Daily News Mail - News of 06/05/2015

SC questions U-turn by Centre

• Temperatures rose in Court No. 4 of the Supreme Court as the highest judiciary sparred with the Centre when the latter claimed that the Supreme Court had tweaked the “original” Constitution 22 years ago to give the Chief Justice of India and his collegium primacy to appoint judges.
• The five-judge Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar, deciding the validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission law, hotly contested Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi’s opening argument that there was not a word about judicial primacy in the original Constitution drafted by the founding fathers.
• Mr. Rohatgi submitted that independence of the judiciary did not mean that the CJI and his collegium had the final say or primacy in appointment and transfer of judges.
• “Independence of judiciary was not an insulated concept,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted. He blamed the 1993 judgment in the Second Judges Case by a nine-judge Bench for ushering in the collegium system of judicial appointments.
• In this judgment, the court had evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the State — including the legislature and the executive — would have any say in the appointment of judges. The court then created the collegium system. There is no mention of the collegium either in the original Constitution or in successive amendments, the Centre contended.
• Mr. Rohatgi said the 1993 judgment needs to be first “re-considered” by a larger Bench on the question of interpretation of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which deal with judicial appointments.
• The Bench, however, was in no mood to agree; instead, it turned combative. “When the 1993 judgment came and later in the Presidential Reference, you, the government, was the first one to agree about judicial primacy. You accepted this as your final position. You can’t change your position everyday,” Justice Khehar shot back at the government
• Justice A.K. Goel joined in, asking the Centre “what is the compulsion now to change your stand? Are you saying we were wrong in 1993?”
• “No, but there are doubts and clarifications. The original Constitution had no primacy for collegium,” Mr. Rohatgi said defending the Centre’s stand.
• “What doubts? Where are these doubts?” Justice Goel asked.
• With this, the court made its intentions clear against referring the petitions challenging the NJAC law to a larger bench.

Opposition stalls GST Bill, insists on relook by panel

• With several Opposition parties raising serious concerns on a number of clauses, chances of the Constitution (122nd Amendment) Bill for introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) clearing Parliament in the current session dimmed on May 5.
• Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley “beseeched” the Opposition in the Lok Sabha to “rise above partisan” considerations as they “serve no purpose” but the Congress, the AIADMK and the BJD mounted stiff resistance which could effectively stall the passage in the current session as the government does not have a majority in the Upper House — even if it manages to push the Bill through the Lower House on May 6.
• The Opposition’s strategy in the Rajya Sabha will be to force the government to accept the referring of the Bill to a Select Committee on the ground that there are substantial changes which have not been scrutinised. In the Lok Sabha however, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan on May 5 rejected such a demand.
• Mr. Jaitley argued that if the GST Bill was sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance, it would delay the benefits to the States by another financial year as yet another deadline of April 1, 2016 would be “missed”. A decade of deliberations had already delayed the rollout, he said.
• Still members of the Congress, the BJD, the AIADMK and the CPI(M) slammed the government for “bypassing” parliamentary standing committees .
• Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance Veerappa Moily said his party, the Congress, supported the GST but was opposed to some of the Bill’s provisions and demanded that it be referred to the panel. This was supported by the AIADMK and the BJD. Mr. Moily said the government would not be doing any “charity” by agreeing to the demand.
• The AIADMK’s P. Venugopal said his party opposed the Bill as it was “harmful” to producing States such as Tamil Nadu. The State, he said, would lose over Rs. 10,000 crore with the new tax regime. He demanded that petroleum products — source of 21 per cent of Tamil Nadu’s tax revenue under the present tax structure — be taken out of the proposed GST regime.

Rs. 2,800 crore unspent under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana: CAG

• The report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on the performance of the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) since its launch in 2007 to 2013, which was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, has detected shortfalls in achieving targeted outputs in 62 projects costing Rs. 1,405 crore in 19 States.
• Against the backdrop of faltering growth in the agriculture sector, the scheme was launched in the XI Five Year Plan giving complete flexibility to the States to launch projects with an aim to generate growth in agriculture and allied sectors. As part of the plan, Rs. 30,873 crore was released to 28 States and seven Union Territories during the period under review. However, Rs. 2,800 crore remained unspent.
• The CAG report highlights numerous instances of the expected benefits of the RKVY not reaching the farmers.

Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana

Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana(English:National Agriculture Development Scheme) is a State Plan Scheme of Additional Central Assistance aunched in August 2007 as a part of the 11th Five Year Plan by the Government of India. Launched under the aegis of the National Development Council, it seeks to achieve 4% annual growth in agriculture through development of Agriculture and its allied sectors (as defined by the Planning Commission (India)) during the period under the 11th Five Year Plan (2007–11). 

RKVY is a State Plan Scheme. How much assistance would be provided to a state from centre would depend upon the amount provided in State Plan Budgets for Agriculture and allied sectors, above a baseline expenditure on these sectors. This means that eligibility of a state for the RKVY is contingent upon the state maintaining or increasing the State Plan expenditure for Agriculture & Allied Sectors. The base line expenditure is determined based on the average expenditure incurred by the State Government during the three years prior to the previous year. The RKVY funds are provided to the states as 100% grant by the Central Government.