CAG REPORT ON COAL BLOCKS AUCTIONING

According to comptroller and auditor general’s draft report titled ‘Performance Audit Of Coal Block Allocations’, the government lost Rs10.67 lakh crore by not auctioning coal blocks between 2004 and 2009. 155 coal blocks were given to commercial entities without auction between2004 and 2009 thereby causing the exchequer a loss of Rs 10.67 lakh crore at 31 March 2011 prices . The estimated loss is six times higher than the loss figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore suffered for the 2G scam. The government extended undue benefits totalling a mind-boggling Rs 10.67 lakh crore to commercial entities between 2004 and 2009.The beneficiaries include some 100private companies, as well assome public sector units, in industries such as power, steel and cement. An estimate of the cost of production for each block was arrived at first by taking into account the actual cost of production in a similar Coal India mine for the same year. Difference between CIL’s sale price and cost of production was then multiplied by 90% of the reserves in each block. The figure obtained was the windfall gain for that block. CAG also specified the reason behind taking 90% of the total reserves rather than the entire lot. According to CAG, detailed exploration establishes reserves at a confidence level of 90%. CAG report listed both private entities and public utilities as beneficiaries of the alleged largesse. private companies were believed to have benefited more than Rs 4.79 lakh crore of the giveaway, while around Rs 5.88 lakh crore went to central and state government utilities. The list did not name Reliance Power, which is setting up the Sasan and Tilaiya ultra mega power projects. Reliance Power is missing from the listbecause the section on Wind fall benefit to private companies does not include 12 coal blocks given for the government’s showpiece power projects since they were allocated through a tariff based competitive bidding route.

25% OF DELIVERIES BY UNTRAINEDHANDS IN 2010 IN INDIA

According to the registrar general of India’s latest Sample Registration System (SRS) 2010data, two in 10 women in India received medical attention by a qualified professional in 2010while delivering at home. It was noted that fewer women in urban India received medical attention while delivering at home than inrural India — 10.8% against16.2%. Nearly 1 in 4 births overall were attended by untrained functionaries. Delivery by untrained functionaries were found to vary from as high as53.5% in Jharkhand to as low as0.2% in Kerala. More women were noted to have delivered in government hospitals (41%) as against private hospitals (19.4%).Kerala recorded the highest deliveries in private hospitals while Odisha recorded the least. Tamil Nadu recorded the highest number of women who delivered in a government hospital while Jharkhand recorded the least(19%). 55% of women in Delhi delivered in government hospitals while 23% went to private hospitals. 17% of births at home were carried out by a qualified professional. Deliveries conducted by a qualified professional at home were as lo was 4.5% in Maharashtra. Untrained functionary deliveries were as high as 47% in Bihar, 35%in UP, 25% in West Bengal and27% in Madhya Pradesh. Institutional deliveries (children being born in health centres or hospitals and not in their homes) were found to have picked up in India. As per the data released, more than three-fourths of deliveries in India were found to be occurring in institutional andby qualified professionals at present. Several states recorded very low births by untrained functionaries. They include Kerala(0.2%), Tamil Nadu (0.9%),Andhra Pradesh (1%), Punjab(2.6%), Delhi (5.3%), Gujarat(8.8%), Haryana (6.3%) and Karnataka (9.3%). Rural regions in several states recorded high ratesof delivery in private hospitals. Like Kerala, where 52% of birth sin rural settings took place in a private hospital, followed by 35%in Andhra, 23% in Delhi, 36% in Gujarat, 32% in Haryana, 20% in Karnataka, 36% in Maharashtra,35% in Punjab and 24% in TN.

ELECTION COMMISSION’S POLL SYMBOL RULES UPHELD

Supreme Court of India on 18April 2012 upheld Election commission’s poll symbol rules, which entitled a political party the status of state party and common symbol for its candidates only if it secures not less than 6 percent of the total votes polled in a state and returns at least two members to the assembly. The court dismissed the petitions, which challenged the poll symbols order as discriminatory. The petition shad challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 6 B of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order on the basis that although smaller political parties secured less than 6 percent votes, they were able to get two candidates elected to assembly. Election commission of India amended the Election Symbols Order, 1968 in December2000(inserting clause 6 B) to set the benchmarks for a political part to get Election Commission’s recognition as political party.

AMENDMENT IN THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS ACT, 1969BILL APPROVED

The Union Cabinet on 12April 2012 gave its approval to the introduction of a Bill seeking an amendment in the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to include registration of marriages as well, so that the existing
administrative mechanisms will be able to carry out such registration of marriages in accordance with the specified procedures and be able to maintain necessary records and statistics for registration of marriages also. The Cabinet also approved introducing a Bill in Parliament to further amend the Anand Marriage Act, 1909 to provide for registration of marriages under the Act. The proposed Bill is set to benefit the women from unnecessary
harassment in matrimonial and maintenance cases. It also seeks to provide evidentiary value in the matters of custody of children, right of children born from the wedlock of the two persons whose marriage is registered and the age of the parties to the marriage.

UNION CABINET GAVE ITS APPROVAL TO THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BILL

Union Cabinet on 12 April 2012 gave its nod to the Public Procurement Bill. The bill is aimed at bringing transparency in the bidding process for public procurement. The bill will regulate the government purchases of
above 50 lakh rupees through a transparent bidding process. At present there is no legislation exists governing public procurement by the central government and central public  sector enterprises. The General Financial Rules, 2005, govern procurements made by the Centre. The present bill provides for a jail term ranging from six months to five years for public servants found guilty of demanding and accepting bribes from bidders of government contracts. The legislation is largely based on the suggestions made by Committee on Public Procurement headed by former bureaucrat Vinod Dhall which were accepted by a Group of Ministers to tackle corruption on 22 February 2012. The GoM headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee had sent the bill for the approval of the Union Cabinet.

SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE RTE ACT, 2009

The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which mandates 25 per cent free seats to the poor in government and private unaided schools uniformly across the country. The apex court clarified that its judgment will come into force from 12 April 2012. However, the act will apply uniformly to government and unaided private schools except unaided private minority schools. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swantanter Kumar gave the ruling. The bench had reserved its verdict on 3August 2012 on a batch of petitions by private unaided institutions which had contended that the section 12 (1)(c) of RTE Act violates the rights of private educational institutions under Article 19(1) (g)which provided autonomy to private managements to run their institutions without governmental interference. Right to Education Act (RTE) was passed by the Indian parliament on 4 August 2009.The act came into force on 1 April 2010. It has the provision of free and compulsory education for children between 6 and 14 in India under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child. Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE act says that every recognized
school imparting elementary education is obliged to admit underprivileged children even if it is not aiaded by the government to meet its expenses.

MEDIA SHOULD NOT REPORT ON MOVEMENT OF TROOPS

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court directed the Union government of India  and the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure that there is no reporting on movement of troops by the print or electronic media. Acting on a PIL, a bench comprising justices Uma Nath Singh and Virendra Kumar Dixit ruled that the issue of movement of army troops does not require public discussion at the cost of defence secrecy and the security
of the country. The court, however, dismissed the plea for a high-level probe into the report by a national daily alleging unusual movement of troops on the night of 16 January 2012, the day the Army Chief Gen VK Singh
approached the Supreme Court on the issue of his date of Birth.

SUPREME COURT SOUGHT DETAILS OF 18 MERCY PLEA PENDING BEFORE THE PRESIDENT

The Supreme Court of India on 3 April 2012 directed the Union government to provide records of all 18 mercy pleas, pending before the President of India. The court asked Additional Solicitor- General Harin Raval to furnish details of all the mercy pleas pending consideration before the President for periods ranging  from one to seven years. A Supreme Court bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya also asked Ram Jethmalani, amicus curiae, to file written submissions on “whether the President should objectively apply mind while deciding mercy petitions”. The apex court observed that the role of the state was perhaps advisory and the final verdict lies with the President. The court directions came while hearing a plea filed by death convict Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, challenging the undue delay in disposal of his mercy petition by the President.

CVC RECONSTITUTED THE ADVISORY BOARD

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 29 March 2012, reconstituted the advisory board on bank, commercial and financial frauds. The board, with former Deputy Governor of RBI Shyamala Gopinath as its
chairman, will help CBI in investigating cases of bank, commercial and financial frauds. The six-member board, which is the part of the organizational set up of CBI, will have a tenure of two years. The board will be
provided with the operational funding by the RBI. The other members on the reconstituted board include retired Indian Administrative Service officer Vivek Mehrotra, retired Indian Police Service officer Balwinder
Singh, former Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Maharashtra, A S Bhattacharya, ex Executive Director of Corporation Bank, Asit Pal and Chartered Accountant, T N Manoharan.

SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO PASS ORDER ON CLEMENCY PETITION

The Supreme Court of India on 30 March 2012 refused to pass any order on a mercy petition in the death sentence to Balwant Singh Rajoana, awarded death sentence for assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister
Beant Singh. A Supreme Court Bench of Justices T S Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra observed that since the convict has not filed any petition before the court and the petitioner Abhinav Ramakrishna has no locus standi to plead on his behalf, the court can not pass any order in the clemency petition. Petitioner Abhinav Ramakrishna, an advocate, was told by the court that since petition was filed under Article 32, it cannot be entertained
as in no way, any fundamental right of the petitioner was violated. The bench ruled that the Article 32 of Indian Constitution could only be invoked by a person whose fundamental right is violated.

UNION CABINET APPROVED THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010

The Union Cabinet of India on 23 March 2012 approved the redrafted Marriage laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010. The bill seeks to give a woman share in her husband’s property in case of a divorce but the quantum of share
will be decided by the courts on case by case basis. It also aims at giving rights to adopted children on par with biological off-springs. According to the redrafted bill, adopted children will have rights on par with biological off-springs of a couple in case the parents go for a divorce. It is important to note that all these changes in the bill were based on the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice
and Personnel. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in August 2010 and then it was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and Personnel. Earlier, The Union Cabinet of India on 10 June 2010 had approved the introduction of a Bill, namely, the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to further amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to provide therein irretrievable break down of marriage as a ground of divorce. The Bill would provide safeguards to parties to marriage who file petition for grant of divorce by consent from the harassment in court if any of the party does not come to the court or try to avoid the court to keep the divorce proceedings inconclusive.

THE UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NOTIFIED NCTC

The Union Government of India notified the setting up of the anti-terror body called National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC). NCTC will have the power to carry out operations including arrest, search and seizure. It will draw its functional power of search and seizures under the provisions of the UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It will work as an integral part of Intelligence bureau. The notification mandates the terrorfighting
agencies to share their inputs with NCTC and it also appoints the director and his core team. Director of NCTC will have full functional autonomy and he will have the power to seek information on terror from National Investigation Agency, NATGRID, intelligence units of CBI, National Technical Research Organisation and directorate of revenue intelligence in addition to all seven central armed police forces including NSG. He will report to the IB chief and the home ministry. The notification was issued under the Article 73 of the Constitution of India.

CARETAKERS CAN’T CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY

The Supreme Court of India ruled that one cannot acquire title to a property only because he or she had been allowed to stay in the premises for long. The apex court directed the courts to deal firmly with those involving
innocent owners in prolonged real estate litigation. A threejudge bench including justices Dalveer Bhandari, Deepak Verma and HL Dattu gave the ruling. The bench also set fresh guidelines that caretakers, servants and watchman do not acquire property merely because of its possession by them for several years.