Bengaluru, July 27,2024:The Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) President CS B Narasimhan announced that the Central Government will soon amend the Companies Act, based on comprehensive reports submitted by ICSI to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
These reports detail necessary amendments across various sectors and propose changes to existing rules.
Narasimhan made these remarks while addressing at the inauguration of the two day 48th Southern India Regional Conference, themed “Apt to Adapt – Redefining the Role of Company Secretaries.
The event was organised by Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI).
The conference provided a platform for Company Secretaries to discuss emerging opportunities in sectors such as Maritime Law and the Stock Market, highlighting the evolving and expanding roles within the profession.
Guwahati, Feb 24,2024: Assam cabinet on Friday decided to repeal an 89-year-old legislation involving the registration of marriages and divorces by Muslims residing in the state.
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sharma chaired the meeting at Lok Sewa Bhawan in Dispur.
“This act contained provisions allowing marriage registration even if the bride and groom had not reached the legal ages of 18 and 21, as required by law. This move marks another significant step towards prohibiting child marriages in Assam.” Himanta Biswa Sarma said on X.
“District Commissioners and District Registrars will be authorised to take custody of registration records currently in the custody of 94 Muslim Marriage Registrars on repeal of the legislation under overall supervision, guidance, and control of the Inspector General of Registration, Assam, he added.
Cabinet approved the Assam Official Language (Amendment) Bill, 2024, to recognise Manipuri as an Associate Official Language in four districts of the state: Cachar, Karimganj, Hailakandi, and Hojai.
Cabinet approved guidelines for Mukhyamantri Mahila Udyamita Abhiyan-Nogoria, to be implemented by the Assam State Urban Livelihood Mission Society in phases for the promotion of women Self-Help Groups (SHGs) members as urban women entrepreneurs.
Cabinet sanctioned Rs 274 crore for infrastructure projects under the Assam Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA), out of the total allocated budget for FY 2023–24.
December 11,Monday 2023: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled the former state of Jammu and Kashmir did not have any ‘internal sovereignty’ that was distinguishable from the powers and privileges enjoyed by other states in the country.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said while there was a clear absence in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir of a reference to sovereignty, in contrast, the Constitution of India emphasises in its Preamble that the people have resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialistic, secular, democratic republic.
More like this
‘The State of Jammu and Kashmir does not have ‘internal sovereignty’ which is distinguishable from the powers and privileges enjoyed by other States in the country,’ it said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, said that all states in the country have legislative and executive power albeit to differing degrees.
‘The Constitution accommodates concerns specific to a particular State by providing for arrangements which are specific to that State. Articles 371A to 371J are examples of special arrangements for different States. This is a feature of asymmetric federalism, like Article 370 which became applicable to Jammu and Kashmir on the adoption of the Constitution,’ the bench said.
CJI Chandrachud, who penned a 352-page verdict on behalf of Justice Gavai and Surya Kant, said, in asymmetric federalism, a particular state may enjoy a degree of autonomy which another state does not.
‘The difference, however, remains one of degree and not of kind. Different states may enjoy different benefits under the federal setup but the common thread is federalism,’ it said.
Justices Kaul and Khanna wrote separate but concurring verdicts on the issue of abrogation of Article 370 which accorded special status to the erstwhile state.
The bench said the Instrument of Accession (IoA) executed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947 provided that nothing in it would affect the continuance of the sovereignty of the Maharaja in and over the State.
‘On November 25, 1949, a proclamation was issued for the State of Jammu and Kashmir by Yuvraj Karan Singh. The declaration in this Proclamation that the Constitution of India would not only supersede all other constitutional provisions in the State which were inconsistent with it but also abrogate them achieves what would have been attained by an agreement of merger,’ the bench said.
It added that the Proclamation reflects the full and final surrender of sovereignty by Jammu and Kashmir, through its sovereign ruler, to India to her people who are sovereign.
‘Neither the constitutional setup nor any other factors indicate that the State of Jammu and Kashmir retained an element of sovereignty. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was only to further define the relationship between the Union of India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The relationship was already defined by the IoA, the Proclamation issued by Yuvraj Karan Singh in November 1949 and more importantly, by the Constitution of India,’ it said.
The top court said residual legislative powers cannot be equated to residual sovereignty as it reflects the value of federalism and the federal underpinnings of the Constitution of India.
‘Neither Parliament nor any of the States have the unrestricted power to make laws. Each has its own sphere of legislation, as demarcated by the three lists in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Each is supreme in its own sphere. The States have the plenary power to enact laws but this alone cannot be taken as a sign of sovereignty of individual States,’ it said.
The bench said it is true that many commentators refer to these aspects of federalism as ‘internal sovereignty’ but by whatever name so called, it is clear that all states in the country have legislative and executive power albeit to differing degrees.
‘If the position that Jammu and Kashmir has sovereignty by virtue of Article 370 were to be accepted, it would follow that other States which had special arrangements with the Union also possessed sovereignty. This is clearly not the case,’ the bench said.
It said the people of Jammu and Kashmir, therefore, do not exercise sovereignty in a manner which is distinct from the way in which the people of other states exercise their sovereignty.
New Delhi, Nov 9,2023: The Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha on Thursday recommended the expulsion of TMC MP Mahua Motira from the house over the cash for query scandal, a source said.
The Lok Sabha ethics panel also adopted the report, on ‘cash-for-query’ allegations levelled against her by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey.
The committee also recommended an “intense, legal, institutional inquiry” by the government in a time-bound manner in view of the “highly objectionable, unethical, heinous and criminal conduct” by her.
After the meeting, the Chairman of the panel Vinod Kumar Sonkar said that the six members of the ethics committee supported the report, while 4 opposed it.
‘Six MPs supported the report and four people have submitted their dissent notes. There was voting. We will send a detailed report along with the recommendations to the Lok Sabha Speaker. Whatever action is to be taken now will be taken by Om Birla” he said.
Mahua Moitra faced the allegations of asking questions in the Lok Sabha to target Gautam Adani at the behest of businessman Darshan Hiranandani.
The TMC MP has denied charges of taking bribes but admitted to sharing her parliamentary log-in details with Hiranandani.
The opposition members had boycotted the first meeting of the panel accusing the Chairperson of asking indecent and unethical questions to the Trinamool MP.
Meanwhile, Mahua Moitra has written a letter to Speaker Om Birla alleging “total breakdown of all due process and rules of the Lok Sabha” over the media having access to the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha’s draft report.
There is clearly a total breakdown of all due process and rules of the Lok Sabha. Your inaction and lack of response to my previous complaints is also unfortunate,” she wrote in a letter.
New Delhi, Sep 12,2023: Supreme Court, in its order on Tuesday, referred to at least a five-judge Constitution bench in the batch of petitions challenging the sedition law 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, referred the batch of pleas to at least a five-judge larger bench for a detailed hearing and to effectively deal with the constitutional validity of 124-A of the sedition law.
The Apex Court also took into record the submissions and arguments by the AG and SG that, at this stage, it was appropriate to defer reference to the five-judge bench having regard to the fact that parliament is in the process of reenacting the law. The court, however, in its order, said that we are not inclined to defer the consideration.
The Atrorney General (AG) of India, R Venkataramani, the top law officer representing the Union of India, argued that the new law is there and has been sent to a parliamentary standing committee. “The parliamentary standing committee is looking into it,” Venkataramani said.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, for one of the petitioners, opposed it and told the Top Indian Court that the new law is much worse and the prosecutions will go on.
He said in 1973, this section 124-A was made a cognisable offence. Prior to that, it wasn’t cognisable. Therefore, they started arresting people invoking this section.
Sibal, while narrating Section 124-A, said , “disaffection towards the government”. As far as 19(1)(a) [Right to freedom of speech and expression], is concerned, it refers to “state”, not government.
“What is fundamentally wrong is disaffection towards the government is not disaffection towards the state; the state is not the government, and the government is not the state,” Sibal said.
We have to decide on this law as it stands today. We can’t wait for the parliament to decide on this, Sibal said.
To this, the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that, at the highest level, it was being seriously considered. And it is done now. But the government stated that let all parties be referred to in this context; let us wait for the government. It is at the highest level of being reconsidered; it has now been reconsidered.
In May last year, the court, in an interim order, suspended the use of Section 124-A, staying pending criminal trials and court proceedings under Section 124A across the country.
The Editors Guild of India (EGI), Major General (Retd) S.G. Vombatkere, former Union minister Arun Shourie, and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), along with others, have filed a batch of petitions against the penal provision in the Supreme Court.
The petitions contended that the law causes a “chilling effect” on free speech and is an unreasonable restriction on free expression, a fundamental right.