A fresh look was required at the Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act dealing with the “criminal misconduct” of a public servant, as it constrained decision-making at multiple levels, finance minister Arun Jaitley said on Wednesday at the Indian Express Group’s Idea Exchange programme.
Stating that the Law Commission has already made some proposals in this connection, the minister said some of the provisions in the Act were not in conformity with the “changed environment” and were apparently having an adverse impact even on disinvestment and defence production and procurement, areas high on the government’s policy agenda. Section 13 provides for imprisonment up to seven years and fine for any public servant convicted of criminal misconduct.
On the opposition to the land acquisition Bill, he said land is required to build rural infrastructure under various schemes, including the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and rural electrification projects, but the relevant Act of 2013 of the UPA did not provide for this. Even for affordable housing for the poor — which is more of a need in rural India than in urban centres, and is to be predominantly undertaken under state schemes rather than by the private sector — land is required, he said. The UPA law, Jaitley alleged, was also vague in its expression of exemptions, with Section 10 (A) saying states could by notification exempt all or any of the five purposes mentioned, adding,on the other hand, land acquisition for even defence projects was also made difficult.
Asked whether the intensity of the opposition to the land law exceeded the government’s expectation, Jaitley said the Opposition’s was a “make-believe” confrontation that would fizzle out. “The sheer social and economic logic is on our side… The poor of this country can’t be condemned to backwardness in perpetuity.”
On the issue of black money, he said multilateral and domestic steps like a proposed law with stringent penal provisions will help address it. The G20 nations are moving decisively towards automatic exchange of information. The US is making its trade partners to sign into its Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, failing which remittances to the country concerned will be subject to a 30% withholding tax.
India has already provided for strict penal provisions in the Budget for undisclosed foreign assets and income. Under the proposed law, concealment of income and assets and evasion of tax in relation to foreign assets will be liable for rigorous imprisonment of up to 10 years. The offence will also be made non-compoundable and those found guilty won’t be allowed to approach the Settlement Commission. Offenders would have to cough up a 30% tax on such incomes/assets as well as a 300% penalty on that.
On the composition of the proposed Monetary Policy Committee, Jaitley refrained from a detailed comment, saying he would reply to Parliament on this issue soon, but asserted that the government would do nothing to hurt the Reserve Bank Of India’s (RBI) autonomy. Last year, the Urjit Patel panel had recommended a five-member committee to steer the country’s monetary policy, with three members from the RBI, including its governor, and two independent members. Of late, there have been concerns over the perceived role of the government in the selection of the two independent members. In February, the government and the RBI signed a pact under which the central bank’s primary mandate is to target inflation and contain retail inflation at 4% (+/-2%) from 2016-17 onwards.
Arun Jaitley said the government was seeking to “correct” 50 difficult provisions of the Companies Act, some of which, copied from the repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act, could have harmed businesses. In the case of changes to 15 of these provisions, which need Parliament approval, the Lok Sabha has already given its assent and is pending clearance by the Rajya Sabha, while 35 others can be diluted through notifications. He expressed surprise that various industry chambers that were pitching for the passage of the new Companies Act, 2013, introduced by the UPA government, didn’t notice the stringent non-bailable provisions then.