Bills & Acts Current Affairs - 2019
Summary of latest bill and acts passed or pending in 2019 in Parliament of India with their salient features and issues for Current Affairs 2019 preparation for various examinations such as UPSC, SSC, State Civil Services, CLAT, Judicial Services etc.
Category Wise PDF Compilations available at This Link
The Supreme Court has refused to stay the amendments to Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2018. These amendments were brought in to nullify the safeguards instituted by the Supreme Court to prevent its misuse.
Safeguards proposed by Supreme Court
Expressing concerns over the misuse of the various provisions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Supreme Court had proposed following safety mechanisms:
- Provision of anticipatory bail.
- Approval of Senior Superintendent of Police to arrest those accused under this act.
- Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to conduct a preliminary enquiry to find out whether there is a prima facie case under Act.
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018
The 2018 amendment act was proposed to nullify the safeguards proposed by the Supreme Court. The amendments proposed were:
- Investigating officer will not require the approval of any authority for the arrest of an accused.
- Preliminary enquiry will not be required for the registration of a First Information Report against a person accused under the Act.
- Persons accused of committing an offence under the Act cannot apply for anticipatory bail.
To avoid any ambiguity the act proposes that these provisions apply despite any judgments or orders of a court that provide otherwise. These amendments to the prevention of atrocities act were questioned in the Supreme Court as ultra vires.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The petitioners had questioned the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code based on the following grounds:
- The constitutional validity of IBC was questioned as a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The petitioners argued that IBC doesn’t make an intelligible differentiation in the classification of a financial creditor and operational creditor, and hence violates Article 14.
- Petitioners claimed that Operational creditors provide services to companies and have the right to initiate insolvency proceedings if their payments are defaulted upon. But the code bars them for participating in the resolution process through the committee of creditors.
- As per IBC, the committee can only consist of financial creditors who assess and vote on resolution plans submitted by interested bidders.
- Petitioners also argued against barring promoters from bidding for their own companies forces them to undertake the sale of the company to new bidders. This violates the fundamental rights of promoters of a company.
The Supreme Court dismissed both the arguments of petitioners while upholding the bar on promoters to come in as resolution applicants Supreme Court noted that the Section 12A route is open for them.
Section 12A of IBC allows for a withdrawal of an insolvency application if 90 per cent of the creditors’ committee by voting share approves it.