When Constitution advocates total prohibition, how can governments run liquor business, asks Justice N. Kirubakaran of Madras High Court

Observing that liquor is "a poison to the society," the Madras High Court today posed a set of 16 questions to the State and Union governments, asking how governments could run liquor business when the Constitution advocates total prohibition.
    

(Madras High Court. Photo courtesy : Business Line)

 Justice N Kirubakaran suo motu impleaded the Union Cabinet Secretary, Revenue Secretary, State Government, Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) and the State Director General of Police, posed the questions and directed them to file a reply on December 11.

The judge was passing interim orders on civil miscellaneous appeals filed by one Vizhi and three others against the award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal.

Justice N. Kirubakaran passing interim orders in a motor accidents claims appeal, raised questions such as introduction of total prohibition in consonance with Article 47 of the Constitution to protect people from the evils of liquor.

Raising these questions, Justice N. Kirubakaran said since there is direct connection between liquor and deaths in road accidents, matrimonial disharmony and personal relationships, governments should come forward to limit the number of liquor shops and cap liquor-vending hours to eight hours from 12 hours now.

  
The case relates to an accident in 2011 when two persons--Ramkumar and Arunkumar (riding pillion)-- died when their motorcycle was hit by a bus.The post-mortem report revealed the presence of alcohol.

The Tribunal fixed 20 per cent negligence on the part of the deceased and 80 per cent on the part of the bus diver and passed an award of Rs. 9,25,720 in favour of legal heirs of Arunkumar and Rs.11,34,067 in favour of those of Ramkumar.

Aggrieved by the insufficient compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the dependents of the deceased Ramkumar and Arunkumar had filed the appeals.

Union Government eases FDI Rules for the construction sector

India has eased Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules for the construction sector, the Union Government said on Wednesday, which will inter alia, allow overseas investors to exit a project even before its completion.

(Labourers at a construction site)

Under the new rules, foreign investment is now allowed in projects with a minimum built area of 20,000 square metres, down from a previous 50,000 threshold. The minimum capital investment by foreign companies has also been halved to $5 million, the government said in a statement. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a vision to create 100 new “smart cities” by 2020, and to make that a reality foreign capital is likely to play a part. India’s construction industry, worth an estimated $126 billion, attracted 11 percent of all foreign investment into the country between 2000 and 2013, the second highest of any sector, but the pace of investment has slowed in recent years. India received $1.2 billion of Foreign Direct Investment in the year to March 31 compared with $1.3 billion the previous year. Between April and August this year, foreign investment totalled $446 million.

Previously, India allowed 100% foreign direct investment in real estate development but with strict conditions, including a lock-in period of three years during which the investment cannot be repatriated. But a press note issued by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has clarified that the three-year lock-in will no longer apply and under normal circumstances, an investor can exit on completion of the project or even after the development of trunk infrastructure, such as construction of roads, water supply and drainage. 

The exit clause was seen as one of the key deterrents for overseas investors to invest in the Indian construction market. The Union Government was keen to ease the rules for building townships, housing, built-up infrastructure and construction development projects as these are sectors with huge employment potential and boost demand for steel and cement.

 

Chief Justice of India sets up special Bench of 2 judges to hear cases related to social issues

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Mr. H.L. Dattu has constituted a special bench of two judges to hear cases related to social issues.  

 

(File Picture : Hon'ble CJI, H.L. Dattu)

Chief Justice H.L. Dattu said that starting next week, the "Social Justice Bench" will sit every Friday afternoon to hear Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and other petitions on issues ranging from the availability of night shelters for the homeless to whether children in government schools are being provided free mid-day meals and the efficacy of the Public Distribution Scheme which is meant to provide poor families access to subsidized grain.  

He said the Supreme Court must play "a proactive role to meet the goals of the constitution."

Starting next Friday, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit will be hearing the petitions related to social issues. 

The notification related to the constitution of the Special Bench can be read in full here

India successfully opposes UN resolution calling upon it to voluntarily abandon nuclear weapons

India, backed by the United States, opposed a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling on India to voluntarily abandon its nuclear weapons.

(File picture: United Nations General Assembly)

The U.S. joined India to vote against a key part of the resolution on achieving a nuclear weapon-free world that called on India, Israel and Pakistan to immediately and unconditionally accede to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon states and put all their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

However, the resolution that targeted Israel and Pakistan was passed overwhelmingly.

India and the US were joined by Britain, Russia, Israel and North Korea in voting against the overall resolution on working towards a nuclear-weapon-free world.

India also voted against clauses in two other resolutions that, without naming any country, asked all countries to accede to the NPT while giving up their nuclear arsenals.

New Delhi has been firm in rejecting the NPT, which it considers is discriminatory in trying to preserve the nuclear weapons monopoly of five nations -- the US, Russia, China, France and Britain.

India also voted against a resolution pushing for conventional arms control at the regional and sub-regional levels and abstained on another urging nations not to carry out nuclear tests. These resolutions were however passed by overwhelming majorities.