14-Mar-2017: Inter-state River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017 introduced in Lok Sabha
Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Minister of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ms. Uma Bharti, on March 14, 2017. The Bill seeks to amend the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Disputes Resolution Committee: Under the Act, when a complaint is received from a state government regarding a water dispute, the central government may ask the affected states to undertake negotiations to settle the dispute. If the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations, the central government has to set up a Water Disputes Tribunal within a year of receiving such a complaint.
The Bill replaces this provision and requires the central government to set up a Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC), for resolving any inter-state water dispute amicably. The DRC will get a period of one year, extendable by six months, to submit its report to the central government.
Members of DRC: Members of the DRC will be from relevant fields, as deemed fit by the central government.
Tribunal: The Bill proposes to set up an Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal, for adjudication of water disputes, if a dispute is not resolved through the DRC. This tribunal can have multiple benches. All existing tribunals will be dissolved and the water disputes pending adjudication before such existing tribunals will be transferred to this newly formed tribunal.
Composition of the Tribunal: The tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and not more than six nominated members (judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court), nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The central government may appoint two experts serving in the Central Water Engineering Service, not below the rank of Chief Engineer, as assessors to advise the bench in its proceedings.
Time allotted to Tribunal to take its decision: Under the Act, any water disputes tribunal has to give its decision on a dispute within a period of three years. This period is extendable by a maximum of two years. Under the Bill, the proposed tribunal has to give its decision on a dispute within a period of two years. This period is extendable by a maximum of one year. Under the Act, if the matter is again referred to the tribunal by a state for further consideration, the tribunal has to submit its report to the central government within a period of one year. This period of one year can be extended by the central government for such a period as it may consider necessary. The Bill amends this to specify that the extension may be up to a maximum of six months.
Decision of the Tribunal: Under the Act, the decision of the tribunal must be published by the central government in the official gazette. After publication, the decision has the same force as that of an order of the Supreme Court. Under the Bill, the requirement of publication in the official gazette has been removed. The Bill also adds that the decision of the bench of the tribunal will be final and binding on the parties involved in the dispute. This decision will have the same force as that of an order of the Supreme Court.
Maintenance of data bank and information: Under the Act, the central government maintains a data bank and information system at the national level for each river basin. Under the Bill, the central government will appoint or authorise an agency to maintain a data bank and information system at the national level for each river basin.
Additional rule -making powers: The Bill gives the central government powers to make rules in which water will be distributed during stress situations arising from shortage in the availability of water.
Inter-state river water disputes are on the rise on account of increase in water demands by the States. The Inter State Water Dispute Act, 1956 which provides the legal framework to address such disputes, suffers from many drawbacks. Under this Act, a separate Tribunal has to be established for each Inter State River Water Dispute. Only three out of eight Tribunals have given awards accepted by the States, while Tribunals like Cauvery and Ravi Beas have been in existence for over 26 and 30 years respectively without any award. Delays are on account of no time limit for adjudication by a Tribunal, no upper age limit for the Chairman or the Members, work getting stalled due to occurrence of any vacancy and no time limit for publishing the report of the Tribunal.
The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017 proposes to streamline the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes and make the present legal and institutional architecture robust.
1-Feb-2017: Cabinet approves Introduction of The Indian Institutes of Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2017 in Parliament.
The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its approval for introduction of The Indian Institutes of Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2017 in Parliament.
The amendment Bill provides for inclusion of Indian Institute of Information Technology Design and Manufacturing (IIITDM), Kurnool along with the other IITs in the Principal Act. Subsequently, IITDM Kurnool will be declared as an institute of National Importance with the power to award degrees to students
The expenditure for the operationalization of IITDM Kurnool is incurred from the Plan funds of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
The emerging needs of the industry and the economy, as a whole for skilled technical manpower is expected to be met from the talent pool of trained personnel of the Institute. The Institute shall be open to all persons irrespective of gender, caste, creed, disability, domicile, ethnicity, social or economic background.
Background:
The Indian Institutes of Information Technology Act, 2014 confers the status of Institutions of National Importance on the IIITs and also provides for matters connected with administering these IIITs. Subsequently, the Government has approved creation of a new NIT at Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh as embodied in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. Due to addition of a new IIIT, amendment has to be made in the IIIT Act, 2014. With this, IIITDM. Kurnool will be the fifth Member as a Centrally Funded IIIT.
3-Jan-2017: SC widens the scope of judicial review
In the case of, Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, Supreme Court held that re-promulgation of an ordinance was a fraud on the Constitution and that the ordinances passed by the President and the State Governors by bypassing the legislature are not immune from judicial review. The bench stated that since an ordinance has the same force as a law passed by the legislature, it will now be mandatory to place it before the Parliament or the State legislature.
Article 123 of the Constitution of India gives the power and authority to the President of India to issue an ordinance only when both the Houses of Parliament are not in session. In addition, it states that any ordinance can have the same force and effect as a statute of Parliament only if it is laid before both the houses of the Parliament. Further, Ordinance so made will hold good only for a duration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament. Article 213 mandates near identical terms with respect to the ordinances on subject of State authority. It is understood that the authority to issue ordinances shall be used only to meet the emergent demands arising out of extraordinary situations.