State Net Legislative Private File Status Report: Fill & Download for Free

If you ask me, anybody who votes away the common man's right to ask & assumes the role of the employer to the one that investigates has their hand in the cookie jar & doesn't want anyone counting the cookies.Every year, nearly six million applications are filed by citizens across the country, making the Indian RTI law the most extensively used transparency legislation in the world. People have successfully used the law to access information about their basic rights and to expose corruption and abuse of power. With no evidence to suggest that the law in its original form hindered its implementation in any way, the amendments are inexplicable.The rationale proffered by the government is that treating information commissioners on par with election commissioners is incorrect, as the latter is a constitutional body while information commissions are statutory bodies. However, there is no provision in the Constitution, or any law, prohibiting this practice. In fact, the principle of statutorily securing tenure and protecting the terms of service, by equating them with the tenure and terms applicable to functionaries of constitutional bodies, is routine. It is done to ensure independent functioning of statutory oversight institutions such as the Central Vigilance Commission and the Lokpal. The Parliamentary Standing Committee, which examined the RTI Bill, 2004, before it was passed, also recommended the elevation of the status of information commissioners to match election commissioners in order to ensure that they function with utmost independence and autonomy.It is clear that the government has weakened the sunshine law without providing any credible rationale for doing so. This has led to widespread speculation about the real motives. One widely held view is that some recent ordersprominent among them being directions to disclose information related to the educational qualifications of the prime minister and his foreign travels; records related to demonetisation; details of high-profile fraud cases in relation to the insupportable NPAs of public sector bankshave irked the government.The manner in which the amendment bill was passed has also raised serious concerns. In the Lok Sabha, the NDA simply used its brute majority to ride roughshod over objections raised by opposition benches. But in the Rajya Sabha, even though 15 political parties reportedly signed a motion to have the bill referred to a select committee, many backtracked on their demand during the voting, fuelling apprehensions about the pressure that was exerted by the ruling dispensation.[1]If you ask me, anyone who can make state governments collapse at will by 'influencing' just the right number of legislators time & again is privy to a lot of handshakes under the table, let me go so far as saying that the said party's hand didn't wince while shaking. Of course, there is no proof - one can only insinuate as the said party has done in the past of several other known corrupt parties.The inducements would certainly be in cash & kind of a certain color that's definitely not white.Of course, the ruling BJP acts all innocently blue-eyed. Kar-nataka.A week has passed since BS Yediyurappa took oath as the chief minister of Karnataka after wresting power from the Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) alliance in a numbers test. However, the new Cabinet is yet to be formed as the government is in the throes of a dilemma. Many aspirants are demanding ministerial berths, while the party is also uneasily aware that the 'rebels' must be accommodated in the new Cabinet.[2]BJP's welcoming arms have embraced many a rebel from another party completely tainted and considered absolutely corrupt when they were on the other side. Unless the Tide (also name of a detergent) turns and cleanses them all, the stains remain.Across the country, ‘prominent’ political leaders allegedly facing corruption charges or undergoing investigations against them, are currently crossing over to the BJP according to media reports. In some cases, these are leaders that the BJP had earlier accused for involvement in scams. There is media speculation about other similar leaders moving to join BJP. All this suggests that the “zero tolerance to corruption” rhetoric during and after the 2014 General Election campaign which grabbed the attention of millions of people propelling it to power, seems not to be taken seriously by this government.[3]The drastic demonetization which was to ostensibly take India closer towards digitization, which was to teach us all to not use cash appears to not have taught the BJP anything. Their campaign expenses (rallies etc) were all paid for in cash with the party demanding it be allowed to withdraw huge sums of cash for expenses. Walking the talk seems to be something that's anathema to the party in power or should I say, the all-powerful party.The BJP netted the maximum in donations & spent the most in the 2019 elections. It becomes easy to point a finger at them just as they did at other political parties for way smaller sums just a few years ago. If those parties were corrupt, so are they.The Bharatiya Janata Party spent close to Rs 27,000 crore in the recently-concluded Lok Sabha elections, according to a report by the Centre for Media Studies released on Monday. The amount was 45% of the total expenditure of Rs 60,000 crore, which is more than what was spent in 2014. The report has called the 2019 General Elections the “most expensive election ever, anywhere”.At this rate, expenditure in the 2024 General Elections could cross Rs 1 trillion, said CMS chairperson N Bhaskara Rao, according to Business Standard. “Mother of all corruption lies in the spiralling election expenditure,’’ said Rao. “If we are not able to address this, we can’t check corruption in India. The scale of the expenditure should scare us and compel us to think of taking corrective steps to build a stronger democracy.”[4]That said, is the BJP as corrupt as Congress of yore?No. At least, we have no evidence of that yet.Is all of BJP corrupt?No. There do appear to some leaders working hard and well & certainly not with their hands in the till.Is the top level of BJP corrupt?No. At least we don't think so. Yet.But, the party is a collection of individuals who believe in an ideology & share a common dream for the Nation.By blindly taking in every stray that seeks shelter from the taxman or similar agency, by turning a blind eye & deaf ear to corrupt practices within the party & not weilding a tight enough whip to throw out those who spoil the name, by refusing to allow themselves to be questioned & (mis)using their legislative powers to bring in a law in their favor, by refusing to open themselves up for scrutiny, by taking from those who never give without an arm & a leg in exchange, I believe the BJP has indulged in certain practices that can fall on the other side of honesty.Definition of corruption:The simplest definition is: Corruption is the misuse of public power (by elected politician or appointed civil servant) for private gain. ... Corruption is the misuse of entrusted power (by heritage, education, marriage, election, appointment or whatever else) for private gain.[5]By this simplistic definition of corruption, other than including the obviously corrupt with varying charges of impropriety & having similar existing members, possibly the points listed may not directly point to corruption.However, in world where things do not clearly fall into the categories of black and white, all that can be said is that some of BJP's greys are more towards the black side of the spectrum.Literally.Footnotes[1] Right to Information: Dangerous knowledge[2] Accommodating K'taka Rebel MLAs, Fissures Within Party: BSY & Co Have Issues Before Forming Cabinet[3] Many Politicians with Allegations of Corruption Find BJP a Safe Haven | NewsClick[4] BJP spent nearly 45% – or Rs 27,000 crore – of total expenditure for 2019 Lok Sabha polls: Report[5] http://Corruption is an improbity or decay in the decision-making process in which a decision-maker consents to deviate or demands deviation from the criterion which should rule his or her decision-making, in exchange for a reward or for the promise or expectation of a reward, while these motives influencing his or her decision-making cannot be part of the justification of the decision.

There are many ways in which a thing can be true, and not all of them are equal.While ProPublica’s story is mostly true in a narrow sense, it’s also concerningly simplistic. It gives us a taste of the truth — enough to make us drunk with outrage. But what it doesn’t do is arm the reader to participate in the sort of discussion that might solve the real problems underneath.Compounding this, the dozens of clickshare re-writes of ProPublica’s story by other outlets have all been worse. What the ProPublica version lacked in breadth of address, the rest lack in depth (and also breadth).While we’re going to going to tackle those themes a bit more while unpacking the main elements of the tax story itself, just two bits of house-cleaning first:My main interest here is bias. Not political bias, mind you. More in the vein of what Jon Stewart suggested was the default bias of all mainstream media: “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness”.Some angles of this story get into murky territory, especially as it concerns legal recourse. I’ve done my best to be transparent about where I’m sure and where I’m speculating. As ever, I offer financial rewards for all corrections and meaningful improvements.Ok, on we go.Historical ContextBack in 1998, Congress passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, which, among other things, spelled out one notable big-letter goal: “having 80% of Federal tax and information returns filed electronically by the year 2007”.Fast forward to 2002. The Bush II administration announced a new policy related to achieving that 80% goal: the creation of Free File Inc. (hereafter FFI) as part of the Free File Program (FFP).The basics:FFI (sometimes FFA in the press) is a consortium of a dozen major tax-prep companies.FFP is a deal that FFI made with the IRS wherein they would create software that allowed the bottom 60% (now 70%) of US earners to file their taxes electronically for free (no cost to the IRS or the filer).In exchange, the FFI demanded a non-compete agreement from the IRS. For as long as FFI was supplying these freebie filing options, the IRS couldn’t go and create their own.The FFP wasn’t law. Just a department policy predicated on a renewable contract between the IRS and the FFI. (This contract is referred to as a “memo of understanding”, or MOU.)Now, there are many ways of parsing this. On the one hand, free electronic filing for 60% of taxpayers was a win. Plus the government didn’t have to bother with creating this software from scratch. On the other hand, many FFI members had motivations beyond charity and civic pride. In exchange for their “donation”, they got to ensure the IRS wouldn’t cut their revenue streams by creating a better option of their own. (They knew that most filers would end up buying a paid product regardless of free options, which is something we’ll get to.)All said though, this being a negotiated contract meant it was mostly a win-win. The IRS got to focus elsewhere, and taxpayers got something useful. And in the event that the deal no longer made sense, the IRS was free to either renegotiate or try something new.What Happened This WeekThe House passed the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 this past Tuesday. Section 1102 of said bill began with this clause:The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s delegate, shall continue to operate the IRS Free File Program as established by the Internal Revenue Service and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 67247), including any subsequent agreements and governing rules established pursuant thereto.The force of this is pretty simple: the FFP (and the MOU underlying it) would graduate from department policy to federal law.But before we get into the implications of that, I want to contrast the above with a clause from a previous (unpassed) bill:The Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, may not establish, develop, sponsor, acquire, or make available individual income tax preparation software or electronic filing services that are offered under the IRS Free File program, except through the IRS Free File program, the Internal Revenue Service’s Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Tax Counseling for the Elderly, and volunteer income tax assistance (VITA) programs.Note the difference: in this second version, the non-compete aspect would have been part of the federal legislation itself (as opposed to it being a clause in an MOU referenced by the law, where that MOU could be updated to remove or modify or replace that clause). It also would have limited the IRS from sponsoring private partners outside the confines of the FFP. This is the kind of bill that lobbyists really wanted. What they got this week was a distinctly lesser win.Anyway, as for the MOU in question (now in its 8th version, having been renewed late last year), there are a few clauses in play here:In recognition of this commitment [of FFI members to offer free filing software to the bottom 70% of earners], the federal government has pledged to not enter the tax preparation software and e-filing services marketplace.But while this exchange is a classic quid pro quo, this isn’t to say the deal is entirely equal.Any unilateral changes imposed by the U.S. government on FFI whether by statute, regulation, or administrative action will result in an immediate re-evaluation of the decision to continue FFI, and could result in an immediate suspension of free services upon the decision of each Member.This is where things get really interesting, and where FFI lobbyists clearly earned their money. The new bill, while less onerous than previous attempts at codifying the MOU, does include one slippery sentence: it mandates that the government “shall continue to operate” the FFP.Here’s why this matters: if the IRS decides to revise the MOU to remove the non-compete angle, the FFI would have a powerful incentive to exercise the above clause. The presumption is that they’d then argue something to the effect of “the government’s unilateral decision forced our hand and now the FFP is basically untenable, and the law says that the government needs to keep the FFP alive”. (I’m not sure how successful this argument might be, but it certainly seems that the legislation was crafted to allow the FFI to make it.)But there’s one more thing from that MOU that represents a curveball:Should the IRS commit funding to offer Services for free to taxpayers, the IRS shall notify FFI immediately.This clause has been in the MOU since the first draft. It basically allows the FFI to stop offering the free services if the IRS begins their own. But this is somewhat in tension with the unilateral changes bit. If the IRS exercises an option that’s always been part of the MOU, does that weaken a potential claim by the FFI?(To be clear, I don’t know how this would play out in court. Different judges could rule differently. Though there are surely precedents I’m unaware of that might make certain outcomes more or less likely. What is clear though is that there would be non-trivial litigation risk for the IRS if they were to drop the non-compete and the FFI were to object.)Anyway, there’s more to the MOU that we need to look at, but I want to set up that discussion by reviewing a few other things first.There Must Be A Better Way!The crux of this week’s commentary has mostly been “man, it would be great if the US could be like other countries and have an option where the IRS just sends out a pre-filled postcard and all we need to do is verify and sign it”.The easy narrative here is that this system doesn’t exist solely because of the FFP (i.e., the companies that make up the FFI don’t want to lose revenues, and have thus thrown lots of lobbying dollars at Congress to keep the FFP in place, and that’s why we can’t have nice things).While there are other problems with this narrative, I think it’s worth getting into a fuller list of cautions that past studies have raised as it concerns the US pursuing such a program (pulling mostly from this 1996 GAO report, though leaving out all the arguments that have been obviated by tech advances):At the time, 55% of filers would have needed to make amendments to any pre-filled form the IRS could have come up with (or else would have needed to just do their own filing from scratch). While that number would be lower now, the complexities of US tax regimes (at both federal and state levels) combined with the backwater efficiency of most inter-governmental data-sharing systems would keep this number from being near as low as that of most other developed countries.Tax prep companies pay lots of tax on their profits, and employ lots of people who pay lots of tax on their wages. If you eliminate those jobs, the government takes in less money. Plus governments have to pay benefits to unemployed people until they find new work.Lots of US citizens don’t trust the IRS, which could mean that lots of pre-filled forms would be challenged, thus increasing the overall workload. In contrast, the selling point of “we’re going to help you pay the fewest dollars to the big bad government” is compelling to lots of Americans, and often solicits more trust (even if it shouldn’t).There was a fear at the time that people would be less likely to declare side income if their filing was pre-filled (I’m sure there’s relevant data from other countries who use this system — would love a link if any reader happens to know of quality research here).Employers are really bad at sending on forms in a timely way, making it hard for the IRS to gain the needed data to make correct calculations while also maintaining their current tax calendar.We can add two more things to this list:The IRS is intentionally under-funded (down nearly 20% this decade despite a host of new responsibilities). It’s hard to imagine either party giving them loads of money to institute new programs in the current climate, whatever their potential benefit. It’s just an electoral nightmare. Lobbyists and messaging consultants have done too effective a job at poisoning that particular well.US government agencies are generally bad at managing software projects. It isn’t at all clear that they’d get further developing their own system vs. forcing the FFI members to improve their existing offerings.Now, those arguments vary in power. I’m skeptical that even taken together they mean that the IRS shouldn’t try a large-scale pilot. But the last two are definitely non-trivial. Giving the IRS a larger budget is widely considered a non-starter, and changing political perception there would be a massive undertaking. But if you had to get them more money for either oversight or building their own program, oversight would be a whole lot cheaper, and may have a higher ROI.Bad Faith EffortsYou might be wondering: if the FFP has been around since 2002, why do only ~3 million people a year use it? (A number that’s been trending downward.)There are a handful of high-level answers here:Per the MOU (4.35), it’s actually the IRS’s responsibility to market the FFP. Doing this well would require them having a budget to do so (and them having the institutional competency to use that money well).Also per the MOU (4.15.4), FFI members are responsible to advertise the free service from their “Free File Landing Page”. They are not responsible to make this landing page easily accessible. In most cases, said pages are only reachable via the IRS’s little-known FFP program page.Most of the FFI’s FFP offerings suck (on purpose). The IRS has the right of review, but doesn’t use it very effectively. (As the FFI largely sees improving these offerings to be contrary to their financial interests, they’re only going to go as far as they’re pushed.)While some FFP offerings suck less, the FFI is dominated by Intuit (TurboTax) and H&R Block (i.e., the two players at least theoretically most opposed to improvements).Free options aren’t generally good at identifying all eligible deductions, leading most filers to opt for a paid service they perceive to be better at that.Filing taxes normally via TurboTax or a local outfit isn’t all that hard or expensive, and most taxpayers just aren’t bothered enough to seek an alternate solution.Of those factors, I want to focus on 3 and 4. To illustrate what bad faith means here, let’s look at how TurboTax goes about fulfilling their FFP obligations.Now, you might be thinking “well, that’s no so bad at all! — after all, the free option is clearly marked in an attractive way”.But then you click on that “simple tax returns” subhead and you’re greeted with a curious disclaimer:Hmm. Now why would these things not be covered? The obvious answer would be that artificial restrictions are useful for pushing customers to premium options. Pretty normal practice. But doesn’t the MOU forbid this type of upselling on FFP offerings?Trick question! The above offering has nothing to do with the FFP!TurboTax does have an FFP option, which does cover all the situations from the disclaimer. It’s just hidden. The only way you’d ever find it is if you came in via a link from the IRS’s FFP program page (or something written about it I guess). The fact that the two offerings share a confusingly similar name (“Free Edition” vs. “Free File”) is, ahem, a bit of poor luck. They say it isn’t their fault if consumers are confused, as it isn’t their job to educate them.And this is hardly the only kind of spirit-violating nonsense that FFI folks have gotten up to. Remember how the MOU demanded that the lowest 70% of earners all be given free options? Well, the MOU didn’t demand that each provider meet that goal individually — just collectively. The natural consequence? Each FFI provider has seemingly arbitrary restrictions on location and age/income ranges. While you’re guaranteed (if under the income cap) that one of them will work for you, the same one might not work for your sibling or next-door neighbor. It may not even work for you two years in a row! It’s complicated enough that the IRS had to develop a lookup tool that requires you to complete a survey to match you with the right offering. Friction, friction, friction.Why Governments Suck, Part IIf you read through the MOU, you might find yourself surprised at some of the clauses.4.36.3 - IRS and FFI mutually agree to support and promote Free File as an “Innovation Lab” to test, pilot, and offer capabilities to simplify taxpayer compliance, such as data importation offered by industry as described herein, and such as IRS’s Application Programming Interface (API) projects […]Yep, you read that right: the FFI actually has a mandate to create the sort of tax-filing experience we all dream of. (There’s a whole section on this.) On the balance, the MOU is honestly pretty taxpayer-friendly. The problem isn’t in the text — it’s in the fact that the US government is terrible at private-sector oversight, rendering most of these deals somewhere between one-sided and meaningless.This is why all those battles that Roger and Paul and Grover and Newt and Ralph fought in the 80s/90s mattered. They weren’t conservatives fighting against the encroachment of progressive values or the nanny-state. They were power-brokers looking to get paid by corporations keen to reduce oversight to something of a farce. (And they definitely had their allies on the left in this effort.) Now, sure, reasonable people can disagree on how much oversight the market needs. That’s why we have a democratic system that necessitates healthy compromises. Good legislation should certainly aim for balance, and so on. But what those men did was use the “government vs. markets” debate, not to shift the compromise, but to obscure what they were really doing: making sure that whatever compromises Congress reached would be toothless anyhow.The reality here is that the MOU itself is largely fine, as is the new law. And the litigation risk of backing out of the non-compete, however severe, is mostly a red herring. The IRS is still free to help other competitors (like Credit Karma) enhance their free services, and there’s no reason that FFI offerings couldn’t be made to be as good or better than whatever the IRS could come up with themselves. That the current options suck isn’t about who is building the software. It’s about the IRS having no real resources to either enforce/sweeten the MOU or market the FFP.And that, in turn, is a problem with public perception. The US can easily afford to properly fund the IRS (it would actually be a net savings on a longer timeline). But elected representatives are terrified of trying, largely thanks to the efforts of the Grovers of this world — along with a little help from the media.Why Governments Suck, Part IIIt isn’t a new observation that good governance requires an informed public. This has been a maxim since the first Greek experiments with democracy. Literacy and engagement are the central pillars of any nation worth living in.So why is the press doing such a poor job informing the public in a way likely to arm them with the data and context required to engage well?Let’s start with the ProPublica piece that set off this whole dialogue:Congress Is About to Ban the Government From Offering Free Online Tax Filing. Thank TurboTaxSetting aside the misleading implications of the headline as worded, let’s look at the article’s first paragraph:Just in time for Tax Day, the for-profit tax preparation industry is about to realize one of its long-sought goals. Congressional Democrats and Republicans are moving to permanently bar the IRS from creating a free electronic tax filing system.Note those words: “permanently bar”.Remember that Stewart line from the beginning about “sensationalism, conflict, and laziness”? Keep that in mind as you parse what exactly “permanently bar” might mean. It isn’t a term of art. Congress has no power to ban anything forever. That’s not how the law works. The closest we could get is a constitutional amendment, but even those can be re-written and re-interpreted. Laws, by their nature, are transitory things.The real focus of this new legislation isn’t permanence, but difficulty. The FFI hardly expects the status quo to last another 17 years, much less indefinitely. They just expect that litigation risk (and two-branch support) will act as a speed bump on change. Their monopoly would still be written in pencil, but the erasers would be just that little bit extra harder to come by, which would make them happy.Now, you might object that I’m being over-sensitive to the meaning of words here, and that ProPublica’s take wasn’t all that bad. And this is where we have to get a little philosophical. Some believe that every journalist’s responsibility is something to the effect of “collect some facts, avoid outright mistakes, and work with an editor to make your story marketable”. But this to me is the equivalent of requiring them to “tell the truth and nothing but the truth” while leaving out the bit about “the whole truth” as either unimportant or impractical. The story that ProPublica told was true, but it agitated more than it informed. The FFI likely read it and said “well, this will make this week suck, but the outrage isn’t well-directed to any end that represents a real obstacle to us, so, hey, whatever”.Look, good journalism is hard. I get that. And there’s certainly value to communicating key facts quickly. Not every news bulletin can wait on an exhaustive search for whatever we might consider a realist approximation of “the whole truth”. But it seems undeniable to me that the current model is broken. And this is nowhere more evident than in how primary reporting is reprocessed by secondary publishers in their quest for clickshare.Say you thought “permanently bar” was wrong but not very wrong. How do you feel about the first sentence of TechCrunch’s repackage?Thanks to pressure from tax preparation industry, Congress is getting ready to ban the IRS from ever building a free electronic tax filing system.Does TechCrunch say “ever” here if ProPublica didn’t use “permanently” first? If I was a casual reader, I’d assume that “ever” implied some real finality, like a door being shut that couldn’t be re-opened. (Where the reality here is that this particular door can be sprung with precisely the same force with which it was closed.)In the same vein, consider this follow-on by Popular Mechanics:Filing Your Taxes Could Be Way Easier, But Congress and Tax Companies Are Conniving To Make Sure It Stays TerribleConniving! Reminds me of that old saw about how one shouldn’t ascribe to malice what’s better explained by incompetence (or, in this case, inadequate resources).Anyway, as to the article itself:Tucked away in section 1102 of the bill, which relates to the IRS Free File Program that ensures fee-free filing for people under a certain income threshold, is language that subtly prevents the IRS for developing its own system by mandating that the agency continue to work with the private sector in this endeavor. In other words, the legislation locks us all into the status quo.I credit ProPublica with at least this: however narrow their perspective was, at least they did their homework. Their bias was more toward sensationalism and conflict than laziness. Popular Mechanics (and dozens of others) went for the full trifecta, in a much more brazen way.As a non-exhaustive list of problems here:While, yes, filing your taxes could be “way easier”, shifting the software burden to the IRS would be no guarantee of making this so.Section 1102 was the 3rd of 47 sections. If their goal was to hide it in the stack, the crafters did a poor job.There’s a deep confusion here between the bill and the MOU.The actual non-compete language is the opposite of subtle.This is like the game of Telephone. Most secondary publishers do near-zero research and just repackage the primary article, leaving the signal to degrade with each step.And then we have Twitter.Who says there is no common ground in politics?Democrats and Republicans in the House just unanimously passed a bill that makes it illegal for the IRS to create a system to let Americans file their taxes for free online— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 10, 2019This system already exists! It’s called the FFP! That the IRS can’t create their own competing system to the one they already manage is a much narrower issue.(Also, for the record, passing a bill by acclimation isn’t the same as passing one via a unanimous vote.)[EDIT: 05/01/21: I realize one counter-argument here is “ah but this system is limited to 70% of the population”. And that’s true so far as it goes. But the top 30%of earners generally have far more complicated returns, almost all use accountants, and largely wouldn’t be using a free file service anyway.]It's hard to find a clearer example of Congress sabotaging the public good than a bill -- lobbied for by TurboTax -- prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from developing a free online system for filing your taxes.https://t.co/4HuIZc9ZKO— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) April 10, 2019Ditto to above. This system already exists, and was developed under the auspices of the IRS.Also, the linked NYT piece (from their editorial board) includes this gem: “Instead of barring the I.R.S. from making April a little less miserable, why isn’t Congress requiring the I.R.S. to create a free tax filing website?”The IRS already mandated the creation of several such websites! The assumption that the IRS would create a better one on their own is plausible, but (really) far from certain when you look at the history of government software projects.Two facts:1. H&R Block and the makers of TurboTax spent $6.6 million lobbying last year. They want to ban the IRS from offering its own free, simple tax filing service.2. Congress is about to pass a law doing exactly that. https://t.co/giatnNh5mD— Eric Umansky (@ericuman) April 9, 2019The IRS isn’t getting “banned” from anything. They voluntarily signed a non-compete 17 years ago, which they renewed less than six months ago. (And this is from a ProPublica editor!)The extent to which all Americans suffer an annual cost in time and money to protect the monopolies of TurboTax and H&R Block is astounding. Is there any issue where Congress is more out of step with citizen desires? https://t.co/GIRijGpS9Y— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) April 9, 2019Like, I get the desire for simpler taxes. But is $40 and 15 minutes really “suffering”? (And, again, for the lowest 70% of earners, they don’t even have to shell out the $40 if they don’t want to. Though I guess you could say that using existing FFP sites is a form of suffering, if in an excessively first-world sense.)Congress can’t muster the political will to eliminate the carried interest tax break for private equity titans, but it can get together to prevent free tax preparation for others: https://t.co/3pEfW8EPnF— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) April 10, 2019No free preparation! Except for 70% of you! And a handful of other special classes!Anyway, I could go on. But the point is that if the goal is to get voters to hold politicians accountable, it would certainly help if the voters knew what was happening, and why, and where the real problems are.It’s difficult to see how all the current coverage supports such a cause.More Adventures in Water-MuddyingConsider this quote (from the original ProPublica piece, but re-used in several secondary articles):“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.This is, uh, pretty hyperbolic. Is there any justification for it? Does it aid clarity? Or does it just lend to the ever-marketable dynamics of sensationalism and conflict?Also consider this irreconcilable set of quotes from ProPublica’s sequel (published after lawmakers reacted to the first one).The IRS chief counsel confirmed to his office that the Taxpayer First Act does not bar the agency from implementing a direct-file program. … “My staff pushed back on a long-standing policy that blocks the IRS from competing with private tax preparation companies […]”vs.“Senate Republicans fit in some bitter pills and some problematic provisions,” said [Rep Katie Hill], who supported the bill as a whole, speaking on the House floor. “One of these is a piece that came to my attention today — which the corporate tax lobby has spent years and millions of dollars to get — which would bar the IRS from creating a simple, free filing system that would compete with their own.”I find this stuff infuriating, on three levels:Those who want to get quoted have biases and motives. Readers aren’t equipped to unpack those. Journalists need to do more than just “report the controversy”. Maybe that works for an AP news bulletin where speed is of the essence. But who is doing the work of coming in after and deconstructing for the reader why each party might have said what and how their statements relate to their bios?Far too many journalists (I’m not sure if this includes ProPublica) rely on services like HARO, where the experts are unknowns who respond to a call for a quote (vs. people with whom the journalist has an established relationship based on a keen understanding of competencies and incentives and likely spin). I know personally how low the bar is to getting quoted via HARO. I was never asked once to verify my identity or defend my position. What I said was just copied-and-pasted into a piece on the strength of a one-sentence self-supplied credential and my email address.Just because a politician has a quote doesn’t mean you should print it. It’s pretty clear that most who’ve commented on this legislation so far had/have (at best) a vague sense of what it contains, much less all the MOUs and external docs referenced in the bill. This isn’t uncommon. Only so many politicians have the right staff (and even then there are hard limits on scope and priorities). Journalists ought to push back more to ensure they aren’t just printing “um, I don’t reaaally know, but here’s my strong opinion that I’m told will play well to my base” quotes (or at least journalists need to carefully qualify those quotes when printing them).The Path ForwardI’ve written a lot over the past year about the failures of modern journalism — especially the hot-take/rapid-response/clickshare machine. There are things we can do to fix it, including some simple adjustments that could go a long way.In the absence of those changes, corporations like Intuit and H&R Block are going to have a field day. Their lobbyists will do what they’re paid very well to do, and our selective and ever-moving outrage will do nothing to solve the underlying problems. The MOU, whether law or policy, will continue to be enforced so poorly as to be one-sided, and tax innovation will be forever three or five years away.And so on and so on we’ll go, never to actually get anywhere, until we eventually decide that enough is enough, that the current model belongs in the dustbin of history, and that the time to make these changes is now.Note #1: I’m generally a fan of ProPublica. I thought their rundown last year was excellent, which has been true of a lot of their past coverage on this issue. I can’t really account for why this one missed the mark in relative terms.Note #2: An open question for any lawyer reading: could taxpayers sue the IRS for failing to meet the requirements set out in section 4.35 of the MOU (a promise to make “consistent, good faith efforts” to market the FFP)?EDITS [05/01/21]:Coming back to this two years later, I’ve made some fresh eyes edits. See log. The only thing that wasn’t typos or formatting or minor caveating was adding a clarification that the MOU could still have been modified by the IRS (as opposed to the law itself, which would have required help from Congress). While it’s true that the IRS would need the FFI to agree to any such revisions, they have a unilateral termination clause for leverage (Article 10.2). The bill just said they had to continue operating the program in keeping with the original outline and any subsequent agreements. Well the reigning agreement (as ProPublica acknowledged) says the IRS can unilaterally dissolve the MOU with a year’s notice. (I’m sure the FFI would threaten to sue if the IRS went that route. But the point here again is introducing friction to test the government’s resolve. Should the government have sufficient resolve, they have absurd leverage to win that fight. So it was hardly some adamantium handcuff situation.)There’s a way in which ProPublica’s reporting worked. The offending clause was taken out of the bill as passed by the Senate. But I’m still torn about their coverage (which is fresh in mind as I’m currently working on another story about them). On one hand, they did quality work directing attention towards a somewhat dodgy thing. And the uproar they whipped up stopped that somewhat dodgy thing from happening. Even so, the basic underlying situation hasn’t actually changed. Few voters have a clearer idea of what’s really in the way of improvements to the FFP (i.e., IRS executive virility in managing the existing MOU), far too many were led to believe that the law would have been irreversible, and most are still in the fantasyland of imagining that were it not for Intuit the IRS would somehow have the sort of system you see in countries like Sweden (when the real obstacles there are all orthogonal to FFP). While I still see them as the gold standard of journalism, that means less than it should.(I’d be curious to see how many more Americans used Free File in 2020 on the back of all this media attention. If I ever find an answer, I’ll come back to link it. As a big uptick vs. the prior trendline would be to their credit.)

This is a good question, let's enumerate some important laws which came in the newspapers in the past 12 months.We shall make this post crowd-sourced. And we are planning to reward our contributors by giving them credits* -Detailed Well Presented 100 word Explanation - 2000Giving Valid Links and a Small Brief - 1000Giving Names of New Laws - 500Contributors (As of now) - Jai Parimi, Divya Malika, Prasanna, Ashutosh Pandey, Arihant Pawariya (अरिहंत पावङिया), Divya Choudhary (दिव्या चौधरी), Varsha Singh, Priyanka Peeramsetty, User, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannadh, Arpit Pareek, Nikhil Deshmukh, Harshit Ladva1) The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 and the 99th Constitutional AmendmentA bill to provide for the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission for the purpose of recommending persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts, its functions, procedure to be followed by it and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Key Issues and AnalysisThe current method of appointments has been examined by various bodies including the Law Commission and the Parliamentary Standing Committee. They vary in the role of the executive and judiciary in making appointments of judges.The composition of the JAC has not been included in the Constitution, but has been left for Parliament to decide by law. This implies that modifying the composition of the JAC would not require a constitutional amendment, but may be altered by a simple majority in Parliament.The Standing Committee examining the JAC Bill has recommended that (i) the JAC be composed of three eminent persons, (ii) the broad parameters for short listing of candidates for HC appointments be laid down in the Bill, and (iii) the center also consider the setting up of state level appointments commissions comprising the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice of HC and the Leader of Opposition.2) Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reservation Act, 2013Objective - The principle objective of the new bill is fair compensation, thorough resettlement and rehabilitation of those affected, adequate safeguards for their well-being and complete transparency in the process of land acquisition. The title has been amended to reflect this.Need - There is unanimity of opinion across the social and political spectrum that the Old Law (The Land Acquisition Act 1894) suffers from various shortcomings and is outdated. Some of these include Forced acquisitions, No safeguards, Silent on resettlement and rehabilitation of those displaced, Urgency clause, Low rates of compensation, Litigation. To say the least, the Old Act needs to be replaced at the earliest by fair, reasonable and rational enactment in tune with the constitutional provisions, particularly, Article 300A of the Constitution.Link - Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20133) Companies Act, 2013 (CSR Pref)Objective - Effective from financial year 2014-15, every company, private limited or public limited, which either has a net worth of Rs 500 crore or a turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or net profit of Rs 5 crore, needs to spend at least 2% of its average net profit for the immediately preceding three financial years on corporate social responsibility activities.Impact - The CSR activities undertaken by the companies will benefit hunger and poverty eradication, promoting preventive healthcare, promoting education and promoting gender equality, setting up homes for women, orphans and the senior citizens, measures for reducing inequalities faced by socially and economically backward groups, ensuring environmental sustainability and ecological balance, animal welfare, protection of national heritage and art and culture and many more.Link - Companies Act, 2013, Companies - It's a good articlePRSIndia– This describes the whole of companies act – Checkpoint 135 for CSR4) Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005Objective - Landmark bill, which realized the Right to seek and access Information in line with the interpretation of Art.19(1)(a) of our constitution.Impact - Champion to ensure Transparency and accountability in the governance procedures. it enforces the right of every citizen of India to have an access to the information regarding any money given by the State to any authority, thereby causing such authority to utilize such money reasonably and judiciously and also for keeping a check over their conduct and indulgence in corrupt activities. In 2002, SC’s verdict gave the citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service and public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. It is a powerful tool which can be realised in changing social dynamics and needs.Criticism - Debates regarding the ambit of RTI’s scope have been articulated, to be extended, say to the political parties, temples, schools and also privatized public utility companies. Evidences of misusage have come to the limelight, say Naxalites using RTI’s to check the assets of local landlords to loot themGuide to RTI : Page on rti.gov.in5) Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, 2005Objective - The SEZ Act is expected to give a big thrust to exports and consequently to the foreign direct investment (“FDI”) inflows into India, and is considered to be one of the finest pieces of legislation that may well represent the future of the industrial development strategy in India. The new law is aimed at encouraging PPP to develop world-class infrastructure and attract private investment (domestic and foreign), boosting economic growth, exports and employmentImpact - The government gets the capital needed to establish the required infrastructure and also the expertise. SEZ’s with relaxed import tariffs help the Import dependent and export driven industries to flourish. SEZ’s create immense employment opportunities and improve the country’s foreign export.Criticism - Practical implementation witnesses several backlogs ranging from regional disparities, grabbing arable land, labour laws issues and supply chain management which fail to be addressed effectively through the bill6) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013Objective -The government introduced the Bill to redefine the offence of rape and amend the penal laws in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the National Commission for Women. The government withdrew the previous Bill and Ordinance, and introduced the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013. The changes wrt the ordinance in the act are:Impact - Popularly known as the Anti-rape bill, this came out of the protests of 2012 Delhi Gang rape case.Criticism - For not including certain suggestions recommended by the Verma Committee Report like, marital rape, reduction of age of consent, amending Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.Some detailed work: http://www.atimysore.gov.in/workshops/wppts/gender_issues/crim_law_amnd_2013_drjagadeesh_jsslaw_college.pdf7) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013Objective - To provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. the protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognized human rightsImpact - On a broader line, this ensures safe work environment for women against sexual abuse at work place and is capable of garnering a greater female work force and these are the Major features the act provides for.Criticism - It does not cover women in the armed forces and excludes women agricultural workers, "a gross injustice to agricultural workers. The burden of proof is on the women who complain of harassment. If found guilty of making a false complaint or giving false evidence, she could be prosecuted, which has raised concerns about women being even more afraid of reporting offences. Furthermore, the law requires a third-party NGO to be involved, which could make employers less comfortable in reporting grievances, due to confidentiality concerns.8) DNA Profiling Bill, 2012Purpose - DNA analysis makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.Tip - Lawful purposes of establishing identity in criminal or civil proceedings.Impact - It will be essential to establish standards for laboratories, staff qualifications, training, proficiency testing, collection of body substances, custody trail from collection to reporting and a Data Bank with policies of use and access to information therein, its retention and deletion.DNA Data Bank Manager will supervise, execute and maintain this system and a DNA Profiling Board of eminent scientists, administrators and Law enforcement officers will administer and carry out other functions assigned to it under this Act.Link - DNA Profiling Bill - PDF9) Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011Purpose - So far, India has excellent record in nuclear safety and radiation safety; but the Central Government intends to promote nuclear energy to meet shortfall in total energy requirement of the country; and whereas such excellent safety record in nuclear safety and radiation safety is required to be sustained for growth in the nuclear energy sector.Impact - Now, therefore, it has been considered necessary and expedient to establish regulators to ensure continued excellence in nuclear safety and radiation safety in all applications of radiation and atomic energy on a large scale.10) Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010Purpose - As the name itself indicates that it is an Act to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a no-fault liability regime channeling liability to the operator.Impact - Appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission connected there with.11) IT Act, 2000 and IT (Amendment) Bill, 2006Purpose - It is an Act to provide legal recognition for the transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as "Electronic Commerce", which involve the use of alternatives to paper based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filings of documents with the Government and other related agencies.Tip - It is renamed as the Information Technology Act, 2008Impact - To promote efficient delivery of Government services by means of reliable electronic records.12) National Green Tribunal Bill, 2009Purpose - For the effective disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal rights relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property.Impact - National Green Tribunal law is enacted in view of the involvement of multi-disciplinary issues relating to the environment and also to implement the decisions taken at Rio de Janeiro and Stockholm Conferences.Link - NGT Bill - PDF13) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969Objective - It is designed to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in concentration of the economic power to the common detriment.The act also provides for probation of monopolistic, unfair and restrictive trade practices.Impact - The MRTP Commission if on enquiry concludes that the practice under consideration is of restrictive or unfair in nature , it may:Order discontinuation of the practice and restrict its repetition (cease and desist order ), the agreement shall be void and shall stand modified as may specified in the order. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.Link - MRTP Act, 196914) Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2008(Coal scam and SC verdict, so important)Objective - To develop and regulate mining & mineral industries and bring it under the control of one union by setting up mineral funds on National level, granting concessions, share benefit schemes while preventing illegal mining.Impact - Safeguards on regulating and safe disposal of waste in consonance with environmental norms will be incorporated. Through implementation of proper taxing and speedy approvals on action against violations illegal mining will be preventedLink - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill 200815) Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011It seeks to establish a mechanism to register complaints on any allegations of corruption or wilful misuse of power against a public servant. The Bill also provides safeguards against victimisation of the person who makes the complaint.Highlights of the BillThe Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Bill penalises any person who has disclosed the identity of the complainant.Key Issues and AnalysisThe Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimizing a complainant.16) Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Bill 2014Objectives: The Bill seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. It specifies procedural safeguards in cases of children in conflict with law. It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of institutions, etc. The Bill further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years.Coverage: The Bill defines a child as anyone less than 18 years of age. However, a special provision has been inserted for the possibility of trying 16-18 year old committing heinous offenses, as adults. A heinous offense is defined as one for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code is seven years.17) Citizens Charters & Grievance Redressal Bill, 2011. (CCGR)The Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011 also known as The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 or Citizens Charter Bill was a proposed in Lok Sabha in December 2011. The bill lapsed due to dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 lays down obligations of every public authority towards citizens, specifying delivery of goods and services in a time-bound manner and providing for a grievance redressal mechanism for non-compliance of citizens charter.Highlights :The Bill makes it mandatory for every public authority to publish a Citizen’s Charter within six months of the commencement of the Act.The Citizen’s Charter shall list the details of the goods and services provided by a public authority; the name of the person or agency responsible for providing the goods or services; the time frame within which such goods or services have to be provided; the category of people entitled to the goods and services; and details of the complaint redressal mechanism.Grievance redress officer : It requires every public authority to designate grievance redress officers in all public offices to enquire into and redress any complaints from citizens in a timeframe not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of the complaint.Public Grievance Redressal Commissions : The Bill provides for constitution of the state public grievance redressal commission and the central public grievance redressal commission consisting of chief commissioners and other commissioners.Penalty : DA and Commission can impose fine of Max. Rs 50000 to concerned officials/GRO. The penalty shall be recovered from the salary of the official. Such penalty may be awarded as compensation to the appellant.Corruption Prevention : The Designated Authority and the Commissions may refer a matter to the appropriate authorities if there is prima facie evidence of a corrupt act under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An appeal against the decision of the Central Commission shall be filed before the Lokpal. An appeal against the decision of the State Commission shall be filed before the Lokayukta.Criticism :Against federal Spirit : Citizens’ charter bill provides for GRO and Grievances Commission at state and central level, but Parliament doesn’t not have jurisdiction to enact such law. Only State legislature has jurisdiction to make laws regarding state public services.More than ten states have already enacted a Citizen Charter Act or Public Services Guarantee Act in their respective states. Many of these state laws have provisions that are much better than the proposed Bill.Lack of Autonomy : According to the bill, the commissioners may be removed without judicial inquiry.Duplication of work : Several states have their own grievance redressal laws, The mechanism provided under these laws is different from that provided under the Bill. This will lead to duplication of work and organizations.MNREGA Act, RTE Act, National Food Security Bill, and the Public Procurement Bill also have their own grievances redressal forums. This will again lead to more duplication.Sources :Copy of Bill : Page on prsindia.orgSummery of Bill : Page on prsindia.orgWiki Page : Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011Mrual Page : Citizens Charter Bill 2011: Salient Features, Issues, CriticismRediff Page : All you need to know about the Citizen's Charter Bill18) Right to Education Act, 2009The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE), was enacted on 4 August 2009, which describes the rules and regulations for free and compulsory education of children between 6 and 14 under Article 21A of Constitution. India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child when the act came into force on 1 April 2010.Highlights :The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009 stipulates that private schools reserve 25 per cent of seats at the entry level for children belonging to ‘disadvantaged groups’ and ‘weaker sections’.The Act also provides that no child shall be held back, expelled, or required to pass a board examination until the completion of elementary education. There is also a provision for special training of school drop-outs to bring them up to par with students of the same age.Mentally and physically challenged children, entitled to free education in special schools, were included in the definition through an amendment in 2012.It also prohibits all unrecognised schools from practice, and makes provisions for no donation or capitation fees and no interview of the child or parent for admissions.Criticism :The act has been criticised for being hastily-drafted, not consulting many groups active in education, not considering the quality of education, infringing on the rights of private and religious minority schools to administer their system, and for excluding children under six years of age.Problems faced :Poor Response : Lack of awareness about the Act, inability to meet the distance criteria and difficulty in obtaining necessary certificates from government authorities could be some of the reasons for this.The Act provides for admission of children without any certification. However, several states have continued pre-existing procedures insisting that children produce income and caste certificates, BPL cards and birth certificates.The Act is not applicable to private minority schools and boarding schools.Report on the status of implementation of the Act released by the Ministry of Human Resource Development admits that 8.1 million children in the age group six-14 remain out of school and there’s a shortage of 508,000 teachers country-wide.Conclusion :For all its flaws, the RTE Act is a progressive piece of legislation that aims to take education to the masses and fill the gaps in the social system.Sources :Copy of Act : Page on ssa.nic.inWiki page : Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education ActHindu Article : Advantages and disadvantages of RTE Act19) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2013 (POSCO)Objective – The act aims at ensuring protection of children from sexual abuse.Pros –1. Gender Neutral bill. 53% victims of children are victims.2. Stringent punishment (upto life imprisonment)3. Covers broad range of sexual crimes such as non-penetrative sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the use of children for pornography4. Includes special procedures to prevent the re-victimisation of children at the hands of an insensitive justice delivery system5. Protects victims identity and provides assisting legal, medical and psychological facilitiesCons –1. Criminalises all consensual sexual contact below 18 years age.2. The age provision is not in consonance with other acts.3. Regressive and draconian considering today’s social realities. Children are increasingly aware of each others sexualities at early age.4. Child marriage is prevalent on large scale. The age provision ignores this reality. Liable to bogus and unjustified complaints.Source – The Hindu : Good Act, bad provision20) The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013Objective – The act aims to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.Pros -1. Covers the offence of giving a bribe to a public servant under abetment. Specific provisions related to giving a bribe to a public servant, and giving a bribe by a commercial organisation.2. Redefines criminal misconduct to only cover misappropriation of property and possession of disproportionate assets.3. Modifies the definitions and penalties for offences related totaking a bribe, being a habitual offender and abetting an offence.4. Introduces Powers and procedures for the attachment and forfeiture of property of public servants accused of corruption.5. The Act requires prior sanction to prosecute serving public officials. The Bill extends this protection to former officials.Cons -1. The Bill makes giving a bribe a specific offence. There are diverging views on whether bribe giving under all circumstances must be penalised. Some have argued that a coerced bribe giver must be distinguished from a collusive bribe giver.2. The Bill has deleted the provision that protects a bribe giver from prosecution, for any statement made by him during a corruption trial. This may deter bribe givers from appearing as witnesses in court.3. The Bill has replaced the definition of criminal misconduct. It now requires that the intention to acquire assets disproportionate to income also be proved, in addition to possession of such assets. Thus, the threshold to establish the offence of possession of disproportionate assets has been increased by the Bill.4. By redefining the offence of criminal misconduct, the Bill does not cover circumstances where the public official: (i) uses illegal means, (ii) abuses his position, or (iii) disregards public interest and obtains a valuable thing or reward for himself or another person.5. Under the Act, the guilt of the person is presumed for the offences of taking a bribe, being a habitual offender or abetting an offence. The Bill amends this provision to only cover the offence of taking a bribe.Source - The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 201321) Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) (Regulation) Bill 2010Objective – The bill aims at legalizing (commercial) surrogacy.Pros –1. Offers legal protection to child and surrogate mothers.2. Regulation of IVF/ART clinics and holding them Accountable for ensuring best medical practices.3. Curbs exploitation of mother. Limits number of child births per mother to five.4. Introduces age limit for surrogate mother – 21 to 35.5. Ensures Child’s citizenship to be same as parents.Cons –1. Legal back up will lead to widespread commercialization of surrogacy, posing serious ethical, moral and philosophical questions.2. Mandatory certificate ensuring legality of surrogacy in foreign couple’s home country needed. Impediments in smooth commercial functioning.3. No provision in the bill if parent’s change their mind or die. Child’s responsibility in this case is debatable.4. Plethora of in-genuine clinics in India. Exploitation of poor and illiterate mothers because of their incapability to understand legalities involved.Source - Issues of surrogacy, PIB English Features22) Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013Objective - The Bill sets up an independent authority, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), to regulate organisms and products of modern biotechnology.Pros –1. BRAI will regulate the research, transport, import, containment, environmental release, manufacture, and use of biotechnology products.2. Regulatory approval by BRAI will be granted through a multi-level process of assessment undertaken by scientific experts.3. BRAI will certify that the product developed is safe for its intended use. All other laws governing the product will continue to apply.4. A Biotechnology Regulatory Appellate Tribunal will hear civil cases that involve a substantial question relating to modern biotechnology and hear appeals on the decisions and orders of BRAI.5. Penalties are specified for providing false information to BRAI, conducting unapproved field trials, obstructing or impersonating an officer of BRAI and for contravening any other provisions of the Bill.Cons -1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over a ‘substantial question relating to modern biotechnology’ – An ambiguous term.2. The Tribunal will consist of one judicial member and five technical members. This is not in conformity with a SC decision that the number of technical members on a bench of a Tribunal cannot exceed the number of judicial members.3. The Tribunal’s technical members shall be eminent scientists or government officials with experience in the field. It is unclear whether the technical expertise of the latter can be equated with the former.4. The Bill does not specify any liability for damage caused by a product of biotechnology. Therefore, it will remain open to the courts to determine liability arising out of any adverse impact of modern biotechnology.5. Tribunal will not accept complaints from civil society, in spite of the fact that the Bill directly or indirectly affects every citizen. No public consultation done.6. Non clarity over Dept of GoI that will service BRAI. No mention of mandatory labelling of GM crops.7. Takes away rights of states to decide on Agriculture, which is state subject.8. The Convener of the Selection Committee for members of BRAI will be from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), which is a vendor of genetic engineering (the technology that BRAI is supposed to regulate) in the country. Conflict of Interest will arise.Source - The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013Unconstitutional, unethical, unscientific23) Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013ObjectiveTo set up an independent regulatory body for the coal sector that shall help in the regulation and conservation of coal resources and will benefit all stakeholders i.e. - coal companies, coal consuming industries such as power, steel, cement and coal bearing States and people, directly or indirectly associated with the coal industry.A fund called ‘The Coal Regulatory Authority Fund” is created to credit all the receipts and fees received.Constituents1 chairperson + 4 members. One each from legal , technical , administrative and financial wings. All to be selected by a committee of Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Cabinet Secretary.What will it do ?Inject transparency in allocation of coal blocks.Decide and Monitor operational norms and mining closure compliances and such.Determine pricing of the fuel and publishing surveys, information, statistics, etc related to coal sector and coal quality.Adjudicate disputes between entities and between entities and other persons.Advise government on technologies, policy, promotion, investment etc.Ref :- The Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013,Coal Regulatory Authority Bill likely in Winter session24) eWaste (Management and Handling) Act, 2011What is it ?E-waste has beendefined as “waste electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part or rejects from their manufacturing and repair process, which are intended to be discarded”.AIM :-Reduction in the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.Specifying threshold for use of hazardous material including lead, mercury and cadmium.Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) thus introduces the concept of "Extended Producer Responsibility".How will it work ?It fixes responsibilities on every producer, seller, consumer or bulk consumer, collection centre, dismantler and recycler of e-waste involved in the manufacture, sale, purchase and processing of electrical and electronic equipment or components.E.g. :Recycling of E-Waste generated during manufacturing and "End of Life" of electronic and electrical equipments.Setting up of collection centres by companies or individuals to collect E-waste and discard them.Setting up of funds by corporate to boost scientific and eco-friendly disposal of E-waste.CritiqueNo accountability set on anyone.E-Industry remains skeptical of the efficacy of this act.No specific targets set.Ref :- @E-waste management rules kick in today@Page on moef.nic.in25) Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, 2011What is it ?The bill is intended to prevent “any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property, knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group."How ?The billAddresses identity-based or targeted crimes and organised mass violence as special offences.Places accountability of public officers with varying penalties for dereliction of duty it.Provides for the creation of a National Authority and the State authorities to ensure justice and reparation.Addresses issues faced by specific communities like economic boycott, denial of public service, forced migration , hostile environment etc.Empowers state and center government to intercept any messages and communication that it feels might lead to communal violence.Sets up district level authorities to assess compensation.CritiquesCurbing freedom of expression by terming it as Hate propaganda.Presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the accused – The accused will have to prove innocence.All the persons acting under this Act will have blanket of protection of action taken in good faith.Brings civil servants in direct line of fire by vaguely defining "dereliction of duty".26) Competition Act, 2002The Competition Act was passed in 2002Competition Commission of India (CCI) was established on March 1, 2009 as an autonomous body comprising of a Chairperson and six members.CCI not only hears and investigates cases based on the information received by it, but it also takes suo moto action wherever it finds that a prima facie violationCommission had taken suo-moto cognizance of the reported manipulation of the bids by manufacturers of LPG cylinders for supplying cylinders to the Indian Oil CorporationMany more such notices have been sent by CCI in the Petroleum sector, Agricuture sector etc. taking cognisance suo-moto.Role of trade associationsCompetition law treats the activities of trade associations much like any other form of cooperation between competitors.decisions or recommendations of trade associations are treated as agreements between its members and law may be breached even when they are not binding on the members.CCI imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on 27 film producers on charges of colluding through an association to exploit multiplex owners.number of cases involving the associations in the Pharmaceutical sector/Film production etc where CCI has passed orders against the associations and asked them to “cease and desist” from activities that may be anti-competitive in nature.Public Procurement and Competition LawPublic procurement is a contentious issue vis-à-vis application of competition lawpublic enterprises, which are generally the big procurers, are subject to competition assessment.Commission has decided a number of matters, including cartelization in government contracts. Penalties have been imposed on firms to discourage the anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominanceCompetition Commission of India is set to change the rules of the game and play the role of a watchdog to check anti-competitive practices in the markethttp://echoofindia.com/reflex-action/competition-commission-india-4-years-enforcement-competition-law-3216927) Prasar Bharati (Amendment) Bill, 201028) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 200229) Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitaion Act, 2013. (Important, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan)30) Child Labour (Prohibition) Act, 198631) Scheduled Tribes and Recognition of Forest Rights Bill, 200632) Environment Protection Law, 198633) Wildlife Protection Act, 197234) The Electricity Act, 200335) Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 199636) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 199237) Factories Act 1948/Amendment Bill 201438) Apprentice Act 1961/ Amendment Bill 201439) The Pension Fund Regulatory And Development Authority Act, 201340) The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 201341) Benami Transaction (Prohibition )Act, 198842) The National Food Security Act, 201343) Pesticides Management Bill, 2008*Maximum Credits per Person - 5000**Contributors earning more than 1000 credits <must> -a) Promote to at least 100 people.b) Share this list everywhere. :P :P LOL !Thank you all. :)Thanks for the A2A Anon. :)