The Indian economy is passing through “a difficult phase” currently and it is important to “retain the trust and confidence of foreign investors in the country’s investment regime”, Sharma, who is in Davos to attend the annual World Economic Forum, said in a statement issued by his ministry in New Delhi.
“It is important that all institutions respect the constitutional demarcation between executive, legislation and judiciary. Any alteration of this balance which confuses the global investors who are keen to invest in India and which leads to job creation, technology upgrade and infrastructure expansion, is better avoided,” Sharma said.
On Tuesday, a bench headed by Justice R M Lodha and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the Centre whether any foreign investment has come into the country after the retail sector was opened up or if it was just a “political gimmick”. The apex court had said the interest of small traders should not be affected by allowing FDI in retail trade.
The silver lining is applicable to executive and legislature,at any point the Judiciary as a guardian of Constitutional Guarantee should preview cant be restricted. The parliaments limitations is well established been overlooked by over amending to make it inoperative has time and again a handy work of ruling regime is not good for Democratic Indian State as Citizens struggle to lead a dignified life is not been addressed even after 65years but the leverage given to FDI coasted over 35% of GDP if utilized to eliminate poverty and unemployment would have resulted in GDP growth of over 8% not attended by UPA2 Why.
No body can question the policy decisions with out any ambiguity of the Union government.Has the union mentioned which are the towns where Foreign retail out let can be opened? Foreign retail outlet can open stores in the Cities where the population is ten lakh. WHAT IS THE BASE YEAR FOR THE POPULATION OR DEMARCATE SPECIFIC CITIES WHERE THEY CAN OPEN ONE STORE OR TWO,THREE, OR FOUR STORES PLEASE BE SPECIFIC UNION GOVERNMENT
Judiciary has not questioned the constitutional validity of the government's FDI legislation. It has only asked if indeed there has been any investors since allowing FDI and whether the small trader's interests are protected (as claimed by the government prior to legislation in Parliament). There is no forum available for an "aam aadmi" to ask these pertinent questions. The question of "line" comes only when the Judiciary strikes down the legislation on FDi. In fact, the real fear of investors came about with the now famous "retrospective" law to tax Vodafone of the UPA government.
Sharma comments that the difficult economy necessitates inviting FDI, but should it sacrifice local citizens' livelihood in the bargain?
Court need to check only validity of the FDI bill, not to make political statements.
A small statement from the big court on FDI which amounts to interference in the executive authority of the government. The Apex Court should see only the constitutional validity of the FDI, not its results or present status.
Anand Sharma's statements are correct.Nobody will invest their money in danger zone.While the Government is trying to attract the foreign investors to invest in our country the unpatriotic politicians and the opposition political partys are trying to stall the initiative.Now the judicial's statement as POLITICAL GIMMICK is unwarranted.