Salient features of the proposed FOOD SECURITY BILL ...!

Some of the major highlights of the Food Security 

Bill are:

§    Up to 75% of the rural population (with at least 46% from priority category) and up to 50% of urban population (with at least 28% from priority category) are to be covered under Targeted Public Distribution System.

§    7 kg of food-grains per person per month to be given to priority category households which include rice, wheat and coarse grains at Rs. 3, 2, and 1 per kg, respectively.

§    At least 3 kg of food-grains per person per month to be given to general category households, at prices not exceeding 50% of Minimum Support Price.

§    Women to be made head of the household for the purpose of issue of ration cards.

§    Maternity benefit to pregnant women and lactating mothers.

§    End-to-end computerisation of Targeted Public Distribution System.

§    Three-tier independent grievance redressal mechanism.

§    Social audit by local bodies such as Gram Panchayats, Village Councils etc.

§    Meals for special groups such as destitute, homeless persons, emergency/disaster affected persons and persons on the verge of starvation.

§    Food Security Allowance in case of non-supply of food-grains or meals.

For improving the availability of Food ,,what 

steps must be taken and are taken  ?

• Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana with an outlay of Rs. 25000 crore.
• Naitonal Food Security Mission with an outlay of about Rs. 6,000 crore.
• National Horticulture Mission with an outlay of Rs 10,363.46 crore during the 11 the Five-Year Plan period.
• There are many other schemes dealing with different areas of production, such as soil healthcare, crop protection, and irrigation. Inspite of all these schemes our agriculture is still very vulnerable to the behaviour of the monsoon.
• Our country faces the challenge of producing food not only for 1.2 billion people, but also for about a billion farm animals.
• Nearly seventy per cent of our population lives in villages and their main sources of livelihood are crop and animal husbandry, fisheries, agro-forestry, agro-processing and agri-business
• The National Commission on Farmers (2004-06) has provided a detailed strategy for the agricultural progress of India.
• Food is the first among the hierarchical needs of a human being. Therefore, food security should have the first charge on the available financial resources.
• A National Food Security Act giving legal rights to food can be implemented only by attending to the safe storage of both grains and perishable commodities like fruits, vegetables and milk.

Net Regulation and United Nations (World Conference On International Telecommunications)

ITU - International Telecommunications Union under the aegis of the United Nations is going to meet in Dubai this December on discussing major issues with relation to the NET REGULATION ...!

[knowing a little abt  ITU before going for the topic...ITU is a specialized agency of the United Nations which is responsible for information and communication technologies. ITU coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world and establishes worldwide standards...
 estd - 1865 Hq - Geneva , Switzerland Members - 193 nations Slogan - Committes to connecting the World ]

Key Concerns include :-

• Content regulation,
• surveillance,
• filtering 
• cost of the Internet access .

What could come out with this meet ?

 This will be the first time Internet regulation, under the cover of “international cooperation,” could be included in binding treaties similar to international law — like the WTO framework — to recast the global Internet policy framework, architecture and openness. .

What will b the extent of impact of the regulations ?

It will impact the future of Internet and itz 2 billion current and 3 billion potential users by 2015 

Various demands by other nations for modifications include ?

Russia and Iran have pressed for ? 

• Russia and Iran want modification of section 2.2 to include Internet traffic termination as a regulated telecom service.
• If adopted, this proposal will mean metering international traffic along national boundaries and billing the sending party of the traffic — as is now done for ISD calls. 
• Critics fear that this will create a new revenue stream for corrupt, non-democratic regimes, while raising the cost of accessing international websites and information, especially in developing countries like India.

Russia, Arab countries and Rwanda have pressed for ?

• the addition of a new section 2.13 to define “spam.” Experts believe that this will create a global, legal handle for national governments to read all emails — even those between private individuals.
• modification of section 4.3 to introduce content regulation, including spam and malware, is being done the first time. This will give the ITU a role in content surveillance and regulation where it has no expertise

India's position ?

• in India, 381 million mobile phone owners have Internet access with an additional 125 million who access the Internet through smart devices, computers and laptops.so they are to be affected indirectly and the cost of Internet increases which was free till now.
• Government of India has yet not prepared it staunch and have sought recommendations of FICCI , CII , COAI,AUSPI ,ISPAD ,etc.

Section 4.3 modification controversial ?

• modification of section 4.3 to introduce content regulation, including spam and malware, is being done the first time.
•  This will give the ITU a role in content surveillance and regulation where it has no expertise. 
• It further places issues of free speech in the hands of 193 countries with different levels of tolerance for freedom of expression (like CHINA ).

US stand on this ?

• opposition to any proposals to give the U.N. or individual countries more control over the Internet or to tax Internet traffic.

Russia and other nations have processed for taking away that ITU should take away internet governance functionality from the ICANN (US based)  (so itzz going to be a major battle out their at DUBAI ! )

(ICANN ---The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is a nonprofit private organization headquartered in Los Angeles, California, United States, that was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998  to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which ICANN now operates. )

proposed DNA Profiling Bill ,2012

The UPA Government is coming with the DNA Profiling BIll this winter session ,,,letzz hav a look at what this bill will b like  ..!!!!

The bill has been in the offing since 2007. 

What does the proposed bill provide for ?

• Once it becomes a law, the bill will grant the authority to collect vast amount of sensitive DNA data of citizens even if they are "suspects" in a criminal case. The data will be held till the person is cleared by court.
• The bill proposes the creation of a national DNA data bank that will be manned by a manager of the rank of a joint secretary to the government of India. For activists, this will help the government assume the role of an alarming "Big Brother" collecting vast amount of sensitive data of citizens.
• The data, the bill states, will also be used for the "creation and maintenance" of population statistics and can be used for "identification, research, protocol development or quality control".

Punishment in case of misuse of this  ???

Strangely enough, the penalty for "misuse" of the DNA profiles attracts a mild imprisonment of a few months or a fine of a paltry Rs50,000. .

People protesting against it raise issue regarding ?

• The bill has already raised the hackles of many groups working on privacy issues who are worried that if it becomes a law, it would empower the government to create intrusive databases.
• While activists are concerned about privacy issues and fear that the database could be used by new intrusive tools like the Unique Identification Number and NATGRID, police officials feel the tool will be critical for investigations.

Some Dilemmas regarding ?

The government has also slipped in a section that allows for "volunteers" to give their DNA profiles which will be maintained. It is not clear under what circumstances the "volunteers" will share their sensitive data with the government.

Experience in other nations (UK)?

In fact, law enforcement agencies like the CBI have been pushing the government for an early enactment of the bill. They have cited the findings of a UK parliamentary report issued by its Office of Science and Technology in February 2006 that states that convictions in criminal cases went up drastically after the government agreed to maintain DNA profiling data in perpetuity. The report records that the detection of crime in the UK went up from 26% to a healthy 40% after DNA samples were loaded in the national DNA database.

However, since this kind of a database usually co-exists with crime statistics, there is a fear that members of minority communities could be easily targeted. This is a concern that has also been raised in the British parliamentary report which says that "blacks and ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented" in their database because more of them are arrested for alleged crimes. Currently, the present bill does address these concerns of the inherent imbalance in racial profiling when maintaining a national DNA database.

Why are police officials unhappy with this Bill ?

Meanwhile, senior police officials who are familiar with the bill and have made extensive presentations to the DBT are upset that the bill makes a provision for deleting the DNA profile data after a person has been acquitted by courts. They feel that maintaining the data and increasing it slowly and steadily will go a long way in preventing and solving crimes. 

MORAL OF THE STORY

While that is a legitimate argument, the absence of a strong privacy law raises concerns about the intrusive nature of the proposed DNA Profiling Bill.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

WHAT DOES SLP MEAN ?

Special leave petition means that you take special permission to be heard in appeal against any High Court/tribunal verdict. 

Usually any issue decided by the State High Court is considered as final, but if there exist any constitutional issue or legal issue which can only be clarified by the Supreme Court of India then, this leave is granted by the Supreme Court & this is heard as a Civil or Criminal appeal as the case may be. 

Going to the Supreme Court in appeal should not be considered a matter of right by any one but it is matter of privilege which only the Supreme Court will grant to any individual if there exist an important constitutional or legal issue involved in any case that was not properly interpreted by the concerned High Court against whose judgment you approach the Highest court of the country not otherwise..

(RECENTLY BOTH KARNATAKA AND TAMIL NADU APPROACHED THE SUPREME COURT WITH THIS SLP's  against the judgement of the Cauvery Regulatory Authority headed by the PM)

Special leave to appeal are filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court may accept or reject the same. The consequences of rejection are of far reaching effect. The Apex Court may reject the petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal, for several reasons.

What happens if the SLP is dismissed ?

A mere dismissal of SLP does not mean that High Court decisions is approved on merits so as to be a judicial precedent. In Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that when a SLP is summarily rejected or dismissed under Art 136 of the Constitution such dismissal does not lay down any law. The decision of the High Court against which the SLP is dismissed in limine would not operate as resjudicata. However, when Supreme Court dismisses an SLP with reason, it might be taken as the affirmation of the High Court views on merits of the case, thus there is no reason to dilute the binding nature of precedents in such cases.

It is a settled law that

 when the SLP is dismissed, whether by a speaking or non-speaking order whether in limine or on contest, second SLP would not lie. However the statement cannot be stretched and applied to hold that such an order attracts applicability of doctrine of merger and excluded jurisdiction of the court or authority passing the order to review the same.

Inter­state River Water Dispute

“Water dispute" means any dispute or difference between two or more State Governments with respect to:

·         The use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley or

·          The interpretation of the terms of any agreement relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement or

·           The levy of any water rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in section

 Interstate River Water Disputes Act – 1956 (IRWD Act)

·         was first enacted on 28 August 1956 by the Indian parliament under Article 262 on the eve of reorganization of states on linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river or river valley. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the states/regional governments.  This Act further has undergone amendments subsequently and its most recent amendment took place in the year 2002.

·    Amendment 2002: This amendment specifically does not permit altering the prevailing tribunal verdicts issued before the year 2002 (i.e. but not the tribunal awards issued after the year 2002). Thus this amendment bars the tribunals to give any time period/validity for constituting a new tribunal. This is to keep provision to resolve fresh water disputes which were not addressed by earlier tribunals/ agreements as and when they surface. A permanent water dispute tribunal is contemplated to resolve the growing number of interstate river water disputes expediously.

SARKARIA COMMISSION on Inter-State River Water Disputes

Ø  Once an application under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (33 of 1956) is received from a State, it should be mandatory on the Union Government to constitute a Tribunal within a period not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of the application of any disputant State. The Inter- State River Water Disputes Act may be suitably amended for this purpose.

Ø  The Inter-State Water Disputes Act should be amended to empower the Union Government to appoint a Tribunal, suo-moto, if necessary, when it is satisfied that such a dispute exists in fact.

Ø  There should be a Data Bank and information system at the national level and adequate machinery should be set up for this purpose at the earliest. There should also be a provision in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act that States shall be required to give necessary data for which purpose the Tribunal may be vested with powers of a court.

Ø  The inter-State Water Disputes Act should be amended to ensure that the award of a Tribunal becomes effective within five years from the date of constitution of a Tribunal. If, however, for some reasons, a Tribunal feels that the five years period has to be extended, the Union Government may on a reference made by the Tribunal extend its term.

Ø  The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 should be amended so that a Tribunal's award has the same force and sanction behind it as an order or decree of the Supreme Court to make a Tribunal's award really binding.

PUNCHI COMMISSION: recommendation on water disputes:-

(i) The Tribunal should be a multidisciplinary body presided over by a Judge. 

(ii)  It should follow a more participatory and conciliatory approach. 

(iii) The statute should prescribe a time limit for clarificatory or supplementary orders. Appeals to the Supreme Court should be prescribed under the statute; and in the long run; and Reference to a Tribunal should be invariably linked with constitution of inter-State River Boards charged with an integrated watershed approach towards inter-State rivers.

(iv)The initiating party must indicate the efforts it has made in resolution of its grievances before a River Board. 

(v) The Government of India must indicate the stand it took before the Board and in case a Board has not been constituted the reasons for not having constituted one as well as the likely time frame in case the process is underway.

 Constitution of Tribunal

1. When any request under section 3 is received from   any  State Government in respect of any water dispute  and the  Central  Government is of opinion that the water  dispute cannot be   settled by negotiations, the Central  Government shall, within a period   not  exceeding one year from  the date of receipt of  such  request,   by notification  in  the Official Gazette,  constitute  a   Water    Disputes Tribunal   for the adjudication of the water dispute: Provided that any dispute settled by a Tribunal   before the commencement  of Inter-State  Water Disputes (Amendment)   Act, 2002 shall not be re-opened"

2. The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and two other members nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice of India from among persons who at the time of such nomination are Judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court.

3. The Central Government may, in consultation with the Tribunal, appoint two or more persons as assessors to  advise the  Tribunal   in the proceedings before it.

Sl. No.	Name of the Tribunal
1.	Ravi & Beas Water Tribunal
2.	Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
3.	Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal
4.	Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal
5.	Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal

“the Cauvery issue is about opposition to the release of fixed amounts of water to Tamil Nadu, the Krishna issue is about deciding the quantum of water to be divided between Karnataka and other States”

CONSTITUTION OF THE CAUVERY RIVER AUTHORITY

There shall be an Authority under this scheme to be known as the Cauvery River Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority). The Authority shall consist of the following:

(a) Prime Minister of India à Chairperson

(b) Chief Minister of Karnataka Member

(c) Chief Minister of Kerala Member

(d) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Member

(e) Chief Minister of Pondicherry Member

The Secretary in-charge of the Ministry of the Central Government dealing with water resources shall be the Secretary of the Authority.

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY

i. The role of the Authority shall be to give effect to the implementation of the interim order dated twenty fifth June, 1991 of the Tribunal and all its related subsequent orders.

ii. The Authority shall frame rules and regulations for the conduct of its business.

iii. The Authority may convene meetings as and when necessary.

“In a developing country like India, the inter­state river water dispute must be resolved quickly so that water resources could be utilized and har­nessed properly for economic development. One of the measures could be to declare all the major rivers as national property and national schemes under the central assistance should he launched for the devel­opment of their total command area with partial involvement of the concerned states. Separate cor­porations on the line of the Damodar Valley Corpo­ration may be useful in this direction.”