Gautam Chikermane 🇮🇳
Gautam Chikermane 🇮🇳

@gchikermane

16 Tweets 6 reads Mar 20, 2022
Delighted to announce that our new report ‘Jailed for Doing Business: The 26,134 Criminal Clauses in India’s Business Laws’ has been released.
Written by @rishiagraw and me for @orfonline, it hopes to usher in third generation economic reforms.
A thread…
orfonline.org
The compliance universe for India’s businesses comprises:
— 1,536 laws
— 69,233 compliances
— 6,618 filings
Of the 1,536 laws that govern doing business in India, more than half carry imprisonment clauses.
Of the 69,233 compliances that businesses have to follow, almost two out of five carry imprisonment clauses.
Of these more than half carry a jail term of at least one year.
The report classifies these imprisonment clauses across seven categories:
— Labour
— Industry specific
— Commercial
— Environment, health and safety
— Finance and taxation
— Secretarial
— General
Labour accounts for 30% of all laws and close to half of all compliances in India’s business environment. It has 32,542 unique compliances.
Within labour laws, the Factories Act, 1948 and related Rules contain the maximum number of criminal clauses.
Between the Union and the States, the latter dominates the deluge of imprisonment clauses:
— Imprisonment clauses enacted by Parliament: 5,329.
— Imprisonment clauses enacted by State Legislatures: 20,895.
Eight out of 10 imprisonment clauses reside in state laws and rules.
Five states have more than 1,000 imprisonment clauses — Gujarat (1,469 imprisonment clauses), Punjab (1,273), Maharashtra (1,210), Karnataka (1,175), and Tamil Nadu (1,043).
Imprisonment clauses in these five states are more than those in the bottom 21 states combined.
Exhibit A:
The imprisonment term for acts of sedition, rioting with a deadly weapon, stalking, and criminal intimidation under the IPC 1860 is the same as for not whitewashing latrines and urinals once in four months under the Factories Act 1948 and related rules.
Exhibit B:
The imprisonment term for assault or the use of criminal force on women with the intent to disrobe under the IPC 1860 is the same as for not furnishing monthly details of inward supplies in Form GSTR-2 under the Goods and Services Act 2017.
Exhibit C:
The imprisonment term for collecting arms with the intention of waging a war against the Indian government under IPC 1860 is the same as not displaying stock and price of liquefied petroleum gas at conspicuous place of business under Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The report concludes with 10 major recommendations and 31 minor recommendations:
1. Reform the way policies are designed.
2. Use criminal penalties in business laws with extreme restraint.
3. Constitute a regulatory impact assessment committee within the Law Commission of India.
4. Involve all independent economic regulators in compliance reforms.
5. End the criminalisation of all compliance procedures.
6. Create alternative mechanisms and frameworks.
7. Define standards for legal drafting.
8. Introduce sunset clauses.
9. Reform with one legislation.
10. Infuse dignity to entrepreneurs and businesspersons.
They take the risk, create jobs and wealth, pay taxes, push the boundaries of consumer needs with innovation.
To clarify:
We are NOT recommending the end of all criminal clauses, but their re-examination.
We are NOT recommending the end of all penalties — we are saying most of these can become financial than criminal.
Our recommendations seek to rationalise compliances, not end them.
We urge politicians, policymakers, corporations, start-ups, think tanks, universities and citizens to engage with this report.
A new area, we hope it will help scholars push the boundaries of research in this multi-disciplinary area of economics, law, regulation, and politics.
India cannot become a $10 trillion economy on 20th century legal framework — laws needs to evolve.
Prime Minister @narendramodi's approach to this subject is clear — to rationalise compliances.
This report is a policy path that could enable it.
orfonline.org

Loading suggestions...