The External Affairs Ministry, following a request by the CBI, has directed 8 India Missions abroad to ask the countries concerned to ensure quick execution of Letters Rogatory (LR) which were issued earlier to establish the money trail in the Augusta Westland Chopper Scam; it is a Rs. 3,600 crore scam.

The LRs had been issued to Italy, Tumisia, Mauritius, Singapore, British Virgin Islands, Britain, United Arab Emirates and Switzerland. However, a few countries have either responded to the LRs or executed them partly while some others are yet to respond.

What are LRs

LRs are judicial requests to foreign countries for legal assistance in criminal case; it is so CBI had a few days back had requested, through a letter, the Ministry of External Affairs on expediting execution of LRs.

Must Read: Appointment of New Judges in the Supreme Court (SC)

Present Pretext of the Issue

On January 1, 2014 the Government of India had abraded the contract with Finmeccanica’s British subsidiary Augusta Westland for supplying 12 AW101 VVIP Choppers to the Indian Air Force (IAF) over alleged breach of contractual obligations and charges of payment of bribe too the tune of RS. 423 crore by it for cementing the deal.

In 2015 CBI filed a chargesheet in Augusta Westland case in which it claimed that it had detected flow of alleged kickbacks sent from abroad to companies of the accured Delhi based lawyer Gautam Khaitan and cousins of the former IAF chief. It is imperative to be informed here that CBI is currently investigating the Augusta Westland Chopper scam and it has already questioned, as it claimed by CBI, former IAF Chief SP Tyagi for the fourth Consecuive day by Thursday.

History and Overview of Augusta Westland Chopper Controversy

In 2010, in the month of February, the Government of India signed a contract to buy 12 Augusta Westland AW101 helicopters for the Communication Squadron of Indian Air Force to carry the President, PM and other VVIPs.

Controversy over the contract surfaced with the arresting of Giuseppe Orsi, the CEO of Finmeccanica, Augusta Westland’s Parent company by Italian authorities on 12 February 2013.

Several Indian politicians and military officials have been indicted of taking bribes from Augusta Westland in order to secure the Rs. 36 billion (US $ 530 million) Indian contract for supplying 12 Augusta Westland AW101 choppers.

On 25th March, India’s Defense Minister while confirming conforming corruption allegations said, ” Yes corruption has taken place in the helicopter deal and bribes have been taken. CBI is pursuing the case very vigorously.”

Read Also: LGBT – Supreme Court refers Curative Petition to Constitution Bench

Investigation in the Augusta Westland Choper Scam

After serious allegations and huge controversy in Augusta Westland case then defense minister A. K. Antony on 12th February, 2013 order an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

• On 25th February 2013, CBI registered a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) against 11 persons. Among these 11 suspects were the former Chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Chief Marshal S. P. Tyagi and his relatives and four companies.
• After finding sufficient evidence in Augusta Westland case the CBI on 13th March 2013, registered an FIR that named 13 persons including former Air Chief Marshal S.P.Tyagi, his three brothers – Juli, Docsa, and Sandee – brother of former Union Minister Santosh Bagrodia, Satish Bagrodia, Pratap Agarwal (Chairman and Managing Director of IDS Infotech).
• A CBI special court in September 2015, issued an open non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Christian Micheal. The NBW was based on a CBI report/demand that he was required to be questioned in the case to ascertain how much amount he has received as ‘commission’ in the deal.
• In March 2015, Enforcement Directorate (ED) i.e. investigating money laundering part of the case traced and identified the properties worth approximately Rs. 112 crore owned by Christian Micheal James and issued a provisional attachment order.
• In September 2015, the ED attached assets of about Rs. 7 crore alleged to be in the name of Ex. IAF Chief S. P. Tyagi.

Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on Augusta Westland Scam

By introducing a motion in Rajya Sabha, on 27th February 2013, the UPA II government tried to set the wheel for an investigation in the Augusta Westland scam by a 30 member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).

The motion was passed amidst the protest and walkout by most of the opposition parties for they consider this move as ‘exercise in futility’; the opposition including BJP, who is currently in power, instead demanded a Supreme Court monitored investigation; as, at present the Congress, now in opposition is asking for.

Read Also: Supreme Court Panel is to Monitor MCI

Recently, the Supreme Court, while endorsing a report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, has set up a three-member committee, headed by the former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha to oversee and supervise the functioning of the MCI (Medical Council of India) for at least one year. The report of the Standing Committee has stated that medical education and profession is at lowest ebb in the country and suffering from total failure of the system because of corruption and decay.

To do so the Supreme Court of India has exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India that empowers the Supreme Court to pass such “decree or order as may be necessary for doing complete justice between the parties”.

Background of the Decree

The Supreme Court had no other way left than to take this decision as the Union Government had not responded, or rather acted as it should have been, on the report or the Parliament Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. On March 8, 2016 the committee’s report on the ‘functioning of the Medical Council of India’ was tabled in the Parliament.

Must Read: Real Estate Regulatory Act, (RERA) Comes Into Force

What the Three Member Committee will Do

As per the decree of the Supreme Court, the Justice Lodha Committee is going to have the authority to supervise all statutory functions under the MCI Act. The approval of this Oversight Committee will be required by MCI in all its policy decisions.

The Committee has been made free to issue appropriate remedial directions. The Committee is going to function till the Central Government puts in place any other proper mechanism after due consideration and deliberation of its Export Committee Report.

What is MCI

The Medical Council of India (MCI) is a statutory body with the responsibility of setting up and maintaining high standards of medical education and recognition of medical qualifications in India. With an intention and in order to protect and encourage the health and safety of the public by assuring proper standards in the practice of medicine. The current President of MCI is Dr. Jayshreeben Mehta.

History of MCI

The MCI was first set-up in 1934, under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933. The council was headed by the President of India and its functions were a Board of Governors. The current Board of Governors was notified on May 13, 2011.

Also Read: Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2016

Functions of the MCI

The principal functions of Medical Council of India involve:

• Recognition of medical qualification granted by medical institution in India.
• Accredition of medical colleges.
• Establishment and maintenance of uniform standards for undergraduate medical education.
• Regulation of postgraduate medical education in medical colleges accredited by it; the National Board of Examinations is another statutory body for postgraduate medical education in India.
• Registration of doctors with recognized medical qualifications.
• Keeping a directory of all registered doctors, this directory is called the Indian Medical Register.

It is important to note that registration of doctors and their qualifications is usually done by State medical councils.

Controversy Surrounding MCI

On 15 May, 2010, the President of India, following the arrest of MCI’s president Ketan Desai by the CBI on 22 April, 2010, dissolved the MCI. Mr. Ketan Desai, along with alleged middleman J.P. Singh and doctor Sukhwinder Singh and Kanwaljit Singh had been arrested and booked under the Prevention of Corruption Law.

The CBI recovered 1.5 kg of gold and 80 kg of silver from Desai’s premises. Not only this, gold worth Rs. 35 lakhs were recovered from Desai’s bank lockers in Ahmedabad.

Read Also: Water Resources in India

After receiving the nod of assent from the President recently, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, came into force on May 1, across the country. The Real Estate Regulatory Act, earlier being passed in both the Houses of Parliament in March, came into force from Sunday.

Brief History of Real Estate Regulatory Act

It was at the National Conference of Housing Ministers of States and Union Territories in January 2009, during the reign of UPA-II, that a proposal for a law for real estate was first debated and discussed. And after eight-long years of efforts, the eagerly and much awaited Real Estate Regulatory Act, 2016 came into force on May, 1 as announced by the Ministry of Housing Urban Poverty Alleviation (HUPA).

Must Read: Real Estate Regulatory Bill 2016

Kernel Characteristics of Real Estate Regulatory Act

The Law has an intention to shield buyers from real estate developers who often fail in fulfilling their promise-professional one –of delivering on time and, therefore, regulate India’s lurid real estate sector.

Real Estate Regulatory Act assures the timely completion and delivery of flats to consumers by making sure that stringent regulations be imposed on developers to secure timely construction that is the most essential factor for the timely delivery. The law seems to provide relief to consumers in earnest because it has made consumers entitled to a full refund with interest, in case of a long delay, of course undue, in the delivery of a flat.

It has been made mandatory by the Real Estate Regulatory Act for the developers to share their final projects plans as an essential and inevitable part of their disclosure terms, without having any room for going back. At being found guilty the Law, as a form of punishment, imposes a 10 percent project cost penalty and upto 3 years of jail.

Under this new Law, Real Estate Regulatory Act, the developers have to deposit 70 percent of the collections (in terms of Money) from buyers in separate accounts for the cost of construction that comprises the cost of land too.

According to the law the developers have to secure all the clearances before the launch of a project. For the structural defects the liability of the developers have been enhanced from 2 to 5 years with a stern clause that the developers cannot change plans without the prior consent, in writing, of two thirds of alotees.

Read Also: Bankruptcy Bill Cleared by Joint Parliament Standing Committee

Real Estate Regulatory Act: The Future Course

For the homebuyers the coming into the force of Real Estate Regulatory Act is of course a matter of celebration. However, it may take Real Estate Regulatory Act a full year before it is fully implemented on the ground in the states. Now the States have to formulate rules for the Real Estate Regulatory Act and establish Real Estate Regulatory Authority, a regulatory body, with which the developers working in the states have to register their projects.

The implementation of the Real Estate Regulatory Act is going to lead to the forming of necessary operational rules and establishment of institutional infrastructure for shielding the interests of consumers and encouraging the development of real estate sector in an environment of trust, confidence, credible transactions and time-bound and efficient execution of projects.

Governments’ Responsibility Toward Real Estate Regulatory Act

According to the notification of HUPA, that announced the commencement of the Act (Real Estate Regulatory Act) on May 1, the Central and the State Governments have to formulate rules within six months (that is October 31, 2016) as per the section 84 of the Act. It has been made very clear that the rule for the Union Territories without legislatures be formulated by HUPA and for Delhi it will be accomplished by Urban Development Ministry.

The section 84 of Real Estate Regulatory Act provides that “the appropriate Government shall, within a period of six months of the commencement of this Act, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act”.

The Government has to appoint a Real Estate Authority: the section 20 of the Act stipulates that “the appropriate Government shall, within a period of one year from the date of coming into force of this Act, by notification establish an authority to be known as the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to exercise the powers conferred on it and to perform the functions assigned to it under this Act”. These Authorities have to decide on complaints/disputes of buyers and developers within 60 days. These Authorities, after their establishment, have to, within three months, formulate regulations that are linked to their day-to-day functioning (Section 85 of Real Estate Regulatory Act).

Don’t Miss: UN Security Council Approves Syria Resolution

In March 2016, at an Internet Corporation for Assigned numbers(ICANN) summit in Marrakech, Morocco an important decision was taken towards addressing an issue that has taken a prominent place in recent years. The issue in debate here is – Internet Governance.

Internet Governance has become an key strategic issue amongst increasing threat of terrorism and risks on security front in which the role of the government highly important.

Till date , the internet is being governed by the National Telecommunications and Administration(NTIA), Ministry of Commerce, USA. However, at the end of September 2016 NTIA’s contract is going to expire. So, the discussion is on what should be the new architecture to govern the internet.

Read Must: Digital India (DI) Project : A Mission

India’s posture on Internet Governance

India renewed its support to multi – stakeholder model for governing internet at the Internet Corporation for Assigned numbers summit that is quite consistent with its domestic approach to communication policy that  comprises independent regulators that carry wide consultations and make policy.           

About Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers

ICANN is a non- profit body that administrates domain names and Internet protocol addresses(IPS) globally. When the ICANN was established in 1998, the starting plan was to restrain its anchoring contract with the US Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA) for a short period of time, and for Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers to  ultimately become independent in a couple of years.

However, ICANN has subsequently thwarted attempts by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union to take over its job.

What the ICANN does

In order to contact another person on the internet, a user has to type an address into her or his computer. This address has to be unique so computers know where to search for each other. These unique identifiers are coordinated by the ICANN across the world. Without this coordination internet connection is not possible.

So, it can be said that the role of Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers is similar to that of a “traffic cop” checking and thus ensuring that network addresses are securely registered and function appropriately. It also manages the database for top level domain names such as . com and .net, and their corresponding  numeric addresses that permit computers to link, functioning under the mandate from the NTIA to supervise all this under contract.

Also Read: From e-Post to eIPO (Indian Postal Order)

Limitations of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers

While ICANN was established as a non- profit body having partnership of people from the whole world that was dedicated to keep the internet secure, stable and inter – operable, it does not have actual control over the content on the internet.

So, it can neither stop spam nor it does deal with access to the internet. However, by virtue of its coordination role of the internet naming system, it does have a key impact on the extension and evolution of the Internet.

The role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned numbers to look over the vast and complex interconnected network of unique identifiers that permit computers on the Internet in finding one another. This is generally known as “universal resolvability”, and means that whenever a user is online , sh/e gets the same predictable results on accessing the network. Without this the user could end up with an Internet that functioned entirely differently which depended on the user’s location on the globe.

The current status

On September 30 , 2016 , nearly 47 years  after American computer science professors formed the stage for the Internet, the US government is set to relinquish control of the cyberspace’s underlying technology for the first time.

The transition has been finalised through a global consultation process and is being coordinated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers; the process took two years in finalising the decision. If all goes according to the plan, the gatekeeper role of  Internet addresses will be liberated from US scrutiny.           

Don’t Miss: Direct Cash Transfer for MGNREGA Soon

The duly- awaited Defence Procurement Policy (DPP) 2016 was released online in time for the Defence Expo inauguration in Goa. In DPP-2016, a new category for acquisition—Indigenously Designed Developed and Manufactured (IDDM) – has been introduced by the Ministry of Defence. Under this category a condition has been put that the proposed indigenously designed, developed and manufactured equipment must possess at least 60%  locally sourced components of the total of the same. It further states that if the design is not Indian, the ratio of the locally sourced components would be 40%.

The new DP was finalised on March, 21 during a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) . The meeting was chaired by the defence minister of India.

Benefits of IDDM Category

The Ministry of Defence has claimed that the IDDM category is going to be the most preferred acquisition category. The IDDM and Buy and  Make in India categories are going to assist global OEMs and Indian companies in coining partnership for co – production and co – development. Since the revised policy is going to give prominence to those defence firms that are operating in the MSME section, the government- funded defence projects is going to be reserved for MSMEs. However, the estimated development cost of these projects will be less than Rs 10 crore.

The offset – level, under Defence Procurement Policy 2016, has been increased to Rs 2000 crore from the current level of Rs 300 crore. This development has occurred because the central government believes that the Indian industry is not in a position to engross large – scale offsets.

Must Read: Indian Defence Awards

Blacklisting Defence Procurement Policy

There are two types of “ punishment” the revised policy has put  forward in terms of temporary suspension and permanent blacklisting along with a heavy penalty, However, the Ministry jas made it clear that there will be no relaxation for the already blacklisted defence firms . Moreover, companies can approach the committee with their grievances and hope for a lesser punishment under the new blacklisting policy.

Peace Time Procurement

The new policy, even during the peace time, has decided to fast – track the defence purchases. Prior to this, the fast – track mechanism could be availed only during wartime, when the forces required a particular category of equipment urgently.

A committee of defence has been empowered to handle the fast – track decisions .This committee has also  been empowered  to select a specific partner for particular equipment with proven results that will entirely depend on the requirement.

Disinvestment in Defence Procurement Policy

The defence minister, ruling out disinvestment in the defence public sector undertakings, asserted that there were certain areas where the role of these institutions could not be allowed to be taken over by private players.

The requirement of defence forces urges the force to make capabilities for certain products that may not be required on the regular basis by them. According to the Minister this expertise,  that is built up, cannot be left to private sector because it includes costs.

A certain kind of ammunition may be needed once in three years for which the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) has to retain the capability, technology and manpower without putting these to use on a regular basis. So it becomes necessary to retain the Ordnance Factories and defence PSUs for certain products. And no one can refute the fact that  only the government  has got the capacity to afford to sustain such capabilities that have been created for a number of years for future needs.

Read Also: Encroachment as Worship Places Insult to God: SC