Law Commission Report
Repeal And Amndment Of Laws Part 1
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINTH REPORT REPEAL AND AMENDMENT OF LAWS : PART I No . LAW commission or mom SHASTR|BHNW%N NEW DELHI - 110 001 TEL.:3384475 Reswence: 1.
JANPATH NEW DELHI » I10 O11 TEL. : 3019465 JUS~CE B. P. JEEVAN REDDY Chairman, Law Commission of India Dated 28th July,1998 Dear Dr. Thambidurai, I am forwarding herewith the One Hundred Fifty Ninth Report on "Repeal and Amendment of Laws: Part I"
2. The subject was taken up by the Commission in pursuance of the terms of references of the Law Commission of India by which it was constituted. As a sequal to the said terms of reference, the Commission requested the various Ministries to send us the views of the expert groups/departmental committees constituted in the respective departments set up for the review of the enactments administered by the respective Ministries/Departments. The Commission received quite a few proposals/responses from various Ministries/Departments. Some have stated that their exercise is still to be completed. Since, there are large number of Ministries/Departments and hundreds of the Acts are being administered by them, waiting for all the proposals and making a comprehensive single report would involve substantial and uncalled--for delay. Accordingly, the Commission decided that it would send more than one Report on the issue of "Repeal and Amendment of Laws". This is the first such Report.
3. This Report focuses on the need for the Repeal of certain Central Acts which have become obsolete in view of enactments of subsequent legislation, or laws which have become anomalous or out--dated in view of changed conditions, which, therefore, need to be repealed. With regards, Yours sincere , (B.P. Jeevan Reddy) Dr. M. Thambidurai, Minister of Law, Justice and Co. Affairs, Shastri Bhawanz New Delhi-110 001 CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER-IV ANNEX_URE-- I ANNEXURE--II ANNEUXRE-III CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN RECOMMENDING REPEAL AND AMENDMENT OF LAWS CENTRAL ACTS RECOMMENDED FOR REPEAL/ AMALGAMATION/AMENDMENT CONCLUSION LETTER DATED
--L O ¢b O In u LETTER DATED |'\) w l\) LO :1) LETTER DATED 5.3.98 11-36 37-49 50 51 52 CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope This report focusses on the need for the repeal of certain Central Acts which have become obsolete in view of enactment of subsequent legislation, or laws which have become anomalous or out--dated in view of changed conditions, which, ,need to be repealed. The Law Commission has taken up the subject in pursuance of the terms of reference of the Law Commission by which it was constituted. The relevant terms of reference are extracted below - "The terms of reference of the Law Commission are as under:-
I. Review/Repeal of obsolete laws:
a) To identify laws which are no longer needed or relevant and can be immediately repealed.
b) To identify laws which are in harmony with the existing climate of economic liberalisation which need no change;
Commission is:-
c) To identify 1aws. which require changes or amendments and to make suggestions for their amendment;
d) To consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision/amendment given by Expert Groups in various Ministries/Departments with a view to coordinating and harmonising them;
e) To consider references made to it by Ministries/Departments in respect of 1egis1ation having bearing on the working of more than one Ministry/Department;
f) To suggest suitabie measures for quick redressai of citizens grievances, in the fieid of 1aw."
Besides one of the terms of reference of the "VI. To recommend to the Government measure for bringing the statute book up-to-date by repeaiing obsoiete 1aws and enactments or parts thereof which have out1ived their uti1ity."
It may I(d) of the aforequoted terms of reference of the present Commission of of Law and Justice, inter a1ia, expects "(d) To suggestions Groups in --:3 :- be emphasised at the cost of repetition that the para Law India, as set out in the Order of the Ministry Department of Legal Affairs dated 16.9.97, the Commission -
consider in a wider perspective the for revision/amendment given by Expert various Ministries/Departments with a view to coordinating and harmonising them." 1.2 As a sequei to the aforesaid terms and references, the Law Commission addressed 1etters dated 10.10.97, 23.2:98 and 5.3.98 (Annexures--I. II & III respectively) to various ministries to send us the views of the expert groups/departmenta1 committees constituted in the respective departments set up for the review of the enactments administered by the respective ministries/departments. The Commission has 'eceived quite a few propcsa1s/responses from various Ministries/Departments.
specific proposais, do not administer them do not require their exercise is considered a11 such In view of the Iarge number of whiie some of them have sent some others have stated that either they any Act or that the Acts administered by any amendment. Some have stated that sti11 to be The Commission has responses/prcposais.
Ministries/Departments concerned and the hundreds of Acts being administered by them, the Commission W8-S faced with the question how to go about these severa1 proposa1s. waiting for a11 the proposals and making a comprehensive single report wouid invoive substantiai and unca11ed-for deiay. Accordingiy, the Commission has decided that it wou1d send more than one report on the issue of 'Repea1 and Amendment of Laws'. This is the first such report.
1.3 Necessity for regeaiing obsolete §nactments:-
The need for periodicai review of the statute book is evident. Citizens of a country are expected to be famiiiar at 1east with the statutes reievant to their 1ives and affairs. Such famiiiarity cannot be satisfactori1y acquired and properiy maintained if the statute book contains statutes which are rea11y "dead" though forma11y a1ive. Citizens are concerned with the Tiving 1aw. They shou1d not be made to wade through a forest where obsoiete or anachronistic statutes c1oud the scenario. Such a situation is bound to confuse the vision, besides 1eading to a waste of energy, time and resources. The co-existence of dead 1aw with iiving 1aw creates confusion even in the understanding. (Law Commission of India, one hundred forty eighth report on Repeai of certain pre-1947 Centrai Acts, para 1.2).
1.4 Functions of statute 1gw r§vision:-
The function of statute 1aw revision and the princip1es on which its exercise shouid proceed have been 1ucid1y put by Lord westbury, Lord Chanceiior, whi1e speaking in 1863 on the Statute Law Revision B111. This is what he
- said: (Lord westbury, "Par1iamentary Debates" (1863) 3rd Series, Vo1.171, co1.775, quoted by Lord Simon of G1aisda1e and Webb, "consoiidation and Statute Law Revision" (1975), Pubiic Law 285. 291).
"The Statute Book shouid be revised and expurgated-weeding away a11 those enactments that no Ionger in force and arranging and c1assifying what is Teft under proper heads, bringing the dispersed statutes together, eiiminating jarring and discordant provisions, and thus getting a harmonious whole instead of a chaos of inconsistent and contradictory enactments.' (see Law Commission of India 96th report, para 1.4).
As envisaged by Lord westbury, statute iaw revision is intended to achieve four main objectives:- (See Law Commission of India 148th report, para 1.8)
(i) renovation -- which is achieved by "weeding away" obsoiete enactments;
(ii) order and symmetry - which can be introduced by arranging and ciassifying the enactments rea11y in force;
(iii) easy access to Iegisiation - promoted through consoiidation by "bringing the dispersed statutes together" and
(iv) harmony - perfected by "eliminating discordant and jarring provisions."
These goals, pursued systematically, can obliterate so much of the past as is useless. organise the present and equip us for meeting the challenges of the future. 1.5 Need for formal repeal and law reform;, As pointed out by the Law Commission in its earlier report, (Law Commission of India 148th report, para 1.6) statutes, unlike human beings, do not die a natural death, excepting in respect of statutes whose life is pre--determined by the legislature at the time of their enactment. A statute, unless it is expressly enacted for a temporary period, survives until it is killed by repealing it. To this extent, the statutes enjoy immortality.
This consequence flows from the well-established proposition that long desuetude of a statute does not amount to its repeal. (Perrin v. U.S.(1914) 58 L.Ed.69). Even where an earlier enactment relating to a particular subject matter is followed by a later enactment on the subject matter covering almost every inch of the area covered by the earlier enactment, the earlier enactment may still be held to retain its vitality because courts lean against implied repeal. Thus neither the obsolescence of an old enactment nor the fact that its content is substantially covered by a later enactment, has -:7 :- the effect of robbing the o1d enactment of its vita1ity in Taw. That effect can be achieved on1y by a forma1 repeaiing Act. ' Besides these objectives, the Law Commission is aiso required to see in wider perspective Taws which do not comport with the existing ciimate of economic 1ibera1isation according to the changing scenario of giobalisation in economic sector. Thus change in conditions on po1itica1 and economic front aiso necessitate the considering of changes in the reievant Taw when it was enacted.
1.6 Eariier reports:~ The present report is not the first one of the Law Commission of India in the nature of such examination. The Law Commission has, in the past, had more than one occasion for such examination. In 1958, the Commission examined aii the British statutes then in force as appTicab1e to India, the Commission forwarded a Report recommending the repea1 of the Converts Marriage Disso1ution Act (18th Report). Thereafter, the Commission forwarded another Report recommending repeai of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act (81st Report). Besides this, the Law Commission forwarded comprehensive Report in 1984 on the repeai of certain obsolete Centrai Acts. (Law Commission of India, 96th report on Repeai of Certain Obsoiete Centra1 Acts (1984).
That Report, inter aiia, incorporates certain important materiais reiating to the function and significance of repeaiing Acts and we made use of some of those materiais. The Commission again undertook the question of repea1 of the Central Acts passed before 15th August, 1947, in its 148th report on Repea1 of certain pre-1947 Centrai Acts, in 1993. 1.8 Scheme of the discussion;_ Having referred to these introductory observations, we proceed to deai, in the next chapter, with the principie to be fo11owed in recommending the repeal of centrai Acts. Thereafter we sha11 summarise the resuits of our study and make our conciusions thereon.
CHAPTER-II PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN REQQflMENDING REPEAL AND AMENDMENT OF LAWS 2.1 Broad ApQroach:-
In pursuance of the terms and reference constituting the Law Commission quoted in the previous chapter, the Commission addresed the letters to various ministries/departments of the Centrai Government vide our Ietters dated 10.10.97, 23.2.98 and 5.3.98 (Annexures I, II & ;_;, respective1y) to send us the suggestions for revision/amendment given by the Expert Groups set up in various ministries/departments with a view to coordinating and harmonising them.
The Expert Groups set up in the various ministries/departments of the Centrai Government have made recommendations which can be broadly categorised under four heads-
(i) Acts which do not need any change;
(ii) Acts which require to be repealed;
(iii) Acts which require to be ama1gamated and re-enacted as singie enactment; and
(iv) Acts, changes wherein are sti11 under consideration.
-:10:--
In so far as the Acts mentioned in item (i) above are concerned, the Commission has obviously no comments to offer. However, with regard to the other items stated above, the Commission has examined the recommendations of the Expert Groups and proposes to recommend for repea1, ama1gamation or amendments,as the case may be, the Acts mentioned in the succeeding chapter of this report.
2.2 Scheme of the study:--
The Law Commission thought it convenient to take up the examination of the centra1 1aws fa11ing under the respective ministries of the Centra1 Government and the 1aws administered by them, department--wise. We sha11 take up the response of each department and offer our comments thereon. The Commission has perused the various Acts mentioned in the responses/reports of various departments and has come to its own conc1usions which may not necessari1y be identica1 with the views of the departments.
-:11:- CHAPTER -III CENTRAL ACTS RECOMMENDED FOR REPEAL/AMALGAMATION/AMENDMENT
3.1 Proposa1s received from the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs):~ we sha11 first take up the proposa1s received from the Department of Economic Affiars, Minsitry of Finance in the shape of the "Report of the Expert Group for the Department of Economic Affairs", which were forwarded to the Commission under their Tetter dated 9.3.98. The said Report sets out, in the first instance, the ro1e of the Department of Economic Affairs and its changed roie in the current 1ibera1ised economic environment. Since the 1ibera1isation of economic environment is a poiicy of the Government, the Law Commission has no comments to offer thereon. At the same time, it is necessary to mention that Tiberalisation shcuid not and cannot invo1ve a totai withdrawai of the Government from the economic scene of the country. Unti1 1991-92 the Indian economy was, what may be ca1Ted, a 'command economy' where the commanding heights were supposed to be occupied by the public sector. The private sector was cioseiy reguiated and had to operate subject to numerous restrictions contained in various enactments in force or enacted from time to time, as the case may be. Probably in the present day worid economic scenario, India had no option but to adopt market-oriented or what may be caT1ed market--friend1y economic poiicies. The shift was unavoidable. But, it must be said on the basis of experience
-:12:--
in this country as we11 as in the former communist States, that any such shift from a tota11y contro11ed and sheitered economy to a market-friendiy and 1ibera1ished economy ought not to be achieved in a sudden 1urch. It has to be a graduai process. The severai large-scaie financiai irreguiarities which came to iight during the years 1993 to 1997 are perhaps attributab1e to such an abrupt shift among other causes. while iifting of restrictions which operate as hurdies to increase in production and the growth of industries is weicome, the Government cannot abdicate its ro1e as the regu1ator of the economy. In the matter of estabiishment of new industries and/or in the matter of maintaining the standards and quaiities of industriai products too, its ro1e is unique and can be performed by it aione. Import and export poiicies have to be kept under constant watch and c1ose1y monitored and reguiated in the interest of a heaithy economy and this can be done and ought to be done by the Government. Transparent economic iaws and procedures are weicome, but at the same time the estabiishment of industries depending upon Forest produce, non--renewab1e and irrepiaceabie naturai resources and those giving rise to serious environmentai and ecoiogicai probiems have sti11 tt be reguiated in the iarger interest of the nation inciuding sustainabie deveiopment and inter-generationai equity. Severai decisions of the Supreme Court rendered during the years 1994 to 1997 amp1y bear out the above principles.
Now coming back to, the proposals/responses of the Department of Economic Affairs, a reference is made to R.V.PUPTA COMMITTEE REPORT 1994 (Chapter V) which contains several recommendations to amend various provisions of the statutes administered by the Department. It is stated that "most of the recommendations of the Gupta Committee have aiready been imp1emented by the Department". In this view of the matter, no purpose wi1l be served by offering any comments on the recommendations mentioned in Chapter V of R.V.GUPTA COMMITTEE REPORT.
The proposa1s sent by the Department then speak of the proposa1s made by the 'new Expert Group' constituted on 5th November 1997 under the Chairmanship of the Finance Secretary to review Acts, ruies and regulations pertaining to th FD Department. It is stated that for expeditious compietion of the work, the said new Expert Group constituted a sub-committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Vinod Dha11, Additiona1 Secretary (Insurance) and comprising certain non-officia1 members as weT1. It is stated that the said Committee submitted its Report on 18.12.1997 which was finaiised by the Expert Group in its finai meeting he1d on 29.12.97. The recommendations of the Expert Group can be broadiy categorised under four heads as stated in the preceding chapter, pr.2.1, and are being repeated hereunder:-- -:14:-
(i) Acts which do not need any change;
(ii) Acts which require to be repealed;
(iii) Acts which require to be amaigamated and re-enacted as sing1e enactment; and
(iv) Acts, changes wherein are sti11 under consideration.
(i) In so far as the Acts mentioned in item (i) above are concerned, the Commission has obviousiy no comments to offer.
(ii) Under this item, the fo11owing Acts are proposed to be repea1ed:--
(a) Banking Service Commission Act. 1984 It is stated that the Banking Service Commission contemp1ated by the Act was never constituted and that in view of the decision to enhance the functionai autonomy of pubiic sector banks, no such Commission is proposed to be constituted. The decision to repeai this Act being a policy decision, ca11s for no comments.
(b) Currency Ordinance 1940 It is stated that since the printing of one rupee denomination notes has been discontinued, this Ordinance is no 1onger required. The view of the Department appears unexceptionabie.
-2152-
(c) The Shipping Development Fund Committee LAbolition) Act. 1986 This Act was enacted "to abolish the Shipping Development Fund Committee constituted under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958" and for disposal of its funds, assets and liabilities. Since the object of the Act has already been achieved, there is nothing further to be done under the Act and accordingly it is but proper that it is repealed.
(d) Compulsory Deposit Scheme Act. 1963 and Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act, 1974 The Compulsory Deposit Scheme was enacted requiring every person mentioned in Section 2 to make certain deposits compulsory every year. The Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act, 1974 provided for compulsory deposits into two separate accounts i.e., additional wages deposit account and additional dearness allowance deposit account into which the persons mentioned in Section 3 have to make the deposits.
Actually, the deposits were to be made by the disbursing authority. No reasons are given in the proposals sent by the Department of Economic Affairs in support of the proposal to repeal these enactments. However, on being contacted, the Law Commission was told that the Department did not think that in future any occasion or necessity will arise for such compulsory deposits. It is for this reason, it was stated, the Acts were proposed to be repealed while no doubt making -:16:- provision for disposal of the amounts already in deposit under the respective enactments. Since it appears to be a matter of policy, more or less, to repeal these enactments, the Law Commission has no particular comments to offer.
(iii)(a) The proposal to amalgamate and enact a single Act in the place of Government Savings Bank Act, 1873. Government Savings Certificate Act. 1959 and Public Provident Fund Act. 1968 may be a welcome feature. The main purpose of the 1873 Act is to provide that the nomination made by the depositor should prevail notwithstanding any law being in force or any disposition whether testamentory or otherwise. A nominee is entitled to get amount on the death of the depositor. Similarly, the 1959 Act provides that nomination by a holder of certificate should prevail over any other circumtance. Of course, certain other provisions are also made. The 1968 Act, of course establishes the Public Provident Fund Scheme, the manner of subscription thereto and withdrawal therefrom as well as for the interest payable. This Act too provides that in the case of nomination, the nominee will get the amount on the death of the depositor notwithstanding any other circumstance. It would be appropriate that these enactments are repealed after enacting a consolidated Act providing for the subject-matters dealt with by these three enactments.
It is pertinent to mention that there was a difference of opinion between different High Courts as to whether the nominee was entitled to the amount payable under the policy as -:17:- a beneficiary in his own right to the exciusion of the heirs of the deceased assured or whether the nominee was mereiy a person authorised to make coilection on behaif of the 1ega1 heirs of the deceased assured. This issue was settied by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi's case [AIR 1984 SC 346], which upheid the iatter view that the nominee is mereiy empowered to co11ect the amount for the benefit of the 1ega1 heirs. In the context of this 1ega1 position, the Law Commission in its 137th report on 'Need for Creating Office of Ombudsman and for evo1ving 1egis1ative--Administrative Measures inter--a1ia to reiieve hardships caused by inordinate deiays in settiing provident fund ciaims of beneficiary, examined under Chapter V thereof the status of a nominee under the Emp1oyees Provident Fund and Misceiianeous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder, and suggested three options by way of so1ution to the issue.
However, it preferred adoption of the third option as it appeared to be just and fair as the empioyee wouid be fu11y aware and conscious of what he is doing by making the 'nomination' and the consequences thereof. The said third option recommended by the Commission is quoted be1ow:-
"Third course which commends" itseif is to make a statutory provision enabiing an empioyee to cieariy state in writing in the very appiication making nomination either that he wants that 'the nominee
-{1e:-
sha11 take the amount absoiutely in his or her own right" or that the "nominee shali co11ect it and pay to my family members..."
we recommend that simiiar provision, shou1d be adopted for the sake of ciarity in the proposed enactment.
(iii)(b) Simiiariy, the proposal to amalgate and enact a consolidated Act in the p1ace of the Indian coinage Act. 1906, Mgtai Tokens Act. 1889 and §ma11 Coins (Offences) Act, lgll is a weicome proposai. The Indian coinage Act prohibits the making of any piece of copper, bronze or any other metai to be used as money by any other person than the Government. The Indian coinage Act provides for estabiishment of mints, coining of coins at such mints and other incidentai matters. The Sma11 Coins (Offences) Act was enacted to prevent meiting or destruction of sma11 coins as weii as hoarding of sma11 coins for the purpose of melting and destroying. This Act was made to meet the acute shortage of coins. These three Acts can be convenient1y clubbed into one Act.
(iii)(c) so far as the Lggai Tender (Inscribed Notes) Act. 1964 is concerned, it is proposed to be continued in the present form and the Law Commission has no comments to offer thereon.
(iv) Before considering the Trusts Act, amendments whereto are said to be sti11 under consideration, the Law Commission may dea1 with the proposa1 to repeai ciauses (a) to (e) of -:19:- f i r . Section 20 provides for a situation where the trust property consists of money but cannot be applied immediately or at an early date to the purposes of the trust. In such a situation, the trustee is placed under an obligation to invest the money in any of the securities mentioned in clauses (a) to (f). Now, the Department of Economic Affairs says that clauses (a) to (e) have become redundant. At the same time, it says that they are concerned with the Law Department. The Law Commission is not able to appreciate as to why it can be said that clauses
(a) to (e) have become redundant and require to be repealed. It is true that clause (a) of Section 20, to take an instance, speaks of investment "in promisory notes, debentures, stock or other securities, of any State Government or of the Central Government or of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is not stated that no such promissory notes etc., were issued by the State Government or the Central Government. The promissory notes of the U.K. are referred to because the Act is of 1882. It is one thing to say that the references in these clauses to securities, bonds, stocks, etc., of the Government of U.K. or other foreign countries may be repealed but it is altogether a different thing to say that all the clauses (a) to (e) are to be repealed. In the absence of any further material, the Commission is not in a position to agree with the proposal to repeal clauses (a) to (e) of section 20 altogether. Appropriate amendments thereto can, however, be considered, as mentioned above.
-:20:- It is a1so stated in the Report of the Department that necessary steps have aiready been taken to repiace EEBA with FEMA. Since the matter is c1ose1y connected with the poiicies of the Government and aiso because a copy of the FEMA has not been made avaiiabie to the Commission, it is not possibie to express any opinion.
The Report of the Department of the Economic Affairs, further, states that amendments to other Acts which are being impiemented by the Department are under consideration of the Expert Group.
Among other matters, the Report states that in piace of the existing Sick Industriai Companies (speciai Provisions) Act, 1985, a new Bi11 ca11ed "Sick Industriai Companies (speciai Provisions) Bi11 1997" was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 16th May, 1997. It is stated that the said B111 was prepared taking into consideration the various suggestions received in the matter inciuding the recommendations of the Goswami Committee. Though a copy of the Biii was not made avai1ab1e to the Law Commission, it has obtained a copy thereof and has perused the same. It is true that in certain respects the proposed Act is an improvement upon the present Act, yet the basic scheme remains the same. 8.28 of the Bi11, which corresponds to 8.22 of the present Act does not provide -:21:- for an automatic suspension of 1ega1 proceedings, recoveries and other contractua1 ob1igations (as is provided by 8.22 of the present Act) and it empowers the Board to pass orders to the above effect after hearing the parties and if the circumstances of the case ca11 for such an order. The B111 provides for a three--way so1ution viz., rehabi1itation, sa1e (of industria1 concern or a going concern) and winding up, as the case may be. There is another aspect requiring c1arification: s.1(4) says that it (Act) sha11 app1y, in the first instance to a11 the §chedg]§g industries other than the schedu1ed industry re1ating to ships and other vesse1s drawn by power; there are two schedu1es to the B111; the first schedu1e sets out the dec1aration of fide1ity and "secrecy whi1e the second schedu1e sets out the matters which can be provided for whi1e restructuring the industria1 company; there is no other schedu1e mentioning the industries to which the Act is supposed to app1y. Be that as it may, having regard to the provisions of the present Act and the B111 aforesaid, the Law Commission thinks it necessary to make the fo11owing observations:
Severa1 private/pub1ic 1imited companies are started with the aid of and are sustained with the aid of pub1ic funds. It is immateria1 whether the pub1ic funds f1ow from the banks (nationa1ised or otherwise), or from other financing bodies and pub1ic financia1 institutions. Experience shows that quite a few entrepreneurs exp1oit this situation. They start a company, main1y with the aid of pub1ic funds and then either by mis-management, inefficient management or rank -:22:- dishonesty, drive the company to sickness. The matter is reported to the BIFR with the result that all the recoveries against them are instantly stayed. Even the taxes due to the Government cannot be recovered let alone the debts due to the banks and others financial institutions. This kind of blanket immunity results in grave injustice to banks/financial institutions as well as to the Government and breeds financial indiscipline among the persons in charge of industrial companies. It is a serious matter to be examined by the Government whether in the light of the new liberalised economic policy, the Government should try to keep alive gyggy §1gk_1ngg§§;y. one of the underlying principles of a market economy is to allow inefficient and non--viable industries to die their natural death instead of seeking to sustain them by pumping in more and more public funds. The policy followed hitherto viz., keeping several central and State public sector undertakings afloat by pumping in huge amount of public funds every year has already come in for serious criticism by various economists. one can understand if a key industry, whose existence/continuance is crucial to the nation's economy, is sought to be revived and continued. But the policy of seeking to revive and rehabilitate egggx sick industry may not be consistent with the present day economic policy. The 1986 Act, it may be remembered, was enacted at a time when the reigning philsophy was altogether different Today the ruling philosophy is not the same. Indeed, if one looks at the working of the nationalised banks and the extent of "non--performing assets" - an euphemism for bad debts - one is driven to the conclusion that sooner the public sector »is -:23:- privatised (barring some key defence and defence-reiated industries) the better it wou1d_be for the country and its economy. Some of the nationaiised banks have run up bad debts in thousand of crores of rupees e.g., Indian Bank, whose bad debts are said to exceed Rs.2,000 crores. The Law Commission, therefore, eco m f r en n place of the present Act. a noiicy decieion mey be tekeg en the sueject as e whoie and then etegs sheu1d Qe tehen Le eneet a necessary and aggroeriate enectment or put an end to the entire exercise as such.
3.2 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS)Z* In their ietter dated 9th March, 1998, the Secretary of the Department has stated that they had not constituted any Expert Group for reviewing the enactments administered by their Department. They have on1y stated that they propose to repeai Qemeegies (Donation te Nationei Funge) got. 135] by incorporating the reievant provisions in the Companies Bi11, 1997.
At the same time, it is stated in the brief note appended to the ietter that certain amendments are being contemp1ated to MRTP Act, 1969; Chartered Accountants Act, 1949; Cost and works Accountants Act, 1959. The proposed -:24:- amendments are not forwarded to the Law Commission. No comments can, therefore, be offered so far as this Department is concerned.
3.3 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (E.Coord)i-- This Department has indicated that they are not independent1y administering any Act and, therefore, there is no occasion for them to suggest any amendments to any enactment.
3.4 N OF C 1- The Ministry of Commerce, in their Tetter dated March 16, 1998 have stated that they are administering ten Acts, name1y, -
1. The Spices Board Act, 1986 (No.10 of 1988)
2. The Rubber Act, 1947 (No.24 of 1947)
3. The Tea Act, 1953 (No.29 of 1953)
4. The Coffee Act, 1942 (No.7 of 1942)
5. The Marine Products Export Deve1opment Authority Act, 1972 (No.13 of 1972)
6. The Tobacco Board Act, 1975 (No.4 of 1975)
7. The Agricu1tura1 and Processed Food Products Export Deve1opment Authority Act, 1985 (No.2 of 1986)
8. The Enemy Property Act, 1968 (No.34 of 1968)
9. The Export (Qua1ity Contro1 and Inspection) Act, 1963 (No.22 of 1963) -:25:-
10. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regu1ation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) Barring the 1ast two enactments, extensive amendments to other enactments are said to have been suggested by the Expert Committee constituted by the Ministry under the Chairmanship of shri D.P. Bagchi, Additionai Secretary and Financia1 Advisor, Ministry of Commerce. It is a1so stated that the concerned administrative sections have been advised to prepare Cabinet Note in respect of the said proposais for amendment wherever required and take further necessary action. A copy of the amendments suggested by the Expert Committee has a1so been forwarded to the Commission with the said ietter. As stated above, the amendments are extensive and wide-ranging. The amendments are mainiy directed to achieve the goa1 of 1ibera1ised and market-friendiy economy. The object is to remove e11 restrictions and a11ow the re1evant industries to grow and function on their own. Neither is it possib1e nor desirab1e -- much iess the function of the Law Commission - to examine and pronounce upon the desirabi1ity of each and every amendment suggested by the Expert Committee.According to the terms of reference constituting the present Commission (15th Law Commission), it is required to examine proposais so received in Q wider pgrspegtiyg. Para 4.1(d) of the Order constituting the present Law Commission, in so far as it is reievant, reads thus:- -:26:-
"To consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision/amendment given by Expert Groups in various Ministries/Departments with a view to coordinating and harmonising them."
The wider perspective contemp1ated in the above ciause, the Law Commission presumes is to be understood in the 1ight of and on a comprehensive reading of its first term of reference quoted under pr.1.1, supra which means to examine the amendments in the iight of the existing ciimate of economic 1ibera1isation. Examined from the above standpoint, the Law Commission does not find any of the proposed amendments undesirabie. The Commission, however, seeks to reiterate its comments (made under para 3.1, supra of this Report) that whi1e the iifting of restrictions may be a11 right, reguiation should continue. In other words, a distinction shou1d be made between restrictions and reguiation. Even in a market economy, the Government cannot afford to abdicate its function of reguiating the economy. It may not impose restrictions but the overa11 controi and reguiation of the entire economy inciuding industriai sector shouid be in the hands of the Government. To protect and promote the nationai interest, the Government ought to exercise overaii contro1 over industria1 and commerciai estabiishments, their estabiishment and functioning This is what may be ca11ed the reguiatory function of the Government. -:27:- The Law Commission, however, wishes to draw attention of Government of India to section 19 of the Agricu1tura1 and Processed Food Products Export Deveiopment Authority Act, 1986 read with the items 1, 2, 4 and 9 of the Schedu1e to the Act. Section 19 and aforesaid items of the scheduie read as fo11ows:-
"19 (1) The Centrai Government may, by order pubiished in the Officiai Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise contro11ing the import or export of the Schedu1ed products, either generaiiy or in specified ciasses of cases. (2) A11 Scheduied products to which any order under sub-section (1) appiies, shaii be deemed to be goods of which the export has been prohibited under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a11 the provisions of that Act shaii have effect accordingiy. (3) If any person contravenes any order made under sub--section (1), he sha11, without prejudice to any confiscation or penaity to which he may be 1iab1e under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as appiied by sub-section (2), be punishabie with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
-:28:-
"THE SCHEDULE
1. Fruits, vegetabies and their products. 2 heat and meat products 4 uairy products.
9. Gerea1 products."
In view of the acute scarcity and sky-rocketing prices of vegetabies, meat and fruits a11 over the country, driving away these products from the reach of the common man, it wouid be appropriate that the Government issues notification prohibiting the exports of vegetabies, meat (exciuding beef) and fruits aitogether. Such prohibition wou1d ensure avaiiabiiity of these products at reasonabie rates which aione wouid enabie the poorer sections of the society to purchase and consume them. A separate report on this subject wi11 be submitted in due course.
o.5 MINISTRY OF FINANCE. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUEI* Through their Wetter dated 21.10.1997, the Ministry had informed the Law Commission that the Department has constituted an Expert Group for the purpose of identifying the obso1ete Taws and the amendments needed in the existing enactments. It was stated that an interim Report wou1d be sent to the Commission short1y. On 13.2.98, the Commission received a communication stating that the Expert Group is of
-:29:-' the unanimous view that out of the said 30 Acts (being administered by the Department) the fo11owing six Acts can be abrogated:--
1. Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
2. Centrai Excise Laws (Amendment & Va1idation) Act, 1982.
3. Sugar (speciai Excise Duty) Act, 1959.
4. Minerai Products (Additionai Duties of Excise & Customs) Act, 1958.
5. Centrai Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, and Customs & Excise Revenue Appeiiate Tribunai Act, 1986.
Since no reasons were stated as to why aforesaid six Acts are required to be repealed, the Law Commission addressed a ietter dated 4.3.98 asking the Department to state reasons for which the said Acts, in its opinion are to be repeaied. By their ietter dated Aprii 8, 1998, the Ministry has informed the Commission that "the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was recommended to be abrogated since no notification bringing the Act into force has been issued so far. On verification, however, the Commission finds that the above ground is not correct. As a matter of fact, S.1(3) of the Act says that Sections 3, 5 and 8 wi11 come into force at once and that the remaining provisions wi11 be deemed to have come into force on 19th May, 1988. In fact, there have been two decisions of the Supreme Court on the provisions of this Act nameiy, Mithiiesh Kumari (AIR 1989 SC 1247) and P-
-230:-
R.Rajegopa1 Reddy (AIR 1996 SC 238) See para 5. The Commission, therefore, cannot agree that this Act requires to be repea1ed. Indeed, this Act serves a very 1audab1e objective.
The Sugar (speciai Excise Duty) Act, 1959 was confined to stocks which were avai1ab1e with the factories on the date of commencement of the Act. It has no further appiioation. It can be repeaied as suggested.
so far as the Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Vaiidation) Act, 1982 is concerned, the Commission finds on a perusai of the provisions of the Act that it was enacted for the purpose of providing the manner in which exemption notifications shouid be issued under "every Centrai Law providing for the ievy and coiieotion of any duty of excise which makes the provisions of the Centrai Excise Act and Ruies made thereunder appiicabie by reference to the ievy and coiiection of the duty and excise under such Centrai Law." The Act further seeks to vaiidate severai exemption notifications issued earlier which may not have cited or referred to the reievant provisions of the Act or the Ruies under which or with reference to which they were issued. It is not known whether any disputes are pending with respect to the exemption notifications which are vaiidated by sub-section (4) of Section 2 of this Act. So far as the sub--sections (2) and (3) of Section 2 are concerned, they mere1y prescribe the mode and manner in which the exemption notifications under certain Centrai Laws [referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 2] -2312- sha11 be issued. In the circumstances, it is difficuit to agree that this Act can be repeaied without further verification. Oniy if it is found on due verification that no disputes or iitigation is pending with respect to the notifications which were va1idated by sub-section (4) of Section 2 that this Act can be repeaied. So far as the Minerai Products (Additionai Duties of Excise and Customs) Act, 1958 is concerned, it appears that the said Act pertained to a iimited period nameiy, the period commencing on 1.4.59 and ending on 31.10.59. This Act can, therefore, be repeaied with a specific provision that anything done or any action taken thereunder shaii continue to be good and valid. Simiiariy, the Centrai Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 appears to be confined to Notifications issued during a particuiar period (3.3.86 to 8.8.86) giving them retrospective effect. This Act can also be repeaied subject to a specific provision that anything done thereunder or any action taken thereunder sha11 continue to be good and va1id.
The Commission agrees with the reasons given for repeaiing the Customs and Excise Revenue Appeiiats Tribunai Act 1986. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L.Chandr§ Kumar and aiso because an appeai is now provided directiy to Supreme Court against the Orders of the CEGAT concerning matters of vaiuation and ciassification, this Act can be said to be unnecessary and may be repeaied. -:32:- 3.6 (1) DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY (11) DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN DEVELOPMENT (111) MINISTRY OF NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES The above three Departments have stated that they are not administering any Acts and, therefore, no question arises of any proposais being formuiated for repeai or amendment.
The Department of Suppiy, however, expressed certain practicai difficu1ties in the matter of conduct of arbitration of disputes arising out of contracts entered into by the DGS&D. Though the difficu1ties pointed out appear to be rea1 and urgent, it is not a matter upon which this Commission is expected to offer any comments.
3.7 DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS:-
The Department of Eiectronics has stated that "there is no specific statute which is being impiemented" by the said Department apart from generai ruies and producers app1icab1e to ail the Government organisations. In their Tetter dated 26.11.97, they have, however, stated that the Department "has aiready identified in the Nationai Information Infrastructure (NII) P1an--2000 of the Department with re1ation to the Cyber Laws and setting up of NII". It is stated that Inter-Ministeriai Standing Committee is reviewing a11 the re1ated aspects and that in addition thereto another high 1eve1 Inter-Ministeriai Sub-Group is a1so engaged in draft resoiution on "Layout Design in respect of Integrated Circuits -:33:- (ICs)". In the absence of any specific proposai being sent by this Department, no comments can be offered by the Law Commission.
3.8 MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES:
In their letters dated 6th August, 1997 and 16th October, 1997,. they have stated that they are administering four Acts/Orders, nameiy, out of which Rice Mi111ng Industry (Reguiation) Act, 1958 and Rice Mi11ing Industry (Regu1ation & Licensing) Ruies, 1959 have a1ready been repealed. The third Act MZI Act, 1981 is stated to have been transferred to Anima1 Husbandry Department and the fourth jfii, name1y Fruit Product Order (FPO) 1955 promuigated under the Essentia1 Commodities ACt has a1ready been amended. Aocordingiy, it is stated that no proposa1s are caiied for from the said Department. 3.9 MINISTRY OF URBAN AFFAIRS AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN EMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION Though in their ietter dated 27.10.1997, it was stated that they had constituted an Expert Group to review the existing iaws and suggest modifications and that their proposais as and when finaiised wi11 be intimated to the Commission, in their subsequent ietter dated 24.11.1997, the Department has stated: "On the subject mentioned above and to state that information may be treated as 'NIL' so far as this Department is concerned".
-:34:- 3.10 MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS.
DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS:-
The Department has stated that they are not administering any enactment except the Fertiiizer Movement (Contro1) Order, 1973 and that no amendments are contempiated therein.
3.11 DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY }_ In their ietter dated 10.11.1997, the Department has stated that they are administering the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Ruies and Regu1ations made thereunder. They have stated that they have periodicaiiy undertaken internai reviews and additionai regu1ations framed as and when required. No proposais either for the repeai or amendment has been sent by the Department.
3.12 MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS.
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS:-
In their ietter dated 17.11.1997, the Department has stated that so far as the Indian Posts Office Act, 1898 is concerned, a review committee was set up in 1992 which submitted its report in January, 1993. It is then stated that it has been decided to retain the Act "with some amendments where required". No proposa1s, however, are communicated to us. It is aiso stated that the other two enactments are -:35:- Government Savings Bank Act and the Government Savings Certificate Act but these enactments are sdeait with in the communication received from the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance which has proposed the merger of these two Acts with Pubiic Provident Fund Act. This aspect has a1ready been dealt with and commented eisewhere in this report.
3.13 MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:--
In their 1etter dated 19.11.1997, the Ministry has stated that they are deaiing with oniy two enactments, nameiy, Research & Deveiopment Cess Act, 1986 and Techno1ogy Deveiopment Board Act, 1995. It is stated that first of the two Acts have recentiy been amended in 1995 and the because both Acts are in harmony with the existing ciimate of economic iiberaiisation, no proposais of amendments are forwarded. 3.14 MINIS+RY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING:-
According to their ietter dated 28.11.97 of the Ministry, it is administering four Acts, nameiy, (i) Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867; (ii) Prasar Bharti Act, 1990;
(iii) The Cinematograph Act, 1952; and (iv) The Press Councii Act, 1978. so far as the 1867 Act is concerned, it is stated that amendments to the Act have been examined by the Law Ministry and that no further review of the Act is ca11ed for at this stage. Regarding the Cinematograph Act, 1952 it is -:36:- stated that the amendments have aiready been introduced and are now pending in the Rajya Sabha.
with respect to Press Councii Act, 1978, it is stated that the Press Councii of India has suggested some amendments and that the matter is under consideration and that proposais in that behaif wiii be sent to the Law Commission iater.
with respect to the Fraser Bharti Act, 1990, it is stated in the aforesaid ietter that no further review of the Act is caiied for at the present juncture. But it appears that the present Government is contempiating a review of the Act. Be that as it may, no comments are caiied for from the Law Commission at this stage, except to say that whiie enacting any amendments to the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990 or whiie contempiating a new enactment on the subject, as the case may be, the concerned authorities wi11 do weii to study cioseiy the two opinions in the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Secretarys Ministrv of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India vs. Cricket Association of Bengai & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1236. The said opinions refer to the Broadcasting Law obtaining in severai countries of the worid and lay down the basic concepts reievant to the subject in the iight of the Indian Constitutionai Law. -:37:- CHAPTER - IV Conciusion 4.1 On the basis of the discussions contained in the preceding chapters, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the foiiowing centrai enactments fa11ing under the administrative controi of the respective ministries of the Centrai Government need changes; or require to be repealed; or require to be amaigamated and re--enacted as a sing1e enactment; or no opinion can be given on enactments regarding changes which are sti11 under consideration, by the concerned department, as the case may be.
4.2 Enactments faiiing under Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs:
(a) Banking Service Commission Act:-- The decision to repea1 this being a poiicy decision, ca11s for no comments.
(para 3.1 (ii)(a), supra)
(b) Currency Ordinance 1940:-- The repeai of this enactment is recommended.
(para 3.1 (ii)(b), supra) (C) The Shipping Deveiopment Fund Committee (Aboiition) Act, 1986:- Repea1 of this Act is reccommended. (Para 3.1 (ii)(c), supra) -:38:-
(d) Compuisory Deposit Scheme Act, 1963 and Additionai Emoiuments (Compuisory Deposit) Act, 1974:- On the basis of the policy decision of the Government, repeal of these enactments is recommended.
(para 3.1 (ii)(d), supra)
(e) Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, Government Savings Certificate Act, 1959 and Pubiic Provident Fund Act, 1968:Ama1gamation of these Acts and enactment of consoiidated singie Act in the piace of these Acts is recommended subject to the observations made in the reievant para. (para 3.1 (iii)(a), supra)
(f) Indian Coinage Act, 1906, Meta) Tokens Act, 1889 and Sma11 Coins (Offences) Act, 1971:- Amaigamation of these Acts and enactment of consoiidated singie Act in the piace of these Acts is recommended.
(para 3.1 (iii)(b), supra)
(g) Legai Tender (Inscribed Notes) Act, 1964:-Continuation of the Act is recommended by the Department and the Commission has no comments to offer thereon.
(para 3.1 (iii)(c), supra)
(h) The Indian Trusts Act, 1882:-- The amendments to the Act are said to be sti11 under consideration by the Department. However, the Commission is not in a position to agree with the proposai of the Department to repeai ciauses
(a) to (e) of section 20 aitogether, in the absence of any -:39:- further materiai. However, the reference in these c1auses to securities, bonds, stocks, etc. of the Government of U.K. or other foreign countries may be repealed. Since the repiacement of FERA with FEMA is a matter of poiicy of the Government and aiso because a copy of the FEMA has not been made avaiiabie to the Commission, it is not possibie to express any opinion.
The report of the Department of Economic Affairs states that amendments to other Acts which are being impiemented by the Department are under consideration of the expert group and that as and when suggestions are made, they wiii be communicated to the Commission. Sick Industria) Companies (speciai Provisions) Act, 1985:- The Law Commission, recommends that before enacting a new Act in the place of the present Act, a poiicy decision may be taken on the subject as a whoie and then steps shouid be taken to enact a necessary and appropriate enactment or put an end to the entire exercise as such.
(para 3.i(iv), supra) 4.3 Minsitry of Finance, Department of Company Affairs:
Companies (Donation to Nationa1 Funds) Act, 1951:- The Department have oniy stated that they propose to repeai the Act by incorporating the reievant provisions in the Company's B111, 1997.
-:41:- (No.22 of 1963)
10. The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) Barring the iast two enactments, extensive amendments to other enactments are said to have been suggested by the Expert Committee constituted by the Ministry. The Commission does not find any of the proposed amendments undesirabie. The Commission, however, seeks to reiterate its comments (made at the inception of this Report) that whiie the iifting of restrictions may be ail right, reguiation shouid continue. In other words, a distinction shouid be made between regtrigtions and regulation. Even in a market economy, the Government cannot afford to abdicate its function of reguiating the economy. It may not impose restrictions but the overaii controi and reguiation of the entire economy including industriai sector should be in the hands of the Government.
To protect and promote the national interest, the Government ought to exercise overaii controi over industriai and commerciai estabiishments, their estabiishment and functioning This is what may be caiied the reguiatory function of the Government .
The Law Commission, however, wishes to draw attention of Government of India to section 19 of the Agricuiturai and Processed Food Products Export Deveiopment Authority Act, 1885 read with the items 1, 2, 4 and 9 of the Scheduie to the Act. Section 19 and aforesaid items of the scheduie read as foT1ows:--
-:42:-
"19 (1) The Centrai Government may, by order pub1ished in the Officiai Gazette, make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise contro11ing the import or export of the Scheduied products, either genera11y or in specified c1asses of cases. (2) A11 Scheduied products to which any order under sub--section (1) appiies, shall be deemed to be goods of which the export has been prohibited under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a11 the provisions of that Act sha11 have effect accordingiy. (3) If any person contravenes any order made under sub-section (1), he sha11, without prejudice to any confiscation or penalty to which he may be 1iab1e under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as appiied by sub-section (2), be punishabie with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
"THE SCHEDULE
1. Fruits, vegetabies and their products. 2 Meat and meat products 4 Dairy products.
9. Cereal products."
--:43:-
_ ocketing prices In view of the acute scarcity and sky r untry, driving of vegetabies. meat and fruits a11 over the C0 n man, it wouid away these products from the reach of the Comma 5 notification be appropriate that the Government )93"°° ciuding beef) prohibiting the export of vegetabies, meat (ex wouid ensure and fruits aitogether. Such pF0h)b1t1On >595 which aione avai1abi1ity of these products at reas0n8°'° rn my to purchase wouid enabie the poorer sections of the 30°16 qubject wi11 be and Connume them. A separate report 0" this submitted in due course.
4 supra) (para 3' ' HUB3' 4.6 Ministry of Finance, Department Of Rev"
he » ignered DY t Out of the 30 Acts (being adm'" 1 A t _ F 1Iow1n9 3 X C 3 Department), the Department viewed that the 0 can be nbrogated:--
, 1933.
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act'
2. Centrai Excise Laws (Amendment & V311d"t1On) Act, 1982.
3. Sugar (Specia1 Excise Duty) Acts )959' 1 &
4. Minerai Products (Additiona1 D"t1°' of Exc 56 Customs) Act. 1958. ti )
5. Centrai Duties of Excise (R9t'°°p°ct'Ve Exemp on Act, 1986: and 5 1983.
1buna1 Act.
Customs & Excise Revenue App91)5t° Tr --:44:- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) ACtL,1988 The Ministry has informed the Commission by their ietter dated Aprii 8, 1988 that "the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was recommended to be abrogated since no notification bringing the Act into force has been issued so far. On verification, however, the Commission finds that the above ground is not correct. As a matter of fact, Section 1(3) of the Act says that sections 3, 5 and 8 wi11 come into force at once and that the remaining provisions wi11 be deemed to have come into force on 19th May, 1988. The Commission, therefore, cannot agree that this Act requires to be repeaied. (para 3.5, supra) Central Excise Laws (Amendment & Vaiidationl Act. 1982.
It is difficuit to agree that this Act can be repeaied without further verification. On1y if it is found on due verification that no disputes or iitigation is pending with respect to the notifications which were vaiidated by sub--section (4) of Section 2 that this Act can be repeaied. (para 3.5, supra) Sugar (sbeciai Excise Duty) Act. 1959 ..».. W»... ..... . -est .»um.
-:45:--
This Act was confined to stocks which were available with the factories on the date of commencement of the Act. It has no further application. It can be repealed as suggested by the Department.
(para 3.5, supra) The Mineral Products (Additional Duties of Excise ,5 Customs) Act. 1958.
This Act can be repealed with a specific provision that anything done or any action taken thereunder shall continue to be good and valid.
(para 3.5, supra) Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 This Act can also be repealed subject to a specific provision that anything done thereunder or any action taken thereunder shall continue to be good and valid. (para 3.5, supra) Customs and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal Act. 1986 The Commission agrees with the reasons given for repealing the Act. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar and also because an appeal is now provided directly to Supreme Court against the orders" of the
-:46:--
CEGAT concerning matters of vaiuation and c1assification, this Act can be said to be unnecessary and may be repeaied. (para 3.5, supra) 4.7 DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY; DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN DEVELOPMENT;
MINISTRY OF NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES:-
These Departments have stated that they are not administering any Acts and, therefore, no question arises of any proposai being formuiated for repeai or amendment. (para 3.6, supra) 4.8 Department of E1ectronics:-
The Department has stated that there is no specific statute which is being impiemented by the said Department. In the absence of any specific proposai being sent by this Department, no comments can be offered by the Law Commission. (para 3.7, supra) 4.9 Ministry of Food Processing Industries:--
Rice Miiiing Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and Rice Miiiing Industry (Reguiation & Licensing) Rules, 1959 :these have aiready been repeaied. The third Act MZI Act, 1981 is stated to have been transferred to Animai Husbandry Department and the fourth fififi, nameiy Fruit Product Order (FPO) 1955 --:47:- promu1gated under the Essentiai Commodities Act has aiready been amended. Accordingiy it is stated that no propoeais are ca11ed for from the said Department.
(para 3.8, supra) 4.10 Ministry of Urban Affairs and Emp1oyment. Department of Urban Empioyment and Poverty A11eviation:--
They have informed that there is no proposa1 to review the existing Taws or suggest modifications. (para 3.9, supra) 4.11 Ministry of Chemicai and Ferti)isers, Department of Ferti)isers:-
The Fertiiiser Movement (controi) Order, 1S73:- No amendments are oontempiated by the Department therein. (para 3.10, supra) 4.12 Department of Atomic Energy:--
No propose) either for the repeai or amendment has been sent by the Department.
(para 3.11, supra) 4.13 Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts:- --:48:-
The Department has decided to retain the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, with some amendments where required. However, no proposais regarding this are communicated to the Commission. Merger of the Governments Savings Bank Act and the Governments savings Certificate Act with the Pubiic Provident Fund Act has been agreed to in this report under para 3.1 (iii)(a), supra.
(para 3.12, supra) 4.14 Ministry of Science and Techno1ogy:-
No proposai of amendments to the Research and Deveiopment Cess Act, 1986 and Technoiogy Development Board Act, 1995 have been received.
(para 3.13, supra) 4.15 Ministry of Information & Broadcasting:-
(i) Regarding Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, no further review of the Act is ca11ed for by the Department.
(ii) As regards Cinematograph Act, 1952, amendments have aiready been introduced in the Act and are now pending in the Rajya Sabha.
(iii) Pertaining to the Press Councii Act, 1978, it is stated that the Press Councii of India has suggested some amendments and the matter is under consideration and the proposa1s in that behalf wiii be sent to the Commission iater.
(iv) Regarding the Prasar Bharti Act, 1990 it is stated by the Department that no further review of the Act is ca11ed for -:49:- at the present juncture. Since it appears that the new Government is contemp1ating a review of the Act, it is fe1t that whiie enacting any amendments to the Act or contempiating a new enactment on the subject, the opinions in the specified Supreme Court judgment shouid be cioseiy observed.
we recommend according1y.
r'\Il 1"f'\tAAII *.-!".. .LI"(."!.'-\.!\|.
./' ' ., "' ' . /A ' \_g " K "\ 'i, i , '_,v_, / 1 ' I. 'I,' 1 \' X V _ )-A- -.
\ \ « :l-. N. \ / - I so I. y , E ,
-\ "1 ,MSx:UST*:E LEILA 3E'H\f=ETD\ 'DR m.w 1hATATF' 'Q : w:=w; weweee wgmnzn MFMBFR QFQRETASV C) D 4 I11 L) K ( b.o.No.a4(I)/97_Lc - 50 - ANN-EXURE _ I October IO, I997.
Dear , Pursuant to the Prime Minister's announcement on l5th August, I997. one of the terms of reference set out by the Government of India for the La\\ Commission is 'review/repeal of obsolete laws', that is, --
(a) to identify laws which are no longer heeded or relevant and v;~.z~. be immediately repealed; "
(b) to identify laws which are in harmony with the existing climate 0'» economic liberalisation which need no change; (C) to identify laws which require changes or amendments and to make suggestions for their amendment;
(d) to consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision/amendment given by Expert Groups in varlollx Ministries/Departments with a view to coordinating and lwarrnonisiw;
them;
(e) to consider references made to it by Ministriesl Departments iv' respect of legislation having bearing on the working of more char one Ministry/Department; and
(f) to suggest suitable measures for quick redressal oi citizizene grievances, in the field of law.
2. In pursuance of the above, the Law Commission has commenced the examination of laws, with special reference to the desirability or ot'1er'-.vi:<«." of repealing obsolete laws. You are, therefore, requested to orepare ax:
exhaustive list of. all the laws/Acts with which your Department is concernert and send the same to the Commission'alongwith your comments thereon xvitb particular reference to items (a), (b), (C) and (i) above so as to enable '!'>' to complete the task at the earliest. The Expert Group referred to at itew
(d) above, may also be advised to keep in touch with the Law Commissim:
for necessary coordination for the purpose.
3. Since the Government has set out a time limit for the Law Commission to complete the task, you are requested to send the aforesaid material within a month positively.
With regar ds , Yours sincerel y.
( R.L. MEEa\'.=\ To (As per list enclosed) R. L. MEENA kl' ,.
..._ sq, Armzxmi E. 1-11' LAW COMMISSION . T wnatnant """""'°5'°'°*"' " eovennmsm or INDIA Scctolary' to the Govt. of India mag' "an, W" 33333" '1 SHASTRI 'aHAwAN aifkfifi NEW DELHI"! 10 001 D.O.NO.6(3)/41/97-LC(LS) February 23, 1998. Dear 'ietter Mo.
1997, regarding (Copy enclosed).
Piease refer to my D.O. 44(1)/97--LC dated the 10th October, 'review/repeal of obsoiete iaws'
2. The Law Commission has not received any repiy/information from your Department tiii date. The study» of the Commission is being heid up for want of requisite information from your side.
3.' You are requested to send the reievant information at the eariiest.
with regards, Yours faithfuiiy, ( R.L. MEENA )
- ~ ' ' ' Auusxuns.-""'III ' .. 52 - ' f'=.If'w atirmr T 1' LAW commssxon ~"i~" H'-;. L. MEENA mm aunt Member-3°¢':!W(1;f';'f H (H GOVERNMENT or mum Sccratlvv *0 W' W ' ° " " merit mm """""' 7"-"'°"" SH/\S'Im mmw/m mi Fat-'E1'! NEW nmn-1 I" mm 13.0. N'c-6('3 ) /41/97--Lc( LS) *" March 5. 1998 Dear Please refer to D.O.1etter No.z--l3023/1/97- Coord. (ii) dated October-29, 1997 wherein it has been stated that an Expert Group/Departmental Committee has been constituted to review the specific -enactments. The Commission has been awaiting the views of the Expert Group/Departmental Committee constituted for the purpose.
2. The study of the Law Commission is beinu held up for want of requisite information from your side.
You are requested to send the detailed roply 'at the earliest.
with regards.
Yours sincerely, [@%x074> (R.L. Heena?
. ....v»-~' '