Arguments regarding FDI in retail

Vishnu - December 4, 2012

After months of discussion, the issue of FDI in retail is being deliberated in the Lok Sabha today. In September 2012, the Cabinet had approved 51% of FDI in multi-brand retail (stores selling more than one brand). Under these regulations, foreign retail giants like Walmart and Tesco can set up shop in India. Discussions on permitting FDI in retail have focused on the effect of FDI on unorganised retailers, farmers and consumers. Earlier, the central government commissioned the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) to examine the impact of organised retail on unorganised retail. The Standing Committee on Commerce also tabled a report on Foreign and Domestic Investment in the Retail Sector in May, 2009 while the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) released a discussion paper examining FDI in multi-brand retail in July, 2010. Other experts have also made arguments – both in support of, and in opposition to, the move to permit FDI in retail sales. The table below summarises some of these arguments from the perspective of various stakeholders as collated from the above reports examining the issue.

Stakeholder	Supporting arguments (source)	Opposing arguments (source)
Unorganised retail	No evidence of impact on job losses (ICRIER). The rate of closure of unorganised retail shops (4.2%) is lower than international standards (ICRIER). Evidence from Indonesia and China show that traditional and modern retail can coexist and grow (Reardon and Gulati). Majority of small retailers keen to remain in operation even after emergence of organised retail (ICRIER).	Unorganised retailers in the vicinity of organised retailers saw their volume of business and profit decline but this effect weakens over time (ICRIER). Other studies have estimated that traditional fruit and vegetable retailers experienced a 20-30% decline in incomes with the presence of supermarkets (Singh). There is potential for employment loss in the value chain. A supermarket may create fewer jobs for the volume of produce handled (Singh). Unemployment to increase as a result of retailers practicing product bundling (selling goods in combinations and bargains) and predatory pricing (Standing Committee).
Farmers	Significant positive impact on farmers as a result of direct sales to organised retailers. For instance, cauliflower farmers receive a 25% higher price selling directly to organised retailers instead of government regulated markets (mandis). Profits for farmers selling to organised retailers are about 60% higher than when selling to mandis (ICRIER). Organised retail could remove supply chain inefficiencies through direct purchase from farmers and investment in better storage, distribution and transport systems. FDI, in particular, could bring in new technology and ideas (DIPP).	Current organised retail procures 60-70% from wholesale markets rather than farmers. There has been no significant impact on backend infrastructure investment (Singh). There are other issues like irrigation, technology and credit in agriculture which FDI may not address (Singh). Increased monopolistic strength could force farmers to sell at lower prices (Standing Committee).
Consumers	Organised retail lowers prices. Consumer spending increases with the entry of organised retail and lower income groups tend to save more (ICRIER). It will lead to better quality and safety standards of products (DIPP).	Evidence from some Latin American countries (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), Africa (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, India) reveal that supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables were higher than traditional retail prices (Singh). Even with lower prices at supermarkets, low income households may prefer traditional retailers because they live far from supermarkets, they can bargain with traditional retailers and buy loose items (Singh). Monopolistic power for retailers could result in high prices for consumers.

Source: ICRIER [1. "Impact of Organized Retailing on the Unorganized Sector", ICRIER, September 2008]; Standing Committee [2. "Foreign and domestic investment in retail sector", Standing Committee on Commerce, May 13, 2009]; Singh (2011) [3. "FDI in Retail: Misplaced Expectations and Half-truths", Sukhpal Singh, Economic and Political Weekly, December 17, 2011]; Reardon and Gulati (2008) [4. "Rise of supermarkets and their development implications," IFPRI Discussion Paper, Thomas Reardon and Ashok Gulati, February 2008.]; DIPP [5. "Discussion Paper on FDI in Multi-brand Retail Trading", Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, July 6, 2010]

Parliament

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021, in the context of the recent Supreme Court judgement

Aditya Kumar - August 2, 2021

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha today. It seeks to dissolve certain existing appellate bodies and transfer their functions (such as adjudication of appeals) to existing judicial bodies (mainly high courts) (see Table 1). It also amends the Finance Act, 2017, to bring certain provisions (such as qualifications, appointments, term of office, salaries and allowances of tribunal members) under the purview of the Bill. Currently, these provisions are notified through Rules under the Finance Act, 2017.

Note that the 2017 Act reorganised the Indian tribunal system to ensure uniformity in their administration by amalgamating certain tribunals based on the similarity in their functional domain. It also delegated powers to the central government to make Rules to provide for the qualifications, appointments, term of office, salaries and allowances, removal, and other conditions of service for chairpersons and members of these tribunals.

This Bill replaces an Ordinance with similar provisions that was promulgated in April 2021. The 2021 Ordinance was challenged in the Supreme Court over its compliance with past Supreme Court judgements. In July 2021, the Court struck down certain provisions of the Ordinance, such as the four-year term of office for members, and the minimum age bar of 50 years to be appointed as a member of a tribunal. Table 2 shows a detailed comparison of key provisions of the 2021 Bill with the 2021 Ordinance and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgement. The Bill does not conform to the judgement of the Supreme Court and retains the provisions of the Ordinance that were struck down by the Court.

For an analysis of the 2021 Ordinance, please see our note here. For more details on the evolution of the tribunal system in India, please see our note.

Table 1: Transfer of functions of key appellate bodies as proposed under the Bill

Appellate body	Role	Proposed entity
Appellate Tribunal under the Cinematograph Act, 1952	Adjudication of appeals against the Board of Film Certification	High Court
Appellate Board under the Trade Marks Act, 1999	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Registrar	High Court
Appellate Board under the Copyright Act, 1957	Adjudication of certain disputes and appeals against orders of the Registrar of Copyright. Disputes include those related to publications and term of the copyright	Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of a High Court*
Authority for Advance Rulings under the Customs Act, 1962	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Customs Authority for advance rulings	High Court
Appellate Board under The Patents Act, 1970	Adjudication of appeals against decisions of the Controller on certain matters. Matters include applications for patents and restoration of patents.	High Court
Airport Appellate Tribunal under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994	Adjudication of: disputes arising from the disposal of properties left on airport premises by unauthorised occupants, and for appeals against the order of an eviction officer	Central government, for disputes arising from the disposal of properties left on airport premises by unauthorised occupants. High Court, for appeals against orders of an eviction officer.
Airport Appellate Tribunal under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Highway Administration on matters including, grant of lease or licence of highway land, removal of unauthorised occupation, and prevention of damage to highway.	Civil Court^#
Appellate Tribunal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001	Adjudication of appeals against certain orders of Registrar or Plant Varieties and Farmer Rights Authority	High Court
Appellate Board under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999	Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Registrar	High Court

Notes: * Constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; # Refers to a Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Sources: The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021; Parent Acts of the appellate bodies; PRS.

Table 2: Key provisions in the 2021 Bill and the Ordinance vis-a-vis the Supreme Court judgements

Provisions	2021 Ordinance	Supreme Court Judgement of July 2021	2021 Bill
Term of office of Chairperson and members	Four-year term with eligibility for re-appointment.	The Court stated that a short tenure of members (such as three years) along with provisions of re-appointment increases the influence and control of the Executive over the judiciary. In a short tenure, by the time the members achieve the required knowledge, expertise and efficiency, one term gets over. This prevents enhancement of adjudicatory experience, thereby, impacting the efficacy of tribunals. The Court struck down the provision of four -year term and reiterated its past judgements, which recommended a five-year term with eligibility for re-appointment.	Same as that in Ordinance.
Minimum age requirement for appointment of Chairperson and members	50 years	The Court observed that the minimum age requirement of 50 years violates past Court judgements, where the Court has stated that advocates with at least 10 years of relevant experience must be eligible to be appointed as judicial members, as that is the qualification required for a High Court judge. Such a high age limit also prevents the recruitment of young talent. The provision was struck down.	Same as that in Ordinance.
Time limit for appointments	Preferably within three months from the date of the recommendations of the search-cum-selection committee.	The Court noted that not mandating the central government to make appointments within three months (from the date of recommendation of the search-cum-selection committee) leads to delay in the appointment of members. This impacts the functioning and efficacy of tribunals. The provision was struck down over non-compliance with past judgements, which mandated the appointments to be made within three months.	Same as that in Ordinance.
Number of recommendations for a post	Two names for each post.	The Court stated that the recommendations for appointment of members by the search-cum-selection committee should be final. The Executive must not be allowed to exercise any discretion in matter of appointments in a tribunal. The Court struck down the provision and reiterated its past judgement, which specified that the selection committee must suggest one name for each post. The Committee may recommend one name in wait list.	Same as that in Ordinance.

Sources: The Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021; The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021; Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 000502 of 2021; PRS.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Arguments regarding FDI in retail

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021, in the context of the recent Supreme Court judgement

Recent Posts