SC rules out review of Aadhaar order, with one dissent: on money Bill - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

SC rules out review of Aadhaar order, with one dissent: on money Bill.

The Aadhaar Bill had been certified by the government as a money Bill, enabling it to get it cleared without getting the assent of a majority in the Rajya Sabha. A five-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had upheld the Aadhaar Act in a 4:1 ruling on September 26, 2018.

The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking a review of its 2018 judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, with Justice D Y Chandrachud dissenting saying the Court should wait till a larger Bench decides the question of certification of a Bill as money Bill before deciding the review petitions.

The Aadhaar Bill had been certified by the government as a money Bill, enabling it to get it cleared without getting the assent of a majority in the Rajya Sabha. A five-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had upheld the Aadhaar Act in a 4:1 ruling on September 26, 2018.

The January 11 order was given by a five-judge Bench, comprising apart from Justice Chandrachud, Justices A M Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, Abdul Nazeer and B R Gavai. The majority judgment said, “We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed.”

In his dissenting judgment, Justice Chandrachud said two of the “critical questions” dealt with by the Aadhaar ruling were “whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People… to certify a bill as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110(1) is final and binding, or can be subject to judicial review; and… if the decision is subject to judicial review, whether the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (the Aadhaar Act), had been correctly certified as a ‘Money Bill’”.

The issue whether judicial review can be exercised over a decision of the Speaker had arisen subsequently before another Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd. This was in the context of whether some provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 (relating to appointments to tribunals and the conditions of service of members), could have been certified as a money Bill. That judgment had said that the Speaker’s decision was not beyond judicial review though the scope was extremely restricted. It had also said that the 2018 Aadhaar verdict had not answered conclusively the question as to what constitutes a money Bill under Article 110 (1) and had directed that it be referred to a larger Bench.

Justice Chandrachud referred to this, saying the larger Bench to decide what constitutes a money Bill and the extent of judicial review over a certification by the Speaker was yet to be constituted. “Dismissing the present batch of review petitions at this stage — a course of action adopted by the majority — would place a seal of finality on the issues in the present case, without the Court having the benefit of the larger Bench’s consideration of the very issues which arise before us… With the doubt expressed by another Constitution Bench on the correctness of the very decision which is the subject matter of these review petitions, it is a constitutional error to hold at this stage that no ground exists to review the judgment,” he said, adding that a larger Bench’s determination “would have an undeniable impact” on the validity of reasons given by the Aadhaar ruling pertaining to the certification by the Speaker.

ustice Chandrachud also referred to the Sabarimala case where a nine-judge Bench in February 2020 had referred certain questions of law arising in the context of an earlier decision by a five-judge Bench in September 2019 to a larger Bench while keeping the review petitions pending.

“If these review petitions (in the Aadhaar matter) are to be dismissed and the larger Bench reference in Rojer Mathew were to disagree with the analysis of the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (the Aadhaar case), it would have serious consequences — not just for judicial discipline, but also for the ends of justice. As such, the present batch of review petitions should be kept pending until the larger Bench decides the questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew,” he said. (Source: The Indian Express)

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

SC rules out review of Aadhaar order, with one dissent: on money Bill.

Countries agree rules for implementing Paris climate treaty at UN summit - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Countries agree rules for implementing Paris climate treaty at UN summit.

Delegates from nearly 200 states finalised a common rule book designed to deliver the Paris goals of limiting global temperature rises to well below two degrees Celsius.

Nations on Sunday struck a deal to implement the landmark 2015 Paris climate treaty after marathon UN talks that failed to match the ambition the world’s most vulnerable countries need to avert dangerous global warming.
Delegates from nearly 200 states finalised a common rule book designed to deliver the Paris goals of limiting global temperature rises to well below two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit). “Putting together the Paris agreement work programme is a big responsibility,” said COP24 president Michal Kurtyka as he gavelled through the manual following the talks in Poland that ran deep into overtime.
“It has been a long road. We did our best to leave no-one behind.” But environmental groups said the package agreed in the Polish mining city of Katowice lacked the bold ambition needed to protect states already dealing with devastating floods, droughts and extreme weather made worse by climate change.
“We continue to witness an irresponsible divide between the vulnerable island states and impoverished countries pitted against those who would block climate action or who are immorally failing to act fast enough,” executive director of Greenpeace Jennifer Morgan said.
The final decision text was repeatedly delayed as negotiators sought guidelines that are effective in warding off the worst threats posed by our heating planet while protecting the economies of rich and poor nations alike.
“Without a clear rulebook, we won’t see how countries are tracking, whether they are actually doing what they say they are doing,” Canada’s Environment Minister Catherine McKenna told AFP.
At their heart, negotiations were about how each nation funds action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as how those actions are reported.
Developing nations wanted more clarity from richer ones over how the future climate fight will be funded and pushed for so-called “loss and damage” measures.
This would see richer countries giving money now to help deal with the effects of climate change many vulnerable states are already experiencing.
Another contentious issue was the integrity of carbon markets, looking ahead to the day when the patchwork of distinct exchanges -- in China, the Europe Union, parts of the United States -- may be joined up in a global system.
“To tap that potential, you have to get the rules right,” said Alex Hanafi, lead counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund in the United States.
“One of those key rules -- which is the bedrock of carbon markets -- is no double counting of emissions reductions.” The Paris Agreement calls for setting up a mechanism to guard against practices that could undermine such a market, but finding a solution has proved so problematic that the debate has been kicked down the road to next year.
One veteran observer told AFP Poland’s presidency at COP24 had left many countries out of the process and presented at-risk nations with a “take it or leave it” deal.
Progress had “been held up by Brazil, when it should have been held up by the small islands. It’s tragic.” One of the largest disappointments for countries of all wealths and sizes was the lack of ambition to reduce emissions shown in the final COP24 text.
Most nations wanted the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to form a key part of future planning.
It highlighted the need for carbon pollution to be slashed to nearly half by 2030 in order to hit the 1.5C target.
But the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait objected, leading to watered-down wording.
The final statement from the Polish COP24 presidency welcomed “the timely conclusion” of the report and invited “parties to make use of it” -- hardly the ringing endorsement many nations had called for.
“There’s been a shocking lack of response to the 1.5 report,” Morgan told AFP. “You can’t come together and say you can’t do more!” With UN talks well into their third decade sputtering on as emissions rise remorselessly, activists have stepped up grassroots campaigns of civil disobedience to speed up action on climate.
“We are not a one-off protest, we are a rebellion,” a spokesman for the Extinction Rebellion movement, which disrupted at least one ministerial event at the COP, told AFP.
“We are organising for repeated disruption, and we are targeting our governments, calling for the system change needed to deal with the crisis that we are facing.” (Source: Livemint)


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

Countries agree rules for implementing Paris climate treaty at UN summit.

Centre amends rules for minorities from three nations - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Centre amends rules for minorities from three nations.

Citizenship form will have a separate column for them.

The contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, is pending in Parliament, but the Union Home Ministry has notified amendments to the Citizenship Rules, 2009, to include a separate column in the citizenship form for applicants belonging to six minority communities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Under the amendments, a separate entry in the form will ask the applicant: “Do you belong to one of the minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Sikhs and Christians?” The Centre has made the changes under Section 18 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. New rules were notified on December 3.
A parliamentary committee has been examining the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, that proposes citizenship to six persecuted minorities — Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Buddhists — from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who came to India before 2014. It has run into strong resistance in the BJP-ruled Assam because it will pave the way for giving citizenship mostly to illegal Hindu migrants from Bangladesh in Assam, who came after March 1971, in violation of the 1985 Assam Accord.
Excluded from NRC
Around 40 lakh people in Assam have been excluded from the final draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) published on July 30. Last month, the Home Ministry re-notified rules empowering 44 Collectors in seven States, except Assam, to accept online applications from those belonging to the six communities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.
These rules were first notified in 2015.
Rajendra Agarwal, BJP MP and chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, told The Hindu that the Home Ministry had to carry out day-to-day works and the amended rules would benefit those who escaped persecution. “The amended rules are not in violation of the work of the parliamentary committee. It is done to provide relief to the people. The decision to grant them citizenship will be cleared by Parliament,” he said.
Since 2011, nearly 30,000 Pakistanis, mostly Hindus, have been granted long-term visas.(Source: The Hindu)


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

Centre amends rules for minorities from three nations.

PAN card rules to change from this Wednesday. List of new amendments in Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

PAN card rules to change from this Wednesday. List of new amendments in Income Tax Rules, 1962.

The government has amended Income Tax Rules, 1962, and has inserted new clauses. According to the new rules, having a PAN card is mandatory for all entities doing business of at least Rs 2.5 lakh. The second amendment allows those with single mothers to not mention their father’s name in PAN card application forms.

PAN card rules will no more be the same from this Wednesday as the Income Tax department has brought in some important changes aimed at preventing tax evasion and allowing new PAN card applicants greater flexibility. According to a notification issued by the finance ministry on November 19, the new amendment to Income Tax Rules, 1962, will come into force from December 5.
According to the new rules, it will now be compulsory for all entities doing business worth at least Rs 2.5 lakh in a financial year to get a PAN card till 31st May of the next financial year.
All you need to know about changes in PAN card rules:
1. It will be compulsory for all entities doing financial transactions of more than Rs 2.5 lakh to get a Permanent Account Number from December 5. This is seen as a step towards preventing tax evasion in smaller business entities.
2. The rule may apply to individual taxpayers also but only if they are associated with such entities in the capacity of a managing director, director, partner, trustee, author, founder, karta, chief executive officer, principal officer or office-bearer or any person competent to act on behalf of the entity. In case such individuals do not have PAN, they are supposed to get one within 31st May of the next financial year.
3. Tax experts say so far resident entities were asked to obtain PAN even if the total sales or turnover or gross receipts are not or are not likely to exceed Rs 5 lakh in a financial year. The new rule is meant to help the income tax department track financial transactions, broaden the tax base and prevent tax evasion.
4.The other important amendment in the rule is meant for those whose mother is a single parent. Such PAN card applicants will no longer be asked to furnish father’s name. Till now, mentioning father’s name is mandatory in PAN card applications. Applicants, however, had the freedom to choose whose name they want printed on the PAN card — father’s or mother’s.
5. The second amendment is meant to address the concerns of those PAN card applicants whose fathers are either estranged or dead.


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

PAN card rules to change from this Wednesday. List of new amendments in Income Tax Rules, 1962.

No NOTA in Rajya Sabha elections, rules Supreme Court - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

No NOTA in Rajya Sabha elections, rules Supreme Court.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed that the NOTA option is applicable only for direct elections and not the Rajya Sabha polls.

The Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that the None of The Above (NOTA) option cannot be made available in Rajya Sabha elections. A three-judge bench of CJI Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud observed that the NOTA option is applicable only for direct elections and not indirect elections such as the Rajya Sabha polls.

The top court, while hearing the petition of Gujarat Congress leader Shailesh Manubhai Parmar, had earlier said that by introducing NOTA, the poll panel was legitimising the act of not voting. Justice Chandrachud had pointed out that the rule in Upper House polls was an open ballot and the members by not transferring their excess vote to the next member would be violating the contract between parties. “If he doesn’t vote, party will expel him. But by making option of NOTA, you are legitimising his action,” added Justice Chandrachud.
Parmar had challenged the Election Commission’s notification allowing the NOTA option in ballot papers during the last Rajya Sabha polls, in which the party had fielded sitting MP Ahmed Patel. The Congress leader had alleged that if the NOTA provision was allowed in the Rajya Sabha polls, it would encourage “horse-trading and corruption”. The Centre has come out in support of the petition, while EC is opposing it.
Defending the use of NOTA, the EC said a member had the right not to vote and that would not be against the conduct of election rules or unconstitutional. The poll panel had said NOTA was first introduced in 2014 following an apex court verdict a year earlier and they (the Congress) did not have any objection in subsequent polls as it suited them. (Source: The Indian Express)


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

No NOTA in Rajya Sabha elections, rules Supreme Court.