Tax Season 2015 Procedures Related To The Final: Fill & Download for Free

Profile: CA (2015), CS , CWAWork exp: 28 Months (Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Mumbai- Taxation)Institute: IIM AhmedabadCat percentile: 98.27 , Category: GeneralVenue: The Orchid, Mumbai (Afternoon slot)Date: 16 February 2019This was fourth interview of the season starting with IIM L, IIFT, CAP and now this. IIM L interview was pathetic and I was grilled on academics not related to taxation. Prepared for academics this time but interviewers had other plans today.All of us were divided in 7 groups. I was in 6th group and 1st one in my group to be interviewed.Lets begin the ride…AWA topic:School uniform should not be made compulsory as school cannot decide what to wear? Also, it restricts the individual thinking so at first place uniforms in school should be removed.We were given 20 minutes to analyse the arguments. Reason out the flaws we may find and bring out evidence to support or weaken the argument.Wrote some points. Would rate that as average. Mentioned one point that even Supreme court judges wear same uniform so that does not mean it hampers individual thinking for them. (Why I mentioned this here…you will get to know later..)PI ( almost 20 minutes)First one to be called. There were 2 panelist, both males. One was in early thirties (M1) and other was in late thirties (M2).Given that I waited for this moment for the past 3 years (yes I gave CAT in 2016 and 2017 but could not get any calls), I was ostensibly nervous.M2 called me in and asked me to sit.M1: So vatsal, there are talks going on that direct taxes should be removed from country? What are your views?( I was nervous as the interview started and was expecting may be a describe yourself question comes up and I may have a chance to lead… but HELL NO..!!)Me: Sir, in my view, at this stage we cannot remove direct taxes in the country. May be what we can do is remove some exemptions and deductions and lower tax rates.M1: Why are you going in technical details? I am just asking you that there are countries who are having no taxes? Right? They are also managing? Why cannot India manage? and can you give a reason as to why people are saying DT can be removed?(Being a CA, I was hell bound to be in for DT to stay…lol ..so was thinking of a reason for 5 seconds and then answered..)Me: Sir,one reason for people saying DT to be removed is that few people pay taxes . Around 3% of the population and same with corporates. So, that is the reason people have such perception. But still sir the revenue generated by DT is more. SO in my view still we cannot remove DT. Also, There are some gulf countries which do not levy any taxes….M1: interrupts.. name some countries…Me: Such as UAE, Saudi Arabia… they do have any corporate taxes and only recently they have introduced indirect taxes. Further sir, they have oil and tourism which makes major chunk of their revenue. So government can really manage from these sources. However, in India we do not have any such commodity which we can export nor is our tourism generating much revenues. So India needs to levy taxes.( I was thinking may be he will let it go now… but….)M1: So you are saying that arab government gets revenues from oil basically?Me: Yes sir… ( Don’t know what else to say..)M1: So vatsal ..there are no taxes and government controls the resources and gets revenues from that? Basically government controls resources there?( Perplexed as to what he wants from this?.. But I was hell bound to let go of this..)Me: Yes sir. ( Did not know the procedure of how gulf countries make money. Could have talked about ARAMCO. But thought it would be too deep…lets not get into it…)M1: But vatsal, why do you think government still needs DT? Revenues from indirect taxes can be increased…Me: Sir, in current scenario if you see as per budget, the revenue from GST is short of target. Further, around 30 lac crores we get from both DT and GST. Till date GST accounts for around 11 lac crore and the balance comes from GST. So DT still holds major chunk of govt revenue. Also sir, indirect tax is regressive, affects all strata of society. If we increase that tax, lower strata will be affected. Gave an example of Parle-G ..that if you increase GST on that everyone will be affected from poor to rich.( Dont know why I said this..)M1: So you mean that Mr. Ambani eats Parle G?(M1 and M2 laughs… I also smiled…)Me: Sir i meant that 99 % of the population will be affected if we increase the GST.M1: but there is a way to make rich people pay more taxes under indirect taxes also…I am sure..Me: (Striking where he we leading..) Yes sir I think you are talking about highest rates for luxury and sin goods such as tobacco and audi..M1: Yes..Me: Sir but still as of today, the revenues from GST are not enough to compensate the DT revenues.. once the GST revenues reaches around 30 lac crore, then possibly one may think of phasing out DT..but at the moment the picture does not looks so.( I was waiting that now the topic should be changed… but no…)M1 again: Vatsal , US has reduced corporate taxes and are still managing fiscal deficit? Can you explain…Me: ( Had no clue for for any reason…knew that US reduced…) : Sir can you please give me some time to think..Both panelist: sure sure..please…(After thinking about some crap shit…I took time to relax and regain my composure after the above flurry of questions.. The best part was I thought of an equation - Price multiply quantity is equal to revenue. So I thought tax decrease hua hai to quantity aka companies investment in US will increase…)Me: After some time… Sir in my view, since corporate tax is decreased, it will be compensated by increased FDI in USA. Further more companies will be interested to operate in USA and thus more revenue will be generated. Thus fiscal deficit will be managed. (Don’t know how sound it was but impromptu I could think of this only)M1: Why do you need a CA degree to do taxation? How CA helps you in taxation?( I was like.. hai? yeh kya hai bhai ab? matlab i was thinking this is first time someone has expressed doubt on a CA degree.. taxation mein hee to master hai hum log..uspe bhi doubts..)Me: Sir at second level and final level we are taught the various provisions of Income tax in depth. Further, the technical opnions and memos we prepare for clients are based on this knowledge.M1: interrupting… No but all provisions can be found on google… How does CA help you..human touch or something…Me: yes sir, We have 3 years of rigorous training where we are trained to handle assessments, which a book cannot taught. Further, the analysis of provisions which we learn from seniors is also helpful. I was infact selected in Deloitte because of my articleship experience and not solely on my bookish knowledge. So sir CA helps in this manner.M2: why have you done CS and CWA…was there any need ..Me: standard answer .. Sir these degrees were completed before completing CA final exams. I was giving a professional exam every 6 months. This ensured that my writing speed was maintained. Plus , I had a professional degree before writing CA final. This gave me confidence and I nailed CA exam in first attempt.( I thought this will be convincing.. but no man…)M1: So you gave CS and CWA as mock tests?(Ouch…)Me: Sir had I taken them as mocks I would not have cleared those examinations. I cleared them and in effect I was able to clear CA also.M1: It was a bad strategy…(Well this was definitely not going in my way … Sweat alert…but I was just smiling and was answering everything I could…)Me: Sir it worked and I was able to clear CA in first attempt…( M1 was looking down ..not convinced of this surely..)M1: Vatsal your UG marks are low.. ( I had 61.27% in B.com- University of Rajasthan)? Why?Me: Sir at the outset, I would say that in my degree if you will see I got a distinction..but still..M1: interrupting… that is because you got more than 60%..(I was like please let me complete…lol)Me: Yes sir i agree..but even if you see the toppers percentage it will hover around 70%. I agree sir I could have managed to score above 65%. But sir I was doing CS, CWA and articleship simultaneously. Further, we did not get so many leaves for B.com. So in whatever I could manage I got the 61%.M1: Not convinced…but CA CS CWA and Bcom have lot of subjects in common…no?Me: Sir only taxation and FM were in common…M1: So which subjects you were not able to devote time to?(Face palm.. I had to to think on this…did not remember all subjects..)Me: Business studies, Bus. Administration, Sales management..theory subjects sir all…M1 laughing with M2…: Both said : but these subjects will be there in your MBA course also…(That was not expected…hahaha ..but they led me into this..must appreciate them…)Me: Yes sir I know I will be studying these subjects in MBA. But sir, if selected my pure focus will be on the curriculum and academia. I will not be managing any other things..M1 interrupting.. You will be …believe me..Me: yes sir I know ..but that will all be a part of IIM A curriculum..the extra activities including. What I meant was that I will devote my whole time to the curriculum and not be pursuing any other degree. So will surely be able to manage.M2: Ok vatsal.. What is your view on the AWA thing.. Uniform ban…Me: Sir in my view the reasoning seems flawed. First of all the girl (in the AWA para a girl was mentioned who said uniform should be banned) has not mentioned any studies to conclude her point. Also, sir I feel that uniform removes discrimination and promotes equality. It does not have any impact on individual thinking. In fact other things such as pedagogy techniques like case study and project based approach might be very helpful in developing individual thinking.M1: But that is your view. Have you not thought in other way.. may be someone in your class wore new shirt, new blazer… Does it not affect the mindset..Me: No sir. We never thought on those lines. In fact sir if you see even judges in courts have proper dress code..M1 interrupting:.. Vatsal in army and courts they have rules to follow thats why they have to wear …you think they personally would want to wear the same dress..?(This was not expected… one good point I mentioned in AWA and they reversed it on me… facepalm)Me: Sir but that did not hamper their individual thinking…M1: So what did you do in your free time while studying…(Now here the catch was while studying.. So whatever I pursued in Deloitte and post that , I could not answer… But since many hobbies (Unacademy, quora, lectures at CA institute) I pursued in Deloitte.. I wanted to say those so I started like this:Me: In Deloitte sir..M1: No no tell us what you did during articleship.. (hobbies)Me: (Cricket is saviour for boys in India): Sir I used to play cricket on turf during articleship…( I was expecting turf will not be known that much in detail.. but i was wrong..M1: So Vatsal tell me one thing why do people have turf in Juhu? The land rates are high there.. still people instead of building some tower…make a turf…Me: Sir I can explain you with an example of turf at ghatkopar.. ( I knew about it and could also explain ..)M1 interrupting..: No No lets focus on Juhu only…Me: Sir the charges for turf cricket are high. They are able to make money. In fact bookings are done in advance. Astro turfs and all have many turfs in Mumbai. I am not aware they own land or not. But they are making money.M1: But vatsal i booked a turf and price was not that high…Me: Sir for a weekday prices are around 1400–1500 per hour and on weekends they hover around 3000 sometimes. So for weekday it is low. And all tournaments are played on weekends where maximum amount is generated.M1: But on weekdays they are relatively free. At 1:00 PM no one plays..Me: Yes sir i do agree with your point. But on weekday , apart from corporate, people from school and college do come and play.M1: But there are not many turfs as far as I know…Me: No sir there are many turfs in Mumbai. Central and western lines both have many turfs. In fact sir I have personally tried to book a turf on tuesday for weekends but the slot were full.M1: So there is demand but no supply..Me: yes sir.. more turfs will come..M1 and M2: Ok vatsal thats all…(No toffee offerred..)Overall yes a grilling session. Do not know what to make out of it. One good thing was no academics. So at least I will not be judged on past knowledge which can be found on google. It was not convincing enough. Sometimes panel was not interested to listen. But you can never judge what parameters they have. I personally feel, I could have done better on Why not DT part..but in that heat and pressure… It is difficult!Result: Rejected..!!

A PIL under Article 32 was filed by the NGO, Swaraj Abhiyan praying for directions for declaration of drought and relief in affected areas. The SC court came out with a 3 part judgment on May 11 2016 the first one dealt with the issue of drought and the latter judgments took up the poor implementation of the National Food Security Act, 200513 (NFSA) and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (NREGA). These directions largely signify the failure of the governance in tackling drought and suggest actions to be taken hence, we need to be thankful to the petitioners and apex court for this. We also hope the apex court continues to monitor the implementation of the directions.SC Directions for dealing with the droughtImplementation of Disaster Management Act 2005 The SC noted that drought is a disaster and its assessment and management is covered under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005. It directed implementation of the provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005 which provides for constituting a National Disaster Response Force, establishing a National Disaster Mitigation Fund and formulation of a National Plan relating to assessment and management of disasters. The Court noted that the aforementioned provisions of the Act had not been implemented even a decade after coming into force. The media latter on reported that the notification about NDMF has not been notified, but that also shows the failure of the governance of disasters.Revision of Drought Manual The Ministry of Agriculture has published a Manual for drought management (Drought Manual) in 2009. The Court commended the Drought Manual and directed its revision based on recent experience and new technology.Indices for drought declarationThe drought manual recommends rainfall deficiency, the extent of area sown, normalized difference vegetation index(NDVI) and moisture adequacy index(MAI) as the four standard monitoring tools which could be applied in combination for drought declaration. Rainfall is the most important indicator and the manual recommends declaration of drought if rainfall for June and July is less than 50% of the average or if the total rainfall in the rainy season from June to September (the south-west monsoon) or from December to March (north-east monsoon), is less than 75% of the average accompanied by reduction in vegetation and soil moisture.The SC observed that many states have their own procedure for declaring drought and there has been little observance of the Manual. But the Central government claimed that the manual does not have any binding force and is only for reference. Moreover the Centre claimed that it would go against the principles of federalism for it to overrule the decision of the states or to issue binding guidelines for all states to declare drought. State Governments could face situations under which they may need to deviate from the guidance given in the Manual as some states are more irrigated than others, availability of water and type of crops differ.During the proceedings, the decision of the states of Bihar, Haryana and Gujarat to not declare drought came into question.Bihar: Bihar’s denial of drought was based on the overall rainfall deficiency figures for the state that too only until August 2015. It had not looked at district or block level information. However, rainfall in June and July 2015 in 10 out of 38 districts and by the end of October 2015 the state wide rainfall was deficient to the extent of falling within the drought range.While deviation in the sown crop area was within normal limits, there was no assessment of crop failure from subsequent lack of rain and performance. Bihar had also ignored the NDVI and MAI for determining the extent of drought. The Court observed that taking all information into account, some districts in Bihar were facing drought, yet the state was denying it.Haryana: Although agricultural productivity in Haryana was unaffected, the state had deficient rainfall. The state has been tapping ground water through lakhs of tube wells to supplement water from canals for irrigation. However the MAI – reflecting the moisture available for crops – at the end of Sept 2015, was observed by the SC as indicative that most of the state was in the grip of a severe or moderate or mild drought. Indicators of drought recommended by the drought manual were ignored and a completely different set of factors such as wages, supply of essential commodities and prices (which, we feel, might not reflect the situation at the micro level) were being used by Haryana for not declaring drought.Gujarat: Districts in Central Gujarat and South Gujarat and two districts of Saurashtra had received inadequate rainfall but the state wide rainfall was relied upon the State to deny deficiency in rainfall.The SC directed that the Manual should specify the weightage to be given to each of the four key indicators as far as possible. This would make the State governments consider all factors appropriately rather than only focussing on area of crop sown.Standardization of drought declaration The SC directed that the nomenclature and methodology for declaring drought be standardized. The Gujarat government was seen using the term ‘semi-scarcity’ instead of ‘drought’.Traditionally, declaration of drought was recommended through the annewari / paisewari / girdawari system which provides an estimate of agricultural losses after crop production. The Drought Manual has recommended discarding the annewari system. Yet, Gujarat and Maharashtra continue to use the annewari system; the cuttoff for drought in Maharashtra is 50% decrease in crop, while in Gujarat, ‘scarcity; is declared if the crop produce is less than 33% and the state government uses its discretion when it falls between 33-50% to declare ‘semi-scarcity’. Gujarat ignores NDVI and MAI in favour of the traditional annewari system citing that the moisture indices are low because of the type of the soil. (But it is the deviation of the NDVI from the normal value in the area which is used for drought assessment. MAI also takes soil characteristic into account.)The SC directed that the manual should include more relevant factors and reduce the flexibility available to states in declaring drought.Timely drought declarationDeclaration of drought was inordinately delayed in Gujarat – the state declared semi-scarcity in 526 villages on Apr 1 2016 and subsequently declared another 468 villages as affected by drought. Maharashtra, which also uses the annewari system, completed estimation exercise and declared drought hit districts in October 2015. All states that declared drought completed their assessment exercise between August 2015 and December 2015. Final figures of the Kharif crop are available in December and there is nothing to wait for until March of the following year to declare drought.The SC directed that the drought manual should mandate a time limit for declaring a drought.The Manual currently recommends that States declare drought in October as the complete rainfall figures, reservoir storage and crop conditions are known by then. Timely drought declaration is necessary to provide relief and assistance required to the drought affected people in near real time. The SC came down on the delayed declaration by Gujarat government saying that the declaration was too late for the people in distress and can only facilitate crisis management rather than preventive management of risk to avoid distress.Regarding declaration of drought The SC observed that drought need not be declared in the entire state or even in an entire district as the manual allows that state government may declare drought even at the level of Taluka / Tehsil / Block as the information on the recommended indices for drought declaration are available at that level.While the final decision to declare a drought is of the State Governments, the Centre is also responsible for upholding the right to life of the people under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Central government has to maintain a balance between its constitutional responsibility to the people and the principle of federalism preventing the Centre from trudging in the domain of the statesOther Directions The Court directed considering social factors such as migrations, suicides and extreme distress in assessing and managing drought.Water conservation techniques should be considered to prevent and prepare for droughts.Drought Relief While the petition had also sought directions for drought relief for farmers including compensation for crop loss, input subsidy for next crop, restructuring crop loans and subsidizing cattle fodder, the court did not give any such direction.The drought manual recommends that relief measures should be implemented as soon as distress signs of drought are visible even before a drought is formally declared. The manual recommends organizing of relief measures for Contingency crop planning providing alternatives that withstand drought conditions, Relief employment to check migration and provide livelihood, Water resource management for supply of drinking water, Food Security, provision of fodder for cattle, containing health issues arising from contaminated water and poor levels of nutrition and assistance to dependent population such as the aged, children etc.Formal declaration of drought is necessary only for the state to seek assistance from the Central Government and for providing relief through tax waivers and concessions.Directions regarding NREGA The government admitted that funds released are not adequate and delayed. It was admitted that for the financial year 2015-16 the liability was in excess of Rs.12,000 crore. The Court observed that delayed payments act as a disincentive to work under the Scheme. It directed the government to release adequate funds in a timely manner and ensure that compensation is made to workers whose wages have been delayed beyond 15 days. In view of the poor performance of the scheme, the Court directed the government to ensure that the provisions of the Act are faithfully implemented.Directions for implementation of the National Food Security Act The NFS Act has not been implemented in some states although the legislation was passed in July 2013.The Court directed that in the States in which drought is declared, all households should be provided with their monthly entitlement of food grains in terms of the NFS Act regardless of whether they fall in the category of priority household or not. In case the household does not have a ration card, it should be provided food grains under the NFS Act using alternate identification or residence acceptable to the State Government. The Court also directed extention of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme for children during the summer vacation period in schools in drought-affected areas.The petitioner suggested that households affected by the drought be provided 2 kg of dal per month and one litre of edible oil per month at subsidized rates through the Public Distribution System.The Central government declined claiming that it was faced by fiscal constraints to subsidize dal and oils. While the Court found that it was unable to direct the government to subsidize dal and oils, it drew the attention of the government to the Directive Principle under Art 47 enjoining the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people. It held that relief to persons in drought affected areas cannot be denied on grounds of fiscal constraints. The Court buttressed with case law the view that plea of financial inability cannot be used to abdicate constitutional obligations such as provision of free legal services, adequate medical services etc. The principle extends to the obligation of upholding the right to food, which is a constitutional right.Conclusion: Agriculture is facing a crisis because of wrong policies and programs like prioritising big irrigation projects that are delivering only impacts and no new benefits, poor water management, wrong cropping patterns, lack of support for appropriate crops and farmers, degradation of land, over exploitation of ground water, high prices of inputs, poor support for farmers. Farm incomes are unsustainably low and are in a precarious condition. In such a scenario, a drought pushed the farmers over the verge. Farmers talk of earlier times when they were not so hard pushed and they could still rely on ground water and water in the wells when rains failed. In many ways it is the policies adopted by successive governments which have led to the extreme impact of the present drought.The drought hit in the states which have declared drought have not received much by way of relief. The Centre has approved amounts much smaller than what has been sought by states for drought assistance and only a fraction of the approved amount had been released until Mar 2016 for the drought suffered in the Kharif crop season of 2015. The compensation amounts which are yet to make their way to the farmers after months are lesser than the cost of cultivation.In the past, drought relief was a source of income for the rural economy providing immense scope for corruption the benefits of which were reaped by contractors with a small part trickling down to the drought affected people. States were overzealous in declaring droughts.Funds were made over for plans to mitigate impacts of lean rainfall in drought prone areas and yet these areas saw no change. However the recent trend of states refusing to declare drought seems an outcome of the pressure on governments from investors and market forces to decrease social spending and commit to austerity and also continue to flog growth horse by hook or by crook. Expenditure on the agricultural sector is seen as wasteful and subsidies for farmers as market distorting, whereas subsidies for industry and commerce as incentives. Reluctance of governments to implement the National Food Security Act or to encourage employment under NREGA is also an outcome of this pro-business bias in policies.

The Most Controversial Laws In The Indian ConstitutionIn a democracy, the policies by which a country is governed are defined by the representatives of the citizens in the government, ensuring that all sections of society are taken along on the path to the nation’s progress.However, when it comes to the largest democracy in the world, i.e. India, there are bound to be difference of opinions over laws that directly and deeply affect the public. This often leads to stand-offs between the elected and the electorate.Here are some laws in the Indian constitution that have been at the center of controversies.1. Article 370It gives autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It stipulates that the other articles of the Constitution that gave powers to the Central Government would be applied to Jammu and Kashmir only with the concurrence of the State’s constituent assembly.BJP National General Secretary Ram Madhav said that the Modi government is committed to repealing Article 370 of the Constitution on 29th June 2019.Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah objected to this and said, “Long after Modi Govt is a distant memory either J&K won’t be part of India or Article 370 will still exist.”2. Article 377- Unnatural OffencesSection 377, a British-era law, criminalized any form of intercourse that was non-penile vaginal, deeming it to be “against the course of nature”. In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court scrapped the controversial law on 7th September 2018.“LGBT Community has same rights as of any ordinary citizen. Respect for individual choice is the essence of liberty; Criminalising gay sex is irrational and indefensible,” said the former Chief Justice Dipak Misra.3. 42nd Amendment Of The ConstitutionImposed by Indira Gandhi during time of Emergency, it attempted to reduce the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to pronounce upon the constitutional validity of laws.It even changed the description of India in Preamble from “sovereign democratic republic” to a “sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic”.This faced widespread criticism and India was in turmoil for three years. Janta party after coming to power imprisoned Indira Gandhi and changed this amendment though not with full success.4. Anti-Dowry LawPassed by Indian Parliament in 1983, Indian Penal Code 498A, is a criminal law (not a civil law) which is defined as follows:“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The offence is Cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable.”Some women misuse this law against the husband and in-laws by filing fake complaints.5. Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)AFSPA was enacted in 1958 to bring under control what the government of India considered disturbed areas.The Central government empowered the governors of the states and administrators of Union Territories to take a call whether the areas of that particular state or union territory is disturbed or not.Many security experts bat for AFSPA whereas scores of academia, and human right activist, call for its abolition.They argue that since armed forces misuse the provisions to kill people, the immunity given under AFSPA to armed forces personnel should be ended.AFSPA has been implemented in the north-eastern states, Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir.The fabric of democracy is woven by the accommodation of different ideologies and equal room for all. Thus, an evolving society should always challenge the rules that impede its growth and development.6.The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) ActThe draft of The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on June 24, 2019. It was passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 04, 2019, and July 08, 2019, respectively. It comes under the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology.As per the Gazette of India, this is “An Act to amend the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and further to amend the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002”.One of the reasons for its hype in the media is the permission accorded by it to the Aadhar holder to voluntarily use their Aadhaar in either physical or electronic procedure to authenticate their identity. The Aadhar holder has the right to know and choose from other valid means to verify their identity, and they will not be denied any service, for refusing to provide or not having an Aadhaar number. Further, if the government makes, for any service, the collection of Aadhar details mandatory, none can deny providing the same.The use of the word voluntary in point 6 in this Act is the point of contention. Essentially, sub-section 7 of point 6, if the government wants you to submit your biometric details, you have no right to refute. It means, if asked for, you cannot deny providing your Aadhar simply because you don’t wish to for whatever reason no matter how valid. So, how is it voluntary?It is evident that sub-section 6 basically refers to any entity that is not under the ambit of the government. This move is most welcome and positive, especially after telecom companies were reportedly forcibly linking the mobile numbers of their subscribers to Aadhars despite the Supreme Court ruling against such data acquisition by the private entities. But in reality, even after the enactment of this Act, which levies a penalty on bodies/individuals indulging in such activities of forceful procurement of Aadhar data, cases of companies refusing to entertain a person upon refusal to provide Aadhar have not ceased.Furthermore, reports of services being denied for the lack of Aadhar are commonplace. News of children from poor families being denied admission to schools, elderly people being denied health care facilities, financially backward households being denied ration are some of the very basic necessities of life that are causing problems to a large section of the society only because they do not have Aadhar. These people are mostly not educated enough to understand and solve such legal matters. It is that unfortunate section of the society which has to live on a daily-wage basis. Their fight is for food. The Government must make sure that the implementation of the law as described in written takes place at the ground level. Merely passing a law is not the solution.There is no denying that Aadhar is a beneficial scheme if implemented properly and with the right intentions. The Government has taken the right step towards assisting citizens from the harassment of some frivolous entities. Having said that, the Government ought to draft policies that are clear-cut with such word usage that may not be interpreted in more than one way. Too many lawyers in the Parliament!7.The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019Under the Motor Vehicles Act, penalties were increased multi-fold. Reports of challans more than or close to the cost of the vehicle were also registered.The draft of The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on June 15, 2019. It was passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on July 23, 2019, and July 31, 2019, respectively. It comes under the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.India, as a signatory to the Brasilia Declaration on Road Safety of 2015, intended to decrease road accidents and reduce traffic casualties by 2022. And thus the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act were acted out.This Act proved to be a major cause of upheaval in the lives of numerous people, after most of the amendments came into effect from September 01, 2019. This meant that driving faults made enormous blows in monthly budgets. Under this act, penalties were increased multi-fold. Reports of challans more than or close to the cost of the vehicle were also registered.In my opinion, fines and penalties so high are excessively harsh, and considering the low incomes, this act seems like an attack on the middle-class man. Also, with high tax rates going hand in hand with deplorable road conditions, this new law seems to be a cruel joke on people.It is a fact that some people drive carelessly and endanger not only their lives but also of others who are around them. But the condition of the roads are extremely poor and many a time, it is the state of the road that is the reason for the accident, rather than the act of the driver.The public transport system, the roads, footpaths, and drainage systems all need to be top-notch, to make sure that people do not suffer in any situation, in any weather. First rains of the season turn our roads into swimming pools. The government ought to understand that road safety can only be implemented when roads are safe.If your driving has no flaw, you should not be scared of this rule of law.8. The National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Act, 2019The draft to The National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Act was introduced in the Parliament on November 11, 2019. It was passed in the Lok Sabha on November 28, 2019, and in the Rajya Sabha on December 12, 2019. It comes under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.As per the Gazette of India, this is “An Act to provide special provisions for the National Capital Territory of Delhi for recognising the property rights of resident in unauthorized colonies by securing the rights of ownership or transfer or mortgage in favour of the residents of such colonies who are possessing properties on the basis of Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter or any other documents including documents evidencing payment of consideration and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.Of the nearly 1.2 crore people that reside in Delhi, around 40 lakh live in unauthorised colonies that are spread across the vast 175 square-km landmasses of Delhi. Regularisation of such unauthorised colonies has forever been a rickety undertaking as the succeeding governments have hesitated to make the last call.When the AAP issued its manifesto for the 2015 elections, it assured the people of Delhi with 70 promises. Promise number 56 was “Regularisation and Transformation of Unauthorised Colonies”.After handsomely coming to power in 2015, the AAP Delhi government redrafted and approved a regulation for the regularisation of unauthorised colonies in Delhi. The government of India was requested, by the Delhi government, to give notice for the same, with the purpose of regularising all those unauthorised colonies, where the built-up area was more than 50% as of January 01, 2015.In its March 2016 annual budget, the Delhi government, under CM Arvind Kejriwal and Finance Minister Manish Sisodia, allocated Rs 300 crore to Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (DSIIDC), for the execution of development works in unauthorised colonies.In its manifesto for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP government under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi had called upon to regularize unauthorised colonies in Delhi. It was evident that the issue of regularisation was being brought up with the intent of luring people for the elections scheduled for early 2020.In a press conference on July 18, 2019, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal contended that the AAP government will regularise unauthorised colonies in the National Capital Territory (NCT), and proposed a set of parameters, to regularise the 1,797 colonies; which include charging 1% cost of circle rate of land, up to 200 square metre plot from occupiers in addition to a minimal penalty.Following the course of AAP, the Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry, under the BJP-led Central government, formulated a cabinet note, to grant land possession rights to people living in 1,797 unauthorised colonies. Though, the Act did not apply to 69 colonies acknowledged by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), including Anantram Dairy, Mahendru Enclave, and Sainik Farms.It is a fact that the matter for the regularisation of the unauthorised colonies was raised by the AAP government and considering polls in Delhi in early 2020 the BJP government also jumped in the wagon, and very quickly, introduced and passed the Bill in the Parliament.Some may call it an election-oriented move, but it is a win-win situation for everybody. The occupants who have been living at their domiciles for decades will finally get ownership rights. The governments will get a handsome amount of money in exchange for the grant of these rights.9. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019The Citizenship Amendment Act was passed in the Parliament amid hue and cry from the opposition and protests all across India.The draft of The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was introduced in and passed by the Lok Sabha on December 09, 2019. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2019. It comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs.This Act was passed in the Parliament amid hue and cry from the opposition and protests all across India. This Act amends the 1955 Citizenship Act. It is for the first time in the history of independent India, that religion is being used as a legal criterion, for deciding refuge and nationality.As per this Act, Indian citizenship will be accorded to religious minorities of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, who have been victims of religious persecution in their native country. The Act specifies that the religious minorities must be either Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Parsis, or Sikhs, i.e. people of only non-Muslim faith. Immigrants who entered India before 2015, will also no longer be considered as unlawful settlers. The Act also provides protection to such refugees, tackling any legal cases after being discovered as illegal drifters.As per the new law, the undocumented refugees must have inhabited in India, in the last one year and for at least six years in total, to meet the requirements for citizenship; in contrast, the 1955 law stipulates 12 years’ residency as a prerequisite.For obvious, clear-to-the-eye reasons, this Act is being claimed to be in violation of the secular ideology of India and its constitution. The new law raises many valid questions and further induces questions about the intent of the government, which is not known for its secular philosophy.The opponents of the new law argue that it breaches the Fundamental Right to Equality stated by Article 14, because it violates the principle of “equality before the law” and the “equal protection of laws” assured to all individuals, including non-citizens. Naturalisation and citizenship in the name of the religion, they say, is total discrimination and against the basic structure of the humanitarian and secular Constitution of India.One of the valid and major criticisms of the Act is the exclusion of the religious minorities from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and China-administered Kashmir (Aksai Chin), which the government asserts are undividable parts of India.The leaders claim in their parliament speeches, that they will sacrifice their lives to get back PoK, but, by the logic of the Act, won’t let a persecuted Hindu from PoK take refuge in India!?Questioning the reason and claims of the government; does it not consider the people of PoK and Aksai Chin its own?If the intention is to safeguard tormented minorities, then why Muslim sects like Ahmadiyas, Bahaiis, and Shias who are more oppressed in Bangladesh and Pakistan than Hindus or Sikhs, have been left out of the Act’s purview. Likewise, how can the Hazara community of Afghanistan be excluded? The problem of minority persecution is the worst within the Muslim sects in Islamic countries.Though Bangladesh is technically an Islamic nation, their Constitution promises equal rights to people of any faith or religion. The inclusion of Bangladesh but the prohibition on the migrants from China, Maldives, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka raises more questions.The harassment of Uighur Muslims in China is hidden from none. Inflicted atrocities upon the Tamil minorities in Sri Lanka are also well documented. The genocide of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar is currently under trial in the International Court of Justice.After severe protests, the selective exclusion of the north-eastern region from the purview of the law has also not gone down well with its challengers. The new law is argued to be against the very fabric of the Assam Accord of 1985. Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Manipur are excluded from the ambit of the law. Manipur will be included in the ‘Inner Line Permit’system. Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Tripura are also more or less sequestered from it.What Happens If Some Persecuted Non-Muslim Religious Minority Migrates To The Aforementioned Areas?The motive of the Act has been put to question by the Muslim community in India. The Act has been enacted at a time when the National Citizenship Register (NCR), which means to get rid of illegitimate residents migrated from predominantly Muslim Bangladesh, is under the process of implementation. On August 31, 2019, the final list of NRC omitted nearly 20 lakh people, of different faiths, from its last citizenship list in Assam.Is the government’s intention to essentially legalise the nationality of all those non-Muslims (around 13 lakh), who were identified as illegal immigrants as per the NRC?Is it a cover-up for the inefficient implementation of NRC, which landed a large number of people in detention centres that also included former personnel of the armed forces? Remember a whopping Rs. 1600 crores were spent on that exercise! And, it has not yet been implemented.As per UNICEF, every year about 42% births go unregistered in India. How does the government plan to identify illegal residents?Even if the government rightfully identifies the infiltrators, where will they send them? Of course, Bangladesh (or any other country) will not take them back. Saying “we shall throw them into the Bay of Bengal” is all at once – funny, deplorable, irresponsible, and ridiculous.The law has initiated extensive discussions on equality before the law, and the necessity to provide refuge to foreign persecuted communities. The questions and arguments by the opponents seem to be valid to some extent and have put under scanner the true motive of the non-secular pro-Hindu ruling party. Various valid questions have been raised.Why is it necessary to accord citizenship to refugees? Why not just help them in every possible manner and send them back to their native land at an appropriate time?Is not offering citizenship to illegal immigrants against the very stand of the government, which by the means of NRC aims to send back outsiders?This law is being implemented retrospectively, from 2014, why?What is the requirement to reduce the period of necessary habitation for acquiring citizenship from 12 years to 5 years?How do you figure out whether a person has been subject to any type of persecution?Does the government really intend to isolate Muslims as a class?The law has not gone down well with the USA as well. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has threatened the Indian government officials with sanctions if Muslims are not included among ‘persecuted’ minorities. USCIRF is the same organisation that had proposed denial of the USA visa to current Indian PM Shri Narendra Modi.There is no doubt that humanitarian issues are very important and must be looked after diligently, without any type of bias. Presently, the Indian government ought to focus on its citizens, especially at a time when the country’s economy is dwindling and educated unemployment is at a record high.Furthermore, at a time when the world is keeping an eye at us following the abrogation of Article 370 from the constitution, Indian policymakers must refrain from taking any such step that provides anybody with an issue that may be exploited at an international stage.