Respect lines, Anand Sharma says after SC query on FDI

Comments print
ENS Economic Bureau: New Delhi, Jan 24 2013, 01:31 IST
FP.jpg
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 between the executive, legislation and judiciary”.

The Indian economy is passing through “a difficult phase” currently and it is important to “retain the trust and confidence of foreign investors in the country’s investment regime”, Sharma, who is in Davos to attend the annual World Economic Forum, said in a statement issued by his ministry in New Delhi.

“It is important that all institutions respect the constitutional demarcation between executive, legislation and judiciary. Any alteration of this balance which confuses the global investors who are keen to invest in India and which leads to job creation, technology upgrade and infrastructure expansion, is better avoided,” Sharma said.

On Tuesday, a bench headed by Justice R M Lodha and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the Centre whether any foreign investment has come into the country after the retail sector was opened up or if it was just a “political gimmick”. The apex court had said the interest of small traders should not be affected by allowing FDI in retail trade.

Ads by Google
   
Previous Story  Farmers seek inclusion in global body on tobacco crop control Next Story  Jaypee Infratech OFS deferred due to stock price fall
Reader's Comments (7)| Post a Comment

Parliament can over step!!! Not Supreme Court Why?

KhandadhiBalakrishna | 25-Jan-2013Reply | 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.

Specifics

SELLVA | 24-Jan-2013Reply | 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 | 24-Jan-2013Reply | 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.

Post your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *
Email *
Message *
 
captcha
please enter the above characters in the box below