State Trial Court Jurisdiction Guide For Statistical: Fill & Download for Free

Where the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress big discretion to decide the form and shape of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at instances there were as few as six, while the modern number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has simplest been in location when you consider that 1869. The Constitution additionally presents Congress the strength to set up courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and to that end Congress has set up the USA district courts, which attempt maximum federal instances, and thirteen United States courts of appeals, which overview appealed district courtroom docket instances.Federal judges can simplest be eliminated via impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no constant term — they serve till their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the brief passions of the public and lets in them to use the regulation with simplest justice in mind and now no longer electoral or political concerns.Generally, Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In a few instances, however — including in the instance of a dispute among or greater U.S. states — the Constitution presents the Supreme Court unique jurisdiction, an expert that can't be stripped by Congress.The courts simplest attempt real instances and controversies — a celebration need to display that it's been harmed which will convey match in court. This manner, that the courts make now no longer trouble advisory evaluations at the constitutionality of legal guidelines or the legality of moves if the ruling could haven't any realistic effect. Cases added earlier than the judiciary generally continue from district courtroom docket to appellate courtroom docket and might even end at the Supreme Court, even though the Supreme Court hears relatively few instances every year.Federal courts revel in the only strength to interpret the regulation, decide the constitutionality of the regulation, and use it on person instances. The courts, like Congress, can compel the manufacturing of proof and testimony via the usage of a subpoena. The inferior courts are restricted by the choices of the Supreme Court — as soon as the Supreme Court translates a regulation. Inferior courts need to practice the Supreme Court’s interpretation to the statistics of a specific case.The Supreme Court of the USAThe Supreme Court of the US is the best courtroom docket in the land and the simplest a part of the federal judiciary in particular required by Constitution. The Constitution does now no longer stipulate the quantity of Supreme Court Justices; the quantity is about like an alternative by Congress. There were as few as six, however when you consider that 1869 there were 9 Justices, consisting of one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, showed by the Senate, and maintain their workplaces under lifestyles tenure. Since Justices now ought no longer to run or marketing campaign for re-election, they may be idea to be insulated from political strain while determining instances. Justices may also stay in the workplace till they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.The Court’s caseload is sort of absolutely appellate in nature, and the Court’s choices can't be appealed to any authority, as it's far the very last judicial arbiter in the United States on topics of federal regulation. However, the Court may also recollect appeals from the best country courts or from federal appellate courts. The Court additionally has unique jurisdiction in instances related to ambassadors and different diplomats, and in instances among states.Although the Supreme Court may also pay attention an appeal on any query of regulation supplied it has jurisdiction, it typically does now no longer maintain trials. Instead, the Court’s mission is to interpret the that means of a regulation, to determine whether or not a regulation is applicable to a specific set of statistics, or to rule on how a regulation need to be applied. Lower courts are obligated to comply with the precedent set by the Supreme Court while rendering choices.In nearly all instances, the Supreme Court does now no longer pay attention appeals as a rely of proper; as an alternative, events need to petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. It is the Court’s custom and exercise to “provide the cert” if 4 of the 9 Justices determine that they need to pay attention the case. Of the about 7,500 requests for certiorari filed every year, the Court typically presents cert to fewer than 150. These are generally instances that the Court considers sufficiently crucial to require their overview; a common instance is the event while or greater of the federal courts of appeals have dominated in a different way at the identical query of federal regulation.If the Court presents certiorari, Justices take delivery of criminal briefs from the events to the case, in addition to from amicus curiae or “pals of the court.”These can encompass industry change groups, academics, or even the U.S. authorities itself. Before issuing a ruling, the Supreme Court typically hears oral arguments, wherein the diverse events to the match present their arguments and the Justices ask questions. If the case entails the federal authorities, the Solicitor General of America affords arguments on behalf of the US. The Justices then maintain personal conferences, make their choice and (regularly after duration of numerous months) trouble the Court’s opinion, together with any dissenting arguments which could were written.The Judicial ProcessArticle III of the Constitution of the US ensures that everyone accused of wrongdoing has the proper to a truthful trial earlier than a capable decide and a jury of one’s peers.The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution offer extra protections for the ones accused of a crime. These encompass:· A assure that no man or woman will be deprived of lifestyles, liberty, or belongings without the due procedure of regulation· Protection in opposition to being attempted for the identical crime twice (“double jeopardy”)· The proper to a fast trial by an independent jury· The proper to cross-observe witnesses, and to name witnesses to guide their case· The proper to criminal representation· The proper to keep away from self-incrimination· Protection from immoderate bail, immoderate fines, and merciless and uncommon punishmentsCriminal lawsuits may be carried out under both country and federal regulation, relying on the character and volume of the crime. A crook criminal process generally begins with an arrest by a regulation enforcement officer. If a grand jury chooses to supply an indictment, the accused will seem earlier than a decide and be officially charged with a crime, at which period she or he may also input a plea. The defendant is given time to check all of the proof in the case and to construct a criminal argument. Then, the case is added to trial and determined by a jury. If the defendant is decided to be now no longer responsible for the crime, the fees are dismissed. Otherwise, the decide determines the sentence, that can encompass jail time, a fine, or maybe execution.Civil instances are just like crook ones, however in place of arbitrating among the country and someone or organization, they cope with disputes among people or organizations. If a celebration believes that it's been wronged, it could record match in civil court to try to have that incorrect remedied via an order to end and desist, modify behavior, or award financial damages. After the match is filed and proof is accrued and provided by each side, a tribulation proceeds as in a crook case. If the events worried waive their proper to a jury trial, the case may be determined by a decide; otherwise, the case is determined and damages provided by a jury.After a crook or civil case is attempted, it can be appealed to a better courtroom docket — a federal courtroom docket of appeals or country appellate court. A litigant who documents an enchantment, called an “appellant,” need to display that the trial court or administrative organization made a criminal error that affected the final results of the case. An appellate court makes its choice primarily based totally at the report of the case established by the trial court or organization — it does now no longer get hold of extra proof or pay attention witnesses. It may additionally overview the genuine findings of the trial courtroom docket or organization, however generally may also simplest overturn a tribulation final results on genuine grounds if the findings were “virtually erroneous.”If a defendant is discovered now no longer responsibly in a crook proceeding, she or he can't be retried at the identical set of statistics.Federal appeals are determined by panels of 3 judges. The appellant affords criminal arguments to the panel, in a written file known as a “quick.”In the quick, the appellant attempts to influence the judges that the trial court made an error, and that the decrease choice need to be reversed. On the opposite hand, the celebration protecting in opposition to the enchantment, called the “appellee” or “respondent,” attempts in its quick to expose why the trial courtroom docket choice became correct, or why any mistakes made by the trial court aren't big sufficient to have an effect on the final results of the case.The court of appeals typically has the very last phrase in the case, except it sends the case again to the trial courtroom docket for added lawsuits. In a few instances the choice can be reviewed en banc — that is, by a bigger organization of judges of the court of appeals for the circuit.A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the maximum court of a country, may also record a petition for a “writ of certiorari,” that is a file asking the Supreme Court to check the case. The Supreme Court, however, isn't always obligated to provide the overview. The Court generally will comply with pay attention a case simplest while it entails a brand-new and crucial criminal principle, or while or greater federal appellate courts have interpreted a regulation in a different way. (There also are unique instances wherein the Supreme Court is needed by regulation to pay attention an enchantment.) When the Supreme Court hears a case, the events are required to record written briefs and the Court may also pay attention oral argument.

The question of how we got to this state of affairs is truly vast in scope, requiring not just inquiry into the origin and nature of social and cultural institutions but also into depths of human psychology that are barely understood. We can, however, take a much more modest stab at the questions, asking about certain highly consequential decisions that could have been made differently, and about specific cases where we can identify some of the roots of looking away.The history of nuclear weapons provides some striking cases. One critical decision was in 1944, when Germany was out of the war and it was clear that the only target was Japan. One cannot really say that a decision was made to proceed nevertheless to create devices that could devastate Japan even more thoroughly, and in the longer term threaten to destroy us as well. It seems that the question never seriously arose, apart from such isolated figures as Joseph Rotblat — who was later barred reentry to the U.S.Another critical decision that was not made was in the early 1950s. At the time, there were still no long-range delivery systems for nuclear weapons (ICBMs). It might have been possible to reach an agreement with Russia to bar their development. That was a plausible surmise at the time, and release of Russian archives makes it seem an even more likely prospect. Remarkably, there is no trace of any consideration of pursuing steps to bar the only weapons systems that would pose a lethal threat to the U.S., so we learn from McGeorge Bundy’s standard work on the history of nuclear weapons, with access to the highest-level sources. Perhaps still more remarkably, there has, to my knowledge, been no voiced interest in this astonishing fact.CEOs face a choice: They can labor to undermine the prospects for life on earth; or they can refuse to do so, and be replaced by someone who will.It is easy to go on. The result is 75 years of living under the threat of virtually total destruction, particularly since the successful development of thermonuclear weapons by 1953 — in this case a decision, rather than lack of one. And as the record shows all too graphically, it is a virtual miracle that we have survived the nuclear age thus far.That raises your question of why we look away. I do not understand it, and never have. The question has been on my mind almost constantly since that grim day in August 1945 when we heard the news that an atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima, with hideous casualties. Apart from the terrible tragedy itself, it was at once clear that human intelligence had devised the means to destroy us all — not quite yet, but there could be little doubt that once the genie was out of the bottle, technological developments would carry the threat to the end. I was then a junior counselor in a summer camp. The news was broadcast in the morning. Everyone listened — and then went off to the planned activity — a baseball game, swimming, whatever was scheduled. I couldn’t believe it. I was so shocked I just took off into the woods and sat by myself for several hours. I still can’t believe it, or understand how that has persisted even as more has been learned about the threats. The same sentiments have been voiced by others, recently by William Perry [former defense secretary], who has ample experience on the inside. He reports that he is doubly terrified: by the growing risk of terrible catastrophe, and the failure to be terrified by it.It was not known in 1945, but the world was then entering into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, in which human activity is having a severe impact on the environment that sustains life. Warnings about the potential threat of global warming date back to a 1958 paper by Hans Suess and Roger Revelle, and by the 1970s, concerns were deeply troubling to climate scientists. ExxonMobil scientists were in the forefront of spelling out the severe dangers. That is the background for a crucial decision by ExxonMobil management in 1989, after (and perhaps because) James Hansen had brought the grave threat to public attention. In 1989, management decided to lead the denialist campaign.That continues to the present. ExxonMobil now proudly declares that it intends to extract and sell all of the 25 billion barrels in its current reserves, while continuing to seek new sources.Executives are surely aware that this is virtually a death-knell for organized human society in any form that we know, but evidently it doesn’t matter. Looking away with a vengeance.The suicidal impulses of the fossil fuel industry have been strongly supported by Republican administrations, by now, under Trump, leaving the U.S. in splendid isolation internationally in not only refusing to participate in international efforts to address this existential threat but in devoting major efforts to accelerate the race to disaster.It is hard to find proper words to describe what is happening — and the limited attention it receives.Lacking the very bases of deliberative democracy, such as functioning labor unions and other organizations, people have little choice beyond “looking away.”This again raises your question of how we can look away. For ExxonMobil, the explanation is simple enough: The logic of the capitalist market rules — what Joseph Stiglitz 25 years ago called the “religion” that markets know best. The same reasoning extends beyond, for example to the major banks that are pouring funds into fossil fuel extraction, including the most dangerous, like Canadian tar sands, surely in full awareness of the consequences.CEOs face a choice: They can seek to maximize profit and market share, and (consciously) labor to undermine the prospects for life on earth; or they can refuse to do so, and be removed and replaced by someone who will. The problems are not just individual; they are institutional, hence much deeper and harder to overcome.Something similar holds for media. In the best newspapers there are regular articles by the finest journalists applauding the fracking revolution and the opening of new areas for exploitation, driving the U.S. well ahead of Saudi Arabia in the race to destroy human civilization. Sometimes there are a few words about environmental effects: fracking in Wyoming may harm the water supplies for ranchers. But scarcely if ever is there a word on the effect on the planet — which is, surely, well understood by authors and editors.In this case, I suppose the explanation is professionalism. The ethics of the profession requires “objectivity”: reporting accurately what is going on “within the beltway” and in executive suites, and keeping to the assigned story. To add a word about the lethal broader impact would be “bias,” reserved for the opinion pages.There are countless illustrations, but I think something deeper may be involved, something related to the “religion” that Stiglitz criticized. Worship of markets has many effects. One we see in the origins of the reigning neoliberal faiths. Their origin is in post-World War I Vienna, after the collapse of the trading system within the Hapsburg empire. Ludwig von Mises and his associates fashioned the basic doctrines that were quickly labeled “neoliberalism,” based on the principle of “sound economics”: markets know best, no interference with them is tolerable.There are immediate consequences. One is that labor unions, which interfere with flexibility of labor markets, must be destroyed, along with social democratic measures. Mises openly welcomed the crushing of the vibrant Austrian unions and social democracy by state violence in 1928, laying the groundwork for Austrian fascism. Which Mises welcomed as well. He became economic consultant to the proto-fascist Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, and in his major work Liberalism, explained that “It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.”These themes resonate through the modern neoliberal era. The U.S. has an unusually violent labor history, but the attack on unions gained new force under Reagan with the onset of the neoliberal era. As the business press reported, employers were effectively informed that labor laws would not be enforced, and the U.S. became the only industrial society apart from Apartheid South Africa to tolerate not just scabs, but even “permanent replacement workers.” Neoliberal globalization, precarity of employment, and other devices carry the process of destroying organized labor further.These developments form a core part of the efforts to realize the Thatcherite dictum that “there is no society,” only atomized individuals, who face the forces of “sound economics” alone — becoming what Marx called “a sack of potatoes” in his condemnation of the policies of the authoritarian rulers of mid-19th century Europe.A sack of potatoes cannot react in any sensible way even to existential crises. Lacking the very bases of deliberative democracy, such as functioning labor unions and other organizations, people have little choice beyond “looking away.” What can they hope to do? As Mises memorably explained, echoed by Milton Friedman and others, political democracy is superfluous — indeed an impediment to sound economics: “free competition does all that is needed” in markets that function without interference.The pathology is not new, but can become more severe under supportive social and economic institutions and practices.Yet, only a couple of decades ago, there was wild celebration among liberal and conservative elites alike about the “end of history,” but, even today, there are some who claim that we have made great progress and that the world is better today than it has ever been in the past. Obviously, “the end of history” thesis was something of a Hegelian illusion by staunch defenders of the global capitalist order, but what about the optimism expressed by the likes of Steven Pinker regarding the present? And how can we square the fact that this liberal optimism is not reflected by any stretch in the politico-ideological currents and trends that are in motion today both inside western nations but also around the world?The celebrations were mostly farcical, and have been quietly shelved. On the “great progress,” there is serious work. The best I know is Robert Gordon’s compelling study of the rise and fall of American growth, which extends beyond the U.S. though with some modifications. Gordon observes that there was virtually no economic growth for millennia until 1770. Then came a period of slow growth for another century, and then a “special century” from 1870 to 1970, with important inventions ranging from indoor plumbing to electrical grids and transportation, which radically changed human life, with significant progress by many measures.What should replace the prevailing stance is government of, by and for the people, highlighting their concerns and needs.Since the 1970s the picture is much more mixed. The basis for the contemporary high-tech economy was established in the last decades of the special century, mainly through public investment, adapted to the market in the years that followed. There is currently rapid innovation in frills — new apps for iPhones, etc. — but nothing like the fundamental achievements of the special century. And in the U.S., there has been stagnation or decline in real wages for non-supervisory workers and in recent years, increased death rates among working-class, working-age whites, called “deaths of despair” by the economists who have documented these startling facts, Anne Case and Angus Deaton.There is more to say about other societies. There are numerous complexities of major significance that disappear in unanalyzed statistical tables.Realism, crystallized intellectually by Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince,has been the guiding principle of nation-states behind their conduct of international relations from the beginning of the modem era, while idealism and morality have been seen as values best left to individuals. Is political realism driving us to the edge of the cliff? And, if so, what should replace the behavioral stance of governments in the 21st century?The two major doctrines of International Relations Theory are Realism and Idealism. Each has their advocates, but it’s true that the Realists have dominated: the world’s a tough place, an anarchic system, and states maneuver to establish power and security, making coalitions, offshore balancing, etc.I think we can put aside Idealism — though it has its advocates, including, curiously, one of the founders and leading figures of the modern tough-minded Realist school, Hans Morgenthau. In his 1960 work, The Purpose of American Politics, Morgenthau argued that the U.S., unlike other societies, has a “transcendent purpose”: establishing peace and freedom at home and indeed everywhere. A serious scholar, Morgenthau recognized that the historical record is radically inconsistent with the “transcendent purpose” of America, but he advised that we should not be misled by the apparent inconsistency. In his words, we should not “confound the abuse of reality with reality itself.” Reality is the unachieved “national purpose” revealed by “the evidence of history as our minds reflect it.” What actually happened is merely the “abuse of reality.” To confound abuse of reality with reality is akin to “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.”For the most part, however, realists adhere to Realism, without sentimentality. We might ask, however, how realistic Realism is. With a few exceptions — Kenneth Waltz for one — realists tend to ignore the roots of policy in the structure of domestic power, in which, of course, the corporate system is overwhelmingly dominant. This is not the place to review the matter, but I think it can be shown that much is lost by this stance. That’s true even of the core notion of Realism: security. True, states seek security, but for whom? For the general population? For the systems of power represented by the architects of policy? Such questions cannot be casually put aside.The two existential crises we have discussed are a case in point. Does the government policy of maximization of the use of fossil fuels contribute to the security of the population? Or of ExxonMobil and its brethren. Does the current military posture of the U.S. — dismantling the INF Treatyinstead of negotiating disputes over violations, rushing ahead with hypersonic weapons instead of seeking to bar these insane weapons systems by treaty, and much else — contribute to the security of the population? Or to the component of the corporate manufacturing system in which the U.S. enjoys comparative advantage: destruction. Similar questions arise constantly.What should replace the prevailing stance is government of, by and for the people, highlighting their concerns and needs.The advent of globalization has been interpreted frequently enough in the recent past as leading to the erosion of the nation-state. Today, however, it is globalization that is being challenged, first and foremost by the resurgence of nationalism. Is there a case to be made in defense of globalization? And, by extension, is all nationalism bad and dangerous?Globalization is neither good nor bad in itself. It depends how it is implemented. Enhancing opportunities for ideas, innovations, aesthetic contributions to disseminate freely is a welcome form of globalization, as well as opportunities for people to circulate freely. The WTO system, designed to set working people in competition with one another while protecting investor rights with an exorbitant patent regime and other devices, is a form of globalization that has many harmful consequences that would be avoided in authentic trade agreements designed along different lines — and it should be borne in mind that much of the substance of the “free trade agreements” is not about free trade or even trade in any meaningful sense.The U.S. is a rare country that has been at war almost without a break from its first moment.Same with nationalism. In the hands of the Nazis, it was extremely dangerous. If it is a form of bonding and mutual support within some community it can be a valuable part of human life.The current resurgence of nationalism is in large part a reaction to the harsh consequences of neoliberal globalization, with special features such as the erosion of democracy in Europe by transfer of decision-making to the unelected Troika with the northern banks looking over their shoulders. And it can and does take quite ugly forms — the worst, perhaps, the reaction to the so-called “refugee crisis” — more accurately termed a moral crisis of the West, as Pope Francis has indicated.But none of this is inherent in globalization or nationalism.In your critiques of U.S. foreign policy, you often refer to the United States as the world’s biggest terrorist state. Is there something unique about the United States as an imperial state? And is U.S. imperialism still alive and kicking?The U.S. is unique in many respects. That includes the opening words of the Declaration of Independence, “We the People,” a revolutionary idea, however flawed in execution. It is also a rare country that has been at war almost without a break from its first moment. One of the motives for the American Revolution was to eliminate the barrier to expansion into “Indian country” imposed by the British. With that overcome, the new nation set forth on wars against the Indian nations that inhabited what became the national territory; wars of “extermination,” as the most prominent figures recognized, notably John Quincy Adams, the architect of Manifest Destiny. Meanwhile half of Mexico was conquered in what General U.S. Grant, later president, called one of the most “wicked wars” in history.There is no need to review record of interventions, subversion and violence, particularly since World War II, which established the U.S. in a position of global dominance with no historical precedent. The record includes the worst crime of the postwar period, the assault on Indochina, and the worst crime of this millennium, the invasion of Iraq.Like most terms of political discourse, “imperialism” is a contested notion. Whatever term we want to use, the U.S. is alone in having hundreds of military bases and troops operating over much of the world. It is also unique in its willingness and ability to impose brutal sanctions designed to punish the people of states designated as enemies. And its market power and dominance of the international financial system provide these sanctions with extraterritorial reach, compelling even powerful states to join in, however unwillingly.The most dramatic case is Cuba, where U.S. sanctions are strongly opposed by the entire world, to no avail. The vote against these sanctions was 189-2, U.S. and Israel, in the latest UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] condemnation. The sanctions have been in place for almost 60 years, harshly punishing Cubans for what the State Department called “successful defiance” of the U.S. Trump’s sanctions on Venezuela have turned a humanitarian crisis into a catastrophe, according to the leading economist of the opposition, Francisco Rodriguez. His sanctions on Iran are quite explicitly designed to destroy the economy and punish the population.The U.S. almost never ratifies international conventions, and in the few cases where it does, it is with reservations that exclude the U.S.This is no innovation. Clinton’s sanctions on Iraq (joined by Blair) were so destructive that each of the distinguished international diplomats who administered the “oil for food” program resigned in protest, charging that the sanctions were “genocidal.” The second, Hans-Christof von Sponeck, published a detailed and incisive book about the impact of the sanctions (A Different Kind of War). It has been under a virtual ban. Too revealing, perhaps.The brutal sanctions punished the population and devastated the society, but strengthened the tyrant, compelling people to rely on his rationing system for survival, possibly saving him from overthrow from within, as happened to a string of similar figures. That’s quite standard. The same is reportedly true in Iran today.It could be argued that the sanctions violate the Geneva Conventions, which condemn “collective punishment” as a war crime, but legalistic shenanigans can get around that.The U.S. no longer has the capacity it once did to overthrow governments at will or to invade other countries, but it has ample means of coercion and domination, call it “imperialism” or not.Why is the United States the only major country in the world displaying consistently an aversion to international human rights treaties, which include, among many others, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)?The U.S. almost never ratifies international conventions, and in the few cases where it does, it is with reservations that exclude the U.S. That’s even true of the Genocide Convention, which the U.S. finally did ratify after many years, exempting itself. The issue arose in 1999, when Yugoslavia brought a charge of war crimes to the ICJ [International Court of Justice] against NATO. One of the charges was “genocide.” The U.S. therefore rejected World Court jurisdiction on the grounds that it was not subject to the Genocide Convention, and the Court agreed — agreeing, in effect, that the U.S. is entitled to carry out genocide with impunity.It might be noted that the U.S. is currently alone (along with China and Taiwan) in rejecting a World Court decision, namely, the 1986 Court judgment ordering the U.S. to terminate its “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. Washington’s rejection of the Court decision was applauded by the liberal media on the grounds that the Court was a “hostile forum” (New York Times), so its decisions don’t matter. A few years earlier the Court had been a stern arbiter of Justice when it ruled in favor of the U.S. in a case against Iran.The U.S. also has laws authorizing the executive to use force to “rescue” any American brought to the Hague — sometimes called in Europe “the Hague Invasion Act.” Recently it revoked the visa of the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC [International Criminal Court] for daring to consider inquiring into U.S. actions in Afghanistan. It goes on.Why? It’s called “power,” and a population that tolerates it — and for the most part probably doesn’t even know about it.Since the Nuremberg trials between 1945-49, the world has witnessed many war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone unpunished, and interestingly enough, some of the big powers (U.S., China and Russia) have refused to support the International Criminal Court which, among others things, can prosecute individuals for war crimes. In that context, does the power to hold leaders responsible for unjust wars, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression hold promise in the international order of today?That depends on whether states will accept jurisdiction. Sometimes they do. The NATO powers (except for the U.S.) accepted ICJ jurisdiction in the Yugoslavia case, for example — presumably because they took for granted that the Court would never accept the Yugoslavian pleas, even when they were valid, as in the case of the targeted destruction of a TV station, killing 16 journalists. In the more free and democratic states, populations could, in principle, decide that their governments should obey international law, but that is a matter of raising the level of civilization.John Bolton and other ultranationalists, and many others, argue that the U.S. must not abandon its sovereignty to international institutions and international law. They are therefore arguing that U.S. leaders should violate the Constitution, which declares that valid treaties are the supreme law of the land. That includes in particular the UN Charter, the foundation of modern international law, established under U.S. auspices.[1]Footnotes[1] Noam Chomsky: “Worship of Markets” Is Threatening Human Civilization

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. :)