INDIA
procedure involved some judgment and in this case the judgment was that of the many participants in the Screening Committee acting collectively. There were then no allegations of impropriety in the functioning of the Committee. The observation of the
CAG that the process of competitive bidding could have been introduced in 2006 by amending the administrative instructions was flawed. Initially, the government had initiated a proposal to introduce competitive bidding by formulating appropriate rules. The Department of Legal Affairs initially opined that amendment to the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act would be necessary for this purpose. In the meeting convened in the Prime Minister’s Office on 25 July 2005 and attended by representatives of coal and lignite bearing states, the representatives of state governments opposed the proposed switch over to competitive bidding. It was further noted that the legislative changes that would be required for the proposed change. Therefore, it was decided that the allocation of coal blocks would continue through the extant Screening Committee procedure till the new competitive bidding procedure became operational. This was a collective decision of the centre and the state governments concerned. The Prime Minister added that
it was only in August 2006 that the Department of Legal Affairs opined that competitive bidding could be introduced through administrative instructions. However, the same Department also opined that legislative amendments would be required for placing the proposed process on a sound legal footing. In a meeting held in September 2006, the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs categorically stated that with regard to the nature and
scope of the relevant legislation, it would be most appropriate to achieve the objective through amendment to the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act. It was difficult to accept the
notion that a decision of the government to seek legislative amendment to implement a change in policy should come for adverse audit scrutiny. The issue was contentious and the proposed change to competitive bidding required consensus building among various stakeholders with divergent views. The major coal and lignite bearing states like West Bengal, Chhattisgarh. Jharkhand, Odisha and Rajasthan that were ruled by opposition parties, were strongly opposed to a switch-over to the process of competitive bidding as they felt that it would increase the cost of coal, adversely impact value addition and development of industries in their areas. The Ministry of Power, too, felt that auctioning of coal could lead to enhanced cost of producing energy. The Prime Minister mentioned that the Coal Mines Nationalization (Amendment) Bill, 2000 to facilitate commercial mining by private companies was pending in the Parliament for a long time owing to stiff opposition from the stakeholders. Despite the elaborate consultative process undertaken prior to introducing the amendment Bill in Parliament, the Standing Committee advised the Ministry of Coal to carry out another round of discussions with the States. This further demonstrated that the decision to seek broader consultation and consensus through a Parliamentary process was the right one. The CAG report criticized the government for not implementing this decision speedily enough. In retrospect, the Prime Minister readily agreed that in a world where things could be done by
fiat, it could have been done faster. But, given the complexities of the process of consensus building in the parliamentary system, this was easier said than done. The Prime Minister admitted
that the private parties who were allocated captive coal blocks could not achieve their production targets which could be partly due to cumbersome processes involved in getting statutory clearances, an issue that was being addressed separately. Action had been initiated to cancel the allocations of allottees
who did not take adequate follow-up action to commence production. The Central Bureau of Investigation was separately investigating the allegations of malpractices. The government had initiated
action to examine the idea in all its dimensions and the process culminated in Parliament approving the necessary legislative amendments in 2010. While the process of making legislative changes was in progress, the only alternative before the government was to continue with the current
THIRD READING: INDIA
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro- Sciences, Bangalore Bill, 2012 The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences, Bangalore was established as an autonomous body, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 on 27 December 1974. This integration facilitated better functioning and rapid growth of the institute. Integrating mental health and neurosciences, the institute in its present form faced constraints in:
(a) Growing further and in evolving new courses in diverse fields relevant to the present national scenario in India; and (b) Giving greater thrust to inter disciplinary research and innovation.
The government therefore,
proposed to make the Institute a statutory body corporate and to declare it as an institution of national importance under Entry 64 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the constitution. The government, therefore, brought forward the National
Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences, Bangalore Bill, 2012 to empower the Institute with academic autonomy to develop its own curriculum, set new trends in mental health and neuro-science, award its own degrees and also enable it to have appropriate delegated administrative and financial powers. The government was of the view that conferring of statutory status on this Institute would enable it to grow into a model center of excellence. Salient Features of the Bill include:
• Detailed provisions have been made with regard to Budget of the Institute, Accounts and audit, annual report, pension and provident funds; and • Provision has been made ensuring the Central Government to make rules, and make regulations.
The Bill was passed by Lok
Sabha on 4 September 2012 and by Rajya Sabha on 13 August 2012. The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 13 September 2012.
The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Four | 329
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112