💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Statutory, Regulatory & Various Quasi-Judicial Bodies

  • Vamsadhara River Water Dispute

    Andhra Pradesh  and Odisha CM recently held talks to iron out all differences with regard to the sharing of Vamsadhara River waters.

    Note all major rivers over which inter-state disputes exist say Narmada, Mahadayi, Cauvery, Krishna, etc. Observe their flow and the area swept.

    Also, refer your atlas to check the complicated border sharings between Chhatisgarh, AP/Telangana and Odisha.

    Vamsadhara River

    • River Vamsadhara is an important east-flowing river between Rushikulya and Godavari, in Odisha and Andhra Pradesh.
    • The river originates in the border of Thuamul Rampur in the Kalahandi district and Kalyansinghpur in Rayagada district of Odisha.
    • It runs for a distance of about 254 kilometres, where it joins the Bay of Bengal at Kalingapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
    • The total catchment area of the river basin is about 10,830 square kilometres.

    The dispute

    • Andhra Pradesh wants to build the Neradi bridge across the river which will be possible only after Odisha’s consent.
    • Odisha argues that the flood flow canal would result in drying up the existing river bed and consequent shifting of the river affecting the groundwater table.
    • Odisha also raised the issue of scientific assessment of available water in Vamsadhara at Katragada and Gotta Barrage, Andhra Pradesh and the basis for sharing the available water.

    Back2Basics: Interstate River Water Disputes

    • River waters use/harnessing is included in states jurisdiction. However, article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes.
    • Under this, Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
    • The President of India may also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend on the dispute that has arisen between the states
    • The Parliament has enacted the two laws, the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956).
    • Under this, Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
    • The Inter-State Water Disputes Act empowers the Central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute between two or more states in relation to the waters of an inter-state river or river valley.
    • The award of the tribunal is final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
    • Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to such a tribunal under this Act.

  • What is the National Numbering Plan?

    The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended that a new National Numbering Plan be issued at the earliest so that a uniquely identifiable number can be provided to every subscriber in India.

    The TRAI and Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal are quite often seen in the news.  Most recent was the dispute risen due to AGR dues.

    TRAI has a wide range of jurisdiction over Telecoms. Keep a track on all such news.

    National Numbering Plan

    • The management of numbering resources is governed by the National Numbering Plan.
    • The Department of Telecom administers the numbers for fixed and the mobile networks based on the ITU’s Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) recommendations.
    • TRAI has recommended automated allocation of numbering resources be done using number management system software to speed up the process

    Broadly, the TRAI has recommended:

    • switching to an 11-digit mobile number,
    • reallocation of mobile numbering resources surrendered by operators who have shut shop and
    • prefixing zero for all mobile calls made from fixed line

    Issues with 11 digit number

    • TRAI said that some serious problems are anticipated with a change in the mobile number from 10 to 11 digits.
    • Migrating to 11 digits would require widespread modifications in the configuration of switches involving cost.
    • This would also cause inconvenience to the customers in the form of dialling extra digits and updating phone memory.
    • This could lead to more dialling errors, traffic, and loss of revenue to telecom operators.

    Still, why need a plan as such?

    • The total number of telephone subscribers in India stands at 1,177.02 million with a teledensity of 87.45% at the end of January 2020.
    • This increasing digitization would pave the way towards the dream of digital India and mobile economy.
    • Thus, it has become necessary to review the utilization of numbering resources in the country.
    • Considering the above scenario the implementation of the TRAI’s recommendation with solutions to possible issues would help for sustainable growth of the telecommunication services.
    • Hence TRAI needs to review the utilization of the numbering resources and make some policy decisions to ensure that adequate resources are available for sustainable growth of the telecom services.

    Back2Basics: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

    • The TRAI is a statutory body set up under section 3 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.
    • It is the regulator of the telecommunications and its tariffs in India.
    • The TRAI Act was amended by an ordinance, effective from 24 January 2000, establishing a Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to take over the adjudicatory and disputes functions from TRAI.
    • TRAI regularly issues orders and directions on various subjects such as tariffs, interconnections, quality of service, DTH services and mobile number portability.

  • Giving Human Rights Commissions more teeth

    Context

    The Madras High Court is to decide on whether the recommendations made by such panels are binding upon the state.

    A fourth branch institution

    • Enactment of the Act and its purpose: In 1993, the Indian Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act.
      • Purpose: The purpose of the Act was to establish an institutional framework that could effectively protect, promote and fulfil the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
      • To this end, the Act created a National Human Rights Commission, and also, Human Rights Commissions at the levels of the various States.
    • What is fourth branch institution: The National and State Human Rights Commissions are examples of what we now call “fourth branch institutions.”
      • According to the classical account, democracy is sustained through a distribution of power between three “branches” — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, with each branch acting as a check and a balance upon the others.
      • The necessity of independent bodies: The complexity of governance and administration in the modern world has necessitated the existence of a set of independent bodies, which are charged with performing vital functions of oversight.
      • Some of these bodies are constitutional bodies — established by the Constitution itself. These include, for instance, the Election Commission and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
      • Others have been established under law: for example, the Information Commission under the Right to Information Act, and Human Rights Commissions under the Protection of Human Rights Act.
    • HRC under scrutiny and criticism: In the two-and-a-half decades of their existence, however, the functioning of the Human Rights Commissions have come under scrutiny and criticism.
      • There have been the usual critiques of the politicization of autonomous bodies, and selectiveness.
      • Toothless: Even more than that, however, it has been alleged that for all intents and purposes, the Human Rights Commissions are toothless: at the highest, they play an advisory role, with the government left free to disobey or even disregard their findings.

    Limitations of NHRC

    • NHRC’s recommendations are not binding
    • NHRC cannot penalize authorities who do not implement its orders
    • JK is out of its jurisdiction
    • NHRC jurisdiction does not cover human right violations by private parties
    • 3/5 are judges, leading to more judicial touch to its functioning
    • 2/5 are also not Human rights experts. Political appointments.
    • Time limit is set to 1 year i.e. NHRC cannot entertain ca case older than 1 year
    • Limited jurisdiction over violation by armed forces
    • The act does not extend to J&K
    • Vacancies are not filled on time. Most human rights commissions are functioning with less than the prescribed Members
    • Fund crunch
    • Overload and backlog. Too many complaints. Hence, in recent days, NHRC is finding it difficult to address the increasing number of complaints
    • Bureaucratic style of functioning
     

    What the case before Madras High Court will decide?

    • Whether recommendations are mandatory or not: A Full Bench of the High Court will be deciding upon whether “recommendations” made by the Human Rights Commissions are binding upon their respective State (or Central) governments, or whether the government is entitled to reject or take no action upon them.
    • What are the power of HRC under the act? Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Commissions are empowered to inquire into the violations of human rights committed by state authorities, either upon petitions presented to them, or upon their own initiative.
      • Powers of civil courts: While conducting these inquiries, the Commissions are granted identical powers to that of civil courts, such as the examining witnesses, ordering for documents, receiving evidence, and so on.
      • These proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings, and they require that any person, who may be prejudicially affected by their outcome, has a right to be heard.
    • Issue over the meaning of recommend: The controversy before the Madras High Court stems from the issue of what is to be done after the Human Rights Commission completes its enquiry, and reaches a conclusion that human rights have been violated.
      • Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to “recommend” to the concerned government to grant compensation to the victim, to initiate prosecution against the erring state authorities, to grant interim relief, and to take various other steps.
      • The key question revolves around the meaning of the word “recommend.”
    • Opposite conclusion by different benches: The Full Bench of the Madras High Court is hearing the case because different, smaller benches, have come to opposite conclusions about how to understand the word “recommend” in the context of the Protection of Human Rights Act.
      • According to one set of judgments, this word needs to be taken in its ordinary sense. To “recommend” means to “put forward” or to “suggest” something or someone as being suitable for some purpose.
      • Ordinarily, a mere “suggestion” is not binding. Furthermore, Section 18 of the Human Rights Act also obligates the concerned government to “forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission”, within a period of one month.
      • The argument, therefore, is that this is the only obligation upon the government.
      • If indeed the Act intended to make the recommendations of the Commission binding upon the government, it would have said so: it would not simply have required the government to communicate what action it intended to take to the Commission (presumably, a category that includes “no action” as well).

    Why ordinary meaning of recommend needs to be rejected?

    • Argument against the ordinary meaning of “recommend”
      • Ordinary meaning and meaning within the legal framework: The first is that there is often a gap between the ordinary meanings of words and the meanings that they have within legal frameworks.
      • Legal meaning: Legal meaning is a function of context, and often, the purpose of the statute within which a word occurs has a strong influence on how it is to be understood.
      • For example, the Supreme Court has held, in the past, that the overriding imperative of maintaining judicial independence mandates that “consultation” with the Chief Justice for judicial appointments (as set out under the Constitution) be read as “concurrence” of the Chief Justice (this is the basis for the collegium system).
      • Recently, while interpreting the Land Acquisition Act, the apex court held that the word “and” in a provision had to be construed as “or”.
      • Of course, there needs to be a good reason for interpretations of this kind.
    • Constitutional commitment: This brings us to the purpose of the Human Rights Act, and the importance of fourth branch institutions.
    • Ensure adequate realisation of constitutional commitment: As indicated above, the Human Rights Act exists to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights.
      • To fulfil this purpose, the Act creates an institutional infrastructure, via the Human Rights Commissions.
      • The Human Rights Commissions, thus, are bodies that stand between the individual and the state, and whose task is to ensure the adequate realisation of constitutional commitment to protecting human rights.
    • Leaving decision with the state would defeat the purpose of the act: It stands to reason that if the state was left free to obey or disobey the findings of the Commission, this constitutional role would be effectively pointless, as whatever the Human Rights Commission did, the final judgment call on whether or not to comply with its commitments under the Constitution would be left to the state authorities.
      • This, it is clear, would defeat the entire purpose of the Act.
    • Past precedents: Indeed, in the past, courts have invoked constitutional purpose to determine the powers of various fourth branch institutions in cases of ambiguity.
      • For example, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to ensure the independence of the Central Bureau of Investigation; various judgments have endorsed and strengthened the powers of the Election Commission to compulsorily obtain relevant details of candidates, despite having no express power to do so.
      • It is therefore clear that in determining the powers of autonomous bodies such as the Human Rights Commission, the role those fourth branch institutions are expected to play in the constitutional scheme is significant.
    • Powers of civil courts: And lastly, as pointed out above, the Human Rights Commission has the powers of a civil court, and proceedings before it are deemed to be judicial proceedings. This provides strong reasons for its findings to be treated — at the very least — as quasi-judicial, and binding upon the state (unless challenged).
      • Indeed, very recently, the Supreme Court held as much in the context of “opinions” rendered by the Foreigners Tribunals, using very similar logic to say that these “opinions” were binding.

    Conclusion

    The crucial role played by a Human Rights Commission — and the requirement of state accountability in a democracy committed to a ‘culture of justification’ — strongly indicates that the Commission’s recommendations should be binding upon the state. Which way the Madras High Court holds will have a crucial impact upon the future of human rights protection in India.

  • Whither tribunal independence?

    Context

    The reframed Tribunal rules are in contempt of several Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court.

    What the SC said in Rojer Mathew case

    • Rules being unconstitutional: In November 2019, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Rojer Mathew, declared the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 as unconstitutional.
      • Why it was declared unconstitutional? It was declared unconstitutional for being violative of principles of independence of the judiciary and contrary to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Association 
    • Direction to the Central government: In Rojer Mathew, there was also a direction to the Central government to reformulate the rules strictly in accordance with principles delineated by the Court in its earlier decisions.
      • The reframed rules, notified by the Ministry of Finance, however, suffer from the same vices.

    What were the issues in the Finance Act, 2017

    • What was prescribed in the Finance Act, 2017: The Finance Act, 2017, around 26 Central statutes were amended.
      • Excessive rule-making powers to the Centre government: The power to prescribe eligibility criteria, selection process, removal, salaries, tenure and other service conditions pertaining to various members of 19 tribunals were sub-delegated to the rule-making powers of the Central government.
    • Attempt to keep the judiciary away: Describing the search-cum-selection-committee as an attempt to keep the judiciary away from the process of selection and appointment of members, vice-chairman and chairman of tribunals.
      • Executive litigant in most cases: The Court held that the executive is a litigating party in most of the litigation and hence cannot be allowed to be a dominant participant in tribunal appointments.
      • Selection committee issue: Barring the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the selection committee for all other tribunals was made up either entirely from personnel within or nominated by the Central government or comprised a majority of personnel from the Central government.
      • While the selection committee for NCLAT consisted of two judges and two secretaries to the Government of India, all other committees comprised only one judge and three secretaries to the Government of India. Now, in the 2020 rules, by default, all committees consist of a judge, the president/chairman/chairperson of the tribunal concerned and two secretaries to the Government of India
    • 3 years tenure injurious to the efficiency: Reiterating its previous decision in Madras Bar Association (2010), the Court held that the tenure of three years for members will “preclude cultivation of adjudicatory experience and is thus injurious to the efficiency of the Tribunals”.

     An equal say for the judiciary

    • 2 Judges in 4 member committee: The common thread in the Madras Bar Association series and Rojer Mathew decisions is that judiciary must have an equal say in the appointment of members of the tribunals.
      • To deny the executive an upper hand in appointing members to tribunals, the court ordered to have two judges of the Supreme Court to be a part of the four-member selection committee.
      • In Madras Bar Association(2010), held that the selection committee should comprise the Chief Justice of India or his nominee (chairperson, with a casting vote), a senior judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court, and secretaries in the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law and Justice respectively.
    • Decision applicable to all tribunals: Subsequent Constitution Bench decisions in Madras Bar Association (2014), Rojer Mathew and the decision of the Madras High Court in Shamnad Basheer have repeatedly held that the principles of the Madras Bar Association (2010) are applicable to the selection process and constitution of all tribunals in India.
    • What are the provisions dealing with appointment in 2020 rules? Under the 2020 rules, the inclusion of the president/ chairman/chairperson of the tribunal as a member in the selection committee is in the teeth of previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
      • Non-judicial member can become a chairman: For instance, now, in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), etc. a non-judicial member can become the president/chairman/chairperson, as the case may be.
      • Therefore, when a non-judicial member becomes a member in the selection committee, the Supreme Court judge will be in minority, giving primacy to the executive, which is impermissible.
    • Only judges and advocates can be judicial members: In Madras Bar Association (2010), the Court explicitly held that only judges and advocates can be considered for appointment as a judicial member of the tribunal and that persons from the Indian Legal Service cannot be considered for appointment as judicial member.
      • Recently, in Revenue Bar Association (2019), the Madras High Court declared Section 110(1)(b)(iii) of the CGST Act, 2017 as unconstitutional for allowing members of Indian Legal Service to be judicial members in GSTAT.

    Violation of the SC directives

    • What the SC said on tenure: Based on Madras Bar Association (2010), in Rojer Mathew, the Court held that the term of three years is too short, and by the time members achieve a refined knowledge, expertise and efficiency, one term will be over.
      • What are the provisions in 2020 rules? In the 2020 rules, the tenure of members has been increased from three years to four years, thereby blatantly violating the directions of the Supreme Court.
    • Since the Madras Bar Association (2010), the government has repeatedly violated the directions of the Supreme Court.
      • One by one, the traditional courts, including the High Courts, have been divested of their jurisdictions and several tribunals have been set up.

    Conclusion

    The 2020 rules are, thus, in contempt of several Constitution Bench decisions of the Supreme Court. Unless the Court comes down heavily on the Central government, we will see these encroachments over and over again.

     

  • Delimitation in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir

    The newly created UT of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) will be the only one in the country to undergo a delimitation exercise based on the population figures recorded in the 2011 census.

    Delimitation in J&K

    • The latest readjustment of boundaries of constituencies in other States and UTs has been done on the basis of 2001 census and in future it will be carried out according to the 2031 census.
    • As per 2011 Census, the population in Kashmir region is 68,88,475, Jammu has a population of 53,78,538 and Ladakh has 2,74,289.
    • Delimitation was last done in J&K in the year 1995.

    The legal basis for delimitation

    • Section 63 was introduced in the J&K Reorganisation Act so that delimitation exercise can be conducted smoothly without overlapping with other provisions of Delimitation Commission Act, 2002.
    • It is a saving clause and since J&K is a UT, it now has constitutional safeguards.
    • The provision did not require any separate legislation as it was incorporated in the primary Act.
    • It says that “until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2026 have been published,” it shall not be necessary to readjust the constituencies.
    • And any reference to the “latest census figures” in shall be construed as a reference to the 2011 census figures.
    • The delimitation will be done for 90 seats as 24 seats fall in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK).

    Back2Basics

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/explained-delimitation-of-constituencies/

  • Explained: Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)

     

     

    Recently the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs has announced that a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) will be established by the first week of April.

    What is the Central Consumer Protection Authority?

    • The authority is being constituted under Section 10(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
    • The Act replaced The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and seeks to widen its scope in addressing consumer concerns.
    • The CCPA, introduced in the new Act, aims to protect the rights of the consumer by cracking down on unfair trade practices, and false and misleading advertisements that are detrimental to the interests of the public and consumers.

    Why need CCPA?

    • The new Act recognizes offences such as providing false information regarding the quality or quantity of a good or service, and misleading advertisements.
    • It also specifies action to be taken if goods and services are found “dangerous, hazardous or unsafe”.
    • The CCPA will have the powers to inquire or investigate into matters relating to violations of consumer rights or unfair trade practices suo motu, or on a complaint received, or on a direction from the central government.

    What can the possible structure of CCPA be?

    • The proposed authority will be a lean body with a Chief Commissioner as head, and only two other commissioners as members — one of whom will deal with matters relating to goods while the other will look into cases relating to services.
    • It will be headquartered in the NCR of Delhi but the central government may set up regional offices in other parts of the country.
    • The CCPA will have an Investigation Wing that will be headed by a Director General.
    • District Collectors too, will have the power to investigate complaints of violations of consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and false or misleading advertisements.

    What kind of goods and food items in particular, can be classified as “dangerous, hazardous or unsafe”?

    • This is not specified in the notification of the Act.
    • Regarding food, an official said the CCPA will ensure that all standards on packaged food items set by regulators such as the FSSAI are being followed.

    What will the CCPA do if any goods or services are found not meeting these standards?

    Under Section 20 of The Consumer Protection Act, the proposed authority will have powers to:

    1. recall goods or withdrawal of services that are “dangerous, hazardous or unsafe;
    2. pass an order for refund the prices of goods or services so recalled to purchasers of such goods or services and
    3. discontinuation of practices which are unfair and prejudicial to consumer’s interest

    Penalties:

    For manufacture, selling, storage, distribution, or import of adulterated products, the penalties are:

    1. If injury is not caused to a consumer, fine up to Rs 1 lakh with imprisonment up to six months;
    2. If injury is caused, fine up to Rs 3 lakh with imprisonment up to one year;
    3. If grievous hurt is caused, fine up to Rs 5 lakh with imprisonment up to 7 years;
    4. In case of death, fine of Rs 10 lakh or more with a minimum imprisonment of 7 years, extendable to imprisonment for life.

    How will it deal with false or misleading advertisements?

    • Section 21 of the new Act defines the powers given to the CCPA to crack down on false or misleading advertisements.
    • The CCPA may order investigation that any advertisement is false or misleading and is harmful to the interest of any consumer, or is in contravention of consumer rights.
    • If dissatisfied, the CCPA may issue directions to the trader, manufacturer, endorser, advertiser, or publisher to discontinue such an advertisement, or modify it in a manner specified by the authority, within a given time.

    Penalties:

    1. The authority may also impose a penalty up to Rs 10 lakh, with imprisonment up to two years, on the manufacturer or endorser of false and misleading advertisements.
    2. The penalty may go up to Rs 50 lakh, with imprisonment up to five years, for every subsequent offence committed by the same manufacturer or endorser.
    3. CCPA may ban the endorser of a false or misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any products or services in the future, for a period that may extend to one year.
    4. The ban may extend up to three years in every subsequent violation of the Act.

    What other powers will the CCPA have?

    • While conducting an investigation after preliminary inquiry, officers of the CCPA’s Investigation Wing will have the powers to enter any premise and search for any document or article, and to seize these.
    • For search and seizure, the CCPA will have similar powers given under the provisions of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
    • The CCPA can file complaints of violation of consumer rights or unfair trade practices before the District, State, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
    • It will issue safety notices to alert consumers against dangerous or hazardous or unsafe goods or services.

    Also read:

    https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/five-new-rights-you-get-as-a-consumer/

  • [pib] 22nd Law Commission of India

    The Union Cabinet has approved Twenty-second Law Commission of India for a period of three years from the date of publication of the Order of Constitution in the Official Gazette.

    Law Commission of India

    • It is an executive body established by an order of the Government of India. First law commission of independent India was established post the Independence in 1955
    • Tenure: 3 Years
    • Function: Advisory body to the Ministry of Law and Justice for “Legal Reforms in India”
    • Recommendations: NOT binding
    • First Law Commission was established during the British Raj in 1834 by the Charter Act of 1833
    • Chairman: Macaulay; It recommended for the Codifications of the IPC, CrPC etc.

    Composition

    The 22nd Law Commission will be constituted for a period of three years from the date of publication of its Order in the Official Gazette. It will consist of:

    1. a full-time Chairperson;
    2. four full-time Members (including Member-Secretary)
    3. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs as ex-officio Member;
    4. Secretary, Legislative Department as ex officio Member; and
    5. not more than five part-time Members.

    Terms of reference

    • The Law Commission shall, on a reference made to it by the Central Government or suo-motu, undertake research in law and review of existing laws in India for making reforms therein and enacting new legislations.
    • It shall also undertake studies and research for bringing reforms in the justice delivery systems for elimination of delay in procedures, speedy disposal of cases, reduction in cost of litigation etc.

    The Law Commission of India shall, inter-alia: –

    • identify laws which are no longer needed or relevant and can be immediately repealed
    • examine the existing laws in the light of DPSP and Preamble
    • consider and convey to the Government its views on any subject relating to law and judicial administration that may be specifically referred to it by the Government through Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs);
    • Consider the requests for providing research to any foreign countries as may be referred to it by the Government through the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs);
    • take all such measures as may be necessary to harness law and the legal process in the service of the poor;
    • revise the Central Acts of general importance so as to simplify them and remove anomalies, ambiguities and inequities;

  • Six years on, Lokpal is a non-starter

    Context

    More than six years after the Lokpal law received the President’s assent, the institution of the Lokpal is yet to play any significant role in tackling corruption in the country.

    Delay in appointment

    • Five-year delay in appointment: For more than five years, the chairperson and members of the Lokpal were not appointed.
      • LoP issue: The government claimed that since no one could be recognised as the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) after the 2014 general election, the committee responsible for selecting members of the Lokpal could not be constituted.
      • This malady could have been easily remedied by either recognising the leader of the single largest party in Opposition in the Lok Sabha as the LoP, or by amendment as was done for the selection committee of the CBI Director.
      • However, neither recourse was taken.

    Truncated appointment committee

    • Special invitee: The leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha was invited for meetings of the selection committee as a ‘special invitee’.
      • Which he declined on grounds that it was mere tokenism.

    Non-starter

    • More than 10 months later, however, evidence suggests that the Lokpal is a non-starter.
    • No rules prescribing the form: Till date, the government has not made rules prescribing the form for filing complaints to the Lokpal.
    • No rules regarding asset disclosure: The Central government has also failed to formulate rules regarding asset disclosure by public servants.
    • In order to ensure independent and credible action on allegations of corruption, the Lokpal was empowered under the law to set up its own inquiry wing headed by a Director of Inquiry and its own prosecution wing headed by a Director of Prosecution.
    • The Inquiry and prosecution wing not set up yet: The inquiry and prosecution wings of the anti-corruption ombudsman are yet to be set up.
      • The Lokpal has also not appointed the Director of Inquiry or Prosecution.
      • Regulations for inquiry and investigation not made: Regulations which the Lokpal was obligated to make under the law are yet to be made, including those specifying the manner and procedure of conducting preliminary inquiry and investigation.
    • Legal veracity of the decisions uncertain: Since necessary procedures to operationalise the law are yet to be put in place, the legal veracity of the decisions of the Lokpal could potentially be challenged in a court of law.

    Conclusion

    The failure to operationalise the Lokpal in an effective manner lays bare the lack of will of the government. It took nearly half a century for the Lokpal law to be enacted from the time the need for the oversight institution was first articulated. The government must act to have an effective, independent and empowered Lokpal.

  • [pib] National Commission for Indian System of Medicines

    The Union Cabinet has given its approval for proposal of Official Amendments in the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Bill, 2019 (NCIM) which is pending in the Rajya Sabha.

    About the Commission

    • The main objective of establishing NCIM is to promote equity by ensuring adequate supply of quality medical professionals and enforce high ethical standards in all aspects of medical services in Indian System of Medicine.
    • The Commission will promote availability of affordable healthcare services in all parts of the country.
    • The Commission has been structured to streamline the functions related to academic standards, evaluation, assessment and accreditation of educational institutions pertaining to Indian System of Medicine.

    Composition

    • The NCISM will consist of 29 members, appointed by the central government.
    • A Search Committee will recommend names to the central government for the post of Chairperson, part time members, and presidents of the four autonomous boards set up under the NCISM.
    • These posts will have a maximum term of four years.
    • The Search Committee will consist of five members including the Cabinet Secretary and three experts nominated by the central government (of which two should have experience in any of the fields of Indian System of Medicine).

    Functions

    Functions of the NCISM include:

    • framing policies for regulating medical institutions and medical professionals of Indian System of Medicine,
    • assessing the requirements of healthcare related human resources and infrastructure,
    • ensuring compliance by the State Medical Councils of Indian System of Medicine of the regulations made under the Bill, and
    • ensuring coordination among the autonomous boards set up under the Bill.

  • BCCI Reforms – Lodha Committee, etc.

    Lodha Committee Report: Restoring the glory of the game

    To put an end to excesses and imbalances, corruption and red tape, all of which have harmed the game, the Lodha committee has examined reforms in the working of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to make its functioning transparent.

     

    What is the Lodha committee?

    The Lodha committee was formed in January, 2015 by the Supreme Court after the Mudgal committee report on IPL.

    In its earlier report in July 2015, the Lodha committee delivered its judgement by banning Meiyappan and Kundra for life and suspending the owners of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for 2 years.

    Let’s analyse the report under various dimensions

    The Lodha Committee has suggested sweeping reforms in the structuring and governance of cricket in the country.

     

    Structural Reforms: A major overhaul

    • The committee recommended that a 9-member apex council replace the 14-member BCCI working committee.
    • Each of these office-bearers has a three-year term and can contest for a maximum three terms.
    • The Lodha Committee also calls for dividing the governance into two parts: cricketing and non-cricketing.

    The non-cricketing management will be handled by 6 professional managers headed by a CEO, and the cricket matters like selection, coaching and performance evaluation should be left to the players

    Organisation & Office-bearers: Restrictions imposed

    • Each of these office-bearers has a 3-year term and can contest for a maximum three terms.
    • There will be a mandatory cooling off period after each term. Therefore, no office-bearer can hold office consecutively in a row.
    • No BCCI office-bearer can be Minister or government servant.

    State Cricket Associations: One Vote/State

    The Committee recommended that one association should represent an entire state and only one vote per state.

    Indian Premier League: Maintain distance

    • It recommends separate governing bodies for the IPL and BCCI.
    • There should be a 15-day gap between IPL season and national calender.

    Betting: Legalize it

    • It made a strong recommendation to lawmakers to legalise betting in cricket for all except cricket players, officials and administrators.
    • The players and others banned officials should disclose their assets to BCCI in a measure to ensure that they do not bet.

    Betting is a $ 400 billion phenomenon practised across the globe and lawmakers in India should enact laws to legalise it.

    Fixing: Criminalize it

    The committee said that match-and spot-fixing should be made a criminal offence.

    Conflict of Interest & Corruption

    • One individual hold only one post in cricket administration. The office-bearers would have to choose between positions in respective state associations and the parent body.
    • A former High Court judge should be appointed as ethics officer by the BCCI to administer issues relating to conflict of interest, misdemeanour and corruption.
    • A former Supreme Court judge should be appointed ombudsman to resolve internal disputes.

    Transparency: Bringing RTI to BCCI

    It recommended that the Legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act

    Securing player’s interest

    • It recommended the setting up of a Players’ Association to safeguard the interests of the cricketers.
    • The report said players that are the driving force of the game, but they had been reduced to the status of employees and subordinates of those governing the game.
    • The idea is to give players voice, use their expertise and skills for the development and betterment of the game

    Women Cricket: Often ignored by BCCI

    The Women’s Cricket Committee to be formed to exclusively pay attention to this much ignored department, along with Women’s Selection Committee.

    The proposed measures could radically alter the way the BCCI functions as well as vastly improve its public image and impart much-needed credibility.

     

    Published with inputs from Pushpendra