PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
not against the Food Security Bill per se. The government instead of referring the proposed amendments to the Parliamentary Committee promulgated the Ordinance just 20 days before the commencement of the Parliament’s Session. The Bill was inadequate and suffered from some serious flaws. He said the public distribution system should be made universal. The senior BJP leader, Dr Murli Manohar argued that the provision of five kg per person per month was not adequate as 14 kg of food grains required per person per month according
INDIA
to international standards. The objective of this Bill should have
Smt. Sonia Gandhi, MP been universal i.e. food security THIRD READING: INDIA
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Bill, 2013
The Securities and Exchange Board of India, 1992 (SEBI Act) was enacted to provide for the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Board of India to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market. The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) was established under section 15 K of the SEBI Act to adjudicate upon appeals against the decisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Section 15M of the Act, relating to qualifications for appointment as the Presiding Officer of SAT, provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of SAT unless he is a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting or retired Chief Justice of High Court. The post of Presiding Office of SAT fell vacant on 29 November 2011. Efforts to identify a suitable candidate under the existing eligibility criteria were not successful, and, therefore, the post remained vacant. As there was an urgent need to fill the post of Presiding Officer of SAT and Parliament was not in session, it became necessary to amend section 15M of the SEBI Act by way of promulgation of an Ordinance. Accordingly, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013 was promulgated on the 21 January, 2013. A Bill to replace the said Ordinance was introduced in Rajya Sabha and was passed by it on 11 March, 2013. However, before the Lok Sabha could consider the Bill, the House was adjourned. Therefore, the Ordinance promulgated on 21 January 2013 lapsed
336 | The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue Four
on 4 April 2013, as the Bill could not be enacted within six weeks of re-assembly of Parliament as required under Article 123 of the Constitution of India. This necessitated promulgation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 on 29 May 2013 so that the recruitment process for filling up the post of Presiding Officer, Securities Appellate Tribunal, is not affected. In view of these circumstances the government brought forward Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
The Amending Bill incorporated a new section 15M in the parent Act. The new Section provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Securities Appellate Tribunal unless he is a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court. The proviso to this Section lays down that the Presiding Officer of the Securities Appellate Tribunal shall be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India or his nominee. The Ordinance replacing amending Bill which brought about the needed amendment for unfettered functioning of SEBI was welcomed by all sections of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 27 August 2013 and by Rajya Sabha on 5 September 2013.
The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President on 12 September 2013. Consequently the Ordinance got replaced and the Securities and Exchange Board of India stood amended to the required extent.
for all and not confined to 75 per cent of people in rural areas and 50 per cent in urban areas. The element of nutrition had been completely ignored. He accused the government of promising utopia as the government had not yet even ascertained the correct number of below poverty line (BPL) families in the country. He said the government was trying to win over the people. He wanted to know where from the government would arrange funds for the Bill. The UPA Chairperson and
the President of the Indian National Congress Smt. Sonia
Gandhi, MP, said the Bill was the fulfillment of the promise made by the party in its election manifesto in 2009, that it would bring food security law and provide food grains to all the people of the country, particularly the weaker sections of society. The Bill would provide legal right to food security to those that needed it. She emphasized that both agriculture and farmers were an integral part of the government’s policy and their needs had been given top priority and would always remain so.
There was a need to overhaul
the PDS and fair price shops and to ensure that benefits of this system reached actual beneficiaries and in right quantity. There was also need to address the problems of leakage prevailing in the system. The right to food security was a very strong medium to empower the needy, enhance accountability of the administration, reduce corruption and make the whole system effective. The Samajwadi Party leader Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, MP, asserted that all the Chief Ministers of the States should have been called and consulted before bringing forward the Food Security Bill, as the Bill once enacted would put a huge burden on the states. Terming the Bill as anti-farmer he wanted the government to guarantee that the produce of the farmers would be procured otherwise farmers would be ruined. Nowhere in the Bill was it mentioned as to what assistance would be provided to the States. He asked the government to inform as to what criteria had been adopted for defining the poor. He was surprised that the government was going to start providing free and cheaper food grains without even ascertaining the number of poor people. For him, the Bill was nothing but an election stunt. He asked the government to ensure that there
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 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124