Introduction
Whenever a Job notification is out the first thing we do is go to the salary section and check what is the remuneration for that particular job. In order to apply for that particular job and later put all the effort and hard-work to get selected, is a long and tiring process. If our efforts are not compensated satisfactorily, we might not really like to get into the long time consuming process.
When we go through the salary section we often see words like Pay Scale, Grade Pay, or even level one or two salary and it is common to get confused between these jargons and to know the perfect amount of salary that we are going to receive.
To understand what pay scale, grade pay, various numbers of levels and other technical terms, we first need to know what pay commission is and how it functions.
Pay Commission
The Constitution of India under Article 309 empowers the Parliament and State Government to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State.
The Pay Commission was established by the Indian government to make recommendations regarding the compensation of central government employees. Since India gained its independence, seven pay commissions have been established to examine and suggest changes to the pay structures of all civil and military employees of the Indian government.
The main objective of these various Pay Commissions was to improve the pay structure of its employees so that they can attract better talent to public service. In this 21st century, the global economy has undergone a vast change and it has seriously impacted the living conditions of the salaried class. The economic value of the salaries paid to them earlier has diminished. The economy has become more and more consumerized. Therefore, to keep the salary structure of the employees viable, it has become necessary to improve the pay structure of their employees so that better, more competent and talented people could be attracted to governance.
In this background, the Seventh Central Pay Commission was constituted and the government framed certain Terms of Reference for this Commission. The salient features of the terms are to examine and review the existing pay structure and to recommend changes in the pay, allowances and other facilities as are desirable and feasible for civil employees as well as for the Defence Forces, having due regard to the historical and traditional parities.
The Ministry of finance vide notification dated 25th July 2016 issued rules for 7th pay commission. The rules include a Schedule which shows categorically what payment has to be made to different positions. The said schedule is called 7th pay matrix
For the reference the table(7th pay matrix) is attached below.
Pay Band & Grade Pay
According to the table given above the first column shows the Pay band.
Pay Band is a pay scale according to the pay grades. It is a part of the salary process as it is used to rank different jobs by education, responsibility, location, and other multiple factors. The pay band structure is based on multiple factors and assigned pay grades should correlate with the salary range for the position with a minimum and maximum. Pay Band is used to define the compensation range for certain job profiles.
Here, Pay band is a part of an organized salary compensation plan, program or system. The Central and State Government has defined jobs, pay bands are used to distinguish the level of compensation given to certain ranges of jobs to have fewer levels of pay, alternative career tracks other than management, and barriers to hierarchy to motivate unconventional career moves. For example, entry-level positions might include security guard or karkoon. Those jobs and those of similar levels of responsibility might all be included in a named or numbered pay band that prescribed a range of pay.
The detailed calculation process of salary according to the pay matrix table is given under Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016.
As per Rule 7A(i), the pay in the applicable Level in the Pay Matrix shall be the pay obtained by multiplying the existing basic pay by a factor of 2.57, rounded off to the nearest rupee and the figure so arrived at will be located in that Level in the Pay Matrix and if such an identical figure corresponds to any Cell in the applicable Level of the Pay Matrix, the same shall be the pay, and if no such Cell is available in the applicable Level, the pay shall be fixed at the immediate next higher Cell in that applicable Level of the Pay Matrix.
The detailed table as mentioned in the Rules showing the calculation:
For example if your pay in Pay Band is 5200 (initial pay in pay band) and Grade Pay of 1800 then 5200+1800= 7000, now the said amount of 7000 would be multiplied to 2.57 as mentioned in the Rules. 7000 x 2.57= 17,990 so as per the rules the nearest amount the figure shall be fixed as pay level. Which in this case would be 18000/-.
The basic pay would increase as your experience at that job would increase as specified in vertical cells. For example if you continue to serve in the Basic Pay of 18000/- for 4 years then your basic pay would be 19700/- as mentioned in the table.
Dearness Allowance
However, the basic pay mentioned in the table is not the only amount of remuneration an employee receives. There are catena of benefits and further additions in the salary such as dearness allowance, HRA, TADA.
According to the Notification No. 1/1/2023-E.II(B) from the Ministry of Finance and Department of Expenditure, the Dearness Allowance payable to Central Government employees was enhanced from rate of 38% to 42% of Basic pay with effect from 1st January 2023.
Here, DA would be calculated on the basic salary. For example if your basic salary is of 18,000/- then 42% DA would be of 7,560/-
House Rent Allowance
Apart from that the HRA (House Rent Allowance) is also provided to employees according to their place of duties. Currently cities are classified into three categories as ‘X’ ‘Y’ ‘Z’ on the basis of the population.
According to the Compendium released by the Ministry of Finance and Department of Expenditure in Notification No. 2/4/2022-E.II B, the classification of cities and rates of HRA as per 7th CPC was introduced.
See the table for reference
However, after enhancement of DA from 38% to 42% the HRA would be revised to 27%, 18%, and 9% respectively.
As above calculated the DA on Basic Salary, in the same manner HRA would also be calculated on the Basic Salary. Now considering that the duty of an employee’s Job is at ‘X’ category of city then HRA will be calculated at 27% of basic salary.
Here, continuing with the same example of calculation with a basic salary of 18000/-, the amount of HRA would be 4,840/-
Transport Allowance
After calculation of DA and HRA, Central government employees are also provided with Transport Allowance (TA). After the 7th CPC the revised rates of Transport Allowance were released by the Ministry of Finance and Department of Expenditure in the Notification No. 21/5/2017-EII(B) wherein, a table giving detailed rates were produced.
The same table is reproduced hereinafter.
As mentioned above in the table, all the employees are given Transport Allowance according to their pay level and place of their duties. The list of annexed cities are given in the same Notification No. 21/5/2017-EII(B).
Again, continuing with the same example of calculation with a Basic Salary of 18000/- and assuming place of duty at the city mentioned in the annexure, the rate of Transport Allowance would be 1350/-
Apart from that, DA on TA is also provided as per the ongoing rate of DA. For example, if TA is 1350/- and rate of current DA on basic Salary is 42% then 42% of TA would be added to the calculation of gross salary. Here, DA on TA would be 567/-.
Calculation of Gross Salary
After calculating all the above benefits the Gross Salary is calculated.
Here, after calculating Basic Salary+DA+HRA+TA the gross salary would be 32,317/-
However, the Gross Salary is subject to few deductions such as NPS, Professional Tax, Medical as subject to the rules and directions by the Central Government. After the deductions from the Gross Salary an employee gets the Net Salary on hand.
However, it is pertinent to note that benefits such as HRA and TA are not absolute, these allowances are only admissible if an employee is not provided with a residence by the Central Government or facility of government transport.
Conclusion
Government service is not a contract. It is a status. The employees expect fair treatment from the government. The States should play a role model for the services. The Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another vs. State of Assam and others (reported in 2013(2)Sec 516) has observed as follows:
“………It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and that a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretized. We say no more.”
The consideration while framing Rules and Laws on payment of wages, it should be ensured that employees do not suffer economic hardship so that they can deliver and render the best possible service to the country and make the governance vibrant and effective.
Written by Husain Trivedi Advocate
Market Integrity Under PFUTP Regulations: Understanding the Expanding Scope Beyond Manipulation
An Analysis of How India’s PFUTP Regulations Protect More Than Just Prices, Focusing on Overall Market Fairness, Transparency, and Investor Confidence
Author: Aaditya Bhatt Advocate
Introduction: Market Integrity – The Cornerstone of India’s Securities Market
A robust and trustworthy securities market is vital for economic growth. Its foundation rests firmly on the principle of market integrity. This crucial concept goes beyond merely preventing illegal price fixing; it embodies fairness, transparency, the efficient discovery of prices, and, most importantly, the unwavering confidence of investors. In India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is mandated to protect this integrity, primarily through regulations framed under the SEBI Act, 1992 [1]. Among the most significant tools in SEBI’s arsenal are the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations) [2]. While designed to combat clear-cut fraud and manipulation, the application and judicial interpretation of these regulations have evolved. There is a growing recognition that their scope extends further, safeguarding the overall health, fairness, and trustworthiness of the market ecosystem itself. This article explores this expanding definition of market integrity under the PFUTP Regulations and how it impacts market participants.
The PFUTP Regulations: A Framework Against Market Abuse
Enacted under the powers granted by the SEBI Act, 1992, the PFUTP Regulations aim to create a level playing field by prohibiting a wide array of detrimental activities. Their core objective is to outlaw practices that are:
- Fraudulent: Involving deceit, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts.
- Manipulative: Artificially affecting market prices or volumes.
- Unfair: Actions that harm investor interests or disrupt market equilibrium, even if not strictly fraudulent or manipulative.
Specifically, the regulations target practices such as [2]:
- Deliberate market manipulation and price rigging.
- Making fraudulent recommendations or inducing trading based on false information.
- Illegally disseminating false or misleading news.
- Front running: Trading based on advance knowledge of large client orders.
- Circular trading and wash trades: Creating artificial volume without genuine change in ownership.
By casting a wide net over “any act, omission, or scheme” that is deceptive or unfair in connection with securities dealing, the PFUTP Regulations provide a flexible framework to maintain a clean market.
Expanding the Horizon: Market Integrity Beyond Price Manipulation
Historically, market abuse investigations often centered on proving a direct intent and effect on security prices. However, the understanding of market integrity is broadening. Practices that might not directly manipulate the price can still severely damage the market’s perceived fairness and reliability, thus falling foul of the PFUTP Regulations.
The Rakhi Trading Turning Point
A pivotal moment in this evolution came with the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in SEBI v. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2018) [3]. The Court explicitly stated that SEBI’s role extends to maintaining overall market integrity, not just preventing price manipulation.
Key takeaways from this judgment include:
- Focus on Genuineness: The Court scrutinized synchronized trades where beneficial ownership did not genuinely change hands. It held that such non-genuine trades, which create a false appearance of market activity, are detrimental to market integrity.
- Broader Regulatory Role: It affirmed SEBI’s authority to penalize activities that undermine the market’s trustworthiness, even if proving a specific intent to manipulate the price is complex.
- Impact on Perception: Artificial inflation of trading volumes through wash trades or circular trading can mislead investors about a stock’s liquidity or interest, distorting the fair price discovery mechanism, even if the price itself doesn’t move significantly due to these trades alone. This distortion damages market integrity.
This ruling signaled a significant shift, emphasizing that the nature and genuineness of transactions are critical components of market integrity under the PFUTP framework.
Judicial Reinforcement: Defining the Boundaries of Market Integrity
Several other judicial pronouncements have reinforced this broader interpretation of Market Integrity Under PFUTP Regulations:
- Intent vs. Impact (SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel, 2017) [4]: The Supreme Court clarified that a specific intent to defraud isn’t always necessary for a PFUTP violation. Even actions amounting to negligence (like misrepresentation) that distort the market can breach the regulations. This highlights a focus on the impact on the market integrity and investor protection.
- Synchronized Trades (Ketan Parekh v. SEBI, 2006) [5]: The Bombay High Court recognized practices like synchronized and circular trading as inherently detrimental to market integrity and upheld SEBI’s power to penalize them, reinforcing that artificial activity itself is harmful.
- Front-Running Scope (Dolat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI, SAT Appeal No. 11/2017) [6]: The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) affirmed that even indirect benefits or motives could bring front-running trades under scrutiny. This emphasizes preventing any unfair advantage derived from privileged information, which inherently compromises market fairness and integrity.
- Gatekeeper Responsibility (Price Waterhouse & Co. v. SEBI, SAT Decision 2010, related to Satyam Scam)[7]: The Satyam Computers scandal case extended the reach of PFUTP. Although the final outcome regarding the specific penalties on the auditors evolved through appeals, the initial proceedings demonstrated that facilitators of fraud (like auditors involved in false disclosures) could be held accountable under PFUTP, showcasing the broad responsibility for maintaining market integrity across different participants.
- Reversal Trades (Sunita Agarwal v. SEBI, SAT Appeal No. 640 of 2022) [8]: SAT observed that reversal trades (pairs of buy and sell orders between connected parties, often resulting in minimal net change) can constitute manipulation or unfair trade practices. Such trades, especially when premeditated and synchronized, undermine ethical standards and good faith dealings, impacting market integrity.
These judgments collectively illustrate a consistent judicial trend: PFUTP regulations are interpreted not just to punish direct price manipulation but to prohibit any practice that erodes investor confidence, creates artificial market conditions, distorts genuine price discovery, or confers unfair advantages, thereby safeguarding the holistic integrity of the market.
Adapting to Modern Challenges: SEBI’s Evolving Vigilance
The financial markets are constantly evolving, driven by technology and new communication methods. SEBI is continuously adapting its approach to protect market integrity against emerging threats:
- Technological Surveillance: SEBI heavily invests in and utilizes Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced data analytics to monitor trading activity, detect complex manipulative patterns, and identify suspicious connections that might indicate PFUTP violations [9].
- Social Media Scrutiny: The rise of “finfluencers” and the rapid spread of information (and misinformation) via social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, and X (formerly Twitter) present new challenges. SEBI is increasingly vigilant about stock recommendations, rumors, and coordinated actions on these platforms that could manipulate prices or unfairly influence investors [10].
- Intermediary Accountability: There is a greater focus on the role and responsibility of market intermediaries (brokers, analysts, investment advisors) in upholding market integrity and ensuring they do not facilitate or engage in unfair trade practices.
- Proactive Regulatory Thinking (USTA Concept): Although not yet implemented as formal regulations, SEBI’s past exploration of frameworks like the Prohibition of Unexplained Suspicious Trading Activities (USTA) [11] signals its intent. Such concepts aim to address situations where suspicious trading coincides with access to sensitive information, potentially shifting the onus and making it easier to tackle insider trading or front-running where direct evidence is obscured, further prioritizing market integrity.
Conclusion: A Dynamic Commitment to Fair and Transparent Markets
The SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003, are far more than a simple anti-manipulation rulebook. Through ongoing regulatory refinement by SEBI and interpretive guidance from the judiciary, their scope has clearly expanded to protect the broader concept of market integrity under PFUTP regulations. The focus has shifted towards ensuring overall market fairness, transparency, and the prevention of any practice that could mislead investors or undermine confidence, even if direct price manipulation isn’t the sole or primary outcome.
SEBI’s proactive surveillance and enforcement actions, coupled with judicial emphasis on the genuineness of transactions and the prevention of unfair advantages, underscore this commitment. For investors, intermediaries, and listed companies alike, understanding this holistic view of market integrity is crucial. As the Indian securities market continues its dynamic evolution, the PFUTP Regulations will remain a vital instrument in fostering an environment built on trust, fairness, and enduring investor confidence.
Sources and Citations:
- The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Available on the SEBI website: SEBI Act, 1992 (Refer to official SEBI publications for the standalone Act).
- The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 – Available on the SEBI website: PFUTP Regulations, 2003 (Always check for the latest version).
- SEBI v. Rakhi Trading (P) Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India. Full text and analyses available on legal databases like SCC Online, Manupatra, etc.
- SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel, (2017) 15 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India. Available on legal databases.
- Ketan Parekh v. SEBI, (2006) SCC Online Bom 513 – Bombay High Court. Available on legal databases.
- Dolat Capital Market Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI – Appeal No. 11/2017, Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Order dated 09.03.2018. Available on the SAT website: SAT Orders.
- Price Waterhouse & Co. v. SEBI – Appeal No. 8 of 2010, SAT Order dated 05.10.2010 (related to the Satyam case). Available on the SAT website.
- Sunita Agarwal v. SEBI – Appeal No. 640 of 2022, SAT Order dated 16.12.2022. Available on the SAT website.
- These often detail enhancements in surveillance and IT capabilities. Available at: SEBI Annual Reports.
- SEBI’s Warnings and Actions on Social Media Manipulation – SEBI has issued warnings and taken action related to social media misuse. Search SEBI press releases and news archives for terms such as “SEBI social media manipulation” or “SEBI finfluencers”.
- Discussions and proposals regarding USTA or similar concepts appeared in financial media and potentially SEBI consultation papers around 2018-2019. Check SEBI’s archives for specific documents if needed. This reflects regulatory thinking, even if not enacted as distinct regulations.
European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)
Introduction
EU deforestation regulation is an innovative law — based in the Regulation, effects on environment and the crises it generates all around the globe (mostly in countries with deep deforestation problems) EUDR will focus on supply chains, trade practices and other practices that drive loss and degradation of forests, in order to decrease the ecological footprint of the EU as well contributing towards more sustainable practices in trade. The ambitious regulation will have profound and far-reaching impacts on environmental protection, while also touching upon other important dimensions of international trade, namely its legal, economic, and political aspects. The article discusses the origin and development of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), discusses its regulatory framework, the legal impact thereof in international trade, as well as implementing law and case law, as well as decisions that have a bearing on the interpretation and application of the law.
The Genesis and Evolution of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)
Confronting the EU’s acknowledgment to the known fact that is major consumer of commodities which produce global deforestation as an established global threat, EUDR was recommended by some as a game changer for the problem being addressed: a lot of contextually demanding global deforestation rates have shown to remain extremely high in a few decades across most all forests and woods ever since the conditions we have been seeing post stand-slow response. And some of the lowest hanging commodities from Deforestation are in line for palm oil, soy, beef timber and coffee they have been perennial offenders of deforestation for years driven in part by unchecked and increasing demand around the world for agricultural commodities.
The impact of these activities is equally catastrophic — with loss in biodiversity and rapid acceleration of climate change from additional carbon emission.
Apart from the EUDR, upon the introduction the EUTR, EU Timber Regulation and FLEGT action plan had been put forward with sustainable forestry promotion on one side and import of illegally harvested timber into EU decreased another. Both of these instruments though are flawed and misdirected – EUTR being timber- and timber-product-oriented, there were huge lacunae in dealing with deforestation driven by other commodities.
For the EUDR adoption there was a turning point as starting with 2023 many of commodities and their derivatives were subject to regulation framework, enforcing mechanism were also introduced (further with more legs to stand on than ever before).
The EUDR is rooted in the EU’s commitment to international environmental goals, including the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is also aligned with the European Green Deal, which outlines a comprehensive strategy for the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. By addressing deforestation and forest degradation within its supply chains, the EUDR exemplifies the EU’s dedication to sustainable development and climate action.
Fundamental Provisions of EUDR
The European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) greatly imposes on operators and traders placing certain commodities on EU market, these commodities include cattle (and derived products like beef and leather), cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soya and timber but also numerous financials of all sort. Operators are expected to implement steps so these products are “deforestation-free”: meaning that after 31 December 2020 their production did not lead to deforestation or forest degradation. This provision also mandates that products are in conformity with the laws of the producing country.
At the heart of EUDR lies the duty of operators to conduct due diligence to show compliance These elements show how a due diligence system works:
Assuming that commodities are traceable to an operator, operators need to set up processes to trace those commodities down to their geographic origin. Traceability is key to allow for assessment of deforestation in production areas. Perform risk assessment to determine what links may exist to deforestation This provision prohibits operators from placing products on the EU market where the risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated to make them (at an economically reasonable cost) Almost negligible Where compliance cannot be demonstrated, the entities shall send detailed declarations with procedural checks and verifications by competent authorities. This regulation also provides for heavy fines when compliance is breached. The sanctions vary from monetary fines to seizure of goods and bans for placing into the EU market. In introducing these provisions under the EUDR, the objective is to remove products associated with deforestation from EU supply chains and therefore diminish the EU contribution to world deforestation.
Regulatory Framework Governing the EUDR
Regulatory Framework that Governs European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is quite complex. It is nestled within the larger legal framework of European Union. This framework includes important legal instruments and principles.
Like the Treaty on Functioning of European Union. Known by its acronym TFEU, this treaty is cornerstone of EU. It underpins the EU’s environmental and trade policies. Article 191 of TFEU underscores the commitment of EU. It is a commitment to environmental protection sustainable development and climate change combat.
Article 207 of TFEU is another crucial document. It lays down the legal foundation for EU’s common commercial policy. This policy allows EU to regulate trade practices. The practices are in alignment with environmental objectives.
EU Customs Code plays a vital role. It enforces the provisions of the EUDR. Customs authorities are of crucial importance. They play a pivotal role in identifying non-compliant goods. They intercept them at EU’s borders. This ensures that only deforestation-free products make their way to single market.
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) intersects with EUDR. This intersection happens in context of supplier and geographic data handling. The need for a robust traceability system under EUDR is significant. It necessitates the collection and processing of sensitive information. The information must comply with GDPR requirements.
Alignment of EUDR with international treaties holds value. This involves United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Also World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements come under this. This alignment emphasizes the role of EUDR. It advances global sustainability. Regulation is meant to balance environmental objectives. It uses principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. These principles come under international trade law.
Judicial Perspectives and Case Laws
The roll-out of EUDR and antecedents has led to some prominent legal disputes. These cases are given credit for shaping interpretation and enforcement. These mark significant moment. Specifically where environmental law intersects with global commerce. It is a legal crossroads. A relevant example is a legal clash. It is European Commission v. Poland (C-441/17). The focus: Poland’s mass tree felling in Białowieża Forest. This site has UNESCO World Heritage status. European Union’s Court of Justice or CJEU made conclusion. This conclusion was that Poland violated environmental laws. These laws are part of the EU. Importantly, it was a reminder of biodiversity conservation value.
This legal case upheld an important ruling. It established the EU’s sway in imposing strict environmental guidelines. That is an aspect of European Union Data Regulation (EUDR). This case highlighted importance of being vigilant about biodiversity. It brought clarity to the need for strict environmental conservation measures.
It points to a crossroads. The crossroads. Those being environmental law and international trade. Significant legal battle is European Commission v. Poland (C-441/17). The case features Poland’s extensive logging in Białowieża Forest. This forest is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) made a ruling. Poland’s actions were found in violation of EU environmental laws. Case emphasized importance of biodiversity preservation. It also bolstered EU’s power to uphold firm environmental standards. This principle is evident in EUDR.
In PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG (C-379/98) CJEU upheld principle. The principle is that environmental protection can justify trade restrictions under certain conditions. The case mainly dealt with renewable energy. However reasoning has been put on EUDR’s trade implications. This is true particularly in balancing environmental objectives with free trade principles.
A challenge from Indonesia to EU restrictions on palm oil imports before WTO. It highlights complexities of trade and environmental goals. The WTO panel’s findings emphasized quite a few things. One of them is that environmental measures need to be non-discriminatory and proportionate. These principles are deeply embedded in EUDR’s design. The idea is to minimize trade disputes. This design is also meant to help in achieving its objectives.
Trade Implications of the EUDR
EUDR greatly affects international trade. The effect is deep. The regulation shapes global supply chains. It adjusts market dynamics. Exporters from outside the EU face major obstacles. They struggle to comply with the regulation. This is especially hard in areas with limited regulatory infrastructure.
Countries such as Brazil Indonesia and Malaysia are vital suppliers. They provide commodities linked to deforestation. The countries need to invest in sustainable practices. They also need traceability systems. This is all to keep EU market access.
Meeting the EUDR requirements is costly. Companies have to make big investments. They need technology. They need certification. They also need monitoring. The costs hit small and medium-sized enterprises hardest. They may not have resources. They may not be able to create due diligence systems.
This situation may lead to market consolidation. Larger entities can stay compliant easier. They have more financial capacity. The EUDR could make it easier for them to dominate the market.
The EUDR may redirect trade flows. Non-compliant producers look for alternative markets. Those markets have less strict regulations. This diversion of trade could worsen deforestation. It can happen in areas not under EU regulation. This situation weakens the regulation’s global impact.
Responses from Affected Countries
Nations impacted by the EUDR have adopted diverse strategies. These strategies aim to deal with implications. Few have elevated sustainability structures. These are in line with demands of the regulation. Indonesia and Malaysia are among them. They’ve improved national certification strategies. The examples include Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) and Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) standards.
On the other hand some have joined diplomatic endeavors. They have also initiated trade discussions with the EU. They did this to deal with concerns about EUDR’s impact. Discussions often focus on boosting capacity measures. Another focus is on providing technical help to back compliance.
In certain cases, countries that are affected have initiated legal disputes. They used international dispute resolution mechanisms. Indonesia’s challenge at WTO to EU’s palm oil restrictions shows potential of trade disputes. The disputes are often due to environmental regulations. These challenges emphasize the importance of transparent and fair mechanisms. These mechanisms can assist in addressing conflicts.Conflicts exist between trade and environmental aims. This poses a critical challenge. Complex issues arise. They need resolution. Different interests conflict. These are often difficult to reconcile. The matter is not easily solvable. There is an urgency however. A need to address these pressing matters on an international level. This calls for holistic approaches. Balancing trade and environmental concerns is essential. In context of the global economy, this is vital. The importance of environmental sustainability cannot be understated. Yet economic growth is also a key aim. This shows the conflicts that exist. Between trade and environment. Finding a balance requires nuanced strategies. Ones that take into account different perspectives. Environmentally sustainable practices can lead to trade barriers for some. Economically productive practices can harm the environment. This results in an intricate web of cause and effect. One where no easy solution presents itself.
Striking this balance is a vital issue. It is at the heart of trade-environmental conflicts. It requires a far-sighted approach. One that does not sacrifice long-term environmental health for economic gains. Nor does it sacrifice economic growth for immediate environmental gains. Striking the right balance here is crucial. It ensures a harmonious coexistence between trade and the environment.
Conclusion
European Union Deforestation Regulation is a daring step. It brings environmental sustainability into global trade norms. This is notable challenge for international trade. Significant investments are needed in compliance and capacity-building. The regulation though offers prospects. It can galvanize innovation and back sustainable development. A global standard for handling deforestation can be set by it. Encouragement of collaboration is the aim of EUDR. It seeks to find a balance between trade and environmental goals. This regulation can perhaps be a model.
India’s National Water Awards: Legal Framework for Implementation
Introduction
Water is an extremely important resource that the base for life and indispensable for human living, economic, and environmental sustainability. Water management turns out to be of paramount significance in a country such as India, where varied geographical and climatic conditions result in an inequitable distribution of water resources. Realizing this, the Government of India has implemented the National Water Awards (NWAs) to promote and reward outstanding efforts in the field of water conservation, water use efficiency, and sustainable water management. These awards are intended to promote public awareness and participation, and thus to encourage and reward innovative approaches to water resources management.
It is no understatement of how central water can be, as an asset. Although it houses 18% of the global population, it has easy access to only 4% of the global freshwater stock, so sustainable water management is a priority. The evolution of National Water Awards is in this line, aimed towards the conservation and shortage of potable water, disseminating best practices among states and above all, collaborative action among stakeholders to improve the resource. This paper will devote itself to examining in detail the legal framework which has been established to implement the National Water Awards, including regulations, policies, and case law underpinning this effort.
The Genesis and Objectives of the National Water Awards
National Water Awards were launched by the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India in 2018. These awards provide a venue for acknowledging and celebrating individuals and organizations or communities outstanding efforts towards water saving and management. They are the manifestation of the government’s intent to tackle the water scarcity problems and to promote sustainable water use all over the country. The main goals of NWAs are construction of a culture of water conservation, implementation of efficient water use, and introduction of innovative practices.
The awards aim to respond to the needs and challenges at the societal levels involved. Categories are Best State, Best District, Best Village Panchayat, Best Urban Local Body, Best Industry, and so on. This broad category provides a holistic perspective on mitigating water-related problems and promote actions within a mix of sectors. The awards are to induce competition and collaboration among stakeholders, in the process maximizing the efficacy of water management strategies throughout the country.
Legal Framework Supporting the National Water Awards
Implementation of the National Water Awards rests on a complex array of legislation, policy and regulation governing water management in India. The legal and regulatory regimes not only support the awards, but provide the basis for aligning their scope with national priorities.
Water is a state subject, under Entry 17 of the State List in Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. However, this burden of water management falls on the state governments. The legislature can make laws under Entry 56 of the Union List in respect of inter-state rivers and river valleys. Because of this dual governance model, not only state or national government but also ministries (or similar) have [roles] in water conservation and management.
The National Water Policy (NWP) is also a key tool that aids the achievement of the National Water Awards objectives. Developed for the first time in 1987 and refined in 2002 and 2012, the NWP is a general plan for water resource management across the country. It emphasizes the need for integrated water resource management, equitable distribution, and sustainability. The tenets contained in the NWP are consistent with the goals of the NWAs as both encourage innovation, public involvement, and sustainability in water management.
The Environment Protection Act, 1986, is the apex legislation that allows the central government to adopt policy measures in case of environment protection and even in water resource management. This Act is of particular importance to projects such as the NWAs because it offers a legal fiction for water body conservation, pollution control, and sustainable practices. Likewise, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 provides the framework for preventing and controlling water pollution. Through provisions for the provision of clean water, this Act serves to directly help NWAs achieve their objectives.
Groundwater management is yet another important issue, which is within the scope of the objectives of NWAs. In the course of years, several states have passed legislation to control the extraction and use of ground water. The Model Groundwater (Sustainable Management) Bill, 2017, offers a structure for sustainable groundwater management, putting forward a retaining, equitable management approach approach. In this regard, these regulations are especially important, as groundwater is highly consumed in India for agricultural, industrial and domestic uses.
India’s adoption of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially Clean Water Sanitation (SDG 6), offers an international platform which enhances the targets of the NWAs. By aligning national initiatives with global sustainability goals, the NWAs underscore the importance of integrated and collaborative approaches to water management.
Regulation and Implementation of the National Water Awards
This arrangement of dual governance guarantees that the state and central authorities are responsible for water conservation and management.
Ministry of Jal Shakti is the coordinating body for carrying out National Water Awards.The process consists of several steps, such as the request for applications, the processing of applications, and the selection of winners in an open and fair way using clear, objective criteria. Theses mechanisms provide the guarantee of the admissibility and quality of awards.
Eligibility criteria for the awards are wide and may include people, organisations or government bodies from any sector. This interdisciplinarity allows the promotion of the diverse range of perspectives and innovative solutions. Criteria for evaluation are set forth, which include innovation, effect, scalability and Community participation. Expert and editorial members of Independent Committees are convened to evaluate the submissions. Since each of the three categories of claim, field visit, interview and review of documentation, is performed for the verify the narrative developed by an applicant, there is transparency and a sense of authenticity to the selection process.
Recognition and rewards are the most important reasons for the success of National Water Awards. Prizes are awarded to winners, whose certificates and cash fees are a means of citation and encouragement. These incentives lead others to imitate the same approach, propagating a chain reaction of improving the country. Praising the good practices and examples, the awards motivate people and communities to act in an anticipatory way to achieve water conservation and management.
Case Laws and Judicial Pronouncements
The legal regime for water conservation management in India has been drawn up by various landmark judicial pronouncements. These judicial pronouncements are solid base for schemes such as National Water Awards, which (1) emphasizes water as a public good and (2) stresses water as a fundamental right.
In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1988), the apex court underlined the importance of water resource management. The Court made it clear that access to clean water is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life. This decision highlights the value of programmes such as the NWAs that help with water saving efforts as well as fair access.
The case Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) opened up the question of the necessity to integrate development and environment sustainability. The Supreme Court’s observations about equitable water allocation and on good stewardship have a valuable overlap with the purposes of the NWAs, as they seek to promote innovative, sustainable approaches in water management.
In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court also held that the right to clean water is a fundamental part of the right to life. This decision introduces a legal justification for actions to ensure water quality and supply, thereby achieving the objectives of the NWAs.
The Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. v. Anuj Joshi (2014) case highlighted the need of ecological balance to be maintained while executing water projects. Mitigations noted by the Court are consistent with the sustainability and environmental conservation issues of the NWAs.
Challenges and the Way Forward
Although the great contribution of the National Water Awards is considerable, their implementation is burdened by a few challenges. A major problem is the lack of awareness of some social groups. Although attempts have been made to gain publicity for the awards,there is still much to be done in order to advance them to levels that can penetrate to the “grassroots community. For achieving wider participation, improved outreach and communication efforts are of primary importance.
Coordination among stakeholders is another critical challenge. Effective water management requires partnership of various organizations, such as government agencies, NGOs and the private sector. Improved inter-agency coordination and partnerships can further improve the broader impact of NWAs.
Policy integration is another area that requires attention. Although NWAs are in line with national policies and global ambitions, they can better serve by combining their scope with current water management schemes. A unified approach that combines policy, practice, and public participation is crucial for achieving sustainable outcomes.
Monitoring and evaluation are all the more important to be able to make a quantification of the impact of the received projects. Through identifying the best practices and the points of improvements, it is possible to use these mechanisms for refining the awards and guarantee their sustainability. Moreover, recording and sharing success stories has the potential to encourage others to embrace new and environmentally sustainable approaches.
Conclusion
The National Water Awards are a major stride [step] towards the solution of the issues of water in India by giving recognition, incentives, and publicity to sustainable water management practices. Their implementation is facilitated by a strong legal ecosystem comprising constitutional provisions, policies and regulations. Other landmark judicial pronouncements also emphasize the need for and the potential of caring for and managing water, and give a firm basis for actions such as the NWAs.
Challenges regarding awareness, coordination and policy harmonization have to be overcome to fully capitalize on their promise. By fostering an innovative, participatory, and sustainable environment, the National Water Awards can potentially play a valuable role in ensuring equitable and sustainable water resource management in India’s limited water resources. Until India times are now confounded by shortages of water and hence the associated issues, NWAs function as a beacon at the end of the tunnel, inspiring individuals and communities to aim for a safe, sustainable water-future.
Second FIRs for Different Offences Under Different Acts: The Applicability of T.T. Antony Judgment:
Introduction
The T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala judgment established the fundamental principle that a second FIR regarding the same incident is generally impermissible. However, jurisprudential evolution has carved out significant exceptions where second FIRs for different offences connected to the same incident may be maintainable. This report examines these exceptions through recent judicial interpretations.
The T.T. Antony Principle: General Prohibition Against Second FIRs
The Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) established that there cannot generally be a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offense or incident. The Court emphasized that permitting multiple FIRs on the same incident would subject citizens to harassment and potentially violate fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The baseline principle from T.T. Antony states:
“There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate… However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences.”
Evolving Jurisprudence: Exceptions to the T.T. Antony Rule
Recent judicial developments have clarified that the T.T. Antony prohibition is not absolute. The Supreme Court has identified specific scenarios where second FIRs may be maintainable despite being connected to the same incident.
Exceptions Permitting Second FIRs
In a recent judgment dated February 19, 2025, the Supreme Court consolidated the jurisprudence on this issue, identifying five principal scenarios where a second FIR may be permissible:
- Counter-complaints presenting rival versions: When the second FIR presents an alternative version of the same set of facts.
- Different ambit despite same circumstances: When “the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances”.
- Discovery of larger conspiracy: When investigation reveals the facts in the earlier FIR to be part of a broader conspiracy.
- Previously unknown facts emerge: When investigation or persons related to the incident bring to light previously unknown facts or circumstances.
- Separate incident or different offences: Where the incident is separate, or offences are similar or different.
Second FIRs for Different Offences Under Different Acts
The exception most relevant to our query is when a second FIR involves a different offence under a different act, despite being connected to the same incident. This position finds strong judicial support.
The Nirmal Singh Kahlon Precedent
In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, the Court held:
“The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations… If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged.”
This establishes that when a different or distinct offense is discovered, particularly under a different legal framework, a second FIR becomes maintainable.
Clarification in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash
In Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, the Supreme Court further clarified the scope of T.T. Antony’s application:
“Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony’s case is to be accepted as holding a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint… such conclusion would lead to serious consequences… This cannot be the purport of the Code.”
The Court emphasized that T.T. Antony should not be interpreted to prevent legitimate complaints arising from the same incident but framed under different legal provisions.
Practical Application by Courts: Assessing the Validity of Second FIRs
When courts encounter second FIRs involving different offences under different acts, they typically apply a two-pronged test:
- Test of Legal Distinctness: Whether the offence in the second FIR is legally distinct from the one in the first FIR.
- Test of Factual Discovery: Whether new facts or circumstances have been discovered that justify a separate investigation under different legal provisions.
If both conditions are satisfied, courts generally uphold the maintainability of the second FIR despite the T.T. Antony principle.
Conclusion
While the T.T. Antony judgment established the general prohibition against second FIRs for the same incident, this principle is inapplicable when the second FIR involves a different offence under a different act. This exception recognizes the practical realities of criminal investigation, where initial complaints may not capture the full legal dimensions of complex incidents.
The evolving jurisprudence demonstrates the courts’ nuanced approach to balancing the protection of citizens against harassment through multiple investigations with the equally important public interest in ensuring that all aspects of criminal conduct are properly investigated and prosecuted under appropriate laws. When different offences under different acts emerge from the same incident, a second FIR is maintainable as a legitimate exception to the T.T. Antony rule.
Article by : Aditya bhatt
Associate: Bhatt and Joshi Associates
