Swiss banks agree to share account details

Heralding an end to its banking secrecy wall, Switzerland will now share bank account and other details with foreign countries, including India, even without prior intimation to concerned persons and on the basis of queries emanating from stolen data.

The move comes as a shot in the arm for foreign authorities, including from India, who have been trying hard for years to get information about suspected illicit funds parked in Swiss banks.

The Swiss Federal Council's detailed statement on sharing tax information comes a day after the country inked the OECD's Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters.

The signing of the pact allows for automatic exchange of information and mutual administrative assistance in tax matters with overseas authorities.

Known for its banking secrecy, Swiss government's proposal of deferred notification of taxpayers in "exceptional cases" would soon be discussed by (Swiss) Parliament.

Under the existing law, taxpayers had to be notified without exception before data concerning them was transmitted to the requesting state.

"Based on the results of the consultation procedure, the Federal Council has specified in its draft that deferred notification of taxpayers is possible only in exceptional cases," the Swiss government said.

Besides, the country which is putting forward the request would have to substantiate the same.

"The requesting state will also have to substantiate its request, e.g. by claiming the investigation would risk being compromised in the event of prior notification," it said.

Noting that group requests are already possible under the existing law, the Federal Council said that in order to improve efficiency, the revision provides for a notification procedure that is tailored to group requests.

As per the draft, which would be put up before the Parliament, Federal Council is given the power to determine the contents required for group requests and while doing so, international standards would also be taken into account.

The deferred notification clause would have to be incorporated by amending the Tax Administrative Assistance Act and the proposal was kept for public consultations. Consultations were conducted from August 14 to September 18, 2013.

In Switzerland, all matters related to legislation and changes in existing laws are made available for public comments before seeking Parliamentary nod.

"The proposal concerning the deferred notification of persons who are the subject of administrative assistance proceedings was received positively by the majority.

"Switzerland will thereby fulfil the applicable international standard. Under the existing law, taxpayers had to be notified without exception before data concerning them was transmitted to the requesting state," the Federal Council said in the statement.

Meanwhile, the Federal Council said the issue of administrative assistance requests based on stolen data met with strong opposition during the consultation.

"The Federal Council wished to break the deadlock whereby Switzerland is unable to respond to numerous requests due to a very restrictive practice in this area," it said.

According to the consultation draft, Switzerland could have responded to requests on the strict condition that the requesting state acquired the data lawfully and passively such as from another country.

Switzerland would have continued to refrain from responding to requests based on data acquired actively, the statement said.

"This easing would also have created more favourable conditions for Switzerland with regard to the Global Forum, which examines the efficiency of administrative assistance in practice during phase 2.

"However, those who participated in the consultation procedure rejected all changes of practice. Consequently, the Federal Council has decided not to include the planned provision," the statement said.

During the summit in September 2013, the G-20 members -- including India -- had again urged all jurisdictions to implement the Global Forum's recommendations without delay.

"This appeal was addressed particularly to those states which, like Switzerland, have not yet been admitted to the second phase of the peer review," the statement said.

The peer review of countries are done under the aegis of Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.

आधार कार्ड :

नई दिल्ली। तीन पेट्रोलियम कंपनियों ने आधार कार्ड मामले में उच्चतम न्यायालय का रुख किया है। पेट्रोलियम कंपनियों ने उच्चतम न्यायालय से आधार कार्ड मामले में उसके पहले के आदेश में सुधार करने का आग्रह किया है।

उच्चतम न्यायालय ने पहले जारी अपने आदेश में कहा है कि आधार कार्ड नहीं होने की वजह से किसी भी व्यक्ति को सरकारी योजनाओं का लाभ लेने से वंचित नहीं रखा जा सकता।

पेट्रोलियम पदार्थों का विपणन करने वाली सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र की आईओसीएल, बीपीसीएल और एचपीसीएल सोमवार को मुख्य न्यायाधीश पी. सदाशिवम और न्यायमूर्ति रंजन गोगोई की पीठ के समक्ष अविलंब सुनवाई के लिए अपना अनुरोध रखेंगी।

पीठ इससे पहले पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की इसी तरह की याचिका की सुनवाई की तारीख 8 अक्टूबर तय कर चुकी है।

सरकारी कंपनियों की वकील खुशबू जैन ने कहा कि अतिरिक्त सॉलिसीटर जनरल नागेश्वर राव पीठ के सामने अपना पक्ष रखेंगी। कंपनियों के अनुसार आधार कार्ड के बारे में न्यायालय के आदेश से उन लोगों के मन में गंभीर संदेह पैदा हो गया जिन्होंने एलपीजी सिलेंडर के लिए प्रत्यक्ष नकदी अंतरण (डीबीटीएल) पाने के लिए आधार कार्ड नंबर दर्ज कराया है।

सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र की कंपनियों ने कहा कि डीबीटीएल लागू किया जा चुका है और यह 54 जिलों में सफलता से काम कर रहा है। सब्सिडी की पुरानी प्रणाली बंद कर दी गई है। कंपनियां अन्य 235 जिलों में योजना लागू करने की प्रक्रिया में हैं।

इससे पहले उच्चतम न्यायालय ने मंत्रालय की याचिका पर 8 अक्टूबर को सुनवाई की सहमति दी। मंत्रालय ने डीबीटीएल योजना को जारी रखने के आदेश में परिवर्तन या स्पष्टीकरण की मांग की थी। फिलहाल डीबीटीएल योजना के तहत सिर्फ उसी व्यक्ति का फायदा मिल सकता है जिसके पास आधार कार्ड हो।

केंद्र ने शुक्रवार को उच्चतम न्यायालय का दरवाजा खटखटाते हुए आधार कार्ड पर पूर्व में दिए गए उस आदेश में बदलाव करने की मांग की है जिसमें शीर्ष अदालत ने कहा था कि आधार कार्ड अनिवार्य नहीं है और किसी भी व्यक्ति को इस आधार पर किसी सरकारी योजना से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता।

उच्चतम न्यायालय में प्रधान न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति पी. सदाशिवम की पीठ ने शुक्रवार को कहा कि केंद्र की याचिका पर 8 अक्टूबर को सुनवाई होगी।

केंद्र की ओर से उपस्थित होते हुए सॉलिसिटर जनरल मोहन पाराशरन ने कहा कि हम उस आदेश में बदलाव की मांग कर रहे हैं जिसमें कहा गया है कि आधार कार्ड अनिवार्य नहीं है। उन्होंने कहा कि यह आदेश कई कल्याण योजनाओं के मार्ग में आड़े आ सकता है।

इससे पहले, उच्चतम न्यायालय ने कहा था कि भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकार (यूआईडीएआई) द्वारा जारी आधार कार्ड किसी सरकारी सेवा को प्राप्त करने के लिए अनिवार्य नहीं है और किसी भी व्यक्ति को कार्ड नहीं होने के चलते ऐसी सुविधाओं से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने केंद्र से यह कार्ड अवैध प्रवासियों को जारी नहीं करने को कहा था, क्योंकि वे इसका इस्तेमाल अपने प्रवास को वैध बनाने के लिए कर सकते हैं। केंद्र ने अदालत को बताया था कि आधार कार्ड वैकल्पिक है और उसे नागरिकों के लिए अनिवार्य नहीं बनाया गया है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने कुछ राज्यों में वेतन, पीएफ, विवाह एवं संपत्ति पंजीकरण जैसे कार्यों के लिए आधार कार्ड को अनिवार्य बनाए जाने के निर्णय के खिलाफ कई याचिकाओं पर सुनवाई करते हुए यह आदेश दिया था।

याचिकाकर्ताओं की दलील है कि यह योजना संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 (समानता का अधिकार) और अनुच्छेद 21 (जीवन एवं स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार) जैसे मौलिक अधिकारों के खिलाफ है और सरकार हालांकि इसे स्वैच्छिक होने का दावा करती है, लेकिन ऐसा नहीं है।

(भाषा)

Campaign on electoral reforms

NEW DELHI: The apex court has called for the affidavit on October 9 when it has scheduled the next hearing of a public interest litigation filed by Public Interest Foundation (PIF) seeking directive of the highest court to the government on decriminalization of politics.

The apex court is also likely to give a ruling on whether charge-sheeted politicians should be debarred from contesting, one of the prayers in the PIL. As of now, only convicted leaders are not allowed to contest elections.

The October 9 hearing comes against the backdrop of three orders passed by the SC in quick succession where it acted as the catalyst for the much-delayed cleaning of the political process. In a judgment on July 10, the apex court ordered that convicted lawmakers should be disqualified from the membership of Parliament or state legislatures if the sentence is for two years or more.

On September 13, the apex court ruled that no one can contest election unless he/she has made full disclosure of his assets and criminal records in an affidavit before the Election Commission.

On September 28, the SC further directed the EC to give an option to voters to cast a negative vote, that is an option on the electronic voting machines: "none of the above".

Nripendra Misra, director of PIF, the non-governmental organisation behind the PIL, said his prayer before the SC seeking to debar charged politicians from contesting elections was in line with what the Justice JS Verma committee had recommended.

"The Election Commission has fully supported us on this issue," said Misra, former chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Misra is running a campaign on electoral reforms along with former Cabinet secretary Naresh Chandra and former RBI governor Bimal Jalan.

Law ministry officials refused to comment on the government's stand on politicians slapped with serious criminal charges. The government had earlier deferred a decision on all these issues when they were taken up by the EC by referring them to the Law Commission for a comprehensive report.

"The EC could be empowered to frame rules which would disqualify the candidates charged for serious offences to contest elections," Misra suggested. One of the prayers in his PIL being that the government should be asked to legislate on electoral reforms.

Congratulations, India.Cabinet withdraws ordinance on convicted lawmakers

NEW DELHI: The Union Cabinet on Wednesday decided to withdraw the controversial ordinance on convicted lawmakers.

Ahead of the Cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh talked to allies, informing them about the intent to withdraw the controversial ordinance on convicted lawmakers.

Among the allies Singh contacted were NCP chief Sharad Pawar and RLD leader Ajit Singh, sources said.

The Prime Minister also consulted Attorney General G E Vahanvati over the issue. When contacted, Ajit Singh said he is in favour of withdrawal of the Ordinance as also the Bill which seeks to protect convicted lawmakers from immediate disqualification. "We welcome the withdrawal of the Ordinance. We opposed it in all-party meeting also," he told.

He attacked BJP, saying the party supported it in the all-party meeting as also the Bill in Lok Sabha but changed its stand in Rajya Sabha.

"If BJP can change its mind, why can't Congress? It should be withdrawn," the RLD chief said. He said the bill, which seeks to amend the Constitution, should also be withdrawn.

"The bill says that convicted lawmakers can get salary and allowances but cannot vote in the House. Is that a deterrence?" He said the best way to deal with the issue of barring criminals from politics is to set up fast-track courts which must decide cases against politicians within a time frame of about six months.

"That will prevent criminals from contesting," he said. NCP is also unhappy over the flip-flop over the ordinance and its leader Sharad Pawar is expected to convey these sentiments at the Cabinet meeting. Party spokesman D P Tripathi made the unhappiness clear when he said the government is of UPA and not that of Congress. "Rahul Gandhi definitely knows that we are his allies not followers," he said.

First politician set to lose Rajya Sabha seat

A Delhi court Tuesday sentenced Congress MP Rasheed Masood to four years' imprisonment after he was found guilty of corruption. He thus becomes the first politician to lose his seat after the Supreme Court rejected a law providing immunity to convicted MPs and MLAs from immediate disqualification.  Special CBI Judge J.P.S. Malik held Masood guilty of fraudulently nominating undeserving candidates from across the country to the MBBS seats allotted to Tripura medical colleges from the central pool.

After the Supreme Court struck down a law that provided immunity to members of parliament and state legislatures from immediate disqualification, Masood will lose his Rajya Sabha seat.

Rasheed Masood had earlier sought benefit of probation in a Delhi court, citing his long service to the nation and health reasons even as CBI demanded nothing less than seven years jail term for him and a hefty fine.

"I have been an MP for the last 30 years and I am a law abiding citizen. Considering the nature of the case, my age and clean antecedents, I should be given the benefit of probation," counsel for 67-year-old Masood told Special CBI Judge J P S Malik while arguing on the quantum of sentence.

CBI prosecutor V N Ojha, however, opposed his plea for probation, saying, "Rasheed Masood does not deserve anything less than seven years (in jail) and a hefty fine should be imposed because by nominating undeserving candidates including his own nephew, he had spoiled the career of meritorious students".

Masood, Minister of Health in the VP Singh government between 1990 and 1991, was held guilty of fraudulently nominating undeserving candidates to MBBS seats allotted to Tripura in medical colleges across the country from the central pool.

The prosecutor also said Masood is a person who is a "lawmaker turned into a lawbreaker" even after taking oath to abide by the Constitution which says all are equal before the law.

"He and the other two public servants convicted in the case should be given maximum punishment as the students who suffered nearly two decades ago cannot be compensated for," the prosecutor said.

The two other public servants convicted in the case are Gurdial Singh, a former IPS officer, and retired IAS official Amal Kumar Roy, the then secretary of Tripura Chief Minister Sudhir Ranjan Majumdar.

Masood was held guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating) and 468 (forgery). He, however, was acquitted of the charge under Section 471 IPC (using as genuine a forged document).

Masood's conviction is the first case after the July 10 Supreme Court judgement that struck down sub-section 4 of Section 8 of Representation of People Act, under which incumbent MPs and MLAs could avoid disqualification till pendency of the appeal against conviction in a higher court.