Propagation without proselytisation: what the law says

Legislative and legal history validates the Opposition argument that there is no need for a new anti-conversion law.

The Fundamental Right to “propagate” one’s religious faith has always trodden on slippery ground. Legislative history and judicial precedents have remained wary of the tipping point when the “basic human right” to spread religion translates into conversion through force, fraud or allurement.

Article 25(1) of the Constitution says “all persons,” not just Indian citizens, are equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion freely.

Legislative and legal history validates the Opposition argument that there is no need for a new anti-conversion law. The original intention of the Constituent Assembly and the interpretation of Article 25 by the Supreme Court later on clearly differentiate the right to propagate from the right to convert other persons to one’s own religion. The former is a Fundamental Right, the latter, if forcibly done and not by choice of the person converting, is illegal. The law is already clear. Again, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of individual States to enact Freedom of Religion laws to ensure public order.

However, the Winter Session of Parliament saw the heat on conversions go a notch up. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, as Leader of the House in the Rajya Sabha, asked if the Opposition was “willing for a total ban on religious conversions or a ban on forcible religious conversions?”

“Let them tell us the option. The government is ready for either of the two options,” Mr. Jaitley said.

To go back in history, one has to start with the morning of December 6, 1948, at the Constitution Hall where the Constituent Assembly debated the inclusion of “right to propagate” as a Fundamental Right.

Here, Lokanath Misra cautions the Assembly that “the cry of religion is a dangerous cry.” “It denominates, it divides, and encamps people to warring ways.”

“Today, religion in India serves no higher purpose than collecting ignorance, poverty and ambition under a banner that flies for fanaticism. The aim is political, for in the modern world all is power-politics and the inner man is lost in the dust,” he said.

Misra advised the Assembly that everybody should have the right to profess and practise their religion as they saw best, but not to “let him try swell his number to demand the spoils of political warfare.”

But Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra disagreed that “propagation does not necessarily mean seeking converts by force of arms, by the sword, or by coercion.” He argued the Fundamental Right to propagate may probably work to remove the “misconceptions” in the minds of the people about other co-existing religions in this land of different faiths.

H.V. Kamath then rose to talk of the “real meaning” of the word “religion.” He pointed to how Dharma, in the most comprehensive sense, should be interpreted to mean the true values of religion and spirit. He pointed to how this young nation was moulding its Constitution in the background of a “war-torn, war-weary world.”

Kamath argued that even as no particular religion should receive State patronage, “we must be very careful to see that in this land of ours, we do not deny anybody the right not only to profess or practise but also to propagate any particular religion.”

“This glorious land of ours is nothing if it does not stand for the lofty religious and spiritual concepts and ideals. India would not be occupying any place of honour on this globe if she had not reached that spiritual height which she did in her glorious past,” he argued.

But over the years, these lofty ideals have been replaced by immediate concerns about propagation.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that the right to propagate does not mean the right to convert.

In his January 2011 judgment on the murders of Graham Staines, an Australian missionary who worked with the tribal people in Orissa, and his two sons, Justice P. Sathasivam wrote, “It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of use of force, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other.”

Chief Justice of India A.N. Ray, heading a five-judge Bench, in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, upheld the validity of two regional anti-conversion laws of the 1960s — the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act.

The court dissected Article 25 to hold that “the Article does not grant the right to convert other persons to one’s own religion but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets.”

“What is freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion,” the court interpreted.

In reference to the 1954 judgment of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs. State of Bombay, the court held that the “freedom of conscience [the right to believe in one’s faith] is not meant merely for followers of one particular religion but extends to all.”

The Supreme Court, in reference to the Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal verdict of 1950, holds that an attempt to raise communal passions through forcible conversions would be a breach of public order and affect the community at large. Thus, it held that the States were empowered under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to enact local Freedom of Religion laws to exercise its civil powers and restore public order.

These local laws make forcible religious conversions a cognisable offence under Sections 295A and 298 of the Indian Penal Code. These provisions stipulate “malice and deliberate intention to hurt the sentiments of others” as a penal offence. But many human rights organisations and scholars argue that anti-conversion laws have less to do with fraud and more to do with violence against Christians.

Even pre-Independence anti-conversion statutes by Princely States such as the Raigarh State Conversion Act of 1936, the Patna Freedom of Religion Act of 1942, the Sarguja State Apostasy Act 1945 and the Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act of 1946 were specifically against conversion to Christianity.

Over the years, more Freedom of Religion Bills have found their place in legislative history, including in Arunachal Pradesh in 1978 and Gujarat in 2003.

Under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act of 2006, if a person chooses to convert, he has to declare it before the District Magistrate concerned. Even the religious priest who “directly or indirectly participates” should give details of the purification ceremony and details of person whose religion is going to be changed to the District Magistrate with one month’s notice.

The same year saw Chhattisgarh pass a similar law seeking 30 days’ notice from a person desiring to convert and permission from the District Magistrate. With the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006, the State became the first Congress-ruled one to adopt a law prohibiting forcible conversions.

More than 50% of farm households in debt

NSSO survey across 35000 family units

Nearly 90 per cent of India’s farmers have less than two hectares of land, according to the most extensive survey of farm households to date conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). The survey says the average farm household makes less than Rs. 6,500 a month from all sources of income.

The NSSO released the findings from its 70th Situation of Agricultural Households in India on Saturday. The new survey was for the agricultural year 2012-13 and covered 35,000 households. For this survey, the NSSO defined an agricultural household as one in which at least one member was self-employed in agriculture (even if part-time) and which produced at least Rs 3,000 worth of agricultural produce in a year.

By this definition, 58 per cent of rural households are agricultural households. “While some of the rest could be doing non-farm work, a significant number work exclusively as agricultural labourers, which the NSSO did not count,” an official from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation explained, asking not to be quoted as he was not authorised to speak to the media.

Over half of all agricultural households are in debt; and 42 per cent of them owe money to banks and 26 per cent owe moneylenders. Over 40 per cent of agricultural households have Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) job cards, showing that even those households not classified as ‘labourers’ utilise the scheme.

One in three farm households has less than 0.4 hectares of land and less than 0.5 per cent are large farmers, having over 10 hectares of land. Large farmers are often absentee landlords, the data indicates; 54 per cent of farmers with over 10 hectares possess land in other states.

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe farm households were over-represented among the poorest classes with the smallest land holdings, the data showed. Large farmers were almost exclusively OBC or forward caste.

While wheat is the most commonly grown crop in the first half of the year, paddy growing dominates the second half, the data shows. In both seasons, however, sugarcane is the most profitable crop, giving its cultivator an average of over Rs 80,000 per season.

Private traders dominate the procurement space, and few farmers have enough information about Minimum Support Prices or report getting the MSP for their produce, the data shows.

Re-engineering infrastructure PPPs

To revive PPPs, the govt should take on macroeconomic risks flowing from uncertainties in GDP growth rates. The private sector can absorb project management and execution risksOne of the major initiatives of recent years has been the pursuit of PPPs (public-private partnerships) in infrastructure. This was a necessity given the need to improve infrastructure and the limited funds with government, which also needed to contain the fiscal deficit.

In the years preceding the economic slowdown, a fairly large number of projects, primarily in the roads sector, were taken up through PPPs. The underlying presumption in the design of the PPP process was that the private sector could make informed judgments about the costs of a project and the revenue streams that would be generated through user charges for the duration of the concession agreement. Accordingly, it could bid for projects with capital subsidy through viability gap funding (VGF) becoming the bid evaluation parameter.

With the advent of the economic downturn, these PPP projects began to unravel. The assumption of eight-to-nine per cent sustained GDP growth year-on-year was misplaced. As the downturn persisted, awarded projects stalled and there were no takers for new projects. The new government inherited about Rs 1.50 lakh crores of troubled projects in the road sector, and is still trying to find a way forward.

It is now clear that a credible long-term forecast of GDP growth rates and hence a realistic estimate for revenue realisations for the life of the concession agreement is not feasible. The basis on which private promoters and their financiers could absorb risk turned out to be illusory.

 

 

 

A return to traditional fully government-funded contracting for project execution in the EPC mode appears, prima facie, an attractive option. This, however, has its natural ceiling flowing from the present necessity of lowering the fiscal deficit. As infrastructure is still a major constraint for growth, with work on expressways and high-speed trains yet to really start, creative ways for getting PPPs back into infrastructure need to be found.

The way forward would be to learn from recent experience and allocate risks realistically. This implies that the private sector needs to be assigned risks which it can manage and the government should take on those risks which only it can absorb. Hence government should take on the macroeconomic risks flowing from the uncertainties regarding GDP growth rates. The private sector can absorb project management and execution risks. It can also, separately, be a partner in revenue realisations where there is only the upside.

Thus there could then be two matching PPPs around the same project. One could be for project execution and maintenance on an annuity basis. The other could be for revenue realisation. The government as the sovereign could absorb the risk of the mismatch between the liability for annuity payments, which are fixed in the first PPP, and the uncertain revenue streams from the asset created through the other PPP.

With assured annuity payments the project becomes bankable and the private partner has the right incentives to execute it with the least cost and time and also high quality, as the costs of maintenance are disproportionately greater if quality is compromised.

Long-term fixed interest rate financing for these projects could also be put together as a part of project preparation and be made available to prospective bidders. For this government may need to absorb the risk arising from the asset-liability mismatch for long-term fixed rate lending by a consortium of lenders. If this were to be done, the bids received would be even more attractive as the bidders would not have to factor in any interest rate risk.

The revenue PPP works well for enhancing revenues through better marketing and sales efforts. These become quite effective for projects such as new airports, hotels, convention centres, new townships and industrial parks, including flatted factories, where demand needs to be generated. A good successful example of these from the pre-economic reform era are the two Taj Hotels of Delhi, where NDMC and DDA built the basic hotel structures on their land at their cost and the Taj Group did the finishing and furnishing, and ran the hotels paying a fixed lease rent and a share of the revenues. This was a win-win successful PPP, as the revenue shares for both partners rose with the success of the hotels. In natural networks such as expressways and tracks for high-speed trains, the potential for demand creation by the private partner is, however, somewhat limited.

The contingent liability arising from the mismatch between annuity payments and revenue streams can be comfortably borne by government. The liability for annuity payments would commence at least three-to-four years later, after project completion. By then, the fiscal situation should, hopefully, be more comfortable. With this approach a fairly large investment programme of, say, around Rs 5 lakh crore, could be initiated right now through PPPs on an annuity basis. Additional infrastructure projects of around Rs 5 lakh crore would generate considerable additional demand for steel, cement, construction equipment and commercial vehicles. This, in turn, would have a significant multiplier effect and add to the growth momentum in the economy.

A neat solution for stalled projects would be to take them over on an 'as is where is' basis. After take-over, these could be bid out again for completion through annuity-based PPPs. Due diligence through a credible third-party mechanism of valuation of assets created vis-à-vis expenditure booked would address transparency and fairness issues. This would take care of the huge risk of NPAs from these projects for banks and the entire financial sector. It would also restore market sentiment fully for infrastructure PPPs.

Restructuring debt, or permitting promoters to exit or bring in new partners, does not address the real problem of non-viability of the concession agreement. The fact is that a non-viable contract cannot be implemented.

Without government action to stimulate domestic demand the economic recovery is likely to remain feeble, as is the case at present. But with unorthodox measures, growth may well get back to eight per cent-plus.

Arihant and what it means India's first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine is a considerable achievement - and should have an impact on security strategy

As INS Arihant finally starts her sea trials, India becomes the sixth country in the world which can both make and operate nuclear-powered submarines, the others being USA, UK, France, Russia and China. While there are many which manufacture the smaller of such vessels propelled by conventional diesel-electric engines, the nuclear reactor-powered platform is many steps up the ladder of technology. So, all those connected with the project deserve the nation's approbation.

Conventional submarines, while possessing advantages of stealthy movement under water and reasonable endurance, are not without limitations. Depending on their technology, they will need to take in air to recharge their batteries every day either by coming to the surface or close to it so that the relevant air intakes are exposed. This makes them vulnerable to detection.

At such times, propelled by their diesel engines, they are also more 'noisy' and can be located by sensors quite far away. The frequency of such exposure, as also the duration needed for recharging, have been brought down in the more modern vessels but cannot be done away with altogether.

Additionally, while on the surface they can proceed at reasonably high speed - though for short periods as fuel consumption is an issue - submerged, the rate of movement is far slower, determined by limitations of the electric motors which provide propulsion. Their endurance depends on fuel availability which also has limits. Nuclear-powered submarines, on the other hand, have no need to move up from their depths and are, therefore, relatively invulnerable to detection from the air. The speeds at which they can move are also high and a function of reactor power.

 

 

 

Their vulnerabilities lie in the noise that they generate while moving. Not depending on replenishment of fuel, their endurance is much greater, limited only by that of their crew. They can also be larger and thereby carry greater weapon loads including missiles which could be fitted with nuclear warheads. While the 'on patrol' period for a conventional submarine, considering all these factors, might range around two weeks, that for the nuclear powered vessel could be as much as a few months. In short, these ships are in a class of their own.

It is not as if Arihant does not have limitations. For one, the reactor power of just under 90 Mw is much less capable than the 250 Mw-plus generated in contemporary submarines of its type. To produce that kind of power in a reactor of this size much more advanced technology is needed and that will be a bridge that will have to be crossed - with assistance if necessary, as has been the case in this instance. When operational in about two years, the Arihant will have nuclear weapon capability, though of limited range, with a longer-distance capability to follow.

Yet, the achievements are considerable. The entire hull, all of special steels and metallurgy, has been fabricated indigenously in a private sector shipyard; this will be repeated in follow-on vessels. Engineering giants and smaller firms in the private sector have contributed with major machinery and auxiliary systems and several public sector units have also played meaningful parts. To bring all of these together and finally create the 'baby' that is Arihant is a formidable achievement by any standard.

The much maligned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has steered the so called Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project from inception and should be justifiably proud. And so should the Navy which 'fathered' this dream through several years starting 1984, when a pioneer - the late Vice Admiral MK Roy, our own Admiral Rickover - successfully persuaded then Defence Minister Venkataraman that a nuclear-powered submarine was an idea whose time had come.

This brings us to the substance of this discussion - the role of a platform like the Arihant and its successors. Ordinary submarines they are surely not, and to even think in those terms would be self-defeating. They have endurance and staying power and, therefore, range but to think of them as ships which are there to fight and sink other ships is facile. With their nuclear warheads and invulnerability, they give to the country a strategic capability which no other platform can. Land silos and sites can be detected from space and their activities monitored, and aircraft can be intercepted and destroyed even after they are airborne with their weapon loads, but this underwater vehicle is out of sight and out of reach, literally.

It is the only mechanism in which the warhead and its delivery system, the missile, are mated before being embarked; in all others the two are kept separated till the very end. It does not need to fire any of its weaponry; the fact that it can do so is its power. It is a deterrent against nuclear blackmail by those with sinister intentions and larger capabilities.

One can easily imagine the awesome responsibilities that this unique configuration places on those assigned to command ships like Arihant and the safeguards that need to be inbuilt in the command and control mechanisms for nuclear submarines. Here, we have lessons to learn from the experience of those countries which have managed these platforms for long. India has operated such vessels leased from Russia twice, once in the 1980s and again since 2012, both being named Chakra though the present one is a very much larger and more versatile submarine compared to the former; both nuclear powered but without nuclear weapons. This exposure should facilitate the induction of Arihant.

Dedicated infrastructure ashore to ensure the required degree of safety was set up when the first Chakra came in and must certainly have been updated and augmented by the Navy as found necessary. These facilities are essential wherever such vessels are based and observance of safety procedures has to be strictly enforced. Crew training has to be rigorous and exacting; psychological orientation to cope with prolonged periods spent on deployment underwater is especially important.

The strategic security environment has now shifted to the Asia-Pacific with the seas beginning to play increasingly important roles. Given the focus on energy dependence of most major nations and on overseas trade and the water space through which both move, it is not surprising that this region is beginning to be referred to as the Indo-Pacific.

India is the largest and most capable Indian Ocean littoral - and must continue to retain that profile and discharge the responsibilities that go with that status - but it also has serious interests in the western Pacific through which half of its overseas trade moves. Peace and tranquility in this vast oceanic space linked through several narrow channels of south-east Asia is an essential prerequisite to its own growth.

All of this necessitates having capabilities at sea that will cope with concerns both proximate and strategic. While a mix of conventional forces is needed to meet the first, it will be submarines like the Arihant which will be our shield for the latter. With more than one nuclear weapons power deploying in the Indo-Pacific, it is a capability which we badly needed and will soon have. May fair winds and following seas attend Arihant.

LED based energy efficient smartstreet lights launched in Delhi

The Union Minister of Urban Development Shri M.Venkaiah Naidu today launched LED based energy efficient smart street lights in the national capital today. The launch programme, held in Naraina Vihar, was also attended by the Union minister of State (I/C) for Power, Coal, and New and Renewable Energy Shri Piyush Goyal. 

Speaking on the occasion, Shri Naidu said it is a good initiative to reduce electricity consumption in the city, and it will help in improving the financial health of various municipal corporations in the national capital. He said that supply of 24X7 electricity is one of the major components of the smart cities, being envisaged and planned by the Central Government. The smart city requires smart leadership as well citizens, and this has to be based on sense of responsibility and transparency. Shri Naidu said the creation of infrastructure for smart cities requires huge amounts, and this can only be achieved through Public-Private Participation. He said that there is no dearth of intellect, skill or willingness to work hard among the people of India, and there is need to harness the potential to take India to the path of progress, development and prosperity. The Minister said that with the new Government, atmosphere of confidence and trust has come, investments have gone up, and there is enthusiasm among the people. He said the Government is committed to work for development and betterment of the masses. 

Union minister of State (I/C) for Power, Coal, and New and Renewable Energy, Shri Piyush Goyal speaking on the occasion, said that Delhi should become a model city. He said with the installation of energy efficient LED lights, and there will not be any financial burden on the corporations. He said that within one and a half years, about 25 crore units of electricity will be saved. The Minister also mentioned that his ministry has introduced the Electricity Amendment Bill in Parliament which would permit the consumers to choose their electricity supplier, and this competitiveness would benefit mostly the people of Delhi and Mumbai. 

There are an estimated 5 lakh street lights in Delhi owned by state government agencies, in particular MCD, PWD. All these are conventional street lights and consume more than 400 million kWh of energy every year. In addition to consuming high levels of energy, these street lights require substantial annual maintenance cost which is around 25% of the energy bill every year. LED Street light consume almost 50% less energy as compared to the conventional street light and they have also have very long life which reduces maintenance cost considerably. LED luminaries also enhance light levels as compared to conventional lights which results in better light output on the street. The use of LED street light would reduce the energy consumption by 50% in addition to reducing maintenance cost to a very low level. Most of the street lights are presently being operated manually. The automatic control of street light would enable MCD to optimise the usage of street lights based on the actual highlighting requirements and taking the benefit of day light. It is expected that the present usage of 11 – 12 hours every day would be reduced by 10% by taking into account daylight savings. These smart street lights also have the feature of dimming during off-peak hours. These features are expected to enhance the savings of energy by another 10 to 15%. 

HRIDAY Scheme

National Level City Stakeholder Consultation held to finalize guidelines for HRIDAY Scheme; Shri Venkaiah Naidu emphasizes that the future development of any city must take into consideration its nature, history, and culture

In an effort to finalize the guidelines with respect to the Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY) to be launched by the Ministry of Urban Development, a National Level City Stakeholder Consultation was organized today here. The Consultation Workshop was presided over by the Minister of Urban Development Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, and the Minister of State for Urban Development, Shri Babul Supriyo. Shri Venkaiah Naidu emphasized that the future development of any city must take into consideration its nature, history, and culture, thus capturing its unique heritage. He also elaborated on four thrust areas for holistic development, namely, Physical Infrastructure, Institutional Infrastructure, Economic Infrastructure & Social Infrastructure and suggested that they should be included in the Guidelines. These, he stressed, are essential for reviving and revitalizing the ‘soul’ of our Heritage Cities. Shri Babul Supriyo stressed upon the significance of developing and incorporating intangible heritage, such as performing arts, local cuisines, and craftsmanship into every aspect of the cities’ functioning. The joint consultation included Municipal Commissioners, District Magistrates and other representatives of the Heritage Cities. Other participants included, representatives of institutions and organizations like INTACH, UNESCO, CEPT University, Indian Heritage Cities Network, SAHAPEDIA, India City Walks and Cities Alliance. Participants agreed that the HRIDAY Scheme should focus on engagement with the entire city ecosystem including citizens, tourists and local businesses. It was jointly agreed that 85% of the total outlay will be earmarked for project formulation and execution. The remaining 15% shall be utilized for other critical components, such as capacity building, establishment of Project Management Units, preparation of Heritage Management Plan (HMP), stakeholder engagement. Based on inputs from the consultation, the Ministry finalizes the guidelines for the HRIDAY Scheme with a total outlay of Rs 500 crores. The Scheme is set to be launched shortly. Scheme HRIDAY will focus on development of 12 heritage cities namely: Amritsar, Ajmer, Mathura, Gaya, Kanchipuram, Vellankanni, Varanasi, Puri, Dwaraka, Badami, Warrangal, Amrawati. Additional cities may be explored after consultations.

review of winter session

Winter Session of Parliament enters final lap; Rajya Sabha still to decide on crucial Bills Lok Sabha’s productivity rises to 105% while that of Rajya Sabha declines to 68% Lok Sabha so far clears a record 17 Bills and Rajya Sabha only 11 Introduction of GST Bill in Lok Sabha, passing of labour reform Bills mark the high points of session

The current Winter session of Parliament enters the final lap with only two scheduled sittings left next week even as the Rajya Sabha which is passing through a stalemate is still to take up crucial Bills relating to facilitation of auction of coal blocks, enhancing FDI limit in the capital starved insurance sector and enabling extension of  Delhi Special Provisions Act that expires by the end of this month.                 Marking a sharp contrast in the functioning of the two Houses of Parliament during the first four weeks of the Winter session, Lok Sabha functioned for over 126 hours during the stipulated 20 sittings with a productivity of over 105%. As against this, the productivity of Rajya Sabha has been only 68%. During this period, Lok Sabha has passed 17 Bills as against only 11 by the Upper House.                 Lok Sabha has lost only 2 hours and 10 minutes so far due to interruptions. The Lower House witnessed interruptions during five of the 20 sittings losing time in the range of 12 to 55 minutes on each of these days. The House however, worked over time on eight days for a total additional duration of 8 hours 36 minutes with a net gain of additional working hours of 6 hous 26 minutes.                 Rajya Sabha on the other hand witnessed interruptions during 15 of the 19 sittings (for which data is available) losing a total time of 44 hours 09 minutes. Time lost on each day of such interruptions ranged from 45 minutes to 323 minutes (5 hours 23 minutes). However, members of the Upper House worked over time on seven days making up 8 hours 46 minutes. The net loss of time on account of interruptions in Rajya Sabha has been 35 hours 38 minutes.                 Lok Sabha has already set up a record in terms of number of Bills passed and productivity vis-à-vis the last Budget session of this year and the Winter session of last year. The Lower House has so far passed 17 Bills during the current Winter session so far as against 12 Bills during the last Budget session and 17 Bills passed during last year’s Winter session. Productivity of Lok Sabha during the current session so far has been 105% as against 104% during the last Budget session this year.                 On the contrary, productivity of Rajya Sabha so far during the current winter session has been 68% as against 106% during the Budget session this year. The Upper House passed 12 and 17 Bills respectively during this year’s Budget session and last year’s Winter session.                 The remaining two sittings as per the schedule assumes importance as the Rajya Sabha is still to consider some crucial Bills, passed by Lok Sabha. These include : The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Bill, 2014 that seeks to facilitate auction of coal blocks further to the Supreme Court striking down allocation of over 200 coal blocks, holding the allocation process arbitrary and illegal. The Upper House  is also to take up the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Amendment Bill, 2014. This Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha seeks to extend the validity of an Act that gives protection to unauthorized constructions and which is to expire by the end of this month. Consideration and passing of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, pending since 2008 in the Rajya Sabha  has been held up on account of the prevailing stalemate in the House.                 Details of Bills passed during the first four weeks of winter session are as below: S.No Bill Lok Sabha Rajya Sabha 1. The Companies(Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed - 2. The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Amendment Bill, 2014 Passed - 3. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed - 4. Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Bill, 2014 Passed  - 5. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Bill, 2014 Passed - 6. The Payment and Settlement Systems (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed - 7. The Repealing and Amending (Second) Bill, 2014 Passed - 8. The Appropriation (No.4) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 9. The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 10. The Labour Laws (Exemption from furnishing returns and maintaining registers by certain establishments) Amendment Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 11. The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 12. The Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 13. The Merchant Shipping (Second Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 14. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 15. The School of Planning and Architecture Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 16. The Central Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 17. The Indian Institutes of Information Technology Bill, 2014 Passed Passed 18. The Apprentices (Amendment) Bill, 2014 Passed during last Budget session Passed during current Winter session                 Six Bills withdrawn by the Government from the Rajya Sabha include: The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011, The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008, The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Bill, 2000, The Delhi Hotels (Control of Accommodation) Repeal Bill, 2014, The Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2014 and The Anti-Hijacking (Amendment) Bill, 2014.                 Introduction of the 122nd Constitution Amendment Bill, 2014 in the Lok Sabha seeking to introduce Goods and Services Tax (GST) with the aim of ‘One Nation, One Market, One Tax’, described by the Government as the most far reaching tax reform since Independence, passing of two labour reform laws by both the Houses, passing of The Companies(Amendment) Bill, 2014 that seeks to enhance the ease of doing business by the Lok Sabha and introduction in Lok Sabha of The Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2014 that seeks to infuse competition among power suppliers have been some of the high points of the Winter Session so far.