The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023

Context: 

Recently the controversial Jan Vishwas Act, 2022 has been enacted into law by the Parliament. This article is expressing the various aspects of the Bill.

About the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023:

• Amendment of Various Laws: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2022 amends 42 laws, across multiple sectors, including agriculture, environment, and media and publication. 
  • Acts being amended include the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. 
• Provision of Penalties: The Bill converts several fines to penalties, meaning that court prosecution is not necessary to administer punishments. 
  • It also removes imprisonment as a punishment for many offenses. 
    • All offenses under the Post Office Act, 1898 are being removed. 
  • Fines and penalties for certain offenses in specified Acts are being increased. 
    • These fines and penalties will be increased by 10% of the minimum amount every three years. 
• Adjudicating Officer for Penalties: The Bill amends some Acts to provide for the appointment of Adjudicating Officers to decide penalties. 
  • It also specifies the appellate mechanism. 

Main Characteristics of the Bill:

• Some Covered Key Laws:
  • The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 
  • The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 
  • The Indian Forest Act, 1927 
  • The Agricultural Produce (Grading & Marking) Act, 1937 
  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 
  • The Copyright Act, 1957 
  • The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
  • The Cinematograph Act, 1952
  • The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
• Decriminalization of Offenses: 
  • Aim: To decriminalize around 180 offenses across 42 laws governing environment, agriculture, media, industry, trade, publication, and others. It seeks to completely remove or replace imprisonment clauses with monetary fines. 
  • Periodic Revision: The fines and penalties will be increased by 10% of the minimum amount every 3 years. 
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism: 
  • Appointment of Adjudicating Officer: The central government may appoint Adjudicating Officers to determine penalties. 
  • Conduct Inquiries: These Officers may summon individuals for evidence and conduct inquiries into violations of the respective Acts. 
• Appellate Mechanism: 
  • Provision: It is provided for orders against adjudicating officers. 
  • For Example: In Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, appeals against the Adjudicating Officer’s orders may be filed with the National Green Tribunal within 60 days. 
• Awarding Penalties: 
  • Offenses: The Adjudicating Officers appointed to award penalties for environmental offenses are senior officials of the Executive branch. 
    • Lack of Competence is a Concern: They may lack the required technical and judicial competence to decide on such penalties. 
  • Environmental Protection Fund: It creates an Environmental Protection Fund for education, awareness, and research for environment protection.
    • Unclear Reason is a Concern: The reasons for creating this fund are unclear given the overlap between its purpose and that of existing funds of the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. 

Need for the Bill:

• The proposed changes focus on four key aspects: 
  • Redefining Compliance: The goal is to transform the regulatory landscape by decriminalizing minor offenses under 42 Acts. 
  • Simplification: This will alleviate the compliance burden, making it easier to live and conduct business in the country. 
  • Economic Growth: Shifting MSMEs  (Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises) to the formal sector is expected to boost economic growth, creating more job opportunities and generating income. 
  • Streamlining Decision Making: The smoother processes and increased investment attractiveness are likely to expedite investment decisions, encouraging further investments in the country. 

Significance of the Bill:

• It will significantly contribute to ease of doing business by marking a milestone in the process of rationalizing laws, removing barriers, and fostering the growth of businesses. 

Concerns with the Bill: 

• Partial Decriminalization: Imposing  monetary fines or penalties alone falls short of achieving a comprehensive decriminalization effort. 
• Diminish the deterrent impact of environmental legislation: Completely removing the provision for imprisonment might reduce the deterrent effect, particularly for large corporations that may benefit from such offenses. 
• Potential lack of technical expertise in Adjudicating Officers: There might be a concern about the proficiency of Adjudicating  Officers in determining all penalties under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. 
• Inclusion of irrelevant offenses: Some proposed offenses, such as theft or misappropriation of postal articles, have no relevance to the objective of decriminalization aimed at promoting ease of doing business. 
  • The Bill decriminalizes offenses under the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. This Act was used to remove high-value banknotes as legal tender on January 16, 1978.
• Independence of Adjudicating Officers: Recent instances, such as the penalty imposed by the NGT on Singareni Collieries Company Limited, raise doubts about whether government officers can maintain sufficient independence while serving as adjudicating authorities in similar cases. 

A Look at the Bill with the Angle of the Separation of Powers:

• About the Separation of Powers:
  • Article 50 of the Constitution of India, which contains a Directive Principle of State Policy, provides that the State shall take steps to separate the Judiciary from the Executive in the Public Services of the State.
• Backsliding on the Separation of Powers:
  • Judicial Tribunals by Ministries: Different Ministries began creating judicial tribunals to take over various judicial functions hitherto exercised by the judiciary. 
    • Most of these tribunals were created in a manner to give bureaucrats an opportunity to be appointed to the tribunals as “technical members”.
  • Statutory Regulators of the Union Government: The Union government began creating a new class of statutory regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which had powers to punish the private sector with punishing fines. 
    • Virtually all these regulators ended up being headed by senior bureaucrats.
  • Adjudication Officers of the Union Government: The Union government started creating the role of adjudicatory officers in a number of legislations  to either confirm “attachment orders” for properties or impose penalties on businesses.  
    • Such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Information Technology Act, 2001 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 
      • The Jan Vishwas Act carries forward this specific model of creating “adjudicatory officers” within the bureaucracy to impose penalties. 

Conclusion:

• At the heart of democratic governance is the trust that the government places in its people and institutions. However, an intricate network of outdated rules and regulations has led to a deficit of trust. 
• Also a “judicial function” can be discharged only by an independent judicial authority not under control of the executive. The essence of ‘rule of law’ is that the government cannot be a prosecutor and judge for its own cause. 
  • There is a need to address the concerning issues of the Jan Vishwas Bill to maintain and gain the trust of its people while simultaneously following the constitutional provisions. 

News Source: The Hindu