Report of the Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir

Pallavi - May 25, 2012

The central government appointed the J&K Interlocutors Group on October 13, 2010. The Group submitted the Report to the Home Ministry earlier this year. The Report was made public by the Home Ministry on May 24, 2012. It may be noted that under Article 370 of the Constitution special status has been granted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The power of the Parliament to legislate is restricted to defence, external affairs, communication and central elections. However, the President may with the concurrence of the state government extend other central laws to the state. Furthermore, in 1952, an agreement known as the Delhi Agreement was entered into between the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the central government. The Agreement too provided that the state government shall have sovereignty on all subjects except for matters specified above. However, since then some central laws relating to other subjects such as environment have been made applicable to the state. This blog post divides the recommendation into two broad headings: political; and socio-economic. It also looks at the roadmap proposed by the Group to achieve these recommendations. Political recommendations:

The Group recommended that a Constitutional Committee (CC) should be set up to review all the central Acts that have been extended to the state of Jammu and Kashmir since 1952. The CC should come out with its findings within six months. According to the Group, the CC should review whether, and to what extent, the application of central acts to the state has led to an erosion of the state's special status.
The word ‘Temporary’ in Article 370 should be replaced with ‘Special’ which has been used for certain states such as Assam, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh[1].
Central laws shall only be made applicable to the state if they relate to the country's security or a vital economic interest, especially in the areas of energy and water resources.
Currently, the Governor is appointed by the President. The Group recommended that the state government shall give three names for consideration for the position to the President. However, the Governor shall finally be appointed by the President.
Separate Regional Councils for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh should be created and certain legislative, executive and financial powers should be devolved to them. The subjects that could be transferred to the Regional Council include prison reforms, public health, roads and bridges and fisheries.

Cultural, Economic and Social Recommendations:

There are 16 centrally sponsored schemes which are mostly funded by the centre. However, most of the funds for these schemes have not been utilised properly. The Group recommended that an effective system to monitor these schemes should be put in place.
An expert committee to review the state’s financial needs should be constituted.
The central government should tap the hydro-electricity potential of the state. Till date only 15 per cent of the potential has been harnessed. Additional hydro-electricity projects should be established for which the central government should meet the entire equity capital.
Industrial establishments and other buildings occupied by the security officers should be vacated.
Financial package of incentives on the pattern given to the North Eastern States should be given to the state.
The hilly, remote areas should be declared as special development zones.
The restrictions on the internet and mobile phones should be reviewed.

In order to fulfil these recommendations, the Interlocutor’s Group proposed the following roadmap:

The ‘stone pelters’ and political prisoners against whom no serious charges have been framed should be released.
There should an amendment and review of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1990 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
The state policy should provide for the return of Kashmiri Pandits.
A judicial commission to supervise the identification of bodies buried in the unmarked graves should be established.

The full report may be accessed here. Sources:

[1] Article 371 provides certain ‘special provisions’ with respect to states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim

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

Report of the Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir

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

Recent Posts