Law for Rain Water Harvesting - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Law for Rain Water Harvesting.

As per information received from Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, the Model Building Bye

Laws, 2016, has been issued for guidance of the States/UTs which has a chapter on ‘Rainwater Harvesting’.
33 States/UTs have adopted the rainwater harvesting provisions. The provisions of this chapter are applicable to all the buildings. The implementation of the rainwater harvesting policy comes within the purview of the State Government/Urban Local Body / Urban Development Authority. As per Model Building Bye Laws- 2016, provision of rainwater harvesting is applicable to all residential plots above 100 sq.m.

In order to regulate the Over-exploitation and consequent depletion of ground water, the Ministry has circulated a Model Bill to all the States/UTs to enable them to enact suitable ground water legislation for regulation of its development, which includes provision of rain water harvesting. So far, 15 States/UTs have adopted and implemented the ground water legislation on the lines of Model Bill.
Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) has been constituted under Section 3(3) of the ‘Environment (Protection) Act, 1986’ for the purpose of regulation and control of ground water development and management in the Country. CGWA is regulating ground water withdrawal by industries / infrastructure/ mining projects in the country for which guidelines/ criteria have been framed which includes rainwater harvesting as one of the provisions while issuing No Objection Certificate.
Water being a State subject, initiatives on water management including conservation and water harvesting in the Country is primarily States’ responsibility. However, the important measures taken by the Central Government for conservation, management of ground water and effective implementation of rain water harvesting in the country are at the following URL: http://mowr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Steps_to_control_water_depletion_Jun2019.pdf.
This information was given by the Union Minister of State for Jal Shakti & Social Justice and Empowerment, Shri Rattan Lal Kataria in a written reply in Lok Sabha today. (Source: pib)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Law for Rain Water Harvesting.

Government plans new law to protect foreign investment - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Government plans new law to protect foreign investment.

The draft proposal is aimed at diffusing investor mistrust around the sanctity of agreements, which has worsened recently after some state governments decided to review approved projects, or threatened to cancel contracts

India is planning a new law to safeguard foreign investment by speeding up dispute resolution, aiming to attract more capital from overseas to boost stuttering domestic growth, two officials with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
In a 40-page initial draft, India's finance ministry has proposed appointing a mediator and setting up fast-track courts to settle disputes between investors and the government, one of the sources said.
"The idea is to attract and promote foreign investment, but a major issue for investors is enforcement of contracts and speedy dispute resolution," said the official.
The draft proposal is aimed at diffusing investor mistrust around the sanctity of agreements, which has worsened recently after some state governments decided to review approved projects, or threatened to cancel contracts.
Both officials declined to be named as the proposal is not public, and is still being assessed by different ministries and regulators.
A spokesman for the finance ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
Foreign investors have highlighted the enforcement of contracts as one of their biggest concerns, said the second official, adding that improving on this front would also reduce litigation for the government.
While investors can still rely on the existing legal system to settle disputes, it often takes several years for cases to be decided or settled.
Investors previously had an option to take India to international arbitration courts under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) the government had agreed with dozens of nations. But, after suffering setbacks in overseas arbitration matters, India has allowed most of its treaties to lapse, giving investors little to fall back on in case of major disputes.
BITs are agreements between two countries that give foreign investors protections, and among other things, legal recourse via international arbitration in disputes with a government.
India is entangled in more than 20 such overseas arbitration cases - the most against any country - brought by companies including Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom and Nissan Motor Co for disputes over retrospective tax claims and breach of contracts.
If India loses these cases, brought before most of its BITs lapsed, it could end up paying billions of dollars in damages.
The government's thinking is that India may not need to sign investment treaties with other nations if the new law, which is modelled on a BIT, can give confidence to investors, said the first source. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Government plans new law to protect foreign investment

Govt notifies rules under insolvency law for resolution of fin service providers - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Govt notifies rules under insolvency law for resolution of fin service providers.

• The corporate affairs ministry has notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2019,
• It will provide a generic framework for insolvency and liquidation proceedings of systemically important Financial Service Providers (FSPs) other than banks
The government on Friday notified rules under the insolvency law to deal with resolution of financial service providers, excluding banks.

The corporate affairs ministry has notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2019 (Rules).
It will provide a generic framework for insolvency and liquidation proceedings of systemically important Financial Service Providers (FSPs) other than banks, an official statement said.
"The special framework provided under Section 227 of the Code for financial service providers is essentially aimed at serving as an interim mechanism to deal with any exigency pending introduction of a full-fledged enactment to deal with financial resolution of banks and other systemically important financial service providers," it said.
The move also comes against the backdrop of instances of various FSPs facing problems. (Source: Livemint)


The above Article can also be read full Article:

Govt notifies rules under insolvency law for resolution of fin service providers.

MPs, MLAs can practice law during their elected tenure: SC - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

MPs, MLAs can practice law during their elected tenure: SC.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said Bar Council of India rules do not prohibit legislators from practising as lawyers.

The Supreme Court Tuesday said there were no restrictions on MPs and MLAs practicing law and that Rule 49 was not applicable to law-makers who are not full time salaried employees. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said Bar Council of India rules do not prohibit legislators from practising as lawyers.
The court had earlier in July reserved its order while hearing petitions filed by NGO Public Interest Foundation and Delhi BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, among others.
Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General K K Venugopal had told the court during the hearing that the judiciary cannot get into law-making, which is reserved for the legislature. Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Upadhyay, had told the court that a lawmaker draws a salary from the public exchequer and a salaried employee is debarred by the Bar Council of India from practising in the courts of law.
To this, the bench had replied that employment postulates a master-servant relationship and the government of India is not the master of a Member of Parliament.(Source: The Indian Express)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

MPs, MLAs can practice law during their elected tenure: SC.

Section 377 based on law passed by Henry VIII in 1533 - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Section 377 based on law passed by Henry VIII in 1533.

The Supreme Court, which unanimously struck down part of the British-era law that criminalised gay sex, has traced the history of the 158-year-old provision in its judgement back to the reign of King Henry VIII in 1533.

A five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malohtra said that the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) violated the constitutional right to equality and dignity.
Justices Nariman and Chandrachud, in their separate concurring judgements, dealt in detail about the evolution of the section as it exists in the present form. Justice Nariman said section 377 was modelled on the Britain’s Buggery Act of 1533 which was brought in by the then king Henry VIII which prohibited “the detestable and abominable offence” of buggery (anal intercourse) committed with mankind or beast.
The word “buggery” is derived from the old French word “bougre” and was taken to mean anal intercourse, Justice Chandrachud said in his judgement. “The Buggery Act, 1533, which was enacted by Henry VIII, made the offence of buggery punishable by death, and continued to exist for nearly 300 years before it was repealed and replaced by the Offences against the Person Act, 1828. Buggery, however, remained a capital offence in England until 1861, one year after the enactment of the IPC,” Justice Chandrachud said.
He said that Section 377 was allowed to operate in Independent India as under Article 372 (1) “all laws in force prior to the commencement of the Constitution shall continue to be in force until altered or repealed”. Justice Nariman said 8,921 men were indicted between 1806 and 1900 for “sodomy, gross indecency or other unnatural misdemeanours” in England and Wales.
On an average, ninety men per year were indicted for homosexual offences during this period, he said. “Most of the men convicted were imprisoned, but between 1806 and 1861, when the death penalty for sodomy was finally abolished, 404 men were sentenced to death. Fifty-six were executed, and the remainder were either imprisoned or transported to Australia for life,” he said.
Referring to the rule of East India Company in the country, Justice Nariman said the then Parliament had established the Indian Law Commission and in 1833, Thomas Babington Macaulay was appointed as its head. Justice Nariman wrote that Lord Macaulay’s draft was substantially different from what was finally enacted as Section 377.
He wrote that even in the most “prudish of all periods of English history”, Lord Macaulay had recognised a lesser sentence for the crime of “unnatural lust”, if performed with consent. After several reviews of the draft, the Commission concluded that the Draft Penal Code was sufficiently complete, and, with slight modifications, fit to be acted upon, noted Justice Nariman in his 96-page judgement.
“The revised edition of the Penal Code was then forwarded to the Judges of the Supreme Court at Calcutta in 1851, and also to the Judges of the Sudder Court at Calcutta. “A Council was formed with Bethune (the Legislative member of the Legislative Council of India), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at Calcutta, Justice Buller, Justice Colvile, Sir Barnes Peacock as members to review the Penal Code,” Justice Nariman wrote.
He noted that it was the Committee of Peacock which finally sent the draft equivalent of Section 377 for enactment, said Justice Nariman. After twenty-five years of revision, IPC entered into force on January 1, 1862. The IPC was the first codified criminal code in the British Empire. Justice Nariman, who wrote a separate concurring verdict, referred to Irish poet Oscar Wilde and said his trial paved the way to consider the law and practice relating to homosexual offences in Victorian era England.


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Section 377 based on law passed by Henry VIII in 1533.

One Nation one poll: Law panel refers to UK Act before finalising report - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

One Nation one poll: Law panel refers to UK Act before finalising report .

United Kingdom may be a favourite destination for Indian economic offenders seeking refuge in the country, but its recently-enacted Act on fixed-term elections may prove to be handy for India. Before finalising its draft report on ‘One Nation, One Election’, the Law Commission had referred to the UK’s ‘The Fixed-term Parliaments Act, 2011’.

People with the knowledge of the matter told ET that the said Act was studied in detail since it answers several questions relating to fixed terms for Parliament and state assemblies. Incidentally, this is one of the chief objections raised by several political parties during the ongoing consultations with the commission. The common argument raised by the parties is that the proposed idea of ‘One Nation, One Election’ is “against the federal arrangement”.
However, the commission is of the view that the “chain” of simultaneous elections continued in the country for two decades, after Independence up to 1967. The dissolution of certain state assemblies in 1968 and 1969 followed by dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1970 lead to “disruption of simultaneous elections”.
Thus, the panel is of the view that if Parliament decides in favour of ‘One Nation, One Election’, it will “restore the chain of simultaneous elections”.
However, for such a restoration the system will have to provide that elections in a state can be conducted for the rest of the term. For instance, if after imposition of simultaneous elections, an elected government in a state has three years of mandate left, then elections may be conducted for the remainder of the term.
“It will be both factually incorrect and unfair to allege that the concept of simultaneous elections is against federalism. Our republic commenced with simultaneous elections which lasted for over two decades. If, at all, ‘One Nation, One Election’ were to become a reality, it would be only restoring the broken chain of simultaneous elections,” said a senior official.
On the second day of consultations with the commission, JDU, SP and Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) argued in favour of ‘One Nation, One Election’. In a letter written to the commission’s Chairman, K Chandrashekar Rao of TRS stoutly supported the concept.
While backing simultaneous polls, SP insisted that it should be put into force from this year. Buoyed by the success in Uttar Pradesh bypolls, the party has told the commission that SP will support the proposal provided it is implemented before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Telugu Desam Party, All India Forward Bloc and Goa Forward Party have opposed the proposal.
DMK too opposed it saying the concept is against the basic tenets of the Constitution. ET had reported on July 7 that TMC and CPI have written to the commission arguing against simultaneous polls.
It might be mentioned here that the Niti Aayog has also advocated “fixed tenures” for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. As first reported by ET on April 18, the Aayog had also cited the said Act of the UK to buttress its point of “fixed tenures”. (Source: The Economic Times)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

One Nation one poll: Law panel refers to UK Act before finalising report."

Allow gambling in sports but regulate it, says Law Commission of India - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Allow gambling in sports but regulate it, says Law Commission of India.

Suggests that the revenue generated can be used for public welfare activities.

The Law Commission of India on Thursday submitted a report to the government, saying that since it is impossible to stop illegal gambling, the only viable option left is to “regulate” gambling in sports.
The commission, headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan, recommended “cashless” gambling in sports as a means to increase revenue and deal a blow to unlawful gambling.
The money generated can be used for public welfare activities, it said. For that the revenue from gambling should be taxable under laws like the Income Tax Act and the Goods and Services Tax Act.
Linked to Aadhaar
Transactions between gamblers and operators should be linked to their Aadhaar and PAN cards so that the government could keep an eye on them, the panel said.
The commission recommended a classification of ‘proper gambling’ and ‘small gambling.’ ‘Proper gambling’ would be for the rich who play for high stakes, while ‘small gambling’ would be for the low income groups, it said.
The panel wanted the government to introduce a cap on the number of gambling transactions for each individual, that is, monthly, half-yearly and annual. Restrictions on amount should be prescribed while using electronic money facilities like credit cards, debit cards, and net banking. Gambling websites should not solicit pornography, it said.

Regulations needed to protect vulnerable groups, minors and those below poverty line, those who draw their sustenance from social welfare measures, government subsidies and Jan Dhan account holders from exploitation through gambling, the panel said.
According to the commission, Foreign Exchange Management and Foreign Direct Investment laws and policies should be amended to encourage investment in the casino/online gaming industry. This would propel tourism and employment, it said.
However, one of the members, Professor S. Sivakumar, expressed strong dissent in a separate note filed with the government. He said the commission report was not “comprehensive.” A country as poor as India should not allow ‘legalised gambling’ on its soil. He said such a move would leave the poor poorer and only vested interests wanted legalisation of gambling.
Mr. Sivakumar criticised the commission for exceeding the brief given to it by the Supreme Court in 2016. The court had merely asked the commission to look into the narrow question of legalising betting in cricket and not sports as a whole. The court’s reference had come in its judgment in the BCCI case involving illegal betting in IPL cricket matches. The dissenting note said the “recommendation may lead to an unhealthy and unwarranted discussion.”
Panel cites Mahabharat
But the commission report tooka page out of epic Mahabharat to justify its call for regulation of gambling.
“There is merit in the argument that, had gambling been regulated at the time of the Mahabharat, Yudhishtir could not have staked his wife and brothers in a gamble,” the report signed by Justice Chauhan and five other commission members observed.
The commission said that even as Indian society had traditionally frowned upon gambling, the argument made for ‘revenue over morality’ lacked merit. It reasoned that online gambling and betting have acquired a global presence.
“Such activities, if properly regulated would ensure transparency in the market, as also strike at the underworld’s control over the illegal and unregulated gambling industry. Additionally, revenue so generated by regulating and taxing betting and gambling may become a good source of revenue, which in turn, could be used for public welfare,” the commission report said. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Allow gambling in sports but regulate it, says Law Commission of India.