Minister of State
for Railways, Mr. Manoj Sinha in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha on
Friday, has informed the House that the Union Government has decided to
permit 100 percent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in construction, operation
and maintenance of:
·
Suburban corridors through Public Private Partnership (PPP).
·
High speed train projects.
·
Dedicated freight lines.
· Rolling stock including trains sets and locomotive/coaches manufacturing and
maintenance facilities.
·
Railway electrification.
·
Signaling system.
·
Freight terminal.
·
Passenger terminal.
·
Infrastructure in industrial park pertaining to railway line/siding.
·
Mass Rapid Transport System.
He also said that currently
there are no operational projects of Suburban corridor through PPP, High
speed train and Dedicated Freight Corridors. Also, Rolling Stock
manufacturing and maintenance facilities, Railway Electrification, Signaling
system, Freight terminals, Passenger terminals, Rail sidings in industrial
parks are not separate profit centers on Indian Railways. In view of this, no
revenue generation figures of the last five years are available.
|
Saturday, 6 December 2014
Union Government gives the green signal for 100 % Foreign Direct Investment in select projects of the Railways
Cabinet clears amendments to be brought to the Indian Trusts Act, 1882
The
Union Cabinet on Friday approved amendments to Sections 20 and 20A of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882.
 |
| (The Indian Trusts (Amendment) Bill, 2014 may be introduced in the ongoing session of Parliament) |
Section
20 deals with the investment of trust money and restricts the trustees to
investing this money only in the prescribed securities including “promissory notes, debentures, stock or
other securities of any state government or of the central government or of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”.
Section
20A prescribes the limits of the power of the trustee to purchase redeemable
stock at a premium.
According
to a press statement issued by the Cabinet, “the
amendments are intended to provide the trustees greater autonomy and flexibility
to take decisions on investment of trust money. This would enable the Central
Government to notify securities or class of securities, for investment by
trusts and to remove the outdated provisions occurring in section 20 of the
Indian Trusts Act, 1882”.
The
Indian Trusts (Amendment) Bill, 2014, proposing changes to section 20 and 20A looks set to be introduced in the current session of Parliament.
"Registration of an FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election", observes the SC while dismissing a plea challenging the 2013 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed
an appeal filed challenging the Delhi High Court’s verdict of February 6 earlier this
year, upholding the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 allowing undertrials, except convicts, to contest elections,
which was earlier barred by the Apex Court.
________
"Registration of an FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election", said the Supreme Court
________
 |
| (Supreme Court of India, New Delhi) |
Dismissing the appeal, a Bench headed
by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu said. "If
there is conviction and sentence, we can understand but the registration of an
FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election."
Earlier,
the Parliament had passed the Representation of the People (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2013 (Number 29 of 2013) adding a further proviso to sub-section
(5) of Section 62 of the R.P. Act, 1951, to the effect that if a person who is
enrolled in the electoral roll is confined in a prison or in lawful custody of
police, he will continue to be an elector notwithstanding the prohibition
against voting under the said sub-section.
The Amendment to the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 had been introduced last year by Parliament to get over the July 10 judgment
of the Apex Court in The CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar and Ors [
CA Nos. 3040-3041 of 2004] wherein the Apex Court had
held that a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest
election to legislative bodies, bringing to an end an era of under trial
politicians fighting polls from behind bars. The Apex Court had said that only
a voter can contest election and a person in police custody has no right to
vote.
The Representation of the People
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (Number 29 of 2013) contained a validation
clause providing that nothing contained in any judgment, decree or order of any
court, tribunal or other authority shall have any effect on the amendments made
to Section 7 and Section 62 of the Act by the amendment Act. This effectively meant that the position as
obtained prior to the Apex Court’s judgment of 10.07.2013 would continue to
apply.
Though the Centre had sought for a
review of the Apex Court’s judgment of July 10, the Supreme Court, on
November 19 last year, had dismissed the Centre's plea saying it is not
necessary to look into the issue in view of amendments brought about by
Parliament to the Representation of People Act.
Considering
the challenge to the Amendments brought about to the Representation of the People
Act, the Delhi High Court had observed
that not allowing an arrested accused or an undertrial to contest election on
the ground that he has no right to vote while incarcerated "would leave the door open for vendetta politics".
"Extending
curtailment of the right to vote of a person in prison to the right to stand in
election would, in our opinion, leave the door open for practice of 'vendetta
politics' by ruling parties...All that a
politician/ruling party-in-power would need to do to prevent rivals from
contesting an election is to ask the police to file a case and to arrest the
rivals,"
it had said.
The Supreme Court concurred
with the ratiocination of the Delhi High Court and hence, dismissed the appeal.
Apex Court seeks assistance of Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar aided by the Department of Information Technology in a writ petition seeking blocking of websites advertising pre-natal sex determination
The Apex Court on Thursday sought
the assistance of Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar aided by a competent officer
in the Department of Information Technology, in a writ petition
seeking blocking of websites advertising pre-natal sex determination, taking
into account the technical issues involved in the case.
 |
| (The affidavit filed by the Centre, reflects a kind of helplessness on the part of the said deponent" said the Supreme Court on Thursday) |
The Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and U.U. Lalit, was considering the plea of the
petitioner, Sabu George through his Counsel Mr. Sanjay Parikh that “despite
the legal prohibition, the respondents, namely, Google India, Yahoo India and
Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd., are still getting things advertised in
violation of the legal provisions contained in the Pre-conception and Pre-natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, as amended from
time to time.”
Even as the private respondents in the
matter sought time to file their respective replies to the rejoinder filed by
the petitioner, the Bench, before considering their request for grant of time, referred
to the affidavit filed in 2010 by the Union Government to the effect that
blocking sites advertising prenatal sex determination "may not be desirable" as they
“provide good content for medical education”.
The relevant portion of the affidavit filed
by the Group Coordinator, Cyber Laws Formulation and Enforcement Division,
Government of India, Department of Information Technology on 16.08.2010 reads as
follows: “The pre-natal sex determination
is an offence in India under PC & PNDT Act. However, it may not be an
offence in other countries. The information published on the websites is generally
aimed at for wider, world wide dissemination and caters to the needs to many countries
and may not be for the Indian citizens. Also, most of these websites are hosted
outside the country. Blocking of such sites advertising pre-natal sex
determinaton may not be feasible due to their hosting outside the
country. Moreover, some of the websites provide good content for medical education
and therefore blocking of such websites may not be desirable.”
Coming down heavily on the affidavit filed
by the Union Government, the Bench observed that “it reflects a kind of helplessness on the part of the said deponent.”
Responding to the affidavit filed by the
Centre, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that other countries have been able to
control such advertisements, which violate the laws of their countries by way
of entering into certain kind of agreement, developing technical tools and
issuing appropriate directions.
The Supreme Court observed that
“an
effort has to be made to see that nothing contrary to laws of this country are advertised
or shown on these websites” But taking into account the technical
issues involved, The Bench comprising of requested
the Solicitor General, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, to assist the Court on
the next hearing date, being assisted by a competent officer of the Department
of Information and Technology.
The
Bench listed the matter on December 15 for further consideration and permitted
the private respondents no. 3 to 5 in the case to file their replies within a
week.
The order passed by the Apex Court in the above case can be accessed in full here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)