data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85f4f/85f4f2952cd84faa67baabe11ebf10536c62ee36" alt=""
Recently, there have been instances of certain collective investment schemes (CISs) attempting to circumvent regulatory oversight. In addition, some market participants have not complied with Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) orders of payment of penalty and refund to investors. In August, the Securities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013 was introduced in the Lok Sabha to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the SEBI Act, 1992), the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA, 1956) and the Depositories Act, 1996. The Bill replaced the Securities Laws (Amendments) Ordinance, 2013. The Bill makes the following key amendments: a) Definition of Collective Investment Schemes The SEBI Act, 1992 defines CISs as schemes in which the funds of investors are pooled, yield profits or income and are managed on behalf of investors. It also exempts certain types of investments which are regulated by other authorities. The Bill introduces a proviso to the definition of CIS. This proviso deems any scheme or arrangement to be a CIS if it meets all three of the following conditions: (a) funds are pooled, (b) it is not registered with SEBI, or it is not exempted by SEBI Act, 1992, and (c) it has a corpus of Rs 100 crore or more. These provisions could potentially lead to some schemes not conventionally defined as CIS to fall under the definition. For instance, partnership firms operating in the investment business or real estate developers accepting customer advances could be termed as CISs. SEBI has been given the power to specify conditions under which any scheme or arrangement can be defined as a CIS. This raises the question of whether this is excessive delegation of legislative powers - usually the parent act defines the entities to be regulated and the details are entrusted to the regulator. b) Disgorgement (repayment) of unfair gains/ averted losses SEBI has in the past issued orders directing market participants to refund i) profits made or ii) losses averted, through unfair actions. The Bill deems SEBI to have always had the power to direct a market participant to disgorge unfair gains made/losses averted, without approaching a court. This power to order disgorgement without approaching a court is in contrast with the provisions of the recently passed Companies Bill, 2011 and the draft Indian Financial Code (IFC) which require an order from a court/tribunal for disgorgement of unfair gains. Further, the Bill specifies that the disgorged amount shall be credited to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF), and shall be used in accordance with SEBI regulations. The Bill does not explicitly provide the first right on the disgorged funds to those who suffered wrongful losses due to the unfair actions, unlike the draft IFC. c) Investigation and prosecution The Bill empowers the SEBI chairman to authorise search and seizure operations on a suspect’s premises. This does away with the current requirement of permission from a Judicial Magistrate. This provision removes the usual safeguards regarding search and seizure as seen in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the recently passed Companies Bill, 2011 and the draft Indian Financial Code. The Bill also empowers an authorised SEBI officer to, without approaching a court, attach a person’s bank accounts and property and even arrest and detain the person in prison for non-compliance of a disgorgement order or penalty order. Most regulators and authorities, with the exception of the Department of Income Tax, do not have powers to such an extent. d) Other Provisions of the Bill The Bill retrospectively validates consent guidelines issued by SEBI in 2007 under which SEBI can settle non-criminal cases through consent orders, i.e., parties can make out-of-court settlements through payment of fine/compensation. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission settles over 90% of non-criminal cases by consent orders. The Bill retrospectively validates the exchange of information between SEBI and foreign securities regulators through MoUs. The Bill sets up special courts to try cases relating to offences under the SEBI Act, 1992. For a PRS summary of the Bill, here.
Parliament voted on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 02, 2012. During the debate, MPs expressed concern over the status of police forces in different States of the country. They emphasised the need to augment the capability of police forces. Though ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects, the union government provides assistance to States for strengthening their forces. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been implementing a non-plan scheme for ‘Modernization of Police Forces’ since 1969-70. Under the scheme assistance is provided in the form of grants-in-aid towards construction of secure police stations, outposts, for purchase of vehicles, equipment etc. (To know more about the scheme, see an earlier blog post on the issue.) At the all India level, the sanctioned strength of State Police equals 20.6 lakh personnel. Though there exist wide variations across States, at an average this amounts to 174 police personnel per lakh population. However, the actual ratio is much lower because of high vacancies in the police forces. At the aggregate level, 24% positions are vacant. The table below provides data on the strength of state police forces as in Jan, 2011
State | Sanctioned strength | Sanctioned policemen/ lakh of population | Vacancy |
Andhra Pradesh | 1,31,099 | 155 | 31% |
Arunachal Pradesh | 11,955 | 966 | 42% |
Assam | 62,149 | 200 | 12% |
Bihar | 85,939 | 88 | 27% |
Chhattisgarh | 50,869 | 207 | 18% |
Goa | 6,108 | 348 | 16% |
Gujarat | 87,877 | 151 | 27% |
Haryana | 61,307 | 248 | 28% |
Himachal Pradesh | 17,187 | 256 | 22% |
Jammu & Kashmir | 77,464 | 575 | 6% |
Jharkhand | 73,005 | 235 | 30% |
Karnataka | 91,256 | 155 | 10% |
Kerala | 49,394 | 141 | 7% |
Madhya Pradesh | 83,524 | 115 | 9% |
Maharashtra | 1,53,148 | 139 | 10% |
Manipur | 31,081 | 1,147 | 26% |
Meghalaya | 12,268 | 469 | 17% |
Mizoram | 11,246 | 1,112 | 6% |
Nagaland | 24,226 | 1,073 | 0% |
Orissa | 53,291 | 130 | 18% |
Punjab | 79,565 | 291 | 14% |
Rajasthan | 79,554 | 118 | 11% |
Sikkim | 5,421 | 886 | 27% |
Tamil Nadu | 1,20,441 | 178 | 15% |
Tripura | 44,310 | 1,224 | 17% |
Uttar Pradesh | 3,68,260 | 184 | 59% |
Uttarakhand | 20,775 | 211 | 24% |
West Bengal | 72,998 | 81 | 18% |
A&N Islands | 4,417 | 1,018 | 22% |
Chandigarh | 7,873 | 695 | 22% |
D&N Haveli | 325 | 114 | 13% |
Daman & Diu | 281 | 140 | 6% |
Delhi | 81,467 | 441 | 1% |
Lakshadweep | 349 | 478 | 36% |
Puducherry | 3,941 | 352 | 25% |
All India | 20,64,370 | 174 | 24% |
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 90, 13th March, 2012 and Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1042, March 20, 2012