Respect lines, Anand Sharma says after SC query on FDI
ENS Economic Bureau: New Delhi, Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 at 0131 hrs IST
A day after the Supreme Court sought the government’s response on the safeguards in place to protect small traders from the arrival of FDI in multi-brand retail, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma Wednesday said that “all institutions should respect the constitutional demarcation betwe ....Read more
Previous Story Farmers seek inclusion in global body on tobacco crop control Next Story Jaypee Infratech OFS deferred due to stock price fall
Parliament can over step!!! Not Supreme Court Why?KhandadhiBalakrishna | Friday , 25 Jan '13 16:29:33 PMReply | Forward The silver lining is applicable to executive and legislature,at any point the Judiciary as a guardian of Constitutional Guarantee should preview cant be restricted. The parliaments limitations is well established been overlooked by over amending to make it inoperative has time and again a handy work of ruling regime is not good for Democratic Indian State as Citizens struggle to lead a dignified life is not been addressed even after 65years but the leverage given to FDI coasted over 35% of GDP if utilized to eliminate poverty and unemployment would have resulted in GDP growth of over 8% not attended by UPA2 Why.
SpecificsSELLVA | Thursday , 24 Jan '13 11:20:30 AMReply | Forward No body can question the policy decisions with out any ambiguity of the Union government.Has the union mentioned which are the towns where Foreign retail out let can be opened? Foreign retail outlet can open stores in the Cities where the population is ten lakh. WHAT IS THE BASE YEAR FOR THE POPULATION OR DEMARCATE SPECIFIC CITIES WHERE THEY CAN OPEN ONE STORE OR TWO,THREE, OR FOUR STORES PLEASE BE SPECIFIC UNION GOVERNMENT
Pertinent questions, no crossing of "line"KS Raghunathan | Thursday , 24 Jan '13 9:16:37 AMReply | Forward Judiciary has not questioned the constitutional validity of the government's FDI legislation. It has only asked if indeed there has been any investors since allowing FDI and whether the small trader's interests are protected (as claimed by the government prior to legislation in Parliament). There is no forum available for an "aam aadmi" to ask these pertinent questions. The question of "line" comes only when the Judiciary strikes down the legislation on FDi. In fact, the real fear of investors came about with the now famous "retrospective" law to tax Vodafone of the UPA government.
To retain foreign investors' trust, should you betray local citizens?narain | Thursday , 24 Jan '13 5:05:55 AMReply | Forward Sharma comments that the difficult economy necessitates inviting FDI, but should it sacrifice local citizens' livelihood in the bargain?
Limit the Roleskariyan | Thursday , 24 Jan '13 11:10:14 AMReply | Forward Court need to check only validity of the FDI bill, not to make political statements.