The Competition Commission of India (CCI) organised a training and orientation programme for Resource Persons for competition advocacy to sensitize them on competition law and CCI's enforcement and advocacy efforts here today. Resource persons from Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha and UT Puducherry particiapted.

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairperson, CCI, in his welcome address underlined the pivotal role of States in taking competition law deeper in the country and in boosting CCI's efforts to make markets across India competition compliant. He elaborated upon how the CCI's Resource Person scheme at the State level aims at sensitizing the State machinery on competition matters, especially public procurement. He encouraged the Resource Persons to undertake more and more Advocacy work by organizing seminar, workshop, and use competition toolkit developed by it.

Air Force Station Sarsawa organised a mega display of military assets for the school students of Saharanpur area on 14 February 2020. The students also witnessed various tactics of the helicopter flying by Air Force pilots.

The event was inaugurated by the Divisional Commissioner, Sh. Sanjay Kumar IAS and Air Commodore Ajay Shukla VM, Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station Sarsawa.

The aim of the programme was to reach out to the youths of Saharanpur area and familiarize them with the Indian Armed Forces in general and Indian Air Force in particular. More than 3000 school children of various age group participated in the event. They were briefed about the role of IAF and various career opportunities available in the IAF. They were also apprised about the importance of maintaining the cleanliness in the area to avoid birds’ menace, for safe flying. The event generated remarkable interaction and excitement among the students to learn about the military aircraft, equipment and the life in IAF

Observations made by the Court: The right to cast vote is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right and is only provided by a statute.

The right to vote provided under the statute — Representation of the People Act — was subject to restrictions imposed by the law, which does not allow prisoners to cast vote from jails.

Who can vote and who cannot? Under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, individuals in lawful custody of the police and those serving a sentence of imprisonment after conviction cannot vote. Undertrial prisoners are also excluded from participating in elections even if their names are on electoral rolls.

Only those under preventive detention can cast their vote through postal ballots.

Why undertrials should be given voting rights? The present voting ban is criticised on the ground that it makes no offence-based or sentence-based classification — that is, prisoners are debarred from voting irrespective of the gravity of the offence they have committed, or the length of their sentence. It also makes no distinction between convicted prisoners, undertrials, and those in lawful police custody.

Besides, a person is innocent until proven guilty by law. Despite this, it denies an undertrial the right to vote but allows a detainee the same. The provision also violates the rights to equality, vote (Article 326) and is arbitrary. It is not a reasonable restriction.

Need of the hour: Undertrials should be allowed to vote. This is because there are many people, awaiting trial, who have spent more time in prison than the actual term their alleged crime merits. Their numbers are much bigger than convicts.

Stats: The ‘Prison Statistics India, 2014’ published by the National Crime Records Bureau, says there were 2,82,879 undertrials and 1,31,517 convicts lodged across 1,387 prisons in the country as on December 31, 2014.

Global practice: In Europe, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, the Baltic States, and Spain already allow prisoner voting.

Countries like Romania, Iceland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Germany have opted for a middle path: Voting is allowed subject to certain permits and conditions such as the quantum of sentence served.

They are only disenfranchised as an added penalty based on the gravity of the crime. Bulgaria allows for anyone sentenced to less than a decade to vote. In Australia, the limit is five years.

About Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme: The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Bill, 2020: The amnesty scheme, at present, covers disputes pending at the level of commissioner (appeals), Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT), high courts, the Supreme Court and those in international arbitration.

It offers a complete waiver on interest and penalty to the taxpayers who pay their pending taxes by March 31.

The scheme aims to benefit those whose tax demands are locked in dispute in multiple forums. If a taxpayer is not able to pay direct taxes by March 31st then, he will get further time till June 30th. However, in that case, he would have to pay 10 percent more on the tax.

How much? In case it is just the interest and the penalty which is in dispute, the taxpayer will have to pay 25% of the disputed amount till March 31, and subsequently, it will be 30%.

If a taxpayer is not able to pay within the March 31 deadline, he gets a further time till June 30, but in that case, he would have to pay 10% more on the tax.

In case it is just the interest and the penalty which is in dispute, the taxpayer will have to pay 25% of the disputed amount till March 31, and subsequently, it will be 30%.

Significance: The scheme aims to resolve 483,000 direct tax-related disputes pending in various appellate forums.

What are DRTs? Debt Recovery Tribunals were established to facilitate the debt recovery involving banks and other financial institutions with their customers. DRTs were set up after the passing of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (RDBBFI), 1993. Section 3 of the RDDBFI Act empowers the Central government to establish DRTs. Appeals against orders passed by DRTs lie before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Powers and functions: The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) enforces provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDBFI) Act, 1993 and also Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) are fully empowered to pass comprehensive orders and can travel beyond the Civil procedure Code to render complete justice. A Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) can hear cross suits, counter claims and allow set offs.

However, a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot hear claims of damages or deficiency of services or breach of contract or criminal negligence on the part of the lenders. In addition, a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) cannot express an opinion beyond its domain, or the list pending before it.

The Debts Recovery Tribunal can appoint Receivers, Commissioners, pass ex-parte orders, ad-interim orders, interim orders apart from powers to Review its own decisions and hear appeals against orders passed by the Recovery Officers of the Tribunal.

Other key facts: A DRT is presided over by a presiding officer who is appointed by the central govt. and who shall be qualified to be a District Judge; with tenure of 5 years or the age of 62, whichever is earlier.

No court in the country other than the SC and the HCs and that too, only under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have jurisdiction over this matter.

The central government, in 2018, raised the pecuniary limit from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 20 lakh for filing application for recovery of debts in the Debts Recovery Tribunals by such banks and financial institutions.