The Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2023

The Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2023, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 July 2023. The bill seeks to amend the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to make the registration of births and deaths more efficient and accurate.

The bill proposes a number of changes, including:

• Making it mandatory for all hospitals and medical institutions to register births and deaths that occur within their premises.

• Making it mandatory for all panchayats and municipalities to register births and deaths that occur within their jurisdiction.

• Introducing a biometric registration system for births and deaths.

• Providing for the appointment of a Registrar-General of India, who will be responsible for the overall administration of the registration system.

• Making it a punishable offence to fail to register a birth or death.

The bill is a welcome step towards making the registration of births and deaths more efficient and accurate. The changes proposed in the bill will help to ensure that all births and deaths are registered, and that the data collected is accurate and reliable. This will be beneficial for a number of purposes, including:

• Planning and budgeting for social services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

• Ensuring that children are enrolled in school and that they receive the necessary vaccinations.

• Tracking the progress of the population and the economy.

• Investigating crime and identifying criminals.

The bill is currently being debated in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. It is expected to be passed into law soon.

Amendment in the "All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958"

The "All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958" were amended in 2023 to bring about changes in the rules concerning pension discontinuation for government employees. The key points of this amendment are as follows:

Discontinuation of Pensions: The amendment grants the government the authority to suspend or cancel the pension of any government employee without requiring a court or tribunal order.

Empowerment of Centre: Under the new rules, the Central government now has the exclusive power to withhold or withdraw retirement benefits of officers who served in administrative, police, and forest services. This change eliminates the need for references from state governments, which was the practice before.

Amended Definitions of 'Grave Misconduct' and 'Serious Crime': The amendment introduces new definitions for 'grave misconduct' and 'serious crime'. 'Grave misconduct' now includes communication or disclosure of information covered by the Official Secrets Act, and a 'serious crime' includes any crime involving an offense under the Official Secrets Act.

Expansion of Withholding Authority: Earlier, the Central government could withhold or withdraw pension upon reference from the concerned State Government, in case of a pensioner's conviction after retirement. The amendment adds "or otherwise" after "...the State Government concerned," giving the Central government the power to act independently.

Finality of Decision: The amended rules emphasize that the decision of the Central government on withholding or withdrawing pension is deemed final.

Restrictions on Publishing Information: For those who served in Intelligence or security-related organizations, the amendment states that making any publication after retirement without prior clearance from the Head of the Organization would be unlawful. This includes sensitive information related to the organization's domain.

Government's Rationale: The government's perspective on this amendment is that it will help curb corruption and unlawful activities among government employees.

Employee Opposition: However, government employees have opposed this amendment, asserting that it infringes upon their rights. They are demanding the repeal of this amendment.

In essence, the 2023 amendment to the "All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958" empowers the government to suspend or cancel the pensions of government employees without needing to involve a court or tribunal. While the government argues that this change will combat corruption and illegal activities, employees view it as a violation of their rights and are urging the government to reconsider the amendment.

The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Bill, 2023 (NRF Bill)

The Anusandhan National Research Foundation Bill, 2023 (NRF Bill) was passed by the Indian Parliament in August 2023. The Bill establishes the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (NRF) as an apex body to provide strategic direction for research, innovation, and entrepreneurship in the country.

The NRF Bill repeals the Science and Engineering Research Board Act, 2008 and dissolves the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) set up under it. The NRF will subsume SERB and will have an expanded mandate to cover all areas of research, including natural sciences, engineering and technology, environmental and earth sciences, health and agriculture, and scientific and technological interfaces of humanities and social sciences.

The NRF will be governed by a Governing Board consisting of eminent scientists, technologists, and entrepreneurs. The Board will be responsible for formulating the NRF's strategic plan, approving its budget, and monitoring its performance.

The NRF will have a number of functions, including:

• Providing funding for research projects
• Creating and supporting research infrastructure
• Promoting international collaboration in research
• Developing human resources in research
• Disseminating research findings
• Promoting public awareness of research

The NRF is expected to play a major role in transforming India into a research-intensive nation. It will provide the much-needed funding and support for research, and it will create a more conducive environment for research in the country. The NRF is also expected to help India to attract and retain top talent in research, and to collaborate more effectively with the global research community.

The NRF Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will have a major impact on the future of research in India. It is a step towards making India a global leader in research and innovation.

Here are some of the key features of the NRF Bill:

• The NRF will be an apex body for research, innovation, and entrepreneurship in India.
• It will have a budget of Rs. 50,000 crores for five years (2023-28).
• The NRF will subsume the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB).
• The NRF will have a Governing Board consisting of eminent scientists, technologists, and entrepreneurs.
• The NRF will have a number of functions, including providing funding for research projects, creating and supporting research infrastructure, promoting international collaboration in research, developing human resources in research, disseminating research findings, and promoting public awareness of research.

The NRF Bill is a significant step towards strengthening the research ecosystem in India. It is expected to play a major role in transforming India into a research-intensive nation.

Applicability of Law of Limitation for eviction under Public Premises Act

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPA) does not specifically mention the law of limitation for eviction proceedings under the Act. However, the general law of limitation as contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) is applicable to eviction proceedings under the PPA.

Section 14 of the LA provides that the following actions shall be barred after the expiry of the following periods:

• 3 years: Suit for possession of immovable property
• 12 years: Suit for rent

Therefore, in an eviction proceeding under the PPA, the landlord (or the government, as the case may be) must file a suit for eviction within 3 years of the date on which the unauthorised occupant entered into or continued in occupation of the public premises. If the suit is not filed within 3 years, the landlord will lose his right to evict the unauthorised occupant.

However, there are a few exceptions to the above rule. For example, if the unauthorised occupant is a minor, the landlord has 10 years to file a suit for eviction. Similarly, if the unauthorised occupant is mentally ill, the landlord has 6 years to file a suit for eviction.

In addition to the general law of limitation, there are also a few specific provisions in the PPA that deal with the law of limitation. For example, Section 9 of the PPA provides that an appeal against an order of eviction by the Estate Officer must be filed within 12 days of the date of the order. If the appeal is not filed within 12 days, it will be barred by limitation.

It is important to note that the law of limitation is a complex subject and there are many exceptions to the general rules. If you are facing eviction proceedings under the PPA, it is important to consult with a lawyer to ensure that your rights are protected.

Relevant judgment on the applicability of Law of Limitation for eviction under Public Premises Act

The law of limitation is applicable to eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. This was held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.V. Satyanarayana (1988) 3 SCC 260.

In this case, the State of Andhra Pradesh filed an eviction petition under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act against the respondent, who was an unauthorised occupant of a government building. The respondent argued that the petition was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 113 prescribes a period of three years for filing a suit for possession of immovable property.

The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation is applicable to eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act. The Court reasoned that the Public Premises Act does not contain any specific provision regarding limitation. In the absence of a specific provision, the general law of limitation would apply.

The Court also held that the period of limitation would start running from the date on which the unauthorised occupant came into possession of the public premises. This is because the unauthorised occupant would be deemed to have committed a wrong on that date.

The Supreme Court's decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.V. Satyanarayana has been followed by several other courts in India. It is now well-settled that the law of limitation is applicable to eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

Here are some other relevant judgments on the applicability of law of limitation for eviction under Public Premises Act:

• Delhi Development Authority v. Baldev Singh (1992) 2 SCC 270
• Gujarat Housing Board v. Mangalbhai (1997) 3 SCC 730
• Central Railway v. Babulal (2001) 2 SCC 416
• State of Karnataka v. Srirampura Munnangi (2003) 6 SCC 645
• Government of India v. Suresh Kumar (2007) 4 SCC 376

Landmark judgments in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act)

One of the landmark judgments in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) is the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nusli Neville Wadia And Another, decided by the Supreme Court in 2007.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the PP Act is a self-contained Code and does not require the application of any other law, including the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court also held that the Estate Officer under the PP Act has the power to evict an unauthorized occupant even if the occupant has a valid lease or licence from the government.

Another landmark judgment in the PP Act is the case of Cantonment Board & Anr vs Church Of North India, decided by the Supreme Court in 2011.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the PP Act applies to all public premises, including those owned by cantonment boards. The Court also held that the PP Act is a special law and will prevail over any inconsistent provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924.

These are just two examples of landmark judgments in the PP Act. There are many other important judgments that have been delivered by the courts on this law. These judgments have helped to clarify the scope and application of the PP Act and have provided much-needed guidance to government authorities and unauthorized occupants.

Here are some other landmark judgments in the PP Act:

• Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority (2004): The Supreme Court held that the PP Act applies to all public premises, including those owned by government agencies.
• L.S. Nair vs Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai And Ors. (1984): The Supreme Court held that the PP Act is a complete Code and does not require the application of any other law.
• Suhas H Pophale vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr. (2014): The Supreme Court held that the PP Act is a public law and does not give rise to any private rights.
• Om Parkash vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Ors. (2015): The Supreme Court held that the PP Act is a remedial legislation and is intended to protect public property from unauthorized occupation.

These judgments have played a significant role in shaping the law on unauthorized occupation of public premises in India. They have provided much-needed clarity on the scope and application of the PP Act and have helped to protect public property from unauthorized occupation.

Summary note on The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is an Act of the Parliament of India that provides for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises. The Act defines "public premises" as any land, building or other structure, which is owned or controlled by the Government or a local authority. The Act also defines "unauthorised occupant" as a person who occupies a public premises without any lawful authority.

The Act provides a two-step process for the eviction of unauthorised occupants. The first step is for the estate officer to issue a notice to the unauthorised occupant, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be evicted. If the unauthorised occupant fails to show cause, or their cause is not found to be sufficient, the estate officer may order their eviction.

The second step is for the eviction order to be executed by the police. The police are required to remove the unauthorised occupant and their belongings from the public premises, and to take possession of the premises. The unauthorised occupant is also liable to pay rent or damages for the period of their unauthorised occupation.

The Public Premises Act is a useful tool for the government to reclaim public premises that are being occupied by unauthorised persons. The Act provides a speedy and efficient process for eviction, and it helps to ensure that public premises are used for their intended purpose.

Here are some of the key provisions of the Public Premises Act:

• The Act applies to all public premises, whether owned by the central government, state government, or local authority.
• An unauthorised occupant is defined as a person who occupies a public premises without any lawful authority.
• The estate officer is the person responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
• The estate officer may issue a notice to an unauthorised occupant, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be evicted.
• If the unauthorised occupant fails to show cause, or their cause is not found to be sufficient, the estate officer may order their eviction.
• The eviction order may be executed by the police.
• The unauthorised occupant is liable to pay rent or damages for the period of their unauthorised occupation.

The Public Premises Act is an important piece of legislation that helps to protect the interests of the government and the public. The Act provides a clear and concise process for the eviction of unauthorised occupants, and it helps to ensure that public premises are used for their intended purpose.

Bill to exclude the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the panel that appoints the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs)

The Indian government has introduced a new bill that would exclude the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the panel that appoints the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs). The panel will now be led by the prime minister, with the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union cabinet minister as members.

This move has been criticized by opposition parties, who say that it is an attempt by the government to control the Election Commission and undermine its independence. They argue that the CJI is the most impartial and independent figure in the country, and that his exclusion from the selection panel will lead to the appointment of CECs who are more likely to be beholden to the government.

The government has defended the move, saying that it is simply bringing the law in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in March 2023. The Supreme Court had ruled that the CEC and ECs should be appointed by the president on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and the CJI. However, the court did not specify who should chair the committee.

The government's bill now proposes that the committee will be chaired by the prime minister. This is likely to give the government more control over the appointment process, as the prime minister will now be able to decide who the other two members of the committee are.

The opposition parties have called for the bill to be withdrawn, saying that it is a dangerous attack on the independence of the Election Commission. They argue that the Election Commission is the guardian of India's democracy, and that its independence is essential to ensure free and fair elections.

The bill is likely to be debated in Parliament in the coming weeks. It is unclear whether the government will be able to get it passed, as the opposition parties are likely to put up strong resistance. However, the mere introduction of the bill is a sign that the government is willing to take steps to undermine the independence of the Election Commission.

Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh- judgment of the Supreme Court in 1996

The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in 1996, Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh, is one of the most important judgments protecting the rights of Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India. The judgment held that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (FCA) cannot be used to acquire tribal land without the consent of the tribal community.

The case arose from a petition filed by the Samatha Committee, an NGO working for the rights of STs in Andhra Pradesh. The petition challenged the acquisition of tribal land in the Nagarjuna Sagar Project area by the government of Andhra Pradesh under the FCA. The Samatha Committee argued that the acquisition of tribal land without their consent violated the provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) and the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Samatha Committee and held that the FCA cannot be used to acquire tribal land without the consent of the tribal community. The Court held that the PESA and the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution give STs the right to manage their own affairs and to protect their land and resources. The Court also held that the government must consult with the tribal community before acquiring their land.

The judgment in Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the rights of STs in India. The judgment has helped to protect tribal land from acquisition by the government without their consent. It has also helped to strengthen the rights of STs to manage their own affairs and to protect their land and resources.

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA)

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) is an Act of the Parliament of India that recognizes and vests forest rights on forest land in scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in or have had traditional rights in the forests for generations. The Act was enacted to give statutory recognition to the customary rights of forest dwellers and to ensure their participation in forest management.

The FRA defines "scheduled tribes" as those tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or communities, as are deemed to be scheduled tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It defines "other traditional forest dwellers" as the members of a community who have, for generations, been living in and dependent on forests for their livelihood, and who have not been categorized as a scheduled tribe.

The FRA provides for the following rights to scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers:

• The right to hold and use forest land for habitation, cultivation, grazing, fishing, and other livelihood activities.
• The right to protect, regenerate, and conserve forests.
• The right to participate in forest management.
• The right to receive compensation for the loss of their forest rights.

The FRA also provides for the establishment of a National and State level Forest Rights Committees (FRCs) and Gram Sabhas (village councils) to implement the Act. The FRCs are responsible for determining the existence of forest rights and issuing certificates to eligible persons. The Gram Sabhas are responsible for making recommendations to the FRCs on the recognition of forest rights.

The FRA has been hailed as a landmark legislation that will help to protect the rights of forest dwellers and to ensure their participation in forest management. However, the Act has also been criticized for being too complex and for being difficult to implement.

The FRA is a complex and challenging piece of legislation. It is still in its early stages of implementation and it is too early to say whether it will be successful in achieving its objectives. However, the FRA is a significant step forward in the recognition of the rights of forest dwellers and it has the potential to make a positive impact on the lives of millions of people.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is a bill introduced by the Government of India.  This bill will amend the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.  Provisions have been made in the bill to open forest land for industries.  The bill is being opposed by environmentalists and tribals.  They are concerned that the bill will be detrimental to forest conservation and infringe on the rights of tribals.

 The following provisions have been made in the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023:

 Forest land will be opened for industries.

 The process of obtaining environmental clearance for forest land will be simplified.

 The amount of compensation for forest land will be reduced.

 The rights of tribals will be curtailed.

 The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is being opposed by environmentalists and tribals.  They are concerned that the bill will be detrimental to forest conservation and infringe on the rights of tribals.  Environmentalists say that the bill will reduce the forest area and promote climate change.  The tribals say that the bill will destroy their traditional way of life and rights.

वन (संरक्षण) संशोधन विधेयक, 2023 एक विधेयक है जिसे भारत सरकार ने पेश किया है. यह विधेयक वन (संरक्षण) अधिनियम, 1980 में संशोधन करेगा. विधेयक में वन भूमि को उद्योगों के लिए खोलने के लिए प्रावधान किए गए हैं. विधेयक का विरोध पर्यावरणविदों और आदिवासियों द्वारा किया जा रहा है. वे इस बात से चिंतित हैं कि विधेयक वन संरक्षण के लिए हानिकारक होगा और आदिवासियों के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करेगा.

वन (संरक्षण) संशोधन विधेयक, 2023 में निम्नलिखित प्रावधान किए गए हैं:

वन भूमि को उद्योगों के लिए खोला जाएगा.

वन भूमि के लिए पर्यावरणीय मंजूरी प्राप्त करने की प्रक्रिया को सरल बनाया जाएगा.

वन भूमि के लिए मुआवजे की राशि को कम किया जाएगा.

आदिवासियों के अधिकारों को कम किया जाएगा.

वन (संरक्षण) संशोधन विधेयक, 2023 का विरोध पर्यावरणविदों और आदिवासियों द्वारा किया जा रहा है. वे इस बात से चिंतित हैं कि विधेयक वन संरक्षण के लिए हानिकारक होगा और आदिवासियों के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करेगा. पर्यावरणविदों का कहना है कि विधेयक वन क्षेत्र को कम करेगा और जलवायु परिवर्तन को बढ़ावा देगा. आदिवासियों का कहना है कि विधेयक उनके पारंपरिक जीवन और अधिकारों को नष्ट कर देगा.

.

 ,