... For Delhi Public School,\n Kanyapur, St. Judges School and\n Burnpur Riverside School.\n\nMr. Abdur Raquib....................For Delhi Public School,\n Joka.\nMr. Vipul Kundalia,\nMr. Kushagra Shah................ For Delhi Public School,\n New Town.\nMr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya,\nMr. Raju Bhattacharya................For the Principal,\n St. Joseph College.\nMs. Amrita Pandey,\nMs. Anamika Pandey...................For the Assembly of\n God Church School.\nMs. Kabita Mukherjee,\nMr. Manas Dasgupta..........For Agrasain Balika Siksha\n Sadan and Boys' School.\nMr. Satarup Bhattacharya,\nMr. Saptarshi Dutta...........For South City International\n School.\nMr. Ananda Basu,\nMr. Emon Bhattacharya,\nMs. Pooja Shah........................For St. Hellen School,\n Howrah.\nMr. Pinaki Dhole...............For Hariyana Vidya Mandir.\n\nMr. Ayan Chakraborty..........For Adamas International\n School.\nMr. Tanvi Luhariwala.........For Adamas School Parents'\n Forum.\n\nMr. Arnab Chakraborty.......For Well and Gold Smith\n School.\nMr. Sandip Kumar Dey,\nMr. Abhijit Sarkar...............For Calcutta Girls' High\n School.\nMr. Arindam Banerjee,\nMr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar,\nMr. Sourav Bhagat,\nMs. Shruti Swaika,\nMs. Prajata Kishore Chakraborty.....For South Point\n School, South Point High School,\n Birla High School and\n Sri Sikshayatan School.\n\nMr. Arijit Bardhan,\nMr. Soumyajit Mishra............For Don Bosco School,\n Park Circus.\n\nMs. Chama Mookerji,\nMr. Anujit Mookerji,\nMs. Rinky Shaw..............For Calcutta Boys School,\n Julien Day School.\n\nMr. Partha Banerjee,\nMr. Arun Kumar Mandal.........For Heritage School.\n 5\n\n\n\n\nMs. Ameena Kabir..............For Frank Anthony Public\n School.\n\nMr. Arun Alo Roy,\nMr. Swagato Roy................For Mahadevi Birla World\n Academy and Birla Bharati.\n\nMr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,\nMr. Paritosh Sinha,\nMr. Sankalp Narain,\nMr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar,\nMr. H.P. Sahi,\nMr. B.P. Tiwari,\nMr. Amitava Mitra,\nMs. Shrayashee Das,\nMr. Jishnujit Roy,\nMs. Antara Chowdhury............For La Martiniere and\n C.N.I. Group of Schools.\nMr. Ashoke Kumar Roy,\nMr. Ashim Kumar Roy................For Bharitiya Vidya\n Bhavan, Kolkata.\nMs. Lopita Banerjee,\nMs. Arijita Ghosh,\nMr. Souma Sil,\nMr. Lordly Guha.......................For New Town School.\n\nMr. Sanjay Kumar Baid,\nMs. Nupur Jalan.......................For Don Bosco, Liluah,\n Holy Family Convent, P.B. Academy,\n SreeJain Vidya Mandir, Well and\n Gould Smith School, Kolkata, Patuli,\n St. Aloysius Orphanage and Day School,\n St. Mary's Convent School, Santragachi.\n\nMr. Raj Mohan Chattoraj,\nMr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati,\nMr. Sourav Mondal........................For Swabhumi\n Foundation, G.D. Goenka\n Public School, Indira Gandhi\n Memorial High School,\n Dum Dum and Barasat.\n\nMr. Meghajit Mukherjee...........For Sri Sri Academy.\n\nMr. Sandip Kumar De,\nMr. Abhijit Sarkar,\nMr. Abhik Chitta Kundu..........For Calcutta Girls' High\n School.\nMr. Santosh Kumar Ray,\nMs. Rituparna Sanyal..............For Srihari Global\n School, Asansol.\n\nMr. Sarajit Sen,\nMr. Tapas Singha Roy..............For Delhi Public School,\n Asansol.\nMr. Aniruddha Mitra,\nMr. Ayan Chakraborty..........For Adamas World School.\n\nMr. Subir Pal........................ For St. Paul's Academy.\n\nMr. Ratnanko Banerjee,\nMr. Somopriyo Chowdhury,\nMr. Dinabandhu Dan,\nMr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar,\nMr. Sanatan Chatterjee,\n 6\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Dipayan Dan..................For the D.P.S. Ruby Park.\n\n Mr. Joydeep Kar,\n Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya,\n Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee,\n Mr. Amrit Sinha....................For the respondent.Mr. Apurba Kumar Ghosh.......For Rose Bird School.Dr. Indrahjit Kundu...............For the petitioners in\n CPAN 562,563, 569, 574,\n 642, 151 and 178 of 2021.Mr. Rahul Karmakar,\n Mr. Debabrata Roy................For Arun Nursery and\n Future Foundation.Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar.........For Indus Valley and B.D.\n Memorial School.Mr. Subir Banerjee,\n Ms. Shreyosi Sengupta,\n Ms. Mumpy Singha.....................For the applicant in\n CPAN 685 of 2021.Mr. Shomendu Mukherjee..........For Indus Valley, BDM\n International and Apeejay School.Mr. Varun Kedia.........................For the applicant in\n CPAN 642 of 2021.Mr. Nikunj Belia,\n Mr. Shomendu Mukherjee.....For Lakshmipat Singhania\n Academy.Mr. Raja Satyajit Banerjee,\n Ms. Anwashal Haldeer,\n Ms. Krishnika Chatterjee...............For the petitioner in\n W.P.A. 5400 of 2020.List all these applications on 18 th February,\n\n2022 at 2 p.m.\n\n The interim order in force shall continue till\n\n15th March, 2022 or until further order,\n\nwhichever is earlier.7Learned counsel complaining of violation of\n\nour order by some schools may advise their\n\nclients to take out appropriate applications\n\nplacing those allegations on record, so that this\n\ncourt shall be in a position to consider them and\n\npass an appropriate order.( I. P. Mukerji,J. )\n\n\n ( Moushumi Bhattacharya,J. )

c1894979-dac3-566f-b3d7-d088dcfe6f69

court_cases

Himachal Pradesh High CourtRP/39/2021 on 24 June, 2021Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Anoop ChitkaraReview Petitions No. 32 to 42 of 2021\n\n24.06.2021 Present: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr.\n\n\n\n\n .Jeetendra Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr.\n Adarsh K. Sharma and Ms. Ritta Goswami,\n Additional Advocates General, for the respondent-State.Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the\n respondents-HPSEB.Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent-\n NHAI.(Through Video Conferencing)\n\n\n Review Petitions No. 32 to 42 of 2021\n\n Issue notice. Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, learned\n\n Additional Advocate General, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan and Ms.\n\n\n\n Shreya Chauhan, Advocates, accept notice for respondent-State, respondent-HPSEB and respondent-NHAI, respectively.Notice be issued to respondent(s) No. 4-Municial Corporation\n\n\n\n\n\n returnable within 10 days, on taking steps within two days.List on 05.07.2021 in the Regular Court.CMP No. 6370 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 32 of 2021\n CMP No. 6373 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 33 of 2021\n CMP No. 6376 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 34 of 2021\n CMP No. 6378 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 35 of 2021\n CMP No. 6384 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 36 of 2021\n CMP No. 6382 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 37 of 2021\n CMP No. 6391 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 38 of 2021\n CMP No. 6393 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 39 of 2021\n CMP No. 6399 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 40 of 2021\n CMP No. 6397 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 41 of 2021\n CMP No. 6401 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 42 of 2021\n\n Notice in the aforesaid terms. In the meantime, the\n\n respondents are restrained from demolishing the structure of\n\n the petitioners.::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2021 20:14:26 :::HCHPCMP No. 6371 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 32 of 2021\n CMP No. 6375 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 33 of 2021\n CMP No. 6377 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 34 of 2021\n\n\n\n\n .CMP No. 6379 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 35 of 2021\n\n\n\n\n\n CMP No. 6385 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 36 of 2021\n CMP No. 6383 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 37 of 2021\n CMP No. 6392 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 38 of 2021\n CMP No. 6395 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 39 of 2021\n\n\n\n\n\n CMP No. 6400 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 40 of 2021\n CMP No. 6398 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 41 of 2021\n CMP No. 6402 of 2021 in Rev Pet. No. 42 of 2021\n\n The applications are disposed of with the direction\n\n\n\n\n that the petitioners shall file the typed/legible/translated\n\n copies of the documents in issue by the next date of hearing\n\n\n Learned Counsel for the respondent-NHAI is directed\n\n to communicate this order to the Authorities concerned.Copy dasti.(L. Narayana Swamy)\n Chief Justice.June 24, 2021 (Anoop Chitkara)\n\n\n\n\n\n (hemlata) Judge.::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2021 20:14:26 :::HCHP

15805f2f-6f23-585b-a21c-61b9f6e1754d

court_cases

Uttarakhand High CourtBA1/594/2021 on 29 September, 2021Author:R.C. KhulbeBench:R.C. KhulbeOffice Notes,\n reports, orders or\nSL. proceedings or\n Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS\nNo directions and\n Registrar's order\n with Signatures\n BA1 No.594 of 2021\n Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.Ms. Manisha Bhandari with Mr. H.C. Pathak\n and Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the\n applicant.Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for the\n State.Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the\n informant.Accused-Satendra Saini has sought his\n release on bail in connection with Case Crime/ FIR\n No.711/2020u/s 304,328,323,504IPC registered\n at P.S. Kotwali Mangalore, District Haridwar.As per the FIR dated 4.11.2020, on\n 30.10.2020, informant's father in law Atma Ram\n along with Vipul, Satendra came to her house and\n started abusing her; on asking them to refrain from\n such acts, they began to beat her and forcefully\n administered poison to her and then they ran away;\n on 2.11.2020 at about 7:30 PM her brother in law\n Arvind was called inside the house by Atma Ram;\n Arvind telephoned informant's husband about this\n fact; thereafter, Arvind, informant's husband and\n son was assaulted with sharp edged weapons by\n Satendra, Atma Ram, Shyam Lata and Vipul.On the basis of said information, the FIR was\n lodged at P.S. Mangalore on the very same day.It is argued by the learned counsel that the\n applicant has been falsely implicated; he was not\n present at the spot; as per the post-mortem report,\n there was abrasion found on the body of deceased;\n the eyewitnesses Vipul and Divya have clearly\n stated that the accused Satendra was not at the spot\n at the relevant point of time; it is a case where cross\nFIR has also been filed; applicant is ready to furnish\nthe sureties and may be granted bail.Per contra, learned counsel for the State as\nalso learned counsel for the informant opposed for\nbail.As per the FIR, accused Satendra, Atma Ram,\nSmt. Shyam Lata and Vipul were present at the spot\nat the time of incident and they caused injuries to\nArvind and also injured Jitendra and Himanshu.The statement of injured Himanshu and\nArvind were recorded during investigationu/s 161Cr.P.C.; they narrated the entire story and clearly\nstated that the accused Satendra Saini was very\nmuch present on the spot at the relevant point of\ntime who also committed the crime along with other\nco-accused; as per the post-mortem report, the cause\nof death is ante-mortem injuries; it is a matter of\nevidence whether the present accused was actually\npresent at the spot or not but as per the statement of\ninjured Himanshu, it prima facie appears that the\naccused was also present at the spot who caused\ninjury to Himanshu and other persons.Looking to the gravity of offence, it is not a\nfit case for bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail\napplication is dismissed.Pending application, if any, stands disposed\nof.(R.C. Khulbe, J.)\n 29.09.2021\nRdang

45bf250c-b080-5aeb-af29-a0ca729c915a

court_cases

Telangana High CourtK.Narayana vs The Collector on 5 August, 2020Author:P.Naveen RaoBench:P.Naveen Rao*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n + WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n % 05.08.2020\n\n\nWP No.18611 of 2017:\n\n\n# K.Narayana s/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged about 52 years,\n Superintendent (Tahsildar), O/o Collectorate, Medak,\n Medak district.\n .....Petitioner\n\n And\n\n$ The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,\n State of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad and others.\n\n .....Respondents\n\n\n! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Bala Kishan Rao\n\nCounsel for the Respondents: 1. Learned Govt. Pleader for\n Services for the respondents\n\n\n<Gist :\n\n>Head Note:\n\n? Cases referred:\n\n(1995) 3 SCC 134\n(1996) 3 SCC 157\n(2012) 11 SCC 565\n(1995) 2 SCC 570\n(2007) 14 SCC 49\n2019 SCC Online SC 1596\n(2009) 7 SCC 305\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 2020\n 2\n\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA\n\n ********\n\n WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n Date:05.08.2020\n\nWP No.18611 of 2017:\n\n\nBetween :\n\nK.Narayana s/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged about 52 years,\nSuperintendent (Tahsildar), O/o Collectorate, Medak,\nMedak district.\n .....Petitioner\n\n And\n\nThe Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,\nState of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad and others.\n\n .....Respondents\n\n\nJUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.08.2020\n\n\n\n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may : YES\n be allowed to see the judgments ? :\n\n2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : YES\n to Law Reporters/Journals :\n\n3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : NO\n See fair Copy of the Judgment ?\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 2020\n 3\n\n\n\n HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n Date:05.08.2020\n\nWP No.18611 of 2017:\n\n\nBetween:\n\nK.Narayana s/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged about 52 years,\nSuperintendent (Tahsildar), O/o Collectorate, Medak,\nMedak district.\n .....Petitioner\n\n And\n\nThe Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,\nState of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad and others.\n\n .....Respondents\n\n\n\n\nThe Court made the following:\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 2020\n 4\n\n\n HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n\nCOMMON ORDER:In W.P.No.18611 of 2017, petitioner challenges the charge-\n\nmemo, dated 28.02.2017 and seeks consequential direction to\n\ngrant promotion to the post of Tahsildar, as per the placement\n\nassigned in the panel for the year 2011-12. During the pendency\n\nof above writ petition, Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Not\n\nsatisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, by proceedings\n\ndated 06.11.2019, the District Collector appointed another Enquiry\n\nOfficer to conduct de novo enquiry into the charges leveled against\n\nthe petitioner. In W.P.No.5512 of 2020, petitioner challenges the\n\nsaid order dated 06.11.2019 and seeks further direction that the\n\npetitioner is entitled for promotion as Tahsildar on par with his\n\njuniors by duly finalizing the departmental proceedings based on\n\nthe enquiry report submitted on 31.12.2018. In both Writ\n\nPetitions, petitioner is the same. By this common order these Writ\n\nPetitions are disposed of.2. To the extent relevant for the issues raised in these two Writ\n\nPetitions, the facts are as under:Petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar and is now\n\naspiring for promotion as Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, in\n\nseniority list of Deputy Tahsildars of Medak district, and in the\n\npanel of Deputy Tahsildars, eligible for promotion for the panel\n\nyear 2011-12, his name was shown at Sl.No.20. In the panel\n\napproved by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration (CCLA),\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 20205vide his reference No.Ser.II(1)/789/2016, dated 08.03.2016,\n\npetitioner name was included at Sl.No.149. In March, 2016,\n\npromotions were made upto the Sl.No.120 in the said approved\n\npanel. During the subsistence of panel approved on 18.03.2016, as\n\na consequence to re-organization of the Revenue Districts,\n\nformation of new Mandals and Revenue Divisions and Districts,\n\n2109 posts of Tahsildars were created. Petitioner claims that he\n\nought to have been granted promotion in those vacancies. On\n\n01.05.2017, orders were issued granting promotion to the\n\npetitioner as Tahsildar and posted as Superintendent in the Office\n\nof the District Collector, Medak, but this promotion was not given\n\neffect. Petitioner alleges that he was denied promotion on the\n\nground that on 28.02.2017, charge-memo was drawn and\n\ndisciplinary proceedings were initiated. On 20.12.2017, this Court\n\ngranted interim orders directing consideration of the petitioner for\n\npromotion, if he is otherwise eligible, and if there is no prohibition\n\nin consideration of his case for promotion. On 06.11.2019\n\nproceedings were issued appointing another Enquiry Officer to\n\nconduct de novo enquiry.3. In these two writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is\n\nagainst inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings,\n\nnot finalizing the disciplinary proceedings based on the report of\n\nthe Enquiry Officer, ordering de novo enquiry and on the ground\n\nthat disciplinary proceedings are pending, not granting promotion\n\nto him as per his turn and seeks consequential direction to set\n\naside disciplinary proceedings and to grant promotion on par with\n\nhis juniors with all consequential benefits.PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202064. Heard Mr. D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for petitioner,\n\nand Mr. N.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for respondents.\n\n\n5.1. On the validity of charge-memo, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner contended that disciplinary proceedings are liable to be\n\nset aside on the sole ground that there was inordinate delay in\n\ninitiation of the disciplinary proceedings. On the alleged incident\n\nof the year 2005, charge-memo was drawn for the first time on\n\n28.02.2017. Thus, on a stale issue, proceedings were initiated,\n\nafter 12 years, and no justification is shown for such inordinate\n\ndelay. Learned counsel further submitted that allegation made\n\nagainst the petitioner in the charge-memo is on trivial issue i.e.,\n\nmisplacement of file relating to the disciplinary proceedings\n\ninitiated against Mr. K.E.John Wesly. According to the learned\n\ncounsel, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.03.2017\n\ndenying the allegations; expressly taking the stand that as there\n\nwas heavy work load there was no occasion to concentrate on\n\nindividual files; that the file was circulated to the higher\n\nauthorities; and that it was not sent back to the section headed by\n\nhim and, therefore, the allegation that he was responsible for\n\nmisplacing the file was erroneous.5.2. According to the learned counsel, as per the G.O.Ms.No.679\n\ndated 01.11.2008, disciplinary enquiry has to be completed on\n\nsimple allegations, within three months and whenever serious\n\nallegations are made within six months. In the instant case,\n\nallegation is not serious and therefore ought to have been\n\ncompleted in three months, but they are kept pending for more\n\nthan three years.PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202075.3. He would submit that on due consideration of the\n\nexplanation and on due verification of the records, the Enquiry\n\nOfficer in his report dated 31.12.2018 clearly recorded finding that\n\npetitioner was not responsible for the alleged charge and that he\n\ndid not misplace the file. He would submit that on trivial issue\n\nand more so when the Enquiry Officer clearly recorded a finding\n\nthat the petitioner is not responsible for misplacement of the file,\n\nthere is no justification to continue the disciplinary proceedings,\n\neven assuming, initiation was not erroneous.\n\n\n5.4. According to the learned counsel, the reason assigned for\n\nordering the de novo enquiry is not sustainable in law. It is also\n\ncontrary to Rules 20 & 21 of the Telangana State Civil Services\n\n(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991).\n\nAccording to the learned counsel for petitioner, the disciplinary\n\nauthority can order de novo enquiry only if he is satisfied that the\n\nproceedings were not properly conducted or procedure required by\n\nthe Rules, 1991 were not observed by the Enquiry Officer. The\n\nDisciplinary Authority erred in holding that the Enquiry Officer has\n\nnot stated whether the charges are proved or not. This observation\n\nof the disciplinary authority is contrary to the report of the Enquiry\n\nOfficer and the reasons assigned therein are not in accordance\n\nwith the provisions in Rule 20(2) of the Rules, 1991.\n\n\n5.5. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that even\n\nassuming that the disciplinary proceedings were validly initiated\n\nand continued and there is no inordinate delay in conclusion of the\n\ndisciplinary proceedings, denial of promotion to the petitioner as\n\nper the recommendations of the DPC, approved by the competent\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 20208authority, was erroneous. The panel was approved in March, 2016\n\nand the panel was operated by giving promotions to 120 persons\n\nincluded in the panel. On the date of approval of panel, effecting\n\nthe promotions and when the new posts were created, disciplinary\n\nproceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and they were\n\nset in motion only on 28.02.2017. Therefore, deferring the\n\npetitioner claim for promotion on the ground of initiation of\n\ndisciplinary proceedings subsequently is clearly erroneous and\n\nillegal. He would therefore submit that denial of promotion when\n\nit was due was illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.6. The learned Government Pleader would submit that due to\n\nwillful conduct of the petitioner taking action against Mr Wesley\n\ngot delayed. Deliberately petitioner misplaced the file. As soon as\n\nmatter came to the notice of the disciplinary authority, action was\n\ninitiated against petitioner. He would therefore submit that there\n\nwas no delay. He would submit that as a custodian of official\n\nrecords, misplacing the file in his custody is a grave misconduct.\n\nHe would further submit that enquiry report is not complete unless\n\nthe enquiry officer records his findings. As no findings are recorded\n\nby the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority has to order for fresh\n\nenquiry.7. Following issues arise for consideration:i) Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the\nground of delay in initiation and/or conclusion ?ii) Whether the decision to order de novo enquiry is within\nthe competence of the disciplinary authority ?PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 20209iii) Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the\nground of pending disciplinary proceedings is legal ? andiv) Whether petitioner was illegally denied from joining and\nworking in the promotion post on the ground that disciplinary\nproceedings were initiated by the time he was granted promotion\nand therefore not effecting promotion was valid ?\n\n\n\nISSUE (i):8. The relationship between employer and employee is based on\n\ntrust and confidence. Apart from absolute loyalty, employer\n\nexpects employee to be honest, truthful and hardworking. He\n\nrewards employee who fulfills his criteria, encourages him by\n\nproviding him additional financial incentive, elevation of status,\n\nhigher responsibilities, so on. At the same time, he cannot tolerate\n\ninsubordination, misbehavior, corruption, disloyalty and poor\n\noutput. Whenever these aspects come to light, employer would\n\ninitiate disciplinary action and visit appropriate penal\n\nconsequences which may be minor or major. Depending on the\n\nnature of misconduct alleged he may also lodge complaint with the\n\nPolice. Conduct of the employee may not be confined to four\n\ncorners of the employment and employer may monitor behaviour of\n\nthe employee outside the employment which may reflect on the\n\npersonality of the employee or impact his performance.9. From the stand point of employee as long as he is in the\n\ngood books of his employer he will have smooth sailing. Problems\n\nwould arise only when employer loses confidence or develops\n\ndistrust or apprehends of misconduct. When a misconduct is\n\nalleged employee is bound to face disciplinary action and in a given\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202010case criminal proceedings. If that stage arises, in addition to\n\nseveral other aspects, his grievance would be two fold: 1) employer\n\nis harassing him for a minor lapse/ incident, that took place long\n\nago; 2) even if allegation is proved, if concluded within a time\n\nframe, it may result in minor punishment such as censure,\n\nwarning, withholding of increment etc., and he would undergo\n\nsuch punishment with humility and carryon his work, but delay in\n\nconclusion would have more serious consequences, intended or\n\nunintended including depriving promotion, differing financial\n\nbenefits/ in case of retired employee denying retirement benefits,\n\netc. He may also have a grievance that delay in initiation and\n\nconclusion, causes grave prejudice to him in defending against\n\nallegations; difficulty in securing evidence, oral or documentary.10. Telangana State Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 (CCA\n\nRules) deal with all aspects of disciplinary proceedings against an\n\nemployee. The Rules prescribe elaborate procedure to conduct\n\ndisciplinary proceedings from the stage of initiation till passing of\n\nfinal orders, preferring of appeals and revisions and also prescribes\n\npunishments that can be imposed. Rule 20 of the Rules also\n\nprescribes time line from stage to stage in the enquiry.\n\nAdministrative instructions stipulate time line to conclude the\n\ndisciplinary proceedings. However, the Rules and the\n\nadministrative instructions are silent on time frame to initiate\n\ndisciplinary action on alleged delinquency against serving\n\nemployee, whereas certain limitations are imposed against retired\n\nemployees in Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Thus,\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202011there is no statutory embargo on when to initiate disciplinary\n\nproceedings.11. Invariably there is delay in initiation of disciplinary\n\nproceedings. Initiation takes months or years from the date of\n\nincident and so also conclusion. Delay in initiation can be for\n\ngenuine reasons. The incident may come to light much later;\n\nmany employees are involved in the same delinquency; lot of time\n\nis consumed in gathering information; many times intra-\n\ndepartmental correspondence consumes more time; when alleged\n\ndelinquency involves employees belong to more than one\n\ndepartment/one unit/one disciplinary authority processing itself\n\nconsumes lot of time. Further, on an alleged misconduct, if,\n\nsimultaneously, disciplinary action and criminal prosecution is set\n\nin motion, disciplinary authority may wait for completion of\n\ninvestigation by Police before he would decide to proceed or\n\ndiffer/drop the disciplinary action. But, in many instances, it is\n\ntardy and lethargic approach of the concerned authorities that\n\ncauses delay in setting in motion the disciplinary action. Many\n\ntimes, employees allege that just about the time he is due for\n\npromotion, disciplinary action is set in motion only to deprive him\n\npromotion or just about the time of retirement to hold up his\n\nretirement benefits.12. Though proceedings may have been initiated immediately\n\nbut they are dragged on for months together / years together. This\n\nmay happen because several employees of same Department/\n\ndifferent departments are involved; documents and witnesses are\n\nmore; employee(s) do not cooperate or litigate; frequent change of\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202012enquiry officers; matters entrusted to tribunal for disciplinary\n\nproceedings or Commissioner of enquiries, but they do not\n\nfunction. Many times just to harass the employee proceedings are\n\nkept in the cold storage.13. One other aspect on which employees agitate is delay in\n\ndisposal of disciplinary proceedings and in the meantime ignoring\n\nthe employee for promotion and/or not granting other service\n\nbenefits. Though the Government, by way of administrative\n\ninstructions, prescribed three months to complete enquiry in case\n\nof petty allegations, and six months in case of grave allegations,\n\nthis time line is never adhered to and disciplinary proceedings are\n\nkept pending for months together/years together. Many a time the\n\ndelay is attributable to employer.14. Thus, more often than not employees knock the doors of this\n\nCourt underArticle 226of the Constitution of India against delay\n\nin initiation and/or continuation and denial of service benefits on\n\nthe ground of pending disciplinary proceedings, such as\n\npromotion, increments, financial upgradation, retirement benefits,\n\nas the case may be. Volume of cases and the decisions in those\n\ncases reflect the litigative gamit of this branch of service disputes.15. There are two competing claims. On the one side is the\n\nemployer's desire to enforce discipline, not to dole out benefits of\n\nelevation in status etc., or post retirement benefits as the case may\n\nbe, if he commits a misconduct in the past. On the other\n\nspectrum is the concern of employee in involving him in\n\ndisciplinary proceedings/in continuing him under the cloud for\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202013past misconduct, without conducting/concluding proceedings and\n\nwithout affording opportunity to defend himself and depriving him\n\nservice benefits to which he is legitimately entitled. Whenever\n\nsuch matters come up before the Court, the Court is not only\n\nrequired to consider these competing claims but also look into the\n\naspect of public interest, vis-à-vis allegations of misconduct,\n\nhaving regard to public trust doctrine in public employment, and\n\nin a given case adopt balancing process.16. Per se disciplinary proceedings cannot be said as vitiated\n\nonly on the ground of delay in initiation. It all depends on facts of\n\na given case. However, if the delay is long the burden is on\n\nemployer to explain reasons for delay.17. On both aspects, i.e., delay in initiation of disciplinary\n\nproceedings and delay in conclusion, we are not in virgin territory.\n\nThe precedent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down\n\nwell lit path leading to appreciation of the issue in right\n\nperspective. Suffice to note that precedent law, while emphasizing\n\nspeedy disposal of disciplinary proceedings, leaves it to the writ\n\nCourt to assess the issue depending upon the facts of a given case.18. At this stage it is expedient to consider precedent decisions.\n\n\n18.1. Whenever, grave allegations are made, such as\n\nembezzlement/misappropriation, falsification of records, etc.,\n\ndepartmental proceedings need not be set aside only on the ground\n\nof delay in initiation or conclusion (Deputy Registrar,\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202014Co-operative Society, Faizabad Vs Sachindra Nath Pandey1andSecretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Dept Vs\n\nL.Srinivasan2.Disciplinary proceedings are not liable to be\n\nquashed on the ground that they were initiated at a belated stage\n\nand could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless delay\n\ncreates prejudice to the delinquent employee (Ministry of Defence\n\nVs Prabhash Chander3).18.2.InState of Punjab and others Vs Chaman Lal Goyal4while emphasizing the need to conduct disciplinary proceedings,\n\nsoon after discovery of irregularities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\nobserved that;"9. .......If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may\n well interfere and quash the charges. But, how long a delay is too\n long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if\n such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in\n defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever\n such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing\n for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of\n circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a\n process of balancing. ......"18.3.InGovernment of A.P., Vs V.Appala Swamy5the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court laid down parameters when court may accept plea\n\nof delay against continuing disciplinary proceedings, Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court held as under :"12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the\n departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is\n concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down\n therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The1(1995) 3 SCC 1342(1996) 3 SCC 1573(2012) 11 SCC 5654(1995) 2 SCC 5705(2007) 14 SCC 49\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202015principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed\n on the ground of delay are:(1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the\n lapses on the part of the employee;(2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee.Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the\n employee before the inquiry officer."18.4.InUnion of India Vs Udai Bhan Singh6, the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court reviewed precedent decision on delay in initiation\n\nand conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\nheld, the aspect of delay must be considered in the context of\n\nadmitted facts (paragraph 17).18.5.InSecretary, Forest Department and Others Vs. Abdur\n\nRasul Choudhary7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court succinctly\n\nexplained when Court should interfere. Employee was served\n\ncharge memo dated 13.8.1987. Allegations were on excess\n\npayment to contractor for personal gain and financial loss to\n\nGovernment and falsification of accounts. Employee retired on\n\n31.3.1995. He filed O A No. 3963 of 1999 praying to direct\n\nrespondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of\n\ndelay. The Tribunal did not agree to grant the prayer to drop the\n\ndisciplinary proceedings, but directed to complete the\n\ndepartmental enquiry within six months by its order dated\n\n1.8.2003. Challengingthe said decision, he preferred writ petition\n\nin the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition. One\n\nof the issues considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, whether\n\nthe delay in completing the domestic enquiry proceedings would be\n\nfatal to the proceedings.?62019 SCC Online SC 15967(2009) 7 SCC 305\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 20201618.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:"16. The next issue is with regard to delay in concluding\n disciplinary proceedings. In our view the delay in concluding\n the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings.\n It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The\n unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be\n one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to\n continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same\n time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings\n should be permitted to continue." (emphasis supplied)19. In the case on hand, the substance of the allegation against\n\nthe petitioner is that disciplinary file of another employee was\n\nmisplaced by petitioner in the year 2006 when he was working as\n\nSenior Assistant. On the said allegation, charge memo was drawn\n\non 28.02.2017, i.e., more than eleven years after the incident.\n\nEven after three years, the proceedings are not concluded.20. The gravemen of the charge is, on a request made by the\n\nSiddipet District Collector to furnish original records pertaining to\n\ndisciplinary case against ex-Land Acquisition Officer by name\n\nK.E.John Wesly, while verifying the record of the A3 section of the\n\nCollectorate, it was noticed that as Senior Assistant of A3 section\n\npetitioner received the UO note of LA Section on 17.05.2005\n\nrecorded in personal register for the years 2005 and 2006 but\n\nphysically file was missing and from the year 2007 onwards the file\n\nwas not traceable. It is therefore alleged that petitioner misused\n\nhis official position and misplaced the file with mala fide intention.\n\nTherefore, the disciplinary case against Mr. Wesly could not be\n\nconcluded.PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 20201721. From the Annexure - I of the Charge Memo, it appears that\n\ncertain Land Acquisition OPs. were not effectively contested by\n\nconcerned staff and therefore on 14.05.2005, the Medak District\n\nCollector informed the Government that Mr. Wesly was responsible\n\nand disciplinary action should be taken against him. On\n\n23.07.1999, the Commissioner for Social Welfare requested to\n\ninitiate disciplinary action against Mr. Wesley.22. In substance, alleging that a particular file was misplaced by\n\npetitioner while he was working in the 'C' Section of the\n\nCollectorate in the years 2005 and 2006, Charge Memo was drawn\n\non 28.02.2017. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, was\n\nappointed as enquiry officer. During the enquiry, petitioner\n\ninformed that file is available in A3 section. The incumbent\n\n'C' section Assistant appeared before the enquiry officer and stated\n\nthat file is available. Apart from other aspects, petitioner has also\n\npleaded before the enquiry officer that he circulated the file on\n\n01.06.2005, was returned to section on 15.07.2005 from the Joint\n\nCollector and file was handed over to the Office Superintendent for\n\ndiscussion with Joint Collector; discussion took place and he has\n\nrecorded in the file as a note on the discussion, but file was not\n\nreturned to the Section. He expressed his inability to say anything\n\nmore after such a long time. On going through the record, the\n\nenquiry officer found whatever is stated by the petitioner is born\n\nout of record.23. The proceedings of the Commissioner for Social Welfare were\n\ndrawn on 23.07.1999 requesting the competent authority to take\n\ndisciplinary action against Mr. Wesley. The counter-affidavit is\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202018blissfully silent as to why there was delay in initiating of action\n\nagainst Mr. Wesley and what transpired between 1999 to 2005 and\n\n2005 to 2017 and what is the stage of the action. It appears to be\n\na case of covering up the lapses on the part of concerned persons\n\nin taking action against Mr. Wesley, by throwing the blame on\n\npetitioner. It appears, no effort was made to trace the file before\n\ninitiating action against petitioner, whereas the finding of enquiry\n\nofficer would show file was very much available in A3 section.24. Be that as it may, allegation was file was not traceable, but it\n\nwas traced and available in A3 Section. Charge memo does not\n\nelaborate on allegation of the mala fide intention. There is no\n\nallegation of collusion of petitioner with Mr. Wesley to escape\n\ndisciplinary action. That being so, nothing remains in the\n\ndisciplinary action.25. There is no end in site to the petitioner. Adding to the\n\nmisery of facing disciplinary action after 10 years, even though\n\nenquiry officer finds that file is available in A3 Section, merely\n\nbecause the enquiry officer has not recorded as to whether charge\n\nis proved or not, the disciplinary authority resorts to hold de novo\n\nenquiry by appointing another enquiry officer. Apart from the fact\n\nthat no such power is traceable to CCA Rules, no reasons are\n\nassigned to take such a decision and prolong the agony to the\n\npetitioner. Further, even if what is stated is accepted, it is minor\n\nirregularity. The disciplinary authority has ample power to deal\n\nwith the situation and for this minor lapse that enquiry officer did\n\nnot record his conclusion, there is no need to subject the petitioner\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202019to undergo the rigmarole of full fledged enquiry, that too after\n\nfifteen years.26. In the counter-affidavit, no reasons are assigned for the\n\ndelay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. When disciplinary\n\naction is set in motion after 10 years, the competent authority has\n\nto explain clearly the reasons for delay. Certainly ten years is\n\nunreasonably long period on a trivial issue, more so when there is\n\nno allegation of collusion by the petitioner with Mr. Wesley to delay\n\ndisciplinary action against him. Having regard to the chronology of\n\nevents and relevant aspects noted above, the conclusion is\n\nirresistible that the entire action smacks of arbitrary exercise of\n\npower and vindictive.27. Petitioner succeeds on the 1st issue. The disciplinary\n\nproceedings against petitioner are set aside and the Writ Petition\n\nNo.18611 of 2017 is allowed. Petitioner is entitled to all\n\nconsequential benefits including promotion as Tahsildar from the\n\ndate of promotion of his junior. In view of the judgment in\n\nW.P.No.18611 of 2017, no further orders are required to be made\n\nin W.P.No.5512 of 2020 and is accordingly disposed of. In view of\n\nthe decision on the 1st issue, no findings are recorded on other\n\nissues. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.___________________________\n JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\nDate: 05.08.2020\nKkm/Rds/KH/tvk\n\nNote: L R Copy to be marked-- YES\n PNR,J\n WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n 5512 of 202020HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n\n\n\n WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n Date: 05.08.2020\nkkm/rds/kh/tvk

27e51cc8-e543-5ec7-bb6c-0402ccb35302

court_cases

Delhi High CourtUnion Of India & Anr. vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors. on 20 October, 2022Author:Sanjeev SachdevaBench:Sanjeev Sachdeva,Tushar Rao GedelaNeutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004414\n\n\n $~14\n * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n % Judgment delivered on: 20th October, 2022\n\n + W.P.(C) 14875/2022 & CM. APPL. 45731-33/2022\n\n UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS. ... Respondents\n Advocates who appeared in this case:\n\n\n For the petitioners: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula\n and Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocates.\n\n For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Sundar Rao, Advocate.\n\n CORAM:-\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA\n JUDGMENTSANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (Oral)1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on account of an\n inadvertent error, Annexure-17 that was not part of the Tribunal's\n record has been annexed with this petition without a formal\n application for taking on additional document. The statement is taken\n on record.Signature Not VerifiedDigital Signed By:KUNALW.P. (C) 14875/2022 Page 1 of 4MAGGUSigning Date:20.10.2022 18:14:37\nThis file is digitally signed by PS\nto HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/0044142. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing\n for respondents No.1 and 2. Let a digital copy of the entire paper\n book be furnished to him.3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken for\n final disposal.4. Petitioner, the Union of India has impugned order dated\n 26.04.2022, whereby the Original Application filed by respondents\n No.1 and 2 has been allowed and petitioners have been directed to\n issue offer of appointment to the said respondents for recruitment to\n the post of Health and Malaria Inspector, Grade-III.5. Pursuant to advertisement dated 13.03.2010, respondents had\n applied for the aforesaid post. The minimum educational qualification\n for the said post of Health and Malaria Inspector, Grade-III prescribed\n by the advertisement was:-"B.Sc. Chemistry plus (a) 1 year Diploma in Health\n Sanitary Inspector (OR) (b) 1 year National Trade\n Certificate (NTC) in Health/Sanitary Inspector awarded by\n National Council for Vocational Training, Ministry of\n Labour and Employment Govt. of India, New Delhi"6. Contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the\n Diploma of the respondents is from Vinayaka Missions University,\n Salem, Tamil Nadu by way of distance education and as such is not\n acceptable as satisfying the eligibility condition and furthermore, theSignature Not VerifiedDigital Signed By:KUNALW.P. (C) 14875/2022 Page 2 of 4MAGGUSigning Date:20.10.2022 18:14:37\nThis file is digitally signed by PS\nto HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004414\n\n\n subject course was not a course which was recognized by the\n authorities and as such this is an unrecognized course though from a\n recognised University and as such the respondents did not satisfy the\n eligibility condition.7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits\n that there is no bar on acceptance of a Diploma obtained by distance\n education for the eligibility condition and furthermore, the Diploma\n obtained by the respondents is from a recognized university and also a\n recognized course.8. Perusal of the orders shows that the Tribunal has not examined\n the said aspect, as to whether the qualification of the respondents\n satisfies the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the\n subject advertisement. The Tribunal has allowed the Original\n Application merely on the ground that offer of appointment has been\n issued to other candidates, who have also obtained degrees from the\n said University. The contention, on the other hand, of the petitioner is\n that though the University was recognized but the subject course was\n not a recognized course and as such even if degrees from the same\n University have been accepted would not ipso facto amount to\n acceptance of validity of the subject Diploma of the respondents.9. Since the Tribunal has granted relief to respondents solely on\n the ground that offer of appointment has been granted to otherSignature Not VerifiedDigital Signed By:KUNALW.P. (C) 14875/2022 Page 3 of 4MAGGUSigning Date:20.10.2022 18:14:37\nThis file is digitally signed by PS\nto HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004414\n\n\n candidates and directed issuance of offer of appointment without\n examining as to whether the objection of the petitioners i.e., diploma\n obtained by distance education cannot be accepted and the subject\n course not being a recognized course, the impugned order cannot be\n sustained and calls for a remit.10. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The\n matter is remitted to the Tribunal to examine the objections of the\n petitioner noticed hereinabove on merits and also examine inter-alia\n the contention of the respondents that their Diploma satisfies the\n eligibility condition as prescribed by the subject advertisement.11. Keeping in view the fact that the subject post was advertised in\n the year 2010, we request the Tribunal to expedite the proceedings\n and endeavour to conclude the proceedings preferably within a period\n of four months.12. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered, nor\n commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. All\n rights and contentions of parties are reserved.13. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 29.11.2022 for\n directions.,,,\n\n\n\n\n SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.OCTOBER 20, 2022/NA TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.Signature Not VerifiedDigital Signed By:KUNALW.P. (C) 14875/2022 Page 4 of 4MAGGUSigning Date:20.10.2022 18:14:37\nThis file is digitally signed by PS\nto HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.

0c139f54-9a85-5f72-be00-f50fc6b533e3

court_cases

Manipur High CourtShri Thoudam Heramani Singh vs Leishangthem Kriti Singh on 17 March, 2023Author:A. Guneshwar SharmaBench:A. Guneshwar SharmaItem - 36\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR\n AT IMPHAL\n\n\n CRP(C.R.P.Art. 227) No.8 of 2018\n\n\n Shri Thoudam Heramani Singh\n .... Petitioner/s\n - Versus -\n\n Leishangthem Kriti Singh\n .... Respondent/s\n\n\n\n BEFORE\n HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA\n\n ORDER17.03.2023\n\n\n On the request of the learned counsel for the respondent, fix on\n\n31st March, 2023.JUDGE- Larson